Should We Become Like Our Enemies in Destroying our Basic Liberties? Big Brother Promises to Keep us Safe!

But Who Will Keep us Safe from Big Brother?

If we were like the terrorists or so many other repressive regimes, things would be easier in fighting crime, our enemies, and just about everything else that could pose a threat to our safety--except the threat from the government. Democracy, or more specifically, liberal democracy (the only free civil society that exists), can be messy and imperfect. It's harder to go after illegal behavior if the authorities don't have a complete surveillance on everybody all the time. It's harder to convict people, because of restrictions placed on how evidence is gathered, the adversarial trial, the burden of proof, etc. Terrorists and those who hate us sometimes take advantage of the liberties we have in order to harm us. Once we manage to capture those bad people, they deserve nothing more than rot in jail. No? Well, NO! It is supposed to be more difficult to convict, and there should be restrictions on the government's intrusion & powers. Otherwise, the US would be no different (or better) than those fanatical, intolerant, freedom-hating persons who seek to destroy us.

Yes, such systems do exist, but we chose to have a different kind of society, where people can be free to act--especially in their own private domain. Where even persons charged with the most heinous crimes have the right to say, "prove it!" The Founding Fathers thought of habeas corpus as an important liberty and they put in in Article 1 of the Constitution. Habeas corpus means "due process," or, in other words, a defendant has the right to appear in court to challenge the charges against him. The Bush administration has little respect for all those liberties that makes our country great, so it has subverted the Constitution, bent the rules, re-defined the definition of torture, denied habeas corpus, lied about prisoners, sent people overseas to be detained and tortured, spied on foreigner & Americans citizens alike, and has acted with self-assumed abusive powers of Big Brother.

Just think what this BushCo was saying, that detainees in GITMO (our base facility in Cuba) have no rights whatsoever because they are not on US soil! Even if our own military intelligence (and so many other experts) admit that probably some 80-85% of those detainees are innocent, and not enemy combatants. The previous Congress under Republican leadership--and with the votes of many Dems--voted for the disgraceful Military Commissions Act that further stripped certain detained persons rights enjoyed by other accused persons. In other words, if the government determines a person is an enemy combatant, this person become a non-person anc can disappear! Wow, this is Soviet-style justice. By the way, our Constitution provides the same civil liberties and rights (except voting) to any person, not just citizens.

The Constitution gives the right to Congress to suspend habeas corpus in times of cases of "Rebellion or invasion." Is this the case today? I don't think so, unless you buy the argument that this war on terror has no front and will last for ever... It's absurd to argue that we have to give up all those freedoms that make us strong (and a flourishing society) in order to protect who we are! Are we so weak-minded and afraid that we surrender our American freedoms to the terrorists? I hope not, that's why those of us who care cannot remain silent. Criticizing our government is our patriotic duty when the government is acting irresponsibly and unlawfully. Let's not confuse dissent with disloyalty.

This must stop. The new Congress under Democratic control should take a proactive approach: repeal bad and ineffective law, and place a serious check on the executive branch's abuses. There are a series of cases in front of the Supreme Court challenging BushCo's Big Brother, but Congress should not wait for SCOTUS decisions. Instead it should pass sensible laws that reflect our respect for our freedoms and our national character. Enough of the bastardization of our country by the current bandidos in power .

When Supporting the Troops With Magnetic Ribbons & Rhetoric is Not Enough. (Another Inconvenient Truth)

The Troops Belong to All of Us

UPDATED, 2/23 (below)

War Casualties in detailed numbers, here.

Supporting the troops means different things to different people. Normally, I wouldn't bother arguing with the morons who say everyone who's against the Iraq war is not supporting the troops and is giving comfort to the enemy. Usually, those people are either war profiteers, or confuse the meanings of loyalty, duty, patriotism and dissent. Many others, just wear an American flag lapel, and put a magnetic sticker on their cars but haven't done much else to make sure our troops are indeed supported, beyond the rhetoric.

I wonder how many Americans actually want to know what exactly goes on in Iraq. Yes, sometimes depictions of violence and its aftermath should be more readily available to the public. Why? Because the sanitized view of a horrific event only helps to perpetuate the horrors. Why isn't most of the media covering the war as it happens--not as a general abstraction--with all the unpleasant details. The American public has been misled about this war of choice, and although today most of us want this war to end, the administration and many elected representatives--some of them with presidential aspirations--are arguing for an escalation instead of a quick end!

How come those in charge of this horrible situation have not been shamed to crawl under a rock or chased out of town? Every American should read this article in the Washington Post about our troops being neglected, here at home! We know that this administration went into the occupation of Iraq with no realistic plan and without providing our troops with the armor they needed. We now have over 3,150 dead and well over 25,000 injured, many severely--like double amputees. Let's not forget that every one of the dead was a person who'll never experience all those good things in life the rest of us take for granted. Look into their faces and weep.

Wait, save some of your tears for this:
Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Dana Priest and Anne Hull Washington Post Staff Writers, Sunday, 2/18/07

[read the entire article]

When you're done weeping, make sure you don't remain silent. Make sure you understand your obligation as a citizen to be informed and be active in the affairs of our nation. Let no one manipulate your patriotism for their gain. The last resort of a scoundrel is an appeal to patriotism. As MLK said, Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter.

Update, 2/20

I read Paul Krugman's piece in the NYT (2/19/07), but I failed to include his points earlier in this post. John at AmericaBlog didn't miss it. This is why, Wrong is Right, is worth reading.

..For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences. The situation in Iraq might not be quite so dire — and we might even have succeeded in stabilizing Afghanistan — if Mr. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney had been willing to admit early on that things weren’t going well or that their handpicked appointees weren’t the right people for the job....

The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn’t sound like another George Bush. That is, they want someone who doesn’t suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them....

Mrs. Clinton’s problem. For some reason she and her advisers failed to grasp just how fed up the country is with arrogant politicians who can do no wrong. I don’t think she falls in that category; but her campaign somehow thought it was still a good idea to follow Karl Rove’s playbook, which says that you should never, ever admit to a mistake. And that playbook has led them into a political trap...

This is the Iraq we don't see. Iraq: The Hidden Story, is UK Channel 4's documentary of the harsh reality. It poses some serious questions as to what people whose country is involved in a war should know about the horrors of war... [warning: this 48-minute long video displays graphic violence]

UPDATE 2/23

Apparently this story of neglect and disrespect has touched many nerves. The top brass has apologized for the mess at Walter Reed Medical facilities. One day, the president (through his spokesman) is aware of the situation, the next he doesn't know anything about it. Now, the Army Surgeon General, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, is accusing the Post and all those who shed light into this black hole that the story is based on a "pack of lies." Oh, I see. "But, remember, more than half [the soldiers'] rooms were perfectly OK." He said. What a knucklehead!

In line with the rhetoric, "Support the Troops," the top brass says, those problems that are based ..on a pack of lies will be fixed asap. That is, while the 600,000 claims for disability are being sorted out. Oh, I forgot, the medical benefits of the National Guard troops run out a month after they return from the front.

A Progressive Approach to the Presidential Nomination Process--Start with Smaller Steps, Pick Up the Pace Gradually

Stop the Madness. Open up the Process, Reduce the Role of Money, Make it More Interesting, Give More Choices to the Voters!

It's hard to believe that the next big election won't happen for a year and a half, but a year from today, we'll most likely know the eventual major party nominees. This is because many states are moving their primaries up, way up. Some are threatening to have them in January or very early in February. It's getting out of hand I think. The reason why Iowa went first with its caucuses and followed by New Hampshire's primaries was to make it easier for lesser known candidates to have a chance with limited resources by competing in very small states. Retail politics, we call it. Now with more and bigger states cramming their contests earlier, it's the better known, better financed candidates that have the big advantage.

I understand the complaint states like New Jersey have, that by the time they hold their primary, it's all but over. So, they do want to be part of the action. In our very peculiar electoral system, states have lots of power when it comes to elections, and even how their delegation to Congress is selected, among other privileges. We have 100 major [with presence in all 50 states] parties in the US. I know it sounds crazy, but it's true. They are independent, legal entities; two for every state, plus the national party committees that supposedly coordinate all. This is one reason we have 2 major parties in every state and on the national stage, because local parties ..move left or right to accommodate the public sentiment. Therefore, we have the Republican parties in the Northeast who are closer to their counterpart Democratic parties, and whereas the Dems in, say, Alabama & Mississippi are more conservative than the Repubs in the Northeast!

The National party holds the convention, of course, and has the authority not to recognize the delegates from a state party--a threat uttered recently by the DNC recently in an attempt to control the states' frenzy to front-load the primaries. The National parties--or more appropriately, the National Committees--have lost much of their power. Since the 1960s, increasingly it's the individual politicians that decide when and for what to run. They pick their own issues and raise their own money. The mass media had a lot to do with this turnaround. The Internet pushed this a few steps forward. Howard Dean, for example, used the Internet and "grass-root" organizations to propel himself (and to raise more money through the Internet than anyone else) four years ago. I don't think he was a favorite of the Democratic party, but he became a force to be reckoned with. Today, he heads the DNC!

I have a suggestion: The order of the contests should be according to the size of the delegation. The smaller ones go first, followed by the medium-sized, and the larger. This would give a fighting chance to the lesser candidates, the contest can thus open up and the candidates will have an opportunity to do retail politics and gather momentum. The contest will become more interesting as the "heavier" states come into play later on. In other words more states will become important battlegrounds under this system. OK, the national convention will probably still be a show, but a better at that as the primary voters may have a greater say in who gets there. As of now, the front runner is not only known but he's got a huge number of delegates since his victory was assured early on. If those states that are threatening to move up do so, then by the first Tuesday in February 2008, there will be a virtual nominee by then!

Soon, I'm going to write about the polling and the current front runners, but as of today, what we're seeing in the polls is basically name recognition. There is much "softness" of intent and support. This name recognition, however, may become a de facto arrangement since the candidates with less money and a lower national profile may never get their chance to speak to the nation and try to effectively campaign for the votes of their party's members.

Have a Bonobo Experience on Valentine's Day (and not only). Remember: Life is What We Make of it!

This post is not about politics. Wait, on a second thought, it is! Even on a personal level, two people have to engage in politics, that is, they have to communicate their desires, plan a common course of action, compromise, establish rules of conduct, agree on a budget, have certain responsibilities, and have a vision for the future!

I'm not a fan of the gift-driven holidays, and this Valentine's Day is no exception. Actually, I see people trying to get romantic because they ..feel obliged and this doesn't excite me. I know, who could possibly ignore a (commercial) holiday without running the risk of being labeled an ogre, an iconoclast, a brute? I know, culture has its advantages and ironclad clauses, expected behaviors, customs and mores. I prefer ..smores! Without entirely skipping the conventional ways, I like surprises, the unexpected, something that originates within and flows outward as a natural feeling; such a thing doesn't need any prescribed rituals in my world.

Remembering my mother because it's Mother's Day is something I don't want to experience, not if it'd take a commercial holiday to make me think of her. I'm also not a big fan of specific dates--usually arbitrarily set or with the consumer culture in mind. I prefer events that I find relevant; and, I don't need a particular day to remind me what it should occur naturally in me. OK, some dates are important because collectively we can celebrate or pay homage. But, those are for co-ordinating our activities; they can't make us more patriotic or anything that we are not already. Otherwise, it's pretending, make believe.

On the other hand, I don't really care how people celebrate important days, dates, and events in their lives. I believe that we should give meaning to our lives [this is a deeper philosophical view than it may seem at first], so if a man wants to get on his knees and publicly propose to a woman on V'Day, presenting her with a diamond ring, then he should do whatever he feels like. I just don't like this kind of theatrics. As for diamonds, well, I have views that most women wouldn't want to hear.

I do not scorn love nor do I underestimate its power. Like any other human trait, it can uplift the individual and create a beautiful world, or it can be a destructive force if it's blind and crude. The warmth, the validation, the release of endorphins, How could a person who's capable of love can also be so cruel with others? How could someone who loves his ..loving god can bring death & destruction upon other human beings? The human psyche is abysmal indeed!

Who can deny that if more people loved and were loved the world would've been a better place. I don't want to draw extensive scientific conclusions or parallel comparisons to our cousins, the monkeys, but it's worth a look. Just the other day, PBS NOVA had a program on the behavior exhibited by different primates. While the chimps are very violent and even commit infanticide, the peace-loving bonobo prefer the make-love-not-war approach; this approach has made for a happier existence! We humans share 98% of our DNA with both of those primates. You be the judge of our behavior and our strategy in establishing our world. Sometimes, primitive behavior isn't confined to the more primitive animals and cultures.

I'm tempted to start a long diatribe on why & how our societies have attempted to suppress the better side of human nature--even denying love, sex, and the human body--while institutionalizing violence and rewarding the extermination of the "others." But, I'll leave such exercise for another day. Meanwhile, enjoy your day, and try to have as many bonobo experiences as you can! Don't deny yourself and the beautiful experiences you can share; just deny the irrational guilt. Life is too short to waste it.

Homage to a Great Scientist: Charles Darwin. (Though He Failed to Predict that Evolution Can Regress in America)

Seeking and Examining the Evidence

Charles Darwin [author, Origins of the Species]was born 198 years ago; today we have one of the strongest scientific theories, that of evolution. I won't go, again, into what makes a scientific theory and what science really is, but I still find it amazing that with all the access to knowledge and information we've got, there are so many people who shut their minds off, willingly. I suppose for some people how they define their identity and how they wish to believe is more important than knowing or amending their beliefs.


In a few days, presidential hopeful John McCain is going to deliver a speech to the advocates of creationism, or intelligent design [yes, only one, their version of mythology] at the Discovery Institute. They promote a Biblical version of events, and a replacement of science as we know it. McCain's shift to the theocratic conservatism is now complete. He joins science-illiterate Bush in saying that some stone-age superstitions and myths should be taught in our schools as science! Kids should be exposed to all points of view, as if we know nothing about the physical world!


Yeap, gravity is a magical force, the sky is held up by a very strong dude, named Atlas, and how can you not believe in Santa Claus, the unicorn, elves, and the Tooth Fairy? That's why it's comforting to believe that we'll always be number one, and that make-believe is better than reality! Why, watching Faux News Channel you can see that we're winning the war in Iraq, the president is wise, no one is stealing our money, and criticical thinking is for sissies.

Announcing a Candidacy for President with a Twist (and some common sense)

I wear a few different hats, one of a teacher at a local university. This semester I'm teaching a course on politics & media, so, obviously, we're dealing with the presidential race among other subjects. In one of the assignments, I've asked the students to declare their candidacy for president of the US! I've been getting several very interesting papers. This exercise makes someone sit down and think what he/she would like to talk about during the campaign and the important issues they'll tackle once elected. I wish more Americans did this exercise. It's not as simple as you may initially think. You have to take into account today's reality, geopolitics, and the audience that will receive your message. Have you thought about it?

Here's one such presidential candidacy, by ..Demos.[pictured]

Good morning. Today, I would like to address those who love this country; those true patriots who are willing to contribute into making the United States an even better country to live in.

Before I explain my reasons for seeking the presidency of the United States, I’d like to briefly address those who do not know anything about politics and may have voted in the past. Please, do not do it again! Don’t vote! This way, I won’t have to spend tons of money to buy expensive ads to push your emotional buttons and “swift-boat” my opponent—even though he deserves it, the country certainly does not. Please do not dilute the votes of those who have invested some time and energy into making educated political decisions. You may turn off your TV and radio sets now. Thank you.

I am an ambitious man. I want to be the most powerful person in the world. But, ambition without direction and power without wisdom are two very dangerous things a person can have. My ambition is to strengthen all those values and attitudes that have made America great—democracy, human rights, equality of opportunity, tolerance, the arts & sciences. I want to use the power of the president’s office to implement smart policies that will truly enhance and encourage a culture of life. In the here & now—when it makes a difference in people’s lives.

I advocate a culture of life in which the pursuit of happiness is a right not a privilege of the few. Let a person give meaning to his/her own life. We are a wealthy nation so we can do many things to enhance the quality of our lives. It’s a matter of priorities, which we should examine and re-arrange.

Our government, our society, all of us should be pro-life advocates. But, this means providing a strong social safety net, medical care, education, and opportunities when a person is alive and our actions can indeed make a difference in the quality of their life! We cannot limit our interest to the period between the time when 2 cells meet and childbirth.

We’re having a debate about marriage these days. I suggest we define marriage as a union for a specific purpose: PROCREATION. Only those who want to have children and are able should be allowed to marry. If after a period of five years, a couple doest have any children (or a pregnancy), that marriage should be null and void!
Otherwise, if we agree that marriage is about love, then we should open it up to anyone regardless of sexual orientation or any other particular trait. It's that simple, and honest! Let love be the deciding factor.

In times of crisis, people become insecure and fearful. This is the time when we need strong leaders. Unfortunately good leaders that can rise to the occasion are harder to find during such times. A smart leader knows how to use his power and not react with the mentality of a brute or that of a frat boy. But, above all, we cannot give up all those attributes that have made us strong in order to protect them.

If, we give up everything that makes us special, our enemies win. I urge you to be vigilant in protecting our very specific freedoms and not exchange them for some undefined safety. This new war on terror--that can take place anywhere for an indefinite period of time--cannot be an excuse to create Big Brother. As Benjamin Franklin said, those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither!

With opponents like these, winning the presidency is assured.

We are all here. Hopefully we have a future. That will depend on the choices we make today. It's about taking care of our beautiful lonely planet and about taking care of our country. I ask you to take your responsibilities as citizens seriously. In the land of the free & the home of the brave, we need to have people who want to be free and be brave. Remember, freedom is not free, and that we are the guarantors of democracy.

Being brave does not mean pointless sacrifices. It means having the courage not to be afraid of new ideas and of progress. It means to be gutsy enough to admit mistakes. It means to follow the evidence where it leads you. It means to keep alive our adventurous spirit that opened new frontiers for America, for the world.

Just remember, we cannot change the politics for the better unless we change the people we send to Washington DC. Please vote for my candidacy but only if you promise to send like-minded reformers to Congress as well, and only if you’re going to keep an eye on us.

Thank you.

Don't Listen to the Pessimists. The Earth Will Survive as it Has for Billions of Years!

The Question is, Will Humans Too? And, in What Kind of an Environment?

We all breathe the same air. Essentially, we all have the same home, called Earth. We are all subject to the ..weather. Assuming that we want our children to enjoy life as much as possible, we have to do whatever we can to preserve the health of our ecosystem. When thousands of top scientists issue a dire warning about the health of our planet, we should listen. Science is the best tool we have for finding things about and understanding the world around us. It's not infallible, but it's strength comes from its methodology. Again, it's the best tool we've got. The consensus is that global warming is a fact and that humans are mainly responsible (90%) for its accelerated pace. There are a few (yes, just a few) scientists who disagree. That's fine. But, as far as I know, no scientist that does not work for, or receives anything from the energy industry, disagrees with this consensus finding. So, the question is, what do we do about this problem of global warming.

It shouldn't take a genius to note that we've been putting lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Smog, for example, is the product of burning gas, coal and petroleum. Emissions of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) are rising faster than ever because of human activities, not because of any natural cycle. People can choose to believe whatever they like--and we've been doing this on almost every level and about anything. Yet, I don't think we can afford to make a mistake on this one, nor do I think we have much time to spare before we act.


Global warming according to xkcd [click picture to enlarge]
I'm a student of science and an ardent supporter of it. There's a intrinsic value in knowledge, at least for those who really want to know. Be inquisitive and follow the evidence where ever it leads you. When it comes to the environment we have to be honest with ourselves. There's no superman, no script being followed whereas Deus ex machina would appear to save humanity from annihilating itself. We have to prove that we can be reasonable and rational beings capable of their own salvation.

Leadership is very important and our government should be at the forefront in environmental policy. The marketplace forces are good to make profits and react to consumer demands, but without some regulation and safeguarding of our commonwealth, the last tree will be cut down, and the last fish will be taken from the sea. Unfortunately, this president is not only science-illiterate, but insensitive to the needs of the environment. As long as there is some person somewhere that disputes the scientific consensus (i.e. theory of evolution, gravity, etc), Mr. Bush will say there are two sides to a story!


Our government can implement policies that promote energy conservation, alternative fuels, and a change of consumer behavior. We're 5% of Earth's population and we use anywhere from 25 to 40% of the total world energy. This is not sustainable, at least, not with the current means of energy production. On the other hand, every person has to do his/her part in being smarter about energy and the environment. There are plenty ways we can help, start by being educated about the issue and interested in doing something about this problem. Oh, perhaps you may want to change some of those incandescent light bulbs to the fluorescent ones that use 75% less energy and last a lot longer.

Marge: Homer! There's someone here who can help you...

Homer: Is it Batman?

Marge: No, he's a scientist.

Homer: Batman's a scientist!

Marge: It's not Batman!

A Drinking Game, Bush-wacking, How to Run for President, a Pregnant Lesbian. And, a Depeche Mode Parody.

UPDATED, 1/26 & 1/27. Includes a cool video on the 7th year of the Bush imperial reign

If we had more troops, if we had spent more money, if we had stayed longer, if only....

I could have written something about Bush's SOTUS* earlier, but it took me a good whole 24 hours to recover from that speech. You see, I played the drinking game while watching. My friends picked words like, Osama, Iraq, terrorists, winning, Madam Speaker, etc. No surprise there. Every time Bush uttered these words, my friends had a drink. I lost, because I agreed to take words that I'd never expected Bush to say, hence I agreed to triple my intake playing the odds. I mean, who'd expect to hear, "Baby Einstein," [mentioned 3 times!], "Dikembe Mutumbo," and .."global warming"! What can I say, I find Bush very predictable but he surprised me on this one.

As for anything else, this president has lost credibility. Much of a president's power comes from his ability to convince, to project his vision, to make people follow him. It's too later for Bush to do that. Even his own hard-core supporters don't know what to believe anymore. In his SOTU speech last year, he said that there would be a reduction in the US troop levels in Iraq by 2007! Now he wants an escalation. Our country is increasingly isolated because of the war! Even the Brits are pulling their troops out while Bush is sending more American soldiers in Iraq! Notice that he doesn't speak of "coalition forces" or of allies anymore.

On another subject, John Kerry made the right choice--to run again in 2008. Not for the presidency, but for the US Senate where he belongs. I have to disclose, that I worked for Kerry's campaign in Ohio in 2004, and I still believe he would have made a much better president than the current one [OK, almost everyone agrees with this statement]. Yet, I also thought that he should not attempt another run for the White House. John may be an awkward politician but he is an asset to the Senate and the country. By the way,we progressives appreciate his stance on the Iraq war issues.

The NYT reports of intrigue and betrayal at the trial of Dickey's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The case is a bit convoluted but there's got to be something seriously wrong with a Veep who hires someone with the name "Scooter"! Wanna bet that there's a connection between Rove's office [Bush's chief architect] and Jeff Gannon? Oh, and did you hear about Dickey's explosion on CNN when Wolfie asked the Veep about his lesbian daughter having a baby? Obviously, I have no problem with love and loving relationships, and same-sex couples having/adopting children, but it is the hypocrites I despise. I think it's highly hypocritical to say that you approve of what your daughter is doing [having a same-sex "marriage" and a baby] while your government promotes discriminatory policy and a morality fit for the Dark Ages. Same with abortion, health care, and a host of other social issues that adversely affect only the poorest among us.

Update, 1/27. Maureen Dowd of the NYT makes this eloquent and very accurate point:

In a democracy, when you run a campaign that panders to homophobia by attacking gay marriage and then your lesbian daughter writes a book about politics and decides to have a baby with her partner, you cannot tell Wolf Blitzer he’s “out of line” when he gingerly raises the hypocrisy of your position.

Et tu Bru-te?

Social conservatives are very upset with president Bush for failing to even mention the agenda for the moral fitness of America. But, what are they complaining about? Bush is the president who appointed very conservative justices to SCOTUS. They shouldn't worry, though, Bush is still firmly anti-science! Global warming, my ass. We've been trying to cancel winter in the Northeast, and I thought we were doing just fine, until today when we're experiencing arctic conditions. Com'on people, put some more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere...

"The Revelator"

More fun

Stephen Colbert: What made [Tuesday's State of the Union speech] so groundbreaking, I think, was all the new stuff we've never heard from the president before...like a domestic agenda. Take his proposal to fix the whole health care mess with the only proven cure-all: tax breaks...

Bush clip: And for the millions of Americans with no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within reach.

Colbert: It's so simple. Most people who couldn't afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But...if you give them a deduction from their taxes they don’t owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford.

Now, if you have nothing else to do, you can download Giuliani's campaign handbook, here.

Cheers,


*SOTUS: State Of The Union Speech

A Very Good Start for the 110th Congress, but Bush Remains as the Obstacle to Progress

The Work has just Began

Although how the women dress in the Congress got more paragraphs of coverage in the New York Times than the legislation passed, the 110th Congress had an impressive start. In its first 100 hours, the Senate passed tough ethics rules while the House rolled back $14 billion of [gasp] subsidies & tax breaks to the oil industry, increased the minimum wage, cut the interest on student loans, voted to implement recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, required the government to negotiate better prices for the Medicare beneficiaries, to finance stem cell research and try to overturn Bush's veto on ..science. Of course, the current occupant of our other House on Pennsylvania Avenue still has a lot of power and a veto on Congressional legislation, but this time it will be different. Congress has the power to investigate and exercise its important function under the checks & balances system in our constitution--something that the previous do-nothing Congress didn't want to do under the Republicans.

Hillary just announced that she's, too, forming an exploratory committee--yes, she's running! No surprises here. Governor Richardson of New Mexico is throwing his hat in as well. Of the big-name (national recognition) politicians that haven't declared, only Al Gore remains. He can wait a bit longer, but not too long--not because he'll have to raise money faster and establish a ground campaign, but because he has to get good people on his team before they commit to another candidate. Well, come to think of it, maybe it's much better for him to wait and get fresh people with fresh ideas instead of the established conventional "wisdom" and the people that have an excellent record of losing important races. This is a big topic of discussion within the progressive blogosphere these days. The Dems keep relying on the DC insiders (ie, Bob Shrum) and keep using the same old recipe of failure. OK, the party won control of Congress in the last election, but I maintain that much of it was the result of the utter incompetence and corruption of the Republicans.

It's January 20th as I'm writing this post. Do you know what date this is? Think two years ahead! That's right, a new president will be taking over at noon, and Dubya will go down in history possibly as the worst president ever! Let's try to limit the damage this man can inflict on our nation between now and then.

PS> I have to acknowledge the president's urging for medical privacy. Bush is right to propose legislation to prohibit insurance companies, employers, and others from obtaining patient's records of genetic tests and medical treatment. Now, when it comes to other matters of privacy, BushCo respects none.... All in the interest of national security, of course. Did you notice that Attornery General (the one supposedly defending our rights) Gonzales told the Senate that the Constitution doesn't explicitly provide Habeas Corpus (due process) to all?!!! [read and weep here]

PS2> If you want to get an idea how the insiders work and the damage they have inflicted on the Democratic party, it's worth reading an earlier essay I posted back in February of 2005, when Howard Dean became the chairman of the party. I urged Dean to "Fire the Losers, Get Rid of the Parasites."

Some Dip their Toes in, Obama Puts his Foot in the Water Creating a Bigger Splash. Let the Games Begin!

Updated, 1/18 (below)

The race for the presidency has begun with several candidates either forming "exploratory committees" or have outright declared. The junior senator from Illinois, Barak Obama, took the first formal step, though there was no big surprise here. He had plenty of time to think about this and he is behaving like a declared candidate. The primaries are less that a year away! Can you believe it? Anyway, Obama's case is very interesting. Within a few months, the field will become more crowded, though I think it's way too early to make any predictions. I personally remain open--waiting to be convinced--and may endorse a candidate later in the year.

For a first-term senator, Obama has gotten an unusual national attention but now he's got to define himself and build a ground campaign. At this point, he's Hillary's biggest headache for he's going to take much of her support from the black community--this is good news for Edwards. Yesterday, a new Zogby poll came out of Iowa--the first contest next year--in which Edwards leads with 27%, Obama's second with 17%, the governor of Iowa, Vilsack, at 16%, and Clinton at 16% too. The progressive blogosphere has been having informal polls over the last year, often showing that Hillary trails Edwards and Obama, while others like Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, Vilsack, I-want-to-run-again Kerry, Biden, are all drawing single-digit numbers, trailing the "unsure" category!

Another candidate that has gotten attention since 2004 is Wesley Clark but I don't think he's going to run. The big question is the former Veep, Al Gore, who gets high support from the progressive community and from Democrats of all stripes. He could win this contest, but he seems too comfortable (and pretty rich) in the corporate world that he may choose to play the elder statesman role. He has name recognition and can raise huge sums of money fast so he has the luxury of waiting a bit longer. Hillary has the same advantages as Gore, but she also has high negatives--not necessarily a deal breaker, but a factor nevertheless. She has gotten a big support from the black American community, but this will change with Obama in the race. The Illinois senator trails her in polls among Democrats but 1/3 of them don't know him, yet. The New York junior senator has a very high name recognition, and although she still has room to shape her agenda & policies, she will always be associated with the Clinton legacy--a good and a bad thing.

No matter what you think of Obama and Hillary, it is a good thing to see these two in the race. Anything can happen in the next year and a half, but as a nation we still haven't answered in the affirmative, that a black and woman [and, why not on the same ticket?] can be elected to the highest office of the land. I do not advocate voting for or against anyone because of their gender or skin color, but America has a long ground to cover yet to overcome racism and other prejudicial, discriminatory attitudes & practices.

Update, 1/18/07. Zogby has a new poll from New Hampshire today that shows Obama in the lead (23%), followed by Clinton and Edwards (both at 19%). NH poll is on par with others, but interestingly the "not sure" category is just as high as the numbers those three candidates are drawing. Way too early to make predictions though.

Bush Visits the White House Library for the First Time. He Plans to Start Reading as Soon as the War is Over.

Post Updated, Jan 15 (below)

By now I'm sure you don't want to hear more about president Bush's "new plan" for escalation of our involvement in Iraq, but did you notice the following? He gave his televised speech from the White House library! An important step to confronting your fears is to face them, so I reckon that setting foot in a library is an important step for Bush. Maybe this was the result of the "good advice of Senator Lieberman" but nevertheless Bush looked like a deer in the headlights. The president is going in the wrong direction, stubbornly and with the illusion that history will justify his policies. Most of his advisers and military brass are against this escalation, but Bush reshuffles his team and listens only to people who agree with him. This has been the same theme since day one--only those opinions & data that support a pre-determined position are allowed. This narrow frame of mind discards all evidence that falls outside this microscopic view.

Look, these are the facts: In the 4th year of this war, we are not winning. We've changed our objectives several times--from the AlQaeda threat and the WMDs to regime change--but what is the objective today? Not withdraw from Iraq by taking people off the rooftops by helicopters?

Iraq is in a civil war with no end in sight. It's personal, sectarian, and religious. Civil wars usually don't end by outside intervention, only when the combatants get tired of fighting or one side wins convincingly. The Kossovo-Bosnia civil war was snuffed out by NATO, but this was so much different than the Iraq situation. It would have taken half a million troops to do the same in Iraq (opportunity lost already). In the Balkans, there weren't other neighboring strong states to support the conflict there as there are in the Middle East--Syria, Iran, and the "international terrorists" of AlQaeda are all players in Iraq. The Sunnis (Saddam's base), 20% of Iraq, have the support of much of the Muslim countries in the Middle East, except Iran that supports the Shiites, 60% of Iraq. The Kurds, 20%, in the north have been quiet and out of the conflict, but Turkey threatens to invade if they break for independence.

This latest escalation just postpones the inevitable: US withdrawal. This war is over and there is a winner: Iran. The infusion of a few thousand troops will not make much of a difference, except more casualties. Shiites and Sunnis are shooting at each other and both at us. We'll be taking more risks, bleed more, and spend more. Iraq was/is an artificial country, drawn up by the British, and has been held together by the dictatorial terror. I doubt Bush read any book on the subject prior to the war. This is the same world leader who thought Africa was a country!

Even today, I don't think Bush understands the complexity of the region, nor its history--as recent as Vietnam. I doubt that he cares enough about the over 3,000 dead and the 24,000 injured soldiers. The US has no more troops available, while our forces are under attack in Afghanistan where the Taliban are coming back. [check PBS' Frontiline] Bush's "surge" is just a number that won't make much of a difference, though it signifies his intention to stick to his guns. Maybe he sees himself as the captain going down with his ship, fighting to the end. Except, he's not fighting himself, but brave Americans in a war of choice. How can a commander-in-chief ask anyone to be the last one to die in an unnecessary sacrifice?

Sadly, I don't expect the president to make use of his library other than for a show or an interesting backdrop. He behaves like the drunkard who uses the lightpost not for illumination but only to lean on.

Update, 15 Jan 06: I just read Paul Krugman's article in the NYT. He describes Bush's escalation as the Texas Strategy which is "another stalling tactic, designed to buy more time." Krugman makes a great point. Remember the huge scandal of the S&Ls in the 1980s? It involved failing banks making high-interest but worthless loans to "crooked or flaky real estate developers" and cooking the books in order to show big profits, on paper. Meanwhile, the owners and executives of those savings & loans banks would reward themselves with outlandish salaries and perks. The end in failure was guaranteed and the taxpayers footed a huge bill. The delay meant that the bill was so much higher.

What did we learn from this? Just few years ago this Texas strategy was implemented again. The failing energy giant ENRON created dozens of companies that became its own "customers" who, in turn, got high-interest loans, bought goods and services, etc, from the (secret) parent company. Money and obligations were moved around to create the illusion of success. Millions of Americans were affected--many were fleeced, investors were defrauded, employees lost pensions--while the executives were getting hundreds of millions of dollars in pay & bonuses. [Remember Ken Lay's $6,000 shower curtain and the Roman orgy?] We all know how this ended.

Krugman is correct; president Bush is trying to pull another Texas strategy on the Iraq war/occupation today. Stubbornly defending a failed policy, ignoring the facts, and being ignorant of the history and the dynamics of the Middle East is a GW Bush trademark. We have to do whatever we can to stop this man for his policies are reckless and injurious. Because he's got power, his applied ignorance should not be the guiding force in our nation's policy.

I believe we've passed the point of "let's try something new and see what happens." We shouldn't fall into the trap of, "if we had more troops, if we bombed more, if we spend more money, if we had more time, if..." There's no end in this circular logic. Veep Cheney offends every thinking person and every true patriot when he suggests that we are unpatriotic or we don't have a plan to ..win in Iraq! Doesn't tricky Dickey know that Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together? If I said that I had a plan to bring the dead back to life and blasted those who didn't let me try (at great cost if I may add) and cursed those who didn't have a ..plan to revive the dead, I'd be declared insane! Yet, that's exactly what we hear from the White House today.

Is President Bush Like Lincoln? What???!!!

Judge for yourself!

What to do Next? Here are some Modest Suggestions.

A New Beginning, or Business as Usual in our Nation's Capitol?

Most of the cheering took place in the early hours of November 8, 2006, but I'm happy to see the change of power in our House today. I wonder if the Republicans still hold the mantra of former House Speaker Hastert, that only the majority of the majority matters? Actually, I do want to see a change under Speaker Pelosi. Here are my suggestions.

Corruption. Public service should be left to people who are really patriots and want to serve their country, not see it as an opportunity for personal financial gain. Bolster the ethics rules and the Ethics Committee. Sunshine is a good disinfectant. Stop the revolving-door practice. I find it offensive that people from an industry (say, oil & energy) come into our government to facilitate their former companies, and, after a brief stint, they go back to the same industry and the big bucks! Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, did just that a few days ago. [the link will give you more info on other Bush cabinet members too]

Energy. Much about anything relies on proper education. The public needs to be educated on the need for conservation and how to do it. It starts from replacing the incandescent bulbs with the new fluorescent ones that consume 75% less energy, and a simple act of turning off the lights of an empty room. If we could send a man to the moon within a decade, I'm sure we could muscle our resources to come up & implement better energy sources/uses. What we pay for gas at the pump is a small fraction of its cost. Think of all the wars (ours & others'), the adverse health effects, the environment, etc.

Immigration. Com'on, it's about time we look at this seriously and rationally. The US asked for a labor force, but humans came. We've already given amnesty to American employees for using this cheap labor. Even Congress passed legislation (and amnesty) to exempt the Marianna Islands (US Territory) from immigration & labor laws--and allowing slave-like conditions to persist there. The immigrants who have invested a great deal in this country and have been within the law after their initial trespass should be given residency and a path to citizenship immediately. It's a fair and smart thing to do. Immigration may save our Social Security too.[I'll return to this subject in the near future]

Internet. Information is power and access to many goods & services is often a few clicks away, if you can afford it. I advocate free and fast Internet for everyone. It'd take about $4 billion to construct wi-fi networks that would cover 80% of the US. Maybe another billion to extend it to the very remote, sparsely-populated areas. In the modern age, our country already has fallen behind. Korea and Japan, for example, have 100-times better (and faster) networks, because our Telcos have been in bed (asleep) with our government. [Where's the ..unbridled free market forces here?]

Education. I've made my case through many posts here, but if we believe having a highly-educated populace in the US is good, we've got to make higher education more accessible--which translates into more affordable. Education should not be a privilege, but a right. Yes, students have to take this opportunity seriously too--I teach at a university, so I see the lack of interest & proper attitude--but the amount of ignorance in this country is astounding. For example, more than half believe the universe is less than 6,000 years old, not to mention other scientific knowledge. Some 44% believe in prophesy, that the end of the world is near, and that Jesus will return to Earth in their lifetime.

Economy. We need smart economics that preserves the middle class. America was considered the land of opportunity, of equality of opportunity. Today, class is the most determinant factor in a person's future success. In the last 30 years, it's become harder to move up (more chance to go down), and the gap between the very rich and the rest of us is growing--this would presumably be OK if it improved the lives of most people. But it hasn't. Even Oprah says so.

Healthcare. It's obscene that we don't have a universal healthcare system. Well, maybe we do, if you say that we have a crazy system whereas the cost of treatment for the uninsured means two things: financial ruin for the patient, and transferring the cost of his treatment to the insured. Oh, add to this the cost of a vast bureaucracy buried in paperwork, and the profits of the many agents/actors involved in this scheme. We pay 16-17% of our GDP for healthcare, more than any other country. Others universal care, so we have many models to examine. We should extend Medicare to all Americans.

We have a representative system in order to have a say in what our government does for us. Right? It's about time we demand government for & by the people--not for & by the special and narrow interests. On the other hand, we have to realize that we cannot change our politics unless we change the people we send to Washington! We gave the Dems an opportunity; lets keep their feet to the fire. I understand, the president is divorced from reality and he's beyond reason--we have to wait until the 2008 election. But, the process begins in a few months, when we'll have more choices among candidates. Let's pay attention.

We have to remain interested and engaged in the affairs of our commonwealth. The quality of our politics reflects the people involved.

A Resolution for 2007: More Cheers, Fewer Jeers! (or, until the effects of the holidays wear off)

Ah, the new year has arrived, so I'd like to make a few observations. First, the War on Christmas isn't going well. This free-for-all holiday prevailed once again. I guess the godless hedonists, the secular humanists and all other "season's greetings" generics are subdued by the onslaught of the Christmas commercialism. Second, I re-discovered that by not exercising certain muscles (including the brain) it makes it all that much harder to bounce back into top shape. Third, I gained several pounds because of the liberal libations and the free time to enjoy them during this insipid ..religious holiday. In order to get back into the groove of things, I'm starting exercising today, slowly at first, so forgive my lapses. Let's see what's happening...

The country is bidding farewell to a former president. I was alive in the '70s but too young to know anything. When Gerald Ford became the country's only non-elected VP and eventually President, disco was making a greater impression on me than politics! It was much later, as a student, that I examined the Watergate era. I have to say that Ford respected the checks and balances in our constitution, as did many Republicans of that time--something that can not be said about the Republican Congress of the last 10 years! Veep Cheney said in his eulogy that Ford "was his mentor" but this only demonstrates Dickey's utter hypocrisy. Much the same can be said for all those neocons who've destroyed all what was good of the old Republicanism.

Ford was against the Iraq war and had publicly criticized the misleading efforts leading up to the war and, later, the incompetence of conducting the war/occupation in Iraq. No Republican mentions this today. No Republican likes to talk about Ford's message of inclusion and tolerance [this article's worth reading]today. He supported women's rights, and although he opposed "abortion on demand," he was in favor of abortion when "unfortunate things happen." Ford paid a political price for pardoning R. Nixon by losing the election to J. Carter. I think he believed he was doing a service to the nation by "putting this nightmare behind us." However, his two biggest mistakes were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld! Talking about an ..axis of evil.
...

Did you watch the two versions of Saddam's execution widely available on the Net? What did you think about the haste and the way to execute that tyrant? [this video is Tom Brokaw's take] One thing we should not forget is that this madman was created and destroyed by the US. When he picked a war with our enemy, Iran, we gave him weapons, military intelligence on Iranian targets, and we looked the other way when he tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of his own country. When will the US learn that we can't convince people about the sincerity to spread freedom & democracy while we support brutal regimes?
...

We observed another sad occurrence (or "just another number" according to White House spokesman, Tony Snow), that is, the US death toll in Iraq has exceeded 3,000. The number of servicemen with serious injuries are in the 20,000s. Obviously, our casualties in this war of choice exceeds the number of people killed on 9-11. I wish every American took a look at the faces of those fallen soldiers... Check The New York Times Faces of the Dead for an excellent reminder that humans are sacrificed for no good reason by people with the arrogance of power and the stubbornness of an ignorant mind. Weep if you like but do whatever to help in putting an end to this ill-conceived war.

Lastly, I would like to wish my readers a great year ahead, one filled with health and happiness and all sorts of personal achievements. Life is to be lived in the here and now. Don't worry about heaven & hell and how you'd spend your "time" there while you're wasting this unique experience of being alive now. Every person can make the world a better place. As a liberal would say, be good for goodness sake, for virtue without choice is non-existent!

Cheers!

Have a Great Holiday Season. Enjoy Life, a Moment at a Time.

Without further ado, these are some pictures I took over the years in and around New York.

PS. I could have spent more time writing, and tweaking stuff here on Blogger (to post more pictures in a better layout) but between the liberal libations available this season and the nice weather, it didn't happen! [Did you know this page looks different in IE and Firefox?!! I use both] I'll be posting sporadically until ..next year!

PS2:You could click on the image for a better picture! I'm outahere...

Conservative Talking Heads Offer Dung to American Consumers

Warning: Ingesting Without Chewing Leads to Atrophy of the Brain and Loss of Clear Vision

Are we having a good national dialogue in this country? Well, depends where you go and what you read/watch/listen, but there are too many people out there who make tons of money by spewing venom and provoking the worst emotional responses. Obviously, there is an audience, of the lowest common denominator, because an extremist is marginalized if his message doesn't find willing ears and narrow minds.

There are idiots on all sides, in every political & social segment, but why is it that the worst, most hateful rhetoric comes from the Conservatives and the theocons? Why isn't there a ..liberal equivalent of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Culter, Savage, Beck, Robertson, Falwell, Boortz, etc, ? Because, the liberals & progressives tend to be a lot better B.S. detectors! We are critical thinkers for the most part. Those persons who claim to be part of the "righteous ones," who think they've have "high morals" are indeed the ones who are the most hateful mongers that walk in the gutter. It wouldn't be all the worrisome if they were promptly ignored, but they do matter because they have millions of Americans who agree with them.

Media Matters put together some highlights (rather, lowlights) of the ..dung served to millions of Americans in 2006 by those media barons, who, ironically, also decry America's the lack of .."moral fitness." So, do you want to know who'd sodomize their mothers, push Jewish children into the oven? Who's more gay, Clinton or Gore? Why to exterminate all barbarians? What animation movie has a homosexual subtext? Who looks like Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence? No, I'm not making this up, these are comments on shows with millions of viewers/listeners. [click on the link to find out] By the way, all this nonsense about the "War on Christmas" was the creation of that hypocrite [pictured] to generate ratings and distract attention from that sexual harassment case...

A democracy usually falters & falls from within. Likewise, the worst enemy is ourselves; we've often inflicted more damage on our country than our enemies on us. The dumbing down of our society, that simplistic ignorance and primitive emotional responses, Big Brother policies, the encouragement of cynicism about our public life, all are obstacles to a better life, a safer country, a forward-looking nation, and a enhanced culture of life!

Happy Holidays (Festivus?) to all.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert

New Jersey Takes a Progressive Step in Legalizing Same-sex Unions

Marriage Meant Different Things in the Good Ol' Days--when Women were Considered Chattel

As expected, Gov. Corzine signed a law legalizing civil unions. New Jersey now joins Connecticut and Vermont as states that provide equal treatment for all of their citizens under the law. This is a great step forward, even though it shies away from calling a civil union by its true name, marriage! Of course, language is important, so I hope that the commission--which will be formed to study the effects & application of the new law--will find that the the words marriage, spouse, parents, should be extended to same-sex couples as well, and that the NJ Legislature will follow suit.

Several years ago when this issue first surfaced, I was of the opinion that winning the actual rights of marriage should be the primary aim; the language would follow as a de facto once full, equal rights were won. This is a socially conservative country, more so than other advanced countries. Even very Catholic Spain, for example, has recognized same-sex marriage. But, in the US, there's a totally different story. This is a very emotional issue for many Americans, so no argument solely based on reason can win the day. Yet, if certain language were to be put on hold until specific legal rights were to be won, I'd say this would be the way to go. Language would be easier to adjust once there would be a legal basis for it. I understand that the wrong language may create confusion and a re-creation of the "seperate but equal" status, but I believe it's easier to push for the same legal rights first without being distracted or delayed because of language. I don't see it as an "either-or" issue, I'm just thinking how to best achieve the same goal of total equality. Obtaining equal rights is essential and the strong foundation on which to built a greater understanding and acceptance by the community at large.

During a course I taught last semester, some of my students conducted interviews--primarily in Westchester, NY--about this issue, and a pattern emerged: the word marriage triggered emotional responses in rejecting it as an option for homosexual couples, while the civil unions term was more acceptable. "My marriage will be worthless if gays are allowed to marry," was a response shared by many older interviewees. This emotional response is not ..rational. Others' actions shouldn't invalidate what you do, but that's beside the point. Popular support is important in moving the country forward. Although most Americans oppose giving the full benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, the good news is that those under 30 are overwhelmingly in favor! Westchester County, for those of you not familiar with it, is a northern suburb of New York City, very affluent and treads Republican, but most conservatives in the Northeast would be considered very moderate (and unacceptable) in the very conservative states where Republicans rule today.

In the US there are several states that have passed or are in the process of passing constitutional amendments explicitly prohibiting marriage, civil unions, and spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Unless the (conservative) Supreme Court finds otherwise (very doubtful), marriage will remain in the realm of the states. I hope that more states join Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont in giving long-awaited and rightful legal recognition to all citizens. This will demonstrate that doing so is not a threat to society. As a matter of fact, marriage has fared better in Massachusetts where there are fewer out-of-wedlock births, lower teenage abortion rates, and the lowest divorce rate in the country!


Now that the veep's daughter, Mary Cheney, is pregnant, will the socially conservatives realize that love is a good thing? Gays and lesbians are capable of loving just like anybody else. Mary Cheney has been with her lesbian partner for 15 years--much longer than many heterosexual couples--and their child will benefit from a loving relationship between his/her parents! I can't think of a good reason why Mary's partner shouldn't be recognized as a parent, and a legal spouse with all the rights and benefits the rest of us enjoy.