Will We Always Be At War?

A few weeks ago, during the NSA press conference, the President promised that he would fight any attempts to disclose more details about the NSA wiretapping program. He said to do so would aid the terrorists which proves, as we've suspected, that there is more to this program than we know. He claims that to reveal more information would only aid our enemies, but cynics point out that it also makes it harder to question the legality, scope and necessity of the program.

The President keeps reminding us that we are in a war. I'm about the same age as the President and I have seen several wars come and go.

The Korean War (Actually, for political reasons, it was called a police action.)
The Cold War
The Vietnam War
The War on Drugs
The War on Poverty
The War in the Balkans
The First Gulf War
The War in Afghanistan
The War in Iraq

I believe in this time frame we also had wars on cancer and the gypsy moth and a few others. I'm not trying to belittle the serious threat of Islamic terrorism, but war is a term that we use quite loosely to describe a condition where we will use our full resources to "win". While you might not put the war on terrorism in the same category as the war on poverty or drugs, you could make a case that the Cold War posed a much more serious threat to this country than Islamic terrorism. The President justifies any action that he wants to take on the fact that we are in a war. At his news conference he vowed to keep renewing his authorization of NSA wiretapping until the threat of terrorism is removed. Implicit in this statement was the assertion, "and I don't care what you think about it".

Does he ever listen to his own speechs? He has already told us that the war on terror will take a long time to win. Does he believe there is any possibility we can win the war on terrorism before his term expires? Does he even have an estimate of when the war on terrorism might be won? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How will we even know when we've won? Common sense tells us that as long as there are people who are willing to die for their cause there will be terrorism. Terrorism evolves. New groups with grievances will emerge and terrorism is an efficient way for the less powerful to influence the powerful. So even if we destroy al Qaida tomorrow, it is reasonable that some other group will take its place demanding the attention of the world with outrageous acts. The very threat that a group might evolve into another al Qaida will be enough to justify a continued war on terrorism.

The President has said something like, "We have to get it right all the time, the terrorists only have to succeed once." I can understand the logic, but this kind of reasoning will always lead presidents to interpret laws and civil liberties in a way that gives them the most flexibility to do whatever they feel is necessary. As President Bush has shown, presidents are more afraid of being wrong once than on worrying too much about legalities. From a president's point of view, the prudent course is to secretly bend the rules. As the NSA wiretapping issue has shown, if your actions are discovered and your authority is questioned you argue that what you are doing is legal under your expanded war powers. Even if it is not legal, it is essential to national security. Either way, those arguments are easier to defend than trying to explain why some city was blown up on your watch. I can understand why presidents would think this way, but these are false choices and it is the responsibility of congress, the courts, the press and all citizens to make sure the executive branch does not lose perspective. There are fates worse than death. There are more serious threats to the nation than terrorist attacks. I can imagine a devastating attack in the US, but to ignore the constitution to prevent an attack is like making a pact with the devil. Somewhere along the line the devil will need to be paid.

I think you can argue that terrorism will be a popular tool for the foreseeable future. Even if we cleaned up all the loose nuclear material (which we are not working hard enough to accomplish), terrorists will turn to biological and chemical weapons (which as technology improves will probably be easier to create and deliver than nuclear bombs). The genie is out of the bottle; from here on we will face attacks by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean we will forever be on a war footing where a president can place himself above the law by invoking his duty to protect us? Presidents of any party will try. We give them every reason to feel that the fate of the country rests, in the end, on them and them alone. Given that charge it is reasonable to expect that they will use every resource at their disposal to do what they feel is necessary. And while their oath to the constitution should keep their actions within the law, the consequences of a mistake and the glaucoma of power make the dark side almost irresistible. That is why we have checks and balances. That is why we have to ask questions that, to some, may look unpatriotic.

You may believe President Bush to be true of heart and a pillar of virtue. You may accept that whatever the President does, he does with the sole intention of saving lives and protecting the nation. But what if, heaven forbid, a Democrat were elected at sometime in the future and claimed these same powers. Would you be comfortable allowing that president to authorize questionable actions in the name of the war on (fill in the current group) terrorism? Keep in mind that technology to spy on us is constantly improving. How long will it be before the NSA has the capacity to monitor EVERY phone call or email in this country? How large must an attack or a threat be before the use of such technology is rationalized? They may even be able to do that now; how would we know?

I'm not suggesting that we don't try to intercept communications between terrorists. I'm not suggesting that we stop the NSA wiretapping program. I am suggesting that this NSA program exposes the administration's belief that immediate threats are more important than laws, civil liberties and the constitution. I am asserting that "war" does not mean that the checks and balances provided by the legislative and judicial branches are diminished. If the NSA wire tapping is as legal and necessary as the administration claims, they need to prove it to Congress and the courts.

The President and his administration claim that since we are in a war, they have additional power and authority. They claim that some of our constitutional checks and balances don't apply during a war. If the President wants to claim extra powers because we are in a war, I would like to hear how we will know we are no longer in a war. The President keeps telling us this is a new kind of war. OK, how about a new definition of how we will know we have won. Without some definition of how we will know the war on terrorism is over we have basically changed the constitution, probably forever. Aren't you concerned about that?

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps War Constitution

Philosophy 101

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound? To non-philosophers that question probably sounds silly. How about another version more in tune with the times?

If you say something that you know is untrue, but there is no way that anyone can prove it is false, did you really tell a lie?

Technorati Tags: Political

Brit For RNC Chair, II

I've written a couple of posts suggesting that Brit Hume of Fox News should replace Ken Mehlman as Chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC). I think the Vice-President seconded that nomination when he chose Brit for his interview this week.

Brit Hume For RNC Chair!

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Down With Earmarks

Tonight's edition of Now, on PBS, was about Congressional earmarks. If you missed it, you can read about the issues on the PBS web site.

The Now report made me sick.

We've been watching the Abramoff scandal unfold where a lobbyist is accused of buying votes and influence. Instead of voting for issues based on merit, some legislators may be selling their votes to the highest bidder. One of the ways to pay back a lobbyist is to slip an earmark into a bill, often when no one is looking. An earmark is a targeted appropriation. How can you slip something into a bill when no one is looking? You needed to see the Now report.

What we learned this evening is that a similar kind of unprincipled trading of votes for favors by a few is taking place all the time in the Senate and House by almost all members. The leadership in Congress buys votes by giving individual legislators money from the budget to spend in any way they like, usually for projects in their districts. The Senator or Representative then have earmarks added to bills to designate exactly how "their" money will be spent. For example, someone in the leadership says, "Vote for X and we'll give you 50 million dollars in the new highway bill that you can earmark anyway you like." Or in the case of the Alaskan Bridge To Nowhere, 1.5 billion! The money that the Congressman or Senator gets to earmark and spend in his district buys votes in the next election. As was pointed out in the Now broadcast, would it be better to spend 1.5 billion dollars for a bridge to nowhere or spend that 1.5 billion dollars to rebuild the Lake Ponchatrain bridge badly damaged by hurricane Katrina? The Senate decided Alaska needed its bridge more than New Orleans. In the case of the Bridge To Nowhere, the public was at least aware of this travesty thanks to a Oklahoman Senator Tom Coburn.

Trading favors is not new and will continue to happen, but the current incarnation of this bartering is obscene. Most Senators and Congressmen trade votes for future political success and the currency is earmarks in last minute hidden legislation.

Many earmarks happen in the dead of night when no one is watching. Some powerful Senators or Representatives can slip legislation into a bill at the last minute. Although there are rules that require all parts of a bill be made public at least three days before the bill is voted on, that rule is frequently broken. Legislators often find that they have voted for something they never knew was in the bill.

Write your Senators and Representatives and insist that all legislation, including the earmarks, be made public at least three working days before they are voted on. A Senator or Representative should never have to vote on legislation that they or their staff have not had time to review. While that only seems like common sense, that is not what is happening now. Also, all earmarks should be required to include the name of the legislator who proposed it. Another idea is to allow points of order against individual provisions in conference reports that were not contained in either the House or Senate version of the bill (see Power Struggle Over Pork by Jonathan Allen for a better description of these ideas).

Not only will these proposals help stop corruption from outside, like from lobbyists, it might weaken the strangle hold that the political parties now have (see my post Goodbye, Karl) and allow legislators to vote their conscience and not just what the party requires.

Technorati Tags: Political

I'd Like To See A Diagram

No one believes Vice-President Cheney intentionally shot Mr. Whittington, but in all the noise about how the story was handled I've heard very little about the actual incident. Ron Reagan, today on MSNBC's Hardball, gave a few details. This is more than I'd heard up to this point. I'm surprised there haven't been more explanations of the details. Ron Reagan said Vice-President Cheney apparently shot downward into a setting sun. There may be nothing wrong with taking a shot like that, but I would like to hear the details. What was the actual distance between the Vice-President and Mr. Whittington? Maybe, these details were printed somewhere and I missed them.

It is getting harder and harder to determine what is true and what isn't. Whatever the real story was regarding the Vice-President's errant shot, he wounded the truth and public trust as badly as he wounded Mr. Whittington. Who knows what to believe or who to listen to? This would seem to add impetus to the need for a reporter shield law. As the government works harder to control what information we receive, maintaining a strong independent press becomes even more important.


Technorati Tags: Vice-President Whittington

Did I Miss Something?

Last week on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewd Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. Here is the final exchange (from the Fox News Sunday web site):

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about this question of the Democratic involvement. I want to put up something from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. This comes directly from their Web page, and it says, "Here is a detailed look at Abramoff's lobbying and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, which is a company that Abramoff owned since 1999."

It lists recipients by the amount of money they received. Well, the top two are the Republican campaign committees. The third and fourth biggest recipients were Democratic campaign committees. And if you go down the list, Democrats received more than $1 million from Abramoff-related interests.

DEAN: There's two points to this. First of all, actually, we — the DNC actually got $100,000-some odd. Now, I can assure you Jack Abramoff never directed that money. It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff's clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats money. The key is...

WALLACE: I'm sorry, did you say, I'm sorry. Did you say that you're sure that Abramoff didn't direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from some of the — yeah. No, what I'm saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money toward the Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did, sir. We've got evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is that not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything, and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find — and I just want to — we have to wrap this up. But if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That's a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble, and they should be in trouble. And our party, if the American people will put us back in power in '06, we will have on the president's desk things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now it's a Republican scandal. Maybe they'll find that some Democrats did something wrong, too. That hasn't been the case yet.

But our reforms in the Democratic Party are going to be aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. We want to clean up Congress, and we will within 100 days of the new Congress in 2007.

WALLACE: Chairman Dean, we're going to follow up on that. Thank you. Thanks so much for joining us. And don't be a stranger. You're always welcome here.


Later in the show Chris Wallace said that Fox News did indeed have proof that letters were written by Senators on behalf of tribes that Abramoff represented. The clear implication was that Dean needed to crack down on some Democrats and this is a Democrat and Republican scandal.

From the interview it looks like Dean side stepped the first trap, but FNS clearly got him on the second and then after he was off the air and couldn't respond. I watched again this Sunday expecting to hear more about this Democratic scandal. I must of missed something. I didn't hear more explanation about which Democrats had been implicated and details of what they did wrong. Did I miss it? Fox said they had proof and then nothing? If there are Democrats involved in the Abramoff scandal, I want to know who they are.

And if the FNS proof is not there, why wasn't there an apology? Maybe I just missed it.


Technorati Tags: Political Fox News

Someone Take Mehlman To Task!

I watched Ken Mehlman on ABC's This Week this morning. I generally like George Stephanopolous, but I can't believe he let Mehlman skate on several outrageous statements. Stephanopolous made the point that Republicans (most recently in speeches by the President, Karl Rove and Mehlman himself) were throwing down the gauntlet on national security. He played a clip of Senator Chuck Haegle who said "I don't like it. It's wrong for this country. National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party and to use it to get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party." Stephanopolous asked Mehlman his response. He said "I wouild agree with him. I think national security is too important for partisanship."

After a further exchange and a statement by Mehlman that Democrats still used pre-9/11 thinking, Stephanopolou asked
"Are you saying the Democrats don't want to go after the enemy?"
Mehlman responded that Democrats continue to use pre-9/11 thinking. "Well I'm saying when the Chairman of the Democratic Party goes on radio and says we're going to lose the central front in the war on terror." Later he says, "When Harry Reid says we are going to kill the Patriot Act or we killed that Patriot Act, that doesn't connect the dots, that is pre-9/11. When you don't have the ability to listen in on foreign terrorists calling into this country to potential sleeper cells I think that unfortunately is a 9/11 view."

One, I believe Howard Dean was talking about the war in Iraq. It was Mehlman who twisted Dean's words and equated the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Republicans continue to do this because without this clearly untrue connection the failures in Iraq are more obvious. Howard Dean was not saying anything about the war on terror, he was talking about the war in Iraq and most of the country agrees with him. What Mehlman said was wrong and misleading and he knows it.

Two, as I understand it, Harry Reid was talking about stopping the final conference committee version of the Patriot Act. The Senate 79-9 had voted on a version Reid supported that contained a few changes that even many Republican Senators agreed were important to make. The House voted to basically reauthorize the current Patrior Act without any changes. This went to committee and what came out was the House version. Senator Reid wanted to stop that version from becoming law and instead gain some time to negotiate further to try to enact the Senate version (again, a version supported by most Republican Senators). Reid never tried to kill the Patriot Act. Senator Reid and the Democrats offered to extend the current Patrior Act to allow more time to debate the issue, which is what happened. If Senator Reid wanted to kill the Patrior Act, why did he vote on at least two occasions to extend it? Mehlman lied.

Finally, I don't believe I've heard of any Democrat that has said we shouldn't listen in on converstations between al Qaeda members and people in the United States. Democrats and some Republicans have questioned whether the way this administration has chosen to conduct this listening is legal. Members of both parties have agreed to help write legislation to make such listening legal and constitutinal. Most want oversight to ensure that rights are not being abused, but no one is saying we shouldn't try to intercept terrorist communications. The administration has refused to seek such legislation. Democrats have not called for the administation to stop this surveillance. Mehlman lied.

Ken Mehlman says that national security is too important for partisanship and then does just that. It is certainly fair to raise issues about how your opponent would approach national security, but when you distort their position you are not having an honest debate. That is partisan politics.

This guy is unbelievable! Today's distortions are even more reason to hope Brit Hume will leave Fox and replace Mehlman.

Technorati Tags: Political Ken Mehlman Brit Hume

Cable News as Manufactured Outrage

Life is just not exciting enough. How else can you explain the popularity of reality TV shows? We revel in the turmoil, intrigue and contrived spontaneity. At least that is what I think they offer from seeing the 30 second promos. I haven't been able to watch more than a couple of minutes of any of them. I get bored.

TV sports is another opportunity to live vicariously, feel the adrenalin rush and excitement of the unpredictably, bask in unmerited success and bathe in the knowledge that we are not as dumb and blind as the officials.

I do occasionally watch Cops, or shows like that. Although maybe for the wrong reasons. I don't watch to feel morally superior or excited by the pursuits. I usually come away knowing that life is not fair. For whatever reasons, a lot of people find life harder than others. I don't see how you can watch a show like Cops and not realize that given the right (or wrong) circumstances, you could be the loser on TV. I watch Cops and always come away more humble.

But my real reason for this post is a train of thought set off by George Will a couple of weeks ago on This Week (ABC). He used the term "synthetic outrage" and I immediately thought of cable news. Well, actually, I thought of Fox News and then realized they are not alone in manufacturing outrage.

O'Reilly likes to put down competitors because their number of viewers is not as high as his. I think the difference in popularity is how well a show can manufacture outrage. A really good news show would probably not be called entertaining. I love to watch the News Hour on PBS, but I would call it more informative than entertaining. This is partly because Rush calls himself an entertainer, not a journalist or commentator. I think Rush is sort of an entertainer, I just wish I could believe his loyal listeners saw him that way. I suspect most would call him a commentator and journalist.

But I digress. The cable "news" and commentary shows thrive on outrage. The more outrage they can generate in their audience, the more successful they are. When there is no convenient event or person to build outrage on, they invent something. I have sympathy for Natalee Hollaway's family and don't blame them for using any tool to keep interest in her story alive. But does anyone believe we would still be hearing about this case if it weren't for the outrage manufactured by cable "news"? The same goes for Terri Schiavo, cruise ship murders, Happy Holidays, etc. I'm sure with a little effort you can add to the list.

Fox, and maybe the other cable networks, have a nasty habit of picking guests more on their ability to generate outrage than on their ability to discuss an issue or defend a position. A good "kick me again" liberal can get a lot of air time. The same goes for sycophant conservatives.

As you watch news/commentary shows, even the individual segments in a show, make your own decision as to whether they are offering primarily journalism, commentary, entertainment or synthetic outrage. You can do this by analyzing what is being presented and the manner in which it is presented. Is what is offered fact or opinion? Is opinion offered as fact? Does the anchor or host sprinkle in personal comment and/or opinions while describing fact(the news)? Are you being given information by authentic sources? Are people telling you the thoughts and motivations of someone else? Do they offer these insights as conjecture or fact with supporting reasoning? Or have they somehow crawled inside the other person's head and are now reporting from a remote location? During an interview, does the host cut guests off, interrupt before the guest has a chance to answer or restate what the guest just said in a different way with the implication that the guest is lying or ignorant? Does the host treat the guest and their opinions with respect? You can disagree with someone and still treat them with respect (for examples, watch Now on PBS). Does the host end the interview and then give some comments that the guest has no opportunity to respond to? Is the host really trying to elicit information from the guest or trap them into saying something they can pounce on? I love the common tactic of cutting off an answer with a comment like "We only have a few seconds left and I wanted to ask you....". That really means, you aren't supplying enough outrage, let's try another subject.

If you like to watch Hannity and Colmes because it gets your blood boiling, that's fine. You probably spend too much time on the couch and this little bit of activity is probably good for your heart. But don't come away thinking all liberals are dim witted pin heads who look for every opportunity to dis the troops, hurt the country, lie, cheat, steal and evade the draft (yes, I know we no longer draft people into the armed services).

There is certainly enough stupidity, incompetence, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, injustice, violence, evil, perniciousness, arrogance, malfeasance, ...... to outrage us all. We don't need cable news to manufacture it.

Technorati Tags: Cable News Fox News Outrage

Goodbye, Karl

While there was much to comment on in tonight's State of the Union address, one observation from several commentators was the partisanship displayed on the floor of the House.

If the President truly wants to make the last three years of his term successful, I have a suggestion. Boot Karl Rove out of the White House. Send him to the RNC if you like, but get him out of the White House.

The partisan rancor starts with our democracy. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. The winner then has no reason to care about the concerns of people who didn't vote for him or her. If a candidate wins by one vote, she has all the marbles and the losers have none. As long as she can keep the majority that voted for her happy she doesn't need to care about the people who didn't vote for her.

The rancor is increased by having only two major parties and the use of party solidarity to pass legislation. If you want to be elected to the House, Senate or Presidency you must be a member of one of the two major parties. They have the power and, more importantly, the money. The parties believe that any success by the opposition is unacceptable. The opposition must always be derided as incompetent, out of touch and without ideals or ideas since any success for them is a loss for us. Even more importantly, they need the outrage and angst created by a good (bad?) opponent to mobilize their supporters and bring in the money. Therefore, the best way to govern is to not cooperate, because cooperation implies your opponent does have something to offer. Republicans have no incentive to seek or accept any cooperation from Democrats. Cooperation with a Democrat gives them standing which weakens Republicans and vice versa. The best strategy is to pass legislation by demanding party unity and preventing Democrats from taking any actions for which they can claim success.

The Democrats have been frozen out of the legislative process for several years. The Republicans call them poor sports, but won't even let them on the field. The Democrats are left to stand on the sidelines and try to disrupt the Republican playbook through whatever means they can find. Like filibusters. Republicans love this since they can then use these very actions to prove Democrats have no ideas other than opposition. It is the publicly expressed hope of several key Republican strategists to keep Democrats from returning to power for decades. How do they do that? By continually showing that Democrats have no ideas and have nothing to offer the country. Certainly not a strategy to win friends across the aisle. And who leads that campaign? Karl Rove.

Who are the second and third most powerful people in the White House? Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. You can pick their relative positions. We know what the Vice-President does (sort of), but what is Karl Rove's job in the White House? No matter what title he has, he is the take no prisoners political strategist. He makes sure that the President wins politically, which also means helping Republicans win politically. A rejuvenated Karl Rove recently resurfaced to map out strategy for the 2006 mid-term elections. His strategy, the tried and true, make the Democrats look soft on defense and terrorism. This is the second or third most important person in the White House trying to once again bury the Democrats. The President is not running in 2006, so why is Karl Rove still working to trivialize Democrats?

The President has had the majority in both houses for at least four years and still complains about how the Democrats won't cooperate. With the second or third most important person in this administration working every day to politically screw them, why would any Democrat want to play nice?

It is not up to the party out of power to make concessions. They have little to give and the party in power has a disincentive to accept any help. At this point if Republicans want to tone down the partisanship, they will need to take the lead and probably make the most concessions.

President Bush is not running again and I suggest that if he truly wants to be treated kindly by history he should become the President of all Americans and not just the leader of the Republican Party. What is more important to the President, electing Republicans or doing the country's business? Instead of using the White House to elect and re-elect Republicans as a way to pass his legislative proposals, why not work with legislators to create legislation that a majority of Representatives and Senators from both parties can support? He might not get exactly what he or his base wants, but he would quiet the partisan rancor and end up with programs and laws that a majority of legislators thought were good for the country. Not just programs and laws that party leaders steamrolled party members to pass.

Mr. President, send Karl Rove packing! Let the RNC fight the political battles and you work for all of us.

Technorati Tags: Political Partisanship State of the Union

Definition of a Pickle

One definition of pickle from Dictionary.com

4. Informal. A disagreeable or troublesome situation; a plight.

Example: Your goal is to spread democracy in the Middle East and the Palestinians elect a terrorist group to govern them.

Technorati Tags: Political Democracy

Call Me, They'll Never Know

Tonight on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Obermann they did a segment on the idiotic way the White House is trying to parse and manipulate language to obsfuscate. They showed a clip where White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to prove that the recently disclosed NSA wiretapping operation does not represent domestic spying by explaining the difference between the words "domestic" and "international". To prove his point he used the example of your phone bill where a call from the U.S. to a foreign phone is listed as an international call, not a domestic call. Therefore, spying on these calls is not "domestic" spying.

Egad! Did he realize he gave away the underlying secret that has made the White House so touchy on this subject? A call made from a U.S. phone to a foreign phone shows up on your bill as an international call, but what about a call made from a foreign phone to a U.S. phone? Aha, it doesn't show up at all! Using McClellan's analogy we now know that the NSA can't snoop on calls coming into the U.S. from foreign phones! To hide from the NSA all al Qaida has to do is call the U.S. from some other country and we'll never know!

Anyone else would be fired immediately for such a gaff, but no one else would take his thankless job, so he is probably safe.

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Fair and Balanced?

I generally watch Fox News Sunday (FNS). I like to get a conservative point of view now and then, and it plugs the hole in my area between Meet The Press on NBC and This Week on ABC.

Chris Wallace is generally pretty even handed, but occasionally his convservative bias shows through. He is certainly better than Tony Snow. By the way, I know that Washington, D.C. is not a really large city, but I was surprised several years ago as the Monica Lewinsky story was breaking when Tony Snow admitted on the air that he personally knew Linda Tripp (Monica Lewinsky's "friend"). I appreciated the disclosure, but it seemed odd that a conservative news anchor had some kind of relationship with a low level Pentagon employee who secretly taped conversations to harm a liberal president. I never heard what their relationship was; they could have just been neighbors. It just struck me as very odd.

If you really think Fox is fair and balanced, just watch the panel discussion on FNS. The regular panel members include: Brit Hume, who I suggested in a previous post should be the chairman of the RNC. He doesn't even try to hide his bias. Mara Liasson, who works hard to be fair and balanced. Bill Kristol, who is a well known conservative thinker and writer. He can generally defend his position with reasoned opinion and without name calling or put-downs. Juan Williams is the token liberal. I like Juan, but it is clear that he is on the panel because he often ineffectively states his position and he obviously will take Hume's crap to stay on the show.

Yesterday, Brit Hume responded to a statement by Williams with "That's crap" or something like that. Later, Juan tried to explain that the Abramoff scandal was indeed a Republican scandal. He explained how part of the Republican "K Street Project" was to push lobbying groups to fire their employees who were Democrats and hire Republicans. Instead of a thoughtful discussion of Juan's point, Brit came back with a smart ass remark asking Juan if he was suggesting the need for civil rights legislation for lobbyists. Brit doesn't attempt to hide his disrespect for Williams. One day Juan should stare back at Brit and say, "No, Brit, that is not crap, but I can believe to an asshole like you most things sound like crap". Obviously Juan would never work for Fox again, but wouldn't that be satisfying? Hume is the managing editor of Fox News? Doesn't that make it harder for other commentators to give it back like they are getting it?

While I'm venting about Fox I've got to say that I do like to hear conservative points of view. While I might not agree with them very often, Bill Kristol, George Will and David Brooks are bright people with positions they defend with reasoned responses. A person's personal views of politics, or anything else for that matter, must be tested against well reasoned opinions of people with opposing views. Otherwise your opinions may be no more than illusions.

Having said that, Hannity and Colmes is worthless. I watch some of the Fox shows frequently, but Hannity and Colmes turns my stomach. I try to watch occasionally, but I'm generally nauseous after about five minutes. If you like someone who is unreflective, rude, obnoxious and pontificating, Hannity is probably your man. And, like Juan Williams, Alan Colmes plays the part of the ineffective, out-of-touch, hit me again liberal.

I'm sure Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are fine people, but I couldn't and wouldn't play the part of the liberal patsy. And I can't respect either for staying with Fox.

As far as Fox being "Fair and Balanced", this is just another example of the Republican/conservative belief that if you tell a lie often enough people will start believing it. Why can't they just be honest and say "We are a conservative news organizaion that is committed to balancing the views from the liberal media." Not simple or catchy enough. How about "We are right and proud of it!"

Technorati Tags: Political Fox News

Brit For RNC Chair

After watching Fox News Sunday this morning, it is clear that Brit Hume is missing his true calling, Chairman of the RNC.

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Are We Terrorists?

A recent Reuters news article says that Pakistan now believes as many as four al Qaeda members were killed in the Predator airstrike last week. I would imagine that the administration and the CIA are breathing a little easier now. An attack that killed 18 presumably innocent villagers without killing a top level terrorist would have been hard to explain. But even so, does killing 4 terrorists justify killing 18 Pakistanis?

Are you bothered that we killed 18 other people to get those four terrorists? I want to kill terrorists as much as anyone else. I have no problem killing those guys. I hope we can get some more.

But what if the 18 civilians were men, women and children from Peoria, IL? Would we make the moral trade-off quite so easily? If an al Qaeda member crept into Peoria some night and blew up 18 people, what would we call that person and what would we like to do to him and people who supported him?

What message do we send to the people of the world when we are willing to kill innocent people to achieve our military and political goals? I know that innocent people are always killed in wars and the President keeps telling us this is a war, but there is something about this attack that bothers me. Are we really willing to kill innocent people around the world on the chance it may save some of us? Are American lives worth more than Pakistani lives?

I suppose you can justify the civilian deaths in Iraq because the fighting there is needed to defend their new freedoms, but how do we justify the deaths of these Pakistanis? They might have been providing support to al Qaeda, but we aren't even sure we killed any terrorists so what would make us believe these people were not just innocent civilians?

This bothers me. I can see why some people might think we are also terrorists.

Technorati Tags: Political Terrorists

What's In A Name?

The abortion debate is not likely to end soon. I've suggested that we try to come together on a position that may not satisfy everyone, but might give a common goal that many of us could agree on. See Let's Make Abortion Rare.

We need a tag that quickly and clearly defines this view. Each side has used a term that tries to capture in a positive way their position.

"Pro-life" replaced "anti-abortion" which was too negative. I've argued that for many people who claim this position, "pro-life" is a misnomer. They should more appropriately be called "pro-birth" because they are more interested in making sure a child is born and much less about it's future. Too many pro-lifers care little about what happens to the mother or child after birth. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be tolerated, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

"Pro-choice" replaced "pro-abortion" as its proponents tried to remove the moral implications of an abortion. It is not the act or its consequences that are important, it is just important that women have the right to choose. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be prevented, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

What would be a good tag for people who believe that we should work to make abortions rare through positive actions, but retain the right of women to choose to have an abortion with reasonable restrictions? There is the obvious temptation to call the movement "pro-something". "Pro-rare?" "Pro-moral?" Neither of those is promising. How about an acronym? Keep abortions legal, but make them rare (KALBMTR)? Ugh! Make abortions rare, but legal (MARBL). Better, but someone with more imagination can suggest a better name.


Technorati Tags: Political Abortion

Robertson on Robertson

OK, I've changed my mind, it is now time to pray for Pat Robertson to come down with facial shingles (see Shingles For Robertson).

Pat Robertson has managed to utter another outrageous statement. Of course, I knew he would. He won't stop until he is no longer able to open his mouth. I don't predict or wish any bad things to happen to Reverend Robertson (except for the shingles), but we all die and bad things happen to many of us.

What kind of comments will we hear when Rev. Robertson dies or suffers from some serious disease or injury? I think a comment, in the Robertson tradition, would go something like this.

Did he really believe he could continue to make those outrageous statements without incurring God's wrath? There is a price to pay for pretending to speak for God. You can say he was an old man and his time had come, but I think God finally got fed up with his pretentious panderings. I liked the man, but I don't expect to meet him in Heaven.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson

Intelligent Design Explained

With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke,

Any sufficiently complex natural phenomenon will prove intelligent design to the insufficiently skeptical.

Technorati tag: Intelligent Design

Immigration Is A Population Issue

Population policy in the US and the world is not a hot topic, but it should be. Especially with the looming debate on immigration. Many of the world's problems are related directly or indirectly to population. China, the worlds most populous nation, is already suffering from many problems caused by over-population and has implemented government programs to try to control its population. You may disagree with some of its population policies, but they have at least recognized the problem and are trying to resolve it. Read Lindsey Grant's essay "China As An Emerging Nation; What It Means To The Rest Of US" for more information.

China and India (the world's second most populous country) are poised to become future super powers because of their large populations of cheap, skilled labor. The U.S. (the world's third most populous country) cannot grow its population fast enough to compete. Even if we could, our high level of consumption of resources per person would doom us. If we could lower our consumption (and standard of living?), we might be able to compete, but a declining standard of living should not be our goal.

Increasing immigration for cheap labor may do us all much more harm than good. It is obvious that cheap labor around the world has harmed the manufacturing base in the U.S. Do we really believe that bringing cheap labor to the U.S. will make us stronger? Or will it just lower the standard of living for even more Americans? For an example, read Lindsey Grant's essay "Social Security And The Fear Of Aging" which explains why mass immigration makes the problems with social security worse, not better.

If we want to increase immigration, we should encourage people with skills we need, like scientists, to immigrate. We should maintain our standard of living through innovation, wise use of resources and education, not cheaper goods, cheaper services and an ever growing population. Cheap labor may mean cheaper goods and services, but only for those who make enough money to afford them. If we win this race to the bottom with cheap labor, what is the prize?

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Immigration Over-Population

Why All The Secrecy?

In two previous posts I suggested that the NSA wire tapping story may have involved wide scale wire tapping and that there was more to this story than we are being told. In the past I've read accounts that indicate the government can scan massive amounts of telecommunications data looking for specific items and then focus on those conversations. Many political pundits have wondered why the administration didn't just go to the courts for approval for their wire taps. One reason may be that the way they are wire tapping is highly technical and highly controversial. The administration did not want to divulge details of this technology because it is so new, current laws may not cover this new technology and/or they did not want to face possible legislative limits on this new technology.

I came across an article that more clearly states the technical possiblities. The article on arstechnica.com is titled "The new technology at the root of the NSA wiretap scandal". You can agree or disagree with the authors opinions (be sure to read his/her followup post), but the technical discussion is very interesting.

The President may have tipped his hand when he kept saying that release of the New York Times article gave our enemies information they didn't previously have. Terrorists have to suspect we are trying to intercept their communications, but they may not have understood how sophisticated the technology had become or that we were using it to monitor communications to the US.

I don't like to be cynical, but I lived through Watergate and know how easily illegal government actions can be rationalized and hidden. How sure are we that this technology, if it exists, is not being used on purely domestic telecommunications?

On Meet The Press this morning, William Safire described how his home phones were, unknown by him at the time, tapped by the FBI for six months while he was working in the White House. It started when he had made an innocuous comment that was misconstrued. It can happen to any of us.

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Which is it Charles?

On Fox News Sunday this morning (Why do they call it Fox News Sunday?) Charles Krauthammer reiterated the administration claim that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. A little later he asked why we hadn't been attacked in the US since 9/11. He then proceeded to answer his own question by crediting President Bush's secret NSA wiretapping program.

Which is it Charles? We haven't been attacked because all the terrorists are busy fighting us in Iraq or because our wiretapping has foiled all attacks?

Obviously we don't know why we haven't been attacked again. It might be because of the secret wiretapping, but for security reasons we are not going to be given any details. It might be because they are all fighting us in Iraq, but I doubt it (see my previous blog, Bush Divulges Secret Info). The fact is we don't know why we haven't been attacked here in the US since 9/11. I would assume that it is probably a combination of many factors (but not because we invaded Iraq). Maybe the terrorists just aren't ready.

Mr Krauthammer is basically echoing the administration line, "Trust us". Who was the sage who said "Trust, but verify"? Oh yeah, Ronald Reagan. If the NSA program is so crucial, why not bring in the top political leaders and describe the successes and risks of the program? Then the President could propose legislation to clearly authorize this kind of wiretapping. While they couldn't give details, the legislators who were briefed could attest that the value of the intelligence gained was significant and the risk to privacy was minimal (assuming it has been).

This won't happen for several reasons. One, I believe, is because there is more to this story than we've been told.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Bush Divulges Secret Info

I missed President Bush's address last Saturday. I've heard a lot about it so I went back and checked the text (click here for text).

About his authorization of questionable wire tapping, President Bush says,

Yesterday, the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have.

And the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.

Are we really to believe that terrorists don't assume every attempt is being made to intercept their communications? I would be astounded if we weren't. As it is, I'm astounded that the President decided to do this in a way that circumvents the law.

If a someone, especially a news organization, has classified information about illegal or possibly illegal actions by government officials, what should they do? I think they have a responsibility to require the government to prove to their satisfaction that no laws were broken. If this is not done, they have a responsibility to go public. If they believed the actions were legal and that the government was correct that public disclosure would damage national security, they should sit on it. They could still go public with the info if it becomes public some other way or they come to believe the actions were, in fact, not legal.

He also said,

And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

Duh! Even a half-witted terrorist could guess that their communications would be monitored, but did they know that monitored communications had actually foiled attacks? It seems to me that the most sensitive information about this monitoring was revealed by the President himself.

I've heard several news commentators say that the President has ordered 30 possibly illegal wire taps. I reviewed his Saturday address and I disagree with the number 30.

President Bush said,

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

Later he said,

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland.

Still later,

I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups.

I think he meant that he reauthorized the program every 45 days which over almost 4 years is about 30 times. The only reason I make this point is that some commentators seem to believe this was a very limited program of only 30 wiretaps. I don't believe that is what the President said. We do not know how many wiretaps were authorized. This could have been wide spread listening.

I don't doubt that the President had the best of intentions when he authorized this program, but good intentions don't trump the law. While the President feels strongly that it his duty to defend and protect the American people, it is our responsibility as citizens to elect and retain representatives that adhere to the law.

We correctly praise our armed forces for their sacrifices in defense of our liberty. We worry that dissension at home will send the wrong message to our troops. But our armed forces are not just defending their fellow citizens, they are also defending our constitution. What does it say to men and women who risk their lives every day in defense of this country, that we as citizens are so fearful for our lives that we are willing to ignore the constitution and laws to prevent another attack?

If fear allows our laws to be broken and our constitution to be ignored, we dishonor those who have sacrificed in their defense.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Defeatists Help Bush

President Bush's poll numbers are up a bit. Some pundits think it is because of his media blitz and his admission of mistakes in Iraq. Of course, he still isn't leveling with us.

He continues to link Iraq with terrorists and the war on terror. Actually, he is correct when he says that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists if we leave too soon. He doesn't mention that he created the situation by invading Iraq and botching the victory. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are only linked by this administration's failed policies.

And how stupid is the President to keep insisting that we need to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here? In Iraq we are fighting terrorists and insurgents. Not all the people going after US forces are terrorists whose only desire is to kill Americans. Some of them are insurgents who just want us to leave Iraq.

Does President Bush think the terrorists can't walk and chew gum? In Iraq we've given the terrorist a first rate recruiting and money generating operation. Besides, who says that the terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq are the only terrorists that would try to attack us at home? I would wager there are more than enough capable terrorists who are not in Iraq that can bring the fight to us. If you watch any news analysis shows you know that the experts think that it is only a matter of time before the terrorists again attack us in the US. What will President Bush say then? My guess is he'll blame the "defeatists".

By the way, I would wager that Representative Murtha is one of those "defeatists", but Murtha can claim a lot of the credit for getting Congress to question the conduct of the war and for President Bush to admit some mistakes and start talking about his plan. The very actions which seem to have brought up his poll numbers.

Unfortunately, too many people are easily confused and don't realize President Bush is still not leveling with us.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Iraq

Iraq Ideas From Democrats

It is a frequent Republican compaint that Democrats have no ideas and just attack the President for political gain. Senator Carl Levin was on Meet The Press yesterday and made a strong case for the need to change course in Iraq. If you missed the show, you can view the netcast here. The entire show is very good, but Levin's explanation of what needs to happen next in Iraq starts at about 30:30. His questions about the recently disclosed spying on Americans starts at about 24:00. Secretary Rice's interview starts the program.

Senator Levin makes the case that a "stay the course" policy no longer works. He argues that the administration must pressure the Iraqi's to amend the constitution to bring the Sunni's into the political process. He is basically saying that "we will stand down as the Iraqi's stand up" is not a solution. It may describe a face saving way to get our troops out, but as the President correctly says, the idea is not just to get the troops out, it is to leave a stable and democratic Iraq.

To those who think the Democrats have no new ideas. Start listening!

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Levin

Merry Holidays, Bah Humbug

Even though the issue is over-blown and over-discussed, I have to weigh in on the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Holiday tree debate.

It is undeniable that the United States is historically a Christian dominated country. Christianity is the religion of the majority of US citizens. This has given Christians a level of privilege that has allowed them to legalize some of their traditions. Heterosexual marriage is one, the Christmas federal holiday is another. I suspect most Christians do not see their religion as privileged, so any action that seems to question these legalized beliefs is seen as an attack on Christianity. Christians should be cautious about invoking religion or the Bible when defending the ban on homosexual marriages or perceived acts against Christmas. They bring into question the constitutionality of these laws.

It is obviously silly to call a Christmas tree a holiday tree, but it is equally silly to be offended by the term. What is Christian about a Christmas tree except the name? A Christmas tree is a symbol of Christmas, but so is Santa Claus. Fireworks are the symbol of the Fourth of July so should be call local governments that ban fireworks unpatriotic?

Just like the heterosexual/homosexual marriage controversy, Christians are confusing the religious and the secular. For most people, Christmas trees and Santa Claus are secular traditions that are observed on the same day as Christians celebrate the birth of Christ.

Should Christians be offended when a store clerk wishes them "Happy Holidays"? Of course not. What is the proper etiquette? It is obviously appropriate for a Christian to greet a fellow Christian with "Merry Christmas". It is also seems appropriate for a Christian to greet a stranger with "Merry Christmas". They are expressing their beliefs and including the stranger in the joy of their holiday. How should a stranger greet a person they know to be Jewish? "Merry Chistmas" would be appropriate for the same reasons it would an appropriate salutation from a Christian to a stranger. "Happy Hanukkah" may be more appropriate since you are acknowledging this person's religion, although some people might feel uncomfortable invoking the blessings of a religion they are not a member of.

When a store clerk offers a holiday greeting are they expressing their beliefs or the store's? A store probably does not want its employees expressing their personal religious beliefs. If some Christians are sensitive to "Happy Holidays", how would they react in a store where the clerks are all wishing customers "Happy Hanukkah"? Since a public corporation has no religion, if the clerk is representing the store and does not know the religious beliefs of the customer, "Happy Holidays" seems appropriate. The clerk is acknowledging that this is a special time of the year in the midst of a secular transaction.

For Christians who are truly offended by "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday tree" I suggest that you treat Christmas as a strictly religious holiday. Do not put up a Christmas tree (or a holiday tree). Do not buy presents. Do not confuse your children with the myth of Santa Claus and lobby your elected representatives to remove Christmas from the list of federal holidays. Return Christmas to a purely religious holiday. But don't be suprised when the holiday greeting you get is "Bah, Humbug".



Technorati Tags: Happy Holidays Religion Holiday Tree

Crude, Oily, Executives

So now we find out that big oil executives are no better than tobacco executives. According to documents leaked to the Washington Post, oil executives lied to Senators last week when they said their companies did not speak to the Vice-President’s energy task force. These guys give new meaning to the term “crude oil.” When you say Conoco, put the emphasis on CON. Shell game? BP - Big Prevaricaters. EXXON, Exhonest.

I guess the oil executives thought they were safe since the Vice-President’s Office has refused to tell who was interviewed by the energy task force. Why the secrecy? Could it be that the Vice-President doesn’t want to show how much input oil executives had on administration policy? Maybe they were embarrassed by having sent a bill to Congress that gave huge tax benefits to oil companies at a time they are making huge profits. Maybe they realize that while they can see the big picture, we can't. And even if we might be able to understand, it is just too much aggravation to try.

And now the Republican refusal to ask oil executives to be sworn in before testifying to the Senate committee sounds more sinister. Did someone know these guys might need to lie?

I am more outraged by these shenanigans after reading yesterday about the internal investigation at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that showed that its former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, broke federal law in his attempts to politicize PBS. This Republican, Bush appointee believed PBS, the Public Broadcasting System, (and the show "Now" in particular) was too liberal, even though polls show that Americans rate the public network as the most fair in its coverage. I don't think that it is just Republicans who are arrogant enough to believe only they can see the truth. But now that they are in power, they certainly believe that any action taken to serve these truths is justified.

By the way, even before Tomlinson tried to gut "Now", that program and its host, Bill Moyers, were my examples of how a news/commentary show should be run. Even when Moyers interviewed people he admitted on air he didn't agree with, he did so with respect and civility. He didn't try to shout them down, humiliate them or embarass them. He even asked questions, believe it or not, that were intended to help him understand the issue from the other person's point of view. Given today's TV climate, it was very refreshing.

I believe this administration is using a new twist on the old philosophical debate, “If a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it, did it actually make a sound?” Their new version is, “If you tell a lie and no one can prove it, is it really a lie?”

Technorati Tags: Political Oil Tomlinson

NY Paramedics Are Heroes

60 Minutes this evening had a segment on 13 New York paramedics who, on their own with no official support, went to Pakistan to help earthquake victims. These brave men and women were helping hundreds of people. Even weeks after the quake, these paramedics were the only help some of these people had received. Working with inadequate supplies, but lots of Yankee ingenuity and American can do attitude, they were making a difference in the lives of people who had never even seen an American before this. They are truly heroes.

They made the point that the people of the remote valley they were in would have a positive image of Americans for years to come. This reminded me of an article I read a few months ago (I can’t recall the actual source or author) that suggested that we finance a fleet of hospital ships. These ships would be state of the art and could bring world-class medical help to places without such facilities. While they would provide help around the world on an on-going basis, these ships could also be quickly moved in an emergency to areas of greatest need.

While part of the reason to do this is to improve the image of the U.S. around the world, if we can do this and provide medical help to people who might not otherwise receive it, we all win. While Karen Hughes is trying to figure out how to boost our image in the Muslim world, our troops (and 13 brave paramedics from New York) in responding to the tsunami and the earthquake have made us a lot of friends.

The Navy has the hospital ship Mercy which can be deployed in an emergency but it took 30 days to sail from San Diego where it is based to the Indian Ocean region for tsunami relief. A fleet of hospital ships and other ships outfitted to respond quickly to natural disasters deployed around the world would prove that we are truly a super power. A nation that not only has a big economy and a big military, but also a big heart.

Technorati Tags: NY Paramedics Hospital Ships

Shingles for Robertson

Once again Pat Robertson has channeled God to let us know that the people of Dover, Pennsylvania should be prepared for God’s wrath after they voted pro-intelligent design advocates off the school board.

According to Pat Robertson, "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city."

Reverend Robertson, What The Hell Were You Thinking?

No one in Dover voted for the pro-intelligent design candidates? One would expect that if there were a disaster in the area, voters who voted for the pro-intelligent design candidates would be affected as well as the sinners. What about people who voted a split ticket? How would that work? If you voted for even one anti-intelligent design candidate are you doomed? Since this was an election, maybe God works on the simple majority rule. You are OK if you voted for more pro-intelligent design candidates than anti-intelligent design.

I might have some respect for televangelists if they weren’t millionaires who make a living retailing salvation.

Rev. Robertson believes so strongly in the power of prayer I thought about suggesting we all pray for some painful affliction to strike him. Something like facial shingles every time he makes an outlandish statement. Then I realized it had already happened. He already suffers from chronic stupidity and unremitting foot in the mouth disease.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson WTHWYT

Make A Deal

The courts have overturned the conviction of Andrea Yates because a prosecution witness was shown to have lied under oath.

This gives the Texas legal system another chance to show that it understands that mental illness is a medical problem. From what we've learned from the media, can anyone really believe that Andrea Yates truly wanted to harm her children? She suffers from a mental illness that led her to methodically drown her children; a horrendous act that will haunt her forever.

What is the purpose of putting Andrea Yates in prison? To make sure she doesn't do this again? No. To remove a threat to society? No. To show others that killing their children will not be tolerated? No. To avenge the deaths of five children? I guess. The courts can insist that she receive treatment and counseling to insure that she is not a threat to herself or others, but putting her in jail serves no purpose. No punishment can be worse than the agony she faces every day as she relives her actions.

I believe at one time the outrage of the prosecutors led them to consider seeking the death penalty. They changed their minds. Was that because even they realized that an execution would probably be closer to euthanasia than punishment?

The law may need to be blind to everything except the facts, but there must be a way for compassion and understanding to temper cold logic and insure true justice. Texas prosecutors need to offer a deal that gives Andrea Yates help and not jail time.

Technorati Tags: Andrea Yates

Let's Make Abortion Rare

Abortion is a devisive issue in American politics, but we are beginning to hear some reasoned discussions that might bring us together, at least all except the extremes on both sides.

First, let us agree that we would all prefer that abortions be rare. If you can't agree with that statement, save your time and move on because you won't agree with anything else I've written. If you think there should be absolutely no abortions you are unrealistic. No matter what laws you pass or who sits on the Supreme Court, abortions will continue. They may not be legal, but they will occur. If you think abortions should be unrestricted you are also unrealistic. That isn't the law now and I can't believe it ever will be. There will always be restrictions on abortion.

So let's try to modify our agreement to say that abortions should, in some cases, be legal, but should be rare. The catch is in the "in some cases." For the moment let's set aside in which cases abortion should be legal. Since we haven't been able to agree on the "in some cases" up to this point, I don't believe we are going to solve that one easily.

So let's tackle how we make abortion rare. I don't believe I can lay out (or you would be willing to read) detailed proposals for doing this, but some options might be:

• Better, required sex education in schools. Basic science and facts. Including contraception and abstinence.
  
• Required ethical discussions. These could be conducted by religious institutions and/or in schools.
  
• Make family planning available to everyone and free.
• Make adoption easier and give financial incentives.
• Make the morning after pill readily available.
  

I'm sure there are many people with more insight and experience in these matters than me who can make additional suggestions. Don't tell me that making abortions rare is unrealistic. We won't know until we've really tried. We've been fighting the abortion battles for more than 30 years and neither side is happy, let's work hard to decrease abortions over the next 30 years.

If both sides could set aside their opinions on abortions and concentrate on ways to make it rare, maybe we could reach a point where the legal issues are just not as important as they are now. Pro-life advocates could take solace in how many abortions they've prevented. The number of abortions wouldn't be zero, but then it never will be. Pro-choice advocates could protect a woman's right to choose. There will continue to be restrictions and attempts to add more restrictions, but if abortions are rare these fights will not have to be so political. We may be able to make reasoned decisions rather than take hard political stances which seldom leave room for compromise.

Technorati Tags: Political Abortion

How Do You Spell Hypocrisy?

Conservative politicians killed the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court before she even had a chance to defend herself before the Senate. What about all the outrage from Republicans that every judge should have an up or down vote? How do you spell hypocrisy?

So if Democrats decide to filibuster Bush's new nominee, Samuel Alito, will Republicans show their moral mutability, decry the attempt to prevent an up or down vote on Alito and invoke the nucleur option? You can bet on it. The moral compass of politicians is moved by expediency.

Technorati Tags: Political

The Earth Has A Disease.

The Earth has a disease. Environmental problems are symptoms and people are the infectious agent. It is irresponsible to discuss environmental problems without discussing the affects of overpopulation.

Individuals are the problem. There are too many of us. Even though our personal impact may be small, multiplied by billions we cause global problems. One SUV does not significantly damage the environment. Sixty-eight million SUVs on American roads is a problem that is the result of 68 million individual decisions.

As individuals we must continue to take responsibility for the environmental damage we cause directly and demand the same from the organizations that serve us, but we must also confront the more basic problem, overpopulation. Given our current lifestyles, there are more people than the planet can support. No matter how little damage we do as individuals, if there are enough of us, we will destroy the planet. We can reduce the Earth's human population and let it heal itself or we can let nature take its course. Nature will solve this problem, I hope there are some people around to enjoy whatever is left.

Technorati Tags: Political Ideal Population Overpopulation

Who Should Pay For Katrina?

Ron Harris, in Monday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported on the fight in Congress over how to pay for rebuilding the gulf coast after Katrina. The Republican leadership is trying get the funds by cutting some current programs, mainly in areas that affect the poorest of our people. $10 billion from Medicaid and Medicare. 8.5 billion in increased fees to lenders who make student loans. An amount that will undoubtedly be passed on to the students. All the while refusing to discuss rolling back tax cuts to the richest Americans or revisiting the pork ridden highway bill. Medicare is not allowed to negotiate with drug companies to reduce the price of drugs (a huge benefit for the pharmaceutical industry), but we can make it harder for students to get the money to go to school.

I guess the new version of that old saying is "The rich get richer and the poor foot the bill."

I hope all those people who voted for Republicans because they believed them to be the party with morals will take note. It doesn't seem that the Republicans are the party who care for the least of us.

Technorati Tags: Political

Debt To Chinese A Threat?

This morning on Meet The Press, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, said we should not ask how much are we going to spend to rebuild after Katrina and Rita; we should ask "How much are we going to borrow from China?"

He pointed out that what we now owe the Chinese is approaching a TRILLION dollars and asks what kind of influence that amount of money will give the Chinese in our affairs.

Has our debt to the Chinese become a national security threat?

Technorati Tags: Political National Debt

Iraq Shoudn't Pay For Katrina

Some of the Sunday talk shows mentioned the Associated Press/Ipsos poll that asked:

If you had to choose, which of the following would you say would be the best way for the government to pay for the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina: increase the federal budget deficit, raise taxes, cut spending for the war in Iraq, or cut spending for domestic programs such as education and health care?

The response was (9/16-18/2005):

Cut Iraq Spending 54%
Raise Taxes 17%
Increase Deficit 15%
Cut Domestic Spending 6%
Other, Unsure 8%

We should not have gone into Iraq, but we now have moral obligations to the people of Iraq, just like we have moral obligations to the people devastated by Katrina and Rita. We cannot take money needed to pay our obligations in Iraq to pay our obligations to our fellow citizens.

Technorati Tags: Political

Does This Sound Familiar?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken

Technorati Tags: Political

Withdrawal By 12/2006 Is Good Idea

I think the Bush administration took us into Iraq under false pretenses, but I also believe that we created a mess that we have to clean up before we leave. Having said that, I think Senator Feingold's suggestion of a withdrawal date of December 2006 is a great idea. This date should be coupled with some benchmarks that must be met for this date is honored.

• Insurgency violence must decrease significantly.
• The Iraqi army and police must be ready to take over security.
• Infrastructure projects must be completed or on a timeline to be completed. Clean water and electricity must be available at all hours.
• Iraqi citizens must enact a constitution that creates a democracy where the rights of women, ethnic and religious minorities are protected.
• A stable, elected government must be in place.
• The oil industry is producing revenue to help support the country.

All of these tasks should be able to be accomplished in the next 15 months if there were no insurgency. The prospect of our departure would give the insurgents an incentive to backoff. If the Bush administration is correct and the insurgents will just wait until we leave, that would be OK as long as the violence decreases significantly in the mean time and we achieve our other goals. If the insurgents want to keep fighting, we are no worse than we are today. We would need to make it clear that we don't intend to leave until these tasks are complete.

These benchmarks should be coupled with checkpoints and dates so that everyone knows if progress is being made or not. If progress is not being made, the spector of a delayed withdrawal will motivate extra effort. As progress is made towards these goals, we would decrease the troop levels as has already been suggested.

This allows us to give a date which is the incentive to meet the goals. It also provides benchmarks we can use to prevent the Bush administration from cutting and running as next year's US elections draw near.

If the checkpoints and benchmarks are met, we can leave with a clear conscience knowing the next steps will be up to the Iraqis themselves.

Quote

"Power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous."
William Proxmire

Win Millions, Identify Intelligent Designer

I propose we offer a prize to the first person who can prove the identity of the intelligent designer. Read the details of my proposal on my blog TUD, The Theory of Unintelligent Design.

Technorati Tags: Religion Satire Intelligent Design

NRA Stalls Iraqi Constitution

EverybodyHasOne, in an exclusive report, has learned that the creation of a new Iraqi constitution was actually stalled by the NRA. It seems the NRA wanted the following clause added to the constitution:

No laws may be created that infringe upon the right of any Iraqi citizen (except women) to own and bear arms (defined here as any device containing explosive materials, such as hand guns, assault weapons, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, etc.).

When Iraqi representatives balked at including this clause and when no compromise could be reached (i.e. the NRA didn't get it's way), the NRA halted the entire constitution drafting process which required a time extension.

One Iraqi delegate pointed out that such a broad definition of arms prevented the outlawing of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). NRA spokesman, Wayne LaPierre reportedly responded, "IEDs don't kill people. People kill people."

There was an attempt to keep the process moving with a promise to consider the clause as an amendment. Wayne LaPierre, again speaking for the NRA reportedly said, "Bearing arms is a god given right and deserves to be in the constitution, not in some stinking amendment! Been there, done that. "

Political insiders say that the Bush administration is in a quandary. It wants an Iraqi constitution soon, but it can't afford to offend the NRA. An unnamed source claims that Karl Rove has pictures of all of the Iraqi constitutional convention members in lurid, homosexual encounters and promises to make them public if any member continues to oppose the amendment.



Technorati tags: Political StopNRA Satire

Ideal U.S. Population?

The United States Census Bureau estimates the current population of the United Status to be about 290 million. While the number of people in the US may stabilize at some point in the future, there are economic pressures to have an ever growing population. Depending on the assumptions made, the US Census Bureau estimates that the US population in 2100 will range from 571 million with a moderate growth rate to 1.1 billion with a high growth rate.

Imagine this country with four times the number of people it has now. As you drive to work or walk through the mall, imagine three other people standing or sitting next to each person you see. Image cross country interstate highways with eight lanes in each direction. Imagine having to make reservations at national tourist attractions years in advance.

Would the United States with a population of somewhere between 571 million and 1.1 billion be the same country we love today? How would the quality of life be affected by such a large number of people? What would be the impact on the environment with so many people needing food, water and other resources?

Most of us consider an expanding population to be part of the natural order, but common sense tells us that at some point the population of the US will stabilize. Whether that will happen before or after we’ve done irreparable damage to the environment is up to us.

What is the ideal population for the United States? 1 Billion? 500 million? 300 million? 200 million? We can just wait and see what happens, but wouldn't it make sense to start a national discussion and build a consensus on an ideal population for the US? We could then talk about how we reach and stabilize at that level.

Technorati Tags: Political Ideal Population

Citizens Must Speak English

The American Dream is more than economic opportunity. As a country we strive to value people for what they contribute to our society, not by their ethnicity, race or religion. This is not a trait that seems to come easily. We are working to counter the natural tendency of people to associate with people like themselves and view with suspicion people who are different. If we allow groups to be isolated by language, not only do we have another marker to divide us; we lose an important tool that allows us to counter the inevitable social, cultural and religious frictions.

All naturalized citizens and guest workers should be required to read, write and speak English. This is not a barrier to keep people out. Without English, new immigrants cannot fully participate in or contribute to the American Dream.

Technorati Tags: Political Official Language
Citizens Must Speak English

Limbaugh - The Entertainer

I think Rush Limbaugh is correct when he characterizes himself as an entertainer. Like Jay Leno he uses satire, out of context quotes, hyperbole and mischaracterization to make fun of politicians and captivate his audience. Unfortunately, Limbaugh poisons public discourse by claiming his one sided show represents truth, fact and excellence in broadcasting. And, sadly, his uncritical listeners believe him.

Technorati Tags: Political Rush Limbaugh

"This Week" Is Worth Watching

On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning there was a segment with family members of two of the Ohio Marines killed last week. It was very moving and interesting.

While I have watched and like Meet the Press with Tim Russert for years, I really like the format of This Week. Their guests are great and Stephanopoulos is an excellent interviewer. I'm also always impressed with their panel discussion in the last segment of the show. George Will is a regular. Fareed Zakaria is often on. Of course, both are first rate. This morning had Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson who are both great. If you can only watch one Sunday morning show, This Week is a great choice. On weekday evenings, you can't go wrong with the NewsHour.

By the way, both This Week and PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer end with lists (and on the NewsHour pictures) of men and women killed in Iraq. It is done tastefully and I don't take it as antiwar. I always read the names and it is the custom in our house that anyone who is watching stops all activity and watches the names. No matter what you think about the war, we never want to forget the sacrifices the men and women in our armed forces are making.

Political
Support Our Troops

NRA - Not In My Backyard!

I wrote a post a few weeks ago congratulating the Columbus, Ohio, City Council for passing regulations banning assault rifles. Because of these new regulations, the NRA cancelled plans to have their 2007 convention in Columbus. I guess they were planning on bringing their assault rifles.

How depressing. The NRA has decided to come to St. Louis instead. I live in St. Louis. The NRA is correct; they won't have to worry about the elected representatives of Missouri passing any inconvenient laws. As a matter of fact, Missouri legislaters passed a concealed carry law last year even though the people in a referendum voted the idea down.

I guess I'll have to get myself a bullet-proof vest. Oh heck, that won't work. The NRA stopped the banning of cop killer bullets. I guess they can bring their assault rifles and bullet-proof vest piercing bullets. What the hell do people in the NRA do that requires assault rifles and cop killer bullets? I'll bet this is one super civil convention. You don't dare say anything that might piss someone off cause everybody's packin' heat. One cross word could start WW III in the hotel lobby.

StopNRA
NRA

Straight From The Cow's Mouth

There has been some controversy over a previously published post here at EverybodyHasOne, Some people have commented that something about the post "Cow Farts Threaten National Security" doesn't smell right.

In order to set the record straight, EverybodyHasOne has, at great expense, travelled to rural Illinois to get the story direct from the horses mouth, so to speak.

EverybodyHasOne went to the dairy farm of Mr. McInthedell. When asked if it was true that cows produce prodigious amounts of gas, McInthedell replied, "As a member of management I don't think it is in the farm's best interest to make statements that might bring stress to the barn. It hurts milk production." He refused to answer anymore questions, but did make this comment as he walked away, "Off the record, there is a reason we bottle milk here and not perfume".

Readers may be wondering why EverybodyHasOne printed McInthedell's comment since it was off the record. Until the courts rule whether or not bloggers are real journalists, be careful what you say.

EverybodyHasOne then went directly to a cow for her comments. The cow, who said her name was Bessie (a source who wished to remain anonymous said her real name is Bossie), was only too eager to talk.

"Most cows would like you to believe that only the bulls 'honk the horn', as we like to call it. But that is a dairy barn over there and they don't milk bulls. You walk in there and tell me cows don't toot. They do--and a lot."

She went on, "I could name names, but she's a favorite of old farmer cold hands. If I say anything bad about her I'll be the first cow milked all winter."

So there you have it, the unbiased truth straight from the cow's mouth.


Technorati Tags: Global Warming

Straight From The Cow's Mouth

TUD Has Moved

Due to the large number of people reading The Theory of Unintelligent Design posts (TUD), they have moved to their own blog TUD - The Theory Of Unintelligent Design.

TUD - Theory of Unintelligent Design

President Bush recently endorsed the teaching of intelligent design along with the theory of evolution (see post WTHWYT - Unintelligent Endorsement). Enough is enough. I've been reading this nonsense about intelligent design for too long. Christians can believe this if they want and teach it in Sunday School, but it should stay out of public education.

Proponents of intelligent design claim that life is so complex that it couldn't have just occured accidentally and therefore proves the existence of an intelligent designer. I'd like to start the Theory of Unintelligent Design, hereafter known as TUD. I prefer to pronounce TUD like dud, but there is small group that prefers something closer to duuuude. We'll take a poll later. TUD will be a list of examples of things in the universe that don't seem to be designed intelligently.

For example, why shouldn't you be able to see farts? If you could see them, you could run before you have to smell them and you'd know who to blame.

Why are there 50 million breeds of cats? Wasn't it an immense waste of time to design so many? One would have been more than enough. The intelligent designer could have spent more time on humans and found a way to decrease the number of idiots. No matter which side of the debate you are on, ID or TUD, you've got to agree there are way too many people on the lower end of the IQ scale.

What about the appendix? Why would you put in the appendix and have it do nothing? Whoa, I just realized maybe it's there to give surgeons some extra income when they remove it. OK, scratch the appendix from the list.

Well, you get the idea. I'm sure some of advocates of TUD can come up with more ideas. Leave me some comments, but please don't call me any names. That would be so unChristian.

08/03/2005
Due to unprecedented demand, this discussion has been moved to its own blog TUD - The Theory Of Unintelligent Design.

WTHWYT - Unintelligent Endorsement

According to a Knight Ridder Newspapers article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning, President Bush has endorsed the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution. According to the article, the President said schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

OK, I can understand that he feels he has to pay back the Christian right with judges, but this is even worse. Judge Roberts may be on the bench for 30 years, but how long will the effects of dumbing down America last?

I realize that the proponents of intelligent design can't understand the difference between the scientific theory of evolution and their theory. It's probably because their scientific education was sub-standard.

We all know that intelligent design is just creationism repackaged to disassociate the concept from Christianity and make it more generally acceptable. But I seriously doubt that any of the proponents would ever truly consider the thought that the intelligent designer might be Buddha or Waheguru or Satan or Papa Smurf.

President Bush is welcome to believe anything he wants, but why would the man who created "No Child Left Behind" to enhance the education of our children do something so unintelligent as to endorse the teaching of intelligent design? What The Hell Were You Thinking? I hope we find he was just misquoted.

Photo by Eric Draper
Political
WTHWYT