Ruminations

ANOTHER Dollar Coin? Why?

2006-11-26T08:54:00.000-08:00

So, the government is going to try and foist yet another dollar coin on us, eh? What makes them think we’re going to accept the new presidential dollars when we didn’t accept Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea? (Kind of smacks of sexism, doesn't it, that we didn't accept two previous dollar coins depicting women, but the government believes we'll accept dollar coins with all-male presidents? Hmmm...) How many people ever even saw a Sacagawea dollar, anyway. Personally, I’ve seen only one in the six years since it was issued.

Don’t they get it? Americans, for the most part, don’t want a dollar coin! We don’t need yet another coin weighing down our pockets and purses. If the dollar bill were going to be phased out in favor of the dollar coin, then maybe I could understand it, but it’s not, thank goodness.

The problem with the Susan B. Anthony coin was that it was too close in size to a quarter. The problem with the Sacagawea dollar, I think, was that it was too pretty. Its shiny golden plating made it perfect fodder for hoarding. Who would want to spend something that pretty? I think another reason Americans won’t accept a dollar coin is that, outside of a hand-to-hand transaction, where could you use one? Parking meters and vending machines won’t accept them, and it would be too expensive to retrofit parking meters and vending machines to accept them.

These new dollar coins are nothing but yet another Republican waste of taxpayer money. (They were proposed by a Republican congressman.) We don’t want ‘em and we don’t need ‘em. The new presidential coins are only going to lead to yet another hoarding frenzy, that’s all. I have serious doubts that they’ll be circulated any more than the previous two dollar coins were. The government should just forget about a dollar coin and use that money for something much more important, like, oh, I don't know, shoring up Social Security, perhaps?

Memo to the Democratic Party -- Bush MUST Be Impeached -- NOW!!

2006-05-18T05:17:00.000-07:00

The Democrats should be raising a hue and cry for the impeachment of George W. Bush the same way the Republicans did regarding impeachment for President Clinton, so, why aren't they? After all, what President Clinton did was only a personal matter that really didn't hurt anyone, yet the Republicans couldn't wait to sic their special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, on him, not to mention all the taxpayer dollars they wasted investigating Whitewater and the so-called "Travelgate" in the lame, pathetic, futile attempt to pin something -- ANYTHING -- illegal on President Clinton.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, has spoken lie after lie and broken innumerable laws that have hurt -- and even killed -- who knows how many, yet where is the Democrats' special prosecutor? Where is their Ken Starr? If ever there was a president in the history of this country deserving of impeachment, it is George W. Bush. He is a disgrace and embarrassment to his office and his country.

With all due respect to Sen. Russ Feingold, censure is fine, as far as it goes, it just that it doesn't go nearly far enough. Bush MUST be IMPEACHED, NOT just censured.

IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!

THE RUMINATOR

Illegals, PLEASE GO HOME!

2006-05-02T03:34:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, May Day, there were massive marches by illegal immigrants and their supporters in a number of large American cities with large Latino populations. They were marching for, what was called on the newscasts, "immigration reform." What they were REALLY marching for is leniency for lawbreakers. Personally, I don't support lawbreaking, and I certainly don't support lawbreakers, and illegals are breaking the law. They claim to love this country. Well, if they love this country as much as they say they do, then they should love it enough to respect its laws. Yes, this IS a nation of immigrants, but it's a nation of LEGAL immigrants and the illegals and their supporters have a lot of chutzpah to compare them to those immigrants who came into this country via LEGAL channels. It takes a lot of nerve to not only break the law -- but then expect to be REWARDED for it no less by being allowed to stay here and have a job and a steady paycheck!

Yesterday's rallies were nothing but celebrations of lawbreaking. The illegals were, and are, setting a very poor example for their children because the message they were sending was that breaking the law, and then having the unmitigated GALL to CELEBRATE that lawbreaking, are OK.

A big part of the problem, though, are those employers who hire illegals. No immigrant should be given a job unless he or she can provide AUTHENTIC documentation (unfortunately, it's all to easy to print up authentic-LOOKING documents these days) that they're in this country LEGALLY, and only then should they be given a job.

When it comes to the phrase, "illegal immigrants," it's not the "immigrants" part I have a problem with. It's the "illegal" part that bugs me. The illegals should return to their native countries voluntarily, or be faced with deportation.

THE RUMINATOR

No Amnesty For Lawbreakers!

2006-04-10T13:24:00.000-07:00

Today, Monday, April 10, 2006, hundreds of thousands are rallying in support of what they're calling "immigration reform." In actuality, these rallies are in support of lawbreakers, namely illegal (a.k.a. undocumented) aliens, who have no business being here. They should all be returned to their country of origin, and, if in the future any of them do decide to come hear by legal means and learn English, if English is not their native language, which it usually isn't, then they will be welcomed, otherwise, no.

My views on illegal immigrants have nothing whatsoever to do with racism or xenophobia (although I know my liberal brethren will find that very difficult, if not impossible, to believe). No, it's because they are ILLEGAL, they are LAWBREAKERS, and these lawbreakers should not be rewarded by being allowed to stay in this country.

I've heard that the LEGAL immigration process takes approximately 10 years to complete; that's admittedly a long time. Perhaps immigration reform could begin by streamlining the process so that it'll take fewer than 10 years, maybe cut it to five or six years, maybe that'll be all the incentive some would-be illegals would need to come here via legal channels rather than breaking the law by sneaking across the border. Unfortunately, this IS the U.S. government we're talking about here. When was the last time the Feds streamlined ANYTHING.

THE RUMINATOR

Oh, My Gosh! The Conservatives Are Actually CORRECT About Something For A Change!

2006-03-29T05:22:00.000-08:00

Once in a VERY rare while do I EVER agree with the conservatives on anything, but on the issue of illegal immigration (which has been in the news a lot the past few days because of a bill pending in the legislature) I agree with them completely. I have no problem with immigrants who come to this country through legal channels and/or because of special circumstances, such as persecution of one kind or another, but, all undocumented aliens should be deported to their country of origin, although I am fully aware that with all the illegal aliens we have in this country, that would be a monumental undertaking. Actually, there is more than one bill proposed that deals with illegal immigration, one of which would make undocumented immigrants felons. That, I feel, is overdoing it. After all, our prisons are already overcrowded enough without filling them up even more with illegal aliens. No, if a foreign national does not have the proper documentation, just deport 'em back to where they came from, simple as that. That's what was done in the days of Ellis Island, and it seemed to work pretty well back then. Maybe, just MAYBE, if a would-be illegal were faced with the threat of deportation, he/she would think twice about coming here illegally, but maybe I'm just being naive.

Bushy Boy wants to have a so-called "guest worker program" for illegals. For someone like Bush who's supposedly so national security conscious, I think that's a pretty dumb idea, but, consider the source. The 9/11 terrorists came to this country on student visas and then didn't bother going back to their native countries once those visas expired. What would be the difference between a foreigner coming here on a "guest worker" program permit and coming here on a visa? Someone could overstay a "guest worker" permit just as easily as they could overstay a visa. Also, illegals put a major drain on our country's resources. To allow illegals to have access to the same government services as native-born Americans and immigrants who came to this country legally does a huge disservice, and is just not fair, to either of those groups.

I've been hearing the liberals say, "This country was built on immigration," or words to that effect. Yes, they're right, this country WAS built on immigration, but it was built on LEGAL immigration. Let's KEEP it that way.

THE RUMINATOR

Memo to the IOC

2006-02-19T04:45:00.000-08:00

To: The International Olympic Committee

Women want to ski jump in the Winter Olympics, plain and simple -- and yet you tell them it's too dangerous? Let's see if I've got this straight. Women are allowed to downhill ski, aerial freestyle ski, luge, bobsled, snowboard, skeleton, play hockey, and even pairs figure skate, and yet you tell them that SKI JUMPING is too dangerous for them? Give me a break! What kind of a lame-a** copout is that? I honestly don't believe danger has anything to do with your decision. I believe it's just flat out SEXISM that is misguiding your thinking. It's nothing more than a group of chauvinistic MEN wanting to make sure that there is one Winter Olympic sport that's for MEN only.

Not that my opinion means anything, but if ladies want to participate in ski jumping, LET THEM! I've seen them, and they're every bit as good, in some cases, perhaps, even BETTER, than the guys, and I think THAT'S what you on the IOC are REALLY afraid of.

THE RUMINATOR

"King" George's "Legacy"?

2006-02-08T06:10:00.000-08:00

This is the so-called "legacy" "King" George will be leaving behind when he blessedly departs the White House for good (and believe me, it WILL be good)in just under three more long years hence. It will be a legacy of amorality, immorality, illegality, lies, deceit, secrecy, death, destruction, and cronyism. Some "legacy," huh? WOW! So much for "compassionate conservatism." Of course, anyone with a brain in their head and who actually USES it knows that the phrase "compassionate conservative" is nothing but one HECK of an oxymoron. "King" George makes the late "Tricky Dicky" Nixon look ALMOST saintly in comparison.

There used to be; I don't know if it's still there, but there used to be an electronic counter in Times Square that kept track of the national debt. What I would also like to see is a counter that counts down the years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds until "King" George leaves the White House PERMANENTLY. HOORAY!!! That day cannot come soon enough for me. Whoever replaces him is going to have one HUMONGOUS mess to clean up.

THE RUMINATOR

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

2006-02-03T07:23:00.000-08:00

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes.

Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The above is a summary of the more detailed orignal article "Fascism Anyone?" first published in Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry)

(Editorial Note from "The Ruminator" -- The above sounds frighteningly familiar, doesn't it? Thanks to Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio for publishing them in her e-newsletter.)

The Truth About the State of our Union

2006-01-28T04:48:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, January 27, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

by Dennis J. Kucinich

On Tuesday night President Bush will stand before the Congress and the nation, to deliver his annual State of the Union address. We are sure to hear a rosy tale of an economy on the rebound, a blossoming democracy in Iraq, a terror network on the run, and a Gulf Coast region rebuilding better and stronger than ever before. As is most often the case with this Administration, the rhetoric does not match reality.

The facts are clear. Our economy is struggling and leaving tens of millions of Americans behind. According to the non-partisan National Journal, since President Bush first stood before Congress and the nation in 2001, the median income in this country has decreased, the jobless rate has jumped from 3.9% to 4.9% and the number of families living in poverty has increased from 8.7% to 10.2%. Our trade deficit has doubled. Inflation has gone up. Personal bankruptcies have gone up. Consumer debt has gone up. College tuition has gone up. And, the price of gas has gone up. All the while, this Administration has turned a $128 billion federal budget surplus into a $319 billion deficit.

Today, almost 6 million more Americans do not have any health insurance than when President Bush took office. In total, over 45.5 million Americans, or over 15% of our total population, have no health care coverage at all.

During his 2003 address, President Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein "had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax", "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin", "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents".

Today, almost three years after the start of the President's war of choice, we know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no connection to al-Qaeda and posed no threat to our nation. Yet, our armed forces are bogged down in the middle of civil war that our own generals say cannot be won by military force. Our presence in Iraq is counterproductive and has cost the lives of over 2,200 US troops and $250 billion.

President Bush has delivered four State of the Union addresses since the attacks on our nation on 9/11. In four speeches, the President has never once mentioned Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the terror attacks on this nation. The status of the FBI's most wanted man apparently is not important to the state of our union. Yet, in the same four speeches, President Bush has mentioned Saddam Hussein 24 times, and Iraq 78 times.

President Bush used the opening of his 2003 State of the Union to praise the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This year our nation, and the world, saw the result of the failure of this massive reorganization of our government. As Katrina rolled ashore, destroying large cities and small towns in four states, it was FEMA, once an independent cabinet level agency--but now rolled into Department of Homeland Security--that failed to react. The searing image of thousands of Americans stranded without food and water dying on American streets will be the lasting legacy of the Department of Homeland Security, not a reorganized government "mobilizing against the threats of a new era" as the President described in his speech.

In his 2004 and 2005 addresses, the President spent a considerable amount of time advocating policies that would roll back much of the social progress made since the New Deal. In 2004, the President touted a Medicare prescription drug bill that will fatten the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, endangering the future finances of the entire Medicare program, while leaving seniors confused and empty handed as they try to fill their prescriptions under the new plan. In 2005, the President used his address to promote his plan strip seniors of the guaranteed promise of Social Security, and replace it with a risky scheme to gamble their future in the stock market.

What the President has in store for his message this year is not known yet. But, we do know the President Bush will speak in glowing terms about the state of our union. The truth is the state of our union is in great peril. This Administration is conducting a war with no end in Iraq, illegally spying on Americans at home, overseeing an economy that is increasingly leaving more and more Americans behind and abandoning Gulf in their hour of great need.

If recent history is any precedent, then next week we should see more of the same old dance around reality that has been the hallmark of President Bush's annual address.

(Since being elected to Congress in 1996, Kucinich has been a tireless advocate for worker rights, civil rights and human rights. He represents Ohio's 10th District.)

(Editorial Note from "The Ruminator" -- Congressman Kucinich is right on target with his points. This year's "State of the Union" address will be no different from the previous ones Bushy Boy's given, in other words, King George the Clueless will strike yet again.)

A New Ellis Island?

2006-01-12T03:42:00.000-08:00

We've been hearing a lot of talk recently about illegal immigration and how it's affecting our country. Because of this talk about making our borders more secure and stemming the swelling tide of illegal aliens, I've been giving the subject quite a bit of thought.

When most of my generation's parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., came to this country from overseas, they came through one central processing station, Ellis Island, and, from what I understand, in order for any of those Ellis Island immigrants to be allowed to stay in the U.S., they had to meet four (4) criteria. First of all, they had to have a sponsor or sponsors (relatives, family friends, etc.) who were an American citizens and lived in this country. Secondly, they had to have a job lined up. Three, they had to have all their official paperwork in order. Four, they could not be bringing in any communicable disease. If any immigrant failed any one of these four criteria, they were sent back to their homeland.

Maybe having a single central processing station wouldn't be practical these days, I don't know, but I think it's an idea that should at least be given some serious consideration by the powers that be. You never know unless you try.

I suppose that we native-born Americans should feel flattered that so many people from foreign lands still see the U.S.A. as the land of opportunity, but, they should come here LEGALLY. If their visa expires, they should either get it renewed or return to their country of origin, the only exceptions being those who come here for political asylum, providing they can give irrefutable proof that they are being persecuted in their native country. I have nothing against immigrants, as long as they're here LEGALLY.

THE RUMINATOR

Thanksgiving Day 2005

2005-11-24T00:15:00.000-08:00

To: My Fellow Anti-Bushites,

I've been thinking today about how, on Thanksgiving Day 2008, we'll REALLY have something to be thankful for, namely, that this nightmare of an administration will FINALLY be on its way OUT THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR which it SHOULD have been LAST Thanksgiving. Also hopefully by then, if not before, which would be much preferable, ALL of our troops will be home from the hellhole known as Iraq. Until that great and glorious day when we can bid a VERY fond farewell to Bushy Boy and his merry gang of sycophants and cronies, we'll just have to keep on muddling through and keeping a stiff upper lip. We just need to keep in mind that every day that passes is one day closer to the day when Bushy Boy goes back to Crawford FOR GOOD!!! Oh!, happy day!! Whoever comes after Bush is going to have one HECK of a messy country to clean up. We just need to make sure we elect someone who is up to that monumental task.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING AND GOD BLESS! :-)

THE RUMINATOR

WHY????

2005-11-18T14:09:00.000-08:00

Why is it that the Republican Party's agenda is so screwed up? They don't seem to get that their agenda is NOT the agenda of the majority of Americans, but the agenda of the right-wing extremist lunatic fringe, which is very frightening.

Anyway, I heard on the news the other day that we're going to be sending yet more billions into that hellhole called Iraq, while at the same time, FEMA is out of money for the hurricane victims, meaning that many of them will be on their own after December 1. Apparently, as far as our government is concerned, getting people killed, that includes Americans, in some foreign country takes priority over having the money to take care of our own people in our own country. It's obscene and it's nauseating, to say the least. Talk about un-American!

Bring our soldiers home NOW, and give the money we would otherwise be sending to Iraq to FEMA to continue assistance to the victims of Katrina and Rita. They need the money more than Iraq does. THAT'S the AMERICAN thing to do!

THE RUMINATOR

Turning a Deaf Ear -- Hughes Seems Clueless on a Listening Tour of Middle East

2005-10-02T17:47:00.000-07:00

Published on Sunday, October 2, 2005 by the New York Daily News

by Lenore Skenazy

Not only is it a small world, after all - most of it sounds like a bunch of Democrats.

That's what Karen Hughes may have discovered last week on her "listening tour" of the Middle East. (Apparently, no self-respecting female politician can go on a "lecture tour" anymore. Post-Hillary they're always "listening.")

Dispatched by President Bush to spread the good news about his policies, Hughes, the newly minted undersecretary of state for public diplomacy (i.e., flack) met with groups in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. All of these audiences listened politely to her message which was, basically, that the President knows what he's doing, had to do what he has done and is, in fact, making the world a better, safer place.

To which most of the attendees interviewed afterward replied (in their respective languages): Puh-lease!

Now, when Bush gets that kind of reaction here in America, his minions are quick to dismiss it as the product of raging liberals, left-wing media manipulators or some kind of MoveOn/Michael Moore cabal. But when this criticism arises unprompted, halfway around the world, it should give the administration pause.

What Hughes heard was not partisan politics. Howard Dean wasn't lurking in a burka. Most of the Middle Easterners Hughes met wouldn't know a Zogby Poll from an onion roll. They were simply telling it the way they see it. And that happens to be the way an increasing majority of Americans - not just Democrats - see it, too. To wit:

"They want to stop terrorism but they are helping it to spread," said an American University student to the Christian Science Monitor after Hughes' talk in Cairo.

"I am anti-war and anti-violence," a woman at the Women's Research Center at Ankara University told The Associated Press. "I am not anti-American."

An engineer in Cairo was quoted as saying that what upsets him is the "hypocrisy" of fighting for democracy in Iraq while maintaining strong ties to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

Fully 63% of Americans now believe Bush is making a mess of Iraq, a figure that was quoted in an Al Jazeera TV discussion of Hughes' tour. The panelists were debating whether her visit could change Middle Eastern opinion of the United States. But as one of the commentators noted sagely: Any shift would require a change in policy, not just a change in PR.

The other panelist - an Egyptian editor - insisted that America is just plain evil and nothing it can do will change his opinion.

There may be no way to change the mind of anyone like that. But Hughes could win over a lot of Middle Easterners - and a lot of Middle Westerners, too - if only she and her party stopped turning a deaf ear to the concerns voiced near and far.

When the whole world starts sounding like the Democrats, it would behoove the Republicans to listen.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Of COURSE Karen Hughes is clueless. EVERYONE in this abysmal, arrogant administration is COMPLETELY CLUELESS, and Karen Hughes is certainly no exception. After all, cluelessness is apparently a requirement for being a member of Bushy Boy's inner circle, don't ya know.

As Ms. Skenazy says, any shift in the Middle East's (and perhaps the world community in general's) opinion of the U.S. would require a change in policy, not just a change in PR. Our government SAYS one thing, but then DOES something COMPLETELY different. This administration is nothing but a bunch of lying hypocrites! No wonder we've lost friends and allies around the world right and left (no pun intended).

Yes, as Ms. Skenazy also writes that where U.S. Middle East policy is concerned, the whole world IS starting to sound like Democrats, and that "When the whole world starts sounding like the Democrats, it would behoove the Republicans to listen." It would, indeed. But, don't hold your breath waiting for THAT to happen!)

Global Warming Entirely To Blame?

2005-09-21T18:19:00.000-07:00

Look, I DO believe that global warming is a serious issue, but I'm getting tired of hearing the environmental extremists blaming global warming, to the seeming exclusion of any other criteria, for monstrously catastrophic, destructive hurricanes like Katrina, and, as of this writing, no doubt Rita, too. Global warming no doubt has something to do with it, but not nearly as much as some environmental extremists are claiming. We could very well be in one of those intense-weather cycles, and these monster hurricanes are just part of them, that's all.

Yes, global warming IS REAL, despite what this asinine administration believes, but by the same token, as I've said, patterns of intense weather are also cyclical. Global warming is a fairly recent phenomenon, and there were terrifically destructive storms to strike here in the U.S., and in other parts of the world as well, LONG before there was global warming. For example, the "Blizzard of (18)'88," the legendary "Hurricane of '38," the Galveston hurricane of 1900, to name just a few, all occurred years before there was any such thing as global warming.

To blame global warming pretty much exclusively is just plain ignorant and irresponsible.

THE RUMINATOR

Contributors To Global Warming? Hmmmm...

2005-09-21T17:48:00.000-07:00

Just an observation on my part, but I'm of the belief that it's the right-wing extremists who are major contributors to something they don't believe in, something they don't believe exists, namely, global warming. I mean, how can they NOT contribute to it, what with all the hot air they spew from their seemingly endless supply of hot air.

As I said, just an observation on my part.

THE RUMINATOR

The GOP Finds the Silver Lining in Death and Destruction

2005-09-17T09:21:00.000-07:00

Posted September 12, 2005 at 9:05 p.m. EDT

The GOP message machine has now moved into the latest stage of its Katrina response: gleeful opportunism.

First there was denial. The lowlights of this stage included Bush strumming his guitar, Condi taking in "Spamalot," and Cheney shopping for luxury digs -- all while New Orleans flooded.

This was followed by the clueless stage, which will be best remembered by the president telling Michael Brown, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of job!", his mothersaying of Katrina's victims, "This is working very well for them," Tom DeLay asking young evacuees in the Astrodome, "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?", and the president vowing to rebuild Trent Lott's house: "I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."

Next came head-ducking. Repeat after me: "This is not a time for finger pointing," "We are not going to play the blame game."

But after staggering through those stages, Republicans have regained their footing and are now hard at work finding the silver lining within all the death and destruction -- i.e. a chance to trot out their pet shibboleths and push for their pet projects.

"The question is," said Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, commenting on the now-abandoned plan to issue $2,000 debit cards to Katrina victims, "how do you separate the needy from those who just want a $2,000 handout?" Actually, Governor, the question is, among hundreds of thousands of evacuees are there any who are not really "needy" -- but somehow managed to have their lives destroyed so they could score a $2,000 handout?

Then there was Fox News' Tony Snow who crowed: "This would be a marvelous time to push in a serious way for school choice, dramatic regulatory reform...even more thoroughgoing tort reform, privatization of everything from the Department of Commerce to many FEMA duties, and so on."

David Sirota laid out a few of the top opportunities the GOP sees arising from Katrina, including the suspension of the 74-year-old Davis-Bacon Act requiring federal contractors to pay workers "prevailing wages," the chance to offer more giveaways (and fewer regulations) to oil companies, and -- proving that no issue is too tangential to link to Katrina -- the chance to try and get the president's derailed attempt to privatize Social Security back on track.

But wait, there's more. Pete Domenici is looking to ease environmental requirements on oil refineries, and George Allen wants to permanently repeal parts of the clean air act.

Two weeks in, Katrina has turned into an-all-you-can-eat right-wing-policy buffet.

And, as is so often the case with these tireless champions of crony capitalism, the main course at this opportunistic smorgasbord is "privatization." And the target du jour is FEMA. The subtext is that the Katrina debacle somehow proves that disaster relief is no business for the government and should be turned over to the Halliburtons of the world (after all, they've done such a great job supplying our troops and reconstructing Iraq, right?).

Of course, FEMA's Katrina failures have far less to do with some inherent big government bugaboos than with the way Bush and the partisan hacks he installed there turned a successful, widely-praised cabinet level agency (one that then-Gov. George Bush took time to praise in a debate with Al Gore in 2000) into a denuded and incompetently managed afterthought.

In truth, the piecemeal privatization of FEMA started soon after Bush took office -- and is one of the reasons it has stumbled so badly in Louisiana and Mississippi. Ezra Klein offered chapter and verse on this and on the chutzpah of the GOP attempt to use the Katrina fiasco to privatize FEMA: "The car broke because Bush slashed the tires and now his allies are trying to convince us that the real problem lies with the whole 'car' concept."

David Brooks spent his last Sunday column attempting to make this very case. Let me distill its essence for you: Government sucks! According to Brooks, "the Army Corps of Engineers had plenty of money" -- so the problem wasn't that Bush had slashed funding to fortify the levees, the problem was government. And according to Brooks, "there were ample troops nearby to maintain order" -- so the problem wasn't that nearly 40% of Louisiana and Mississippi's National Guard is deployed in Iraq, the problem was government. And the problem certainly wasn't that Bush had filled five of the eight top slots at FEMA with incompetent political cronies... the problem was (all together now!) government.

In fact, dear David, the fault lies not in the Platonic idea of government but in the crummy reality of our leaders.

© 2005 TheHuffingtonPost.com, LLC

(Editorial Note from "The Ruminator": Arianna, you hit the bull's-eye, unfortunately. Exploiting others' pain for political gain is, sadly, one of the MANY negative things this pathetic excuse of an administration does best -- along with arrogance, publicity stunts, photo ops, and last, but certainly not least, good ol'-fashioned cronyism. This administration doesn't LEAD, they just lord it over everyone. If this administration is anyone's idea of so-called "leadership," then I personally would MUCH rather be led by a Seeing-Eye dog. Now that's REAL leadership!)

Too Little, Too Late

2005-09-14T11:10:00.000-07:00

Oh, so NOW "Dubya" wants to take the blame for the Feds' horrendous post-Katrina response to the Gulf Coast, blame that he SHOULD have taken a couple of weeks ago! I mean, his approval ratings were in the toilet a couple of weeks ago, too, but, following the Katrina debacle, fiasco, whatever you choose to call it, they've fallen even further, so NOW he wants to take the belated blame in the pathetic hope that his poll numbers will take at least a bit of a bounce. It's just King George the Clueless's pathetic attempt to score some Brownie (no pun intended) points.

C'mon, Georgie Boy! Your approval ratings are in the toilet! Anyone with a brain and who actually USES it knows that that's the ONLY reason why you're all of a sudden taking the "mea culpa" route. Well, sorry, Georgie, it's way too little, way too late for that! Being a rancher yourself, you should be well aware of that old adage about there's no point in locking the barn doors AFTER the horse has been stolen. The damage has been done and you can't unring the bell (to use yet another old adage).

THE RUMINATOR

If You've Got the Money, Honey, They've Got the Time

2005-09-12T07:12:00.000-07:00

Despite what some black leaders would like us to believe, that the federal government's abysmal post-Katrina response in the Gulf Coast was racially motivated, I personally believe that it was more of a case of haves vs. have nots than it was racial. It's just a coincidence that the majority of the poor in the Gulf Coast area also happen to be black. There were also many poor white folks down there who were also ignored by the Feds. Thank God for the U.S. Coast Guard, the private relief agencies like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, and the outpouring of caring, generous assistance from ordinary fellow Americans. If Katrina's victims had to rely solely on governmental aid, they would certainly be in even worse shape than they are already in, and, in the U.S.A., that would be totally unacceptable.

This administration is eager to help only its own, those who don't need the help, namely the rich, and, as far as they're concerned, the poor and the middle class can go take a flying leap. To paraphrase an old Willie Nelson song, if you've got the money, honey, they've got the time.

THE RUMINATOR

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Government

2005-09-02T07:41:00.000-07:00

OK, let me get this straight. Our government just approved a measly $10.5 billion to help OUR OWN PEOPLE devastated by Hurricane Katrina, yet this same government had NO PROBLEM OK-ing $80 billion -- EIGHT TIMES THAT AMOUNT -- for that misbegotten display of American arrogance over in Iraq! Talk about screwed up, misplaced priorities! It's totally appalling, SICKENING, to say the least! This administration is so totally clueless about what's REALLY important.

THE RUMINATOR

From "Dubya"'s Lying Lips

2005-08-28T07:37:00.000-07:00

The quote below was taken from a newspaper story about a recent anti-war demonstration in Salt Lake City. The quote is from Senator Orrin Hatch, and it's in reference to Bushy Boy's reaction to the anti-war demonstrators:

"'[Bush] got a chuckle. He said 'Look, look at all the middle fingers.' Frankly, we ought to show respect to the office and the person regardless of what party they come from.'"

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": That statment, coming from the lying, mealy mouth of Bushy Boy is so maddeningly pathetic. He is a total EMBARRASSMENT and DISGRACE to the office of President of the United States. Respect must be EARNED, and, while he's done PLENTY to earn CONTEMPT, he's done absolutely NOTHING to earn RESPECT.)

Cindy's Mission

2005-08-15T18:56:00.000-07:00

In the past few days, we've been hearing much in the news about Cindy Sheehan, the mother who lost her son in Iraq and who has now been camping outside the gates of the Texas "White House" in Crawford in an attempt to gain an "audience" with "Dubya." She's met with him before, but she is requesting another meeting in an attempt to get some questions answered.

While I wholeheartedly support Cindy and her mission, I have no idea why she would want yet another meeting with Bush. After all, even if he should deign to meet with her again, he's only going to feed her another pack of lies, just as he's been feeding the entire country since Day One, so why does she believe that she's going to get anything remotely resembling honesty from the likes of "Dubya"? Bush wouldn't know truth if it bit him on the nose. Personally, I don't trust ANYTHING that comes out of that duplicitous, lying, mealy mouth of his.

I'm in your corner, Cindy, but Bushy Boy certainly isn't.

THE RUMINATOR

The Right-Wing Extremists' Proposal To Strip Us of Even MORE of Our Rights

2005-06-25T17:45:00.000-07:00

First, there was, and is, the so-called "Patriot Act," although so far, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been any flagrant, overt abuses of that particular mandate.

Now, though, the right-wing crazies want to decimate the First Amendment by adding another amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit flag burning as a legitimate method of protest. How ridiculous can you get, for heaven's sake!?!? Flag burning is a form of non-verbal speech, and as such, it must maintain its First Amendment protection. Burning the flag doesn't change the principles that that flag stands for. Just because the right-wingers don't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected. Personally, I think there should be an amendment to abolish guns, but the right-wingers wouldn't hear of that because according to the gun nuts, that would violate their precious Second Amendment. I happen to believe that the First Amendment is much more important than the Second, but they are both part of our Constitution. Why is it that the conservatives always feel compelled to try and shove their narrow-minded views and beliefs down everyone else's throats? We shouldn't be going around arbitrarily amending the Constitution just because some radical groups of extremists don't like something that's in it. The purpose of Constitutional amendments is to broaden, not lessen, the scope of our liberties as American citizens.

No, this flag-burning amendment thing is just another lame effort by the right-wing radicals to turn a non-issue into an issue in yet another of their pathetic attempts to divert our collective attention away from the country's REAL issues: the immoral war in Iraq and its ever-increasing death toll, health care, unemployment, etc., problems for which they have no realistic, sensible solutions.

THE RUMINATOR

Destroying PBS

2005-06-19T00:24:00.000-07:00

Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by Working for Change

Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting bias
by Molly Ivins

I was watching the PBS science program "Nova" the other night and spotted the liberal bias right away. I knew it would be there because Ken Tomlinson, the Bush-appointed chairman of the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), says the network is riddled with leftist leanings. Sure enough, in a program on tsunamis and what causes them, the show blamed it on shifting tectonic plates in the earth's surface. Then the graphic shows these two tectonic plates grinding against each other -- suddenly, the one on the left sort of falls down, and the big, aggressive plate on the right jumps on top of it, causing a killer tsunami. See? Wouldn't have happened on Fox.
I have listened patiently to years of right-wing bull about liberal bias in the media, but let us be perfectly clear about what is happening at PBS. Big Bird is not in favor of affirmative action. Bert and Ernie are not gay. Miss Piggy is not a feminist. "The Three Tenors," "Antiques Roadshow," "Masterpiece Theater," "Wall Street Week" and nature programs do not have a political agenda. "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" is biased in favor of boring, old, white guys who appear on painfully well-balanced panels. "Washington Week in Review" is a showcase for "Inside the Beltway," conventional wisdom, power-parroting, political-geekhead, Establishment journalism -- there is nothing liberal about it.

But there is a plot to politicize public broadcasting. It is plain as a pikestaff, and it is coming from the Right. It is obvious, undeniable and happening right now. The Bush administration is introducing a political agenda to public broadcasting. They are using the lame pretext that PBS is somehow liberal to justify it into a propaganda organ for the government. That is precisely what the board of CPB was set up to prevent 40 years ago; it is there to be a firewall between public broadcasting and political pressure. Ken Tomlinson is a disgrace to the purpose of that board, he has a political agenda and is engaging in a raw display of ideological bullying. The right-wingers in the House of Representatives are backing his power play with a threat to cut off funding for PBS entirely.

Tomlinson's claim of liberal bias at PBS is based on the program "NOW with Bill Moyers," even though Moyers' program frequently featured guests on the Right. Moyers is now retired, and the show has been cut to half an hour. Tomlinson "balanced" it with a weekly program by the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, who don't even bother to pretend to be objective: They are right-wing beyond argument. Tomlinson actually spent $10,000 of the taxpayers' money to pay some consultant to find bias in Moyers' program but has never released the results of that "study."

Tomlinson, himself a former head of Voice of America in the Reagan administration and a retired editor Reader's Digest, has been an active right-winger since I first met him in 1974. He is also the Bush-appointed chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other official arms of the government's propaganda machine. He is a Bush information apparatchik. It is quite clear he believes PBS and NPR should also function as cheerleaders for the government.

His choice for president of the CPB is Patricia Harrison, who is such a Republican activist she was elected co-chair of the Republican National Committee, where she was particularly noted for attacking Hillary Clinton. This is beyond open partisanship. Harrison is currently at State, where she oversees that department's propaganda arm, including the production "news segments" openly intended to support Bush administration policy. She has testified before Congress about the value of such "news segments" in swaying public opinion.

When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one?

I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack the gift of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time imagining themselves as people on welfare or as blacks in East Texas -- that's quite a stretch even for white bleeding hearts like me. What I don't get is their inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?

Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to challenge them? Is that too much to ask?

The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.

(Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?)
© 2005 Creator's Syndicate

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": So, now we know where Communism went when it was taken out of the U.S.S.R. and East Germany, it came over to the good ol' U.S. of A. in the form of the George W. Bush administration.)

House Votes to Curb Patriot Act, Defies Bush

2005-06-17T14:48:00.000-07:00

Published on Thursday, June 16, 2005 by Reuters

WASHINGTON - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday defied President Bush by approving a measure making it harder for federal agents to secretly gather information on people's library reading habits and bookstore purchases.

The House voted 238-187 to scale back the government's powers to conduct secret investigations that were authorized by the Patriot Act, a post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism law.

"We can fight terrorism without undermining basic constitutional rights. That's what the message of today is about," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who pushed the measure through the House with the support of 38 Republicans.

The White House has warned Congress that any weakening of the Patriot Act would prompt senior advisers to recommend that Bush veto the $57.5 billion bill to fund activities next year for the Justice Department and other federal agencies, which now contains Sanders' amendment.

The Senate has not yet debated its version of the bill.

Under the Patriot Act, federal law enforcement authorities can get permission from a special court to investigate what books people buy at bookstores or borrow from libraries, even if they are not suspected of committing any crime.

If the House measure becomes law, which is still a long way off, authorities would have to revert to the more traditional method of convincing federal grand juries of likely criminal activities before starting such investigations.

Civil libertarians said there was no evidence the government had ever used this security provision. But they argued the law presents potential threats to privacy and was unnecessary.

SAVE HAVENS FOR TERRORISTS

Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, in a letter to Congress dated on Tuesday, said the law has been used to obtain records of driver's licenses, apartment leases and credit cards, and that the administration has used it "judiciously and responsibly."

Bookstores and libraries, Moschella wrote, "should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators."

Last year the House defeated a similar proposal offered by Sanders. This year's version deleted references to material read on the Internet and would also maintain federal agents' ability to more easily scrutinize business records that could point to suspicious activities.

"The simple truth is that the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because she wrote a letter to the editor critical of a governmental policy," Sanders said.

"Parents want to know that just because their kid is researching the life of Osama bin Laden, or studying terrorism, that that fact should not place the student on a government list or make anyone think that he/she is sympathetic to terrorism," he said.

Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, argued the current law could help federal law enforcement pick up the trail of someone plotting a chemical, biological, nuclear or conventional attack on the United States.

"You all seem to want to wait until the crime is committed and then you can use your criminal law to get at it. We want to detect and prevent it," Shays said.

© Copyright 2005 Reuters Ltd

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Hooray!!, hooray!! It's nice to see that Bushy Boy and his right-wing extremist brethren don't ALWAYS get what THEY want. It's good that every now and then those on Capitol Hill who not only HAVE brains but actually USE the brains they were born with get THEIR way, too.)

Bush, Cheney Attack Amnesty International

2005-06-03T11:30:00.000-07:00

Published on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 by the Inter Press Service

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Stung by Amnesty International's condemnation of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and elsewhere overseas, the administration of President George W. Bush is reacting with indignation and even suggestions that terrorists are using the world's largest human rights organization.

The latest denunciation came from Bush himself during a White House press conference Tuesday. ''I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world,'' he said, adding that Washington had ''investigated every single complaint against (sic) the detainees.''

''It seemed like (Amnesty) based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people had been trained in some instances to disassemble (sic) -- that means not tell the truth'', Bush went on. ''And so it was an absurd report. It just is''.

At issue is an Amnesty report released last Thursday that assailed U.S. detention practices. Since its release, a succession of top administration officials and their right-wing backers in the major media has denounced the London-based group in what appears increasingly like an orchestrated effort to discredit independent human rights critics. A similar campaign appeared to target Newsweek magazine earlier this month.

''It looks like a campaign,'' Human Rights Watch advocacy chief Reed Brody said Tuesday. ''There's been a real drumbeat since Amnesty published the report. It seems like there's an attempt to silence critics.''

Bush's reaction Tuesday largely mirrored that of Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview...(and) broadcast...(on) CNN.

''For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously,'' the vice president said in response to Amnesty's report.

''Frankly, I was offended by it. I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world.''

As to allegations of mistreatment of detainees, Cheney argued that ''if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who has been inside and been released to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated.''

Other senior officials have also weighed in. Like Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the Amnesty report ''absurd,'' while the military Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, said it was ''absolutely irresponsible'' and insisted that the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was a ''model facility'' where prisoners have been treated ''humanely.''

Amnesty's Secretary General, Irene Khan, made the specific allegation against which the administration has unleashed its fury.

She referred to the overseas network of U.S. detention facilities established by Washington in Iraq and elsewhere as part of what it calls its ''global war on terror,'' as ''the gulag of our times,'' a reference to the system of prison and labor camps run during the Stalinist period of the former Soviet Union.

While the Washington Post, normally a defender of independent human rights groups, objected to her characterization as counter-productive, the Wall Street Journal's neo-conservative editorial staff jumped on it as ''one more sign of the moral degradation of Amnesty International.''

The Journal, which often reflects the views of influential hard-line policymakers like Cheney, called Amnesty a ''highly politicized pressure group'' whose latest accusations ''amount to pro-al Qaeda propaganda.''

Anticipating the vice president's CNN's remarks, the Journal, which also has campaigned against the International Committee of the Red Cross for criticizing Washington's treatment of detainees, added that ''a 'human rights' group that can't distinguish between Stalin's death camps and detention centers for terrorists who kill civilians can't be taken seriously.''

David Rivkin and Lee Casey, two lawyers who often reflect the views of other members of the right-wing nationalist Federalist Society who hold senior legal positions in the administration, soon joined the Journal.

In an article published by the National Review Online entitled 'Amnesty Unbelievable,' the two men charged that the organization's critical report ''says much more about the nature of Amnesty International -- and the agenda of similar left-wing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- than it does about the human-rights record of the United States.''

Like the Journal, Casey and Rivkin said they were incensed at the suggestion by the head of Amnesty's U.S. section, William Schulz, that Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials who had a role in authorizing abusive interrogation practices should be prosecuted in foreign jurisdictions for violations of the Geneva and torture conventions committed against detainees if the administration continued to reject calls by human rights and lawyers' groups for an independent investigation.

In their view, Amnesty, ''is trapped in a 20th-century mindset where the greatest threat to individual life and liberty stemmed from the actions of sovereign governments. That is simply no longer the case.'' NGOs, they added, ''simply do not consider that the defense of the American population, and the vindication of each individual's right to live without the threat or actuality of terrorist attack, is their problem -- and it is time they did.''

Amnesty, however, has stood its ground. ''At Guantanamo, the U.S. has operated an isolated prison camp in which people are confined arbitrarily, held virtually incommunicado, without charge, trial or access to due process. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has had the legality of their detention reviewed by a court,'' despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that provided grounds to do so.

''Guantanamo is only the visible part of the story. Evidence continues to mount that the U.S. operates a network of detention centers where people are held in secret or outside any proper legal framework -- from Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond,'' it added, noting that Bush had failed to respond to these ''longstanding concerns.''

''It is also worth noting,'' stressed Schulz, ''that ...this administration never finds it 'absurd' when we criticize Cuba or China, or when we condemned the violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.''
Bush's and Cheney's insistence that the detainees themselves concocted the reported abuses also drew criticism.

''You really don't have to look further than the Pentagon's own reports,'' said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. ''There's ample substantiation of serious abuses,'' she said, adding that the administration's ''ostrich approach'' was ''dangerous. The problems are there, and they're going to continue to pose a risk to U.S. lives and policy until they're dealt with.''

HRW's Brody echoed that view. ''What is sad is that this effort at damage control may work in the U.S.,'' he said, ''but unless the administration addresses the real issues of concern -- torture, rendition, disappearances, systematic humiliation of Muslim prisoners -- then the U.S. image in the world will continue to erode.''

© Copyright 2005 IPS - Inter Press Service

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": How sad -- not to mention frightening -- it is that this country is being run by egomaniacal, megalomaniacal, self-righteous, lying, totally clueless, amoral, right-wing extremist hypocrites and their sycophantic minions.)

Voters Dissatisfied with Bush, Congress

2005-05-19T18:36:00.000-07:00

Published on Thursday, May 19, 2005 by MSNBC

NBC/WSJ Poll Reveals 'Angry Electorate'

by Mark Murray

WASHINGTON -- As the Senate marches closer toward a nuclear showdown over President Bush’s judicial nominees, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the American public is dissatisfied — with Congress and its priorities, with Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security and with the nation’s economy and general direction. Moreover, a majority believes that the Senate should make its own decision about the president’s judicial nominees, rather than just generally confirming them.

And while all of this might suggest bad news for Republicans, since the political party in charge often gets blamed when things aren’t going well, the survey also indicates that the public isn’t quite embracing the Democrats either. “It is just a sense of unhappiness with where we’re at,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

Perhaps the most revealing finding in the poll is the attitude toward Congress. Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress’ job. That’s down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January.

“The public is exceptionally displeased with the Congress,” Hart said. “It is [its] lowest set of numbers since May of 1994,” the year when congressional Republicans defeated their Democratic counterparts in the midterm elections to take control of both the House and Senate. According to this poll, by 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections.

Congress has wrong priorities

McInturff, the GOP pollster, points out that Americans are upset with Congress focusing on the battle over judges, Social Security, trying to restore Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube and the ethical troubles surrounding their members, including Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, instead of focusing on the economy, gas prices and health care.

“There are some core day-to-day issues that they don’t see being addressed,” he said. “The people want us to head in a different direction and hear different things.”

Still, McInturff argues, it’s much too early to predict that the Democrats will overtake the Republicans in the 2006 elections. “There is a difference between dissatisfaction and being a viable [replacement]. And we have a long way to go to 2006,” he said.

The survey, which polled 1,005 adults from May 12-16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, also has some troubling findings for President Bush. Just 20 percent of those polled say the economy has gotten better over the past 12 months, an 11- point decline since January; 51 percent believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the cost and casualties of that war; and only 36 percent support Bush’s plan to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market.

Most don't support blanket approval for judges

That Social Security figure, which is virtually unchanged from April, is significant because it suggests that Bush hasn’t moved the country any closer to supporting private accounts despite his months-long campaign for them.

Regarding the contentious debate over Bush’s judicial nominees, just 34 percent say the Senate should generally confirm the president’s judicial picks as long as they are honest and competent, while 56 percent argue that the Senate should make its own decision about the fitness of each nominee to serve.

Overall, according to the NBC/Journal poll, 52 percent believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, while 35 percent think it’s on the right track.

All of these findings, Hart says, are signs of an angry electorate. “If you are a member of Congress and you got the poll back, you better be looking over your shoulder,” he said. “The masses are not happy.”

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": I've always known that if Bushy Boy got the White House that it would be disastrous. Unfortunately, he has FAR exceeded my expectations in the "disastrous" department.)

Don't Blame Newsweek

2005-05-19T09:46:00.000-07:00

Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 by Working for Change

Despite sloppiness, Newsweek didn't fabricate Koran story

by Molly Ivins

As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.
Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is this Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak up, speak out."

The reports kept coming: Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ..." said the released prisoner.

On Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.

"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.

"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.

"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."

The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."

So where does all this leave us? With a story that is not only true, but previously reported numerous times. So let's drop the "Lynch Newsweek" bull. Seventeen people have died in these riots. They didn't die because of anything Newsweek did -- the riots were caused by what our government has done.

Get your minds around it. Our country is guilty of torture. To quote myself once more: "What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own this country, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elected to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them."

© 2005 Working for Change

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": "...The people we elected to public office do what you want them to...". Sorry, Molly, but I feel you're being a bit too much of an idealist. I like you, I really do, but I've become more cynical over the years than you apparently have. Yes, I, too, used to believe that the people we elect to public office do what we want them to, but experience has taught me otherwise. The people we elect to public office SAY they will do what we want them to do in order to get elected, but, once they're in, then they do what the SPECIAL INTERESTS want them to do. It's just a sad fact of American political life.)

Spring's Start Coming Earlier, Study Blames Global Warming

2005-05-19T09:22:00.000-07:00

Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 by Knight Ridder

by Seth Borenstein

WASHINGTON -- Each spring, the robins are arriving in Wisconsin several days earlier than they did a decade ago. Endangered woodpeckers in North Carolina are laying their eggs about a week earlier than they did 20 years ago. And some of Washington, D.C.'s signature cherry trees bloom about a month earlier than they did a half-century ago.

Europe's spring moved ahead 15 days, while North America's has advanced six days, on average. But areas north of 45 degrees north latitude - from Maine to Washington state - saw spring species arriving more than 13 days earlier.

The first signs of spring are appearing earlier in the year, and a new study from Stanford University released Monday says man-made global warming is clearly to blame.

Mother Nature has rushed spring forward by nearly 10 days worldwide, on average, in just 30 years, the study shows.

What this means, biologists say, is that the global environment is changing so fast that the slow evolutionary process of species adaptation can't keep up. Early-arriving birds could crowd out birds that migrate only in longer daylight, leaving them insufficient food. Early blossoming flowers - such as the columbine - could be wiped out by spring snowstorms.

"What we're really concerned about is this tearing apart of communities; some species are going to be changing, and some are not," said study co-author Terry Root, an ecologist at Stanford's Center for Environmental Science and Policy.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, statistically links global warming from the burning of fossil fuels to signs of early spring at detailed local levels for the first time.

Stanford scientists examined 41 giant grids - each about 150 miles wide by 150 miles long - and looked at 130 species of birds, animals, trees and other plants that showed significant changes in springtime activity. On a global average, signs of spring appear 9.6 days earlier than they did 30 years ago.

Europe's spring moved ahead 15 days, while North America's has advanced six days, on average. But areas north of 45 degrees north latitude - from Maine to Washington state - saw spring species arriving more than 13 days earlier.

This has all happened while average global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years. The consensus of mainstream climate scientists is that temperatures will rise another 4 to 10 degrees over the next century, Root said.

Duke University ecologist Norman Christensen, who didn't work on the study, said the Stanford research seems to show what biologists see when they go into the woods and swamps.

"For a lot of us who work in the field a lot, there's sort of an anecdotal sense that this (start of spring) has changed considerably," Christensen said. "In the 30 years that I've been looking at forests in the Southeast, spring tends to come a little earlier."

Root and Stanford colleague Stephen Schneider used the top global-climate computer model to look at local temperature changes as well as animal and plant changes.

Using a variety of statistical formulas, they mathematically attributed 50 percent of the species changes to man-made global warming. Another 5 percent were due to natural climate warming stemming from volcanoes and increased solar activity.

Schneider said the localized nature of the study, as well as the mathematical correlations, should help answer questions from the minority of scientific dissenters who don't see global warming as man-made or a problem. Those dissenters say temperature figures on the ground and city heat distort measurements of global warming, while satellite data don't show significant heating.

"This jumps over the whole argument of flaws of instrumental records," Schneider said. "The plants and animals seem to think there's warming. That can't be an accident."

© 2005 KR Washington Bureau and wire service sources

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": This article is a total CROCK. Spring isn't coming any earlier than in the past, as a matter of fact, in some places, such as here in New England, where I live, we've had no spring AT ALL this year. It's been VERY cool and very wet. Also, as far as robins are concerned, I've been seeing robins all winter long for a number of years now. The TRUE feathered harbinger of spring is the red-winged blackbird.)

How Long Can Bush Spin Big Lies into Truth on Iraq War?

2005-05-07T08:31:00.000-07:00

Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by the Chicago Sun Times

by Andrew Greeley

As the criminal, sinful war in Iraq enters its third year, the president is in Europe to heal the wounds between the United States and its former allies, on his own terms, of course. The White House propaganda mill hails it as another victory for the president and ignores the fact that most Europeans still consider the war dangerous folly and the president a dangerous fool.
One hears new rationalizations for the war on this side of the Atlantic. After the hearings on Secretary Rice, a Republican senator, with all the self-righteous anger that characterizes many such, proclaimed, "The Democrats just have to understand that the president really believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

This justification is not unlike the one heard frequently at the White House, "The president believed the intelligence agencies of the world."

Would it not be much better to have a president who deliberately lied to the people because he thought a war was essential than to have one who was so dumb as to be taken in by intelligence agencies, especially those who told him what he wanted to hear?

It is also asserted that the election settled the matters of the war and the torture of prisoners. These are dead issues that no longer need be addressed.

But the president received only 51 percent of the vote and carried only one more state than the last time (picking up New Mexico and Iowa and losing New Hampshire). This is a validation of the war and of prisoner abuse? This is a mandate to do whatever he wants to do and whatever the leadership of the evangelical denominations want? A percentage point and a single state are a mandate for more war? Never before in American political history!

Finally, we are told that the Iraqi election confirms the Bush administration policy in Iraq. The president's supporters must be in deep trouble to reach so far for that one. All the election proves is that the Iraqis want to run their own country. It also raises the possibility that Shia clerics will deliver Iraq into the hands of the Iranians. Some kind of victory!

How do these kinds of arguments play in the precincts? The survey data suggest that war has become more unpopular. The majority of the American people now think it was a mistake, in a shift away from the 51 percent that endorsed it on Election Day. Admittedly this is only a small change in the population, from a majority to a minority. Nor do the changers earn grace for their new opinions. They still endorsed the war on Election Day and are still responsible for it.

How long can the administration get along with its policies of spinning big lies into truth -- as it has more recently done on Social Security?

Note the three most important Cabinet positions. Rice said that it was better to find the weapons of mass destruction than to see a mushroom cloud.

"Judge" Gonzales said the Geneva Convention was "quaint" and in effect legitimated the de facto policy of torture.

Rumsfeld repealed the "Powell Doctrine" -- only go to war when you have the massive force necessary to win decisively and quickly. Brilliant businessman that he is (like Robert McNamara of the Vietnam era), he thought he could win with 130,000 troops (unlike the at least 200,000 that the Army chief of staff insisted) and hence made the current "insurgency" inevitable.

The presence of these three towering giants in the administration certainly confirms that the president is confident that he is "right" on Iraq and that he has mandates from the American people and from God which confirm that he is "right."

Nothing, in other words, has changed in the last two years. The war is still the "right thing to do," it is still part of the "war against terrorism," it is still essential to keep Arabs from blowing up our skyscrapers.

You can still get away with the "big lie" as long as Karl Rove and his team of spinners keep providing persuasive rationalizations. The American public is still supine, uneasy about the war, but not willing yet to turn decisively against it. Will that still be the case next year when we "celebrate" the third anniversary of the war? Is the patience of the American people that long-suffering? Is there no outrage left in the country? How many people have to die before the public realizes that American foreign policy is a tissue of lies?

© 2005 Sun-Times Co.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": How long can Bush spin big lies into truth on Iraq war? As long as he's allowed to get away with it, that's how long, and that's no doubt for the remainder of his disastrous, dangerous, frightening term in office. Thank goodness he's not eligible to run for re-election! That's the only saving grace in this debacle, this fiasco of an administration.)

New Rule to Open National Forest to Roads

2005-05-06T08:38:00.000-07:00

Published on Thursday, May 5, 2005 by the Associated Press

New Federal Rules Will Open Up to 58.5 Million Acres of National Forestland to Road Building

by John Heilprin

The Bush administration, in one of its biggest decisions on environmental issues, moved Thursday to open up nearly a third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures.

The 58.5 million acres involved, mainly in Alaska and in western states, had been put off limits to development by former President Clinton, eight days before he left office in January 2001.

Under existing local forest management plans, some 34.3 million acres of these pristine woodlands could be opened to road construction. That would be the first step in allowing logging, mining and other industry and wider recreational uses of the land. Under proposed rules, new management plans have to be written for the other 24.2 million acres before road building can commence.

Governors have 18 months to submit petitions to the U.S. Forest Service, challenging either the old plan to stop development, or calling for new plans to allow it.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in announcing the rule that his agency "is committed to working closely with the nation's governors to meet the needs of our local communities while protecting and restoring the health and natural beauty of our national forests."

The Agriculture Department, which includes the Forest Service, said governors can base their petitions on requests to protect public health and safety; reduce wildfire risks to communities; conserve wildlife habitat; maintain dams, utilities or other infrastructure; or ensure that citizens have access to private property.

The Forest Service, which will review and have final say over the petitions, calls the new process voluntary and is setting up a national advisory committee on the rule. "If a governor does not want to propose changes ... then no petition need be submitted," the agency says in briefing documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Roadless areas in national forests stretch among 38 states and Puerto Rico. But 97 percent, or 56.6 million acres, are found in 12 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Environmentalists say the new rule also would let the administration rewrite the forest management plans to lift restrictions against development on most of that forest land.

"Yesterday, nearly 60 million acres of national forests were protected and today as a result of deliberate action by the administration they are not," said Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, run by a coalition of environment groups. "The Bush administration plan is a 'leave no tree behind' policy that paves the way for increased logging, drilling and mining in some of our last wild areas."

The Clinton-era rule has been much debated in federal court.

A federal court in Idaho had issued a preliminary injunction against the roadless rule in 2001, but the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned the injunction based on an appeal by environmental groups.

Then in 2003, a federal court in Wyoming overturned the rule. Many of those same groups appeals to the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which heard arguments Wednesday.

The Forest Service believes its new rule "helps us to move forward with a policy that is not clouded by legal uncertainty, as was the case with the 2001 rule," says a current agency document entitled "National Key Messages & Talking Points."

Jim Angell, an attorney with Earthjustice law firm in Denver, who argued the case, called that just an excuse for pushing through a new rule that represents "a huge step back for the protection of our most pristine lands."

"Really, this is an effort to rush this rule through before the 10th Circuit can reverse that Wyoming judge, just like the 9th Circuit did before," he said. "It's incredibly cynical of them to use that judge's ruling as an excuse."

© 2005 The Associated Press

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": This administration's environmental policies are scarier than a "Friday the 13th"/"Nightmare on Elm Street" film festival.)

The Cruelest Cuts

2005-05-04T08:21:00.000-07:00

May 2, 2005

As Congress haggles over food stamp cuts, soup kitchens fear longer lines
By Mark Winne

The line for food starts forming at 7:30 each morning. Mostly women, many small children and some single men are shaking off daybreak’s chill hoping to be one of the first 100 people let into the Storehouse, New Mexico’s largest emergency food pantry. It isn’t that this free food distribution center, located just off Albuquerque’s historic Route 66, is stingy; it’s just that the Storehouse has enough donated food to feed only 100 families per day.

“In 1999, we served the equivalent of 200,000 meals each year,” says Lee Maynard, the Storehouse’s executive director. “Right now, we’re serving 1.4 million meals per year, 45 percent more than last year. Things are getting worse.” And if the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives has its way with essential safety net services like the food stamp program, things will be getting much worse for Maynard and thousands of his counterparts at emergency food sites across the nation.

To comply with President Bush’s budget proposal, which includes tax cuts for the wealthy and more money for the Iraq war, both houses of Congress issued separate budget resolutions that prescribe how much money each of its committees must cut. Where those cuts will come from is up to the respective committees. For instance, the House and Senate agriculture committees oversee tens of billions of dollars in expenditures for programs like conservation, food stamps and crop subsidies for commodities like corn, wheat and cotton. According to their respective resolutions, the Senate Agriculture Committee is required to cut $2.8 billion over five years from these programs while the more aggressive House must chop $5.3 billion. Whatever differences emerge between the two committee’s budgets—and there will be differences—will be resolved by a House and Senate conference committee.

So where will the cuts come from? The president’s budget showed uncommon courage by proposing a much-needed limitation on crop subsidies, considered sacrosanct by American agriculture’s commodity producers. Republican congressional leaders don’t appear to be so bold. Rather than face the ire of the likes of the American Corn Growers Association, House and Senate leaders may find it easier to meet their budgetary reduction quota by cutting food stamps, a program whose recipients don’t have access to the well-heeled lobbyists of “Big Ag.”

Bush did propose a $600 million cut in the food stamp program over five years. While not a kingly sum by Washington standards, it’s still enough to eliminate 300,000 lower-income Americans from the nation’s most important nutrition program. But Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, may not be content with making only 300,000 people hungrier. Both chairmen have made statements to the press indicating that a disproportionate amount of agriculture program cuts will come from food stamps, especially if a conference committee favors the House’s higher budget resolution figure.

The impact of such cuts on lower-income families would be enormous. Created by executive order in the early days of the Kennedy administration, the Food Stamp Program is far and away the nation’s most important safety net. For millions of households, food stamp benefits—now encoded on an electronic card that can only be used to purchase food at retail food outlets—are literally the only thing that stands between them and hunger. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of people who receive food stamps now stands at 25.5 million—2 million more than just a year ago. Are these freeloading welfare cheats? To the contrary, about half of all food stamp recipients are children and about two million are elderly. The average food stamp benefit equals $1 per meal per food stamp recipient. Hardly enough for that filet mignon food stamp shoppers are so often accused of purchasing.

At the same time that Congress is looking for ways to cut benefits for the most needy, the Senate wants to provide $129 billion in tax cuts over the next five years to households making more than six figures (the House tax cut target is a miserly $106 billion). To put these tax cuts in perspective: According to the Center for Budget Policy Priorities, if the full $5.3 billion in program cuts recommended by the House came out of the Food Stamp Program, this reduction would equal half the benefits that households with incomes over $1 million would receive by extending the current capital gains and dividend cuts through 2010.

The cuts would also unreasonably increase demands on private charity. “If people lose food stamps, the first place they’ll show up is emergency food programs, which are already overburdened,” says Gina Cornia, executive director of Utahns Against Hunger. Utah, which would lose $26 million in food stamp benefits over five years if the full House cut goes through, is ranked by the USDA as having the fifth highest rate of hunger and food insecurity in the country. Like other food banks around the country, Utah’s rely primarily on donations of food to serve needy families. In fact, Utah’s emergency food system spent only $106,000 in cash to buy food for its warehouses in 2004. But food donations have been flat for some time now, says Cornia, who simply can’t imagine how food banks would provide an additional $26 million worth of food to people who formerly relied on food stamps.

Two thousand miles away on Ninth Avenue in New York City, more than 1,100 hungry people line up every day at the Church of the Holy Apostles, one of the largest of the 1,300 soup kitchens and food pantries serving New Yorkers. Echoing the alarm sounded by his Western counterparts, the soup kitchen’s director, the Rev. Bill Greenlaw, recently told the New York Times, “It’s a desperate thing. Every level of government seems to have the same mantra, that these programs are vulnerable.”

The president wants budget cuts, tax cuts and more money for the military. Republican congressional leaders will follow their president. The Senate may try to minimize the pain inflicted on the poor with severe but less drastic cuts on food stamps, while the House, led by Rep. Goodlatte, appears more interested in protecting crops subsidies than worrying about the hungry. In the meantime, Maynard, Cornia, Greenlaw and thousands of other emergency food program operators and anti-hunger advocates see nothing but longer lines and more pain.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": The above report describes such an outright obscenity that I don't know how to begin to describe it. This administration's priorities are frighteningly screwed up and un-American. This is the kind of stuff that happens in third-world countries that are run by ruthless dictators; they're not supposed to be happening in the "good ol'" U.S. of A.!)

Only an Outside Counsel Can Investigate DeLay

2005-05-04T08:06:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON -- May 2 -- Last week we celebrated the decision by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) to reverse the ethics rules changes that gutted the way the House monitors and enforces its ethics system. But as we've said all along, rolling back those rules is only an important first step toward broader reform.

One of those reforms must include the appointment of an outside counsel to investigate ethics complaints involving congressional leaders, like Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).

DeLay wields complete influence and control over members of his party. He determines who gets coveted committee appointments and whose bills are passed. He doles out favors and dollars at election time from his political action committees and has proven he will do just about anything to get a colleague to vote his way. What's more, four of the five Republican members of the Ethics Committee have taken money from DeLay's political action committee, and two have donated to his legal defense fund. How can they sit in judgement of him?

They can't. That's why we need an outside counsel who operates outside the sphere of DeLay's influence to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation without fear of retaliation. Nothing less will be credible.

Join us in demanding that Congress appoint an outside counsel to investigate DeLay, as it did in the cases of former House speakers James Wright (D-TX) and Newt Gingrich (R-GA). Please sign our petition calling for the appointment of an outside counsel in the case of DeLay. A message that you signed the petition will automatically be sent to your Representative.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Yes, only an outside counsel can investigate DeLay, and you can bet the proverbial ranch that if DeLay were a Democrat, the Republicans would have had said outside counsel investigating him a LONG time ago.)

Iraq Occupation has Failed; Time to Bring Troops Home

2005-04-30T11:24:00.000-07:00

Published on Thursday, April 28, 2005 by the Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)

by Ed Garvey

It was the last question at the first "Lincoln-La Follette" Democratic dinner in Amery, Wis. (I know what you are thinking. Hey, Abe and "Fighting Bob" were Republicans. The answer from Amery was, "True, but today they would be Democrats, so we are adopting them.") The woman asked, "Why is no one outraged by this war?"

I asked for a show of hands: "How many of you want to bring the troops home now?" Every hand went skyward but her question hung over the audience.

Where is the voice of the Democrats in Washington?

Are liberals like Hillary Clinton playing coy because they are running for president in 2008 and fear a Swift Boat attack like the one on John Kerry if they "abandon" the troops in a time of war?

Are they afraid not to be as "macho" as W?

Will no one step up on behalf of the memory of Paul Wellstone, or indeed, Fighting Bob, and demand that we withdraw and do so now?

The Progressive magazine put it succinctly: "The invasion was illegal and foolish in the first place. And the occupation has failed."

Can there be any serious argument among serious people with that conclusion? I don't think so.

Ill-advised, reckless, illegal, foolhardy, you pick the adjective. The salient point that seems to be forgotten by those reporting on this travesty is that we are an occupying force and no one likes an occupier, particularly when the occupation has been bungled at great cost in lives, American and Iraqi. (Not to mention nearly $165 billion in tax dollars.)

Last week Milwaukee County found it would be $3 million in the red. The immediate reaction from governor-wannabe Scott Walker? Cut social services. (Why not pick on these, the least of our brothers and sisters, when he knows they won't vote for him?)

Guess how much this Iraq invasion has cost the city of Milwaukee in tax dollars - $282 million. It has cost Madison $128 million. Our two major cities have lost nearly half a billion dollars that will never be recovered while we fret over a $3 million shortfall. If Walker was thinking, he would join in demanding we end the invasion.

With nearly 1,600 soldiers killed and 20,000 permanently injured; with tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths and many more injuries, when will we come to our senses?

We cannot "win" this war. The power grid is still broken, there is no functioning government, the Iraqi army is more of a wish than a thought. The insurgency is leading to civil war while we focus on Michael Jackson and the new pope.

Admittedly this is tough stuff. Apparently it is impossible for our president to admit a mistake but the facts are in. The invasion was based on cooked books. There were no WMDs, and there was no threat from Saddam to this country's security, and Iraq was not involved in 9/11. It was a massive mistake made by sissy hawks who wanted a war.

Since the administration is not willing to develop a plan, it is time for leadership in the U.S. Senate to demand a policy. It is time for Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold to step up to the plate. This is their Vietnam. They can be the Gene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy or George McGovern of this travesty or hide in the Senate cloak room. They can vote for more appropriations without a quid pro quo from the administration to "support the troops" by bringing them home or they can take the lead in fighting to stop this occupation.

We have a filibuster for more reasons than stopping terrible judicial appointments. Why not use it?

The media have opted to relegate this story to Page 4 or 5 unless something dramatic happens such as the surface-to-air missile that brought down a helicopter. But nine Iraqis killed here or there, one American killed here or there, is no longer big news.

The big news ignored by the media is that this administration does not have an exit strategy now nor has it ever. We need one and we must bring our troops home. There will be no peace until we leave. Leaving does not guarantee peace but, to recall the song of another misadventure, our leaving "will give peace a chance." Remaining for five more years is not a policy, it is a shoulder shrug.

The American people are sick of this invasion and occupation. They want the National Guard troops home and they want to stop the killing. Is there a Bobby Kennedy in the Senate today or are we faced with "Profiles in Cowardice"?

Ed Garvey is a Madison lawyer, political activist and the editor of the fightingbob.com Web site.

© 2005 Capital Times

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Yes, it IS long past due to bring ALL the American troops home from Iraq, considering they never should have been sent to Iraq in the FIRST place.

The other day on the news, I saw a protester holding a sign that read, "Clinton Lied, But Nobody Died." How true! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Bushy Boy. Bushy Boy lied and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands by this time have died, or been seriously maimed for life. THAT'S the "legacy" "Dubya" wants to leave behind? That idiot scares the bejeebers out of me!)

Bush’s Push for Nuclear Power Would Unfairly Burden Taxpayers Even More

2005-04-30T11:05:00.000-07:00

Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director, Public Citizen’s Energy Program

WASHINGTON -- April 27 -- President Bush’s relentless push for nuclear power is spiraling out of control. Today, Bush is expected to deliver a speech encouraging the use of domestic energy sources. Among his five new proposals, he plans to offer the nuclear industry yet another break; this time in the form of federal “risk insurance,” which would protect the nuclear industry in the event that the regulatory process slows down its plans for building new nuclear reactors.

Taxpayers already have provided the nuclear industry tens of billions in subsidies since its inception 50 years ago. The just-passed energy bill by the U.S. House of Representatives provides an additional $6.1 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the nuclear industry. Moreover, the nuclear industry is the only industry to have its liability artificially limited – even in cases of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. This is done through the Price-Anderson Act, a law that caps the industry’s liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack and calls for the government – that is, the taxpayers – to pay for cleanup above the cap. Apparently, this isn’t enough. The industry is demanding cradle-to-grave subsidies.

The nuclear industry now wants to be 100 percent guaranteed that its license applications will be quickly accepted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for issuing nuclear reactor licenses. Rushing these licenses is foolhardy. It will shortchange the public of its opportunity to participate in the process and could jeopardize public safety.

As the leader of the so-called fiscal conservative party in this country, Bush is making a gigantic miscalculation by offering even more money to the nuclear industry at the expense of taxpayers. If the nuclear industry thought that building new reactors was profitable, then it would foot the bill to build new reactors. Instead, the nuclear industry wants the public to take all the risks, while it reaps the profits. Nuclear power is risky – and those risks should be borne by the industry, not the public.

Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy problems. It’s expensive and dangerous. Too many of our taxpayer dollars have already been wasted on this polluting energy source. Enough is enough.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Gee! Why does the above not surprise me? This is just the way Bushy Boy and his Republican cronies operate. As long as big business get their wishes granted, the heck with everyone else. Kowtowing to the wishes of corporate interests and screwing the little guy is the Republican way.)

WWF Statement on Reports that Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Is Not Extinct

2005-04-29T08:55:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON -- April 28 -- Carter Roberts, president and CEO-elect of World Wildlife Fund, issued the following statement following reports that the ivory-billed woodpecker has been found in Arkansas, 60 years after it was believed to have gone extinct:

"Nature gives very few second chances, but this may be one of them. Just imagine: North America's largest woodpecker -- a bird with a three-foot wingspan -- hiding in the Arkansas woods for 60 years without being seen by people.

"It's no accident that the ivory-billed woodpecker has been reported in Arkansas's Big Woods. The Nature Conservancy, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and local communities have worked tirelessly for years to keep these magnificent landscapes intact. Without this place, the ivory-billed woodpecker would have had nowhere to go.

"Even into the 21st century, nature continues to reveal mysteries that leave scientists astounded.

"For a passionate birder like me, the search for the ivory- billed is the stuff of North American legend. This is monumental news for those who spent years trying to confirm that the species was still soaring through the swamps of Arkansas.

"We thought we lost the ivory-billed woodpecker to habitat destruction early in the 20th century, as we have countless other species around the world. This news highlights the essential need to conserve large intact landscapes. What other secrets do the wild places in our own backyard hold?"

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Isn't nice to read some GOOD news for a change?)

DeLay Urges GOP to Blame Dems Over Ethics

2005-04-15T07:50:00.000-07:00

Published on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 by the Associated Press

by David Espo

WASHINGTON -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, hoping to hold support among fellow Republicans, urged GOP senators Tuesday to blame Democrats if asked about his ethics controversy and accused the news media of twisting supportive comments so they sounded like criticism.

Officials said DeLay recommended that senators respond to questions by saying Democrats have no agenda other than partisanship, and are attacking him to prevent Republicans from accomplishing their legislative program. One Republican said the Texan referred to a ``mammoth operation'' funded by Democratic supporters and designed to destroy him as a symbol of the Republican majority.

DeLay also thanked Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., for his recent comments and said the news media had twisted them to make them sound critical, the officials added, all speaking on condition of anonymity.

In an appearance on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday, Santorum said DeLay ``has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves. But from everything I've heard, again, from the comments and responding to those, is everything he's done was according to the law.''

The officials who described DeLay's brief remarks noted that the session, a regularly scheduled weekly lunch, was held under rules of secrecy. Dan Allen, DeLay's spokesman, declined comment.

DeLay's case is at the heart of a broader controversy in the House, where Democrats accuse Republicans of unilaterally changing ethics committee rules to prevent any further investigation of DeLay. Republicans have denied the allegation.

The panel arranged a meeting for Wednesday, and Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, the senior Democrat, said he would renew a push for a bipartisan rewrite of the rules that Republicans put into effect in January on a party-line vote. Officials in both parties said they knew of no compromise discussions.

One senior Republican spoke sympathetically of DeLay after the closed-door meeting.

``I hope he survives, and I hope he will stay in there and do his job,'' said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

``The power of prayer is the only thing that will sustain you'' in the circumstance DeLay is in, Lott added, and he spoke disparagingly of any Republicans who fail to stand by the Texan.

``That's the problem, you know, Republicans eat their own. ... Democrats stand by their own until hell freezes over,'' said Lott, who was ousted as Senate majority leader two years ago after making controversial race-based comments at a birthday party for the late Strom Thurmond.

DeLay was admonished three times last year by the House ethics committee. Recent articles have disclosed that his wife and daughter were paid approximately $500,000 in recent years by political organizations under his control, and have raised questions about the financing of three overseas trips he took.

DeLay has consistently denied any violation of either law or House rules.

His private remarks to Senate Republicans were in keeping with the response frequently offered on his behalf by House Republicans: Blame the Democrats and occasionally the news media for the scrutiny he faces. House Republicans intend to follow the script later in the week, hoping to showcase passage of bankruptcy legislation and estate tax repeal as a counterpoint to Democratic charges that they are merely power-hungry.

Several Republicans stressed that DeLay's appearance at the senators' lunch was routine, noting that GOP leaders of one house have begun attending meetings of the rank and file of the other house in recent weeks.

His remarks were ``very low-key. It wasn't demanding or threatening or pounding the table,'' Lott said afterward.

© 2005 The Associated Press

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": The above is a perfect illustration of just how hypocritical and utterly shameless the Republicans are. If the rules don't suit them, then they make up their own rules. If it were some high-ranking DEMOCRATIC leader who was accused of doing the same things as Tom DeLay, the GOP would be all over him or her like the proverbial white on rice, hey!, they might even bring back their good buddy Ken Starr for an encore performance as a special prosecutor! To the GOP, politics and legislation are exciting games of T.E.G.W.A.R. ("The Exciting Game Without Any Rules"), except for the rules that they themselves make up as they go along so that they'll be virtually guaranteed of "winning."

The Republicans have SUCH a double standard. Apparently, it's OK if a REPUBLICAN bends, breaks, etc., the rules of ethics, decorum, whatever, but woe to any DEMOCRAT of whom the Rupublicans even IMAGINE the slightest whiff of any impropriety. The Democrats must tread ever so lightly because if they don't, then, to paraphrase the poem, "Little Orphant Annie," the Re-pub-i-luh-kuns'll git cha ef ya don't watch out!

As much as they like to believe -- and like US to believe -- they are, GOP legislators are not -- repeat, are NOT -- above the law. Here's hoping that it'll take the political downfall of the all-too-powerful Tom DeLay to teach the stampeding elephant herd a much-needed lesson in humility.)

Message Received A Year After the Launch of the Air America Radio Network, Progressive Talk is Making Progress

2005-04-01T07:36:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, March 31, 2005 by the Boston Globe

by Mark Jurkowitz

It's morning drive time in Boston, and talk-show host Stephanie Miller is blasting away, criticizing the forces pushing to have Terri Schiavo's feeding tube restored, mocking Fox News Channel pundit Bill O'Reilly, and attacking Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican. A year after the left launched a major effort to combat Rush Limbaugh and conservative dominance of the airwaves, liberal talk is taking hold here and in scores of other cities. While the big talk stations WRKO-AM (680) and WTKK-FM (96.9) remain strongholds of conservative voices, such left-of-center hosts as Miller, Ed Schultz, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and Janeane Garofalo are luring listeners to what is billed as ''Boston's new progressive talk radio network." That network consists of two ratings-challenged stations -- Framingham's WKOX-AM (1200) and Medford's WXKS-AM (1430) -- that operate with sunrise-to-sundown licenses. But the mere fact that the network exists prompts analysts to deem the embryonic experiment in liberal talk a promising, if qualified, success. ''There's obviously a niche that was not being filled, and they found that niche," said Scott Fybush, editor of the publication NorthEast Radio Watch. ''The question now is: Can they grow it?" One year ago today, amid much media hoopla, a new liberal radio network called Air America began broadcasting on five stations, pinning its hopes on the star power of Franken and Garofalo, and on an ambitious plan to buy outlets in major markets. Naysayers viewed the venture with skepticism, arguing, among other things, that liberals were generally too humorless to succeed in what is essentially an entertainment medium. As the new HBO documentary ''Left of the Dial" (which airs tonight) reports, the early days of Air America were marked by financial chaos, management turnover, and the constant threat of extinction. Today, however, the Air America lineup is heard on 54 stations in cities including New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, as well as Boston. ''Generally, you can say there seems to be an appetite for progressive, at least nonconservative, talk," said Tom Taylor, editor of the newsletter Inside Radio, which is owned by radio giant Clear Channel Communications. ''I think you give Air America a lot of credit for surviving." Air America is about to get another marquee name. Starting tomorrow, the network will carry the radio show hosted by the trash-TV icon and former Cincinnati mayor, Jerry Springer. ''When you hear him on the radio, it's very intimate," said Jon Sinton, Air America's president of programming. ''We think he's right on the issues. He's heavily enough anti-Bush to be credible for our audience." Asked to evaluate Air America on its first birthday, Sinton is effusive. ''It's a smashing success," he insists. ''It turns out that, in the words of Sally Field, people like us, they really like us." More left jabs Air America isn't the only liberal radio operation trying to establish a voice. Founded by former Congressional staffer Tom Athans, Democracy Radio cultivates and helps syndicate liberal talk radio talent, and last year it launched Schultz and Miller to wider audiences. Schultz, a veteran talker from Fargo, N.D., promoted as ''the most widely carried liberal on radio," is on 95 stations. Miller, a TV talk host, stand-up comic, and the daughter of obscure 1964 Republican vice presidential nominee William Miller, is on 20 stations. Like Sinton, Athans is enthusiastic about liberal talk. ''I think it's been nothing short of historic," he said. ''A year ago the category of progressive talk radio really didn't exist." Mike Elder, director of programming at WRKO, agrees that liberal talk is a viable concept. ''I think there's definitely room and a desire for people to have an alternative opinion in talk radio," he said. Yet, with a lineup driven by conservatives Limbaugh, Howie Carr, and Michael Savage, Elder has not inserted a left-winger into his weekday rotation. He acknowledges that the industry is watching and waiting until one radio operator ''has the guts corporately, to take one of the major stations and flip it and make it liberal." And, of course, get good ratings in the process. Matt Mills, general manager of Greater Media, which operates WTKK, is more skeptical about the drawing power of liberal talk, noting that Air America and Democracy Radio personalities tend to be on small AM stations. That is the case in Boston, where Clear Channel stations WKOX and WXKS began broadcasting the liberal talk lineup in October. Before the switch, WKOX had offered primarily Spanish programming, and WXKS was featuring Frank Sinatra tunes. Neither station had much to lose. The fall 2004 Arbitron numbers for listeners 12 and older showed the ''progressive talk radio network" lagging near the bottom but making notable progress over the numbers generated by previous formats, said spokesman Joe Mazzei. While liberal talk is making inroads across the country, those programs are often heard on stations that have been hampered by poor signals or low ratings. The effort has gotten a boost from Clear Channel, which has programmed liberal talk on 24 of its 1,200 stations. But Gabe Hobbs, a Clear Channel vice president of programming, acknowledges that some of that reformatting has occurred at outlets with less than stellar track records. ''When you have eight stations in a market, you're always looking for fresh ideas for station number seven or number eight," he said. Fear of mixed reception A bigger problem may be the reluctance of programmers to dilute the ideological mix by putting a liberal talk host in a lineup where entrenched conservatives hold court. ''Right now, there's a real hesitancy by program directors to mix formats," Athans said. That makes it hard for liberals to crack into stations where right-wing chat has developed a strong foothold. ''In theory, with the numbers [Schultz] is getting, there ought to be clearances on stations like WRKO and WTKK," Fybush said. Yet while Democracy Radio touts the fact that Schultz is on nearly 100 stations, his conservative counterparts Limbaugh and Hannity are on four to five times that many outlets. One station that has become the poster child for liberal talk is Clear Channel's KPOJ-AM (620) in Portland, Ore. KPOJ, a former oldies operation, saw its ratings more than quadruple after switching to liberal talk a year ago, Hobbs said. Providence talk station WHJJ-AM (920), also owned by Clear Channel, went to a more liberal lineup with several Air America shows in October. ''We found that Air America is a real opportunity for us," said program director Bill George. ''I think the time is right. I think the talk world is much larger than the narrow right-wing views we hear from Rush and Hannity." Clear Channel's Hobbs sounded bullish on his company's plans to convert more stations to the liberal talk roster. ''Intellectually I don't think you can argue against the niche. There's a theoretical hole big enough to drive a truck through," he said. ''So far our batting average is pretty high. I see no reason to slow down or stop at all." Slowing down isn't in Air America's plans either. ''In five years we'll be on 600 radio stations," Sinton boasted. ''The brand will be pervasive, and I think it will be a quaint memory when people said, 'Boy, what a stupid idea.' "

© 2005 the Boston Globe

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Happy First Anniversary, Air America! And they said it would never last. May you continue to give the right wing holy heck for years to come!)

Random Thoughts On A Couple Of Things

2005-03-29T09:51:00.000-08:00

On The Terri Schiavo Case

I know, I know, we've been hearing about this poor, unfortunate woman and her situation -- as well as the myriad opinions on it -- seemingly non-stop since her feeding tube was removed.

I've been contemplating it myself (it's difficult NOT to with all the discussion about it) and I've been asking myself the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) question. I can honestly say that, because of my human frailty, I don't know. I'm not arrogant enough to purport to know definitively what the Lord would do in a case like this. Was removing the feeding tube the right thing to do? Did Terri herself ever tell her husband and a few close friends that if she were ever to be in the condition she's in that she would not want extraordinary measures taken to keep her alive? I tend to believe she did. Her parents say that she never made such wishes known to them, and I believe that, too, and I personally believe that the reason for that may well have been because Terri felt that such talk would upset them which is why she never brought it up with them. Now she's in this PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) and her husband wants to let her go peacefully, and her parents and siblings want to keep her alive as they continue to engage in wishful thinking that somehow, after 15 years, Terri will suddenly come out of this PVS she's been in and be the Terri they once knew. You can't blame them for that. Saying goodbye to a loved one is hard, but knowing when to let go is also very much an act of love, as painful as it is.

As of this entry, the family has exhausted all their legal options for getting the feeding tube reinserted, and Terri has been without nourishment and hydration for over 10 days. The so-called "pro-lifers" and the conservative politicians claim she is suffering a slow and painful death from starvation and dehydration; the medical experts maintain that she is feeling very little, if any, pain because the part of her brain that perceives pain ceased functioning a long time ago.

Up in Washington, the Republicans pulled a grandstand political stunt of grand proportions in passing midnight legislation to have the feeding tube reinserted, but the Florida judge adjudicating the case didn't go along with it. The Republicans once again stuck their noses in where they don't belong, but that never stops them.

I've been thinking that there must be many others in this country who are in a condition similar to Terri Schiavo's; why aren't THEIR cases getting a ton of media publicity? The only conclusion I've been able to come up with is that Terri Schiavo just happens to live in a state whose governor happens to be the brother of this pathetic excuse for a "president." If she were in a state other than Florida, maybe the media would be preoccupied with something else and we might never know Terri Schiavo's name. Some good IS coming out this, though. It's making more people aware of how important it is to have a living will.

On Divorce

OK, now on to a totally different topic I've been thinking about for quite some time, divorce, and how high the divorce rate is in this country. For a long time, now, I've had my own ideas as to why it is so high.

In the "olden" days, marriage was a solemn, sacred institution. A bride and groom took the vow, "...'Til death do us part" seriously. When a husband and wife had marital disagreements, they made concerted efforts to resolve those disagreements. Divorce was difficult to get and had a severe moral and social stigma attached to it. Unfortunatly, that is no longer the case.

On a number of occasions, I've said that my generation, the generation born in the 1950s, was the last generation in which two-parent families were the norm rather than the exception. I think it was in the '60s that divorce started becoming easier to get. If couples had their marital spats, it was often easier to get divorced rather than expend the effort on working things out. Also, divorce lost its social stigma. It actually became the "in," "cool" thing to do. It seemed that all the "hip," "with it" people were divorcees, and that those couples who were making their marriages work were looked upon by them as quaint oddities.

It would be nice if we could go back to the days when the marriage vows were taken as seriously as they were in days of yore, in the days when pre-nups were inconceivable, although that's not to say that NO ONE takes their marriage vows seriously anymore. Still, sad to say, Pandora's Box has been opened, and their is no going back.

THE RUMINATOR

Contrasting Portraits of War's Lessons, Legacy

2005-03-23T04:46:00.000-08:00

Published on Monday, March 21, 2005 by the San Jose Mercury News, California

A Nation Less Safe: Costs of Expensive Conflict Include Social Programs, Our Security, Thousands of Lives

by Barbara Lee

As we observe the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, it is clear that in addition to the human and financial costs, this unnecessary war has made our nation and the world less safe in ways we are only beginning to measure.

First of all, I want to express my profound respect for the brave men and women on the ground in Iraq. As the daughter of a veteran, I appreciate their sacrifice and lament the horrible situation into which they have been cast.

The human toll of the war has been high for Americans and Iraqis alike. More than 1,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and more than 11,000 have been wounded. There is no accurate count, but it is estimated that as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.

The financial costs of this war continue to fall on the shoulders of those who can least afford them. The Bush administration asked for an additional $80 billion for the war in Iraq and operations in Afghanistan. That brings the total to well above $300 billion, and while the president has asked Congress to extend his tax breaks for the wealthy, he is insisting on cuts in vital programs for education, housing and health care.

There has been virtually no accountability on the war spending. Despite Congress requiring it, the administration has flatly refused to account for how our tax dollars have been spent in Iraq, or what the future costs will be. Given the failure to provide our troops with adequate equipment and the documented cases of waste and fraud perpetrated by contractors like Halliburton, it is the height of hypocrisy for members of Congress to say they support our troops and to fail to insist on accountability on why these resources have not been spent to protect our young men and women.

Beyond the human and financial toll of this war is the enormous cost to the security of our nation and the world. The administration allowed nuclear materials to be looted from Al-Tuwaitha nuclear facility, materials that could be used in a ``dirty bomb.'' They allowed hundreds of tons of high explosives to be stolen from the Al-Qaqaa compound, explosives that are being used against our troops. Now we learn that they allowed looters to just walk away with equipment that can be used to make parts of missiles or weapons of mass destruction.

Instead of stopping terrorism, this administration's policies have encouraged it to expand. It is important to remember that there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida before this war. Now, according to the National Intelligence Council, the war has turned Iraq into a training ground for Islamist terrorists.

It is important to remember that the stated goal of this war was to make us safer. It was waged pre-emptively to prevent a threat from forming. Two years after the invasion, the threat of terrorism and the possibility of an attack using nuclear materials are greater than before the war. We are significantly less safe as a result of this administration's actions.

The war in Iraq is just one part of the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive war, a policy whose long-term costs are truly frightening. This doctrine has violated international law, alienated our longtime allies and isolated our country. It has undermined the United States' ability to speak with authority or morality on human rights issues, and it has established a destabilizing and dangerous precedent that one nation can attack another just by claiming it poses a future threat.

While we all applaud the Iraqis in their recent elections, the sad fact is that the security situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, in large part as a result of the occupation. The Bush administration has failed to recognize that our troops are in an impossible situation where their presence is actually feeding the insurgency they are being asked to put down.

This administration has much to account for. There have been too many blank checks, and not nearly enough accountability. The president should take the targets off our troops' backs and offer Congress and the American people a concrete plan on how they will begin to clean up the mess that's been made and bring our troops home quickly and safely. Then we can begin the long work of repairing the lasting damage this war has caused to the security of our nation and the world.

Rep Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, is the senior Democratic woman on the House International Relations Committee.

© 2005 Mercury News

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Congresswoman, you are most eloquent. I couldn't have said it better myself.)

When Courage Was Called For, She Punted

2005-03-21T08:37:00.000-08:00

Published on Sunday, March 20, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

Ex-EPA Leader Whitman Caved in to Bush Instead of Doing the Brave Thing

by Bill McKibben

Christie Whitman's autobiography is, as always with politicians, about her courage. She stands up to sexism, she stands up to class-ism (ceasing, for instance, to wear pearls to work because it just encouraged all those nasty stereotypes about "wealthy women who enter politics"). Mostly the former New Jersey governor and onetime head of the Environmental Protection Agency stands up to "social fundamentalists" who seek to impose "rigid litmus tests" on their fellow Republicans.

Well, bully for her. But in fact, Whitman had the chance that few politicians ever get. She found herself in a place where actual courage would have done great — maybe even historic — good. And she punted spectacularly. It's a story worth rehashing for the light it sheds on how easily moderates and centrists are run over by zealots, a subject that bears on current debates such as the one over Social Security.

The saga begins on the presidential campaign trail in 2000, when candidate George W. Bush promised he would include carbon dioxide — the gas that is the major cause of greenhouse warming — on the list of pollutants that power plants would need to start reducing. As a candidate, he didn't endorse the Kyoto treaty on climate change, which most of the developed world has since ratified; he didn't make any wild-eyed promises (like the ones his dad had made) to actually cut the carbon the United States pours into the atmosphere. But he did imply in his campaign that he'd take global warming seriously — a promise that Whitman reveals was repeated in his transition planning documents, which listed "mandatory caps on CO2 emissions" as a "campaign promise."

Whitman inherited this promise when Bush named her to head the EPA. A few weeks into the job, before leaving for a summit of the G-8 major industrial nations in Italy, she sat down with White House advisor Condoleezza Rice and "made sure she knew I would be touting the president's campaign commitment to a mandatory cap … and she agreed that this was a sound approach. I also checked with the office of the White House chief of staff about the issue, and got the green light from it as well."

Her backside thus covered, she assured her G-8 counterparts and the world's media that the president's campaign commitment was "solid and that the administration sincerely agreed that global climate change was a serious problem that deserved attention" — a stance that went over well in Europe, whose people and leaders believe that the laws of chemistry and physics are in fact real.

On arriving home, however, the president summoned Whitman to the Oval Office. "I spent the weekend preparing my arguments because I knew there would be no time for a long drawn-out discussion. But as soon as the president and I sat down, I realized that I wasn't there to state my case — I was there to be told he had decided to reverse himself."

As she walked out the door, Vice President Dick Cheney muttered a brief hello — and then made his way to Capitol Hill to release a letter from the president stating categorically that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant and that there would be no caps.

I can't think of an instance in modern U.S. history when a Cabinet member had been so neatly, quickly and publicly kneecapped. But instead of doing the right thing, Whitman did nothing.

In a spectacular display of political cowardice, she settled down at the EPA, devoting herself to minor pieces of legislation such as the one that extended limits on diesel emissions to vehicles for "non-road uses," like tractors and backhoes. Not a bad law, but in the end no big deal. Whitman had a chance to make a real difference on what one panel of Nobelists after another has called the worst dilemma human civilization yet has faced, and she'd passed it up.

Imagine what would have happened if she had simply quit, accusing the president of reneging on a promise, undermining relations with our allies and, more to the point, neglecting the most crucial environmental challenge that's ever appeared.

It would have lifted the issue out of its relative obscurity and set it at the center of American political debate. Whitman could have done more to move the United States off the dime about global warming than any politician before or since.

But that would have meant real courage, the kind that sacrifices personal ambition, or even more, personal identity, for something larger than oneself. Whitman oozes not courage but party (and class) loyalty from every page of her book. (Beginning with the account of the summer she spent in camp making a leather golf tee holder for her parents' friend Dwight Eisenhower).

Her fealty is to the old GOP, the party of privilege and noblesse oblige and moderation, in which she grew up, and she is right to prefer it to the new GOP, the party of intolerance and zealotry. But imagine a politician whose fealty was actually to something larger.

Bill McKibben is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and the author of "The End of Nature" (Anchor, 1999)

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Apparently, Christine Todd Whitman had/has the "courage" to do anything but the RIGHT thing. She had her chance, her golden opportunity, and she BLEW it, big time! Well, I've come to the conclusion that the "Help Wanted" ads for this administration read, "Help wanted. Only loyal sycophants need apply." Although to give Ms. Whitman the benefit of the doubt, it's true that she WAS lied to, just as we've ALL been lied to by this nefarious administration.)

The Arctic Refuge and Public Are About to Get Drilled

2005-03-17T08:47:00.000-08:00

Published on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

by Joel Connelly

As my raft group paddled into an eddy on Alaska's Canning River for our final pullout, we experienced the reality of what Interior Secretary Gale Norton has dismissed as "flat white nothingness."

A fox scuttled across the tundra. A golden plover squawked at us. We found her nest on the tundra and gave it a wide berth.

Caribou materialized out of a fog bank coming off the Beaufort Sea. They vanished, and then reappeared. An Arctic tern registered its displeasure at our presence by relieving itself on the top of one tent.

The next day I strolled to the top of a nearby bluff. Twenty-four caribou crossed a stream just below me. Later, I awakened from a nap. Two caribou stood perhaps 20 to 30 feet upwind, sniffing for danger.

Back in camp, there were shouts. Two musk oxen trundled between the tents and the cooking area.

The Canning River, as western boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is ground zero in our nation's greatest land-use battle.

Its fate will be decided thousands of miles away, likely today in a U.S. Senate procedural vote.

Supporters of oil and gas drilling in the refuge put development of what they call "ANWR" into the Senate budget bill. By Senate rules, the budget resolution cannot be filibustered.

As of last night, the Bush administration was poised to win a wafer-thin victory. Pro-drilling votes of Hawaii's Democratic Sens. Dan Inouye and Daniel Akaka likely will offset defections by such GOP senators as John McCain and Lincoln Chafee.

Vice President Dick Cheney, architect of the Bushies' dig it-drill it energy policy, might be called upon to break a 50-50 vote.

Ninety-five percent of Alaska's coastline is presently open to oil exploration.

Drilling in the refuge has, however, been a goal of America's ruling political dynasty since "Poppy" Bush was inaugurated in 1989.

The coastal plain finds itself frequently demeaned by those who see the refuge not as America's greatest wilderness, but as a future site of haul roads and oil and gas platforms.

One oil company flack called it a "flat crummy place." Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, described Gwich'in Athabaskan natives, who oppose drilling, as "Canadian Indians who live in Alaska."

We've heard it before. Dismissive terminology is the favored rhetorical device of the world's wrecking crews.

Remember, a half-century ago, the Seattle editorialist who dismissed calls for a national park in the North Cascades as coming from "mountain climbers and bird watchers."

Gale Norton has been nicknamed the "Stepford Secretary" for her rote recitation of the party line. If the woman had music in her soul -- which she does not -- she might spend a day on the Canning River before the campground of our 2001 trip gets littered with 25-gallon drums.

The final push to drill the Arctic Refuge has a curious resemblance to America's politics of 100 years ago, only in reverse.

Under President Theodore Roosevelt, America was coming out of the Gilded Age. Given its name by Mark Twain, the Gilded Age was the opulent, corrupt era of the late 19th century in which corporate moguls ruled the country.

The trust-busting Roosevelt inaugurated a progressive era.

He created our national forest system and designated national monuments in the Grand Canyon and Olympic Mountains. He protected the vast estuary of Alaska's Copper River Delta from exploitation by greedy coal barons.

America today is entering a new Gilded Age. The Arctic Refuge and the American public have this in common: Both are about to get drilled.

A 2004 Medicare "reform" bill insulated the pharmaceutical industry from price competition.

The bankruptcy "reform" act, passed last week by Congress, is a multibillion-dollar boon to the credit card industry.

A recent tort "reform" bill moved damage suits into federal courts, which are less likely to yield big judgments to Americans who are maimed by defective or shoddy products.

The environmental record, established under Teddy Roosevelt, is being put in reverse.

President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, created what was then called the Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960 as one of his last acts in office. A bill in Congress would name the coastal plain after Ike.

Susan Eisenhower, the president's granddaughter, last week called for preservation of the coastal plain, and appealed for the GOP not to turn its back on this legacy.

"I believe the Republican Party has had an outstanding historical tradition, when you think of the leadership it gave to civil rights, when you think of the leadership it gave to the environmental movement, to the balanced budget process," said Eisenhower. "These are solid Republican traditional values."

"I don't believe good stewardship goes out of style, frankly," she added.

A modest use of intelligence could preserve the Arctic Refuge, and take America in a new direction.

The refuge would likely satisfy six months of America's demand for petroleum. Increasing fuel efficiency standards for new cars and SUV's would save far more oil than the coastal plain could ever produce.

As Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., tirelessly points out, hundreds of thousands of Americans could be put to work were the country to commit itself to develop renewable sources of energy.

Instead, it's back to the future.

The Canning River may well be crisscrossed by haul roads and platforms the next time I see it.

It'll be a crying, bloody shame. Why? Allow for a few concluding words by a fellow refuge visitor (and son of Yakima), the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas:

"The Arctic has a call that is compelling ... it is a call to adventure. This is not a place to possess like the plateaus of Wyoming or the valleys of Arizona. It is one to behold with wonderment.

"It is a domain for any restless soul who yearns to discover the startling beauties of creation in a place of quiet and solitude where life exists without molestation by man."

© 2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": It's so sad, isn't it, that this administration just doesn't "get it" where the environment is concerned. Bungles involving the environment take many, many years to heal, if they ever heal at all, and I have a feeling that a HUGE environmental bungle was made in Washington on March 16.)

Thoughts On A Couple Of Topics

2005-03-17T08:18:00.000-08:00

OIL DRILLING IN ANWR

Yesterday, March 16, 2005, was a sad day. Sad, because it was voted to allow oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I'll just bet the Republicans railroaded THAT measure through to appease their big-oil buddies, who I'm sure contributed handsomely to the legislators' election campaigns, as well as perhaps lined their pockets, greased their palms, etc., in other ways.

One of the arguments for allowing drilling in ANWR is that it allegedly will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Well, my memory may be faulty because it was so long ago now, but wasn't that also one of the arguments for building the Alaska Pipeline, that it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Gee! How's THAT been workin' for us, to paraphrase Dr. Phil. We're more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. If we're just going to keep drilling for more and more oil, where is the incentive to develop alternative fuel sources more quickly? Continually drilling for fossil fuels is merely a stopgap measure that's delaying the inevitable. Those sources are going to be depleted eventually.

Yes, yesterday was a sad, sad day. It was the day that the "R" was taken out of ANWR because when the drilling platforms move in, ANWR will no longer be a refuge.

ON THE DEATH PENALTY

Let me start by saying that I believe the death penalty serves no valid purpose whatsoever. The "eye-for-an-eye" mentality in this country totally appalls me.

In my view, the death penalty has four strikes against it. 1) Killing the murderer doesn't bring back the victim(s). 2) The death penalty only brings society down to the murderer's level, and, as a supposedly "civilized" society, we should be above that. 3) Contrary to what its supporters would have us believe, the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. If it WERE a deterrent, then murders would have completely stopped a long time ago, and we all know that that is NOT the case. 4) If the wrong person happens to be executed, that's a mistake that cannot be corrected.

There's the old saying, "a fate worse than death." I happen to believe that incarcerating a convicted murderer for the remainder of his/her natural life with no possibility of parole is such a fate, plus, it's cheaper for the taxpayers. The cost of years of appeals is astronomical, to say the least.

I know about the prison overcrowding situation in this country, and I have a solution for it. Rather than building more prisons, I believe that a big reason for the overcrowding problem is because a large percentage of our current prison population is comprised of those who are serving ridiculous mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenses. If these prisoners were to be released, a lot of prison space would be made available for the REAL criminals, namely, the child molesters, murderers, and rapists.

The death penalty should be abolished PERMANENTLY at both the Federal and state levels. There is absolutely NO need for it.

THE RUMINATOR

Democratic Senators Cave on Bankruptcy Bill

2005-03-14T09:23:00.000-08:00

Published on Sunday, March 13, 2005 by The Progressive

by Matthew Rothschild

On March 11, the U.S. Senate passed the bankruptcy bill that will fill the coffers of the credit card companies while bleeding consumers dry.

The bill passed by a whopping 74 to 25 margin, with eighteen Democratic Senators going over to the dark side.

Here are the spineless 18:

Max Baucus, Montana.

Evan Bayh, Indiana.

Joe Biden, Delaware.

Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico.

Robert Byrd, West Virginia.

Thomas Carper, Delaware.

Kent Conrad, North Dakota.

Daniel Inouye, Hawaii.

Tim Johnson, South Dakota.

Herb Kohl, Wisconsin.

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana.

Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas

Bill Nelson, Florida.

Ben Nelson, Nebraska.

Mark Pryor, Arkansas.

Harry Reid, Nevada, Senate Minority Leader!

Ken Salazar, Colorado.

Debbie Stabenow, Michigan.

"This is not where we as Democrats ought to be, for crying out loud," as Senator Tom Harkin noted. "We are making a terrible mistake by thinking that we can have it both ways. We have to remember where our base is."

The bill is a fantasy come true for credit card companies, which have been pushing it for years. But it's not as though they're suffering. They made $30 billion in profits last year.

The bill severely limits the ability of consumers to wipe away some of their debts and get a fresh start.

Half the people who file for bankruptcy do so because of sky-high medical bills, and another 40 percent due so because of disability, job loss, family death, or divorce, according to the National Consumer Law Center. If you make more than the median income in your state, no matter how high your bills are, you can't wipe the debts clean.

As a result, debtors will be at much greater risk of losing their cars or their homes.

And even if your debts are the consequence of identity theft, of someone stealing your credit card and running up charges, you still are on the hook for them, as the Senate amazingly voted down an amendment to shelter victims of identity theft.

Yet at the same time, the bill assigns guilt to consumers who are doing perfectly understandable and legal things. "The bill presumes that a struggling family that spends more than $42 a week on credit card purchases before declaring bankruptcy is guilty of fraud," according to the Consumer Federation of America.

The bill also requires anyone filing for bankruptcy to get credit counseling beforehand. But as Senator Russ Feingold pointed out, there are some people who need to file for bankruptcy who can't get that counseling. He mentioned a person with Alzheimer's, for instance. "Do we think anything is to be gained by requiring a debtor who is ill with a terrible, incurable disease, not even competent to sign legal papers anymore, to take a credit education course?"

He also mentioned U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Some of them are going broke because their military pay is much less than they were earning at home. On the Senate floor, Feingold again asked: "Do we want to require a soldier to sit down at a computer and take a credit counseling or credit education course while they are in Iraq in order to protect his or her family back home from financial ruin?"

Meanwhile, the new bill won't do anything to force the credit card companies to stop their predatory lending, nor will it even make them come clean on how much interest or penalties they are charging to consumers who pay only the minimum balance or who pay late.

Middle class debtors are the ones who are going to suffer the most under this bill.

The poor will still be able to get Chapter 7 protection, which releases them from most of their debts. And the indebted rich can still shelter their property if they get a good lawyer to draw up an asset protection trust in states where that's allowed. And many affluent debtors could still declare bankruptcy and still keep their mansions. On top of that, corporations like Enron could still file bankruptcy to avoid paying their employees.

But if you're struggling to keep your head above water, this bill has one piece of advice for you: drown.

And eighteen Democratic Senators refused to throw you a rope.

© 2005 The Progressive

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Shame!, Shame!, Shame! Now everybody knows their names.

This bill is an obscene example of the Republicans' "Robin-Hood-in-reverse" practice. Instead of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, the Republicans take perverse delight in robbing from the poor to give to the rich. Apparently, they've never heard the old saying, "You can't get blood from a stone." I'm just really disappointed that so many Democrats when along with them.)

Bankruptcy Bill Said to Hit Poorest Americans Hardest

2005-03-14T09:06:00.000-08:00

Published on Saturday, March 12, 2005 by OneWorld.net

by Abid Aslam

WASHINGTON - Millions of Americans could be plunged into financial ruin if a bill giving credit card companies long-sought relief from unpaid loans gets final Congressional approval, a broad array of consumer protection, economic justice, and civil rights groups warned.

Senators on Thursday passed the bankruptcy reform bill, which political observers said was largely crafted by the credit card industry more than eight years ago, sending it to the House of Representatives. Lawmakers there said they could vote on final passage next month.

Every year, some 1.6 million Americans file for personal bankruptcy protection--more than five times as many as in 1980. The process, which in many respects mirrors corporate bankruptcy, allows them to come up with a creditor-reviewed and court-approved plan to write off some of their debts, pay off others, and reorganize their personal finances so they can make a fresh start.

Opponents of the first revamp of the nation's personal bankruptcy laws in more than a quarter-century said the legislation would deal a ruinous blow to the overwhelming majority of those forced to declare personal bankruptcy: moderate- and low-income families, many of them black or migrant or with only one parent; and individuals of modest means hit with large divorce losses or medical expenses.

''Families are borrowing to make ends meet, and they're one missed paycheck away from collapse,'' said Tamara Draut, director of the economic opportunity program at Demos, a think tank. ''The Congress members of both parties who are embracing these punitive measures for working families are dangerously out of touch with the grim economic realities faced by ordinary families.''

Credit card issuers said they need the new law because well-off consumers took advantage of loopholes in the old rules to rack up and walk away from unpaid loans, saddling the industry with losses of $3-4 billion per year.

Credit card issuers including MBNA Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the finance units of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., in lobbying for the bill, said unpaid loans ended up costing every non-defaulting cardholder, for example through higher late payment fees, higher interest rates, and stiffer repayment conditions on car loans.

''This is a common-sense solution that's long overdue,'' said Edward L. Yingling, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, the trade group for the credit card industry.

In Draut's view, however, the bill ''rewards a $30 billion industry for egregious behavior.'' The legislation would do nothing to rein in credit card solicitations or put caps on interest rates or late fees, over-the-limit fees and other penalties, she said, yet these were among the reasons people were forced to declare bankruptcy in the first place.

The legislation is considered likely to garner House approval and Bush's final signature because it was stripped of clauses that appeared in earlier versions and that would have applied to controversial constituencies such as anti-abortion groups. Previous bills won lopsided majorities in the Senate only to stall in the House.

The measure would make more people file under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code, which requires consumers to pay back most debts over five years. Currently, most debtors file under Chapter 7, which allows many to keep some protected assets while discharging some debts and walking away from most unsecured debts such as credit card bills.

At its heart is the creation of a means test to sift out those who can afford to pay back at least a portion of such debts and those who cannot. Individuals with incomes above the median for their state would have to plead their case before a bankruptcy court.

Those deemed able to repay a lump sum of $10,000 would be forced into Chapter 13. Those who could pay 25 percent of what they owe or $6,000 in monthly payments would also be barred from writing off their unsecured debts.

Credit card companies estimated that about 20 percent of all bankruptcy filers have some assets or means to pay off their debts.

The Senate rejected more than 25 Democratic amendments to soften the bill's impact on bankrupt Americans. Including one that would have helped people keep their homes when they are driven into bankruptcy by medical expenses.

They approved, 99-0, one change that exempts from the bill's means test disabled veterans who went bankrupt while in combat or on homeland security duty.

Bankruptcy reform has been a top priority of banks, credit-card companies, and retailers for the past decade. The credit card industry has given $25 million to federal candidates and the political parties since 1999 and commercial banks have given $76.2 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group. More than 60 percent of the donations went to Republicans.

That, according to consumer protection groups including the National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Federation of America, has resulted in a package that tilts the balance of power in individual bankruptcy heavily in favor of the financial industry, at the expense of consumer protection.

Civil rights groups also have rallied to oppose the new law, formally called the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

''Disadvantaged groups in our society disproportionately find themselves in bankruptcy courts as a result of economic discrimination in its many forms,'' said the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) in an e-mail urging members nationwide to lobby their Representatives to reject the bill.

According to LCCR, divorced women are 300 percent more likely than single or married women to find themselves in bankruptcy court because of the combined effects of lower wages, reduced access to health insurance, and the financial strain of rearing children alone.

''The proposed bill would harm hundreds of thousands of women and children who are owed child support or alimony by forcing them to compete with credit card issuers and therefore making it less likely that support payments will be made to those in need,'' the group said.

African American and Latino home owners are 500 percent more likely than white homeowners to find themselves in bankruptcy court, it added, largely due to discrimination in home mortgage lending and housing purchases and to inequalities in hiring opportunities, wages, and health insurance coverage.

According to a recent Harvard study, around half of all personal bankruptcies are the result of illness or medical bills.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": This bill is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment. Going bankrupt because of medical expenses is NOT bankruptcy "abuse."

This is yet another flagrant example of the Republicans sticking it to the little guy and kowtowing to big business. It's obscene and nauseating.)

Remembering All Those Arguments Made 1,500 Deaths Ago

2005-03-12T08:52:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, March 11, 2005 by Knight Ridder

by Joesph G. Galloway

WASHINGTON -- Something about anniversaries prods us to pause and reflect on what's transpired in the intervening time. March 20 is the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and it's a good time to consider what's happened since then.

Do you recall our civilian leadership's rationale for a pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein? President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and, yes, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the world that the United States had no choice but to invade Iraq. They said Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons, and that his scientists would be able to produce a nuclear weapon in a few years.

Do you remember those who predicted that the operation would be financed in large part by sales of Iraqi oil? It would be cheap, easy and, oh yes, so swift that civilian leaders in the Pentagon ordered the military to plan to begin withdrawing from Iraq no later than the summer of 2003.

There was no need for much post-war planning because there wasn't going to be any post-war. America would come, conquer and get out. If Iraq was broken, its new government headed by the neo-conservatives' favorite exile, Ahmad Chalabi, could fix it. There would be no need for American nation-building, just some modest humanitarian aid.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's office had visions of a replay of the almost effortless destruction of Afghanistan's hated Taliban regime using precision-guided munitions, Special Operations forces with laser pointers and Afghan allies.

In Iraq, as in Afghanistan, less would be more, lighter would be better and faster would be best of all. Any Third World regime could be taken down by a few special operators and some airplanes. The Army's heavy divisions were relics of the Cold War.

When then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki reluctantly answered a senator's persistent questioning by suggesting that occupying and pacifying Iraq, an unruly nation the size of California with 25 million citizens, might require a force of "hundreds of thousands," he was mugged by Rumsfeld's minions.

Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz hastened to the Hill the next day and told the legislators that Shinseki's estimate was "wildly off the mark," and that Iraq wouldn't be nearly as tough as Afghanistan had been because Iraq didn't have the sort of nasty ethnic divisions one found in Afghanistan.

At that moment, in late February 2003, on the eve of the invasion, the U.S. invasion force of 278,000 American troops began to dwindle as someone tried to prove the job could be done with fewer than Shinseki's 200,000 troops. Call that the Shinseki Threshold.

One division's tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles bobbed around at sea for weeks and arrived too late for the attack. A second division of tanks and Bradley armored vehicles slated for the follow-up to the invasion was canceled; a third division's deployment to Iraq was postponed for several months. Military Police units needed to secure a hundreds of miles of dangerous supply lines - and to establish law and order - disappeared from the war plan.

A strike force that amounted to an Army division and a Marine Expeditionary Force, with Air Force and Navy fighters and bombers, took down Baghdad in three weeks.

But as the invasion forces regrouped, the world witnessed an orgy of looting and burning of government ministry buildings, and even the power plants upon which a city of 11 million people depended. There was no one to prevent it.

Birthing democracy, Rumsfeld allowed, can be "messy.''

After nearly 18 months, the Pentagon admitted that a team of nearly 1,000 intelligence officials and scientists had combed Iraq for evidence of chemical and biological weapons or any sign of an active nuclear weapons program. They found nothing.

This war that was supposed to be a cakewalk has taken the lives of 1,510 American troops and sent thousands more home, maimed by improvised explosive devices that tear off arms and legs.

American taxpayers have paid more than $200 billion in two years for a war we were told wouldn't cost much, if anything, and the cost in fiscal 2006 will be at least $70 billion more.

Now the administration tells us that we had to attack not because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda, but because he wasn't a democrat. Sadly, however, the costs of trying to make Iraq a democracy probably would have been lower, and the chances of succeeding better, if we hadn't gone to war with flimsy evidence and wishful thinking.

Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young."

© 2005 Knight Ridder

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Ah, yes, "...if we hadn't gone to war with flimsy evidence and wishful thinking." If only. And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, too. It's just that we and our legislators were fed a pile of deceptions and outright lies by this, most prevaricatorious of administrations and unfortunately, the majority fell for them. So, sadly, we're stuck with the consequences, namely, more than 1,500 American lives wasted along with countless other Americans who are traumatically maimed for life, both physically and/or psychologically. How appropriate that the Republican color is red. After all, that IS the color of blood, and Bushy Boy's and Rummy's hands are dripping with the blood of American soldiers who were brainwashed by this nefarious administration into believing we had some legitimate reason for invading Iraq.)

New Poll Finds Bush Priorities Are Out of Step With Americans

2005-03-04T07:12:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, March 3, 2005 by the New York Times

by Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder

Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll underscores just how little headway Mr. Bush has made in his effort to build popular support as his proposal for overhauling Social Security struggles to gain footing in Congress. At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq.

On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that the program would become insolvent near the middle of the century if nothing was done. The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in a reduction in guaranteed benefits. And 45 percent said Mr. Bush's private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system.

In a sign of the political obstacles confronting the White House, a majority of those surveyed said they would support raising the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll tax above its current ceiling of $90,000, an idea floated by Mr. Bush but shot down by Republican Congressional leaders. Yet there is strong resistance to other options available to Mr. Bush and lawmakers to repair the system, in particular to raising the retirement age or making participation voluntary.

Notwithstanding Mr. Bush's argument that citizens should be given more control over their retirement savings, almost four out of five respondents said it was the government's responsibility to assure a decent standard of living for the elderly.

The poll was the first conducted by The Times and CBS News since the president's inauguration. It comes after six hectic weeks for the administration, in which Mr. Bush has witnessed successful elections in Iraq - which he hailed as validation of his decision to remove Saddam Hussein - but also the toughest period he has encountered on Capitol Hill, as he has struggled to win support for the signature proposal of his second term.

In an apparent reflection of the success of the Iraq elections, 53 percent of those surveyed said that efforts to bring order to Iraq were going very or somewhat well, up from 41 percent a month ago. That is the highest rating on that score since the capture of Mr. Hussein.

Still, 42 percent now say that Mr. Bush would have been better off trying to counter the threat of North Korea before invading Iraq, compared with 45 percent who think Mr. Bush was correct to focus first on Iraq.

More broadly, the poll suggests that Mr. Bush is in a problematic position as he enters a second term intent on pushing an extraordinarily assertive agenda through Congress.

Four months after Mr. Bush won a solid re-election over Senator John Kerry, 63 percent of respondents say the president has different priorities on domestic issues than most Americans. Asked to choose among five domestic issues facing the country, respondents rated Social Security third, behind jobs and health care. And nearly 50 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decisions about Social Security, compared with 31 percent who said the same thing about Republicans.

"There are so many other things that seem to me to be more critical and immediate: I think the national debt is absolutely an immediate thing to address," said Irv Packer, 66, a Missouri Republican. He added, "Another one that I'd really like to see people working on is the environment."

Lisa Delaune, 37, a student from Houston and a member of the Green Party, said in a follow-up interview, "My opinion is that the president favors big business over the health and well-being and overall stability of the entire American population."

And Mr. Bush does not appear to be much more in step with the nation on what the White House has long viewed as his strong suit: 58 percent of respondents said the White House did not share the foreign affairs priorities of most Americans.

For all that, Mr. Bush's approval rating remains unchanged, at 49 percent, from a month ago, suggesting that the disagreement with Mr. Bush's ideas has yet to take a toll on America's view of him.

The poll was conducted by telephone with 1,111 adults from Thursday through Monday. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

If Americans are ambivalent about the need for Washington to grapple with Social Security, the poll found abundant concern with the budget deficit, with much of the blame attributed to Mr. Bush. Sixty percent of respondents - including 48 percent of self-described conservatives - said they disapproved of how Mr. Bush was managing the deficit. And 90 percent of respondents described the deficit as a very or somewhat serious problem.

The focus on Social Security has, if anything, aggravated concern about the deficit. About 30 percent said that the cost of Mr. Bush's proposal to create private accounts would increase the deficit. And on another question, about 40 percent said that Mr. Bush's budget proposal, made last month, would also result in increasing the deficit, notwithstanding the deep cuts Mr. Bush proposed to try to pull back the deficit.

The poll underlines the difficulty of the task Mr. Bush faces in trying to overhaul Social Security, given that the heart of the White House strategy has been to sell the public on the need for repairing the system, in the calculation that would corral Congress behind Mr. Bush. So far, at least, the evidence suggests that campaign has not succeeded.

Indeed, the percentage of respondents who think it is a good idea to permit people to invest in private accounts is as low as it has been since the question was first asked in May 2000.

"I don't think he's listening to the people concerning Social Security," said Beverly Workman, a West Virginia Democrat who said she voted for Mr. Bush. "I think the public wants him to leave it alone."

Jim Choi, 34, an unemployed biotechnology worker from California, said: "The way the system is set up, it's not going to go bankrupt. People will get by; we all adapt."

Still, Mr. Bush's argument that the system is approaching bankruptcy - a contention disputed by Democrats and independent analysts - seems to be taking hold. Two-thirds of respondents say the system will be bankrupt by 2042 if nothing is done to repair it. Sixty-one percent said the program has worked well until now, but the next generation will need a different kind of program to assure that they receive benefits.

And 55 percent said the problems with Social Security were serious enough that they should be fixed now, compared to 35 percent who said they did not need to be addressed for another 10 or 15 years.

The elections in Iraq have contributed to some improvement in the perception of Mr. Bush's policy there, though it remains far from popular. In this poll, 50 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved of his Iraq policy, down from 55 percent a month ago, while 45 percent approved, up from 40 percent.

On North Korea, 81 percent said that that nation does indeed now have nuclear weapons, and 7 in 10 said it poses a serious threat to the United States. Still, a majority of Americans said they opposed taking pre-emptive action against North Korea if diplomatic efforts failed - a shift from before the war in Iraq, when a majority said they would support military action if diplomatic efforts failed.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Well, DUH!!! This is supposedly a newsflash? I've known from Day One that Bushy Boy was definitely NOT in synch with mainstream America. He's the "leader," and I use that term VERY loosely, of the right-wing extremists, NOT your average, working-class citizens. It's just a shame that the right-wing radicals exerted their considerable influence -- and unfortunately the majority of voters fell for it -- so now we're stuck with Bushy Boy the Prevaricator and his gang of sychophants for just under another four years. UGH!!! Thank goodness "Dubya" can't run for re-election! That's the ONLY saving grace in all of this, but I shudder when I think of all the damage he's done -- and will yet do -- which will need to be undone by his successor. This country will be in a TOTAL shambles by then! EEK!!!)

ConAgra Foods Partners With Kroger to Donate $750,000 to America's Second Harvest

2005-03-03T09:34:00.000-08:00

Food Banks for Fight Against Hunger; 'Families Feeding Families' Donation to Assist More Than 40 Food Banks in 15 Cities Across U.S.

CHICAGO -- March 2 -- America's Second Harvest -- The Nation's Food Bank Network today announced that ConAgra Foods Inc. is partnering with The Kroger Co., to give $750,000 for hunger relief through a new "Families Feeding Families" program.
The gift, among the largest donations by a food manufacturer/retailer partnership to America's Second Harvest food banks, will assist more than 40 food banks and food-rescue organizations serving thousands of families in 15 cities, including Atlanta, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Louisville, Memphis, Nashville, Omaha, Phoenix, Roanoke and Salt Lake City.

The "Families Feeding Families" program will aid America's Second Harvest's network of hunger-relief groups as part of in- store promotions at Kroger locations for a variety of ConAgra Foods brands. The promotions -- which will run from March 6-19 -- will increase awareness among shoppers on the issue of hunger in local communities, and include in-store radio, point-of-purchase signage and print advertising. Among ConAgra Foods' participating brands are Banquet, Butterball, Chef Boyardee, Fleischmann's, Healthy Choice, Hunt's, Marie Callender's, Orville Redenbacher's, PAM, Parkay and Reddi-wip.

"This major donation will feed tens of thousands of people served by our food banks and food-rescue organizations," said Robert Forney, president and chief executive officer of America's Second Harvest, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary as the nation's largest hunger-relief organization. "Both The Kroger Co. and ConAgra Foods have been long-time partners in our efforts to feed the nation's hungry. We're extremely grateful for the commitment to hunger relief demonstrated by this donation."

According to America's Second Harvest, each dollar donated will help provide four bags of food and 15 meals for families in need, for a total with the "Families Feeding Families" gift of an estimated three million bags of food and 11.3 million meals.

"It's unthinkable in America that people go hungry, especially children," said Dennis O'Brien, president and COO, ConAgra Foods Retail Products. "We are eager to partner with Kroger to support local food banks in their markets. This partnership will donate up to $50,000 to America's Second Harvest food-bank affiliates in each of 15 different cities."

"Kroger is proud to team up with ConAgra Foods and America's Second Harvest to feed the hungry," said Lynn Marmer, Kroger's group vice president of corporate affairs. "At a time when food banks across the nation are facing unprecedented demand, and 36 million people in our nation are living with hunger, this partnership will provide much-needed support to local food banks and working families."

"Families Feeding Families" builds on ConAgra Foods' and Kroger's strong track records on hunger relief. In 1999, ConAgra Foods created Feeding Children Better, the nation's largest corporate initiative dedicated to fighting child hunger. As part of that effort, ConAgra Foods sponsors the America's Second Harvest Kids Cafe program, one of the nation's largest free meal services for children. ConAgra Foods has funded 195 Kids Cafes across the U.S., providing nutritious food to hungry children in safe and nurturing environments.

Kroger consistently ranks as one of the largest retail contributors of food and grocery products to America's Second Harvest, and the company twice has been named "Retailer of the Year" by the non-profit organization. Since 1999, Kroger has donated more than 104 million pounds of food to the organization. Kroger's retail divisions work with more than 40 regional food banks around the country that are affiliated with America's Second Harvest.

About America's Second Harvest-The Nation's Food Bank Network

America's Second Harvest-The Nation's Food Bank Network is the nation's largest domestic hunger-relief organization with a Network of more than 200 regional Member food banks and food- rescue programs serving all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The Network secures and distributes nearly two billion pounds of donated food and grocery products annually. The America's Second Harvest Network supports approximately 50,000 feeding agencies nationwide, including food pantries, soup kitchens, women's shelters, and Kids Cafes. These local organizations provide emergency food assistance to 23 million hungry Americans, including more than nine million children and nearly three million seniors each year. For more information on America's Second Harvest, visit http://www.secondharvest.org.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": FINALLY! Some GOOD news for a change! Way to go, ConAgra and Kroger!)

Soldier Sings Praise To His Wife -- A True American Hero

2005-02-27T08:26:00.000-08:00

DEAR ABBY: I am writing to tell you about some of the bravest, strongest, most resilient people I know -- military spouses. So often people write you about problems, troubles or issues. Perhaps my letter will bring a smile to someone's face.
I am in the Army, currently deployed in Iraq. Here, all I have to worry about are my soldiers and myself. They are great guys who make it easy for me, as they all act maturely and professionally.

While I am here, my wife is back home worrying about me. She does all the chores around the house, cooks, takes care of our three sons, helps them with homework, holds down a full-time job, and still finds time to keep our children enrolled in whatever extra activities they can do. She is now filling the roles of both mother and father. Her strength amazes me. Once she went away for 10 days to attend a wedding, and I had to take vacation time to keep up with the house and the kids.

I'm not saying my wife walks on water -- although she swims well -- but a lot of people send messages over here to the soldiers saying, "Thank you for your service." I personally think the unsung heroes are the ones who fill the shoes of the soldiers when they are deployed.

I have been gone for a year and can't wait to return home. I'm planning family time, Mom and Dad time, and I'm also going to let my wife have some time of her own. I just want your readers to know that soldiers have people we look up to, too, and who we think are true American heroes. -- LOVING SOLDIER IN IRAQ

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": What an eloquent, heartfelt, heartwarming, moving, touching paen from a soldier to his wife. I pray he'll return home safely and soundly to her and their children.)

Lawsuit Filed Against New National Forest Rules

2005-02-25T07:58:00.000-08:00

FEBRUARY 25, 2005
2:07 PM
CONTACT: Wilderness Society
Mike Anderson,206-890-3529

Bush Administration Regulations Reverse Decades of Progress in Forest Management, Eliminate Wildlife and Natural Resource Protections

WASHINGTON -- February 25 -- A coalition of conservation groups lodged a complaint today in Federal District Court in San Francisco challenging the Bush administration’s new rules for managing the nation’s 192 million acre National Forest System, a magnificent network of forests and grasslands in 42 states that encompasses 8 percent of the country. The challenged regulations are supposed to govern activities on all national forests and ensure the protection of wildlife and the environment, but the Bush administration has watered them down to the point where they are virtually meaningless.

Earthjustice represents Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and Vermont Natural Resources Council as they challenge these regulations on the following grounds:

they fail to include the environmental protection measures mandated by Congress in the National Forest Management Act of 1976;

they reverse more than 20 years of protection for wildlife and other resources without any sound or scientific basis for doing so, or any adequate replacement; requirements to use quantitative measurements of wildlife populations and mandatory duties to conserve wildlife on national forests have been eliminated or made discretionary;

they were crafted through a flawed process – the environmental impacts of this far-reaching action were never analyzed and many significant changes first appeared in the final rule, depriving the public of an opportunity to comment on them.
“The nation’s forests and the people who own them deserve better than this,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife. “We are hopeful the courts will send these rules back to the industry lobbyists who wrote them, stamped ‘illegal’.”

“The new Bush forest rules aren’t rules at all – they’re more like suggestions. They turn forest management to mush, mocking the intent of Congress and undermining public participation in the process,” said Trent Orr, an attorney with Earthjustice. “Agencies need leadership and clear guidance, not this wink and a nod that encourages the exploitation of the public’s resources.”

“Some basic protections for non-timber resources like wildlife and water made sense to the Reagan administration, which put them in place,” said Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society. “But this administration just went on a search and destroy mission for any environmental safeguard that might stand between the administration’s industry donors and the public’s trees.”

“The Bush administration is eliminating national forest wildlife protections that have been in place and effective for decades,” said Sean Cosgrove, forest policy specialist with the Sierra Club. “Americans want to protect the places where they hike, hunt, and fish, not turn them over to the logging companies.”

Local conservation groups are concerned and have joined this legal challenge. The ramifications of the new regulations may be felt in Vermont, where the Forest Service is updating a plan to manage the Green Mountain National Forest. “The regulations seemingly instruct the Forest Service to ignore the monitoring of wildlife species that Vermonters and visitors value and cherish,” said Jamey Fidel of the Vermont Natural Resources Council.

The complaint is being filed as a supplement to a lawsuit filed by the same plaintiffs in November against a related rule more specifically attacking national forest wildlife and other resource protections. The lawsuit is Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns, and was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

For More Information

For more information on these regulations, including opposition from Congress, scientists, and the public, visit: www.SaveNationalForests.org

Read the complaint online here: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/2-05/NFMASupplementalComplaint.pdf

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": "Bush Administration Regulations Reverse Decades of Progress in Forest Management, Eliminate Wildlife and Natural Resource Protections." Gee! Why am I NOT surprised. This should come as no surprise from this most environmentally UNfriendly of all the administrations I'm old enough to remember.)

The Company That Would Sell Your Soul to the Devil

2005-02-25T07:52:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, February 25, 2005 by the Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, Pa.)

by Tony Norman

Why am I not surprised that ChoicePoint, the consumer data-mining company that was recently conned into sharing 145,000 consumer credit profiles with identity thieves, is the same company that helped Florida "purge" its voter rolls of felons and other undesirable voters during the 2000 election?
When you're on such an undemocratic roll, why stop at helping to hijack an election in plain sight when you can earn millions selling the identities of every person gullible enough to have a credit history to shadowy front companies, organized crime syndicates and enterprising con artists?

And when not selling our hard-earned identities to felonious data brokers, why shouldn't ChoicePoint do the patriotic thing and sell the information -- much of which the government is restricted by law from harvesting for itself -- to the boys in Homeland Security as they go about assembling the ultimate domestic surveillance state?

What could be more American than invading the privacy of millions of people for fun and profit while continuing to evade government oversight with bribes in the form of generous campaign contributions? But it's not like the American Civil Liberties Union didn't warn us of this inevitable convergence of identity theft and ham-fisted Big Brother tactics at least a million times.

Last August, the ACLU released a report detailing how the government stands in line with other suspicious characters to buy information gleaned from most of us by so-called "data aggregators" like ChoicePoint. Every time you pull out your Giant Eagle Advantage card, a low-level bureaucrat in the belly of the data-mining beast knows about it and laughs.

It took the boys in Homeland Security a whole Orwellian minute to figure out that buying the information from a third party -- though contemptuous of the spirit of the law -- doesn't technically violate the Privacy Act of 1974.

That law forbids Uncle Sam from assembling dossiers on law-abiding Americans unless they're specifically targeted by federal investigators. Like low-rent identity thieves, the government can gather the information in bulk and sit on it until it is needed.

Corporate data-miners don't have to be nearly as circumspect about the information they gather, though. ChoicePoint makes no bones about the fact that we're just numbers to be bought, sold and traded at its discretion.

California is the only state in the union that requires data-mining companies to inform residents when their identities have been stolen. Last week, Eileen Goldberg, a California resident and the only hero in this drama as far as I'm concerned, sued ChoicePoint in Los Angeles Superior Court for fraud and negligence.

For being a dupe in an ongoing criminal conspiracy, ChoicePoint deserves to be snowed under with lawsuits. With 700 fraudulent cases out of 145,000 tied directly to its negligence so far, a class-action suit is all but inevitable.

With any luck, 49 other states will quickly adopt California's "breach law" and require data-mining companies to inform us whenever our identities have been compromised in their data banks.

In a just world, the practice of harvesting the financial minutiae of our lives should be a risky venture fraught with crushing liability. There's nothing more precious than our identities, but too many companies play with the raw data of our lives as if they were feudal lords and we, merely serfs.

Whenever I see a commercial featuring a straight-talking "thief" telling us that the only thing standing between us and identity theft is a shredder, I let out a hearty laugh.

Sure, I use a shredder religiously to slice and dice the credit card offers that pour in every day, but I know companies like ChoicePoint will sell my personal information to the next criminal that asks for it, anyway. And what isn't sold willingly will be hacked eventually.

Maybe we should allow them to tattoo our Social Security numbers on our foreheads and call it a day.

© 2005 Post-Gazette

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": The above is just some "food for thought," SERIOUS thought.)

How Long Can Bush Get Away With Lies?

2005-02-25T07:45:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, February 25, 2005 by the Chicago Sun Times

by Andrew Greeley

One hears new rationalizations for the war on this side of the Atlantic. After the hearings on Secretary of State Rice, a Republican senator, with all the self-righteous anger that characterizes many such, proclaimed, "The Democrats just have to understand that the president really believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." This justification is not unlike the one heard frequently at the White House, "The president believed the intelligence agencies of the world."

Would it not be much better to have a president who deliberately lied to the people because he thought a war was essential than to have one who was so dumb as to be taken in by intelligence agencies, especially those who told him what he wanted to hear?

It is also asserted that the election settled the matters of the war and the torture of prisoners. These are dead issues that no longer need be addressed. Yet the president received only 51 percent of the vote and carried only one more state than the last time (picking up New Mexico and Iowa and losing New Hampshire). This is a validation of the war and of prisoner abuse? This is a mandate to do whatever he wants to do and whatever the leadership of the evangelical denominations want? A percentage point and a single state are a mandate for more war? Never before in American political history!

Finally, we are told that the Iraqi election confirms the Bush administration policy in Iraq. The president's supporters must be in deep trouble to reach so far for that one. All the election proves is that the Iraqis want to run their own country. It also raises the possibility that Shia clerics will deliver Iraq into the hands of the Iranians. Some kind of victory!

How do these kinds of arguments play in the precincts? The survey data suggest that war has become more unpopular. The majority of the American people now think it was a mistake, in a shift away from the 51 percent that endorsed it on Election Day. Admittedly this is only a small change in the population, from a majority to a minority. Nor do the changers earn grace for their new opinions. They still endorsed the war on Election Day and are still responsible for it.

How long can the administration get along with its policies of spinning big lies into truth -- as it has more recently done on Social Security?

Note the three most important Cabinet positions. Rice said that it was better to find the weapons of mass destruction than to see a mushroom cloud. "Judge" Gonzales said the Geneva Convention was "quaint" and in effect legitimated the de facto policy of torture. Rumsfeld repealed the "Powell Doctrine" -- only go to war when you have the massive force necessary to win decisively and quickly. Brilliant businessman that he is (like Robert McNamara of the Vietnam era), he thought he could win with 130,000 (unlike at least 200,000 as the army chief of staff insisted) and hence made the current "insurgency" inevitable.

The presence of these three towering giants in the administration certainly confirms that the president is confident that he is "right" on Iraq and that he has a mandate from the American people and from God which confirms that he is "right."

Nothing, in other words, has changed in the last two years. The war is still the "right thing to do," it is still part of the "war against terrorism," it is still essential to keep Arabs from blowing up our skyscrapers.

You can still get away with the "big lie" as long as Karl Rove and his team of spinners keep providing persuasive rationalizations. The American public is still supine, uneasy about the war, but not willing yet to turn decisively against it. Will that still be the case next year when we "celebrate" the third anniversary of the war? Is the patience of the American people that long suffering? Is there no outrage left in the country?

© 2005 Chicago Sun Times

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": How long can Bush get away with lies? Apparently as long as we let him, which is just under another four years, now. Oh, sure, American voters SAY they want their politicians to be honest, but on those all-too-rare occasions when we DO get an honest politician, he or she seldom gets elected. The American electorate SAYS they want one thing, and then go and vote for something totally opposite. So, for just under another four years, we're stuck with this adminstration of liars and deceivers -- Bushy Boy and his gang of prevaricating sycophants.)

The Downside of Democracy

2005-02-24T09:22:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, February 24, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

What if the U.S. doesn't like what the voters like in the Mideast and beyond?

by Juan Cole

With the emergence of Shiite physician Ibrahim Jafari as the leading candidate for Iraqi prime minister earlier this week, the contradictions of Bush administration policy in the Middle East have become even clearer than they were before.
President Bush says he is committed to democratizing the region, yet he also wants governments to emerge that are friendly to the U.S., benevolent to their own people, secular, capitalist and willing to stand up and fight against anti-American radicals.

But what if democratic elections do not produce such governments? What if the newly elected regimes are friendly to states and groups that Washington considers enemies? What if the spread of democracy through the region empowers elements that don't share American values and goals?

The recent election in Iraq is a case in point. The two major parties in the victorious Shiite alliance are Jafari's party, the Dawa, founded in the late 1950s to work for an Islamic republic, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, the goal of which can be guessed from its name. To be fair, both have backed away from their more radical stances of earlier decades. But both parties -- and Jafari himself -- were sheltered in Tehran in the 1980s by Washington's archenemy, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and both acknowledge that they want to move Iraq toward Islamic law and values.

The victorious Shiite fundamentalists have already taken steps that may be making the Bush administration nervous. They made it clear that they would attempt to incorporate their paramilitaries into the new Iraqi army. SCIRI has the Badr Corps, made up of about 15,000 men under arms trained originally by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Dawa has its own paramilitary.

The two parties also announced that they would try to bring into the government's armed forces members of the Al Mahdi militia of Shiite nationalist Muqtada Sadr, which have fought hard battles against the U.S. military in Najaf and elsewhere. Jafari has previously said that he hoped to bring Sadr into the Iraqi government. Jafari likewise has protested U.S. military action in Fallouja.

In interviews, Jafari has warned against deliberate attempts to undermine Iraq's relations with neighboring Iran, which he has visited on several occasions for consultations since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

To be fair, Jafari has emerged as a moderate and skillful politician, and his devotion to his faith should in principle be no more objectionable than Bush's own devotion to Christianity. Yet it certainly seems that his new government will adopt policies far less welcome in Washington than those of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

In the current struggle over whether the fundamentalist Lebanese Shiite party, Hezbollah, should be designated a terrorist organization, it seems clear that both the Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq will side with Hezbollah.

The fact is, democracy is an unruly process; it doesn't always yield the results we want or expect. Bush likes to talk in terms of good versus evil, to suggest that the forces of freedom and democracy are doing battle with the defenders of tyranny -- but he should be aware that the world isn't always that simple.

He should remember, for instance, the 2002 elections in Pakistan, pushed for by Washington, which produced an unexpectedly good showing for the United Action Council, a coalition of hard-line fundamentalist parties. Some of them had helped train the Taliban. They won 17% of the federal parliament seats, won outright in the Northwest Frontier Province and now govern Baluchistan in coalition. Their leaders argued that Al Qaeda was merely a figment of the U.S. imagination.

A full disaster was averted in Pakistan only because the federal government was still dominated by military dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Nevertheless, the United Action Council has attempted to impose a draconian version of Islamic law in the provinces it controls and has not been helpful to the U.S. in tracking down Al Qaeda operatives.

Pakistan and Iraq are not the only countries where elections have had mixed results. Although the Palestinian elections in January were widely viewed as a success -- producing a pragmatic prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas -- remember that the radical fundamentalist party, Hamas, boycotted those elections. Then, less than three weeks later, local elections were held -- and Hamas won decisively in the Gaza Strip, leaving it more influential than before and poised for even bigger wins in next July's legislative elections.

And in recent years, democratization has also put Hezbollah in the Lebanese parliament. Serbian nationalists have won seats in Belgrade.

Are such outcomes acceptable to the Bush administration? If not, how will it respond? Given the war on terror, it is unlikely to simply take these electoral setbacks lying down.

But if Washington falls back on its traditional responses -- covert operations, attempts to interfere in parliamentary votes with threats or bribes, or dependence on strong men like Musharraf -- the people of the Middle East might well explode, because the only thing worse than living under a dictatorship is being promised a democracy and then not really getting it.

Juan Cole is professor of modern Middle Eastern and North African studies at the University of Michigan. He maintains a blog on Middle East affairs, Informed Comment.

© 2005 LA Times

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": The above article was posted simply as "food for thought," to supply an interesting little "what if" scenario.)

'Don't Be Silent About Things That Matter'

2005-02-24T09:05:00.000-08:00

Published in the March 2005 issue of The Progressive

Standing Their Ground

by Ruth Conniff

As the Bush Administration pushes forward with its aggressive plans to tear up the Constitution and launch its liberty jihad, Senator Barbara Boxer has stepped forward as the voice of Democratic opposition.

In her celebrated clash with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the confirmation hearings, Boxer quoted Martin Luther King Jr., in what ought to be the Democrats' new motto: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

The life began draining out of the Democratic Party the day it decided to take a pass on opposing the most aggressively rightwing Administration in history. Fortunately, Boxer and a handful of colleagues decided to reverse the trend by publicly repudiating Bush in what was expected to be a noncontentious confirmation process. In taking a principled stand against Rice and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a few Democrats became the party's backbone.

The counterpoint to this position, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, took to the floor to endorse Rice and to caution fellow Democrats against giving aid and comfort to America's enemies by opposing Bush's nominees, or his policies. The criticisms of Rice, particularly her dissembling on Iraq, Lieberman said, "are all about the past."

"I don't hear any criticisms about where we are now or where we should go in the future," he said. (Memo to Joe: The war in Iraq rages on. Thirty-one Marines died in a single incident on the highest-casualty day of the conflict for the United States, the same day you were making your let-bygones-be-bygones remarks.)

Sure, Rice and the rest of the Bush team made a lot of self-contradictory statements about weapons of mass destruction. But "if you're just upset about some of the things this Administration has done in Iraq . . . give [them] the benefit of the doubt." Lieberman pleaded.

Lest anyone think there's a minority party in this country that opposes Bush's crusade to spread freedom's "untamed fire" to "the darkest corners of the globe," Lieberman declared that, "in the final analysis, we're together. We're together on what we're doing in Iraq and on the spread of freedom and democracy around the world."

Why is this man a Democrat?

It was a Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who stepped up first to oppose the Pentagon's frightening new warmaking powers. After New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh and The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is running his own secret intelligence-gathering operation without Congressional oversight, McCain called for hearings to determine if, in fact, the Pentagon can claim such unchecked power.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are clearly divided on how to play the role of opposition. Boxer represents the more aggressive approach, while Lieberman and other spineless wonders continue to pursue the conciliatory route.

Even on abortion--once the last big ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats--the Dems are making increasingly conciliatory noises. On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton declared that pro-choice Democrats must find common ground with the anti-abortion crowd. She called abortion a "sad, even tragic choice" that pro-choice and pro-life Americans should work together to prevent through "religious and moral values," as well as abstinence education.

Remember when defending abortion rights was the big reason to vote Democratic? I guess that offer was good only before Bush took office for a second term.

So what's the outlook for the next four years? Who will oppose the Bush Administration's worst policies? And what hope is there for a minority party to be an effective opposition?

On the plus side, along with Boxer, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin found his voice during the confirmation battles and, despite his general policy of rubber-stamping cabinet appointments, including John Ashcroft, took a principled stand against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

While he is against opposing any cabinet nominee on ideological grounds, Feingold said, he opposes an Attorney General who does not respect the rule of law. "Time after time, Judge Gonzales has been a key participant in developing secret legal theories to justify policies that, as they have become public, have tarnished our nation's international reputation," he says. Chief among these, of course, is Gonzales's infamous memo declaring that torture isn't torture unless it causes pain "equivalent in intensity" to organ failure or death, and his dismissal of the Geneva Conventions as inapplicable to suspected terrorists, as well as his endorsing the suspension of the rights of so-called enemy combatants, a view later struck down by the Supreme Court.

"We cannot have a person heading the United States Department of Justice who believes that the President is above the law," Feingold asserted. "I think this Committee and the American people deserved to hear whether the next Attorney General agrees that the President has the power to disobey laws as fundamental to our national character as the prohibition on torture. Judge Gonzales refused to address this question unequivocally," Feingold said in a statement explaining his no vote.

On the issue of Rumsfeld's secret spy powers, Feingold told The Progressive: "When the Executive Branch starts acting without oversight from the elected representatives of the American people in Congress, a fundamental principle of our system of government is abandoned, and policy starts to go off the rails."

Just by bringing public attention to the outrages of this Administration, symbolic stands like the confirmation battles serve some purpose.

But more concretely, it is now up to the Democrats to stop the dismantling of Social Security, the rollback of abortion rights, global warfare, and secret torture chambers. Can they do it?

The numbers are not working in their favor. With the 55-45 split in the Senate, the Democrats can't call hearings or control when legislation reaches the floor. To increase their power, the Dems need to pick up seats in 2006. And they need to make enough noise about this Administration's outrages to help bring public pressure to bear. In other words, they need to be a real opposition. Boxer has the right idea.

But believe it or not, there are those who argue that what the Democrats need to do now is compromise more on matters of core principle.

American Prospect Editor Paul Starr, in a January 26 op-ed in The New York Times, put forward the theory that the Democrats are now paying the price for having made the great liberal gains of the last century through the courts and executive fiat. Roe v. Wade, civil rights laws, and other federal triumphs of liberalism were ahead of the curve, Starr writes. Imposed by the Supreme Court and the executive branch from above, they were always vulnerable to overthrow by an unconvinced populace. Fair enough. But instead of arguing that the Democrats should build a stronger grassroots movement, Starr goes on to assert that what the Democrats should do is compromise and agree to chip away at abortion rights and affirmative action, in order to appease Red State voters.

This sort of thinking is why Hillary Clinton extended an olive branch to the anti-abortion crowd. But it is a grave mistake. The Republicans have made their grassroots gains in the states and nationally by taking exactly the opposite tack. They have fired up their base by appeals to their party's most cherished principles. Especially on the issue of abortion, the Democrats actually enjoy the advantage of a majority pro-choice consensus in public opinion polls. It's absurd to capitulate to a minority of aggressive rightwingers. Worse, it is the seeming shiftlessness of Democratic candidates that makes them so unappealing.

Save Social Security from the privatizers. Get out of the quagmire in Iraq. Defend a woman's right to choose. And remember the words of Martin Luther King: Don't be silent about things that matter.

Ruth Conniff is Political Editor of The Progressive.

© 2005 The Progressive

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Ms. Conniff states the truth eloquently. I live in Senator Lieberman's state of Connecticut, and I used to be a big supporter of his, but I regret that I can be his supporter no longer. He has gone too far over to the right for me. Sadly, he has been seduced by the Dark Side, namely, the current administration. How he can possibly say to give this administration "the benefit of the doubt" in regard to Iraq. With all due respect, have you lost your mind, Senator? Say it ain't so, Joe! Maybe you should rethink your membership in the Democratic Party.)

Why Bush Will Fail in Europe

2005-02-20T08:36:00.000-08:00

Published on Sunday, February 20, 2005 by the Guardian (UK)

The President has an enormous political gulf to bridge. The trouble is, he doesn't even know it's there

by William Pfaff

President George W Bush arrives in Europe this week in the belief that the European Nato allies can be persuaded to 'turn away from the disagreements of the past' and open 'a new chapter' in transatlantic relations, as Condoleezza Rice, on her European trip, advised them to do. He is likely to go home without the concessions he wants.

He wants more help from the Europeans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably in other places yet to be announced; European backing for American policy on Iran (and Syria and Israel/Palestine); and no European arms sales to China. Those are Washington's priorities. There is a further list of secondary issues, commercial as well as political.

His trip will fail because he and his administration do not understand what really divides most continental European governments from the United States today. At the same time, Europeans are mostly unwilling to confront these issues, because of the trouble with Washington they imply. But, unacknowledged or not, they count.

First is the definition of the crisis. Few Europeans believe either in the global 'war on terror' or the 'war against tyranny', as Washington describes them.

American claims about the threat of terrorism seem grossly exaggerated, and the American reaction disproportionate and even hysterical. Three thousand were killed in the Twin Towers, but most advanced societies have already had, or still have, their own wars with 'terrorism' sustaining losses proportionately as severe: the British with the IRA, Italians and Germans with their Red Brigades, the Spanish with the Basque separatist Eta, and so on. It has been a condition of modern political existence.

The American-led invasion of Iraq is widely regarded in Europe as irrelevant to the reality of terrorism, overwrought in scale and destruction, and perverse in effect, vastly deepening hostility between the Western powers and Muslim society. To most Democrats as well as Republicans, 11 September was the defining event of the age, after which 'nothing could be the same'. Their imperviousness to any notion that this might not be so astonishes many abroad. Many European believe it is not the world that has changed, but the United States.

The second cause of transatlantic disagreement is the American claim to global domination, and its hostility to Europe's acquiring political or military power commensurate with European economic power.

This claim rests on the argument that an international system in which there is more than one major power is no longer acceptable. Two years ago, Condoleezza Rice told the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London that 'multi-polarity' in the past had been 'a necessary evil that sustained the absence of war but did not promote the triumph of peace'. As a theory of political society, she said, it stands for rivalry and competition. 'We have tried this before. It led to the Great War ... '

This obviously is untrue. The simultaneous existence of major as well as minor powers was the political reality throughout modern history, despite efforts to overturn it, most recently by Hitler and Stalin.

A traditional diplomacy of 'balance of power', meant to keep the peace, failed in 1914, and in 1938 the existing balance of power was deliberately destroyed by a hegemony-seeking Germany - in part made possible by an isolationist United States's refusal to intervene in Europe's affairs.

Speaking in Paris last week, the Secretary of State asked, 'why should we seek to divide our capacities for good, when they can be much more effective united? Only the enemies of freedom would cheer this division.' The alternative she proposes is an American-led international system that replaces Nato's principle of equality and collegiality with hierarchy.

Nato today has an internal multipolarity. The treaty requires consensus on actions, which means that differences of opinion can block US initiatives. The Bush administration prefers 'coalitions of the willing' to avoid this problem, although the fragility of the Iraq coalition does not encourage its use elsewhere.

The third basic disagreement is that the US has repudiated the system of absolute state sovereignty that has governed international society since 1648, and is the basis of modern international law.

This was an early casualty of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy, announced in 2002, which declared that preemptive attack had become an American policy option in the war against terror. The US then renounced, 'de-ratified', or simply abandoned a series of treaty commitments. These included Geneva standards on the treatment of prisoners and the prohibition of torture. The US has deliberately chosen to place itself outside the regime of international law, to which all of the European Union nations are committed.

The American claim to a dominating or hegemonic position in international affairs is bipartisan. The Clinton administration made it; the Bush administration makes it; John Kerry made it during last year's presidential campaign. It says that America's power itself imposes a right or responsibility to suppress terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and 'rogue states', and to enforce international order.

Any challenge to American primacy by another state, or by the European Union, is perceived a cause of international instability and therefore a potential source of disorder or war.

This American role is avowedly benevolent, and in the eyes of many Americans, certainly including President Bush, it is of divine origin (Woodrow Wilson also believed this). Within the present administration, there are those who believe cosmic forces are in play and responsible for America's emergence as the sole superpower. The American belief in a divine commission goes back to its religious origins in the 17th century, and is not open to logical refutation. Even secular interpretations of American destiny assert a moral claim, expressed thus in the 19th century: 'The United States has achieved the highest possible form of political system and that this great system can be extended to the rest of humanity ... Because America is exceptionally good, it both deserves to be exceptionally powerful and by nature cannot use its power for evil ends.'

Current transatlantic conflicts are thus not mere political disagreements. They derive from the nature of the evolving relationship between the US and a European Union that considers itself the sovereign legatee of the European powers of the past, and has a conservative commitment to the preservation of international order.

The claim America now makes is that destruction is a creative principle in politics as well as economics. 'Creative destruction' produces new order. This is a form of Utopianism.

The American challenge is to the fundamental claim of other nations to sovereign autonomy. In the immediate future this is likely to be managed rather than solved. Many European governments are undoubtedly willing to accept Washington on Washington's terms, as has Tony Blair's Britain.

Some, as already happens, will resist those terms and attempt to develop a European mid-term or long-term counter-power, which will not necessarily be military.

But throughout history nations and other political forces have been disposed to challenge claims to universal power. This is the source of current tensions. It is the closest thing to a natural law that history can offer. 'Stuff happens', whether intended or not, to use Donald Rumsfeld's language. Uneasy lies the crown, even for republics.

© 2005 William Pfaff

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Bushy Boy is a drunkard, and power is his poison. He is drunk with power. In order for rehab to work for an addict, the addict must first realize they have a problem and decide for themselves that they need help. Unfortunately, Bushy Boy is one of those addicts who doesn't believe he has a problem and that he can quit his power trips whenever he wants to. The problem is, he'll never want to and so the myriad problems he has, in this case, alienating our world allies, will never be resolved.)

US Troops Say it's Hard to Get Medical Care

2005-02-18T10:34:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, February 18, 2005 by USA Today

by Dave Moniz

WASHINGTON — National Guardsmen and reservists who are injured on active duty face daunting and sometimes insurmountable hurdles to get medical care, soldiers and military officials told a congressional panel Thursday.

The troops described an Army bureaucracy that loses track of wounded reservists, drops medical coverage before some are healed and often inflicts hardships on families.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, described the problems injured Guardsmen and reservists face as "the equivalent of financial and medical friendly fire."

The panel heard sometimes-emotional testimony from Guard soldiers who have been wounded in battle and administrators responsible for helping them navigate the medical system.

Gregory Kutz, a Government Accountability Office official who helped prepare a new report on deficiencies in Guard and reserve benefits, said that the Army has made improvements in treating Guard and reserve soldiers since 9/11. Still, he said, "many problems remain."

Among the shortcomings:

The GAO said that soldiers, including many with severe injuries, are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations and procedures necessary to gain access to military doctors.

Injured soldiers sometimes have to pay their own medical bills or go into debt because their active-duty tours end and they are physically unable to go back to their civilian jobs.

As recently as April, more than one-third of injured soldiers who applied to have their benefits extended were denied.

Unlike active-duty soldiers and Marines, Guardsmen and reservists typically get access to military bases and hospitals only when they are called to active duty. Once they are injured, Guard and reserve troops frequently need approval to have their active-duty service extended so they can continue medical treatment.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have prompted the largest call-up of Guard and reserve troops since World War II and flooded the health care system with casualties. More than 185,000 Guardsmen and reservists are currently mobilized for active-duty missions in the USA and overseas.

The problems surfaced in late 2003 with a backlog of hundreds of injured Guardsmen and reservists at Army hospitals around the country. Some of them were forced to wait months to get medical attention.

The Army recently streamlined the process to allow Guardsmen and reservists to stay on duty longer and complete their medical treatment. Chief Warrant Officer Rodger Shuttleworth, who helps administer health care policies for the Army, said the streamlining has solved "90% of the problems" related to extending health coverage.

But witnesses said other snafus remain. Sgt. 1st Class John Allen, a National Guard Special Forces soldier who suffered multiple injuries in Afghanistan, said he knows of numerous injured Guard and reserve soldiers who have stopped trying to seek medical care because it is too difficult.

"They give up somewhere in the process and just go home," Allen said.

© Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": First, this obscene administration sends our soldiers to fight in an immoral, illegal conflict, and then, to add insult to injury, it's made it difficult for our wounded to get medical care when they come home! Will this insanity EVER end?!?!? Yep! The inmates are definitely running the asylum!)

Hunger and Homelessness Rising, Government Aid Declining

2005-02-15T08:45:00.000-08:00

New Report Shows Bush Budget Out of Touch with Communities in Crisis

WASHINGTON -- February 15 --One week after the Bush administration released a budget calling for deep cuts in low-income assistance, a comprehensive new report by the National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness shows that hunger and homelessness nationwide are increasing far beyond the capacity of the homeless shelters and food pantries to which many turn for help. Funding cuts, such as the $1.8 billion decrease in the Community Development Block Grant proposed last week by the Bush administration, are exacerbating the problem.

“Each year, hundreds of shelters, pantries and soup kitchens are forced to turn away people in need because resources are tight,” said Kathleen Barr, author of the National Student Campaign’s new report. “Yet the Bush Administration has refused to accept the reality that hunger and homelessness are increasing, and instead has proposed cutting even more funding from programs that help low-income people. It doesn’t add up.”

Communities in Crisis is based on surveys of 900 emergency food and shelter providers in 426 small towns, large cities and rural areas in 32 states. Agencies in each state reported an increase in requests for emergency food or shelter; 74% of agencies reported an increase in food requests and 65% saw an increase in emergency shelter requests. On average, these agencies reported that food requests increased by 28% and shelter requests by 27%.

“We’re seeing more and more people struggling to get off the streets,” said Elizabeth Gomez, Executive Director of the Los Angeles Youth Network. “It’s truly heartbreaking to see the problem growing and not be able to provide enough shelter necessary to help everyone.” Shelter requests increased at 72% of agencies surveyed in California.

Charitable agencies are unable to help everyone who needs it due to inadequate resources. Communities in Crisis reports that 77% of agencies turned away people in need of emergency shelter and 24% in need of food; nearly all attributed this to a lack of resources.

“I’m proud of our food bank and our community for all we do, but there are so many we can’t help,” said Brenda Rivera of the Allentown Ecumenical Food Bank in Pennsylvania. According to Communities in Crisis, food requests rose at 72% of agencies surveyed in Pennsylvania, by an average of 31%. “We support ourselves by donations from the community, but it’s just not enough. We need help.”

Unfortunately, Communities in Crisis also reports that government funding for social programs is inadequate and declining. More than one-third (35%) of agencies nationwide reported funding cuts from the federal government. Very few (18%) agencies saw funding increases from federal government despite across-the-board increases in need.

Funding cuts are devastating for agencies and for people experiencing homelessness.

A 26% cut in funding for the Apostle’s House in Newark, New Jersey forced the shelter to reduce the number of people served.

Funding cuts at the Salvation Army—Harbor Light in Portland, Oregon forced the closure of a shelter for homeless women.

Findings reported in Communities in Crisis indicate that the Bush administration’s fiscal 2006 budget is out of touch with the harsh reality of hunger and homelessness in our communities. The Administration’s proposals to cut funding for the Food Stamp Program by $1.1 billion, public housing by $564 million, and the Community Development Block Grant by nearly $2 billion will exacerbate hunger and homelessness. The National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness calls upon Congress and the Administration to take these findings into consideration, halt all plans to cut low income programs, and instead to increase funding for critical homeless assistance, affordable housing, and food programs in order to alleviate the crises of hunger and homelessness in our communities.

Agency contacts available for interview upon request.

The National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness is a nationwide network of students and community members committed to ending hunger and homelessness in America by educating, engaging, and training students to directly meet individuals’ immediate needs while advocating for long-term systemic solutions.

Read the report at http://www.studentsagainsthunger.org

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": The above greatly saddens me, but doesn't surprise me in the least. It's just blatant proof that one of Bushy Boy's and his gang of sycophants' main goals is to take more and more from those in need in order to have more to give to those who are not in need. It's a textbook example of the Republican way of doing things, namely, Robin Hood in reverse. Instead of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, the Republicans, and Bushy Boy and his gang of sycophants in particular, rob from the poor to give to the rich. It's just that the poor don't have it to give. Talk about a nightmare!)

Democrats Getting Lessons in Speaking Their Values

2005-02-12T07:50:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, February 11, 2005 by the New York Times

by Sheryl Gay Stolberg

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 - Ever since the November election, Democrats have known that the hottest V-word is not "veto" or "Viagra," it is "values." Now, as hundreds of the party's elite descend here to select a new chairman and chart a course for the future, Democrats are enlisting a bevy of consultants - church leaders, a marketing guru from Silicon Valley and even a linguist - to redefine themselves and discover a message that will sell at the polls.

To George Lakoff, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who spoke at a retreat of the House Democrats last week, striking a resonant chord may mean a simple twist of the language used by the ruling Republicans.

"Republicans talk about tort reform, but nobody talks about the tort justice system," Mr. Lakoff said. Of the Democrats he said: "I urged them to talk in details of their values, but they're not used to talking that way. They're used to talking in terms of programs, and that's a disaster."

So the use of the word "values" or value-laden phrases has proliferated on Capitol Hill these days, spinning out in a new morality play in which everything, from Social Security to the driest spending cuts, is cast in terms of right and wrong. Democrats are freely quoting the Bible, as they did in a recent letter to President Bush. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, denounced the White House budget this week as "immoral" and had earlier offered up "old-fashioned moral values" in his response to the president's State of the Union address.

On Friday, a left-leaning evangelical Christian author, Jim Wallis, will visit Democrats for the second time in recent weeks, this time to instruct Senate press secretaries about how to "discuss the budget in terms of moral values," according to an invitation to the closed-door event. Meanwhile, Richard Yanowitch, a former Internet company executive, is borrowing the business concept of branding to help Democrats come up with what he calls a "new vision for governing."

In the House, the Democratic leadership last week tapped Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the son of a minister, to lead a "faith working group" to encourage lawmakers to sprinkle references to God and religion into their speeches. Mr. Clyburn sees plenty of possibilities. "Look in the Book of James," he said, using the biblical admonition to feed the hungry to rail against Mr. Bush's proposed cuts in food stamps.

Beyond the search for a unifying theme or a clear message - the absence of which many Democrats believe cost them the November election - Democrats have another goal: to turn the values debate away from what Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, calls "below the waist" morality issues like abortion and same-sex marriage and toward the programs and policies that Democrats support.

"The Republicans are trying to corner the values debate, and we Democrats want to expand the values debate," said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, the chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association. "We're talking about values including better schools, access to health care, personal behavior, and I add a Western value, and that is protecting God's creation, which is land and water."

The effort is playing out against the backdrop of a much deeper struggle, one that goes beyond language to the more fundamental question of what the Democratic Party should stand for. As Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, prepares to take the helm of the Democratic National Committee after a formal vote on Saturday, Democrats have been engaged in a bruising internal battle over whether to shift toward less absolute positions on issues like abortion, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, appeared to do in a recent speech urging tolerance of abortion opponents' beliefs.

Some Democrats say that internal squabble is misguided. "Right after the election, people really misinterpreted this moral value thing," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who recently examined the roles values played in the White House race. "People assumed moral values meant abortion and gay marriage. That is completely unsupported by the data."

Instead, Mr. Mellman said, the election turned on "a sense of shared values"- whether voters believed Mr. Bush or his Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry, shared their moral compass. So Mr. Mellman, who advises Mr. Reid, has been urging Democrats to do a better job of explaining the moral underpinnings of their political stands. But he would not share strategy memorandums or talking points.

"There is not some central values speech stamp," he said, "where everybody's got to send their speech to the values office."

To Republicans listening to the Democrats' oratory, sometimes it sounds that way.

"They've learned the lessons of the battle but not the war," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who helped formulate the language behind the "Contract With America," a manifesto of principles that helped his party reclaim the House in 1994. "The battle is that you have to be able to say 'God' and not flinch. They are picking up the language, but they don't have the genuine emotion behind it."

Mr. Lakoff said authenticity was essential. "I'm not advising them to quote the Bible," he said, "unless they really know the Bible."

Still, some Democrats are flinching.

"I'm Catholic; it's an intensely private part of my life," said Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, Democrat of California. "Does it aid me in my decision-making? Yes. But it's mine and mine alone, and it's one of the few things I still have. Not everything needs to be known."

Others say that in today's sound-bite society, Democrats need to say more. "If you are silent on these issues, you will get defined by the other person," Mr. Clyburn said, "and I think that's what's happened to us."

The Democrats' advisers say they do not expect any transformations overnight, either in the language Democrats use or the way voters react to it.

"We don't need just a few Bible verses or some cheap God talk," said Mr. Wallis, who is the founder and editor of the Christian magazine Sojourners and the author of a new book, "God's Politics." He added: "This is more than a language issue. It's a content issue. So I said to the Democrats: 'This isn't going to be a sprint. It's going to be a marathon.' "

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": The above is just some food for thought. However, unlike many conservatives (Republicans) I've heard and seen, we liberals and progressives need to "walk the talk," not just "talk the talk." We must put our beliefs and values where our mouths are.)

U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings

2005-02-11T17:24:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, February 10, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

More than 200 Fish and Wildlife researchers cite cases where conclusions were reversed to weaken protections and favor business, a survey finds

by Julie Cart

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such species need to be protected.

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.

Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is pushing to revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a $3-million reduction in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered species programs.

"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't so."

The two groups that circulated the survey also made available memos from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own time. Snow said that agency employees could not use work time to respond to outside surveys.

Fish and Wildlife scientists in 90 national offices were asked 42 questions and given space to respond in essay form in the mail-in survey sent in November.

One scientist working in the Pacific region, which includes California, wrote: "I have been through the reversal of two listing decisions due to political pressure. Science was ignored — and worse, manipulated, to build a bogus rationale for reversal of these listing decisions."

More than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information."

However, 69% said they had never been given such a directive. And, although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do so.

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency."

A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."

Don Lindburg, head of the office of giant panda conservation at the Zoological Society of San Diego, said it was unrealistic to expect federal scientists to be exempt from politics or pressure.

"I've not stood in the shoes of any of those scientists," he said. "But it is not difficult for me to believe that there are pressures from those who are not happy with conservation objectives, and here I am referring to development interest and others.

"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics — that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just refuse to do it."

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the public employee group provided copies of the survey and excerpts from essay-style responses.

One biologist based in California, who responded to the survey, said in an interview with The Times that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not interested in adding any species to the endangered species list.

"For biologists who do endangered species analysis, my experience is that the majority of them are ordered to reverse their conclusions [if they favor listing]. There are other biologists who will do it if you won't," said the biologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

© 2005 Los Angeles Times

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Findings altered to weaken environmental protections and favor business. Gee! Why am I NOT surprised!)

Some in Fargo Find They're Not Wanted at President's Speech

2005-02-04T08:10:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, February 4, 2005 by the Associated Press

FARGO, N.D. -- City Commissioner Linda Coates says she was shocked to learn she and her husband were among more than 40 area residents on a list of people barred from attending President Bush's speech here Thursday.

The list was supplied to workers at the two Fargo distribution sites, along with tickets and other forms citizens were asked to fill out, The Forum reported.

The list includes critics of Bush or the war in Iraq. It includes two high school students, a librarian, a deputy Democratic campaign manager and a number of university professors.

Coates said she originally was not planning to attend the president's speech, but got a last-minute ticket Wednesday night from Fargo Mayor Bruce Furness, who offered tickets to all city commissioners.

White House spokesman Jim Morrell and Don Larson, a spokesman for Gov. John Hoeven's office, said they knew nothing about a list of people barred from the speech.

"This is the first I'm hearing of it," Morrell said Wednesday.

Coates said she had no idea why she would be on a list, other than the fact that she has been outspoken in her political beliefs.

"I thought that was democracy," she said.

"To me, this is very revealing as to what this administration is all about - someone who doesn't want disagreement," said Coates, whose husband, Mike, is also on the list. "That's not healthy."

Also on the list was James Holm, the producer of "The Ed Schultz Show," and Berrett Gall, the former deputy campaign manager for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Satrom. Holm, a staunch Democrat, said he felt honored.

The Forum said many on the list are current or former members of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group, a local group working for "socially progressive" candidates.

Morrell said the White House is not directly involved in the ticket distribution but works with state and local officials to coordinate the process.

"I'm not aware of any list or of anyone being denied," he said.

Larson, Hoeven's spokesman, echoed that statement.

"I don't know anything about the list," he said. "No one was denied tickets."

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Yeah, well, this country USED to be a democracy. Sad to say, the day Bushy Boy and his cohorts came through the door of the White House, democracy went out the window. This administration TALKS about democracy, for IRAQ, but it doesn't know the meaning of the word. Democracy does NOT mean blindly agreeing with the administration on everything they say and do, although they obviously beg to differ. Despite what they apparently believe, and what they seem would like US to believe as well, dissention is NOT un-American and is NOT to be feared! So far, at least, unlike the old Soviet Union, we have no Siberia to send dissenters to, at least not YET. Or maybe the administration will start sending the dissenters to Guantanamo Bay, which seems to have become America's gulag.)

Not Worth It

2005-02-03T08:27:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

by Cindy Sheehan

I was supposed to be on the Larry King Live show Monday night. I was asked to be on the show to offer my opinion on the election in Iraq from the perspective of a mom whose son was killed in the war prior to the elections. One of the questions I was going to be asked was: Do I think my son’s sacrifice was “worth it?” Well, I didn’t get a chance to be on the show that night because I was bumped for something that is really important: The Michael Jackson Trial.
If I was allowed to go on Larry King Live and give my opinion about the elections and about my son’s sacrifice, this is what I would have told Mr. King and his viewers:

My son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan (KIA, Sadr City, 04/04/04) enlisted in the Army to protect America and give something back to our country. He didn’t enlist to be used and misused by a reckless Commander-in-Chief who sent his troops to preemptively attack and occupy a country that was no imminent threat (or any threat) to our country. Casey was sent to die in a war that was based on the imagination of some Neo-Cons who love to fill our lives with fear.

Casey didn’t agree with the “mission”; he believed in being the courageous and honorable man that he was. He knew he had to go to this mistake of a war to support his buddies. Casey also wondered aloud many times why precious troops and resources were being diverted from the real war on terror.

Casey was told that he would be welcomed to Iraq as a liberator with chocolates and rose petals strewn in front of his unarmored Humvee. He was in Iraq for two short weeks when the Shi’ite rebel “welcome wagon” welcomed him to Baghdad with bullets and RPG’s, which took his young and beautiful life. I think my son’s helmet and Vietnam era flak jacket would have protected him better from the chocolates and flower petals.

Casey was killed after George Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003. He was also killed after Saddam was captured in December of that same year. Casey was killed before the transfer of power in June of 2004 and before these elections. Four marines were tragically killed after the election, yesterday. By my count about five dozen Iraqis and coalition troops were killed on Election Day. Is this the definition of “Catastrophic Success?” Is that a good day in Iraq? Hundreds of our young people and thousands of Iraqis have been needlessly and senselessly murdered since George Bush triumphantly announced an end to “major combat” almost two years ago now. All of the above events have been heralded by this administration as “turning points” in the “war on terror" or as wonderful events in the “march of democracy.” Really? I don’t think, judging by very recent history, the elections will stop the bloodshed and destruction.

I would have asked Larry King if he would want to sacrifice one of his children for sham elections in Iraq. Would he or George Bush send their children to be killed or maimed for life for a series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations? Now that every lie has been exposed to the light for the invasion and occupation of Iraq why are our sons and daughters still there? Not one more drop of blood should be spilled for this pack of lies.

This war was sold to the American people by a slimy leadership with a maniacal zeal and phony sincerity that would have impressed snake oil salesmen a century ago. The average American needs to hear from people who have been devastated by the arrogance and ignorance of an administration that doesn’t even have the decency or compassion to sign our “death” letters.

In the interest of being “fair and balanced” (oops, wrong network), I would have been pitted against a parent who still agrees with the “Mission” and the President. Although, I grieve for that parent’s loss and I respect that parent’s opinion, I would have defied Mr. King or that parent to explain the “Mission” to me. I don’t think anyone can do it with a straight face. The President has also stated that we need to keep our troops in Iraq to honor our sacrifices by completing this elusive and ever changing “Mission.” My response? Just because it is too late for Casey and the Sheehan family, why would we want another innocent life taken in the name of this chameleon of a “Mission?”

Well, I was bumped from the show anyway. Now that Scott Peterson has been convicted and sentenced for his crimes and Laci and Connor’s families have the justice they deserve, we have the new “trial of the century” to keep our minds off of the nasty and annoying fact that we are waging an immoral war in Iraq. We can fill our TV screens and homes with the glorified images of the Michael Jackson molestation trial. We can fill our lives with outrage over MJ’s victims and hope they get justice; not even questioning the fact that George Bush, his dishonest cabinet, and their misguided policies aren’t even brought to the court of public opinion. We won’t have to confront ourselves with the fact that the leaders of our country and their lies are responsible for the deaths of 1,438 brave Americans, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the loss of our Nation’s credibility throughout the world. That might mean we would have to turn off our television sets and do something about it.

Oh yeah. In answer to the original question Larry: No, it wasn’t worth it.

Cindy Sheehan is co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace www.GSFP.org. Her son Casey's webpage is http://www.angelfire.com/sk3/spkhntrca/Casey.html

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": I would just like to get Cindy Sheehan's message out to whoever reads this blog because it deserves to be read. How many MORE Americans are going to pay the ultimate price before our idiotic, insensitive, amoral, moronic, warmongering powers that be FINALLY put an end to this illegal, immoral, murderous debacle that they so euphemistically refer to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The more ACCURATE name for it would be "Operation American Arrogance" because that's EXACTLY what it is.)

Bush Promotes Corporate, Anti-Consumer Agenda in State of the Union

2005-02-02T09:16:00.000-08:00

Public Citizen’s Response to Bush on Legal Rights, Energy and Trade

WASHINGTON -- February 2 -- President Bush’s State of the Union address will provide the nation another opportunity to examine and understand a radical domestic agenda that, if enacted, will curtail consumer, civil rights and environmental protections, take away the legal rights of citizens defrauded or harmed by corporations and medical providers, and further erode democratic principles.

“President Bush’s heartless agenda is a blueprint for stomping out a century of reforms that have made this nation more prosperous and brought cleaner air and water, less poverty and more basic fairness for the people who do the everyday hard work to keep our country running,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “Bush cynically views government as an agent for the very rich, particularly his campaign contributors. Born to great wealth and prominence and helped along every step of the way by wealthy benefactors, he remains sorely out of touch with the concerns and problems that Americans encounter in their daily lives – and sadly, his actions indicate he just doesn’t care.”

Below are Public Citizen’s responses to several specific issues:

Bush’s Assault on the Legal Rights of Citizens

Bush falsely claims there is a “crisis” in the civil justice system and is pushing Congress to enact sweeping changes that would dramatically curtail the rights of citizens to seek redress in court when they are defrauded or otherwise harmed by corporations or injured by doctors.

Specifically, Bush is backing S. 5, the business class action bill, which is expected to be voted on by the Senate during the week of Feb. 7-11. This bill would move most class action lawsuits of any significance out of state courts – which have traditionally heard these suits – to the already-overburdened federal courts. Because federal courts rarely certify nationwide class actions based on state consumer-protection laws (and there are no comparable federal laws that can be enforced by citizen lawsuits), most class actions involving market abuses – such as overcharges by insurers, selling defective products, predatory lending scams targeting seniors and the poor – would be blocked.

“This bill, unless amended, creates a classic Catch-22 for consumers,” Claybrook said. “Congress says, ‘You must go to federal court.’ But the federal courts will lock consumers out. It’s the perfect scenario for businesses seeking to avoid accountability, and the most likely outcome is that we will see a surge in corporate misbehavior.”

Also on Bush’s agenda is legislation to place a nationwide $250,000 cap on non-economic damages that juries can award to patients who are injured by negligent or incompetent doctors, drug companies, HMOs, nursing homes, hospitals and other health care providers. Such limits would apply to even the most horribly disfigured, crippled or brain-damaged victims.

Bush claims that “frivolous lawsuits” are out of control and that such lawsuits are making malpractice premiums for doctors unaffordable, but there is scant evidence to support Bush’s dubious contentions. Malpractice premiums are driven by economic cycles that affect insurance industry investments (and profitability), not payouts to malpractice victims. In fact, just 5 percent of doctors nationwide are responsible for about half of all malpractice payouts – but Bush is offering nothing to weed out these repeat-offender doctors.

“Once again, as he did with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and as he is now doing with Social Security, Bush has created a bogus crisis so that he can rally support for a special interest agenda that is bad for America,” said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division.

Bush’s Corporate Welfare for Energy Corporations

Bush likely will call for energy legislation that will reward energy companies and investment bankers that now own power plants and natural gas pipelines. Despite the lessons learned from the massive fraud and market abuse by Enron and other energy companies in recent years, Bush advocates further deregulation of the energy sector. This includes the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a staple of consumer protection enacted to stem the type of abuses that helped cause the Great Depression. This law protects utility customers from unjustified rate hikes and service disruptions by limiting the ability of executives to use ratepayer profits to embark on risky business ventures unrelated to their core utility business.

The administration also wants to deliver billions in taxpayer dollars to energy companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, a clear reward for the more than $8.5 million contributed to his re-election campaign by the energy and investment sectors, not to mention the $3.7 million donated to his second inauguration and the additional $7 million to the Republican National Committee.

In addition, Bush advocates nuclear power as a promising and “renewable’ energy source, while ignoring the massive nuclear waste problem and urging taxpayer subsidies to fund the next generation of nuclear reactors. Tax dollars already are subsidizing half the cost – estimated to be as much as $87 million each – of the new U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission “early site permit” application process in Illinois, Mississippi and Virginia, as well as combined operating and construction licenses for several huge consortia.

“Bush’s energy policy does nothing to help consumers, stem global warming or help clean up the environment,” said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. “It utterly fails to set a course that will sustain our country over the next century. It is the exact opposite of visionary.”

Bush’s Stubborn Insistence on Expanding Failed Trade Policy

Bush wants to expand the corporate globalization model – as embodied by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – to six more countries through the proposed Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. This model of trade relations has led to the largest U.S. trade deficit in history – a projected $600 billion by year’s end. The trade deficit, which is 5.5 percent of national income, is also the largest as a share of our national economy in the post-World War II period. Trade agreements have contributed to growing income inequality in the United States and stagnant economic performance in less-developed countries.

“The Bush administration insistence on pushing to extend the colossal failures of the NAFTA model to the poor countries of Central America, which have suffered for decades from the fallout of civil war, economic stagnation and natural disasters, is morally unconscionable,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “We join with the major U.S. and Latino civil rights and immigrant rights groups in opposing this offensive push.

“It is increasingly clear that no one is safe from the negative effects of these trade liberalization policies, which are leading to increased off-shoring of high-paying professional jobs and more risks to hard-won consumer protections and social programs. Bush’s plan to experiment with the privatization of Social Security, for example, could put the nation’s most popular social program at the mercy of World Trade Organization rules, which might make the experiment more difficult to reverse when it predictably fails to generate promised benefits.”

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": If reading the above article doesn't scare you, I don't know what will. Personally, it makes ME shudder! YIKES!!)

Do You Feel Guilty for the Sins of Bush and Blair?

2005-01-29T18:30:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, January 28, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

The War of Terror has killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of human beings, including trusting young GI's, pretty women, little babies and grannies, but those who shouldn't feel guilty do, while those who should, do not. "No regrets" is the trademark slogan of George W. Bush, Tony Blair, gung-ho torturers, and many others who've exercised their power without worries about accountability…or guilt.

Bush and Blair and all the kings' men are determined to feel no regrets, no matter how severe the carnage they've caused through bombings, ruthless home invasions, torture, and machine-gun attacks. Nor will they feel regret about the suicide explosions, car bombings, roadside bombs, kidnappings, beheadings, and other horrors that never would have happened, had they not started this sinful war.

So don't hold your breath waiting for Bush/Blair guilt, because it isn't going to happen. But what about you? Do you feel guilty for their sins? Should you?

Human beings resist guilt because it's so painful to experience. Sadness, grief, and rage aren't usually resisted because they're "clean" emotions-simple, automatic, and rarely questioned or examined. These strong feelings arise without much thought on our part.

Emotions can be manipulated up, or down. When Rush Limbaugh reassured his listeners that the depraved sexual torture by US soldiers is comparable to harmless fraternity hazing or blowing off steam, he was stoking a fire, building up anger against the "liberals" who oppose torture. Limbaugh's listeners were probably repulsed by the photos, but he helped them shift their rage away from the doers of the evil to its critics.

Rush used words and metaphors to reduce anger at anything affiliated with Bush or the war, while inciting rage towards his eternal scapegoat, "liberals". He also reduced-or eliminated-any feelings of guilt his listeners may have been experiencing.

Reducing guilt is easy; we're all too happy to feel relieved of that burden, even if it means we have to twist the truth into a pretzel shape. Instilling or increasing guilt, however, is another matter entirely; it's much harder to do because guilt hurts.

Guilt Requires Intelligence, Thoughtfulness and Moral Clarity

We may experience guilt spontaneously-or so it seems. If I say something that hurts your feelings, I feel guilty but don't remember "thinking" about guilt. On slow-motion videotape, however, I'd see that your face looked stricken for a moment, which triggered in me a cascade of reflection and thought, leading to my feelings of guilt. Guilt is painful but it's all that stands between us and utter brutality or indifference. Guilt shouldn't be banished, it should be enhanced. But first we must learn how it works:

1. The first thoughts, which I call "first-tier" responses, are so fast and fleeting that we seldom notice them. We only know that we "feel guilty" about something we've said or done. If we're reflective people, we'll notice unsettling thoughts such as "he just winced-what did I say wrong?" or "she's looking at the floor-she looks hurt".

2. Following these are the second-tier thoughts, of which we're usually aware. This is where we put two and two together: "I wonder if he thought I was including him when I talked about "those wimps"?" or "Oh no, I forgot that her father recently died of the disease I just mentioned".

3. The third-tier thoughts are where guilt will either enter our hearts and minds, or be refused entry by our inner "ego guard". We all have defenses that keep us from feeling overwhelmed by emotion-necessary in some situations, dangerous in others. Too little guarding and we'll fall apart emotionally, unable to get on with our day. Too little and we'll overlook serious problems in our thinking or consequences of our actions.

At the third-tier stage, many people are so uncomfortable that they'll grasp at any straw to get relief from threatening feelings of guilt. "Conservative" friends, talk show hosts, columnists and religious authorities help soothe away any sense of guilt by pointing out how the harmed person "had it coming", "asked for it", "is just whining", "doesn't deserve sympathy", "needs a kick in the pants", or "probably deserved it."

These "conservative" moral relativists then boost the guilty party's ego (at the very moment it's most in need of re-assessment and critique) by persuading him or her that "no harm was done", "don't worry, you tried your best", "you meant well", "it's actually you who's the victim here, not them" or even "so what?", "you're making a mountain out of a molehill" and "who cares?".

The Rightwing Media's Achievement: Guilt-Disabled Americans

This is what "conservative" talk show hosts and newspaper columnists around the country have created: the guilt-disabled American. Without guilt, we are capable of anything. Without guilt, we can be led on an invisible leash by leaders who are likewise guilt-disabled, because we no longer have the need, nor the ability, to think for ourselves.

Without the capacity for guilt, we can't "second-guess" our leaders, i.e., use our heads. There is no need, because we've learned the excuses by heart. Even before the next dirty deed is done, our minds stand at the ready with automatic rationalizations and excuses.

If your innate goodness-your empathy, your conscience, your capacity for guilt-is cut off the moment it begins to rise within you, eventually you will feel no pain. You'll be able to say, do or condone any form of cruelty without discomfort. Your ability to feel guilt will atrophy, which is precisely what your leaders, with the help of their rightwing religious apologists and media allies, have been working towards.

Of course the question will arise: Should those who've opposed the war all along feel guilty, too? This brings to mind the story of The Little Red Hen, whose barnyard friends refused to help her do the work required to make the delicious bread they all craved. After working alone while the lazy creatures sat in the sun, dreaming of that first warm slice, the Little Red Hen finally announced that the bread was ready.

When the duck, the pig, the horse and the cow exclaimed that they couldn't wait to eat, she informed them that they weren't involved in the making of the bread, so they wouldn't be involved in the eating of it. "I made it all by myself, so I'm going to eat it all by myself", she told her disappointed friends.

If you've tried hard to prevent or end this war anyway you can, while your friends, family and neighbors sat idly by, you deserve the benefits of your lonely labors-a clear conscience. If others attacked your efforts, you deserve a reward as well, but I don't think they hand our Purple Hearts for suffering in the service of trying to prevent a war. You may have to content yourself with spiritual rewards. As Jesus said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".

If you secretly disapproved of the war while acting pro-Bush or pro-Blair to avoid trouble at home, at work or at church, well perhaps these private feelings prevented you from adding to the public's prowar frenzy. You may have tried not to reveal your opposition because you felt too weak, overwhelmed by life's problems, or simply outnumbered. Many people from the "red states" have written to tell me that they've feared for their jobs, even their physical safety, after saying something that sounded antiwar.

You can't be blamed for feeling intimidated or taking precautions, but should you feel guilty if you didn't speak up? This is the thorniest of questions, one that Germans are still struggling to answer, 60 years after the doors of Auschwitz were flung wide and the true horror of what had transpired in those dank halls became public. Not all of us are strong, talented, or well connected. Some are shy, anxious, poverty-stricken or shut off from the world in one way or another. If you hated this war, surely you do not bear responsibility for what it's done to people at home and abroad. But you may still feel guilty.

What about all those who did support the war, but claim they did so only because they were deceived by "bad intelligence" or the assurances of trusted leaders? Most people lack the know-how to look for multiple news sources; because our nation's media has been gobbled up by rightwing power brokers, Americans see only what the White House wants them to see. Are they guilty of failing to educate themselves more fully when they don't know how? Are they guilty of not questioning their leaders, when all their lives they've been trained never to question authority?

Where's the Guilt?

You can blame a conformist for going along with the crowd, but what good will it do? Better to hold the masterminds, liars, fudgers, and subtle propagandists accountable. Because its job is to prevent public misinformation rather than create it, the mainstream media, regardless pressure from its political masters, is most deserving of blame. It betrayed our trust, with tragic results.

The majority of Americans, and every single Senator except for brave Barbara Boxer, supported the war and-if they have any moral integrity-can and should reap the "benefits" of their stance: guilt. Those who condemned anyone who questioned the war as "unpatriotic" deserve an extra helping.

Redemption is possible if and when we courageously say, "Unlike our leaders, I am strong enough to admit that I was mistaken, and I'm sufficiently intelligent and moral to have regrets!" Forgiveness, however, can only be granted by God, by the victims of this unholy war, and by all who loved them.

Independent thought, intelligence, and moral clarity are the enemies of dictators, torturers and warmongers everywhere: When you can think for yourself, you can regret not only your actions, but theirs, as well. You may even notice their horrendous hypocrisy:

"The story of the [prison] camps reminds us that evil is real and must be called by its name and confronted," Cheney told a gathering in Krakow. "We are reminded that anti-Semitism may begin with words but rarely stops with words and the message of intolerance and hatred must be opposed before it turns into acts of horror." ("Anniversary Brings Leaders, Survivors to Auschwitz", Reuters 1/27/05)
One day, when the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib tour guides point to lurid photos of the depraved torture and fatal beatings that transpired inside those animal cages and windowless cubes, they will tell horrified visitors from around the world that anti-Arabism began with words but didn't stop with words. They'll show old footage from Fox News and clips from The New York Times and Parade Magazine to show how messages of intolerance and hatred subtly silenced doubts about the war and lulled Americans into embracing torture "in some cases".

They will explain that people like Cheney, Bush and Blair persuaded citizens not to oppose the men who were leading America down the path that ultimately led to its undoing, nor even to call evil by its name. Hanging over the blood-stained tile where a terrified naked prisoner was once attacked by dogs, the banner will read, "No Regrets".

Dr. Teresa Whitehurst is a clinical psychologist, author of Jesus on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family (2004) and coauthor of The Nonviolent Christian Parent (2004). She writes the column, "Democracy, Faith and Values: Because You Shouldn't Have to Choose Just One", as seen on her website www.jesusonthefamily.org.

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": No, I don't feel GUILTY. Embarrassed, ashamed, even nauseated, but GUILTY, no, because I haven't done anything to feel guilty for. It's those who have actually COMMITTED the human rights violations who should feel guilty, but with this amoral administration we've got to suffer with for another four years, we shouldn't hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen.)

The One Good Thing About The Bush Administration

2005-01-28T10:58:00.000-08:00

Believe it or not, I have been able to come up with one -- and ONLY one -- good thing to say about the Bush Administration, and that is, this ghastly group of MISleaders, liars, and deceivers has brought the progressives and liberals out of the shadows unlike anything else I've ever seen. That's a very, very, VERY good thing.

THE RUMINATOR

36 U.S. Troops Die in Iraq in Their Bloodiest Day

2005-01-26T20:30:00.000-08:00

Published on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 by Reuters

by Matt Spetalnick

BAGHDAD -- Thirty-one U.S. troops were reported killed in a helicopter crash and five more died in insurgent attacks Wednesday in the deadliest day for American forces since they invaded Iraq 22 months ago.

The heavy U.S. toll came amid a series of guerrilla bombings and raids that killed 10 Iraqis in a campaign to sabotage Sunday's landmark election -- a cornerstone of U.S. plans in Iraq.

CNN, quoting the U.S. military, reported 31 Marines died when their transport helicopter went down in the deserts of the restive Anbar province of western Iraq.

The military confirmed casualties to reporters but gave no figures, as search and rescue teams scoured the area. The cause of the crash was not immediately known.

Four U.S. Marines were killed in action in Anbar province, and an American soldier was killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack north of Baghdad, U.S. officials said.

The latest surge of insurgent attacks appeared aimed at sowing panic even as the U.S.-backed interim government vowed stringent measures to safeguard the election, Iraq's first since the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

In a closely coordinated attack, three suicide car bombers hit the town of Riyadh, a Sunni Arab area southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk.

Two explosives-laden cars blew up simultaneously close to an Iraqi army post and police station and a third vehicle detonated minutes later on a nearby highway, a local police chief said.

Four Iraqi policemen, two Iraqi soldiers and three civilians were killed, and at least 12 people were wounded, police said.

Shortly after the blasts, a U.S. combat patrol heading to the scene came under small arms fire and two U.S. soldiers were lightly wounded, the military said.

The previous deadliest day for U.S. forces was March 23, 2003, the third day of the war, when 28 U.S. soldiers died mostly in fierce fighting in southern Iraq.

STRING OF ATTACKS

Police in Baquba, a mixed Shi'ite and Sunni town 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, said one Iraqi policeman was killed and at least eight people were wounded when gunmen fired on the local offices of three parties contesting the polls.

Sunni insurgents have repeatedly targeted the country's fledgling security forces in the countdown to the election, accusing them of collaborating with U.S.-led occupiers.

Iraq's Shi'ite minority is expected to dominate the vote after decades of rule by Saddam's Sunni minority.

In the northern city of Mosul, a rebel stronghold that has seen persistent violence, a video filmed by insurgents showed three Iraqi men who had apparently been taken hostage and who said they worked for Iraq's electoral commission in the city.

On the video, a hooded insurgent carrying a pistol read out a statement as another masked guerrilla crouched with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher on his shoulder.

"We are mujahideen in the province of Nineveh. What they call elections have no basis in the Islamic religion and that's why we will hit all election centers," the statement said.

Several guerrilla groups in Iraq -- including militants loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in the country -- have declared war on Sunday's elections, vowing to attack polling stations and kill those who dare to vote.

The government plans extraordinary security measures, including closing Baghdad airport and land borders over the election period, extending night curfews in cities and banning cars from roads on election day. Zarqawi, a Jordanian with a $25 million bounty on his head, says the election is a plot by Washington and Iraqi Shi'ite allies against Sunni Arabs, who now fear being marginalized.

Iraq's Shi'ites, oppressed under Saddam, strongly support the elections. A list of candidates dominated by Shi'ite Islamists and drawn up with the guidance of revered cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is expected to win the most votes, cementing the newfound political power of Shi'ites.

But many Sunni Arab parties will boycott the polls, saying the insurgency raging in Iraq's Sunni heartlands will prevent their supporters from voting and skew the results.

Tension between Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs has been stoked by a series of bomb attacks on Shi'ite targets, raising fears of sectarian conflict.

Insurgents have also assassinated several leading officials. Tuesday a top Baghdad judge was killed along with his son in an ambush as they left home during morning rush hour.

© Reuters Ltd 2005

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": How much longer is this insanity going to be allowed to continue?)

The Accountability Moment

2005-01-24T10:50:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, January 21, 2005 by Working For Change

Was Election 2004 Our Last Chance to Hold Bush in Check?

by Byron Williams

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful."
--President George Bush, January 16, 2005 Washington Post interview

I was shocked to learn that the 2004 election was the American people's single, solitary moment to hold the current administration accountable for its actions. As the president begins his second term, know that you blew your one and only chance at holding him accountable.

With the passing of the accountability moment there can be no more comments from the peanut gallery. If there are families and friends of our soldiers who have some growing doubt about our mission in Iraq, tough!

In a very linear, and I do mean linear, sense the president is correct. Accountability is, indeed, what elections involving incumbents is about. By the margin of roughly 119,000 individuals in Ohio, the American people believed that the president's record warranted an additional four years.

But in Bushspeak this could mean something very different. Bush seems to think that Election 2004 was our only opportunity to halt what it is becoming a 21st century version of Manifest Destiny. The president's belief in his God-given right to act as he sees fit reduces the Geneva Convention and the Constitution to secondary considerations. And from the president's perspective, the accountability moment is something that happens once every four years.

But acts of opposition should be undertaken more frequently than every four years during presidential elections. Could you imagine the Civil Rights Movement protesting during the 1960 presidential campaign between Kennedy and Nixon, then putting everything on hold until the 1964 campaign between Johnson and Goldwater? Was Congress was wrong for going after Nixon for Watergate? Was the Monica Lewinsky affair completely out of bounds?

Not only does the passing of the election grant immunity to the president, but such favor also gets passed on to members of his administration.

This would certainly explain the rationale for Paul Bremer, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet joining the ranks of Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa in receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If accountability is no factor, then I suspect outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft's medal will be ready by the time Alberto Gonzales is confirmed.

What is perhaps most concerning is that the president's statement leads me to ultimately conclude that on November 2, 2004, we the people relinquished any right to hold this administration accountable for anything.

Why don't we just lay down in silence while the president privatizes Social Security and changes the tax code?

It seems somewhat paradoxical that while the president demonstrates his determination for democracy in Iraq, he also suggests that the American people suspend one of its most precious resources for the next 48 months.

The ability to hold our government accountable is fundamental to the American experiment. It was ratified by the Founding Fathers, held together by Lincoln, protected by Roosevelt, and reignited by King.

Meanwhile, the president, who has the lowest approval rating of a reelected incumbent since Nixon, believes that having survived the accountability moment he is no longer accountable.

Byron Williams writes a weekly political/social commentary at Byronspeaks.com. Byron serves as pastor of the Resurrection Community Church in Oakland, California.

© 2005 Working Assets

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Yes, as Mr. Williams, the writer of article, states, the (majority) of the American electorate blew its one and only chance at holding Bushy Boy accountable for all of his misdeeds of the previous four years by giving him another four in which to wreak even more havoc. Bushy Boy fed them lies and deception, and they fell for them the way a starving dog would fall for a T-bone steak. Talk about gluttons for punishment! It's just too bad that Bushy Boy's steak was poisoned, poisoned with his lies and deceptions which come as naturally to him as breathing. I just hope that that poison won't prove lethal to our once-great country. I doubt it will. Yep, they blew it all right, blew it BIG time! Well, they're now getting what they deserve, and I just hope they're able to live with the consequences of their action.

In a head-to-head contest, the overall better combatant doesn't always come out on top, and such was the case in the 2004 presidential election. Overall, John Kerry was by far the better contestant, but unfortunately, he wasn't the victor. Over the next four dismal years, I personally can take comfort in the fact that I voted for him. I would NEVER have voted for "King" George even if he'd been the only candidate running. Those of us who know better can take comfort in the fact that Bush can't run again. So, buck up, my fellow progressives and liberals! At least we've got that thought to keep us going.)

An Empty Exercise in Deceit

2005-01-21T19:58:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, January 21, 2005 by The Nation

by John Nichols

President Bush has not lost his flair for irony.

Just as the President hit the point in his second inaugural address where he declared to the dissidents of the world that "when you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you," authorities were removing peaceful protesters from the regal one's line of sight.

It was a similar juxtaposition of lofty rhetoric and less-than-lofty deeds that made the first term of the Bush presidency so unsettling to thinking people in the United States and abroad. And nothing in Thursday's inaugural ceremony suggested that the second term would be any better. Even as American forces remained mired in the quagmire of Iraq into which they were led by the Bush Administration's deliberate misreading of intelligence information, the President offered no indication whatsoever that he had learned from the mistakes and misdeeds of his first term.

Bush's lack of self-reflection belied the occasionally humble notes struck during his twenty-minute address. And it called into question the speech's bold assertions:

"Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen," said Bush, who declared, "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling." Sounds great. But should anyone read that as an abandonment of the doctrine of preemptive war that served as an excuse for the unilateral invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq during the President's first term? The President provided no such indication, and his record recommends the most extreme skepticism.

"We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny," Bush said as he specifically addressed dissidents around the world, urging them to resist oppression and issuing that ringing promise that, "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." Does this mean that when challenges are mounted to the oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or elsewhere, the United States will take the side of the rebels? Can we expect the United States to impose trade sanctions on China because of that country's brutal occupation of Tibet, its jailing of dissidents and its smashing of movements for trade unionism, religious freedom and democracy? If the leaders of Russia continue to dismantle that country's freedoms, will that put them on the wrong side of the United States? The sad truth is that Bush's Republican allies continue to ridicule former President Jimmy Carter for attempting to use economic sanctions and other diplomatic tools to oppose tyranny.

"America's influence is considerable, and we will use it competently in freedom's cause," the President announced. That's a reasonable sentiment. But should anyone take this as an acknowledgment that poor planning, self-delusion and isolation from the world made the Iraq occupation the mess that it is? Or that the United States will now set a different course? Read Sy Hersh's latest report in The New Yorker on maneuvering within the Administration to launch a guaranteed-to-be-disastrous war with Iran and you will have a hard time believing that competence and common sense have won out.

Speaking of what he called the "essential work at home," the President said he was determined to "make our society more just and equal." But how does he reconcile that pledge with the growing gap between rich and poor, assaults on affirmative action programs that allow victims of past discrimination to get an equal footing in society, and scheming to dismantle the safety-net protections of Social Security, Medicare and other programs?

The President affirmed his faith in "the durable wisdom of the Constitution." That's a fine choice of words. But does that mean that a second Bush Administration will begin dismantling the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine constitutional protections? Does that mean that he will refuse to nominate anyone to the federal bench who does not respect the Constitution's well-defined right of privacy--particularly as it relates to a woman's right to choose?
It would be appealing to take George W. Bush at his word. But, considering his track record, that is not an option. In fact, if history is a guide, the one guarantee we have is that Bush's words will not match his deeds. And his inaugural address will be remembered as nothing more than an empty exercise in deceit.

John Nichols is author of the book Cheney, Dick: The Man Who Is President.

© 2005 The Nation

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Bravo, Mr. Nichols! I couldn't have put it better myself! This really needed to be said.)

The Imminent Demise of the Republican Party

2005-01-18T13:38:00.000-08:00

Published on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

by David W. Orr

Following the election of 2004, much has been made of the weaknesses of the Democratic Party, even its possible end. But it has escaped the notice of our blow-dry television pundits and political observers alike that the Republican Party, in the full blush of triumph in control of all the branches of government and large sections of the media, stands on the edge of certain extinction. The reasons grow daily more evident. Over the past three decades, the moderate, business-oriented party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower was captured by its extreme right-wing thereby becoming a party dominated by ideologues, increasingly divorced from unmovable facts. But no organization, political party, or nation can long survive by ignoring realities of ecology, social justice, law, economics, and true security. Sooner or later, it will step off the proverbial curb into onrushing traffic of events, forces, and trends that it refused to see.
The Republican Party has already stepped into the road. The question is not whether it will survive as presently constituted, but what else will be destroyed as it collapses in ruin and ignominy, sooner than later. Beneath the noisy spin of its media echo chamber, the true platform of the Republican Party, its future epitaph, is founded on denial. The rules of the Republican Party of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, and their brethren are these:

Deny science when its findings are not agreeable to your base. Republicans, notably, are on the wrong side of the largest issue in human history: human driven, rapid climate change. They’ve chosen instead to live in a Crichton-esque science fiction fantasy in which real science has no standing and human actions have no tragic, irreversible, and global ecological consequences. This is not just boneheaded, it is a form of criminality for which we have, as yet, no adequate words.
Deny the looming approach of peak oil extraction thereby advancing the potential of economic, political, and social chaos when global oil supply and demand diverge as soon they will.
Deny the proven potential of superior technologies, design strategies, and policies that would move the country toward energy efficiency and a secure energy base of solar and wind power as well as the reasons of self-interest and economic advantage for doing so.
Deny the true costs of air and water pollution thereby undermining the health of Americans.
Deny the human and economic effects of pandering to the wealthy, thereby undermining social cohesion and the sense of fairness?historically, often a prelude to societal breakdown and revolution.
Deny any and all mistakes, bad judgment, and corruption, relying on spin not truth and thereby building a solid reputation for mendacity and incompetence.
Deny the limitations of military power to impose order on a recalcitrant world and thereby condemn the U.S. to a future of international isolation, conflict, and endless terrorism.
Deny the great vulnerability of the American infrastructure to malice, malfeasance, and acts of God, thereby laying the groundwork for a future of recurring disasters.
Deny the necessity for civil discourse, honesty, and transparency in the conduct of public life, thereby holding the citizenry in contempt and promoting a spirit of meanness.
Deny without admitting it the democratic values of the country enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, and the Four Freedoms of Franklin Roosevelt, thereby undermining democracy at home while purportedly fighting for it in Iraq.
The Republican Party has chosen to deny social, ecological, cultural, religious, and economic realities which are unavoidably complicated, complex, diverse, ironic, and paradoxical. Instead they have chosen to make their own simplistic, ideological, and chauvinistic fantasy world that has little affinity for law, science, a free and independent press, fairness, true security, ecological sustainability, and the accountability that is requisite for genuine democracy.

That fantasy is on the cusp of becoming a real life nightmare. Having made the United States a large bulls’ eye for terrorists and malcontents, it may implode catastrophically taking much else with it. It may come undone more gradually, but no less catastrophically, as the economy sinks under the weight of war debt and foolish tax cuts. It may be overthrown if and when thoughtful conservatives disturbed by fiscal recklessness and imperial pretensions, all honest persons offended by mendacity, bombast, criminality, conniving, and diversion, and all Christians sufficiently alert to notice the discrepancy between the words and life of the “Prince of Peace” and our foreign and domestic policies finally shift alignments. It may take longer as the die of climate change and ecological deterioration is finally cast and we trigger adverse global changes of which we have been often warned. Unlikely as it seems, in a different scenario the Republican nightmare still could be averted by an effective, committed, agile, and strategic opposition smart enough to recognize the historic convergence of opportunity, patriotic duty, sheer necessity.

David Orr (David.Orr@oberlin.edu) is a Paul Sears Distinguished Professor at Oberlin College. Author of The Last Refuge (Island Press, 2004).

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Regarding the title of this article, ah!, if only it were true! Well, we can DREAM, can't we?)

NH Woman Loses Insurance Coverage for Her Politics

2005-01-14T09:53:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, January 13, 2005 by the Associated Press

Company calls move 'common practice'

by Norma Love

Helen Johnston is an 80-year-old retired pediatrician who hardly considers herself much of a risk for being sued.

That's not how her insurance company sees it, however.

Johnston is losing extra coverage she bought years ago while she still practiced medicine - not because she's a retired doctor, but because she is active in Francestown politics.

The Providence Mutual Fire Insurance Co. sent her a letter last month notifying her it is not renewing her $1 million umbrella policy next month because of "the political positions the insured holds."

"If she was just a retired doctor, it wouldn't be an issue," said Dale Groves, vice president for underwriting for the Providence, R.I., company.

Johnston is vice chairwoman of her town's Democratic committee and a member of the Hillsborough County Democratic Committee. She helps campaigns by distributing posters and making calls, and she held a get-out-the-vote session for Howard Dean at her house.

Groves said that's enough.

"It's a common practice within the industry not to cover that because of libel and slander (risks)," he said.

The nonrenewal letter prompted state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, Rep. Claudia Chase and Rep. John DeJoie, all Democrats, to file legislation to require insurers to cover politicians.

"It's a matter of First Amendment rights," said DeJoie, of Concord.

DeJoie is reviewing existing law to see what, if any, protections there are for lawmakers.

"I, as a state legislator, could conceivably lose my insurance," he said.

Most likely, DeJoie and other lawmakers don't have coverage now against libel and slander, Groves said. Such coverage isn't standard under the home and auto policies most people have.

Groves said companies including his sell separate coverage for personal injury claims to people who have less exposure to being sued. But politicians must find coverage elsewhere, he said.

Providence renewed Johnston's policies covering her home and car because they don't cover libel or slander from her political activities, Groves said. But it would not renew her $1 million umbrella policy, which, as its name suggests, kicks in for claims not covered by the narrower policies.

Johnston likely could get coverage, but probably through a company that specializes in high-risk clients, said David Withers, the property and casualty actuary for the state Insurance Department.

Coverage decisions in New Hampshire are left up to insurance companies, with one exception: automobiles. Insurers must take all comers, though some drivers are put into a high-risk pool with higher rates, Withers said.

Johnston said she had nothing particular in mind when she bought her umbrella policy years ago.

"People thought doctors had a lot of money, and I wanted coverage if my dog bit someone," she said.

She said she got the nonrenewal letter after she filled out a questionnaire describing her activities.

"I don't think it ever came up before," she said.

"My main concern is - other than it seems terribly unjust - that they would use such a reason to not renew a policy after so many years," she said. "People shouldn't be penalized for their political activity."

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Well, so much for the First Amendment, for free speech. Toto, I've a feeling we're not in the United States anymore.)

Striking Similarity Between McCarthyism and George Bush's USA Patriot Act

2005-01-12T11:37:00.000-08:00

Published on Monday, January 10, 2005 by the Cape Times (Cape Town, South Africa)

by Leslie Liddell

The United States is said to be a free country. Its constitution has amendments (Bill of Rights) which, among other things, uphold free speech, the right of people to assemble peacefully, the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a speedy and fair trial by an impartial jury if you are accused of a crime.

It also states that "all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people". This is the received and perceived truth that many people who live both inside and outside of the US adhere to.

However, during the period from about 1947-1957, McCarthyism, given its name from Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, maintained that communists had infiltrated the US State Department.

Repressive measures against people labeled as communists were rife. Many Americans had their civil liberties and rights undermined.

Professor Ellen Schrecker, a well-known historian and expert on McCarthyism, has written extensively on the era. She says that through "part myth and part reality, the notion that domestic communists threatened national security... based on a primarily ideological conception of the nature of the communist movement... came... the government's attempt to mobilize public opinion for the Cold War".

During this repressive period, about 150 people were imprisoned, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death. Most of the major punishments were of an economic nature, however.

Schrecker notes: "People lost their jobs. The official manifestations of McCarthyism... the public hearings, FBI investigations, and criminal prosecutions... would not have been as effective had they not been reinforced by the private sector." Targeted people were blacklisted, which meant that they were unable to find employment.

This economic punishment extended to universities, colleges, the media, labor and the entertainment industry.

In all sectors of society, the state got civil society to do its dirty work by firing and blacklisting people. It is estimated that 10,000 people may have lost their jobs during McCarthyism.

The legacy of this period of political repression in the US was extensive. "There were social reforms which were never adopted, some diplomatic initiatives which were never pursued, workers were not organized into unions, some books were not written and some movies were never made."

In addition, the American left was negatively affected and the public space for alternatives to the status quo disappeared. The nation's cultural and intellectual life suffered.

Finally, Schrecker maintains that the anti-democratic practices associated with McCarthyism continued through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: "McCarthyism alone did not cause these outrages; but the assault on democracy that began during the 1940s and 1950s with the collaboration of private institutions and public agencies in suppressing the alleged threat of domestic communism was an important early contribution."

More recently, legislative proposals in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were introduced - less than a week after the attacks.

President George Bush signed the final bill, the United States Patriot Act, into law on October 26, 2001. It was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate and without a House, Senate or conference report.

As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation. It also doesn't provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of such legislation.

The USA Patriot Act introduced a number of legislative changes which significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the US.

The implications for online internet privacy are considerable. For example, the act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to authorize the installation of pen registers and trap and trace devices, and to authorize the installation of such devices to record all computer routing, addressing and signaling of information.

The act also extends the government's ability to gain access to personal financial information and student information without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply by certifying that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Many of the foundations of American democracy are violated by the Patriot Act.

It also defines "domestic terrorism" so broadly that political organizations could be subjected to the seizure of property for engaging in civil disobedience, for example.

Non-citizens can be imprisoned without charges, simply on the attorney general's injunction, without showing a court that they are dangerous or a flight risk.

Once again, the violations against the basic constitutional rights of Americans are being carried out in the name of national security and in the defense of waging a war. During McCarthyism, it was the Cold War. This time, it is the war on terror.

Liddell is national co-ordinator of the Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust.

© 2005 Cape Times

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Isn't it sad that a foreigner can so clearly see what our so-called "leaders" apparently cannot?)

Bush's Drug Videos Broke Law, Accountability Office Decides

2005-01-08T02:36:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, January 7, 2005 by the New York Times

by John Files

WASHINGTON - The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Thursday that the Bush administration violated federal law by producing and distributing television news segments about the effects of drug use among young people.

The accountability office said the videos "constitute covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, which were distributed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. They were broadcast by nearly 300 television stations and reached 22 million households, the office said.

The accountability office does not have law enforcement powers, but its decisions on federal spending are usually considered authoritative.

In May the office found that the Bush administration had violated the same law by producing television news segments that portrayed the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly.

The accountability office was not critical of the content of the video segments from the White House drug office, but found that the format - a made-for-television "story package" - violated the prohibition on using taxpayer money for propaganda.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the senior Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, who requested the review, said the use of the mock news segments broke "a fundamental principle of open government."

A spokesman for the drug policy office said the review's conclusions made a "mountain out of a molehill."

The spokesman, Tom Riley, noted that Congress had authorized the drug policy office to fashion antidrug messages in motion pictures and television programming and on the Internet. His office stopped distributing the antidrug videos after the G.A.O. report on the Medicare segments, Mr. Riley said, and never acted unlawfully.

The drug policy office told investigators that it would have been difficult for "a reasonable broadcaster" to mistake the videos for independent news reports.

But the G.A.O. said the drug policy office "made it impossible for the targeted viewing audience to ascertain that these stories were produced by the government."

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. The accountability office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they distributed editorials and newspaper articles written by government officials without identifying them.

The accountability office said the administration's misuse of federal money "also constitutes a violation of the Antideficiency Act," which prohibits spending in excess of appropriations.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": Why am I not surprised. Unfortunately, this is just the kind of all-too-typical, underhanded, the-law-applies-to-everyone-but-me Bushy Boy crap we'll have to put up with for yet another four long years.Thank goodness Bushy Boy can't run for re-election! That's the one bright spot.)

Business Lobby to Get Behind Judicial Bids...

2005-01-07T09:25:00.000-08:00

An Industry Group's Plan to Spend Millions Promoting Conservative Nominees Brings a New Dimension to the Divisive Confirmation Battles

Published on Thursday, January 6, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

by Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten

WASHINGTON — A powerful business lobby is preparing a multimillion-dollar campaign to aid the White House in its quest to win approval for conservative judges, a move that could transform the ideological battles over the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.

I believe that a sizable percentage of NAM's membership would be stunned to learn that NAM's leadership has decided to join the right wing's effort to eliminate a constitutional right to privacy, to strong civil rights protection and a woman's right to reproductive freedom.

Ralph Neas
People for the American Way
The new effort on behalf of some of the nation's biggest manufacturers will increase the cost, visibility and intensity of an already divisive confirmation process, one that has been dominated by social issues.

The shift puts the business lobby on the same side as social conservatives. The corporate world has long shied away from such controversial issues as abortion, but enthusiastically supports the Bush administration's campaign to rein in what it considers frivolous lawsuits against businesses and physicians.

The strategy's engineer is former Michigan Gov. John Engler, a longtime friend of President Bush who recently took the helm of the National Assn. of Manufacturers.

Engler said in an interview Wednesday that his organization would make confirmation of judicial nominees a top priority for the first time — providing money and a recently honed ability to stir grass-roots action nationwide. The group plans to spend millions of dollars on the campaign, but the exact amount has not been decided.

He said federal judicial confirmation debates are important to business, particularly because of judges' roles in civil liability cases.

"There has been too much of a tendency in the past to cast these judgeship battles as a social debate about abortion or gay rights. In fact, there are very few of those cases in contrast to those dealing with the tort system and the rights of individuals and companies," Engler said.

Engler's comments came on a day Bush promoted limits on medical malpractice lawsuits and a week after the president announced he would reappoint judges whose confirmation had been blocked by Democrats during his first term.

Although several of those nominations received wide attention, until now they had generally not been the subject of expensive television and grass-roots lobbying campaigns.

Longtime observers said the involvement of well-heeled organizations such as the manufacturers' group — which represents such large, blue-chip firms as General Motors, Boeing and Caterpillar as well as 10,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers — could increase pressure on moderate senators whose votes helped block confirmation for 10 of the 34 Bush nominees to federal appeals courts in the past two years. Several of those senators face reelection in 2006 and are already facing threats from religious conservative leaders if they try to block conservative jurists.

"It's certainly going to up the ante and increase the pressure on vulnerable Democratic senators," said one senior Democratic Senate aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I can't think of a similar situation where a group so little identified with such a debate is getting involved at this level in this way."

It was not clear Wednesday to what extent, if any, Engler was coordinating with administration officials. White House spokeswoman Erin Healy declined to comment on that, saying only that the administration "welcomes support of the president's judicial nominees."

Engler said he was finalizing plans with the group's board to establish a new organization, the American Justice Partnership, which would be housed inside the National Assn. of Manufacturers, or NAM. Engler said his initiative would focus on federal nomination fights — as well as state judicial issues — and it would be dedicated to grass-roots politics, not policy.

He hopes it will take advantage of the expansion of another NAM-funded group, the Business Industry Political Action Committee, or BIPAC, which operates get-out-the-vote and communications drives on behalf of business-friendly candidates.

During the 2004 campaign, BIPAC received credit for increasing pro-business turnout in battleground states, reaching 19 million employees with more than 40 million tailored messages. BIPAC president and chief executive Greg Casey confirmed recent discussions with Engler that he said could lead to an expansion of BIPAC's traditional role.

The manufacturers' initiative came as a surprise to the coalition of civil rights and abortion rights groups that have fought Bush's nominees.

Ralph Neas, who directs the liberal People for the American Way, said his organization would gear up to match the new effort, particularly on Supreme Court races. Neas predicted the move would backfire on Engler.

"I believe that a sizable percentage of NAM's membership would be stunned to learn that NAM's leadership has decided to join the right wing's effort to eliminate a constitutional right to privacy, to strong civil rights protection and a woman's right to reproductive freedom," Neas said.

Engler rejected the analysis.

"That kind of spin trivializes what's involved in nominations to the courts," the former governor said. "The whole effort to cast this in terms of a few social issues that Neas and his supporters deem important ignores the fact that much of the work of the courts has to do with America's ability to compete internationally."

That argument was made in recent years by another Bush friend, C. Boyden Gray, who established a Washington-based organization that supported conservative judicial nominees. Gray's organization, the Committee for Justice, has aired ads backing beleaguered Bush nominees. Engler sits on the board of that organization.

At the left-leaning Alliance for Justice, a coalition of public interest groups, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein said the manufacturers' plans were "payback for all the gifts that Bush has given to the business community."

Lynn Rhinehart, associate general counsel of the AFL-CIO, said the involvement of major corporations meant labor might have to spend more time and money this year blocking those nominees perceived "to be hostile to the interests of working people." From labor's point of view, a judicial branch dominated by pro-business judges could close off a last recourse for workers who feel harmed by regulatory and legislative decisions.

Copyright © 2005 Los Angeles Times

(Editorial Note From "The Ruminator": The above is all very sad and very scary, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. This pathetic administration loves to cater to big business, so of course big business is going to return the favor.)

Pell Cut an Attack on Working People

2005-01-06T12:40:00.000-08:00

Published on Wednesday, January 5, 2005 by the Capital Times / Madison, Wisconsin

by Dave Zweifel

The Christmas Eve news that the Bush administration is going to cut back on Pell grants for low-income students this year underscored just how out of kilter this country has become.

We're spending billions upon billions fighting a war that should never have been started and lavishing billions upon billions on giving the least needy people in America breaks on their income taxes.

As is almost always the case, the people who can afford it least wind up bearing the burden. How many times in our lives have we heard it? The rich get richer...

Americans are going to become brutally aware this year that their country cannot afford a costly war and massive tax cuts at the same time.

Although they maintain that the $7.5 trillion national debt is really not a problem, the Bush financial gurus are admitting that the annual budget deficit - now a record $435 billion - will have to be trimmed. The president himself has promised to cut it in half within the next few years.

We're already seeing how that's going to happen. Support to the states will be cut back in expensive programs like Medicaid, for example, thereby shifting part of the federal problem to the already cash-strapped states. And other domestic programs from environmental protection to education are going to get squeezed. In other words, we can't have both guns and butter - as most everyone has known for decades. Then throw in massive tax cuts and you've got the mess we're witnessing today.

The Pell cutbacks merely scratch the surface of what is yet to come.

Some 1.3 million college students - 2,000 of them right here on the UW's Madison campus - will have their education aid benefits cut by about 13 percent. Close to 90,000 others will lose them entirely.

This comes at a time when fewer and fewer children from low-income families are able to afford college as tuition costs skyrocket to make up for yet other cutbacks in education support from the state governments. For the kids of ordinary American working families, coming up with the money to earn a college degree is becoming a nightmare.

And let's put the blame where it lies - at the feet of this federal government that somehow managed to get another four years to continue down this disastrous path.

When the feds give trillions of dollars in tax breaks at the federal level, they're merely passing the burden to the states and local governments and to the people who can least afford to pay more taxes.

Some day, we've got to wake up.

Dave Zweifel has been editor of The Capital Times since 1983.

© 2005 Capital Times

Is the US Stingy?

2005-01-04T12:45:00.000-08:00

Published on Tuesday, January 4, 2005 by OneWorld.net

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - As the United States and the rest of the world rush aid to the victims of last Sunday's tsunamis around the Indian Ocean, a public debate has emerged on whether Americans are "stingy" or "generous" in their foreign aid.

In per capita terms, U.S. development assistance is near the bottom of the heap, averaging roughly 13 cents a day--or under $50 a year--for each of its roughly 280 million citizens.

The question was sparked by the UN's chief for humanitarian operations, Jan Egeland's characterization of western donors as "stingy" last Monday. Although he did not, as widely reported, single out the United States for criticism, reactions to the comment have loudest from here.

Right-wing U.S. commentators jumped on Egeland's remark as the latest provocation by the UN against Washington, arguing that the ungrateful Norwegian obviously did not know what he was talking about.

Bush himself denounced Egeland's characterization as "very misguided and ill-informed," and went on to insist that the US$2.4 billion Washington spent in emergency aid in 2003 represented 40 percent of the total amount of emergency assistance from all bilateral donors provided that year.

"No," he told reporters at his ranch in Texas, "we're a very generous, kindhearted nation." Two days later, he announced Washington was increasing its contribution to relief activities in the Indian Ocean ten-fold, to $350 million dollars, or roughly 40 percent of what had then be pledged by all donors.

But how does U.S. generosity actually stack up against that of other western donors?

Bush's figures on 2003 emergency aid relief were correct. Indeed, Washington has historically contributed by far the largest share of humanitarian assistance, normally providing between 25 and 30 percent of all aid in international emergency operations.

But in longer-term development assistance--the kind of aid designed to lift people out of poverty, provide them with the wherewithal to sustain themselves and contribute to economic growth, including infrastructure to guard against natural disasters such as tsunamis--most experts say the U.S. record generally leaves a lot to be desired.

While Washington is the largest single development aid donor--contributing some $15 billion dollars in 2003--the picture changes considerably when the size of its economy or its population is considered.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Washington contributed only 0.15 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to development assistance, earning it last place in the rank of the 21 major western donors. The U.S. is far behind the nearly one percent contributed by Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark--the top contributors--and less than half the percentage of its larger European allies, including France, Britain, and Germany.

Similarly, in per capita terms, U.S. development assistance is near the bottom of the heap, averaging roughly 13 cents a day--or under $50 a year--for each of its roughly 280 million citizens, according to a recent study by the Washington-based Center for Global Development (CGD). That is about one eighth of the per capita contributions of Norway, which gave an average of $1.02 per person, one-sixth of Denmark's (84 cents), and about half the average contributions of Belgium, Ireland, France, Finland, and Britain, according to CGD.

Right-wing commentators have argued, however, that the OECD's calculations are incomplete in that they do not include private contributions which should also be counted in considering whether Washington is a "generous" or "stingy" country.

"What this misses," the Wall Street Journal editorialized Friday, "is that Americans have never trusted government institutions to dole out assistance. Instead we open our wallets for private groups that are better at targeting money where it's needed, tracking projects, cutting waste--and getting better results."

But while Americans do indeed give more of their own money to overseas aid programs than most western donors, the amount remains by and large a small fraction of what other countries give through their governments.

According to the CGD study, Americans spend the equivalent of 5 cents a day on private donations to overseas aid programs, bringing public and private aid to a per capita average of 18 cents a day. This puts the U.S. well ahead of Italy, Spain, Portugal, New Zealand, and Greece; but it still lags behind Canada and Austria; and far behind the most generous donors--including Norway, Switzerland, and Ireland--which give more in private donations per capita, as well as government aid, than Americans.

"In terms of aid given per person, the U.S. is one of the least generous rich countries," said David Roodman, a CGD Fellow.

Even government aid plus private giving, according to some on the right, fails to capture the true generosity of American citizens, according to David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter who is now based at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). A truer picture would show that "Americans give more and do more--not just absolutely more, but proportionately more--than any other people on earth."

"Using the right measures, Americans are the most generous people in the world," according to Carol Adelman, a senior fellow at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute. In a 2003 'Foreign Affairs' article, she argued that, when other forms of assistance, such as military aid and subsidies to promote U.S. foreign investment, remittances by immigrants to their families in developing countries, donations by U.S. foundations and businesses, and scholarships from U.S. universities are included, Washington spent well over $55 billion in assistance to poor countries. Adelman, however, did not compare the U.S. performance on these variables with that of other donor countries.

A major effort last year to include a broader set of variables than government foreign aid and private donations, however, found that Washington ranked seventh--along with France, Germany and Norway--out of the top 21 donors as the country "most committed" to promoting development and disrupting poverty in the world's developing countries.

In their 'Commitment to Development Index,' CGD and 'Foreign Policy' magazine considered policies on trade, investment promotion, security, immigration and the global environment, as well as government aid and private giving, for the 21 major western donors.

Washington's relatively open markets for exports from poor countries, as well as its relatively liberal immigration policies, are chiefly responsible for its higher ranking, according to the Index. Even weighing these factors, however, the U.S. was still outranked by the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Britain, and Canada.

In a release issued late last week, however, CGD stressed that a greater investment by Washington in aid designed to reduce poverty could have gone far in reducing the need for massive assistance now in South Asia. It pointed out that a comparable tsunami in the northern Pacific would have cost far fewer lives because the region is lined with rich nations, such as Japan, Canada, and the U.S., that are able to afford monitoring systems, stronger buildings and better infrastructure.

"Most of the people killed by the tsunami died because they are poor," according to Michael Clemens, another CGD fellow. "Even with improved warning systems, little can be done to prevent natural disasters from becoming massacres as long as people's livelihoods, infrastructure, and public health conditions are precarious. To minimize the death toll in future disasters, we need to do a much better job of supporting long-term economic development in these countries," he added.

© Copyright 2005 OneWorld.net

(Editorial Note from "The Ruminator": "Is the U.S. Stingy?" If by "U.S." Mr. Lobe is speaking about the PEOPLE of the U.S., then, no, the U.S. is not at all stingy. However, if by "U.S." he's referring to the GOVERNMENT of the United States, as I believe he is, then absolutely the U.S. is stingy. I guess after coming up with an obscene 87 BILLION for the immoral war in Iraq, a paltry 350 MILLION is all they've got left for humanitarian aid for tsunami-stricken south Asia. Talk about screwed-up priorities!

Mr. Lobe writes that Bushy Boy told reporters, "we're a very generous, kindhearted nation." Yes, that's true of INDIVIDUAL Americans. If only our GOVERNMENT were as "generous" and "kindhearted" as individual Americans are. This administration obviously prefers to make war, not love.)

Bush Fails a Global Test

2005-01-01T10:02:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, December 30, 2004 by The Nation

by John Nichols

George Bush ended 2004 on a sour note.

But at least he maintained his record as the most disingenuous president since Richard Nixon.

When other world leaders rushed to respond to the crisis caused by last Sunday's tsunamis in southern Asia, George Bush decamped to his ranch in Texas for another vacation. For three days after the disaster, the only formal response from the White House was issued by a deputy press secretary. Finally, after a United Nations official made comments that seemed to highlight the disengaged nature of the official U.S. reaction to one of the worst catastrophes in human history, the president appeared at a hastily-scheduled press conference to grumble about how critics of his embarrassing performance were "misguided and ill-informed."

Bush bragged about the U.S. commitment of $35 million to help respond to a tragedy that has cost more than 100,000 lives and displaced millions of people in India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Somalia and other countries.

What the president did not say is that this initial commitment is less than the planned expenditure for his Jan. 20 inauguration: $40 million.

It was, as well, less than the immediate commitment by smaller and less wealthy nations such as Spain, which has moved to guarantee a $68 million line of credit for the hardest hit countries.

The president's missteps have been noted by the rest of the world, and by diplomatic observers at home. Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Bush had missed an opportunity to display humanitarian, moral and diplomatic leadership in the world. Reflecting on the administration's response, Derek Mitchell, an expert on Asian affairs at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "I think politically they've done poorly."

At a time when the U.S. image abroad has been battered by the president's unilateral decision to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration should have been sensitive to the need to respond quickly and effectively to a disaster of this magnitude. But that did not happen. Bush failed to engage at the critical point and then peddled the lie that the U.S. is in the forefront of providing humanitarian aid.

Thirty other developed nations commit greater proportions of their gross domestic products to humanitarian projects than does the U.S. In fact, the entire U.S. commitment for humanitarian aid in 2004 -- $2.4 billion -- was about the same amount as the U.S. spends every ten days to maintain the occupation of Iraq. The contrast between the Bush administration's spare-no-expense approach to Iraq and its penny-pinching response to the crisis in southern Asia is devastating for America's image abroad.

But it is not too late to respond in a more appropriate manner.

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, a longtime advocate for a more responsible U.S. policy regarding humanitarian aid, has suggested that the U.S. should rescind a portion of the reconstruction aid that has been budgeted for use in Iraq. Of an estimated $18.4 billion allocated for that purpose through December, only about $2 billion has been spent.

Leahy has already attracted some interest in his proposal from Congressional Republicans. Hopefully, this will influence the administration to dramatically increase its commitment to emergency relief and redevelopment aid.

What is the appropriate commitment? Over the critical period of the next several months, the U.S. should provide at least as much money to rebuilding southern Asia as it does to maintain the occupation of Iraq – a figure Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last year put at roughly $3.9 billion a month but that is, in reality, much higher. Committing as much to aiding southern Asia as is now being spent to occupy Iraq would signal that the U.S. wants to rejoin the world community.

Committing dramatically less – as appears to be the president's intent -- will confirm the impression that the U.S. is more interested in spending money on a military misadventure than on a necessary reconstruction.

Copyright © 2004 The Nation

Oh, What a Year it Was

2004-12-31T10:48:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, December 31, 2004 by the Boulder Daily Camera (Colorado)

by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas — Oh 2004, 2004, bird thou never wert. Was it really that horrible a year, or does it only seem that way?

Abu Ghraib, the endless trials anent Kobe Bryant and Scott Peterson, war in Iraq looking worse every day, Howard Dean eliminated over a whoop and a presidential race so devoid of joy that the high point was when the president claimed God speaks through him — leaving us to contemplate the news that God doesn't know how to pronounce nuclear and has yet to master subject-verb agreement. "Performance enhancing drugs" in baseball. Ray Charles died. Karl Rove is Man of the Year. We're all overweight. Swift Boat Liars win the presidential race for Bush. Then just to round things off nicely, a terrible natural disaster. What a bummer.

But, look at it this way ... the Boston Red Sox won the championship. Eliot Spitzer is scaring the spit out of the insurance industry (check out those year-end bonuses on Wall Street, El). The Greek Olympics went well. Maybe we could end the payola by just having them in Greece every time. Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France for a record sixth time, a symbolic victory for cancer patients everywhere.

Jon Stewart survived a storm of approval and came out just as sardonic as ever. Richard Clarke showed us all that public servant, class act and bureaucrat can be the same thing.

In other highlights:

The Coalition of the Willing was depleted when Hungary, Thailand, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Honduras, Ukraine, Spain, the Philippines, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland (so movingly cited by President Bush during one of the debates) all proved less than willing. On the other hand, Tonga is still with us.

Texan Jessica Simpson, the one who makes Paris Hilton look like a genius, showed an astonished nation what a Texas intellectual looks like. Upon being introduced to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, she said, "You've done a nice job decorating the White House."

The Ukrainians showed us all what people who really care about democracy do when there's cheating at the polls. Bless them for just not standing for it.

Media Low Point of the Year: Rush Limbaugh on Abu Ghraib: "I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?"

Emblematic Political Moment of the Year: As the full dimensions of the tidal wave in the Indian Ocean became clear, Bush's staff used the occasion to ... take a few cheap shots at Bill Clinton. Explaining why the president had neither returned to Washington nor even bothered to come out and read a statement of sorrow, The Washington Post reported that one official said: "'The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He doesn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain." Many Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras and to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark sympathy. 'Actions speak louder than words,' a top Bush aide said."
So for action, the Bushies pledged less than the amount that will be spent on parties for the Bush inauguration.

What Were They Thinking? Moment of the Year: Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl. Seriously, who planned that?

Dumbest Reaction to Wardrobe Malfunction: FCC decides its job is to censor bad taste on television (got their life's work cut out for them, haven't they?), instead of preventing the truly obscene and dangerous concentration of ownership in the media.

Another high point: John Ashcroft (the man whose understanding of the right to dissent is so profound he said, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve") will be replaced as attorney general by Al (Defining Torture Down) Gonzales.
Gonzales put out the legal memo that says "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment does not constitute torture as long as it is not "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death."

Well, friends, the old ball is starting another orbit of the sun, giving us all a chance to do better this time. Let's not blow it, because we sure look like dogmeat after this one.

Copyright 2004, The Daily Camera

(EDITORIAL NOTE FROM "THE RUMINATOR": Molly, you go, girl!!)

Stingy? Not with WMD and War

2004-12-31T10:43:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, December 31, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

by Heather Wokusch

As the body count from the tsunami rises, America's international reputation plummets to new depths, thanks to the Bush administration's smugly incompetent response.

While other world leaders immediately put forward action plans and solid donations, Bush has spent most of the past critical week on holiday at his Texas "ranch," riding his mountain bike and avoiding the press. Predictably, only allegations of stinginess increased the White House's initial measly offer of $15 million for the relief effort to a grand total of $35 million.

But it's unfair to say the Bush administration is stingy - it just has different priorities. The White House has so far requested roughly $100 billion for the occupation of Iraq in FY 2005, which translates to about $8.3 billion per month, or over $270 million per day (eighteen times more than the administration's first offer of help to tsunami victims). And that's only Iraq. The US military budget request for FY 2005 was 420.7 billion dollars - double that of China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany combined.

Of course, perpetual war requires a lavish arsenal so the US spends further billions each year perfecting its weapons of mass destruction. In 2004 alone, a full $6 billion was earmarked for federal biological weapons programs, dedicated to destructive pursuits including bringing back elements of the 1918 Spanish flu (which killed 40 million people) and producing even deadlier strains of anthrax. Meanwhile the US budget for nuclear-weapon activities in fiscal 2004 topped $6 billion, which is twelve times more than it spent on securing/reducing existing stockpiles or on non-proliferation efforts. Also factor in the $10 billion Bush requested in FY 2005 for his failed missile "defense" program, a budget almost double what the Department of Homeland Security pays for the crucial activities of customs and border patrol.

In other words: it's not a problem of money. The Bush administration has ample funding available for war and increasingly barbaric means of killing, just not much left over to help out in global humanitarian catastrophes.

How ironic that Bush uses Christianity as a cynical PR tool but fails to grasp the biblical proportions of this tsunami disaster. How glaring that the administration brags about its superior morality and devotion to family values, but shows no empathy in the face of overwhelming human tragedy. And how embarrassing that after the outpour of love and support the US received with 911, this is all our government can come up with in return.

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer.

Intimidation, Politics and Drug Industry Cripple U.S. Medicine

2004-12-31T10:38:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, December 31, 2004 by the Inter Press Service

by Ritt Goldstein

STOCKHOLM - While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to safeguard the nation's medical products, drawing upon the substantive expertise of its drug scientists in vigilant dedication to the public's health, that is not the case today.

Documentation, interviews and recent drug debacles depict a brutally different reality, with the Vioxx scandal alone estimated to have resulted in 30,000-55,000 U.S. deaths.

It's more than manipulation -- they (the FDA and NIH) put their seal of approval on things that they knew were false, were wrong ... they've betrayed the trust. Instead of servants of the public, they became truly agents and promoters of the Industry.

Vera Hassner Sharav, a renowned drug industry critic
"You have an agency in denial -- the FDA still maintains it made no mistake in the approval or regulation of Vioxx," says the agency's associate safety director, Dr David J Graham.

Vioxx was voluntary withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck and Co, on Sep. 30, 2004 due to substantively increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Since then, questions have been raised regarding similar problems in other pain medications like Celebrex and Aleve.

Graham, who provided the figures on the Vioxx deaths, also told IPS that -- despite the recent linkage between some antidepressants and suicide -- the FDA is in the process of "misleading the public in their (antidepressant) labeling ... taking care of business rather than patient safety."

Graham, whose November testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee rocked the FDA's leadership, warned that while the agency's proposed new label for the class of antidepressants known as SSRIs cites a "suicidality" rate of one-two percent, a senior FDA official acknowledged in September that number was based upon drug trials that "failed to capture most of the reactions of suicidality."

A 20-year FDA veteran, Graham then noted that an alternative trial found "the actual rate was somewhere around seven or eight percent," an incredibly substantive difference from the proposed FDA numbers.

Investigation reveals that dangers of drugs are being deliberately downplayed, and the public misled.

Notably, a March 2003 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General (DHHS-IG), Janet Rehnquist, found that just 12 percent of FDA scientists were completely confident that "labeling decisions adequately address key safety concerns."

In his most recent congressional testimony on Nov. 18, Graham named five drugs as candidates for market withdrawal: Accutane, an acne treatment; Bextra, the pain medication; Crestor, which lowers cholesterol; Meridia, a weight reduction drug; and Serevent, an asthma medication.

All of the preceding drugs' manufacturers were reported declaring their medications safe, paralleling similar pronouncements made by Merck and Company prior to its withdrawal of Vioxx.

At the same time, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, Iowa republican Charles Grassley, expressed his belief the FDA was "too cozy" with the drug industry.

Graham urged Congress to pursue legislation separating the FDA offices that address drug safety from the drug review and approval structure, arguing that creating an independent body to review drug problems would avoid the need to seek action on problem medications from the very individuals who had approved them, which is now what happens.

Both the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have come under increasingly strong criticism for alleged distortion of research, their "cozy" relationship with the drug industry said to be at the root of the problem.

'The National Institutes of Health: Public Servant or Private Marketer?' headlined the Dec. 22 'Los Angeles Times', which revealed that while physicians have relied on the NIH to draft medical standards, the agency's researchers accepted "substantive fees and stock from drug companies ... an unabashed mingling of science and commerce."

The NIH creates treatment guidelines for use by physicians, but documentation reveals that many of those working at the institutes to create the guidelines were quietly on the pay of the drug companies whose products they were suggesting.

"It's more than manipulation -- they (the FDA and NIH) put their seal of approval on things that they knew were false, were wrong ... they've betrayed the trust. Instead of servants of the public, they became truly agents and promoters of the Industry," said Vera Hassner Sharav, a renowned drug industry critic whose years of work as head of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) broke much of the ground for today's revelations.

"Now we're seeing the pattern, we're seeing that it isn't one drug, not one company, but rather the entire enterprise," added Hassner Sharav in an interview.

What continually resurfaces is federal agencies' effective abdication of their watchdog role, interrupted only by scientists of integrity who have gone beyond their agency structures in attempting to alert the public to growing dangers.

Economic and political goals appear to have replaced the need to safeguard the safety of the U.S. public and agencies' scientific integrity, say observers.

"Over the last couple of years, we ... began to hear reports out of a number of the federal agencies that 'something was going on', that research and analysis by government scientists was being systematically censored or ignored ... or misrepresented in some way," said Kathleen Rest, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

In an interview Rest described what she saw as a "pattern," one of "politicizing or manipulating scientific advisory boards." The UCS -- whose membership encompasses much of the cream of America's scientists, including a number of Nobel laureates -- also found "evidence and cases of agencies manipulating or suppressing scientific analysis."

The March 2003 FDA report by the DHHS-IG, whose public release presented only information portraying the agency in a favorable light, was obtained in full under the Freedom of Information Act by the UCS and another non-governmental organization (NGO), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

While the release of only the report's positive conclusions further highlights the official spin being broadly put on research findings, all of those interviewed spoke of the devastating potential of disseminating misleading scientific data. Graham described the yearly death toll from Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) across the full spectrum of available medication as "massive."

Both the 'Journal of the American Medical Association' and Britain's 'Lancet' have described ADRs as the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. But despite such severe human costs, the full version of the DHHS-IG report revealed that about one-fifth of FDA scientists had "been pressured to approve or recommend approval" for a medication "despite reservations about the safety, efficacy or quality of the drug."

According to Graham, "the agency (FDA) has never given a high priority to safety." Instead he saw its main pursuit as the "review and approval of drugs," adding that the vast majority of agency resources were expended in this effort. Accordingly, those who work in review and approval areas have the most influence upon FDA policy, he added.

Confirming reports of the pressures applied to government experts who dare to speak out, Graham warned, "intimidation of scientists who threaten the status quo at FDA is routine."

He described how, after he sought the withdrawal of an arthritis drug called Arava, his superior addressed his concerns that the medication induced liver failure.

"The division director spent the first 10 minutes of that meeting screaming at me. Basically, standing up, jugular veins bulging in his neck, eyes sort of bugging out of his head, screaming ... basically trying to intimidate me so that I'd change my conclusion."

Arava is still on the market today.

Citing another instance, Graham recalled his 1999 attempt to have the diabetes drug Rezulin withdrawn for also inducing liver failure. He noted that while Britain withdrew the drug in 1997, the FDA delayed Rezulin's market recall until 2000, citing a policy of "risk management," though Graham noted that his findings already indicated the futility of such an approach.

Those marketing Rezulin "were making roughly two million dollars a day" on the medication, Graham added, so the extra market time provided a financial bonus to the medication's makers.

The scientist also described how he was given a poor performance evaluation after providing accurate congressional testimony on drug safety shortcomings. His supervisor at the time informed him "my job was to please him," describing that as a "direct quote."

When asked if this meant his job was "not to safeguard the public," Graham replied, "right, my job was to please him."

Complicating efforts to maintain scientific integrity, Graham noted that existing federal protections for whistleblower have been gutted, and that a current whistleblower protection bill is being blocked in Congress.

Despite obvious concern over the potential ramifications for his future, Graham emphasized his belief that "my job is to look after drug safety for the American people."

© Copyright 2004 IPS - Inter Press Service

Watchdog Group Public Citizen Says New Documents May Link DeLay and Two Other Congressmen and Company Execs in Scheme to Buy Political Access

2004-12-30T09:54:00.000-08:00

Public Citizen Asks Justice Department to Probe House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Energy Firm Officials for Possible Bribery

WASHINGTON -- December 29 -- Public Citizen today asked the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct a formal investigation of possible violations of federal anti-bribery statutes by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and former Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), as well as executives and lobbyists for the Kansas-based Westar Energy, Inc.

In a letter to Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, Public Citizen wrote that substantial evidence, especially newly-released documents from a House ethics committee investigation, suggests a possible scheme using campaign contributions to buy political favors worth millions of dollars to Westar Energy and its executives.

Besides the Westar executives, Public Citizen alleged that DeLay, Barton, who is the current chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Tauzin, who was the former chairman of the committee but now is head of the drug industry's trade association, possibly provided legislative favors in exchange for campaign contributions in violation of the federal "Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses" statute.

According to Public Citizen, after making strategic campaign contributions, Westar appears to have been rewarded with a provision inserted into energy legislation in 2002 to exempt the company from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight if the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) were repealed. PUHCA was slated for repeal in the House-passed energy bill in 2002, and the special exemption for Westar was later quietly inserted by the House Republican leaders into the final bill being negotiated in a House-Senate conference committee. The exemption was later dropped after it became known that Westar was under investigation for securities fraud, and the energy bill later died.

Public Citizen originally sought an investigation of the apparent money-for-political-favors arrangement by the Justice Department in June 2003. Today's letter, and the earlier complaint filed by Public Citizen, are available online at: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/westarbribery/

The watchdog group said newly-released information significantly bolsters its concern about possible criminal violations and strengthens its request for a formal investigation.

"In light of the new evidence that money may have been exchanged for preferential legislative treatment for Westar, we request that the Department of Justice conduct a formal investigation into possible violations of federal anti-bribery statutes," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook.

Public Citizen cited documents, released as part of a recent ethics investigation of DeLay by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, including:

An April 2002 memorandum from Westar lobbyist Richard Bornemann to Westar Vice President Doug Lawrence, recommending that Westar pursue a "Platinum Package" of campaign contributions, including a $25,000 soft money contribution to DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) leadership PAC, and $31,500 in additional "hard" money contributions to a list of candidates associated with Reps. Barton and Tauzin for the purpose of gaining a "place at the table" during the House conference committee. Most of the contributions were made by Westar, including $25,000 given to TRMPAC.

A May 2002 e-mail from Bornemann to Lawrence, stating that "I absolutely detest asking you for money. We all prefer to think that our powerful personalities and strategic brilliance transcend such grubbiness. Anyway, let's sum up the needs discussed in our conversation today. They keep to the boundaries of the ‘platinum' budget as approved."

A May 2002 memo from Lawrence to Westar executives, detailing their responsibilities to contribute money to campaigns associated with Barton and Tauzin in exchange for passage of a company-specific exemption from federal government oversight.

A May 2002 e-mail from former DeLay energy staffer Drew Maloney to DeLay's TRMPAC staffer Chris Perkins explaining Westar's desired special exemption ("a unique problem that was addressed in the House bill") in the energy bill. Westar executives presented their exemption request to the House majority whip at a DeLay golf outing; their invitation to the golf outing, and the opportunity to talk one-on-one with DeLay and his staff members, was viewed as a reward for the company's $25,000 soft money contribution to TRMPAC.

The Westar provision was slipped into the House conference language being negotiated with the Senate in early September 2002. On September 19, Barton (and, by proxy, DeLay, and Tauzin and five other House Republican conferees) opposed a Democratic move to delete it from a House-Senate compromise version of the energy legislation.
"It's hard to find a more offensive example of trading legislative favors for campaign contributions," said Claybrook. "The Justice Department needs to get to the bottom of this."

(EDITORIAL OPINION FROM "THE RUMINATOR": If Tom DeLay were a Democrat, the Republicans would be all over this like the proverbial "white on rice." Heck!, they might even bring back good ol' Ken Starr as special prosecutor!)

Empires Prefer a Baby and the Cross to the Adult Jesus -- From Constantine to Bush, Power Has Needed To Stifle A Revolutionary Message

2004-12-27T11:00:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, December 24, 2004 by the Guardian/UK

by Giles Fraser

Every Sunday in church, Christians recite the Nicene Creed. "Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures." It's the official summary of the Christian faith but, astonishingly, it jumps straight from birth to death, apparently indifferent to what happened in between.

Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favor of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire with the conversion of the emperor Constantine in 312, after which the church began to back pedal on the more radical demands of the adult Christ. The Nicene Creed was composed in 325 under the sponsorship of Constantine. It was Constantine who decided that December 25 was to be the date on which Christians were to celebrate the birth of Christ and it was Constantine who ordered the building of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem. Christmas - a festival completely unknown to the early church - was invented by the Roman emperor. And from Constantine onwards, the radical Christ worshipped by the early church would be pushed to the margins of Christian history to be replaced with the infinitely more accommodating religion of the baby and the cross.

The adult Jesus described his mission as being to "preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and to set at liberty those who are oppressed". He insisted that the social outcast be loved and cared for, and that the rich have less chance of getting into heaven than a camel has of getting through the eye of a needle. Jesus set out to destroy the imprisoning obligations of debt, speaking instead of forgiveness and the redistribution of wealth. He was accused of blasphemy for attacking the religious authorities as self-serving and hypocritical.

In contrast, the Nicene religion of the baby and the cross gives us Christianity without the politics. The Posh and Becks nativity scene is the perfect tableau into which to place this Nicene baby, for like the much-lauded celebrity, this Christ is there to be gazed upon and adored - but not to be heard or heeded. In a similar vein, modern evangelical choruses offer wave upon wave of praise to the name of Jesus, but offer little political or economic content to trouble his adoring fans.

Yet despite the silence of the baby, it should be perfectly obvious to anyone who has actually read the Christmas stories that the gospel regards the incarnation as challenging the existing order. The pregnant Mary anticipates Christ's birth with some fiery political theology: God "has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly, he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty", she blazes. Born among farm laborers, yet worshipped by kings, Christ announces an astonishing reversal of political authority. The local imperial stooge, King Herod, is so threatened by rumors of his birth that he sends troops to Bethlehem to find the child and kill him. Herod recognized that to claim Jesus is lord and king is to say that Caesar isn't. Christ's birth is not a silent night - it's the beginning of a revolution that threatened to undermine the whole basis of Roman power.

Little wonder, then, that influential US Christian commentator Jim Wallis created a storm earlier in the year when he penned an attack upon "Bush's theology of empire", helpfully illustrated with a picture of Bush made up to look like the emperor Constantine. "Once there was Rome, now there is a new Rome," argued Wallis.

Constantine was converted to Christianity by a vision that came to him on the eve of the battle of Milvian Bridge: "He saw with his own eyes, up in the sky and resting over the sun, a cross-shaped trophy formed from light, and a text attached to it which said, 'By this sign, conquer' ". Soon the cross would morph from being a hated symbol of Roman brutality into the universally recognizable logo of the Holy Roman Empire. Within a century, St Augustine would develop the novel idea of just war, trimming the church's originally pacifist message to the needs of the imperial war machine.

Like Constantine, George Bush has borrowed the language of Christianity to support and justify his military ambition. And just like that of Constantine, the Christianity of this new Rome offers another carefully edited version of the Bible. Once again, the religion that speaks of forgiving enemies and turning the other cheek is pressed into military service.

The story of Christmas, properly understood, asserts that God is not best imagined as an all-powerful despot but as a vulnerable and pathetic child. It's a statement about the nature of divine power. But in the hands of conservative theologians, the Nicene religion of the baby and the cross is a way of distracting attention away from the teachings of Christ. It's a form of religion that concentrates on things like belief in the virgin birth while ignoring the fact that the gospels are much more concerned about the treatment of the poor and the forgiveness of enemies.

Bush may have claimed that "Jesus Christ changed my life", but Jesus doesn't seem to have changed his politics. As the carol reminds us: "And man at war with man hears not the love song that they bring, O hush the noise ye men of strife and hear the angels sing."

· The Rev Dr Giles Fraser is vicar of Putney and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford
giles.fraser@btinternet.com

© Copyright 2004 Guardian Newspapers

The Myth of National Victimhood - All Wrapped and Delivered for Christmas

2004-12-21T09:22:00.000-08:00

Published on Monday, December 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

by Thom Hartmann

It's Christmas week - Adolf Hitler's favorite season after he declared an official merger of church and state - and, ironically, conservatives are using the occasion to mount a new and bizarre attack.

They said liberals are out to destroy Christmas. Cobbling together a few anecdotes (unsupportable attacks are always anecdote-based), they managed to imply a vast anti-Christian conspiracy bubbling just under the belly of America, and pushed that frightening implication into the minds of millions of Americans just in time for the holiday season.

Conservatives must constantly attack others (and focus on "morality") to keep hidden their own true agenda, which is no less than a return to the world of Scrooge & Marley, Inc. They're working to bring about a return to Robber Baron feudalism, with a stable, rich, and powerful ruling class, and an impoverished, frightened, and politically impotent working class.

But for conservatives to keep the loyalty of the working-class victims of their policies (which are shipping American jobs overseas, while fighting unions and minimum-wage increases here), they must convince people that there is a "them" out there - liberals in this case - who are out to destroy America's moral fiber and are thus responsible for working-class misery.

This is an old trick, and one the cons know is very difficult to counter. Consider what happened when German militarism in WWI led, through the punishing Treaty of Versailles and then later the Great Depression, to the collapse of the German economy in the 1920s and early 1930s. Hitler couldn't blame the militarists and corporatist conservatives who had led his nation into WWI and mismanaged the economy afterwards, so he pointed to the Jews as the "them" responsible for the problems in German society.

The www.zenpickle.com website (disclosure: Zenpickle is owned by Joe McPherson, a former producer of my radio program) features a spoof book supposedly by Ann Coulter, titled "Mein Kampf, Second Edition." To create "Ann's" book, Joe clipped pieces out of Hitler's original and adroitly made a (very) few replacements, such as changing "Jews" and "Germany" into "Liberals" and "America." Thus, we find on his site:

Chapter 10: Why American Society Collapsed

It must be admitted that all this was partly the result of extraordinary crafty tactics on the part of Liberals on the one hand, and obvious official stupidity or naïveté on the other hand. The Liberals were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole of their Press. No one section functioned as cover for the other. ...the national papers, also in Liberal hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as model examples of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language, knowing well that blockheads are capable of judging only by external appearances and never able to penetrate to the real depth and meaning of anything. ... This form of human frailty was carefully studied and understood by the Liberal Press..

Certainly in days to come the Liberals will raise a tremendous cry throughout their newspapers once a hand is laid on their favorite nest, once a move is made to put an end to this scandalous Liberal Press and once this instrument which shapes public opinion is brought under Conservative control and no longer left in the hands of Liberals and enemies of the people. I am certain that this will be easier for us than it was for our fathers. The scream of the twelve-inch shrapnel is more penetrating than the hiss from a thousand Liberal newspaper vipers. Therefore let them go on with their hissing..

By means of the Liberal Press, the Liberals spread the colossal falsehood about 'American Militarism' throughout the world and tried to inculpate America by every possible means, while at the same time the Democratic Party refused to assent to the measures that were necessary for the adequate training of our national defense forces. .

What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Liberals in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Liberal did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Liberal who was often blinded by the sudden light.

In my eyes the charge against Liberalism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Liberal activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. ... Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected..

I was happy at last to know for certain that a Liberal is not an American.

Perhaps Joe went to unnecessary effort in converting "Jews" to "Liberals" in Hitler's screed, since apparently it's again fashionable to be publicly anti-Semitic in America. Last week William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, told the nation on MSNBC, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it."

As you can see, the formula is simple. Identify real problems within a society, such as crime, poverty, and unemployment. Invent a conspiracy responsible for these problems, say it is led by a specific group, and hyperinflate a few anecdotes to make the conspiracy seem vast and powerful. Say they are trying to destroy the nation by weakening its defenses and corrupting its morals, thus causing the economic pains felt by the average person. Rally the people behind you in self-defense to restore military strength, moral clarity, and empower great wealth and corporations to "create jobs again."

As Leo Strauss - the mentor of the Neoconservatives currently controlling much of Washington, DC - pointed out, it's not even necessary that the so-called enemies of the nation really be enemies. The myth of national Victimhood, when wrapped in the language of morality, will elevate a politician to power just as surely as will true national victimhood.

It was the formula Hitler used, and it still works today. It is, in fact, the most consistently reliable way for demagogues to gain power. It works because it's gradual but relentless, and progressively absorbs - and then intimidates or co-opts - both government and the media.

For example, Milton Mayer, a German Jew who survived Hitler's era to write about the experience of Germany in his book They Thought They Were Free, noted that:

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security....

As a friend of Mayer's noted, and Mayer recorded in his book:

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. ...

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

In this conversation, Mayer's friend suggests that he wasn't making an excuse for not resisting the rise of the fascists, but simply pointing out an undisputable reality. This, he suggests, is how fascism will always take over a nation.

"Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing: and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something - but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, 'It's not so bad' or 'You're seeing things' or 'You're an alarmist.'

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. ...

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked - if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in '43 had come immediately after the 'German Firm' stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in '33. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying 'Jew swine,' collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in - your nation, your people - is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God." ...

Mayer's friend pointed out the terrible challenge faced then by average Germans, and today by peoples across the world, as governments are taken over by authoritarian, corporatist - fascist - regimes.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men?" Mayer's friend asked rhetorically. And, without the benefit of a previous and recent and well-remembered fascistic regime to refer to, he had to candidly answer: "Frankly, I do not know."

This was the great problem that Mayer and so many in his day faced.

As Mayer's friend noted, "I do not see, even now [how we could have stopped it]. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice - 'Resist the beginnings' and 'consider the end.' But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men?"

And here we are.

Sinclair Broadcast Group runs right-wing editorials on its stations over public airways with no pretense of balance.

Former MSNBC producer Jeff Cohen tells me that he was ordered to always have at least two conservatives on the Donahue show whenever one liberal appeared, "and three conservatives to Michael Moore." Apparently the Moore Rule at MSNBC now also extends to Amy Goodman - a few days after Cohen said this on my radio program, I watched MSNBC's Chris Matthews position Goodman against three conservatives, and then dismiss her before the show ended so the remaining three could make their final points.

Hundreds of hours a day of right-wing programming pour out of radio stations nationwide, and conservative extremists are the most common "guests" and "experts" on network news and weekend political TV shows.

The 2004 election may have been stolen with massive nationwide fraud - the statistics in New Mexico, Ohio, and Florida are truly startling - and Alliance for Democracy lawyer Cliff Arnebeck has filed a lawsuit against Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al, suggesting that Kerry actually won Ohio. The story was only covered in any depth by C-SPAN.

The possibility that the election of 2002 was also stolen - particularly in Georgia, where Max Cleland losing his seat to Saxby Chambliss gave Republicans control of the Senate - has never been seriously investigated.

And when a consortium of news organizations recounted the Florida 2000 vote and it was found that Al Gore actually won the entire state - and thus the presidency - no matter what standard was used to count the ballots, the corporate news organizations of America buried the story (although the New York Times and Washington Post at least did report it on 09/12/01).

Our Attorney General-designate calls the Geneva Conventions "quaint"; our Secretary of Defense stands accused of ordering torture; our President and Vice President knowingly lie to us and the world in order to lead an election-year preemptive war; and Congress passes national security bills without reading them - eerily like the German Parliament passed the Enabling Acts after the Reichstag was burned.

So how to counter it?

The experience of 20th century Europe demonstrates that those abusing power must be confronted with equally vigorous power.

In the 1930s, Germans who believed in republican democracy were overwhelmed before they realized how completely their civil liberties and national institutions had been seized.

We must not allow it to happen in our nation.

And, fortunately, there are now groups and people working hard to push back against the growing forces of corporatism - fascism - here in the United States. They range from web-based news sites, to progressive magazines and newspapers, to liberal talk radio programs, to groups outing media bias and holding both corporations and government accountable.

But if American democracy is to survive, we must all participate.

Whether it's standing in a vigil like the Ukrainians did, joining a political party, sending money to your favorite reader-supported websites and groups, or forwarding articles to friends and speaking out in our homes and workplaces, we all must all "consider the end" and "resist the beginnings." And we must do so now, today.

In this holiday season, can we give this gift of democracy to our children and our world?

Please say yes.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," "The Edison Gene", and "What Would Jefferson Do?."

Pentagon Proposes Loosening Its Environmental Policy

2004-12-19T09:05:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, December 17, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

by Lisa Getter

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department, which has won congressional exemptions from environmental laws in the last two years, now wants to change an internal policy that commits the department to sound environmental practices.

Since President Bush took office, the Pentagon has won exemptions from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act and seeks exemption from the Clean Air Act and two toxic waste laws.

A draft of the proposal, which would replace a 1996 directive, eliminates the Pentagon's vow to "display environmental security leadership within DOD activities worldwide." It stresses, instead, the "national defense mission."

The new proposal replaces a list of concrete responsibilities with vague guidance to the military about how to prevent pollution and guarantee compliance with federal and international laws.

The directive would not affect any ongoing cleanup efforts by the Defense Department.

"The Pentagon is transforming itself in to an entity concerned only about its own logistics and facility management — and the public be damned," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which obtained a copy of the proposal.

The Defense Department has a checkered environmental record. It has more facilities on the Superfund National Priorities List than any other entity in the U.S. It is blamed for contaminating billions of gallons of drinking water. A 2003 report by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded that the department was responsible for "28,500 potentially contaminated sites across the country."

Yet the latest proposal deletes language from the 1996 policy that said the Pentagon would be responsible for:

— "Protecting, preserving and, when required, restoring and enhancing the quality of the environment."

— "Reducing risk to human health and the environment by identifying, evaluating and, where necessary, remediating contamination resulting from past DOD activities."

— "Preventing pollution and minimizing adverse environmental consequences."

— "Complying with applicable U.S. statutes, regulations, executive orders, binding international agreements, other legal requirements, and U.S. environmental, safety, occupational health, explosives safety, fire and emergency services and pest management policies."

— "Conserving and restoring, where necessary, the natural and cultural heritage represented on DOD installations within the United States."

Those promises are replaced by one paragraph that calls on the military to "make prudent investments in initiatives that support mission accomplishment, enhance readiness, reduce future funding needs, prevent pollution, ensure cost effective compliance and maximize the existing resource capability."

Pentagon officials refused to comment on the substance of the proposal.

"The directive is still in draft form and being reviewed by department officials," Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood said.

Ruch said the proposal reflects a view within the Pentagon that environmental protection is not a priority. Defense Department environmental specialists who belong to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility have told him that they have used the 1996 directive to stress the importance of their work to their superiors.

"America's defenders — the men and women who lead our armed forces — know that we don't have to pollute America to protect it," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

Pope said the military has been responsible for some of the "best and most visionary environmental innovation" in the past, adding, "It's sad that the politicians who run the Pentagon are afraid of it and want to slow it down."

Since President Bush took office, the Pentagon has won exemptions from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act and seeks exemption from the Clean Air Act and two toxic waste laws.

© Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times