Comparing Immigration Perspectives

The newest quagmire of politics, national security and economics involves the question of immigration. Our political system calls for an adversarial process where two or more perspectives are considered in the process of making policy, regulation and law.

There are four basic sets of opposing perspectives to consider. Certainly these issues are more complex than will be presented here, but what will be offered in this post is a basic contrast and comparison of these ethical, legal and economic issues. These four basic opposing perspectives include the following:

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS & NATURAL LAW v. SOVEREIGN RIGHTS & INTERNATIONAL LAW

There is a claim that principles of basic human rights of mobility, economic freedom, political freedom and the "pursuit of happiness" are inherent and are derived from a set of universal and natural laws. Additionally, there are established principles of Americanism that are established in the Declaration of Independence and our national culture which support as fair-minded and open immigration policy as possible and allowable under law:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” The New Colossus - Emma Lazarus

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... Declaration of Independence

In contrast to these inherent rights and principles is the right for sovereign integrity, international legal standards for immigration and travel, and established procedures for immigrating, seeking asylum and crossing international borders. A nation--any nation--has an inherent right to determine who can and cannot enter its borders. While the United States is by principle required to adopt immigration standards that fulfill the inherent rights declared by historical precedent, we also have a right to limit immigration to a level that does not overtax or burden our resources.

Balancing these issues is a tenuous effort because we claim a position of advocating for human rights as a matter of freedom, democracy and, in the case of many people, as a matter of religious doctrine. While many will argue the issue of separation of Church and State, there is an underlying Judeo-Christian-Muslim principle of providing for those that are disadvantaged by economic, political, military, religious or ideological oppression. These principles were incorporated into the American value system by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution not as a matter of religious doctrine, but as a matter of universal principle (aka "natural law").

Recent proposals in congress have called those principles--and our heritage as a nation of decency and law--into question because there are specific restrictions on providing even basic aid to those who would cross our borders in an illegal manner. Those people or groups acting on the moral principle that no one should go hungry, thirsty or be exposed to the elements, would be cast as criminals for providing water, foos or shelter to those that enter this country via crossing harsh terrain, arid desert, or face inclement weather conditions. In my view, these proposals fall into the category of cruelty and unjust law... and I characterize those proposing such law and restrictions as being persons who "wouldn't give a drowning man a glass of water." Regardless of the perspective on the illegal immigration problem, making the criminalizing of giving a human soul food, water, shelter and/or a place to rest a short while is an atrocity, a crime against humanity and against the very principles of justice.

That does not mean that we have to throw open our borders and invite all that desire change in their lives. It does mean that we have to apply basic principles of justice, human dignity and human rights. We have to be consistent in our approach as well. We prosecute those that illegally import persons over the border and cause injury, harm of death to those people because they do not provide water, food or basic needs. We charge them with manslaughter, negligent homicide or homicide when people die in overheated trucks or other "vehicles" of transport and smuggling. We cannot hold that denying basic human needs is a crime on one hand and then claim that providing for basic needs is a crime on the other hand. It's a dissonant form of legal schizophrenia... psychotic and out of touch with reality.

ORIGINAL IMMIGRATION STATUS & NATIVE ORIGIN v. LEGAL IMMIGRATION STATUS & NATIVE ORIGIN

There is an argument that certain immigrant groups have a historical claim to cross borders into the United States. Those having Spanish and/or Native American heritage from the original lands once known as Mexico may have a natural geographic claim to cross the US-Mexican border. While the argument is often dismissed, especially by those most vehemently opposed to immigration from Mexico, the argument is one supported by US foreign policy. The precedent comes from US support for the State of Israel. The claim for establishing Israel as a sovereign nation--stemming from official recognition in 1948 and US support for Israel within the United Nations and through international law--is based on a historical claim to the region, even though many of those laying claim to Israel were not native to the area once known as Palestine. Indeed, a great majority of those laying claim to Israel and Israeli citizenship are from Europe, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.

Once again, we are faced with an issue of cognitive dissonance. If we support such claims to lands and immigration on one hand, how can we deny those claims on the other hand? The history of Spanish exploration, conquest and claim to the regions that we now call Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California is well-established. While other historical events (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Texas Independence, California Independence, etc.) certainly modify the governmental claims to these regions, the basic claim to open mobility and immigration may warrant some attention.

Certainly the claim to open border crossing by those having Native American heritage--especially those claiming Apache, Commanche, Hopi, Yuni, Navajo, Yaqui and other regional tribal cultures--bears some consideration. They have a historical claim to regional resources that, while often dismissed by the US government, has some fundamental merit. Again, considering our support of similar claims in Israel and elsewhere, we have to allow the argument to be heard.

But then, too, we have an inherent right to establish procedures and laws governing immigration, protection of our own established citizenry, and the integrity of our own society. These rights are also inherent and stem from natural law, historical precedent and international standards of sovereignty.

It is under the umbrella of these competing issues that we see conflict over amnesty for existing illegal immigrants, a guest worker program, and a hard line against anyone that crossed our borders without undergoing a legitimate process.

HISTORICALLY UNFAIR IMMIGRATION POLICIES & LAW v. BORDER CONTROL & NATIONAL SECURITY

The United States has a history of unfair immigration policies and laws. We have institutionalized prejudices against Latinos, Asians, Jews, and other identifiable immigration waves along our path to where we are today. We allowed Chinese immigration to serve the purposes of building railroads and other infrastructure, but then placed severe limits on Chinese and other Asian immigration. During World War II we took the extreme measure of placing Japanese-Americans--many of whom were born citizens of the United States--into internment camps, all the while ignoring the Italian-American and German-American ethnic groups that could have posed the same claim of threat to national security. The gateways to the US were sometimes open and sometimes closed to Irish, Central Eastern Europeans, Russians and Poles, and Middle Eastern ethnicities. We have been quite inconsistent and quite unfair in our immigration policies and practices... sometimes even to the point of being inhumane.

But we need to control our borders. Our national security and protection against invasion or foreign terrorism is dependent upon our gaining full control over our borders. The failure to do so is inherently dangerous to our sovereignty and safety. Give the events of 9-11, the issues of border control, immigration and screening who comes into our country is absolutely necessary.

These issues are difficult to balance without relying upon fundamental first principles. It is my fear and concern that the issue is already too much of a political football for anything of a reasonable policy to be produced.

WORKFORCE SUPPLEMENTATION & ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS v. WORKER EXPLOITATION & ECONOMIC DETRIMENTS

The arguments in favor of a guest worker program or amnesty for existing illegal immigrants are that these folks supplement our existing workforce, take jobs that "Americans do not want" and contribute to the economy by keeping costs down for produce, construction, house cleaning and low-skill manufacturing.

These arguments are actually hollow and false. According to my understanding of things, we have undergone welfare reform as of the mid-1990s. All welfare recipients are now required to perform some manner of work in order to receive welfare benefits. My own investigation of these so-called "workfare programs" reveals that there are not enough jobs that would allow many welfare recipients to meet these requirements in many states. So the argument that there are jobs that Americans do not want is somewhat of a false pretense. Certainly not many Americans would care to work in the fields of a commercial farm. Most Americans do not want to work on assembly lines in a manufacturing plant. But there are tons of folks that would want a fairly well-paid construction job.

However, the real reason people are advocating for illegal immigrants in the workforce is that they are extremely vulnerable and exploitable by these industries. Because most illegal immigrants cannot find work without falsifying the required documentation, or finding an employer that doesn't seem to mind breaking the law regarding undocumented workers, they often take jobs where the employer can take advantage of these issues and facts.

Most illegal immigrant and legal migrant farm workers are paid an underwage. If there is any effort to provide housing, it is often temporary and substandard in nature. Migrant worker families often do not fully enroll their children in schools while working due to 1) lack of legal status, 2) rapidly changing work locations or 3) lack of a permanent residence with a reliable address. The governmental, independent news and/or social research reports on the poor conditions for these migratory workers and families. There have also been numerous issues of abuse and unfair labor practices in this industry, which is why we have such heroic figures as Cesar Chavez in the annals of our history.

Most illegal immigrants working in manufacturing are low-skilled workers that often get the jobs through day-laborer agencies. They sign up and wait around until a bus or van comes by to drive them to a plant and they are given a minimum of training on a machine or a line task and they are worked to the bone. If they make minimum wage or higher, they are among the lucky. Even in more skilled production areas, like that in the garment industry, take advantage of illegal workers.

A contact I made some time ago runs several garment sewing sub-contractor sweat shops. He is an immigrant from the Domincan Republic. He sets up a sewing production center in a small low-rent area, hires exclusively illegal immigrant workers, and pays them a pittance on a piece meal basis. Last time we spoke he had two of these shops in New Jersey, four in New York City, two in suburbs of New York and two in Chelsea, Massachusetts. He does not pay them by check. He almost always claims a certain percentage of the work are "seconds" and pays less for that work, and none of the wages are taxed in any manner. He has been caught doing this type of thing at least five times. All five times he has escaped prosecution and just sets up shop somewhere else. Even when his sewing machines and equipment have been confiscated, he merely buys more and moves on.

He told me that he mostly uses Hispanic/Latino immigrants that do not have other resources. He spoke to me of their fear of causing a problem with the employer for fear of losing the job, being turned into immigration, or having the police called for trespassing, which could cause them to be asked about their identification. Since most of these folks speak Spanish and very little English, and they do not have any real knowledge of labor laws, and they are essentially disenfranchised from the system, they are easy prey. He did indicate that in New York City he hires a lot of Asians, especially Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians... all illegally in this country.

The construction industry uses illegal workers as laborers, flaggers for directing traffic, demolition and site clean up. Most illegal workers in this industry are day laborers because regularly hired workers show up on union, municipal and state rules enforcement radar. Most are hired by non-union construction businesses, many paying under-the-table wages.

Of course, the number of illegal immigrants working in the arena of house cleaning (domestic workers) has received a lot of attention since the Reagan administration when several nominees for political or judicial office were found to be employers of illegal immigrants. Even though there was a lot of flack flying about, there has been at least one or two such disclosures during almost every administration since then.

Then there is the other shoe of hiring illegal workers: no health care or insurance costs. These folks do not pay unemployment insurance. They do not pay liability insurance for their operations or facilities. They do not pay for health care insurance coverage.

Most of these workers use our emergency rooms for pressing health care issues. Many find ways to "share" insurance cards with those family members and friends lucky enough to have health care coverage, attempt to qualify for free care, or just skip out on the bill altogether. In some places, especially in parts of California, there are free clinics that serve pocket communities, but even these places use funds from the public tax coffers.

Of course, most of these workers do not pay income tax on wages earned. They cannot report wages without disclosing their illegal status. If they do that, they will be swooped up by INS--at least in theory--and deported. Many manage to maintain status as an illegal immigrant and illegal worker for years. Those that manage to do so stay off the radar of law enforcement, thus establishing themselves at least as good neighbors.

This is where there is no fairness in the immigration policy. If an illegal immigrant manages to maintain themselves as a good neighbor for many years, it doesn't help their case if they are discovered by INS. It often doesn't matter if they have started a family and have several children that are US citizens because they were born here. That is why there is a cry for amnesty of some sort.

There are no easy answers for this problem. What is needed is a brilliant piece of compromise legislation that mediates between the extreme sides of the story. Even that won't be perfect, but at least it has the possibility of being based on principles of human decency, human rights, fairness, justice and restoring order.

But let us be clear about something: The immigration issues are not only a national security issue. These issues are also about our reputation of being a principled leader in the international community.

Charities Run Amuck: Revenues, Expenses & Top Salaries

How Charities Fare: Forbes Charities Reports

So much for charity work, health care and vocations in the helping professions. Can anyone be worth these types of salaries? Perhaps we need to rethink where we contribute our charity dollars?

I consider anything over $250,000 to be excessive, no matter how big the organization or its operating budget. These are supposed to be charities. And no chief executive generates revenues or build assets by themselves... accountants, grant writers, development officers, and hundreds of volunteers make these organizations work.

Mayo Foundation
Revenues: $5,616M Expenses: $5,127M Surplus/Losses: $489M Assets: $3,033M
Chief Officer: Denis Cortese Top Salary: $752,969

YMCAs in the United States
Revenues: $4,832M Expenses: $4,468M Surplus/Losses: $363 Assets: NA
Chief Officer: Kenneth Gladish Top Salary: $347,760

United Way
Revenues: $3,844M Expenses: $3,844M Surplus/Losses: NA Assets: NA
Chief Officer: Brian Gallagher Top Salary: $629,950

Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Revenues: $3,620M Expenses: $3,346M Surplus/Losses: $274M Assets: $1,469M
Chief Officer: Floyd Loop Top Salary: $1,727,799

Catholic Charities USA
Revenues: $3,266M Expenses: $2,956M Surplus/Losses: $310M Assets: NA
Chief Officer: Larry Snyder Top Salary: $148,995

American National Red Cross
Revenues: $3,208M Expenses: $3,173M Surplus/Losses $34M Assets: $2,201M
Chief Officer: Marsha Evans Top Salary: $468,599

Salvation Army
Revenues: $3,104M Expenses: $2,585M Surplus/Losses: $482M Assets: $6,818M
Chief Officer: W. Todd Bassett Top Salary: $175,050

Goodwill Industries International
Revenues: $2,390M Expenses: $2,297M Surplus/Losses: $85M Assets: $1,387M
Chief Officer: George Kessinger Top Salary: $298,025

New York-Presbyterian Hospital
Revenues: $2,387M Expenses: $2,168M Surplus/Losses: $219M Assets: $1,576M
Chief Officer: Herbert Pardes Top Salary: $1,973,303

The Arc of the United States
Revenues: $2,211M Expenses: $2,149M Surplus/Losses: $62M Assets: $714M
Chief Officer: Sue Swenson Top Salary: $278,614

Mount Sinai Hospital
Revenues: $1,750M Expenses: $1,839M Surplus/Losses: -$89M Assets: $765M
Chief Officer: Kenneth Davis Top Salary: $2,205,000

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Revenues: $1,686M Expenses: $1,464M Surplus/Losses: $222M Assets: $2,985M
Chief Officer: Harold Varmus Top Salary: $2,120,585

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Revenues: $1,345M Expenses: $1,286M Surplus/Losses: $59M Assets: $826M
Chief Officer: Thomas Priselac Top Salary: $1,505,370

Feed the Children
Revenues: $961M Expenses: $919M Surplus/Losses: $43M Assets: $141M
Chief Officer: Larry Jones Top Salary: $155,786

Shriners Hospitals for Children
Revenues: $947M Expenses: $536M Surplus/Losses: $412M Assets: $8,621M
Chief Officer: Ralph Semb Top Salary: $406,759

American Cancer Society
Revenues: $926M Expenses: $822M Surplus/Losses: $115M Assets: $1,233M
Chief Officer: John Seffrin Top Salary: $902,009

Habitat for Humanity International
Revenues: $886M Expenses: $781M Surplus/Losses: $105M Assets: $1,217M
Chief Officer: Jon Reckford Top Salary: $187,676

Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Revenues: $877M Expenses: $806M Surplus/Losses: $70M Assets: $796M
Chief Officer: Karen Pearl Top Salary: $454,000

Easter Seals
Revenues: $814M Expenses: $786M Surplus/Losses: $28M Assets: $449M
Chief Officer: James Williams Top Salary: $468,396

St Jude Children's Research Hospital
Revenues: $538M Expenses: $428M Surplus/Losses: $110M Assets: $1,345M
Chief Officer: John Moses Top Salary: $528,971
Danny Thomas would be appalled!

The Forbes web site continues to cover the top 200 US-based charities. What really bothers me is that most of these "charities" make a concerted effort to keep the salaries of most of its workers as low as possible... often claiming that the budget restraints force them to do so...

Don't We Kill Enough Trees With Governmental Paperwork?

Selling The Forests: President Bush Proposes Auctioning Off About 300,000 Acres 41 States

A great example of the Bush/GOP concern for our environment, natural resources, and natrual wildlife habitat... forget global warming, greenhouse gases, climate change and acid rain, what about a place for a squirrel to pee?

It's rarely a good idea to sell off assets to pay normal operating expenses. It's an even worse idea when the assets are chunks of national forest. But that's exactly what the Bush administration wants to do.

Washington has long sent money to isolated local communities surrounded by national forests. The communities cannot tax federal property, so the money helps pay for schools. The grants were calculated as a percentage of timber sales. When the annual harvest declined, partly as a result of court rulings in favor of various endangered species, the money was taken from general revenues.

President Bush's 2007 budget proposes to raise the money by auctioning off about 300,000 acres of federal forest in 41 states, at an anticipated price of $800 million. The administration recently sent a bill to Congress that would give the Forest Service the authority to conduct the sales. The bill has many defects, especially a provision that would sharply limit the public's opportunity to comment on the sales, short of embarking on expensive litigation. But its most glaring defect is its underlying strategy of trading long-term assets for short-term gain.

Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina, which would lose 9,828 acres, or nearly 1 percent of its national forest acreage, put the matter eloquently in a letter to Mark Rey, the under secretary of agriculture who helped concoct this scheme. The plan, he said, would blatantly contradict North Carolina's efforts to preserve open space for future generations by removing priceless resources "from public access for all time in order to provide temporary funding."

This page has objected on many occasions to the administration's efforts to roll back protections for the national forests, chiefly its decision to rescind President Bill Clinton's "roadless rule," which would have shielded nearly 60 million acres of national forest from further commercial intrusions. Though it involves much less acreage, the proposal to sell forest land reflects the same insensitivity to environmental values, not to mention misplaced budget priorities. In addition to the forest sale, the administration also proposes to sell a half-million acres managed by the Interior Department, not for any purposes related to stewardship of the public lands, but simply to reduce a national deficit already bloated by tax cuts.

Congress should reject both ideas out of hand.

Didn't They Say We Were Friends?

In an era where we keep making mistakes about who is and who is not to be counted among our allies, we have kowtowed to Russia and its former Soviet Bloc associates. But we have kept the Russians close to us in regard to trade, international affairs and have even promoted their continued role at the UN, despite their economic and military decline.

In light of all that, the Russians didn't seem to blink in an effort to screw us over. It seems like we still have a talent for picking "the best of friends" from the international community. How long do you think it will take before India back doors us in terms of nuclear technology?

Russians Helped Iraq, Study Says
Papers Show Hussein Was Tipped Off About U.S. Strategy During Invasion

Russian officials collected intelligence on U.S. troop movements and attack plans from inside the American military command leading the 2003 invasion of Iraq and passed that information to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to a U.S. military study released yesterday.

The intelligence reports, which the study said were provided to Hussein through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad at the height of the U.S. assault, warned accurately that American formations intended to bypass Iraqi cities on their thrust toward Baghdad. The reports provided some specific numbers on U.S. troops, units and locations, according to Iraqi documents dated March and April 2003 and later captured by the United States.

"The information that the Russians have collected from their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha is that the United States is convinced that occupying Iraqi cities are impossible, and that they have changed their tactic," said one captured Iraqi document titled "Letter from Russian Official to Presidential Secretary Concerning American Intentions in Iraq" and dated March 25, 2003.

A Russian official at the United Nations strongly rejected the allegations that Russian officials gave information to Baghdad. "This is absolutely nonsense," said Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian mission to the United Nations. She said the allegations were never presented to the Russian government before being issued to the news media.

Russia was among the nations opposed to the U.S. war with Iraq. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 that an American attack would have grave consequences. He urged Washington to resolve its conflicts with Baghdad peacefully.

The study gives no indication who the alleged sources inside the U.S. Central Command might have been, or whether American officials believe the Kremlin authorized the transfer of information to Hussein's government.

The Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and is headquartered in Tampa, did not respond to requests for comment. A State Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

The U.S. military and defense officials who released the study said the revelations about Russia in the captured documents came as a surprise. They said they believe the captured Iraqi documents are authentic.

Don't Blame Me... I'm From Massachusetts

Years ago, during the Watergate scandals, there was a bumper sticker that read: "Don't Blame Me... I'm From Massachusetts". The sticker was a derisive way of pointing out that Massachusetts was the only state that did not endorse Nixon's second term as president. Today, we are seeing a similar movement in the belly of Massachusetts. Like Paul Revere at the start of the American Revolutionary War, the alarm is being sounded... "Bush is coming... Impeach the bastards now!" Boy, oh boy! I am proud to be from Massachusetts!

Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder

HOLYOKE, Mass. -- To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.

The word is spreading... and the forces are marshalling... Where will the first shot be fired? Will it be Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan or someplace entirely unexpected that finally introduces the impeachment resolution?

Window cleaner Ira Clemons put down his squeegee in the lobby of a city mall and stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon.

"Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war -- but it is." He added: "I was really upset about 9/11 -- so don't lie to me."

The people are catching on... "Liar, liar, your pants are on fire!"

It would be a considerable overstatement to say the fledgling impeachment movement threatens to topple a presidency -- there are just 33 House co-sponsors of a motion by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) to investigate and perhaps impeach Bush, and a large majority of elected Democrats think it is a bad idea. But talk bubbles up in many corners of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge, giving liberals an outlet for anger that has been years in the making.

It should not be so slow. It certainly was not so slow when Clinton was called to answer for his "high crimes and misdemeanors." Why have we seen such a slow response from congress in the case of President Bush? Clearly, there are partisan reasons for not calling Bush to task for his "high crimes and misdemeanors." Certainly Clinton was guilty of perjury and lying to the nation, courts and congress... but no one dies as a result of his immorality. Bush has sent troops into places on falsified or incompetent intelligence. He has lied about WMD, terrorist connections, and he has violated the Constitution by spying on us without probable cause and warrants obtained via due process. Now, if we are to believe our own reasoning, there may be some evidence that the attacks occuring on 9-11 were part of a conspiracy hatched by a group that included Dick Cheney, Condaleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and others BEFORE thay came to power.

"The value of a powerful idea, like impeachment of the president for criminal acts, is that it has a long shelf life and opens a debate," said Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo Bay detainees.

We need to fully engage this debate and fully investigate the basis for impeachment.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted last month to urge Congress to impeach Bush, as have state Democratic parties, including those of New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin. A Zogby International poll showed that 51 percent of respondents agreed that Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, a far greater percentage than believed President Bill Clinton should be impeached during the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

Okay, which is worse... receiving oral sex from a naieve young intern in the Oval Office and then lying about it, or sending troops into harm's way on the basis of lies, incompetence or both?

And Harper's Magazine this month ran a cover piece titled "The Case for Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush."

"If the president says 'We made mistakes,' fine, let's move on," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.). "But if he lied to get America into a war, I can't imagine anything more impeachable."

Amen... and the evidence is certainly there to point out that we are dealing with lies, misrepresentations and a pre-determined agenda.

Democrats remain far from unified. Prominent party leaders -- and a large majority of those in Congress -- distance themselves from the effort. They say the very word is a distraction, that talk of impeachment and censure reflect the polarization of politics. Activists spend too many hours dialing Democratic politicians and angrily demanding impeachment votes, they say.

Bovine excrement! There is a certain amount of political cowardice present in our Democratic and Republican representation. This is about the mid-term elections and trying to maintain or conquer the number of seats that are red or blue.

In California, poet Kevin Hearle, an impeachment supporter, is challenging liberal Rep. Tom Lantos -- who opposes impeachment -- in the Democratic primary in June.

"Impeachment is an outlet for anger and frustration, which I share, but politics ain't therapy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts liberal who declined to sign the Conyers resolution. "Bush would much rather debate impeachment than the disastrous war in Iraq."

Barney Frank is barely competent enough as a politician to stay out of moral trouble while in office. He is popular in his congressional district, but he is a political coward.

The GOP establishment has welcomed the threat. It has been a rough patch for the party -- Bush's approval ratings in polls are lower than for any president in recent history. With midterm elections in the offing, Republican leaders view impeachment as kerosene poured on the bonfires of their party base.

"The Democrats' plan for 2006?" Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman wrote in a fundraising e-mail Thursday. "Take the House and Senate and impeach the president. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?"

The GOP strategy is to deflect attention from the problems that they face as a party, and from the disgrace that is the Bush administration. They have publicly claimed that the call for censure and/or impeachment is welcomed as a stretegy for defeating the Democrats yet again in the upcoming elections.

Bush Shows Strategy for Keeping Hill Majorities: Democrats Assailed On National Security, As Well as the Economy

President Bush on Friday provided a preview of his two-front strategy for protecting the Republican congressional majority in an ominous political climate: hammer Democrats on national security and the economy, and raise millions of dollars for embattled GOP candidates such as Rep. Michael E. Sodrel (Ind.).

At a luncheon fundraiser here, Bush repeatedly called Sodrel an indispensable ally in fighting terrorism, and emphasized his support for the military and a robust U.S. foreign policy. Sodrel, he said, "understands this is a nation at war" against terrorists intent on striking America again. It is imperative that voters elect candidates who know that "there is an enemy which hates those of us who embrace freedom and would like to strike us again." He warned the crowd that Democrats will raise taxes and harm the economy if they are elected. "If you want the government in your pocket, vote Democrat," Bush said.

It was not cheap to hear the president's newest campaign pitch eight months before the midterm elections. Republicans paid $1,000 for the buffet lunch and presidential speech; $10,000 if they wanted a picture snapped at a private reception afterward. For Sodrel, who won by a thinner margin than any other House member in 2004, the $500,000 he expected to raise through the event is much needed to fend off a tough challenger, former Democratic representative Baron Hill. Afterward, Bush flew to Pennsylvania for a nighttime fundraiser that was expected to net half a million dollars for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who faces one of the toughest reelection campaigns in the country.

Notice that the effort is to distract us by focusing on the economy, which is not as good as the GOP and Bush claim, and national security, which seems to be up for sale or rent to the highest bidder--even to bidders that are wholly-owned by a foreign government or entirely foreign interests. Do they really think the American public is that stupid? Perhaps they do... and perhaps we are, given the conversations I have had lately regarding the need for warrantless invasion of our privacy to prevent terrorism from within at any cost... even if these measures are entirely ineffective and non-productive.

The argument for an impeachment inquiry -- which draws support from prominent constitutional scholars such as Harvard's Laurence H. Tribe and former Reagan deputy attorney general Bruce Fein -- centers on Bush's conduct before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

It is argued that Bush and his officials conspired to manufacture evidence of weapons of mass destruction to persuade Congress to approve the invasion. Former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill told CBS News's "60 Minutes" that "from the very beginning there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go . . . it was all about finding a way to do it." And a senior British intelligence official wrote in what is now known as the "Downing Street memo" that Bush officials were intent on fixing "the intelligence and the facts . . . around the policy."

Bush lied and our troops have died... Bush lied and our Constitution was tried... Bush lied and he continues to do so, still claiming that our involvement in Iraq will make the United States more secure from terrorism when there is not one iota of factual information to support these claims.

Please remember that I am a veteran of the Navy and the Army National Guard. I stood on the line and was ready to do my duty as required. I was on alert at the time when we sent troops into Iran in a failed rescue mission for the Hostages. I was on alert during Grenada. I am proud of my service and proud to be an American. I am 100% supportive of our military and promote a STRONG military presence and military readiness. But, as a veteran and a person of conscience--even as a Christian--I cannot support sending troops into harm's way on the basis of lies, misrepresentations and agendas that have nothing to do with honor, duty, national defense, or humanitarian relief.

But then, too, for all the talk about honoring and supporting our troops, the Bush administration and the GOP has not fully funded veteran health care, have not provided (after three years) proper armor for the troops, and have not realistically planned for troop rotation and relief of battle-weary units. There is no clearly delineated mission for our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the proof of that is in examining the fruits of our efforts, including the prosecution of a man for choosing a religion other than that he was given by his parents... absent of reason and choice.

Critics point to Bush's approval of harsh interrogations of prisoners captured Iraq and Afghanistan, tactics that human rights groups such as Amnesty International say amount to torture. Bush also authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and e-mails, subjecting possibly thousands of Americans each year to eavesdropping since 2001.

A violation of international treaty, our own Constitution (by means of several articles, amendments and clauses), and the very principles by which we, as Americans, claim the moral high ground. We are not "the good guys" when we resort to unethical methods. Vioalting our own laws and principles demonstrates a willingness to employ an "ends justfies the means" approach to ethics, government and foreign policy... making us the very bastards that Al-Qaeda claims we are...

"Bush is saying 'I'm the president' and, on a range of issues -- from war to torture to illegal surveillance -- 'I can do as I like,' " said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "This administration needs to be slapped down and held accountable for actions that could change the shape of our democracy."

Indeed, he has usurped power at every opportunity and our congress critters have allowed it to go unchecked... and he has stacked the courts with ideological "yes men" that promote big business and ultra-conservative government at any cost... and the call for impeachment is as legitimate now--perhaps even more so--than it was for Clinton.

Tribe wrote Conyers, dismissing Bush's defense of warrantless surveillance as "poppycock." It constituted, Tribe concluded, "as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied."

Professor Tribe is the foremost authority on the US Constitution in the entire world. He has written the seminal reference text on Constitutional Law... and it is used by liberal and conservative alike. Tribe is not the type of scholar to go off half-cocked on any topic, much less the idea of impeachment.

But posed against this bill of aggrievement are legal and practical realities. Not all scholars, even of a liberal bent, agree that Bush has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Bush's legal advice may be wrong, they say, but still reside within the bounds of reason.

I maintain that anyone that has proposed such reasoning has not read the Preamble of the Constitution, or many of its articles and amendments in light of that Preamble.

"The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad," said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. "There is a very good argument that the president had it wrong on WMD in Iraq but that he was acting in complete good faith."

I would agree that the Clinton impeachment was a political hack job, but the bottom line is that Clinton committed perjury, a felony under state and federal law. It rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and betrayed the trust of the people in the presidency, as well as betrayed his oath of office... not to mention basic principles of morality and ethics.

Sunstein argues that Bush's decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress's vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. "If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them?" Sunstein said, adding that this is a minority view.

Congress provided an authorization for military force against terrorists... not suspects of a crime. So, if they were tapping the phones of known terrorists, then the NSA would be within the scope of the AUMF resolution. Further, it is a stretch of semantics to include wiretapping of doemstic telecommunications in the definition of "military force." On top of all of this, NONE of the wiretaps were conducted on terrorists... and all of them involved legitimate US citizens or residents, according to the reports from the NSA, the DOJ, the FBI and whitleblowers within the government (i.e. Russell Tice).

Here in Massachusetts and Vermont, though, in the back roads and on the streets of Holyoke and Springfield, the discontent with Bush is palpable. These are states that, per capita, have sent disproportionate numbers of soldiers to Iraq. Many in these middle- and working-class towns are not pleased that so many friends and cousins are coming back wounded or dead.

Reasonable people can disagree on matters of opinion and perspective... but how long does it take before the facts become an overwhelming idctment of a wrong-headed leadership that will do anything to push forward its pre-determined agenda.

"He picks and chooses his information and can't admit it's erroneous, and he annoys me," said Colleen Kucinski, walking Aleks, 5, and Gregory, 2, home.

Would she support impeachment? Kucinski wags her head "yes" before the question is finished. "Without a doubt. This is far more serious than Clinton and Monica. This is about life and death. We're fighting a war on his say-so and it was all wrong."

Without a doubt... Impeach the bastard and his gang.

Imbalanced Admissions To US Colleges & Universities

Foreigners Returning to U.S. Schools

More foreigners applied to U.S. graduate schools for fall classes this year than last, reversing two years of declines caused by visa delays attributable to increased post-Sept. 11 security, a new report says.

The number of overseas applicants who sought U.S. graduate degrees this year shot up 11 percent. The number of overseas applicants had edged down 5 percent last year and plunged 28 percent the year before that.

But only 49,184 foreign graduate students began programs in U.S. universities in 2004, according to the most recent data available.

That is a drop of more than 14 percent from 2001, according to Stuart Heiser, a spokesman for the D.C.-based Council of Graduate Schools.

"That is a problem," he said. "Obviously, if there are fewer students, there is less revenue, less research going on, and less of a chance of a significant breakthrough or innovation."

Heiser said the nonprofit group of 450 U.S. and Canadian graduate schools did not collect applicant data before 2003.

In addition to visa delays after the 2001 attacks, the drop in enrollees also reflected increased competition for graduate students from other countries, notably India and China, he added.

Both the U.S. economy and its graduate schools owe some of their strength to overseas students -- especially if they find jobs or create them at research-driven firms near their alma maters.

Sixty-eight percent of graduating PhD students say they will stay or intend to do so, Heiser said, citing a separate 2004 study by the National Science Foundation.

Jay Halfond, a dean at Boston University, said the university needs the foreign students.

"Generally, they are full-time, full-paying students and generally are very high-quality, so the bottom line academically is very positive as well," he said.

The number of foreigners seeking advanced engineering degrees shot up 17 percent this year while life sciences chalked up a 16 percent rise, the council said. In contrast, business programs only drew 7 percent more applicants.

India contributed the biggest increase in overseas applicants, with a 23 percent rise, followed by China, which saw a 21 percent gain. The ranks of Middle Eastern candidates grew 4 percent, and those from Korea rose 3 percent.

Somebody has to take notice of some dynamics here. While the number of foreign students enrolling into US college or university graduate programs is on the rise, often on full scholarships from their home country, the number of US citizens being denied grants and financing to make it through undergraduate levels of higher education are being cut by the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated congress. There are practically no full scholarships available to most US citizens for graduate school, and most Americans attending college or graduate school engage in debt that sooner or later becomes a problem to manage.

Additionally, let us look at another problem with our immigration, border and national security issues. The students coming here to study our technology and our society are coming from 1) India where our jobs, technology and intellectual resources are running to produce, invent and prosper; 2) China where we have major international and military issues; 3) Middle Eastern nations, most of which are in some form of disagreement with the US; and 4) Korea, presumably South Korea, where we have spent millions of defense dollars for over 50 years only to be told that they want to reunite with their communists friends from the North.

Now I do not want this post to boil down to an us versus them diatribe. All I am pointing out is that there is an imbalance in our thinking, process and policy. We are not supporting our own students, but we are allowing foreign nations and foreign nationals to come, study and take away the basis for our greatness. While foreign students should be allowed to study in American Universities and Colleges, there should be a level playing field and our immigration policies for foreign students ought to reflect the realities of the relationship issues we are having with these countries. We should be promoting student enrollment from our own rank and file of citizenry first, and students from those nations that are within our "circle of friends" second, and then students from nations that are outside of the realm of human rights, peaceful participation in the international community, and in a balanced economic equation with our own interests.

We have tons of talented engineers, teachers, nurses, and other vocations that would benefit from attending graduate school--and would bring back benefits to our municipalities, businesses, schools and government--but cannot find the financial and/or ancillary support to attend graduate school. Other nations have a national exam that results in financial support for those students that demonstrate achievement and ability to pass the exam. Still, many of the oil-rich Middle Eastern states will pay for undergraduate and graduate degree programs as a matter of policy for any of its citizens. There is an imbalance here... and it does not stem from "them" (the foreign nations or foreign students), but from within our own borders, our own governmental policies and the colleges and universities that live and breathe on the financial aid that comes into their coffers... and yet, the best of our graduate programs (as pointed out in the article) cannot wait to get those foreign enrollments and make accommodations for foreign students, many having "AHANA" and foreign student counseling programs.

Let us muck up our system a little bit more...

Another Example Of Why Scandals Seem To Work In Favor Of Sandalous Scoundrels: Big Business Wins Again

A Fine That Fits the Crime

In our country, if a big business with high-mucky-muck connections and enough capital flowing through its greedy fingers involves itself in scandalous ripoffs of "the little people" they can get away with it is the agree to toss a few meager coins to the powers that be... and of course, after the lawyers get their piece of the pie, and the courts get their fees, and the bottom line is calculated, it all amounts to the general public, the customer/consumer and the process of justice getting a royal screwing... without a kiss, reach-around or even a thank you.

THE mutual fund scandals, which exploded with a thunderclap of attention in September 2003, are winding down. You might even say they are over. The more or less final act came earlier this month, when Bear Stearns agreed to a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission under which it would pay $250 million to investors for its alleged fund-related transgressions.

If one represents "yelling at customers" and 10 is "stealing their money," what Bear Stearns did was a solid six on the scale of Wall Street improprieties. Professional traders, mostly at hedge funds, had engaged in rapid-fire trading of otherwise innocent-looking mutual funds. This seesaw damaged the funds' net asset values and thus the IRA's and 401(k)'s of small investors. By some accounts, traders had been doing that kind of thing for many years, until regulators and, particularly, Eliot Spitzer, the New York State attorney general, nabbed them.

Through it all, regulators have relied mainly, though not exclusively, on monetary sanctions. Bear Stearns's wasn't even the largest — Bank of America holds the record at $675 million.

But while these large "fines," as they are usually called in the news media, are reassuring, it's arguable at best whether they mean very much to the companies being penalized. Just as the hedge fund giant Long-Term Capital Management was too big to fail in 1998, when it was bailed out to keep from torpedoing the entire financial system, the biggest Wall Street firms are simply too large to be effectively punished. At least, not by the kind of sanctions meted out to Bear Stearns.

To begin with, Bear Stearns did not pay a "fine." The company will pay $250 million in "disgorgements and penalties." The penalty part was just $90 million. The other $160 million consisted of restitution, with interest, of profits gained by abetting the illicit trading from 1999 to 2003. As is typical in S.E.C. settlements, Bear Stearns agreed to pay all this money without admitting or denying the allegations.

Whatever you call it, the simple fact is that a firm the size of Bear Stearns can easily afford to pay that kind of money.

Sure, the $250 million comprises nearly half of the company's net income for the first quarter. But keep in mind that this is not "income" in the sense of the word used by most people. The corporate term of art describes (broadly speaking) revenue in excess of expenses — what most people would call "money tucked away for a rainy day." If you had committed a crime and as punishment you had to give up half of what you would normally put in a savings or retirement account over a three-month period — well, would you complain? I certainly wouldn't. I'd sign a settlement like that, particularly if I didn't have to say I did anything wrong.

When compared to what most people would define as "income," the penalty shrinks to a hair under one-fifteenth (one-14.6th, to be exact) of Bear Stearns's gross revenue of $3.6 billion during the first quarter. For most households struggling to make ends meet on $100,000 a year, a fine of one-14.6th of three months' pay would come to about $1,712. That's about, oh, maybe 15 unpaid New York City parking tickets?

The penalty has the same unimpressive quality when compared to Bear Stearns's total wealth. The company's shareholders' equity is just shy of $11.2 billion. Divided into that sum, the $250 million shrinks way down to one-44.7th of the total. Now really, if you were caught doing something allegedly illegal, and had a net worth of, say, $200,000, would you object to a fine of about $4,500?

To be fair, I should point out that Bear Stearns did more than just agree to pay some money that it didn't admit owing from all the things it didn't admit doing. The firm also agreed, among other things, to hire a consultant to ensure that all the stuff it didn't admit doing never happens again.

In The Category Of You Heard It Here First

I have been writing about the failure to maintain, improve and redesign our own infrastructure for years. In the process I have been criticized by friends, colleagues and external commentators that the Army Corps of Engineers monitors these things and keeps everything working, especially when it comes to major bridges, levees, locks, piers and breaker walls. It just hasn't been so...

Army Corps Is Faulted on New Orleans Levees: Panel Says Studies Foresaw Failure, Urges New Scrutiny

An organization of civil engineers yesterday questioned the soundness of large portions of New Orleans's levee system, warning that the city's federally designed flood walls were not built to standards stringent enough to protect a large city.

The group faulted the agency responsible for the levees, the Army Corps of Engineers, for adopting safety standards that were "too close to the margin" to protect human life. It also called for an urgent reexamination of the entire levee system, saying there are no assurances that the miles of concrete "I-walls" in New Orleans will hold up against even a moderate hurricane.

"The ability of any I-wall in New Orleans to withstand . . . is unknown," said the American Society of Civil Engineers' External Review Panel, which was appointed to oversee the Corps investigation of the levee system's collapse during Hurricane Katrina.

The civil engineers group also rejected the explanation given by the Corps that the system had failed because Katrina had unleashed "unforeseeable" physical forces that weakened the flood walls. In a letter to Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, the Corps' commander, the civil engineers cited three previous Corps studies that predicted precisely the chain of events that caused the city's 17th Street Canal flood wall to fail. The breach left much of central and downtown New Orleans underwater.

"It appears that this information never triggered an assessment . . . neither at the time of the design of the 17th Street Canal flood wall, nor following its construction," the letter said.

Corps officials said they had already taken steps to address problems identified in the letter, starting with an effort to replace miles of I-walls with sturdier structures. But agency officials insisted the Corps was not solely to blame for weaknesses in the system.

"We have done the best things we could have done. We live here," spokeswoman Susan J. Jackson said. During four decades of levee-building in New Orleans, Jackson said, the agency frequently found its hands tied because of restrictions imposed by budgets, by Congress or by local governments that often failed to meet financial responsibilities to help build and maintain the levees. Jackson added: "It was a question of who was going to pay, and how much."

The American Society of Civil Engineers panel is one of three independent teams investigating the failure of the New Orleans levees, and until now it has been the most cautious in its public criticisms. The other investigating teams quickly endorsed its findings.

"We agree that every single foot of the I-walls is suspect," said Ivor van Heerden, leader of a Louisiana-appointed team of engineers. "When asked, we have constantly urged anyone returning to New Orleans to exercise caution, because the system now in place could fail in a Category 2 storm. It has already failed during a fast-moving Category 3 storm that missed New Orleans by 30 miles."

Two weeks ago, the Corps proposed a new theory for why the 17th Street Canal flood wall collapsed on Aug. 29, despite never being overtopped by Katrina's floodwaters. Whereas previous investigations had pointed to weak soils beneath the flood wall, new data suggested a combination of factors: First, the force of rising floodwaters inside the canal bent the walls outward, creating a small gap between the walls and their earthen foundation. Then, water surged into the gap, pressing the walls further until they broke through a layer of weak soil piled up against the sides. In effect, the levee was sliced in half along its ridge.

9-11 Loose Change (2nd Edition) - A Disturbing Look At A Possible Conspiracy

9-11 Loose Change (2nd Edition) With Extra Footage By Phil Jayhan & Korey Rowe [1 hr 21 min 50 sec] - Feb 5, 2005

I never had the chance to review the first edition of <911 Loose Change, but a friend and martial artist colleague of mine sent me a link to the Second Edition. Now, I have viewed the antics, tactics, and actions of the Bush administration with disdain, even to the point of calling Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, criminals for the failure to provide our troops with proper body and vehicle armor, for violation of their oaths of office, and violation of the Constitution and its Amendments. However, I have never been a fan of conspiracy theories or theorists, but have connected enough dots to see that the actions of the Bush administration are either complete and utter incompetence or an actual conspiracy... with the preponderance of evidence pointing to the conspiracy.

But watching this almost two hours of video that compiles piece after piece of evidence--albeit small pieces at a time and a lot of it not overtly connectable at a superficial level--that points to an inside political conspiracy that has as its goal a complete overhaul of the American government via a radical restructuring of our security, military and political forces and bodies, using a catastrophic "new Peral Harbor" event as the impetus for doing so.

I have to admit, when I first watched the video I was astonished. It was a bit too disconcerting to be believable. But I watched it again and began, as the producers of the video urge the viewers to do, doing a web search of some of the events, documents and statements made and put forth in the film. Nine out of nine "chunks" of information presented in the video were confirmed within only an hour of web surfing and searching. Some additional time spent surfing for other information made it 12 out of 12. It appears that the pattern of confirmation will continue upon my resuming the verification and affirmation of the information pieced together by Jayhan and Rowe.

Historically, the US government has pulled a number of shenanigans that have gotten us into wars and conflicts. Our involvement in the annexation of Texas was a series of back room deals with various elements of the Tex-Mex war that rang out, "Remember the Alamo."

The sinking of the USS Maine was an impetus to get us into war with Spain. Initial news reports were that the ship was sunk as a result of sabotage while anchored off of Cuba. It turned out that the ship sunk due to internal problems with its steam engine infrastructure and that US military and government officials may have had that information but did NOTHING to correct the story being printed in almost every newspaper in the nation.

Our entry into WWI was also somewhat cloaked in suspicous elements. There are folks that suggest the Zimmerman Note did not really originate in Germany, but was a subterfuge to force the hand of President Wilson into committing US forces to protecting shipping lanes with the aim of creating another incident (or a series of incidents) that would rile up emotions and stir the hawks in the United States political structures. The threat of unrestricted use of submarines to sink neutral as well as aligned non-combatant and combatant shipping brought the issue to a head... and US troops to the Western Front.

Historical evidence has put into question the competence or the conspiracy of political and military leaders in regard to Pearl Harbor. Some evidence points to the distinct possibility that the entire attack could have been thwarted if information and intelligence was ahndled properly and communicated effectively. Some historians also point to a pattern of the powers-that-were deliberately withholding information and intelligence that could have placed the majority of the fleet and military forces at Pearl Harbor out of the range of the attackig n planes and aircraft carriers.

There are some historians that claim the invasion of South Korea by the North was partly orhestrated by actions of the United States under the direction of Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and that the entire conflict could have been avoided via some overt diplomacy that was essentially omitted by Acheson and the Truman administration. There are also scholars that claim the manipulation occurred under the direction of General MacArthur and other high-ranking military generals that saw an opportunity to conduct a "proxy war" with the Soviets and Communist Chinese.

But Vietnam brings us to what many people consider the manipulation of the Gulf of Tonkin. President Kennedy was against any military intervention in "French Indochina" which had become Vietnam by that time. Kennedy supported sending military advisors, but drew a line in terms of sending troops in force, or troops with authority to engage in combat. However, the alleged events in the Gulf of Tonkin where two "gun boats" attacked US naval ships were used as rational for entering the war with actual combat forces. There are numerous reports as to how the events in the Gulf were deliberately misreported to agitate Lyndon Johnson into a policy of intervention. The fact that the "patrol boats" that attacked the USS Maddox were not really a threat and only inflicted minor damage (certainly far less than the damage inflicted on the USS Cole) should have called for a proportional response. However, a second attack involving the USS Maddox and the USS C. Turner Joy was reported, was blown out of proportion--an attack that never took place--and used to justify the escalation of US involvement and landing of combat troops.

We have seen the propensity for the US government to mislead, misrepresent, misconstrue and exaggerate information related to military action. We have seen numerous failed covert military and "cold war" operations (i.e. Bay of Pigs Invasion, Rescue Mission for Hostages in Iran, Iran-Contra Affair, Invasion of Irag, etc.)

So, when I looked at the 9-11 Loose Change video I wanted to disbelieve and dismiss the entire thing as conjecture and loose associations... But my preliminary research into verifying the information provided by its producers, combined with information acquired through watching PBS Frontline, PBS Nova and various programs from the Discovery Channel, points to the legitimate question of conspiracy surrounding the events of 9-11.

So serious are the indicators of a conspiracy in these events that everyone of us need to call for congressional and independent investigations... and if evidence is substantiated, everyone involved (even remotely) should be impeached/terminated and imprisoned. Let us check these facts and check the authenticity of the claims. After all, it would not be the first time that Bush and his gang have lied to us.

"Just being on the computer is reason enough for them [NSA/FBI] to tap your lines."

The title of this post is a direct quote from a fairly intelligent person with whom I work with in an effort to get a good man elected to state office. During a discussion while we were waiting for our candidate to show up at a rally event, we got involved in a discussion of Muslims being terrorists, the NSA spying programs, and other things.

It would seem that if you have a bad experience attending a cultural event of another religion or ethnic group--such as a large Muslim wedding in Illinois--then it is absolutely correct to paint all Muslims as haters of "infidels," potential terrorists because they dared to criticize the US government and Christians, and assume that there are literally thousands of terrorists waiting to blow up parts of America.

Admittedly, the events this person and others described to me was a horrid affair. They were invited to a Muslim wedding for a former employee with whom they shared a close relationship for many years. They were rather taken aback by the requirement of separating men and women into separate rooms for separate celebrations. This is a custom shared, to some degree or another, by most semitic peoples. It is a custom that has been incorporated into Islam by virtue of the teachings of Muhammed and the Koran. But that alone is just a matter of culture shock.

However, both the man and woman involved in this scenario were shocked to hear Arabic Muslims from Palestine, Egypt, Gulf Arab States and Saudi Arabia harshly criticize the US government. Strike TWO!

Then, some of the guests got radical in their interpretation of the definition of "infidel" and chose to state that all infidels ought to be killed because the Koran directs Muslims to do so. Truthfully, the Koran does have language to the effect... but it does not define the word "infidel" as including Christians or Jews. In fact, the Koran has specific restrictions upon doing any harm to "the people of the Book" (Christians and Jews), stating that as long as these people do not try to harm or convert Muslims, they are to be treated as god-fearing and welcome within the community. Additionally, the Koran does not specifically define the term "infidel" as someone that has another faith, but as someone that actually tries to harm a Muslim, convert a Muslim, or pervert the word of God (Koran).

However, just as there are Christians that have chosen to interpret and apply the words of the Bible in a particular militant light, and just as there are Jews that do the same, there are Muslims that interpret the Koran in that way. Oddly, most Muslims cannot read the Koran in its native langauge of Arabic. A significant number of Muslims in the Middle East have to realy upon the spoken recitation of the Koran and the interpretation of its meaning by an imam, mullah, ayatollah or other cleric. In places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, Canada and the United States, Muslims are taught to recite the Koran by rote memorization of the Arabic words without actually undertsanding Arabic.

In the case of the Nation of Islam, the black Muslim movement in the United States, very few of their leaders and members can speak Arabic and rely upon a translation of the Koran by Doud or Ali-Yusef. Doud is a native English-speaking person who learned Arabic in the UK. Ali-Yusef was a Pakistani that was a native speaker of Urdu, having learned Arabic later in his life. Most native Arabic speakers will tell you that both Doud and Ali-Yusef made some errors in their translation, in part due to be non-native speakers, and in part because they did not understand the cultural nuances, symbolism and idiosyncrasies of the particular form of Arabic.

The Koran is written and spoken in a particular form of Arabic that is difficult to read, write and explain, even among Arabic speakers. It is poetry that contains symbolism, allegory and contrasts that come from the cultural that was actively present in the 5th century AD. There are Bedouin Arabs that speak dialects that are closely related to the language used in the 5th century that claim most of the modern clerics get the language fouled up.

Additionally, there is not a consistent scholarly model or discipline given to studying the Koran in the way that the Torah and the Bible are studied. There is a politicization of the schools that offer Koranic studies. Even sha'ria, Islamic law, has different interpretations. While there are four basic schools of thought regarding sha'ria, these schools do not produce scholarly studies, authoritative references, and relay predominantly upon local or regional traditions, or the counsel of a small group (majlis), to provide authoritative opinions... most of the members of a majlis do not have specific training in sha'ria or the Koran.

However, as I tried to persuade these kind people--and they are some of the nicest people I have met--that not all Muslims are militant, terror-minded, Christian-/Jew-hating people waiting to overthrow or terrorize the United States, they would have none of it. The woman of this couple began arguing that the NSA spying program was legitimate because there were so many Muslim terrorists in the US just waiting for an opportunity to do us harm. When I asked why were they waiting to do so, or why they hadn't attacked in the face of disclosures regarding our security vulnerabilities in our ports, along our highways, at our nuclear plants, at our chemical plants, etc., she did not have an answer, but insisted that "they are here and they want to harm us."

But she continued to state that we need to monitor every phone call, every e-mail, every fax, and every form of communication to find them. She did not want to hear about the US Constitution and the Fourth Amemndment, the Fifth Amendment or other discourse on inherent rights. She was afraid and it clear that it was fear that motivated her regard for the efforts to protect us from harm via wirtapping. Even when she was confronted with the fact that none--absolutely none--of these wiretaps produced any useful evidence of terrorists, terrorism or sleeper cells, she didn't blink... She just claimed that's how they will find them.

Both of these people seemed to think that the CIA, NSA and FBI had the capability and resources to monitor every phone call for key words and tag words like "bomb," "Allah," "Al-Qaeda," etc. I tried to point out to them that a smart terroist group would not use those words, but a code system, they did not flinch. When I pointed out that the FBI and CIA have reported major problems with their existing computer systems, and the efforts to upgrade them, and that the Pentagon, White House and Congress have all had "leaky" e-mail servers, routers and security holes, they still didn't blink.

When I mentioned that I had received word that there was an open file at the DOJ concerning my activities, but that no one would tell me why, the woman said to me, ""Just being on the computer is reason enough for them to tap your lines. Just using the computer is reason to suspect you might be a terrorist." When I tried to discuss the Fourth Amendment requirement for "probable cause" as defined by SCOTUS precedent and rulings, she argued that all that was needed was suspiscion...

I planned on reporting each of these people to the local, regional and federal authorities because I suspect they are trying to undermine the US Constitution and that is a terrorist attempt to overthrow the US government, but then I realized I was too late... George W. his White House gang, the Republican-dominated congress, and the public relations spin that perpetually tells people to "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!" have already overthrown the government by deliberately and purposefully casting aside the Constitution whenever it seems convenient.

I sign off now. I am going to mourn the fall of a great nation... and contemplate succession from the Union.

The People Of South Dakota May Get Their Say

South Dakota Initiative To Place Abortion Law On The Ballot

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Abortion rights supporters launched a referendum drive Friday to overturn a South Dakota abortion ban designed to challenge the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing the practice nationwide. A new coalition, South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, said it will try to collect thousands of signatures aimed at giving state voters a chance to decide in November on what it called "the nation's most extreme abortion law."

Just Remember... Other Countries May Decide To Play The Same Game With US

Impact of Detainee Act Debated in Court: Panel to Decide Whether It Has Jurisdiction Over Bids for Freedom

The way we are treating--mistreating--detainees in US custody will come back to haunt us some day. There may come a day when we have hundreds of our troops and/or citizens being detained by some foreign entity and they will use our behavior as the justification for mistreating them. Our circumvention of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws will come back to bite us in the gluteus maximus. Our violation of our very own constitutional principles may come to be the justification of allowing similar violations against our own citizens in ordinary law enforcement efforts and events.

Bush administration lawyers argued yesterday that a new law forces the dismissal of more than 200 lawsuits filed in federal courts on behalf of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, urging a federal appellate court to instead adopt a far more limited process that still would give the prisoners access to judicial review.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will decide whether the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 retroactively stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases challenging detentions at the military prison in Cuba. Lawyers representing the detainees argued that the new law does not apply to pending cases, while the government has maintained that all cases essentially should be wiped away.

The Detainee Treatment Act was designed to pull what some senators believe are frivolous cases out of U.S. courts and instead grant detainees two other options: access to the federal appeals court to challenge the military determination that they are "enemy combatants" and the right to appeal verdicts reached in future military trials.

The three-judge appellate panel questioned government lawyers about the authority the court actually would have in its limited review role. Judge Judith W. Rogers asked whether the court would have the power to order a detainee's release if it found problems with a detainee's enemy combatant status as determined by a military Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

"Yes, subject to a few qualifications," said Gregory G. Katsas, a Justice Department lawyer. Katsas said the Defense Department would have the option of fixing any flawed process first. "If a CSRT determination is made, and that is that he is not an enemy combatant, that person is turned loose."

Judge A. Raymond Randolph likened the new court review process to a modification of habeas corpus rather than its abolition but said he sees no remedy for detainees in the new law. He said the new law appeared to shift habeas cases from the District Court to the Court of Appeals.

Thomas B. Wilner, who was arguing on behalf of the detainees, said he would not object if the cases were transferred from one court to another.

But he said he worries that the law is unclear and might restrict the court from truly examining the facts of a detainee's combatant status.

Currently, the military is holding 10 detainees at Guantanamo Bay who have been cleared for release, and federal courts have been powerless to order them freed. There are about 490 detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

In a related matter, the Uyghur American Association is planning to file a brief with the the Supreme Court today supporting the release of two countrymen who remain at Guantanamo Bay despite having been cleared of ties to terrorism by the U.S. military. A U.S. District Court judge recently found that there is nothing to support holding the two Chinese Muslims but said he has no authority to order their release.

We are supposed to be the good guys... our treatment of detainees doesn't reflect who we are as a nation or as a people.

In A Land Of Immigrants, No Just Immigration Law & No Real Border Protection

In a land where almost everyone has a heritage of immigration from someplace, we have a long history of unfair immigration laws, policies and practices. In fact, in many ways our immigration laws are unjust, discriminatory and irrational. We have separate rules for immigrants and illegals coming from different nations. Latinos coming from South and Central America are treated differently than folks coming from Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Asians have been prevented from coming to this country at all at various times in our history. During WWII we put first and second generation Japanese-Americans in internment camps but allowed German and Italian immigrants and second generation citizens to roam freely... even though FBI records demonstrate that there were tons more German spies in America at the time.

We also pursue enforcement of immigration laws in inequitable ways. For instance, Boston and New York has a ton of illegal Irish living and working in those cities, but when was the last time we saw an immigration round up that netted a bunch of Irish illegals? However, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Mexican, Guatemalan, South American, South American and Middle Eastern illegals are rounded up on a regular basis.

Our current immigration policies and practices are essentially dysfunctional. We punish illegals for eeking out livings in under-the-table (and way under the minimum wage) jobs, but leave the employers with nothing more than a minor smack on the wrist. In the mean time, we are now considering passing a law that would punish anyone that leaves potable water in desert locations so that PEOPLE crossing over our borders illegally won't die in the process. Something is wrong with this way of thinking...

We have also done a poor job of protecting our borders, so now we have a problem of undocumented and/or illegal aliens living among us in droves. Our borders have been permeated by illegals on a regular basis... and by drug smugglers almost as often. Our border security is--and remains--as big of a security hole as our ports and chemical factories.

If we had better border security, and a fair and balanced immigration policy, we would have far less attempts to cross our borders. If people from the countries that have traditionally fought their way to our borders and paid "coyotes" to convey them across could come across in a legal manner, many of them would choose to do so.

As for the argument about guest workers... it's a smoke screen. Those industries and people that have used illegal aliens as their workforce have been violating the law, violating basic human rights, enticing illegals to come into the country, and undermining our national security... as well as tilting our national economy.

The great argument is over the idea of amnesty. None of the previous amnesty offers have really been effective. Previous efforts to have illegals apply for legal status only created a demand for an already overtaxed INS workforce. These previous efforts have done almost nothing to stem the tide of new illegals, stop people from exploiting illegal workers, and still sent our economy into a tilt.

Bush Is Facing a Difficult Path on Immigration

In the days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, immigration policy was going to be President Bush's signature issue. It was central to his thinking as the former governor of a border state, key to his relationship with President Vicente Fox of Mexico and essential in attracting new Hispanic voters to the Republican Party.

Five years later, Mr. Bush has at last realized some momentum on immigration policy, but it is probably not the activity he once anticipated.

He has lost control of his own party on the issue, as many Republicans object to his call for a temporary guest-worker program, insisting instead that the focus be on shutting down the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. It is not clear how much help he will get from Democrats in an election year.

The issue will come to the floor of the Senate next week, and the debate is shaping up as a free-for-all that will touch on economics, race and national identity.

At the end of next week, Mr. Bush is scheduled to meet with Mr. Fox in Cancún, Mexico. Immigration is likely to be a source of tension in their talks.

In short, Mr. Bush is facing another test of his remaining powers as president.

On Thursday, he called for calm in a White House meeting with groups pressing for changes in American immigration laws.

"I urge members of Congress and I urge people who like to comment on this issue to make sure the rhetoric is in accord with our traditions," the president said.

He added, in a warning to members of Congress, that "the debate must be done in a way that doesn't pit one group of people against another."

The discussion has intensified as Mr. Bush finds himself caught between two of his most important constituencies: business owners and managers on the one hand, conservatives on the other.

And now we have the opportunity to exploit this issue in the political arena.

Immigration Debate Is Shaped by '08 Election: Presidential Hopefuls Offer Their Proposals Ahead of Senate Vote

President Bush's effort to secure lawful employment opportunities for illegal immigrants is evolving into an early battle of the 2008 presidential campaign, as his would-be White House successors jockey for position ahead of next week's immigration showdown in the Senate.

Bush called on Congress yesterday to tone down the increasingly sharp and divisive rhetoric over immigration, as he renewed his push for a guest-worker plan that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to continue working in the United States. But Bush's political sway is already weakened by public unease about the war in Iraq and by Republican divisions.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), whom Bush helped elect as party leader, is threatening to bring a new immigration bill to the Senate floor early next week. It would tighten control of the nation's borders without creating the guest-worker program the president wants.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a rival of Frist's for the Republican nomination, is promoting Bush's call for tougher border security and the guest-worker program as he embraces the president to shore up his standing with Republican leaders. In the House, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) is garnering support for a long-shot presidential bid with his fierce anti-immigration rhetoric.

And after weeks of sitting on the sidelines, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) jumped into the immigration debate Wednesday. She declared that Republican efforts to criminalize undocumented workers and their support networks "would literally criminalize the good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

As much as there has been flack over Hilary's comment, I think her intent was to direct attention to the provision of classifying the provision food and water to those risking a border corssing as a criminal act. But the ultra-conservative response to her comments was almost as stupid as the over-reaction of the entire Muslim world to political cartoons depicting Muhammed... While we can understand how such things are offensive, we Christians must remember Christ's teachings that we will suffer insults because of Him. As for the Muslims, they too must remember that the depiction of Muhammed by infidels will, according to the Koran, be dealt with by Justice Himself... for one of the 99 names for God is Al Hakam (الحكم) The Judge, the Arbitrator... another is Al 'Adl (العدل) The Utterly Just... and another is Al Hasib (الحسيب) The Reckoner... all of which indicate that God is perfectly capable of measuring out justice in His own fashion.

But then even our foreign policy and trade measures are somewhat schizophrenic (or at least schizoid... or perhaps hystrionic). Bush is railing against protectionism and isolationism as a result of the backlash against the Dubai Ports World deal being put on the Caybosh, and the recent revealtions that other, very similar deals have already gone through an improper process and present a threat to our national security and our economy. But according to the Bush gang, there really isn't a threat, our relationship with the world is secure... except in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Palestine, Afgahnistan, Myanmar, Indonesia, North Korea, former Soviet Bloc nations, etc., etc.

Speak Softly and Carry a Smaller Stick

WE shouldn't allow isolationism and protectionism to overwhelm us," said President Bush in his press conference on Tuesday, building on the concerns that he expressed in his State of the Union address about Americans turning inward.

Recent opinion surveys affirm that isolationist sentiment has increased in recent years. Notably, a survey by my center and the Council on Foreign Relations last fall reported that the percentage of the public who said that the United States should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" rose to levels seen during the mid-1970's, following the Vietnam War, and in the 1990's after the cold war ended. And a companion poll of opinion leaders found that they, too, had become less supportive of the United States playing a world leadership role.

But while these trends represent significant shifts in attitudes, it would be a mistake to conclude that this country is becoming isolationist. There is no sign that most Americans want the United States to turn its back on the world or that anti-foreign sentiment in this country is rising. Discontent with Mr. Bush's policies, notably on Iraq, has led to widespread public frustration. And while it has also created more isolationists, they remain a minority.

The number of Pew respondents agreeing that the United States should mind its own business and let other countries get along as best they can climbed to 42 percent last year from 34 percent in 2004. Agreement with this statement has been roughly this high only twice in the last four decades: in 1976 and in 1995. Now as then, however, most Americans continue to disagree with this sentiment. And huge majorities, including many who express some isolationist sentiments, believe that the United States should consider the views of its allies in making foreign policy, and they acknowledge America's leadership role in the world given its power.

Polls also find no rise in broad-based anti-foreign sentiment. Americans, in fact, rate most countries more favorably than people in other countries rate the United States. For example, a February Gallup survey showed 54 percent of the public holding a favorable view of France and 79 percent a favorable opinion of Germany. In contrast, just 41 percent of the Germans and 43 percent of the French expressed favorable views of the United States in last year's Pew Global Attitudes Survey.

52 to 19: A Ratio Of Misdeeds, Mistrust & Malfeasance

As I posted before, congress critters have a base pay that is over $100,000 per annum, complete with additional housing allowances, travel allowances, expense accounts, staff budgets, franking privileges and more. The average INCOME (possibly from two or more jobs) is about one third of the base pay for a congress critter. Additionally, the average American worker is, in all but the lowest paying jobs, given 2 weeks of vacation, works 50 weeks our of 52, has only 8-10 personaldays/holidays/sick days, and would be fired for not showing up at all.

So consider this... Congress has met and worked only 19 days this year. The average American worker has worked 52 or more days this year. In my view, the average worker accomplishes more in one of his/her workdays than congress gets done in all 19 days... perhaps all session.

It would seem that the work schedule adopted by George W. Bush and Dick "The Gun" Cheney has rubbed off on congress. I vote we give them all permanent vacation, and vote them all out of office, electing an entirely new freshman congress.... repeating this process for the next 5 House elections and the next 10 Senate elections. We don't have to worry about which party to give our loayalties... just as long as we don't vote any incumbents into office.

Then we need to have congress initiate a "No Confidence Amendment" to the Constitution where the president, vice president, cabinet and congress can be dismissed from office if more than 20% of the registered voters call for a no confidence vote and 8% or more vote that they have no confidence in our government.

While this may seem a bit chaotic at first, I predict we would soon get the hang of it all, and the end result would be that we prevent asinine laws, ideological partisan fights, unproductive investigations into unimportant events, and political posturing. Perhaps, after we have taught these folks that they cannot count on us to be lambs led to slaughter anymore, we could repeal the "No Confidence Amendment" and get a government that actually represents "we the people."

Or, in the alternative, we could ALL just send a letter (or e-mail) every day to each of our congress critters reminding them that we are watching them... and we will vote them out if they fail to work more than 19 days in the first quarter.

Do we really want a congress that is on vacation (or at least absent from the job) more than it is in session? As for the executive branch, let us limit the vacation time to five days a year actual vacation and another five as a "working vacation" like the rest of us.

Sex Toys Are Once Again Legal In Georgia... Maybe

While I am no fan of pornogrpahy or the sex industry, I figure that the intimacies consenting adults engage in are none of my business... and most certainly none of the government's business. While a state may have the right to restrict where certain things (such as sex toys, porn magazines and X-rated videos), it has no right to regulate what is bought via mail or shipping, delivered to a private residence, used in the privacy of that home by consenting adults (as determined by the age of consent) and presents no threat or harm to others or their rights.

If we allow the government to regulate our intimacies of the body and sexuality, it won't be long before they get into regulating our thoughts, worship, speech and politics.

Adult Entertainment Lawyer Prevails at 11th Circuit in Battle Over Obscenity Law

Adult entertainment lawyer Cary S. Wiggins has the boyish looks, good manners and perfectly pressed shirt of someone who was raised right.

Last month Wiggins, 34, succeeded in overturning Georgia's obscenity law, which includes a ban on so-called sex toys.

Wiggins acknowledges not everyone would congratulate themselves on such a feat. He said that when he announced the news to his father, a retired U.S. Air Force pilot, his initial response was, "You're not proud of that, are you?"

Wiggins told his father that he was, explaining he "convinced a panel of three federal judges to see the statute violates one of the public's most cherished rights," namely, free speech -- even though obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.

The case is This That and the Other Gift v. Cobb County, Ga., No. 04-16419 (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2006). Circuit judges Susan H. Black, Frank M. Hull and Jerome Farris heard the case.

Wiggins told me the only seriously contested part of the obscenity law, which forbids materials of "prurient interest," is the 1975 ban on sex toys.

The ban became a problem for Wiggins' client, This That and the Other, a Cobb County tobacco and adult novelty shop.

Let's face it, while we have no right to be perverted in public view, and no right to impose our sexual will upon others, we have an inherent right to be kinky in the privacy of our own homes/residences with others that consent to that level of kinkiness. The beauty is that those that find that level of kinkiness offensive, gross or disconcerting do not have to participate. God gives us the right to choose... it's an inherent and inalienable right... It is what makes us a free nation... and as long as it's not in plain public view (and a private shop or theater is not plain public view, but a private view) and it doesn't impose or infringe upon others, we should leave these decisions to the participants of legal age.

Fourth Amendment & Privacy Rights Survive... This Time

This decision actually takes a stand for Fourth Amendament and privacy rights. It is not surprising that Roberts, Thomas and Scalia were opposed to us citizens having such protections and that law enforcement officers would be required to actually have complete consent or a warrant in order to enter a dwelling, ESPECIALLY in light of competing rights. I have no doubt that this would have been a 5-4 decision had Alito been allowed to participate. Methinks we will see a number of close decisions in the near future... and a lot more that go against our basic rights.

High Court Trims Police Power to Search Homes

The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both partners present agree to let them in.

The 5 to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.

The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had previously said that police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.

Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives, or boyfriends and girlfriends, keep police busy around the country; in the District, almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in 2000 involved alleged domestic violence.

Justice David H. Souter's majority opinion said that the consent of one partner is not enough, because of "widely shared social expectations" that adults living together each have veto power over who can come into their shared living space. That makes a warrantless search based on only one partner's consent "unreasonable" and, therefore, unconstitutional.

"[T]here is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders," Souter wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing his first dissent since joining the court in October, said the ruling's "cost" would be "great," especially in domestic dispute situations.

Roberts Dissent Reveals Strain Beneath Court's Placid Surface

A Supreme Court decision on Wednesday in an uncelebrated criminal case did more than resolve a dispute over whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one occupant gives consent but another objects.

More than any other case so far, the decision, which answered that question in the negative by a vote of 5 to 3, drew back the curtain to reveal the strains behind the surface placidity and collegiality of the young Roberts court.

It was not only that this case, out of 32 decided since the term began in October, provoked Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to write his first dissenting opinion. He had cast two earlier dissenting votes, and had to write a dissenting opinion eventually. And although there has been much commentary on the court's unusually high proportion of unanimous opinions, 22 so far compared with only 27 in all of the last term, few people expected that rate to continue as the court disposed of its easiest cases and moved into the heart of the term.

Rather, what was striking about the decision in Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, was the pointed, personal and acerbic tone in which the justices expressed their disagreement over whether the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches was violated when the police in Americus, Ga., arriving at a house to investigate a domestic dispute, accepted the wife's invitation to look for evidence of her husband's cocaine use.