Our Lonely Planet is the Only Home We've Got

Science and Common Sense Dictate Our Environment is at Risk
We got record-level snowfall this past weekend here in the New York Metro area. Actually I liked it; though I would have preferred a “snow day” on Monday too. It wasn’t too bad though, as the roads I had to use were OK, and I didn’t terribly mind working that day as I enjoy my job at the university. Thank goodness we didn’t need FEMA or the Homelanders. Any time there is some extreme weather, I can’t help but wonder about the state of our environment. Obviously there has been a warming trend in the last 30 years and all indications point to this phenomenon continuing in the foreseeable future. The question for us to ponder is whether this trend is the result of human activity or is it part of the earth’s cycle.

I believe it’s good to be a skeptic, though open-mindedness is necessary. Perhaps we can’t come up with a definitive answer as to the causes of global warming right now, but this doesn’t mean we should sit back and do nothing. Who can really argue that our energy needs and our wasteful ways do not produce huge amounts of pollution? Just on these grounds we have to sit up and take notice. Unfortunately, there is more bad news. Humans have been responsible for dumping incredible amounts of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere (and in the oceans through absorption)—so much that we alone may be responsible for increasing the global temperature by 2-3º Celsius. It’s a risk assessment, and it appears that we are at risk.

Granted, the earth has had temperature cycles in the past, but because of our species’ technological advances for the first time in geological history there has been such an influence on earth’s climate. NASA’s top climatologist, Dr. James Hansen, has issued an alarm, “Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the Earth’s climate is nearing, but has not passed, a point or no return, beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far ranging undesirable consequences.” So, can we tip the balance to the point of no return? Dr. Hansen was one of the many scientists who participated in the New School’s Conference on Politics & Science this February in NYC, and all agreed that we have to be pro-active, and the US a leader, in reducing the emission of gases that contribute to global warming.

Of course, there are those (too many) who believe that we are living in the “end of times” [check the Rapture Index], and there are those who believe in the divinity of the marketplace to regulate everything under the sun. We also have the socio-economic elites in power who gain so much today from lax environmental standards that they’re willing to skew the scientific evidence to fit their political agendas. NASA, NOAA, EPA and so many other federal agencies have been under pressure from the Bush administration to suppress data that’s politically inconvenient. Scientists have been assigned “minders” who monitor what the scientists say to the media & the public! But, it’s no secret that El Presidente Bush is no fan of science, and the Republican Party has started a war on science for good measure too. [Read Chris Mooney’s book on the subject]

When half of the people in the world don’t have access to clean water, when acid rain is destroying forests, when polluted air shortens lives, then we have lots to do to improve our housekeeping and stewardship of our lonely planet this side of the universe. We don’t have to wait to make it a better place to live in; it’s for our own good and it will feel superbly invigorating. For starters, we have to kick out those who’ve been partying at our expense and have been messing our house. Let’s pick up a broom and put it to good use…

Fishing for whatever bites the lure
Besides, I'm tired seeing them distort science, common sense, the English language, and ..hunting! Maybe it's their privileged, elite in-bred, upbringing that makes them unable to understand. For example, they think hunting is getting in an SUV, driving to a ranch, and shooting some farm-raised birds that were just released for their target practice! Oh yeah, and according to Barbara Bush (the elder witch) sleeping on cots in the Astrodome is like camping in the woods! Anyway,it was probably an upgrade for "those underprivileged people" ...Tsk, tsk.

Addendum: Bobby Kennedy has written a great book, Crimes Against Nature, exposing in detail the conservatives' attack on the environment. It's a must-read for those who want to understand how the economic elites and their advocates take over power (via Republican presidents since Reagan) and are placed in charge of the "common good" which in turn they plunder for the benefit of the big fat corporations and to the detriment of our interest and our health.

Humans have been around for only a few tens of thousands of years--a blink of an eye in geological terms--but we may be pushing Gaia to a "tipping point." There is a new book out, The Revenge of Gaia, by James Lovelock, who adds his voice to those who believe our Mother Earth is about to catch a fever that may last 100,000 years! Interesting stuff, even for a skeptic.
[my thanks to Elizabeth and Gus Karam for bringing this book to my attenton]

Cartoon Controversy Shows We Need More Liberals in the World

Who's Afraid of Offensive Speech, Art, and  Ideas? 

I believe in the freedom of speech. I am a thinking, rational person. I have my own set of morals and values, and, yes, I do find several things that other people say &do as offensive or disgusting. However, I do not see vile speech as an infectious threat, thus I do not need to inoculate myself by killing it as a “virus of the mind.” Being a liberal doesn’t mean I have to accept everything thrown at me. On the contrary, I have a very discriminating brain, which is skeptical but open. Being a liberal also means that I can tolerate expressions I don’t like. Want to know a main difference between liberals and the "Taliban of all stripes" ? Here it is: The Al Qaeda type wants to kill everything they don’t like; the American type wants to ban everything they don’t like. We liberals laugh at, we may get angry at, and we boycott stuff we don’t like!

As a liberal, I welcome being in charge of myself and accept the responsibility of my actions. I want to be trusted with all sorts of information, even exposed to ideas that may contradict my own point of view. I see life as something to be treasured, enjoyed (in the here and now), and take it as an opportunity to explore whatever is out there and tickles my fancy. I choose not to live my life trying to avoid offending the gods, be in fear of them, always try to strike a bargain with them. Nor do I think I have to resort to violence in the extreme to prove that I’m a worthy believer and a soldier against offensive speech, particularly against anything that offends the divine.


Who Accepts the Devil?

That is why I do not buy the argument, "the devil's out there ready to destroy us." The Devil does not exist; evil does! However, evil is perpetuated by humans alone. “The Devil made me do it,” is a lame argument in my judgment, though it’s been amply used, and, worse, many people even buy into it! How? Well, when they say that they want to kill offensive speech because it may incite violence. When they say that we must be protected from anything that threatens our soul and the "fabric of our society." In other words, we're not to be trusted with what they deem "dangerous material." Well, some of us are up to the task.

I don’t doubt that offensive speech can make people violent, but is this a good reason to limit speech? In this country we protect, as we should, the free speech rights of vile organizations like the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and all the other idiots--who are tryinng to appeal to the other closed-minded bigots since they can't put forth any thoughtful argument. They can't reach me. I am more suspicious of people who are after my soul than of those who are after my money. As for accessing my grey matter, they need to come up with some good rational argument to gain access.






Orwell's a Classic
 
I understand the world a bit, so I do realize that those cartoons (originally appeared in a few European publications months ago and republished recently) featuring the Prophet Mohammed do offend a great number of Muslims. Art has been known to inflame and insult. Art is speech, and, like George Orwell said, “if liberty is to mean anything, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” Those cartoons weren’t gratuitous in the abstract, but they had a point of view (I’m posting a couple of them for you to see here). I agree with Keenan Malik who wrote, “Far from censoring offensive speech, a vibrant and diverse society should encourage it. In any society that is not uniform, grey and homogenous there are bound to be clashes of viewpoints. Inevitably some people will find certain ideas objectionable.” I suppose that any cartoon that would critize the status of the (subjugated) women in a traditional Muslim society would also be provocative, insulting, and inflamatory to millions of people in the world today. Some of the rioters might be women too!

The Need for Liberal Democracies
Since there aren’t any liberal democracies in the Arab world, it’s hard to know how many Muslims find the on-going violent attacks justified. But, the lack of a liberal political system breeds intolerance and promotes a suffocating religious conformity. I want to emphasize the “liberal” aspect of the political system. Democracy is indeed a good political system since the majority elects its leaders; the people have to be consulted regularly & frequently; there is freedom of speech, etc. But, it is the liberal democracy which guarantees minority rights—be that of a small group or an individual.

We are fighting to maintain and strengthen our liberal democracy here in our country, something that the American “Taliban” (religious Christian fundamentalists) sees as a threat. For them liberalism is like the Devil who can manipulate the hearts & minds of the people. Again, it’s a “protection” thing—protects us from evil; and, the God’s emissaries know best. I believe that our Christian religious extremists have much in common with the Muslim extremists; the name of the prophet is different and God has written & delivered different versions of his book to the different groups which are utterly convinced only they hold the authentic copy.


Graphic Depictions of Violence
 
There are many brave persons in the Muslim world, like those Jordanian newspaper editors who published the controversial cartoons while saying, “Muslims of the world be reasonable!” They were promptly fired and arrested! Here’s a great point by Jihad! I’m talking about Jihad Momani who wrote, “What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?” How true!

There are also reasonable religious leaders who have urged restraint. I welcome the comments of the Iraqi Grand Ayatollah, Al Sistani, who said that militant Islamists were partly to blame for distorting the image of Islam. On the other hand, the rioting continues, people are being killed, and there is no shortage of bigots who want to escalate the controversy; like the biggest Iranian newspaper that has launched a Holocaust cartoon competition! Who said that God made us in his own image… I wonder what exactly this means… With all the terrible things humans have been doing to each other, he probably has second thoughts about including this creation in his resume. But who knows for sure?
Effort Required
 
What I know through observation and reason is that the world would be a better place if we had more liberals in it. It would be better for the non-liberals too! They would be free to believe whatever they want and would have equal opportunities to offend the rest of us—as they do today in this country and in other liberal democracies. So, let’s make sure we protect this precious thingy we call liberty!

At least Three More Years of Darkness: Groundhog Says

Protection Against Mind Manipulation?
I know most Americans didn’t watch the President’s speech the other day, and those who did thought this guy isn’t doing much to improve the lives of the “average person.” I was playing the... drinking game, whereas I had to imbibe some alcohol every time Bush said his favorite phrases, terror, 911, freedom, democracy, to protect, etc. It was a trip let me tell you, yet, no amount of drinking can take the edge off the painful experience I go through every time I hear this man speak. It’s not his “nukelar” vocabulary—especially when he talks unscripted—but it’s the realization that our country is led by a bunch of selfish people. I’m not sure to what extend their incompetence stems from the lack of sense and sensibility, but it doesn’t really matter.

I always recommend George Orwell’s books, like, Animal Farm, and, 1984. Although he wrote many decades ago, his themes have been very relevant today as well the past. In Animal Farm he shows us how a society can be organized, theoretically on merit and need, but in reality the elite is “more equal” than the rest. In 1984, he shows us how a totalitarian regime operates by using the politics of fear, the crushing of individuality, the spying, repressive conformity, the leader-knows-best, the re-writing of history, and Newspeak (when words have lost their true meaning as applied to reality).

So, we have a few people who are “better than others,” not by ability, but by ascribed status. This inner circle usualy has disdain for most of the commoners because the latter are easily deceived, especially when their emotional buttons are pressed; they further demonstrate their ignorance by voting against their own interests. The myth of socio-economic mobility is holding well, because who has time to check the facts? Have we realized that the actual income for 90% of Americans [yes, it includes YOU], when adjusted for inflation, has fallen in the last 25 years? Or, that the gap between the super-rich and the rest has grown exponentially in the same period? People like to hear about tax cuts, but how many people really know that we’re giving even more to those who already have lots, and we’re doing it by increasing our national debt, and by cutting services the rich don’t need/use but are essential for the “other” Americans? “We are not doing it, they are!” is often the retort. But I don’t buy it! We elected “them”; they act on our behalf though not in our best interest.

Hurricane Katrina gave us ample warning and when it struck it blew away the emperor’s clothes; those make-believe clothes that had been woven with much fanfare for four years, since 9-11.They needed more powers to protect us they said; we gave them such. They want even more, and have argued the Nixonian line, “when the President does it, it’s not illegal.” Meanwhile, the expanded bureaucracy suffers not from quantity but quality. For example, Horse playing is a good enough qualification to be hired as FEMA director. [OK, he did bring lots of money to Republican coffers too]. The remaining fig leaf cover was blown away too when Congress returned from its summer vacation, few days after the Katrina disaster, and the Republicans' first concern was to push a bill to revoke the estate tax! It’s the one I call, “the Paris Hilton gift,” since it benefits the children of the supper rich (less than 1% of Americans).
Double Talk, a.k.a, Newspeak
So, we have presidential declarations about this and that, but when they are compared to presidential policy they fall short or never materialize. Newspeak is “in”. He talks about the “Clean Air Act” and we get more pollution. He talks about “No Child Left Behind” and we have less education (most of it federally unfunded), especially in science. He talks about oil dependence on the Middle East [currently only 13% of our needs] and that he wants to cut this by 75% in 20 years, but his Energy Secretary just came out to say, “don’t take this figure literally.” Who really has the time to pay close attention to his energy bill anyway? Who notices his cuts in programs like biofuel, alternative & renewable energy? How about conservation, CAFE standards and environmental policy? The additional $70 billion he asked for the war effort when combined with the past and future expenditures for the Iraq war could have been spent on programs to make America less dependent on oil. That’s a debt I’d welcome, and whose payoff would be far greater and more universal in the benefits distribution.

The wealthy Romans—the ones who had power—felt a duty to keep the masses entertained, so they arranged for gore fests in the Coliseum. Our present day emperor, his senate, and the other patricians, act in like manner. OK, the carnage is kept overseas, where our legionnaires are vanquishing the barbarians, but the national myths are well fed and promoted. We are a remarkable country indeed, but we’re rapidly losing ground. We may have the best health care system in the world, but the question is how many Americans have access to it. Of course the capitalist system is a system of inequality (and this isn’t necessarily bad), but that’s why we have a government to make sense of it and not let it run amok. Personally, I don’t find it meaningful to say, “between Bill Gates and me we have a gigantic fortune!”

Those in power would like us to feel superior and content. In the abstract, we do compare favorably to the best countries out there. We can say we spend twice as much on healthcare per person than others but we are the only advanced country that doesn’t have universal health care coverage—with more than 45 million Americans uninsured. Don’t they count? Where’s the compassionate conservatism? Who's worthy of compassion? I find it shocking that we’re 28th in infant mortality and, although climbing, life expectancy in the US is much lower than other countries. For the wealth and abilities we have at our disposal, we aren't doing as well as we should, and, most importantly, we aren't giving our children the best we can.

I’m offended by Newspeak too. They say one thing, they mean & do the opposite. The President talks to us like we’re like little children; well, maybe we are, but I’m fed up by the dumbing down. What’s up with the President’s anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific stance? Is he trying to be folksy, or is he a wolf in sheep's clothing? He had a chance (via ascribed status) to attend a first-rate school—not that he did much with this opportunity, but he didn’t have to. He came from a privileged family [a "dynasty" according to the very Republican Kevin Phillips--read his books] with connections to money and power. But, most Americans aren’t that fortunate. Yet, the President and his Praetorians in Congress don’t believe in using the power of the government to improve the lives and chances of the “average person.” Maybe they are the new Kalvinists [they believed that only some persons were “chosen” by birth, and there was nothing one could do to jump ship; Martin Luther and the Reformation attempted to change this]

It’s obvious that those in privileged positions are always afraid of the “masses.” In the fashion of a Machiavellian advice, keep the masses entertained; feed those masses myths & fear and they’ll leave you alone. They might even cheer you up. They might even buy into the idea that what you’ve got you deserve because you are special! Above all, you don’t want to give them the means to wake up, so you make it difficult for them to get a higher education by cutting billions in student aid/loans. Rip, rape, and burn as much as you can, for you don’t have to feel the ill effects of your actions; besides, the benefits are so great today that even if the ..unthinkable happens, you'll have more than enough to last several generations of your kin. Go ahead, and while at it, cancel the ..winter in the Northeast. Who needs it?

I believe that the quality of our politics is a reflection of the people involved. Further, that there is a strong correlation between the citizens’ level of education and the quality of their politics. Politics is what we do, from the family unit [like choosing to watch 12 hours of football on Thanksgiving as a distraction to family disfunction] to the national level. The question is how we use politics to better our lives, for the maximum benefit & for the greater number of people. Did I mention that our government made cuts in education for the first time in 10 years? At least “freedom is on the march” they tell us. Do you feel as free today as before? Come on, be honest, there is nothing to be afraid of (unless you're not a citizen, in which case please go away as I don't want any problems with the Fatherland Security Apparatus).

New Realities Shape a New Generation of Americans

Opportunities Bring New Challenges and Critical Choices
This new generation of Americans--those under 25--is a unique one in that it has been raised in the age of the internet, instant communication, the shrinking of the world, and global inter-dependence in economic & environmental terms. These young persons are coming to age in a post-911 reality, whereas the war on terror appears to have no end [at least we're all told so] and no clear lines, no front. The current government is treading on this concept heavily and is making policy decisions that will have long-term effects. Behind the rhetoric, the reality is that the US has been accumulating huge debts, has an army fighting wars overseas, while not investing in its youth as much as other advanced countries. Guess who's disproportionally charged for paying these burdens?

Surely this is an exciting time to be alive--if one likes change and new discoveries. But in a rapidly changing and complicated environment the many challenges lying ahead need to be dealt and critical decisions to be made. Yet, with more privilege comes more responsibility, exercised or not. With globalism/interdependence the impact of critical decisions increases too.

I don't think any generation should be apathetic, especially this young generation which has the advantage of easy access to all sorts of information. For most of human history, (including many parts of our world in the 21st century), people's activities have been centered on scraping a living under very harsh conditions with little if any leisure time. As usual, education is the key to a better life and to greater self-realization. Of course, you must develop the sense and sensibilities before you get education to work for you. I should note that, for me, education is not the accumulation of trivia, or the memorization of tomes of text in order to excel at repetition and to instruct others on how to close their minds. Education is the sharpening of the mind, the broadening of one's horizons.

Many more Americans have the opportunity to go to college, to get an education. Yet, many don't fully appreciate it. It should not be just about getting a degree in order to make more money in the future. There is nothing wrong with making money and improving your lot, but there has to be more to life than money and power. And, there is. Money and power can be put to good use. The debate is what kind of use.

Here's where the new generation of Americans can play an important role by being interested, informed, and actively engaged in the affairs of our country. When we debate the notion of the "public good," the role & the limits of our government, and the policies for the future, those who have the greater stake (and stay) in the future should be the most active.

Obviously this blog has an opinion; its name reveals alot. However, the common currency with those who may disagree should be reason, civility, and an open mind. Not everyone has the same priorities in life or the same worldview. But, since I think education is the key that unlocks doors to exciting discoveries and to improving possibilities, I take issue that my country is ranked 14 out of the top 15 in per student spending. I do realize that throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it, but nevetheless this figure shows something about the priorities of our government.

President Bush gave a speech at Kansas State University the other day where he was stumped during the Q & A session: "My name is Tiffany Cooper. I'm a sophomore here at Kansas State and I was just wanting to get your comments about education. Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?" Excellent point! The President turned to his aides for advice but his inarticulate answer was either an attempt to confuse the issue or a demonstration of his usual stance not to bother with "the details." [here's the full text of the exchange]

The facts are as follows, Student Loans: On Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate passed $12.7 billion in cuts to education programs "the largest cut in student college loan programs in history." Vice President Cheney cast the deciding vote in favor of the cuts. The bill also fixed the interest rate on student loans at 6.8 percent, even if commercial rates are lower.Despite Bush's claims, students will be left off the program.

Pell Grants: Pell Grants have been frozen or cut since 2002; they are now stuck at a maximum of $4,050. In his 2000 election campaign, President Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant amount to $5,100. From 2004 to 2005, 24,000 students lost their Pell grants, according to a report pre-pared by the Congressional Research Service. This was the first drop in the number of students receiving the grants in several years; the number had been growing steadily since 1999.
Equal opportunity may as well be a myth, but there are many ways we can make the US a more egalitarian country by leveling the playing field and by creating opportunities through education for those who don't have the connections or the financial means to get a shot at upward mobility. One of the few Republicans who make sense is Kevin Phillips. I urge everyone who's interested in the distribution of wealth and the dangers of plutocracy to read his books. He also demonstrates how the Republican party has changed since the 1980s by giving up on the middle class and concentrating on the upper economic elite. [Phillips's other recent book, American Dynasty : Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, 2004]

The world is what we make of it, so is our country. When I ask people what they think of politics I get many answers but the description is invariably negative. Perhaps politics will never satisfy most people because it involves a lot of compromise and hard choices. But, who makes these choices in our name? Who comes to the bargaining table, what kind of influence does he bring, and even who has access to our representatives. Politics are necessary in an organized society. Imagine how our country would be different if there were many more people like you... Well, what's your answer?

It's High Noon at the Supreme Court & The Three Amigos are Looking for a Fourth Hired Gun

The Axis of Evil Closer Than You Think

As a liberal I’m happy that the Supreme Court decided (by a 6-3 margin) to uphold Oregon’s right-to-die law. Interestingly enough, there are six justices who are willing to look favorably toward individual rights, and, in extension, state law. It is a personal right to leave this world on one’s own accord, preventing the unnecessary suffering of a prolonged and terminal illness. Yes, the state has an interest to preserve and protect life, but it is the individual who should be in charge of his own self, including his own life.

Of course, there have to be certain safeguards to prevent abuse, but the ultimate decision should remain with the individual. When a person is dead, or near death we generally accept that his wishes should be respected and carried out, that is, about his own affairs. The opponents do not respect this right. We’ve seen it with the Schiavo case in Florida. I won’t rehash that case [hit the link if you like to read my archived post], but the circus played out by the opponents shows that they aren’t interested in the welfare of the patient. They want to promote their own religious point of view—a view that’s not up for revision or discussion. And, it is about a point of view that isn't arrived by reason--hence no discussion allowed--but by revealed "truth."

Chief Justice Roberts’s sided with the minority (along with Thomas and Scalia) that holds the federal government has the right to oppose state law, arbitrarily, in the absence of an applicable law by Congress. Roberts is beginning to reveal his true colors—at least to those who wanted to be color-blind during his confirmation. As I said in a recent post, Alito’s appointment may make some justices on SCOTUS sit up and take notice, and not to allow the country to swing too far to the conservative extreme. Justice Kennedy may become the new swinger up there. I wouldn’t be surprised if the conservatives begin a new campaign to impeach Kennedy! Of course, we can’t rest easy, because I have no doubt that Alito will be the fourth vote on the very conservative side of SCOTUS. What makes these people extreme is that they don’t have the possibility to “evolve” and change their hard-core conservative ideology.

Furthermore, Kennedy is no liberal, and can’t be relied upon to protect the rights of the individual especially when such rights are paired against corporate rights. Let’s not forget that Kennedy voted to give the presidency to Bush in 2000. Unfortunately, the nation compounded this mistake by electing Bushco in 2004, and subsequently allowed Shrub to get two shots at SCOTUS. This is what happens when the Dems fail to win the presidency and lose control of the Senate. Elections have consequences. The federal judiciary has a conservative majority today. Law is important and has a direct effect on the quality of live of the "average" person. Even in a nation of laws [this is up to debate nowadays] where no president & our government aren't above the law, it doesn't mean that bad law is not enacted or it is the consequence of lobbyists with very narrow interests [as in the banking/bankruptcy law which was written by the industry's lobbyists].

We are on borrowed time because if Bush gets another shot at SCOTUS, then there will be a clear conservative majority on the high court that will shape the affairs of this country for several decades. The centrists & liberal of SCOTUS are much older than the three [soon to be four] amigos who shoot from the hip and claim to smite us on behalf of God. Liberals are pro-life! We believe in protecting life and enhancing it with quality, and individual choice! We are humanists and therefore we hold the position in favor of life when it clearly matters, not use theatrics to show that we care when it's too late.

Perhaps we won't see any time soon a court like the one under Chief Justice E. Warren, but we have to explain to all Americans what's at stake here. They have to understand that the role of the government is not just to make war and safegurad our borders, but also to improve the quality of our lives. I'm taling about establishing a social and legal framework where the individual has a reasonable opportunity and the means to reach his potential. The way we organize our society should reflect this, but unless most of us realize that in order to be in charge of our own affairs--collectively and individually--we have to be responsible too. Take the time, invest some effort, cultivate an interest in the affairs or our nation, otherwise the banditos will roam unchecked. Now let's start by making sure El Presidente understands who's the boss here.

It is About Liberty & Justice for All

The bottom line, for me, is that liberty is at stake. Liberty is special for it gives the individual the opportunity to self-fulfillment. The concept is rather simple: when I'm in charge, leave me alone; when I'm not, I need the government to protect me. In other words, I should be sovereign of myself and my privacy; I also want the government to work for me. But, I do not want to be protected under lock & key! As I see it, this is not an either-or situation; and it should not be made into a zero-sum game. Well, liberty is indeed at stake in our United States today, so we are concerned and alarmed by lifetime appointments to the federal bench when judges don't have this sensibility; much more so if they don't have the sense to understand this concept as Justice Thomas has repeatedly demonstrated.

I watched the entirety of the Alito hearings and I thought that the last two days of the testimonials--pro and con--were much more interesting. I'd advise that they should precede the show. Yes, that show where the nominee pretends to answer the questions from the minority party by using immense longitudes & platitudes, while the majority party presents him as a deity of impeccable character and of a mind that has the brilliance of a supernova. At least the panelists that followed Alito shed a lot more light, made excellent points, and posed questions for all of us to ponder. This should be the start for future hearings, because now the coaching is good so good as to restrict any occurrence of a response with any substance. We won't see again another Bork who would candidly say that Roe v. Wade is a bad law and he'll do whatever he can to overturn it!

The departing Justice O'Connor has said, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." During times of crisis there's always been attempts from the executive to grab more power, and people often have acted impulsively in giving up their rights without thinking of the consequences. Will Alito vote to enforce the checks & balances provided by the Constitution? Or, like Justice Thomas [lone dissenter in the recent "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld" SCOTUS case], will he hold the view that the executive has the authority to label anybody as "enemy combatant" and hold him indefinitely without affording him any rights whatsoever? Will Justice Alito wink at the President when the latter [as in the McCain anti-torture bill] "understands" the law better [read: disregard it] than Congress's intent? How will SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the US] react to the imperial presidency having Alito as a member?

The war on terror should be taken very seriously. But, we can't substitute competency in gathering & analyzing intelligence, and having a sound foreign policy with turning a blind eye to the violations of our civil liberties. We shouldn't become like our enemies in order to fight them. We shouldn't exchange good & hard work for the empty promises of a corrupt & incompetent administration. We're often told that these are "difficult times" that we fight a "war on terror." Yet, this war on terror has no front and can last forever! Are we so willing to give up our unique and much-envied liberties to obtain some dubiously safer world ? Was Ben Franklin right when he said that those willing to give up their liberty to obtain safety deserve neither?

I have to ask, how would America have been different if we had more ScAlitos on the high court instead of the justices of the Warren Court? In my estimate, we would not recognize our country today for we'd still reside in a very dark age! SCOTUS under Chief Justice Earl Warren righted many injustices of the past--it dispensed justice that was long overdue. This is a philosophical view that I'm afraid the Thomases and the ScAlitos don't share: the tools we have at our disposal, what we call government or, (in other words, how we organize ourselves into a civil society), are there to improve the quality of our lives; to respect and protect the collective and the individual.

There are a few extremely important issues for which we must engage in a national dialogue. What kind of United States of America do we want? When we elect our representatives it is not just a democratic exercise, but it is also a measure of our responsibility. It demonstrates the level of our maturity and the ability to make decisions. Those elected by us act in our name, but not always in our interest. Law has a profound effect on people's lives. But law has to be interpreted, weighted and applied without prejudice. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, for example, provide for the protection of the "average person" but they won't provide anything worthwhile if the "average person" does not care to preserve them; if the "average person" doesn't take action to ensure that his representatives in power share the same sensibilities regarding freedoms & rights.... that people's rights are not subverted by government or are beneath the rights of the big corporations.

Yes, it's about liberty and it's about the future of our country as a beacon of freedom, democracy, equal opportunity, tolerance, and modernity. Unfortunately at this point, instead of working to enhance & advance liberty we have to worry about safeguarding it first as it is violently attacked by elements from within. Many empires thought that by using the power of the sword to fend off the barbarians at the gate would be good enough of a strategy to survival. However, the most enduring power is that of the ideas; ideas that give life to a society of free people. If you've got something good, don't try to enforce it on others but rather enjoy it. If it's really good others will try to steal your ideas and imitate your practices! We should be having a national dialogue on how to move our country forward, but, sadly, we now have to fight to hold the line, not to allow them to turn the clock back.

In the practical sense, it seems that Alito will be confirmed and that the Dems don't have enough votes to block him. He'll go to the whole Senate from the Committee on a partisan vote, 10-8. The key, I think, is for the Dems to have fewer than 5 defections--I meant 4, as Joe Lieberman is a practicing Republican already. This would show that the Repubs won't have 60 votes and that the Dems can filibuster if necessary. Hopefully this time next year, there will be additional Dems in the Senate. No one knows exactly how the dynamics within the high court will change with the addition of Alito, but I wouldn't be surprised if Justice Kennedy becomes the new important swinger there. Thomas's appointment to SCOTUS made a couple justices there sit up and take notice, and they incrementally moved to counter-balance this nitwit ideologue of the extreme right.

Finally, there is lots of work to be done this year before the elections in November so don't lower your guard. There are several scandals to investigate, and several Repubs soon-to-be felons that we have to go after. Time to clean house.

A Peek Under Judge Alito's Robe: It Looks Ugly

Attempts to Cover Up His Sortcomings
It’s one of those opportunities for me to waste lots of time in Washington DC, this time by watching the pageantry of the Alito hearings. The only consolation is hitting the pubs later in the day for some local fare and some cold refreshing ale. So, maybe it’s not such a waste of time after all. It’s no accident that, with Bush’s capturing of the White House, we needed a group like Drinking Liberally for liberals to gather and commiserate together. Hopefully, starting this year with the mid-term elections, we’ll have lots to celebrate in the near future.

As of today, it seems that ScAlito is a confirmable case. Not that we’ve learned anything new about Bush’s SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) nominee; nor do I think that the American people are being served well by these confirmation hearings the way they run. Alito’s performing up to the standards of being quite boring and evasive. Everything is so over-rehearsed that there is no spontaneity and no real answers from the nominee. The Dems on the committee, for the most part, have been asking good questions, while the Repubs are there just to promote Alito. They’ve learned how to coach a conservative nominee to avoid the mistakes of Judge R. Bork, and they have the votes to push him through.

Speaking of Bork, Alito said that this guy should have been confirmed to SCOTUS and that “he was the best nominee to the high court in the 20th century”! Isn’t this alone a disqualifier? Alito has agreed with Bork’s accessory to Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre [Click on the link to read the WaPo article to further understand Alito’s views on placing the executive above the law and to refresh your memory about tricky Dick’s last gasps to remain in power]. Maybe we’ll see a repeat when Shrub is consumed by the serious scandals engulfing him already.

Anyway, at least Alito has a long history, on and off the bench, so it’s not hard to figure out that this guy will swing SCOTUS way over to the conservative side. It doesn’t look pretty to us liberals, but this is no surprise. Elections have consequences and we’re paying the high price for having the worst president in office.

When it comes to privacy issues, the imperial presidency, the rights of the corporations versus the rights of the individual, cases of habeas corpus (including torture), the environment, judge Alito’s views are very clear. Check Think Progress has a good summary, and the People for the American Way has a comprehensive review of judge Alito.

As for the so-called strict constructionist argument that the Repubs often refer to as a criticism against the activist “liberals who legislate from the bench”, Alito refused to say where he stood on the most activist case of SCOTUS--that of Bush v. Gore (2000). The conservatives are just as activists as anyone else when it comes to promoting their agenda via the courts. Those members of the Federalist Society (yes, the ScAlitos & Roberts are members) don’t believe that the government, and for that matter the constitution, exist to protect the rights and the life of the individual.

“No one is above the law”, and “no one is beneath it either”—two phrases heard these days. But, this doesn’t mean much unless we define with precision the boundaries of the law. If the executive can claim that in times of war the President has the authority to spy with no restrictions, to arrest & indefinitely confine in isolation any person, etc, and such actions are deemed legal, then the ceiling of presidential “legal actions” stretches to the boundaries of the solar system—quite high in my estimate. And, there are those persons who are indeed below the law, deserving little or no rights when the Emperor declares them “enemy combatants” or, when they are part of a “rendition program.” [Read: flown to other countries to be tortured]


Much has been made of Roe v. Wade, precedent (starre decisis), and “settled law.” Though, the ScAlitos don’t mean that any law can’t be re-examined and even totally overturned! Especially when they don’t “see” rights of privacy in the Constitution! As strict constructionists, they don’t want to invent rights the Founding Fathers didn’t put specifically in the Constitution. So, according to the conservatives' interpretation, this great document is a dead document, written by the infallible, the wisest people ever to walk this earth, who, by the way, also knew everything about the future! Hmmm. I wonder why we changed our ways regarding slavery and treating our women as chattel... The abortion issue is a peculiar one as it is no secret that the Cons don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade. This has been a very important weapon in their strategy to mobilize their conservative base, along with the anti-homosexual measures of the recent years.

Alito’s membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) also shows his attitudes towards women, minorities, and homosexuals. Check out what this vile organization stood for. Alito touted his membership in CAP in his resume as a great credential in order to get a politically-appointed job in the Reagan administration (late 1980s). Conveniently, he’s forgotten about CAP today. Yeah, right.

Friends, I know we’re seeing things that we don’t like because they're harmful to our country. We can’t give up. It’s not that hope dies last, but there is hope. We can solidify our base in the Blue states and begin taking back Congress in this year’s midterm election. Who knows, maybe god will listen to loony Pat and strike down those cuckoos. Here’s my list of people who have misused god and America: The whole Bush clique, the theologs, any fundamentalist who kills, torture, exploits in the name of god. There's nothing like an angry and vengeful god. Go Zeus!

Ah, the hope for the future soothes the soul, blunts the unbearable of today (and those dull Senate hearings), and gives us energy to move on and fight on. As Homer might say when thinking about his reward: mmmm sacrilicious beer! [insert your own pleasure here, and enjoy life!].

Hey, What Happened to the "Contract With America"?

The Republican Moral Imperative: Blame it on Bill Clinton and the Democrats!
The pagan-religious-commercial holiday around the winter Solstice is over (until the retailers alert us to the next one), so back to the salt mines now. Hey, 2006 can be an exciting year for the politicos among us as we will have an opportunity to restore some checks and balances into our government. I hope the American people are up to this important task. Unfortunately, we will have plenty of scandals and more misteps to keep us busy. This Republican Congress and the Bush administration have set records in efficiency when it comes to ..corruption. Most importantly, however, we must take back our country from the social darwinists, the theologs, and we must throw the lunatic fringe where it belongs--in the margins of our society. This extremist minority has captured the Republican party. But, authoritarian government has a high price: corruption. I can't wait to see how many unworthy politicians are burned by the Abramoff scandal. What a bunch of weasels those Republicans are. Not so long ago, they argued for a "moral imperative" in impeaching President Clinton who lied about his sexual encounters. Of course, now they sit red-faced, praying that all their troubles is just a bad dream. Maybe it is rapture time as trials and tribulations are upon them!

At any rate, I had some spare time these holidays, so I read stuff, here and there, and strangely enough I came upon the "famous" and much talked-about Republican promise in 1994, the Contract with America. Let's see what those Repubs "promised" to do when they'd come to power. [the comments in the brackets are mine; why not start the new year with some fun?]

This is what that "contract" stipulated:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress; [ha! I guess they didn't mean the President and the Republican leadership in Congress! The laws shouldn't apply to those who are in charge of the public good, because our leaders need some ..flexibility in order to make us safe and keep us safely ignorant under lock & key]

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; [ha, ha! waste?!! No way! Get out of here! Never mind the $8.8 billion missing in Iraq... Most likely, this money has probably fallen between the seat & pillows of our national couch!]

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; [unless they needed to add more in order to keep up with the growth of the federal government under Bush 43]

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs; [what they meant: they can stay only as long as our party is in the majority, that's all... Oh, and remove the "ethics" out of the Ethics Committee]

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; [better yet, pass bills without making the members read thousands of pages of ..boring stuff]

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public; [hahaha! they had you going on this one! Nice try! Actually, just save time & energy by letting the lobbyists write the laws]

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; [yes! such a super majority is necessary to safeguard against accidentally raising taxes on the well-off. But, the Repubs can invoke the "nuclear option" and change the rules of the Senate when it comes to other serious matters, like life-time appointments to the US Supreme Court, etc.]

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting [hahahhahhahahahha.... Who said, they couldn't put more on our national credit card than all the previous governments combined? It sounded like a ..challenge to Bush! Besides, it's not that they would have to pay for the charges themselves...]

The Repubs are capable of producing some nice fiction, which, under the right frame of mind, can be hilarious! Yet, at some point we have to remind ourselves of the sad state of our country as it has been led by the autocratic Republican machine. For the real impact of the "contract with America" in a post-Katrina, Iraq war, scandals, and the law-breaking, read this article in the Nation.

We need a revolt of our own this time, not just for the sake of putting the Dems in control of one or both chambers of Congress, but because we care about the direction of our country. The quality of our democracy and the quality of our lives depend on the quality of the people involved. I seek accountability not only from those who are in power but also from those who elect them. What is the responsibility of the average person? How would this country be different if, say, the individual citizen had more power? Often, we are our worst enemy. The first good step is to be informed and engaged in the affairs of our nation. We have a new year ahead of us, let's make the best of it. See tomorrow as the first day of the rest of our lives. Let's make the future a better place to be in.

Badges? We Ain't Got no Badges. We Don't Need no Stinking Badges!

Everyone is a suspect, unless proven otherwise. The destruction continues.
I thought that we were a nation of laws and not a dictatorship. Are we subjects in a state where a divine king rules in God's name? Don't we have certain rules, like the...Constitution to uphold? But then again, these are difficult times; maybe we should bend the rules a bit. Or should we? I mean I can imagine several extreme situations where it would be appropriate to sacrifice an innocent child, to rape a person or to boil a limb if this would make the suspect talk. What if [insert extreme scenario here]?

If we are the land of the free and the home of the brave we must live up to our duty to protect our rights. The super-secret spying apparatus ordered by President Bush is illegal and not fit for a society where the people's civil liberties are respected. There have to be checks and balances, and in this case judicial overview. Even in this turbulent times where too many Americans are motivated by fear and willing to sacrifice their rights under the PATRIOT Act, there are some guidelines to be observed. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (most commonly known as FISA), a secret intelligence court was created to authorize government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Now, Bush did not apply to get permission from this court, nor his spying was on foreign subjects--a clear violation of US law in my opinion.

Let's see what our Constitution has to say about this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Amendment IV)

I think it's quite clear under which circumstances and conditions the government can conduct reasonable search and seizures; and, please don't miss the important point about "probable cause" and, "by oath or affirmation." Where are those arch-conservatives, the "strict constructionists," those who call our national document "the constitution in exile" to stand up and defend it? Of course, they are absent, for they're hypocrites and activists who want to use "creative law-making" to curb individual rights and civil liberties. They are the same people who don't see the sentence, "a well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment, and, thus, they want to extend the right to bear arms to include any killing machine invented!
A Nixonian Approach

Normally, we wouldn't spend too much time on the rants and actions of an inarticulate simpleton, except that this buffoon is the CEO of the country. Last time I checked, the President was bound by the Constitution. Actually, every US president swears to "uphold and protect" it. So, what am I missing here? Bush just admitted that he authorized secret spying on US citizens outside the scope of the law. Even the conservative senator Graham (R-SC) said, "I don't know of any legal basis" for Bush's secret spying. The chairman of the Senate's judiciary committee, Arlen Specter (R-PA) promised to hold hearings early next year regarding this issue, commenting that "there is no doubt that this is inappropriate."

This Republican-controlled Congress does not investigate. What for? It's not likely they care. Most of them are social-darwinists! Never mind that the corruption stench is now unbearable; never mind that the country has been dragged into a costly war based on a pack of lies. Corruption knows no political parties, and the Democrats had their share in the 40 or so years they controlled Congress. But the Republicans managed to surpass this not only in magnitude but in the relatively short time of 5 years. We're seeing high crimes committed by persons in the executive and legislative branches, but no action is taken. I understand, they don't want to investigate themselves, and there are no ethics in the Ethics Committee. In the perverse moral universe of the current powerlogs, theocrats, and greedy fatcats, Clinton's sexual tryst was a much greater sin; a sin worth being impeached for! Can someone give Bush the thingy that got Clinton into trouble? Please! If this won't start the impeachment process [and I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen], at least Bush may calm down a bit. Give him some "Jesus juice" too. He seems very frustrated these days, doesn't he? A frustrated and a mean person like him with the kind of power at his disposal, is a very dangerous man to have in the White House.

"And during these holiday seasons, we thank our blessing" G.W.Bush, Belvoir, VA, Dec. 10, 2004.

Addendum: Today I came across a great editorial by The Nation. The editors point out that Bush's arguments--regarding presidential power and national security--were the same arguments used by Nixon who employed a host of federal agencies to spy, harass, and violate the civil liberties of many Americans, like the sustained wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. The editorial reminds us that, "It needs to be repeated that in 1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included abuse of presidential power based on warrantless wiretaps and illegal surveillance."
So, let's win back at least one chamber of the US Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, because that's the only way to have serious investigations. In other words, subpoena power!

The Triangulation of Hillary

TIP-TOEING ISN'T ALWAYS QUIET. WATCH OUT FOR THE THUMB TACKS!
I decided to help out Hillary Rhodam Clinton in her strategy to position herself as a national candidate for the presidency. Given the current occupant of the White House and his cohorts, there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary would be an improvement. If it came down to her and any Republican nominee, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her. Let me explain what I mean though.

I don't believe there is a "silver bullet" that would take care of the beast--the regressive, authoritarian and kleptocratic policies as expressed by the Republican party today. Also, I think that the country will have to be moved gradually to the progressive side, because there are just too many conservative Americans unwilling and unable to take bold steps in that direction. So, I'm content, for the moment, to try to help the country move forward, toward a more liberal society. [see the definition of liberalism at the bottom of this blog's page] It's like trying to put out the fire that has engulfed our house due to the incompetence and criminal negligence of the current housekeeper that we elected to be in charge! I have been arguing this for a long time now, that first we have to save our house and then debate the finer points of how to make it more beautiful. Unfortunately, it has come down to this, a dire situation, thus we don't have the luxury of inaction because we can't agree on the color of the paint.

Where was I? Ah, helping Hillary.... Yes, I'm going to blast her for being such as hypocrite when it comes to the flag-protection measure. She's co-sponsoring new legislation to criminalize the "desecration" of the United States flag. The bill originated by Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett, and it is a new effort to by-pass the Supreme Court's decision [Texas v. Johnson] in 2003 that upheld the right of a free people to burn their flag as a form of political protest. Hillary says she opposes a constitutional amendment, though I wonder whether this is just another stance of convenience since it would be extremely difficult to amend the constitution--a fact understood by the politicians who've used this path as seekers of cheap political thrills.

Why would Hillary co-sponsor a Republican bill? Because she wants to get traction in the so-called red states, to boost her patriotic credentials, to appeal to the emotions of so many Americans who, indeed, vote emotionally, often against their own interests. Where is the triangulation, you ask? Ah, it's obvious, as the discussion among her staff and supporters indicates: that is, she expects the "left-leaning," the progressive liberals will make enough noise in protest and thus give her "credence" of a "middle-of-the-road" politician! This blog is happy to oblige. Hillary may get her triangulated political position, but I suspect she will face stiff opposition within the Democratic Party. I suspect that she will soon be making clear her more conservative positions since she'll assume that, first, her senatorial race in New York is in the bag, and, second, that in order to fulfill her national aspirations she'll have to move to the center. I expect her to take tougher stances on immigration, and on the role of the US military/foreign policy--you know, America's duty to civilize and democratize the universe! Oh, not to forget that some bad people need to be "persuaded" to talk even if this means ..rendition. All in the name of safety and national security of course!

Appealing to the lowest common denominator is not a good trait of a politician who's a true leader with a vision for the future. But, it seems that Hillary has chosen this path for now. Things may change, though I very much doubt it as many Dems in Congress are afraid to be bold; otherwise there would be many more calls for the US to quickly withdraw from Iraq for example.

As for the flag-protection law, yes, this national symbol deserves respect, but the flag is not a sacred object in itself but rather a representation of our country, which, up to now, includes free speech. This great country won't be diminished if some idiot burns some material with the American flag on it. Gosh, we are already disrespecting our flag in many ways, as we use it for any imaginable purpose, much of it for commercial exploitation. It would be hypocritical if we allowed our flag to be used and abused for any other purpose other than as a form of political protest!



I teach a course on Democracy & Dissent at a university in New York and I've been urging my students to be politically informed and active; that dissent is a very important part of the democratic process because it is necessary to keep the dialogue going without fear that the authorities will persecute anyone for any speech they find objectionable. Unfortunately, Hillary today weighs in favor of fascist tendencies, the silencing of dissent, supporting the Big Brother's knows-best attitude, and the notion that Americans have to be protected against "evil" speech because they are not mature enough. No, Senator, even if some Americans aren't behaving like adults, having a Big Brother will only perpetuate immaturity and stifle the air we breathe. The flag it's a symbol with different meanings to different people--as it should be. We shouldn't try to force respect; it has to come from within for what the flag represents. I see our flag desecrated when it flies over any facility (like GITMO) where human rights are violated, or anywhere it is used as an excuse or a "reason" to curtail freedom & democracy! If you Senator want to talk about respecting our national symbol, then show it by making this country more egalitarian, and a heaven where human & civil rights are protected.

The proposed legislation appears to be no more than another cheap political thrill as I understand the bill currently in Congress. Destroying private property is already a crime, just as it is, if you trespass on federal property and burn a flag. Another provision is based on the vague language that flag burning is illegal if it's done for intimidating purposes--and Hillary equates this to the cross burning by the knuckle-heads of the KKK. This is ridiculous, just as ridiculous is the attempt of a blue-stater to become part of the red-staters group of bullies. There are a few courageous Dems who hail from red states who have voted against such cheap legislation even if this hurts them back home. I would have expected more from a senator who hails from New York. I guess she has been impressed by former Clinton presidential adviser and prostitute-toe-sucking Dick Morris's ability to triangulate. [Though she might want to check out a sample of Morris's views about her]

I hope that this post has been helpful to the reader, for its informational value. Hillary's adoption of this disgraceful piece of legislation hasn't gotten the appropriate attention and critique, except in the alternative media and the progressive blogosphere. If, by any chance, Hillary expresses her appreciation for our help, I will post her thanks here as soon as I receive them. Meanwhile, without having a need to triangulate myself, I'm declaring that Hillary's latest act removed any chance that I'd vote for her in the primary. I wonder if she believes that burning her effigy should be a punishable offense as well... you know, like disrespecting, or, trying to intimidate a US Senator! Humbug, I say, humbug!

Here, Mr. President, Can You Speak These Words?

A Speech President Bush Should Have Delivered, but, he Lacks the Sense & Sensibility to Do it

On November 30th, 2005, President Bush delivered a speech at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, about his war policy under a banner, "Plan For Victory". Remember the other banner, "Mission Accomplished"... Back then, while riding high, he told us that "major combat operations have ended" in Iraq! Ah, well, to use a bushism, "fooled me once...I can't get fooled again!" Whatever.

Here's a speech I drafted for a president who would speak from the heart, if he had one, and would face reality, if he had the guts....
>>>
As I stand here today, in the Naval Academy, I see before me young men and women who represent the armed forces of this nation, and who have, in essence, pledged their lives to defend our country. I stand here as your Commander-in-Chief, yet I do understand that this title bestows me with a huge responsibility, not only toward you but also toward the United States of America. I have to make difficult decisions, but I will never commit our most precious resources, our blood, sweat and tears, without our country being in grave danger and before I carefully weigh the consequences of such an action. I will never lie to you and I will never ask you to make any sacrifice that I, myself, wouldn't be willing to make.

In the past, our leaders have made many serious mistakes at great cost and serious injury to our country. Wisdom often comes at a high price, but it is available only to those willing and able to handle the truth and use their minds. We, as responsible citizens, must know our history and learn from our past mistakes. As individuals, we have to be strong, admit it when we are wrong, and we can take corrective action when necessary. Being stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence that clearly shows we've taken the wrong path, is not a very smart thing to do. You are being trained to be leaders which means you can adapt to the rapidly changing circumstances on the battlefield, maintain a cool head, and be open-minded to the facts--even if the facts contradict your original views. A good leader is a responsible leader and one who sees beyond his own interests and can overcome his shortcomings.

When our country must sacrifice, I will do my best to see that this burden is widely shared and not placed on the shoulders of the least privileged of our society. I will not allow such a situation to become a way to transfer more wealth to the few, especially when this would result in mortgaging the future of the many. If sacrifice we must, then the pain must be more equitably distributed. It's only fair. Patriotism isn't defined by big talk & long speeches, waving of the flag, and saluting the veterans. A true patriot doesn't remain indifferent on the sidelines when his country is at risk or when blood is being shed, nor does he cares only how to make a profit from the war while his corporation sets up its headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes.

I know that many of you chose a military career because of the benefits offered by the military: the professional training & the skills, the healthcare benefits, the signing bonuses, etc. I realize that for many of you the military offers opportunities not available to you otherwise. I'm not trying to devalue your commitment to and your love for the country. On the contrary! You all have families, friends, neighbors, our democracy, and our way of life to defend. We are very much indebted to you. I have instructed our recruiters never to lie to you, no false pretenses and promises. And, when you sign up, you should know that your country will never let you down.

Without you, the rest of us wouldn't be able to survive in a hostile world. So, again, we thank you for your commitment, and I promise you to do whatever I can to give you all the necessary means to perform your job. I won't send you into combat without the proper equipment and training. I won't lie to you about our objectives and the reasons for placing you in harm's way. There will be casualties--that's a dire consequence of war. But, I will make sure that all of our injured personnel will get the best medical treatment and their health benefits will never be reduced. The same goes for the families of those killed in action. It's the least we can do for the ultimate sacrifice that so many fighting men & women have done for us.

Yet, a war should be the last resort. We are a powerful country but our strength hasn't relied only on the might of our armed forces. Our strength derives from the strength of the American character, our freedom & tolerance, our diversity, our technology, our culture, our scientific progress, and our democratic way of life. The American experience and the reality of the frontier, even the violent struggles for civil rights, the many peoples who came to our shores to pursue their dreams of a better life... All these, I believe, made us good people, not perfect but always improving. That's progress. We can't turn back! We've endured many trials and tribulations, but like the Revolutionary soldiers at Valley Forge, we marched ahead and blazed our own trails... and we became the envy of the world. We made mistakes aplenty, like every other nation. We accept the responsibility with the promise to look forward with the urgency to keep building a better world for us, and for our children. We should remain the leaders not by military power alone but because we command respect for our worthwhile achievements and the values for which we stand.

The United States does not stand for torture. We are part of the civilized international community that abhors torture and inhumane treatment. We believe that there are certain inalienable rights every person is entitled to, a common sense of human decency that should be universally applied. We strive to be better than our enemies because we recognize the value in every human life, and that we lead by example. We cannot fight intolerance by being intolerant ourselves. We cannot fight terrorism, ignorance and extreme prejudice by exhibiting the worst traits possible. No high value or noble goal can be defended by employing de-humanizing ways and means.

I hope that by the time the freshman class graduates this academy, the United States will not have to use its armies in war but rather as a powerful deterrence. You will be America's ambassadors to the world as we'll help make and maintain the peace. You can help show that although we're very strong we choose not to use violence unless we have no other credible option. Our enemies won't go away any time soon but nor will our resolve to defend ourselves and all those who fight for democracy, human rights and peace. And, our foreign policy will reflect our commitment to those values. United with our friends & allies we can demonstrate to the world that there is much to be gained in prosperity and personal fulfillment by working together.

Finally, I want to call upon all the good citizens of the world to join the United States in committing to the effort of bettering the lives of the less privileged among us. If we are to fight, let's fight extreme poverty, let's fight the diseases that kill & maim millions of humans every day, let's introduce peace to those who see war as a perpetual state, let's give real hope to those who need it most.
Thank you, and let's get to work. Let's excel in everything we do. I expect no less from my fellow Americans. I know our United States can do a lot more. And we will.

<<<

Bush's audience at the Naval Academy

Sadly, a speech like this is not something that can be delivered by G. W. Bush or his clique. They lack the sense and sensibilities. Their views of the world are rather small and their horizon is unbelievably microscopic. In line with Newspeak, this is an example what our Caesar is capable of, a blend of Newspeak and bushisms:

"I just want to you know that when we talk about war, we're talking about peace.."
President G W Bush, Washington D.C., June 18, 2002.

Why, did you expect anything better? I didn't think so.

They Claim Stupidity When Everything Else Fails

When someone pleads stupidity you know that things are really bad. Should we take Dickey on his word, that Bushco did not intentionally mislead the nation into a costly war? In other words, should we accept that our leaders are a bunch of incompetent and stupid people who couldn't get the facts straight? That's exactly what the Vice is trying to argue today. Of course, if this is the case, then we have to throw in some generous dose of amnesia, because this is not what they were saying earlier. [check their record on Iraq here]

For my part, I'd like my elected representatives to tell me the truth and address me in a adult-like manner; I don't want baby talk, I can handle the truth, and, yes, I prefer making up my own mind. But, it goes both ways, I suppose. What does it say about us? If half of the eligible citizens remain apathetic and don't vote, and many of those who do vote don't exercise proper care in their civic duty, then we collectively get what we deserve. In the span of a year after re-electing Dubya, Americans suffer a buyer's remorse, but I really don't see what new evidence came up in the last year that contradicted the previous facts on which Americans based their decision on election day in 2004. Simply, they weren't paying much attention, because what we know today (although in more detail and quantity) isn't different from what we (those of us who cared to check) knew in the summer of 2004.

Perhaps, Dickey is trying to pull another fast one. He's used to speak from both sides of his mouth. In the early 90s, he was very critical of the idea that the US should go into Baghdad and commit troops there for an indefinite period. [1992 interview to BBC and other media]. In 2003, however, he was telling us that "there is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons programs," and, "we know where they [WMDs] are." We remember the chorus line that sang us the "imminent threat," the "mushroom cloud," and the satanic alliance between AlQueda and Saddam's Iraq. And, no, those in Congress who voted for the war (under specific provisions that were ignored later by Bushco) did not have the same intelligence as the White House.

Another issue that really bothers me is the attitude of Bushco's cabal against those who criticize the failed policies of the administration. They all need a lesson in civics. You can't export democracy if you're attack it at home. Being critical is not unpatriotic; as a matter of fact it is our duty to question the rulers, especially if they have a track of intentionally misleading the nation. Knowing what's going on and being active in the affairs of our country is the duty of a patriot. Every citizen should try to prevent his country from doing terrible mistakes, and prevent it from being highjacked by the narrow special interests as expressed by those in power today. Dickey and Dubya must understand that "giving comfort to the enemy" doesn't come from internal criticism in a democratic society where the people are informed and engaged--this is what we do in a free society. This democracy is what others in non-free countries have been yearning for.

What gives comfort to our enemies is our torture policy, our imperial arrogance, our leaders' "achievement" to divide our friends and unite our enemies. Bushco has been godsend present to AlQueda as a recruitment instrument for terrorists. I'm sure that Osama Bin Laden voted for Bush. And, it wouldn't be far-fetched to argue that Bushco needs the devil who's out there ready to destroy America! All authoritarian and falling regimes need the external threat in order to distract and pass measures to the detriment of the majority of their people. If you're not familiar with George Orwell's 1984, I suggest you read the book! [the movie based on his book is rather good and available on dvd] In addition to the other themes, pay attention to the Newspeak--how the language is distorted.

Like Dubya tried to say a while ago (using Bushisms), "fooled me once, shame on me..." Being fooled is not fun, but what's worse is being fooled about important things, especially when there are easy steps to prevent the fraud. In a democracy there are corrective measures, though this doesn't mean there are no costs in making mistakes. However, we must learn from past mistakes, assume responsibility, but also make it very costly to those who deceive us. If we accept the stupidity plea then we should re-examine our heads and who is the actual fool... the one who's doing the pleading or the one who accepts it....

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly: An All-American Story

Intelligent (re)disign takes time!
Lots of elections all around the country this November and it seems that the Democrats did quite well, though I'd advise not to get complacent and expect the voters to return Congress to Democratic control next year. We need a clear-cut agenda and bold proposals, including a plan for getting out of Iraq. I think we can draw some encouragement from the the results on Tuesday. First, the two governorships, in New Jersey and Virginia, were easily won by Dems, but most importantly many people voted specifically against the Republicans as those people don't like what they see in the conservative agenda. Any association with president Bush proved politically deadly, in New Jersey, but more so in Virginia where Bush carried this red state by 8 points a year ago. The president came in when the Repub was trailing in the polls by 3% and when he left his buddy lost by 5 or 6 points!

Both sides point out the only major Republican big win, that of Mike Bloomberg's re-election by 20 points in New York City. I beg to differ. This was, by no means, a Republican win. Let me explain. Bloomberg had been a Dem and changed his party affiliation to run for mayor, because he thought this was the only way to run on a major party's label. NYC is overwhelmingly a Democratic city of 10 million people and this becomes clear, where a Dem primary win equals ..appointment. Many Dems had endorsed Bloomberg and, since many New Yorkers have been giving high marks to the mayor, he won. I don't see this as a bad thing. Many Dems didn't like the mayor's remote association with the Republican party [no Repub of note appeared anywhere within a mile of Bloomberg during the campaign!], but they voted for whom they thought would be the best manager of the city's affairs. Besides, Bloomberg is pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage, for example, views the Republican party (nationally and NY state-wide) finds as an abomination! Lastly, the other city-wide Dems received around 90% of the vote!

Another positive thing was the win of the eight Dems who threw out the unintelligent designers of bad education in Dover, PA. There is a Scopes-like trial going on there with a decision expected in January. However, junk science and small-mindedness is alive and well in several states of the union. I think that in the next 10-15 years there is going to be an intensifying struggle between science & modernity and the religious fundamentalists in this country. Year by year, there will be a greater divide between the progressive states and the hard-core conservative ones. Kansas resides in the latter category. People there decided that evolution is controversial and that science should just rely on a natural explanation but the supernatural should be introduced to ..raise the standards of science! Whatever. Unfortunately, Kansas has lots of company.

I don't know what it would take for people to open their eyes and become inquisitive, but education is one of the keys. By education I don't mean indoctrination but learning; whereas thinking and pondering are involved, whereas a person can make up his own mind using reason and acquired knowledge. With such advancements in science and with modern society affording leisure to people, there is no excuse not to use our brains for enlightenment. We must defeat those who have been pushing ignorance, superstition, and a perpetual condition in which individuals can't employ their intelligence without the guidance or the direction of someone else.

We have to fortify the blue states and make them bastions of freedom, scientific inquiry, progress & modernity, tolerance, producers & magnets of talent, a freer and a more just society. Last Tuesday's elections showed that the Dems and the progressives fared well, but there is so much more to be done. The country is polarized and this won't change for a while longer. Of course, I understand that many people can't change for a variety of reasons. Not all people live in the present and won't live in the future. The familiar past gives them comfort and they prefer it, because they fear all that which is different or they can't understand. The words, "land of the free and home of the brave," take new meaning today.