Charley Reese on Global Warming

Charley Reese weighs in on Global Warming (see here).

As much as I like reading some of what Charley Reese thinks, I think he has exposed himself as being a little bit selfish.

Before I go into the selfish aspect, let me take on his opening paragraph: "Global warming means it will get hotter or colder, drier or wetter, stormier or calmer. One of the people at a recent conference on global warming made just such an asinine statement. Talk about covering your bases – if we have weather, it's because of global warming."

Charley, what the person who made that statement was saying is that there is going to be global climate change due to global warming. Some areas of the planet are going to see increased rainfall, perhaps too much rainfall; some areas are going to see less rainfall, perhaps droughts etc etc. The only thing for certain is that there is going to be change. The oceans water temperatures, which greatly affect weather patterns, are going to rise. One only need look at the weather phenomenon known as El Nino to see how this can happen.

What gets me is that I consider Charley to be an intelligent and discerning individual. I would expect him to find out what the majority of the experts have to say about the subject and take the evidence that they present into consideration.

So why does Charley say we should not fret about global warming? Or why does he say he doesn't care about it? He states: "I personally don't care one way or the other. If the planet wants to get warmer, it's OK with me. It's OK with me, though slightly less OK, if the planet wants to get colder. As for hurricanes, droughts, floods, blizzards and such stuff, we have all that anyway, always have had them and presumably always will. As for projected catastrophes 100 years out based on guesses that are based on guesses, I couldn't care less."

Perhaps he does understand about the threats of global warming. He just couldn't care less. As long as the really bad stuff does not happen during his lifetime he is not going to lose any sleep over it. From the sounds of it, he does not have any children, at least I sure hope he does not. If he does not have any children he is just being selfish. If he has children he does not have a conscience.

Sorry Charley (to quote an old TV commercial) but some of us people do care about what kind of world we are leaving for our children. If you couldn't care less, fine. But please do not condemn those of us who do have a conscience and who are worried about the fate of mankind.

Please join me in saying a prayer for Charley Reese's cold, cold heart. Perhaps global warming will warm up his heart a little bit?

Britain Does Use Intelligence Obtained Through Torture

Britain does use intelligence obtained through torture. (See here) a New York Times article that reports on this.

Note the article states that it appears Britain's policy is that it is not illegal to use intelligence obtained by torture, only to use such information in court proceedings.

What is the significance of this? This means that if Britain receives intelligence obtained by torture, this intelligence can be used to identify a "person of interest" for further investigation. If this investigation then yields "legal evidence" the "legal evidence" is not tainted because the person was first identified by information that would itself be considered "tainted".

Britain is trying to walk a fine line, but I think this walk needs to be made. This policy is reasonable and it is a policy which I think my own nation should follow.

Why must this "compromise" of ethics be made? In the past I gave this scenario: Britain receives intelligence obtained through torture from a foreign intelligence agency that identifies suspects who are planning to soon conduct another round of subway bombings. Warrants are obtained and searches are conducted. Sure enough, tons of evidence are found and the suspects arrested. If the evidence gathered via "legal" means is considered tainted because the initial intelligence is tainted, it would mean Britain would have to let the guilty bastards go free. The guilty suspects would even be free to make a fortune as they make the talk show circuit as we celebrate how benevolent our societies are.

Those who argue that intelligence such as this should be ignored are, in my opinion, being unreasonable. Such intelligence should be handled very carefully and treated with a great deal of skepticism, however common sense would indicate it would be foolish to altogether ignore such intelligence.

Hamas cease fire to end with the new year

Happy New Year.

(See here) where Hamas is going to ring in the New Year with a resumption of violence.

Hamas condemns Israel for doing what Israel does during the "cease fire". Problem is that Islamic Jihad has not observed the cease fire and neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority have taken effective action to ensure the cease fire was observed. The only "authority" that seems to be able to take action against the VIOLATIONS have been the Israelis, and then they receive condemnation for taking action!

It seems even Hamas is incapable of providing leadership. Even when majority Palestinian leadership, as represented by both Fatah and Hamas, agrees to a cease fire the cease fire can not be adhered to. Islamic Jihad feels empowered to continue to rain down Qassams on Israel because no one in Hamas or Fatah dares to take action against them.

But, to be fair, let us then take a look at "our" side. Meanwhile, during the "cease fire" the settlements continue to expand.

It is wrong for us to point at the "other side" and all they must do while we fail to even take the most modest of steps toward peace. Is Israel justified in retribution for that which Islamic Jihad does? In my opinion yes. However Israel is NOT justified in continuing to expand the ILLEGAL settlements in the face of a CEASE FIRE.

You know what gets me? It is when those that call themselves leaders have the gaul to stand in front of a TV camera and spout their bullshit when they probably could not look themselves in the eye and tell it to themselves in front of a mirror. Can they look themselves in the eye and say they speak the truth?

Raising the Federal Debt Limit

(See here) a Washington Post article that reports Treasury Secretary Snow says Congress must raise the federal debt limit or the USA will be unable to pay its bills.

What is particularly interesting is that the last time the debt limit was raised, in November of 2004, it was raised by 800 billion dollars. But when politicians speak of deficit spending, they try to low ball the amount of deficit spending by saying it stands at 340 billion dollars a year. (See here) a Washington Post article that is an example of where this is claimed. I guess they must use some of what Dubyah called "fuzzy math" during one Presidential debate.

Let's do some of our own math. The article states that Congress is expected to bump the debt limit by the middle of February. That means 15 months since the last time they bumped it. 800 billion divided by 15 equals 53.33 billion a month. 53.33 times 12 equals 639.96 billion a year. That would be almost double the amount the figure politicians speak of when they talk about deficit spending.

I can't imagine our government would intentionally try to mislead us, so there must be another explanation. Someone tell them politicians they need to change the battery in their calculators or something.

Marwan Barghouti to lead Fatah list?

Marwan Barghouti is to lead the Fatah list? (See here) this Haaretz article that discusses this possibility.

Who is Marwan Barghouti? (See here) a website that might help you to understand just who he is.

Is Marwan Barghouti an acceptable person to represent Palestine from an Israeli perspective? Well let us turn the question around. Is Ariel Sharon an acceptable person to represent Israel from a Palestinian perspective?

Certainly Barghouti is no worse a representative then Arafat was. Now that Arafat is gone (and we can look back at opportunity wasted) the only man that might be able to represent a unified Palestinian front in negotiations might be Barghouti.

Of course there is the problem that the man languishes in an Israeli prison. Perhaps the Israelis can be coaxed into giving him up if America agrees to giving up Johnathan Pollard?

Perhaps coming up with "one man" to represent the Palestinian people who we could negotiate with, we could hope that the end result of the negotiations would be respected. After all, we could end up with someone worse to negotiate with like someone from Hamas.

I personally like the choice of Barghouti to represent the Palestinian people. However I would counsel Marwan that something like the Geneva Accords is the best he can hope for. What Yassar was offered at Taba might have been insufficient. However what Marwan wants is also unreasonable.

But... what Ariel Sharon wants is also unreasonable. Is it wrong for both sides to ask that when we discuss this that both sides are allowed to have representatives who will actually represent their "unreasonable" positions? So that when we finally agree on the compromises the compromise that is accepted did not start out from a position of weakness?

If we are going to expect the Palestinians to lay down their arms and accept peace, it is going to take a strong leader like Marwan Barghouti to agree to it.

Marwan Barghouti seems to claim he accepts the right of Israel to exist. I would hold him to this belief as we conducted negotiations.

Why I am not a Libertarian - revisited

Why I am not a Libertarian - revisited.

(See here) the official positions of the Libertarian Party.

Amongst these positions please note the Libertarian Party stands against Social Security and in favor of unrestricted drug traffic. Go read it for yourself.

This is amongst the reasons I am not a Libertarian. While I am still a raging Independent, I would rather be a Republican then a Libertarian.

While I would be ashamed of calling myself a Republican in public, I would be afraid that if I called myself a Libertarian "they" might try to lock me up in some psych ward to give me a chance to think about it.

The Libertarian "official" policies seemed designed to appeal to the most fringe elements of our society.

The Quartet weighs in against Hamas

(See here) this Harretz article where the Quartet weighs in against Hamas.

The quartet, which consists of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, drafted the Roadmap to Peace.

This group, since it includes the United Nations, pretty well represents the pulse of the world when it comes to efforts to bring the conflict between Israel and Palestine to a peaceful resolution. So what does the world have to say about it? A future Palestinian Cabinet "should include no member who has not committed to the principles of Israel's right to exist in peace and security and an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism." That pretty much rules Hamas out as being a participant in peace negotiations.

If Hamas was to win the election, then I guess that would also mean the Roadmap to Peace plan is dead. So we better come up with Plan B.

What would I propose as Plan B? Well I would ask for some input from Israel. What does Israel want to do?

Would Israel want to continue the drain of the LEGAL occupation of Palestine? If so the issue of the ILLEGAL settlements is still going to have to be dealt with.

Would Israel still like to disengage? If so some method other then negotiations with the Palestinians is going to have to be developed for determining final borders. Perhaps the United Nations can come up with something along the lines of the 1948 Partition Plan. I would suggest that the UN look to the Geneva Accords as a starting point in the debate over what the final borders should be.

One thing for sure, the Palestinians still have the power to determine where we go from here. They can still vote for a negotiated settlement, or they can vote to be barred from having a seat at the table as their future is discussed.

Of course Hamas could still agree to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace. Sometimes miracles do happen.

The soul and when does life begin?

When does life begin? I am wondering about this from the point of sex and abortion.

The Pope insists we agree that life begins at conception. From a purist's viewpoint this is the correct answer. But the Pope comes at this from the point of religion. At the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, the soul takes residence, and this "thing" from then on is worthy of protection.

But is this true? Let us take a look at identical twins. Sometime after the sperm penetrates the egg the cells split into two separate human beings. If the soul takes residence from the point of conception does that mean each twin only has half a soul?

Seems to me the "point of conception" argument is not valid even from a purist's viewpoint.

That which is growing becomes a "person" (and the soul arrives) at some point after conception.

Can the "soul" take residence before that which is growing is capable of thinking?

The Pope needs to come up with a new argument. Of course you can't depend on that because the Pope is so unreasonable he will not even allow Catholics to use condoms as birth control. The condom is birth control BEFORE conception, but he will not even allow that. THAT is just how unreasonable the Pope is!

How do Israeli settlements expand in Palestine?

How do Israeli settlement expand in Palestine? (See here) this Haaretz article by Akiva Eldar that discusses the issue.

That link is not provided for Israeli citizens. Unless Israeli citizens have had their heads stuck in the sand (or stuck up their ass - grin) they already know what has been going on. The link is only provided for "the rest of us".

Truth is that Israel's settlement enterprise has been grounded upon that which "most of us" would define as being unacceptable. I am not saying that "most of us" would resort to being suicide bombers. I would hope that "most of us" would have the courage to become suicide rock throwers or something. Is there a chance that the rock might kill someone? Yeah, but we would have to do something. Chances are the rock would only register a loud "ding" to signal our displeasure with what is going on. Hopefully the TV cameras would be present to film what happened to us as we are gunned down for throwing rocks due to the injustice we were expected to silently endure.

The Israeli settlement policy is founded upon most of us accepting "facts on the ground" as Israel continues the land grab. Even during the Oslo process this land grab was not paused, it was accelerated. "Get it while you can boys!"

Me? If I was a Palestinian? I'd be throwing rocks, the larger the better. I think I might pray for some TV coverage as I sacrificed my life. But even if the TV cameras were not there, my arm would be chucking the rocks. God would be my witness even if no one else was.

In Israel proper they throw rocks at cars who's drivers dare to drive on Shabbat. I guess it is only fair that Palestinians throw rocks at those who seek to confiscate their olive groves no matter what day of the week it happens.

Me? While I would be chucking rocks at Israeli settlers who tried to build his home on the land my olive grove once stood, I would also chuck rocks at the Palestinian who attempted to become a suicide bomber.

I guess my life would be pretty short in the Middle East. I would probably be met with a shower of bullets from BOTH sides. But that would not stop me. I would stand for JUSTICE, and I would chuck rocks at ANY side that opposes it.

A Moderate's View on Abortion

A moderate's view on abortion. (See here) an article in the Washington Post discussing how difficult it is for a woman to get an abortion in remote areas.

Here in America the abortion issue is framed by those who have extreme viewpoints on the issue. It is all or nothing, and anyone having an opinion somewhere in the middle is not allowed to enter the debate. If the pro-abortion crowd gets their way, a woman, by her choice alone, should be allowed to kill the infant all the way up till the umbilical cord is severed because it is still part of the woman's body. If the anti-choice crowd gets their way, it would be illegal to even use a condom for birth control.

Well according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (see here) conducted in November, a firm majority of Americans, 56%, say an abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances". If I had been asked the question, I would have been in this group.

Now what would these people say should be the "certain circumstances"? My guess is there would be a range of opinions expressed, and 100% agreement within the group would never be achieved.

I am only going to express my viewpoint on it. I kinda liked the way Bill Clinton stated his policy on abortion. It went something like: "Abortion should be readily available, but rare." Only problem with Bill's policy is that during his two terms in office, everything was done to keep an abortion readily available and nothing was done to make it rare.

Since the Clinton policy is probably unworkable (although maybe it could have worked if there had been some effort put into it) I guess we need to come up with something new. So what would I propose? A woman has the right to unrestricted abortions up till the point that which is growing inside her develops a mind of its own. When it starts to think for itself, it starts to enjoy some of the protections under the Constitution just like all the rest of us human beings. Up till it starts to think, there is no more harm for a woman to have an abortion then it would be for her to have a cyst removed from her body. But after that which is growing starts to think, it should be illegal, with some exceptions, for anyone to kill it.

What should we decide would be the exceptions? Well that opens up a new debate. Let's stick to deciding what should be true under most circumstances, or at least what should be the goal we strive for, and after we reach a decision on that we can debate what constitutes an exception.

I do not know at what stage of development the fetus starts to think. I do not believe it should be too hard to prove with reasonable certainty when this occurs. All we need are sensitive instruments that can measure brain waves. Some brain waves do not witness to higher thought. Some children develop with nothing more then a brain stem. Any brain waves a child such as that possesses could be ignored. Other brain waves probably do witness to higher thought. At what stage do these types of brain waves appear?

I noted in the article that the two examples of women who obtained abortions did so at a fairly early stage. One at 45 days, the other at 9 weeks. I believe that most women who have abortions do so as early as possible. I am hopeful that the point that the fetus develops a mind of its own would not even affect most women and their right to choose, however I have no education on this and can not offer an opinion as to when this happens. I am saying, however, that no matter when it happens this should be the governing factor on when an abortion is permitted.

Once the "fetus" starts to think for itself, it should start enjoying the same rights as the rest of us that think. Since we can not ask it if it wants to live or die, we must assume it wants to live just like the vast majority of the rest of us who think.

When the fetus starts to think for itself, when it develops a mind of its own, the woman should lose the right to choose. At least this is my opinion.

Settlements in Palestine continue to expand

Settlements in Palestine continue to expand. (See here) this article in Haaretz that discusses the issue.

This issue is extremely complicated. If one could trust that an honest debate would be held on the issue one would need not be so concerned. But you can not depend on honesty even from the major players (like the Foreign Minister of Israel) when they speak on this issue.

According to the article, Raanan Gissin, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon explained that the houses would be within the boundaries of existing settlements that are part of the major blocs that Israel wants to retain.

OK, but we have seen where "natural expansion" "needs to occur", according to Israel, in the past. When "we" have agreed to some minimal expansion, Israel tried to take advantage of it thinking it meant maximum expansion even in areas that may have to be returned to the Palestinians.

According to the article, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat condemned the decision, and called on the U.S. to pressure Israel to stop settlement activity. He stated "They suspend the peace process and they suspend the negotiations and they suspend the contacts and the only thing they are continuing with is settlement construction."

Oh yeah? And just why was all this stuff suspended? The Palestinians do not share some of the blame? Even in the current "cease fire" Qassam rockets continue to rain down on Israel with the Palestinian "government" taking no action to stop the attacks.

All in all, if the Israeli government could be trusted to ONLY allow minimal "natural expansion" of existing settlements I think that could be allowed. Problem is the Israeli government can not be trusted. When this issue was debated here in America the Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, got in front of the American people and lied to us. When he told the American people what "natural expansion" meant, he explained it in a way an average American might accept. However what had been going on before Silvan Shalom's visit, and more importantly what happened after his return, is not as he explained it. This man, who was serving as the OFFICIAL voice of Israel, lied to the American people, and he was Ariel Sharon's pick to hold this important position.

So, in my opinion, what needs to happen is Israel needs to STOP expanding the settlements and STOP establishing new "outposts". "We" have tried compromise on this issue in the past and the government of Israel has proven itself unwilling or unable to live within the compromise.

We have tried doing things Israel's way and little progress has been achieved in the peace process. I still have not given up on the Roadmap to Peace. Without a little pressure on Israel from "the outside" there might be no additional progress on the Roadmap.

Stop expanding the settlements! At least until we see how the Palestinians are going to vote in the next election.

Jesus son of a whore

Jesus, son of a whore. I will not expose just where I heard that one.

I think it is appropriate that on this day when so many people celebrate the birth of Jesus that I ramble a little bit about him.

As a tie in I will point (to this) article where a Christian discusses the "Virgin Birth".

I will publicly state that I do not describe myself as Christian. From my understanding Christians "believe" that Jesus was God, and I am uncertain, so I must not be a Christian. Also, I do not think that even if I believed Jesus was God, if I was honest with myself, I would have to admit I am still unworthy of calling myself a Christian.

So was Jesus the "son of a whore" as some say? I ask so what? To my mind, if Jesus started out from such humble beginnings it only makes the "story of Jesus" that much more awesome. Jesus might not have been God, but if he was not, then he most certainly was the finest Jew to ever walk the face of this earth. While much evil has been done in the name of Jesus, you can not blame Jesus for this because that was not what he preached. How about at least giving him credit for what good that does exist ONLY because this MAN once walked on the face of our planet?

While atheists might scoff at Jesus being God, they can not deny the power and strength of Jesus. I dare them to even attempt to match Jesus in his achievements and his power to do so much good for mankind.

Me? While I am not a Christian, I love Jesus. While I am not a Jew, I call Jesus Rabbi.

Thank God I live in a country that grants religious freedom. At least here in America I will not be crucified for my religious beliefs.

Merry Christmas everyone, and Happy Hanukkah too.

Persecuting Jews in America?

From the Jerusalem Post comes (this) article where Judy Maltz complains of persecution of Jews in America's Public schools.

I tried to post a response on the JPost's talkback section under the article. However since I have not had much luck getting the JPost to publish comments from me, I decided I would take up the issue here.

A few years back, when I lived in a different neighborhood here in my city, I regularly commuted past one of my city's parks. This park has one of the few hills in town, and up on this hill, over the holiday season, they would put up displays for the public enjoyment. From a "Christian" perspective were secular displays like Santa and holiday lights (even atheists put Santa in their yard and a Christmas tree up in their homes) and from a Jewish perspective was a huge Menorah.

What I found interesting about this display, is that while a Christian religious display like a nativity scene would never be allowed, a Jewish religious symbol like a Menorah was tolerated. I guess no one complained, and I was not offended myself. After all, there really is no such thing as a Hanukkah Bush.

I am not certain if this display continues today, as it would not surprise me if someone eventually complained. What intrigued me is that this display was even allowed to occur at all. You see, I live in Virginia Beach, which is home to Pat Robertson (go google him if you unfamiliar with him). I found it interesting that in this city overtly Jewish religious displays were tolerated even while overtly Christian displays were denied the Christian majority.

Perhaps in some sections of America Jews really are persecuted. However in my corner of the USA people seem to be willing to bend over backwards to be tolerant.

Are some Christian preachers intolerant of Jews? Yeah. But then these kind are also rather intolerant of fellow Christians and will preach from their pulpits against Catholics, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and any other denomination that disagrees with them.

I would imagine there are entire communities that Jews would not feel comfortable, but that goes for the rest of us Americans as well. For example, most Americans do not have any problem with someone cracking open a Budweiser now and again, but down south there are entire counties that are "dry" and where it is illegal to sell alcohol. Those of us who do not want to deal with this inconvenience just do not move into these counties.

By the way, I have noted that while several new comments were included under the JPost talkback, my comments still were not included. Do I detect some intolerance?

NYC transit strike update

The transit workers have decided to go back to work.

For a fairly comprehensive discussion of the main sticking point, pensions, (see here) this NY Times article.

I am going to admit being extremely torn on the issue of pensions, whether they be private or public sector.

On the one hand I want balanced public sector budgets and competitive private enterprise.

On the other hand I ask why is it always the lower and middle class that have to sacrifice?

Take the private sector. Workers are asked to tighten their belts, accept an increasing share of health and pension benefit costs, lower salaries, etc etc to "remain competitive" while CEOs and Boards of Directors grant themselves obscene compensation and benefits. Hey, how come the big wigs do not have to contribute towards being lean and mean? Executive compensation of American corporations eclipses compensation awarded to executives of foreign companies.

Take the public sector. Congress votes for cuts in programs that benefit the lower and middle class and then what do they do? They cut revenue by granting tax cuts to the most fortunate that even exceed the amount of the benefit cuts. They pass changes to the military retirement system that forces soldiers, sailors and airmen to either accept less or serve longer and what changes, what sacrifices, did legislators enact to their own retirement programs?

Why is it that the "movers and shakers" can always justify sacrifices that need to be made by the "average Joe" but always find someway, somehow to exclude themselves from the sacrifices? They always seem to find a way to force the "average Joe" to sacrifice and then find a way to justify giving even more to the fortunate.

In today's modern world I think I can accept that the "average Joe" does indeed have to make some sacrifices. However I want the fortunate to do a little sacrificing too, and that is not happening, in fact what we are seeing is quite the opposite.

Judge Alito is a right wing activist

(See here) an article from the Washington Times that seems to point out that Judge Alito is too much of a right wing activist to become Justice Alito.

I do not care what fancy arguments the right wing comes up with to support the nomination of Judge Alito. In my opinion he would be an activist Justice. The right wing belly aches about left wing activist judges and I wish they would stop. It is not activist judges they do not like. Their support of Judge Alito's nomination proves they value judicial activism as long as it is right wing judicial activism.

They specifically targeted the conservative Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as being unacceptable to them for nomination. Why? Because he has a history of not being an activist. He has a history of judicial restraint and the right wing will not tolerate restraint.

Well even if Senators who try to portray themselves as "moderates" will not have the courage to speak up against the extremist nominee Judge Alito I am going to do so. He might be qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice but I think the right wing extremists are already well represented on the bench. It is time for the rest of society to get some representation on the bench. When is the Senate going to start insisting some moderates get a voice?

Judge Alito is the favorite of the most extremist right wing elements within America. I am unwilling to surrender one third of my government to these extremists. If we surrender the battle to them now, more drastic and extreme measures might become necessary to "retake" our Supreme Court in the future.

I support whatever elements of the Senate which oppose Judge Alito's nomination, and I fervently hope that the Democrats will filibuster this nomination. I also demand that any Senator who wishes to be identified as a moderate will support this filibuster. It is time for moderates to stand up to the right wing extremists and say we get a voice too.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Here is where we get into the debate as to whether the Constitution is a "living document" or whether it was written in stone and must most narrowly be interpreted. Do you think the framers of this amendment ever considered the availability of E-mail or even the telephone?

Every time that America comes up with a new means of communication must we come up with a new amendment to cover it? Or was the interpretation that what this amendment does imply is a guarantee of a "right to privacy", a right not specifically espoused in the Constitution, correct?

Just because E-mail is not written on paper does not mean it is not covered by the Fourth Amendment. In my opinion they meant ALL private correspondence and records. They covered pretty well everything they needed to worry about in their day. If they had lived in our day they would perhaps been a little more expansive in their descriptions.

Is it necessary for us to wave the flag of surrender upon our Constitution? Is it necessary for us to start calling it what our President calls it "a goddamn piece of paper"?

I think it is time for us to reflect on just what that "goddamn piece of paper" means. Everything I value in America comes from that "goddamn piece of paper" (although I will acknowledge the influence of Christian morals upon that which was written).

I am not willing to surrender to my enemy that which he can not do himself. He can not force us to grind the Constitution under our feet against our will. But perhaps he can get us to beg our government to do it for us?

Look, I am not a Patriot Act scholar. I only know that Dubyah has tried to exceed the powers granted him by the legislature. Some people seem to think the Patriot Act treads too far on the Constitution and Dubyah thinks as President (dictator) he has even more powers then this.

I am a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer. I remember the oath I took. It went "I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

But what do you do when the President himself starts disregarding the Constitution?

My inclination is to support the Constitution. We've had 200 years under the Constitution and only how many under the guy that thinks the Constitution is only a "goddamn piece of paper"!

What happens when the President who I am sworn to obey becomes the enemy of the Constitution I am sworn to protect? How did the last sentence go? "So help me God"? Maybe it should have gone, "So God help us."

Troop drawdowns to start in 2006

(See here) an MSNBC report on Donald Rumsfeld's announcement, during a visit to troops in Iraq, that the drawdown will start. Please note that the planned drawdown is in addition to withdrawal of the additional troops which were present for the election.

If I was not certain that the message did not come from "the Administration" instead of coming from Donald I would almost start thinking Donald had a few brain cells (other then confused ones) in that noggin of his.

But I like the leadership. The Dubyah Administration is finally starting to deal with reality. They are starting to say something other then "stay the course" forever. They are starting to realize that while we (and for certain they - they being the administration) might not be happy with what we leave behind us when we withdraw, we are going to be forced to live with it.

Of course this withdrawal which is not on a time-table (don't accuse them of a time-table or who knows what will happen) is not for certain. If things start getting worse, and the Iraqi people still ask us for help, we can reverse it.

My question is, what will Dubyah do if things start getting worse and the Iraqi people, as represented by the duly elected Iraqi government still tells us to get the hell out?

Hey, Dubyah still seems consumed by optimism. While he is willing to admit he led us into Iraq based upon faulty intelligence, he says the fault for the mistakes does not lead to the Oval Office. Back when he was leading us in, he said he could not share what he knew because it would endanger national security. If only he had shared. Perhaps the American people could have helped him interpret the intelligence so that he would not have misinterpreted it so badly!

But bygones are bygones. I guess I am not supposed to wonder if the guy who led us into where we should not have been, now that we are in there, has the correct leadership to lead us out?

I'm still wondering. But with what Rumsfeld has stated recently over there in Iraq, I think maybe Dubyah is starting to realize he needs to listen up. He might even start listening to them "damn Democrats" as he tries to not become another failure of a President from Texas like LBJ.

As long as Dubyah sees light at the end of the tunnel I might be willing to follow him. I do not fault our troops because they only follow the Commander-In-Chief. They can only go where their leaders order them. But where did Harry Truman say the buck stops?

We should not have gotten involved in Iraq, and indeed our national aspirations may have been thwarted by this involvement. Of course "your" judgment will be colored by just what exactly you think our national aspirations are.

But no matter what you believe, "Dubyah's folly" can not be called a success, even if he manages to somehow not turn it from disaster. When I look into my crystal ball, when it comes to Iraq, I do not see anything I would define as success.

Dubyah's views of the constitution?

What does Dubyah think of the Constitution?

Apparently not much if what Doug Thomson writes at Capitol Hill Blue (see here) is true.

I wish I could say that Dubyah was only lashing out during a moment of frustration. However during moments of frustration perhaps one lets one's guard down and true opinions come to light?

Perhaps if Dubyah thinks the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" he also does not respect that he will be limited to two terms by it? Perhaps he does not even think that if he were allowed a third term he should have to run for it? We should just do away with elections, get on with it, and crown him dictator for life?

Some people object to others view of the Constitution as a "living document" (a viewpoint I myself am uncomfortable with). Surely they would then also object to a viewpoint that seems to suggest the Constitution can be disregarded altogether?

Every American should be concerned about what type of American we have serving in the Oval Office. As Doug Thomson put it, "Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right."

I still do not think we need to impeach the man, but perhaps we do need to rein him in abit.

Constitution in crisis?

I received an E-mail from Ohio Democratic Congressman John Conyers.

In the E-mail he announces he has released a staff report entitled, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War." Within the E-mail he provided a link to the report which you can (see here). The report is rather lengthy and I did not go through it all, however I did read the Executive Summary which covers the issues. The whole report is available, however, to anyone who wants to explore the issues in their minutiae.

I am only trying to help Rep Conyers publicize his report because I think he has some valid arguments, even though I do not think he would win the debate. Since I doubt he will be given "equal air time" I will do my best to help him exercise his freedom of speech (and surely Congressman should enjoy this right - grin).

He also asks American citizens to sign up as citizen cosponsors of "a resolution creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses; as well as Resolutions proposing both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney should be censured by Congress based on the uncontroverted evidence of their abuse of power." I am not going to do that.

While I too think Dubyah should be condemned for his wrong headed leadership in getting us into Iraq (which was one of the issues I took into consideration when I chose to vote for Kerry), I do not think his "offenses" rise to the level of being impeachable. Most of what Rep Conyers speaks about was already known in the last Presidential election, these issues were debated, and a majority of the American people voted to give Dubyah 4 more years anyway. While the Downing Street Memo only became known after the election, it was still pretty well publicized after the fact and now Dubyah's approval ratings are again approaching 50% even with all the other issues taken into consideration.

If a poll were taken asking "Should Dubyah be impeached?" I think Rep Conyers would be greatly disappointed. Even many of those who disapprove of his leadership (me for example) are not going to be in favor of impeachment.

If Rep Conyers does not understand how this can be, then let me point to impeachment efforts against Bill Clinton. It was due to public opposition from people like me; people like me writing our Senators, that helped squash that effort. While we disapproved of what Bill Clinton had done, we did not think it rose to the level of an impeachable offense. I wrote my Republican Senator (the other was a Democrat at the time and I did not have to worry about him) and asked him to knock it off.

Personally I look at what Rep Conyers is up to as stirring up shit. However I support his right to stir up shit if he wants to, so I will aid him in "trying to get the word out".

"Freedom of Speech" is not yet dead in America.

Senate action on the Patriot Act

(See here) this MSNBC article on renewal of the Patriot Act.

I am going to comment on this article from two vantage points. First the action of the Senate, and then the reporting of whoever put the article together.

First I want to commend the Senate for the 6 month extension of the Patriot Act. I myself preferred the 3 month extension that had been proposed, but I guess the 6 month extension is acceptable. In fact, there is at least one advantage to a 6 month extension. When Congress again takes up extending the act, it will be very close to mid term elections, so perhaps Congress will be more concerned about what the average voter thinks when they decide what to do about it.

As for Dubyah and the Republican leadership threatening to not compromise (which still is a possibility) and forcing a showdown? If this had happened, or if it happens, I would/will blame the Republicans. Democrats (and some Republicans) are willing to compromise by extending the act as it is for several months to allow work to continue on the final result. I do not see a problem with this, and if Republican leadership refuses to compromise and forces the act to expire without an extension, then Republican leadership is to blame. In my opinion, one of the reasons an expiration date is put in there is to force Congress to reconsider and debate the powers that are granted. If some members of Congress want more time for consideration and debate, I do not have a problem with that.

Now for the reporting. I noticed that the reporter uses the word permanent, as in "to make most of the anti-terrorism law permanent". Other reports talk only of extending the act for another 4 years, which would hardly be permanent.

Merriam-Webster defines permanent as - "continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change". However the Oxford English dictionary defines it as - "lasting or intending to last indefinitely; not temporary". As the word is used in common language I give the nod to the Oxford as when we speak of a "permanent" magnet or a "permanent" address.

At least when I hear the word "permanent" it makes me think it is being passed without an expiration date. If the act is extended for 4 years, this would be OK with me since it is not "permanent". If the act is extended without an expiration date, I would be against it because I am not ready for all of it to become "permanent".

I at least think that reporters who use the word "permanent" are being less then clear as they report upon what is being considered. Is it too much to ask them to quit contributing to the confusion?

Bibi isn't an extremist?

Bibi isn't an extremist? (See here) this Haaretz article where Bibi tries to claim that what remains of the Likud party is not extremist.

But actions speak louder then words. Bibi has granted Silvan Shalom the number two spot on the Likud list. I do not take this action as being a signal towards moderation. I am a personal witness that Silvan Shalom was willing to resort to lies when he spoke to the American people about what is going on in his nation. He tried to twist the truth to further his right wing extremist goals to win the support of the American people.

The Israeli people might know what is going on in Israel and Palestine, but when the American people need to hear about it they need to hear the truth. When Israel sent Silvan Shalom to America to speak as Foreign Minister they sent America a snake.

By putting such a man in the number two spot, a "sneaky" right wing extremist, while trying to distance himself from the "obvious" right wing extremist Moshe Feiglin, Bibi exposes himself as being a political opportunist. He is not giving up on his goals, he is just willing to divorce himself from those who speak of his goals obviously.

NYC transit strike

I'd love to be the mediator in the NYC transit strike. (See this) article from MSNBC on the issue.

I am not completely educated on all the issues, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of what is at stake.

Let me first state that I think both sides have been guilty of hyperbole. Both sides have been guilty of trying to make mountains out of mole hills.

Thus far I am siding with the city on this issue. Of course I realize "the city" really consists of "the citizens" so if a majority of them asked me to "butt out" I would be willing to sit back and let them deal with their own mess. But I would point out to them that what goes on in NYC is a national issue. In the past NYC has put their hands out to New York State and even the nation when they faced economic problems, so I am wondering if NYC can escape "their problem" becoming "our problem".

Thus far I side with the city. Seems to me the sticking point is pensions. Transit workers buck at being asked to contribute a larger portion of their income towards their future pensions. But the city has already granted them a decrease in the retirement age to 55. The city only expects the workers to help fund the granted decrease of the retirement age. I think this is ultimately reasonable. In fact I think the age of 55 being retirement age is unreasonable, however the city has already agreed to this demand. Even our American soldiers, in the new reality, have had to accept either later retirement or decreased retirement benefits, but transit workers in NYC are being granted a decrease in the retirement age.

I also note that the transit workers time their strike for maximum affect. Yup, it is cold enough to get the attention of the average citizen. Yup, it is around Christmas time to get the attention of the retailers. Perfect timing for maximum extortion.

What do the citizen's of NYC want to do? Remember that whatever you decide to do you are working within a limited budget. Do you want mass transit to become prohibitively expensive? Even with what the city has offered you are going to face fare increases. How high do you want the fares to go?

There are valid arguments for the decrease in the retirement age of transit workers. The city granted this decrease in age. Is it really wrong for the city to demand the workers pay some of the cost of the new benefits agreed to? They city might not even be able to afford the already agreed to benefits.

Is it wrong to ask the workers to pay some of the costs to at least slow the slide towards bankruptcy?

Santa and sex

Santa and sex.

Did I get your attention? Well I am going to talk about kids and Santa, and then I am going to talk about kids and sex. What brought my twisted mind to associate the two topics? Well, heck, it intrigued you didn't it? I am at least willing to talk about it, while you are only willing to read about it.

First off Santa. From Maile Meloy comes (this) discussion that some kids are willing to hang on to unreality for as long as they can keep their finger nails dug in. She points out that some kids are willing to aid their adult parents in living the "untruth" too long. I wish to point out to her that at least I share this familiarity with her; in my family the presents were not wrapped either. I think it was because money was tight in my family. Why spend money on wrapping paper when you could instead spend the money on one more present for your kids?

My Mother finally allowed me in on "the secret of Santa" long past the time it was just downright obvious. Finally one night before Christmas I was allowed to help decorate the tree. The myth in my family was that Santa decorated the tree. I almost think the only reason she finally got around to allowing me to help was because I had insisted on staying up late that night and she was not going to put it off for another day. Since it still seemed important that I "keep the secret" that Santa was not real, I did not inform her my younger brother already knew the "real deal".

I do not fault my parents for trying to hang onto fairy tale land for as long as possible when it comes to Santa. Truth is that as long as I was expected to believe in "Santa", "Santa" was a lot better to me then when I became expected to understand that Christmas came on a budget.

But what about when fairy tale land extends to sex education? Just like my little brother learned about Santa from me, he learned about sex education from me. When it came time to educate my brother, I only taught him what I learned on the street. The conversation went something like "F### means when the guy puts his thing up the girls thing." My parents were always unwilling to talk frankly to us kids about sex. We were expected to learn about it on our own.

I vowed to be different. I would be willing to discuss the subject as an adult when my kids were ready, and I would be ready to accept they were ready before I wanted them to be ready. Things did not work out that way. While I will not say I failed, my best of intentions were still stymied.

When I tried to broach the subject with my boys, I was told to shut up by my wife because she had already told my boys to keep their pants zipped. When I tried to bring up the subject with my daughter she, very diplomatically, informed me she was uncomfortable discussing the subject with her father, and she already knew. I guess in every instance I waited until too late.

I can only hope that if my kids ever want to discuss "anything sexual" in an adult manner I communicated I would be open, and not embarrassed, by the subject. I have tried to point out to them that as much as they think they know, and how little they think I know, they came from somewhere, Mommy and Daddy "did it" too.

I think they already know they were not brought by the stork. When, or if ever, they want to talk about sex in an adult fashion with their "fuddy duddy" father I am ready for it.

My kids no longer believe in Santa and they already know about sex.

Perhaps, despite my best of intentions, I did no better then my parents.

Dubyah's wartime powers

For a fairly short, but comprehensive discussion of the current debate on Dubyah's wartime powers (see here) this article from the Washington Post.

First, does Dubyah really have "wartime powers"? There is not formal declaration of war. Seems to me that Congress might have been intending to reserve some of their authority when they chose to not formally declare war and only authorize the use of force.

The Dubyah administration seems to put a lot of faith into the phrase "all necessary and appropriate force". As far as we know the administration is using their interpretation to monitor communications of US citizens to points outside the US even though there are laws specifically preventing them from doing this (with some specific exceptions). But if the administration wants to broaden their interpretation this wide, what is to keep them from doing something else if in THEIR interpretation it is "necessary and appropriate"? What is to keep them from doing something most of us might consider draconian, like putting wiretaps on media reporters or even censoring the media? From what Donald Rumsfeld has been saying publicly I think at least he might think censorship is appropriate. What is to keep them from monitoring communications of political opponents, including members of Congress (like them damn Democrats) because they dare speak out against the war?

Do you think I am being unreasonable in my arguments? Well I do not think it is unreasonable to remember what Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover were up to.

I would remind Dubyah that the adjectives "necessary and appropriate" precede the noun "force" in that phrase. Dubyah seems to be adopting a pretty expansive definition of the word "force". If this phrase authorizes Dubyah to take "action" that most of us would not consider "force" what is to keep him from doing whatever he damn well pleases because he considers it, too, to be force?

Now, I am a little torn by this issue because I almost think Dubyah should have the authority to do what he has been doing. But just because I think he "should have" does not mean he "does have" this authority. Apparently he was going to ask Congress for this authority until he was informed he probably wouldn't be granted it. So what does Dubyah do? He just broadens what he thinks Congress meant when they used the word "force" so that it includes what he wants to do.

Well my thinking is that Congress intended it to mean one of the definitions of "force" which is "military strength" according Merriam-Webster's. After all, that is what was being publicly debated as they considered the resolution. I think they even threw in a couple of adjectives in there to at least give Dubyah some pause when he used the " force - military strength". Prior to debating the "military strength" issue they even specifically addressed the law enforcement and surveillance powers they wanted to grant in the Patriot Act. In fact they were pretty "liberal" in the powers they granted. (I think with glee that my use of the word "liberal" is probably going to upset some Republicans - grin.)

You know what really worries me? If the Dubyah administration takes out this wide a brush when they go to painting, just what other rights are being white washed while they are a painting? What else are they up to that we know nothing about?

Hydroelectric is a source of greenhouse gases?

Hydroelectric is a source of greenhouse gases? (See here) an article in the New Scientist that claims this is so. Gee, I guess this global warming problem might be more complicated that I had imagined.

I am grateful that "the experts" are at least thinking about stuff like this. However I do not completely agree with the conclusion the author, Duncan Graham-Rowe leads us to. While I accept that some initial greenhouse gas emissions will occur as fields and forests are flooded I do not accept that continuing emissions must occur as the reservoirs are drawn down and then, later, the water level rises again (he points out this is a bigger problem in tropical locales then cooler locations).

I still think hydroelectric is going to be a sizable part of the solution. If varying water levels is a "problem", then solve the problem but do not abandon hydroelectric. Seems to me that we could find some type of material to coat the "drawdown region" with to prevent new plant life from growing. A thin layer of concrete would serve, although maybe someone could come up with a cheaper and more practical material that would serve better.

"Experts" like this author are the kind that frustrate me. If someone without an education in the field can come up with a solution to the "problem" they present, what are experts like this doing calling themselves experts? We need "experts" that can come up with solutions to the problems not just point out to us we have problems while motivating us to just throw up our hands and give up.

What do the experts say about Global Warming

What do the experts say about Global Warming? Are these experts taking into account the possibility of solar output increases as being part of the problem? Are they all just a bunch of wacko environmentalists? For a rather impressive, reasonable, educated, and rational discussion (see this) article from the New Scientist. (The author speaks of temperature increases in centigrade, so as a refresher, let me remind you that 1 degree of change in centigrade equals 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.)

I wish to thank the author for at least trying to keep the article to something approaching plain language so that the "average Joe" can understand what he has to say, although you still must have your thinking hat on. I imagine he even kept things simple enough that Rush Limbaugh and his Ditto Heads might stand a chance of comprehending what is being said, but that might be a stretch - grin.

I also observed that the author pointed out that decreasing some air pollutant emissions could actually lead to an increase in global warming, with this example given: "So efforts to cut pollution by using technologies such as scrubbers to remove sulphur dioxide from power station stacks could trigger a surge in temperatures." This suggests to me that at least some experts are not "raging environmentalists" who will only analyze the data from a predetermined conclusion.

The article in the above link is only an example of what the experts think. I am certain that other experts might find fault with some of the points the author makes, however it does serve as an example of the debate going on between climate experts. It proves to me that they indeed might know something that Rush Limbaugh does not know. Either Rush Limbaugh is not a climate expert or he is aware of the arguments and he just does not care.

I'd like to see all the right wing radio talk show hosts invite someone like this author, Fred Pearce, onto their shows. Will they dare? Rush Limbaugh should at least include links to "alternative viewpoints" like this one in the links he provides on the subject of climate change at his web site. Of course that might be asking for too much. That would be asking Rush Limbaugh and his clones to act responsibly when they start discussing the fate of mankind, and I have not heard any evidence that they would be willing to do so.

As for me? After having sampled the opinion of an expert like Fred Pearce, I think I am going to value his opinion over that of a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh.

Another speech from Dubyah?

Another speech from Dubyah? (see here) I heard this speech was coming, but I did not go out of my way to watch it on TV. Some might say I should watch what Dubyah has to say "in person" because you can get so much from body language. This has not been my experience. When Dubyah tries to give a speech he often butchers it. His public speaking often distracts you from what he tries to say, so you often are just better off reading the message instead of watching it. Personally I think Dan Rather was better at reading words from a teleprompter then Dubyah.

What confuses me is why Dubyah had to so quickly resort to another speech. I thought he was going to give four speeches and right after he is done with the last one we have to take into consideration another one? When is he going to stop? If he does not get the desired results this time we are going to be subjected to yet another "major speech" of "major national importance"?

Well, I guess there is nothing wrong with that. He is the President of the United States after all, and if he wants to address us I guess it is only fair that we try to listen to what he has to say. My only problem is that I wish he would try and tell us something new instead of resorting to regurgitating the "old failed leadership" that he tried in the past. Someone tell Dubyah that we have heard this shit before. The reason some people disagree with you is BECAUSE we heard this shit from you before. What am I talking about? He is trying to take advantage of the "ignorant masses" that still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11.

I take EXTREME offense that Dubyah is ONCE AGAIN trying to tie the war in Iraq to this horror. While he might speak the truth that NOW the war on terror includes Iraq, that is only BECAUSE we invaded Iraq. If HE had not chose to include Iraq in the war, we would have had a whole lot more help as we conducted the war. By INCLUDING Iraq in the war we lost quite abit of world support (to put it mildly).

If the man would just humbly 'fess up and admit he was wrong I might say he gave a powerful speech. But when he tries to lead us forward by trying to dig up old bullshit arguments that are so outrageously... what... if we do not call them lies.... what do we call them? First time around we could have said he was just human and mistaken? But when we keep hearing it after we know it is "mistaken" but he tries to tell it to us again? Is it now wrong to DEMAND that our President quit getting on television and "speaking that which is not truthful"? (I think "that which is not truthful" would be a lie - grin.)

You know, if I thought Dubyah was capable of providing the leadership America thirsts for I might be willing to sign on with him. Truth is that if I were President, I might give a speech that attempts to get the American people to back that which Dubyah is trying to get the American people to back with this speech.

My problem is that once we get the American people to "do the right thing" we are still going to have Dubyah behind the tiller. I do not totally want to oppose Dubyah in what he wants us to do now. What he is asking us to do now is perhaps the right thing. If I were President I might ask you to do the same. My fear is that if he is successful, what will he ask us to do next? He has shown us in this speech he is not above resorting to bullshit in winning our support. I am starting to lose confidence in the man we have in the Oval Office. I will allow him to be human. Just because we put someone in the Oval Office does not mean this person somehow automatically becomes super human. But when this person displays an extreme lack of judgment in addressing the nation? He might not be the man responsible for writing his speeches, but he is the man who chooses to give them!

It is time to admit the truth people. We have Dubyah at the helm of our nation, and I am starting to get worried. Can you imagine? This is the guy we put in charge of our nuclear weapons? What were the majority of you people thinking when you voted for him? Yeah, I know who the other choice was.

In praise of Dubyah I will give credit to that person who came up with the closing line (other then "Thank you, and good night.") of his speech: 'And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor (does) He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men." ' Beautiful and inspirational. I am happy I took the time to read his speech just to hear this line because THERE was something new.

No freedom of speech in the NBA

Warning basketball stars, freedom of speech will not be tolerated in the NBA. (see here)

Just what does the NBA expect from their stars? When a star gets traded to a new team do they expect he must abandon all his team loyalties in other sports and start rooting for the local favorites?

What are we going to hear next? How about major league baseball fining "The Rocket" for being willing to pitch for Houston for less money because he has loyalties to the team going back to his childhood? Why this can not be tolerated. Other teams like the Yankees were willing to pay him more but he was willing to pitch for Houston for less out of some twisted favoritism going back to his childhood.

Can you imagine that? The Rocket was willing to forgo additional compensation he could earn by pitching for the Yankees, for crying out loud, out of loyalty to his home state. There needs to be a law against it. Now I hear he is considering packing up and moving on and the Texas Rangers are one of the teams that is a favorite because he still has that damn loyalty to Texas.

Why isn't my team (the St Louis Cardinals) in the running? If he does not want to pitch for the Yankees because he has already "been there, done that" then why not pitch for a team that has the potential to "go all the way", particularly if Walt Jocketty could add "the Rocket" to his stable of starters? "The Rocket" wants to pitch for the Rangers? Come on? Does he expect the Rangers to be competitive? The Rangers had A-Rod and they couldn't make it work. The Rangers are so incompetent when it comes time to evaluate talent that they once had George Dubyah Bush as General Manager.

If the Mavericks can get away with fining Darrell Armstrong for daring to publicly root for his Redskins then I think Major League Baseball can get away with fining "the Rocket" if he signs with the Rangers. If he sells himself to the highest bidder (George Steinbrenner) that is certainly American and that would be OK. If he wants to sign with a contender like the Cardinals (my team - grin), that would still be OK. But if he signs with a bunch of losers like the Rangers out of some twisted loyalty to Texas dating back to his childhood, why that must be un-American (go ask the Mavericks) and that is not allowed.

As for Darrell Armstrong, I will say what they do not allow him to say. HOW ABOUT THEM REDSKINS? They decimated the Dallas Cowboys. Humiliated them. They beat the Cowboys both times this year! Go Redskins! (Can anyone tell I am a Skins fan?)

EU Weighs In About Hamas

The EU weighs in about Hamas running in Palestinian elections and participating within a ruling Palestinian administration. (see here)

I like the stance of the EU on this issue. It is a nuanced position and pretty closely matches my own position.

The EU is not saying Hamas should not be entitled to participate in elections. It is saying that if Hamas happens to win the elections, or even if it is included in a ruling coalition of the government (without renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist) they are probably going to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority.

While some might call this a hypocritical stance, (as in they might say it is hypocritical to allow the Palestinians to vote for whoever they want, but if they elect those we do not agree with they will have to pay a price), I do not look at it that way. I think "free and fair" elections should be granted to the Palestinians. It will help us to measure exactly where the Palestinian people stand. However if they elect a government that seeks to wage war on the Israeli people, then I think the rest of the world has the right to treat that government as being at war with Israel. I probably would even be willing to go further then the EU in that I would probably be more willing to turn a blind eye as Israel waged war with Palestine.

Mahmoud Abbas is sticking to his guns and is insisting that Hamas be allowed to participate. If this happens I think that a great deal of responsibility is going to fall on the shoulders of the Palestinian voter. They will have the choice of voting for war (Hamas) or voting for a negotiated peace.

I think the Palestinians should have this right. In fact I think we should demand that the Palestinian voter face this choice. However I do not then want to hear any squawking from the Palestinians if they vote for war and we give them what they voted for.

When your back is turned

When your back is turned on your government just look at what your government is up to.

For what the US House of Representatives is up to recently (see here).

Them damn hypocrites. By a vote of 397 to 17 they voted that any participation of Hamas within the Palestinian Authority will undermine future US funding of the Palestinian Authority.

Look at how America seeks to conduct elections within Iraq. We are actually trying to encourage the militants to lay down their arms and engage in the political process. We are even willing to allow Baathists to have a voice. Are we going to withdraw funding from the Iraqis and even, gasp, withdraw American forces from Iraq if the Baathists participate? Even if they participate but do not win the election?

But when Hamas seeks to enter into the political process this is not allowed. Is this because we are only asking Israelis to continue to fight and die? As long as no Americans are involved in "continuing the struggle" and it is only "them damn Jews" who are expected to die it is OK?

What works for "us" in Iraq is what works for Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine. He is trying to welcome all parties into the political process just like we are trying to encourage the militants in Iraq.

Perhaps we can withhold monetary support from the new Palestinian Authority if the new government takes positions that are contrary to peace. But to threaten to withhold monetary support if the Palestinians allow a significant portion of the Palestinian people to have a voice in the government? Why then do we welcome Baathists to the table in Iraq if Hamas is not welcomed to the table in Palestine?

I smell a rat. In fact what I smell is the rotting corpse of hypocrisy.

It is amazing that when it comes to balancing the budget we can not even get a simple majority, but when it comes to "right wing extremism" in the Middle East we can gain a nearly unanimous result.

We will abandon "right wing extremism" when American lives are at stake but when "their lives" are at stake, we'll take the extremist line.

Well the extremist line is defined as the results of 9-11. You governing hypocrites have to deal within the fact the front lines now include the streets of Manhattan. If you can find a way to include the Baathists in elections in Iraq, then why can not Palestinian elections in Palestine include the voices of a significant portion of the Palestinian people?

If we are unhappy with the election results we are still free to act as we see proper. But first we must identify that which we are dealing with. Who knows, once Hamas starts gaining some voice in the future of their people they might even start becoming realists.

Is there any wonder why some people in the world hate Americans? Democracy my ass.

Joining the debate on the Patriot Act

Attempts to renew the Patriot Act, as presently envisioned, were blocked in the Senate. (see here)

I wish to join this debate.

First let me extend my hand of congratulations to the Senate. I love the fact that they seem to be willing to debate this issue in a manner that reflects the concerns of the American people as a whole.

I want to chime in with my own thoughts on the matter.

First off I do not want to see any of the steps taken becoming permanent just yet. Perhaps some of the steps will be proven in time to be wise, but I am unwilling to give my stamp of approval to "everything" just yet.

I realize that we are at war. I am willing to give our law enforcement agencies some "extraordinary" powers to fight this war. We are faced with an enemy that is willing to exploit the weaknesses of our society. I am willing to allow our law enforcement personnel some "extraordinary" powers to plug some of the holes up. If they insist on taking advantage of these "extraordinary" powers in a manner that they were not intended then these powers should be taken away from them.

There is evidence that, in fact, some of this has been going on. Those in power have engaged in surveillance of peace groups that meet in Quaker meeting halls for example. Someone needs to be fired over this. Did they break the law? Not as defined by the Patriot Act, but they certainly displayed an extreme lack of prudent judgment. If they think that terrorist cells are going to be found amongst the Quakers they are displaying an extreme absence of common sense. This example treads over the line of what I find to be acceptable. It marks an example of efforts to suppress political opposition, not just illegal activity.

There is evidence also that law enforcement agencies have tried to exploit the Patriot Act to crack down on the drug trade. I am not going to condemn this too loudly because I think the drug trade is worthy of suppression. However it is an example of how law enforcement will be willing to exploit their "extraordinary" powers in ways they were not intended. However I will also point out that cases like this help identify some powers of the Patriot Act that should become routine, such as roving wire taps.

I am still extremely worried about granting those in political power the ability to possibly exploit these extraordinary powers for political gain and to persecute their political opponents. I am old enough, and informed enough, that the names Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover means something to me.

I am grateful that the Senate is debating this issue and continuing to exercise their responsibility to safeguard the rights of the American people.

However I would encourage the Senate to realize that we still need to grant extraordinary powers to those who seek to defend us. Perhaps the powers granted needs to be tweaked a little bit, but largely these powers need to remain, at least for now.

Gay sex health threat?

Is gay sex a health threat?

From MSNBC comes this this article that reports on using the internet to inform your sexual partner he/she probably has a sexually transmitted disease. (see here)

What really piqued my interest about this article was the following statement: "Some 2,400 new AIDS cases were reported in Los Angeles County in 2003, along with more than 8,000 new gonorrhea cases and 830 new syphilis cases - most of them among gay men."

Gay men are not just spreading HIV amongst themselves, for which there could be a logical explanation, but apparently they suffer from "ordinary" STDs in disproportionate numbers.

Perhaps I need to reexamine that which I consider to be logic? I thought I understood why gay men where disproportionately represented in HIV statistics. Within them was where HIV first reared its head powerfully so "of course" they would be over represented. They are just evidence of what is going to come for the rest of us.

But is this true? Why would gay men be disproportionately represented amongst "ordinary" sexual diseases? They are a minority within the population so why would they be a majority of the cases?

New conclusion. When it comes to sex men are dogs. As long as men, to satisfy their sexual urges, must include a woman in the act the woman serves as a dampening effect on the transmission of STDs. The woman is motivated to not drop her pants at every opportunity whether it is because of fear of pregnancy or desire for commitment. The woman wants emotion as well as the act itself to feel satisfied and that takes time. Whatever it is the facts speak for themselves. When a gay man wants sex he only has to find another dog. The object of the sexual desire is a dog just like he is. He'll be willing to drop his pants on the first date, and the "date" needs to only be one unfinished drink at a bar.

Why did HIV spread like wildfire within Africa but when it reached the shores of America it became a smolder except within the male gay community? Why do "ordinary" sexually transmitted diseases spread at a disproportionate rate amongst gays as when compared to heterosexuals? I think I know the answer, and the answer is that when it comes to sex men are dogs.

Gay men might be a health threat. Some of them are bisexual and their sexual practices might spread health threats to the community as a whole. Prostitution is already illegal because it also threatens the public health. The gay community needs to clean up their act or... what?

Anti-smoking Nazis

From the Washington Post comes this article where the anti-smoking nazis are trying to restrict a smoker's right to light up in his own home. (see here)

If I thought what the article speaks of was not just the opening salvo of an effort to persecute the minority I wouldn't be so concerned about it. Truth is the anti-smoking Nazis are not just satisfied with me not smoking in public places. They are upset that I can still smoke in the privacy of my home or in my own vehicle.

They are only concerned about the health of my children? OK then let us broaden the debate to other harmful behaviors. I do not want parents to be allowed to permit their children to snow ski, skate board, walk home from school unattended etc etc. If we are going to stick our noses that far into how parents raise their children let us hold a majority vote on whether children should be either "forced to" or "not allowed to" attend Sunday school because this greatly affects the mental health of our children.

In the state of New Jersey one legislator seriously tried to make it illegal to smoke in your vehicle while it was in operation. No prohibition against eating a hamburger or drinking a cup of coffee while driving, only smoking would be targeted. Try telling me he's not an anti-smoking Nazi.

I know one thing for sure. I do not presently own a gun. But if they ever try to tell me I can't smoke a cigarette in the privacy of my home I am going to buy one. Anyone trying to come to my door trying to enforce this prohibition is going to be met with gunfire, and I will not be taken alive.

Bush caves

Bush caves to McCain (see here).

Instead of clear vision we get murky waters.

Dubyah won the "concession" from McCain that interrogators would be subjected to the same rules as that contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What a concession. That means he caved.

What we now have here is that the individual soldier (or CIA agent) must choose to obey either the law or obey the orders that might come from the Commander In Chief himself. Each American citizen must choose for himself. But watch out, after you choose you will be judged. You will be subjected to the judgement of a jury of your peers.

The UCMJ offers no protection. If you choose to obey an "unlawful order" no matter from where the order came from you are subject to prosecution.

The "new law" is going to leave it up to us. We are going to have to become Constitutional experts ourselves to decide which way we are to go. Our leadership does not choose to give us leadership on this matter. They are going to force us each to decide for ourselves. They purposely muddy the waters by saying each individual will be left out into the currents of the wind to fend for themselves. God help us that we should expect government to be the wind vain.

Senator McCain, you already had the votes to explicitly define that we should bow down to our enemy. Why did you back down? What caused you to compromise?

Well McCain's compromise is not acceptable to me. I do not wish for those who carry out the "will of the people" to be prosecuted because Senator McCain says they need to be. I want our laws to reflect the "will of the people" and where Senator McCain leads us is against the will.

I am willing to concede that "mob rule" is not a wise way to lead our nation. But we Americans have had enough time to recover from 9-11 so that panic no longer rules. Our opinion, after long careful thought, is that torture is SOMETIMES justified. As much as we might choose to duck the issue, the issue is that we are engaged in a war. I think we owe it to our warriors, whether they serve in the uniformed services, or serve in a suit in the CIA, to define the limits of what we find acceptable. I do not choose to accept that we can always depend on the jury because OJ was found innocent. I want to offer my warriors more protection then this.

If Senator McCain offers that the only protection offered to loyal Americans is this I stand against him. If Dubyah supports him I stand against him as well.

I have listened to Dubyah

I have listened to Dubyah, to find his most recent defense of the War in Iraq (go here).

His attempts to gloss over his failures of leadership do not sway me. His strongest arguments only point me towards blowing holes in his arguments. Every argument he makes in favor of this war can be blown through as easily as a knife cuts through butter. He tries to take many "strong defenses" of weak decisions with one sentence points.

I will only address a couple of points he tried to make.

- First: "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place."

Let me get this straight George, you are in favor of America invading every country where democracy is not the way the people choose to govern themselves? What happens if the Iraqi people choose a "benevolent dictator" through democracy and this dictator (or royalty) asks us very politely to leave? Are we going to insist this is not "good enough" because it does not fit the terms of victory you have defined in your speech? Are you going to lead American Troops helter skelter around every corner of the earth where our idea of democracy is not the rule of law and attempt to force feed that which they do not want down their throats because it is for their own good?

If this was your only goal, why did you pick Iraq to start this noble endeavor? While the people of Iraq might have been suffering I am sure that numerous examples of more extreme suffering can be found. At least Saddam was providing the majority of the people with sustenance through the "oil for food" program. (There were weaknesses in the program, but the program could have been corrected without invading Iraq.) I am not saying the people of Iraq did not suffer, but why when you threw your dart at the map of the world did your dart end up striking in Iraq? Chances are other, more deserving targets could have been struck.

Truth is you scared many of the American people into supporting your leadership because you scared them with WMDs. Even then you did not win majority support, but many of the minority that did support you only supported you because you scared them into it.

- Second: "In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front..."

Well Dubyah is telling the truth here. The War in Iraq is now the central front, or at least it shares this status with Afghanistan. But did it have to be? Would we not have been wiser to keeping the "front lines" in the "war on terror" in Afghanistan instead of opening up a new front in Iraq?

Don't get me wrong. It is my opinion that if we had not opened the "second front" in Iraq things in Afghanistan would be a whole lot messier then they are now. But keeping the "central front" confined to Afghanistan would have been a whole lot wiser. At least in Afghanistan we enjoyed almost universal support for our actions, so we could have counted on strong support. In Afghanistan (if we had stuck with this alone) we could have made a statement of steel. Afghanistan is almost as remote a corner of the earth as you can get. It was surrounded by nations who had no natural inclination to support America. If we could have just stuck with proving that NOWHERE on earth is safe for you to hide when we choose to strike, the point we would have made would have been powerful. We would have enjoyed almost universal backing as we made the point.

Instead we are distracted in Iraq where we have to damn near do it all by ourselves. Why we attacked Afghanistan was clear to anyone who thought about it. Anyone, in most of the world, who tried to argue against it would have been shouted down. Even in France, the leftist French newspaper Le Monde screamed in bold headlines "WE ARE ALL AMERICANS". All this support and good will for us was squandered when we pushed things into invading Iraq.

In conclusion I will say that history will speak of the War in Iraq as being Bush's Folly. At a time bold and strong leadership was required Dubyah led us on a fool's errand. We might be forced to try and stick things out in Iraq because Dubyah led us into making a mess, but we could have more easily and effectively achieved our aims by limiting the front lines to Afghanistan.

The torture debate goes on

The torture debate goes on. (Here) is an MSNBC article regarding how the Senate voted, 90-9, to include an amendment prohibiting ANY torture to a Defense spending bill.

In the media the debate goes on. (Here) in the Weekly Standard is a fairly succinct defense of torture, at least in the rarest of circumstances, by Charles Krauthammer. (Here) in the Slate Webzine is a rebuttal of Charles Krauthammer's argument by Michael Kinsley.

Both these articles pretty well cover both sides of the debate. The "great moral dilemma" that they both so eloquently discuss only covers the inner turmoil of many Americans as they attempt to decide which side of the debate they side with. Thus far, as I earlier stated, 61% of Americans state that torture, at least in rare circumstances, is justified.

However this American viewpoint is not represented in the Senate vote. Perhaps it would be wrong to condemn the Senate for attempting to lead. However I can remember how a Senate vote authorized our President to take whatever means he felt necessary in Iraq, and this vote ended up leading us into war in Iraq. It is interesting that the level of support for THAT vote, again AGAINST American public opinion, could have also been noted to be an attempt by the Senate to "lead" the American people where they did not want to go. Just which leadership was wiser, Senate leadership or American public opinion?

Let me remind the Senate that while they vote 90-9 that torture should never be allowed, American public opinion runs 61% in favor of it being OK sometimes. I'd be interested in running an American public opinion poll on just under what circumstances torture should be allowed for members of the Senate. Grin.

I understand the man leading the charge, Senator McCain, suffered under torture himself back during the Vietnam War. However I would wish to point out to Senator McCain that he was not tortured because America was torturing Viet Cong or North Vietnamese prisoners. He was tortured even though the Geneva Convention prohibited it and in every way he was a "lawful combatant". Let me also point out that the only thing that prevented Allied prisoners taken by Germany during WWII from being summarily executed (or at least Germany threatened to do this) is that we threatened to do the same to German POWs and the Geneva Conventions be damned. Perhaps the only thing that kept them out of the death camps was this threat?

America is faced with a ruthless enemy. While our enemies might attempt to make hay out of any mistreatment of them, our treating them with kid gloves is not going to lead to better treatment of us once we are captured by them. They take great glee in capturing and possibly executing even the most pure of "us" such as the team of four Christian peacemakers now held captive. They have already beheaded numerous others. They kill civilians that most of us would call innocent as proven by 9-11, the train bombing in Spain, the subway bombings in London and the bombings in Bali.

If our enemy agreed to fight according the Geneva Convention then by all means so should we. However how did we fight WWII? Have you never heard of the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, let alone the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many innocents died or suffered from these attacks? Did we "want" to do it or were we forced to do it?

Will we continue to fight this war with one hand tied behind our back? Will you, Senator McCain insist we tie BOTH hands behind our back while we allow our enemy to deliver body blows to us while our enemy's hands are unencumbered?

Will we provide (as required by the Geneva Conventions) "laboratory instruments" to prisoners we take while they continue to behead the prisoners they take?

The way they treat us is all the justification I need to treat them other then how I would like to be treated. I already know what I am in for if I am ever captured by them. I feel no sorrow for how inhumanely we might treat some of theirs. Some of them might be wrongfully treated because they are innocent. How are OUR innocents treated?

They set the standard. I regret they set the standard so low. Surely we can avoid stooping as low as our enemy. However I do not support Senator McCain setting our standards so high that I get a nose bleed from the altitude without my enemy even being required to land a punch to my nose.

Iraqi election chicanery

So much for "free and fair" elections in Iraq this time around.

For a fairly well written report by the New Yorker on both US and Iranian chicanery in the last Iraqi election (go here).

While I could not find anything on the internet about it, CNN is reporting that a "truckload" of counterfeit Iraqi election ballots were intercepted as attempts were made to smuggle them across the border from Iran.

It would not surprise me if "our side" is not also up to shenanigans this time as well. I am not going to condemn "our side" too loudly for joining in however. I certainly wish "free and fair" elections could be held, but I do not think it would be "fair" if only one side is allowed to cheat! Apparently the Iranians are not above cheating this time around. My understanding is that the Iraqi ballots are pretty sophisticated, so if the counterfeit ballots are of a good enough quality to pass scrutiny they were not printed up in someone's garage.

I wonder just how effective the "impartial" election monitors are going to be and if they are going to have the courage to speak up if the elections are tainted? Or is the motivation going to be to approve even tainted election results because they are better then nothing, and better then starting over again from scratch?

I am not expecting perfection, as even here in America there are claims of election fraud in the last US election cycle, however I would hope there could be established some confidence that the results are close to reflecting the will of the Iraqi people.

A "truckload" of counterfeit ballots being intercepted does not lead towards the desired confidence.

Do children believe in Santa

From the Washington Times comes an article about children and Santa Claus. (see here)

In discussing this article, I think I need to first discuss just how far back into their childhood do most people remember. I recently read an article that claimed most adults do not remember anything earlier then the age of five.

This claim might be true, but if it is true then I am one of the exceptions to the majority. I have numerous clear memories of life prior to starting school. It is impossible to date most of these memories, however I do know that I surprised my own mother by having clear memories of my paternal Grandfather's farm. My Grandfather sold and moved off the farm when I was still extremely young. I have clear memories of the "big day" the move started as well as memories of visiting his farm long before the move was considered. At first my mother simply would not believe I had clear memories. I had to prove it to her by getting detailed in my descriptions of the farm (I have detailed memories of feeding my grandfather's hogs, and described exactly the corn bin which stood beside and over the hog pen.) I convinced my mother that in fact I really did remember and she was almost shocked.

How does this tie into Santa Claus? Well, again I might be unusual but I have absolutely no memory of ever really believing in Santa Claus. I can remember being young enough to sit on Santa's knee (prior to entering school), but I also can remember only doing it for show. I was very careful in considering just what I was going to ask Santa for because I knew Mommy was going to be listening. I also have memories of more then one Christmas before I entered school. I think that would mean I have memories back to when I was at least as young as three possibly as young as two.

I do know that I have memories of one of my older sisters, while I was a toddler, preparing me for the arrival of my younger brother who is two years younger then me. They were showing me all the new stuff my Mother had for the new baby that was going to be arriving. Stuff like baby blankets that I guess she received at baby showers. I remember liking all the new baby stuff but being unhappy that the new stuff was not for me and it was going to be for the new arrival. I was jealous. I also have memories of sleeping in the crib in my parents bedroom. I was still young enough that they would raise the sides of the crib to keep me in there when it was time to take a nap and I hated being penned up. I can remember that one way to get Mommy to come let me out after I awoke from my nap was to grab onto the sides of the crib and shake them. If I kept at it long enough she would come and release me. I think these memories would mean I have clear memories all the way back to age two and even possibly younger since I would have had to vacate the crib for the new baby, my younger brother.

Perhaps I was unusual. If it is unusual to have memories to younger then five then perhaps it is unusual to have figured out Santa is not real at such a young age. But Mommy and Daddy, at least some of your children have it figured out long before you think they do. I remember going along with the gag because it was so important to them. Thinking back as an adult I guess they were in no hurry for me to grow up.

As for sitting on Santa's lap? I considered it a pain in the you know what. You had to stand quietly in line for the "privilege" of sitting on the lap of some stranger who obviously had a fake beard. I endured the ordeal because Mommy was so excited about it and I guess I wanted to please her. I can even remember, while sitting in the car on the way to see Santa, considering how to convince Mommy I was excited even though I really dreaded it. It sure seemed important to her.

But let me reassure you I did feel genuine excitement about Christmas itself, even if I rarely got the expensive toys I asked for because my family couldn't afford them.

Loving the Death Tax

Loving the "Death Tax".

It is not "politically correct" to be in favor of the "death tax". Republicans have sold Americans on the idea that somehow the "death tax" is evil. I am going to speak out in favor of it. I am not going to turn my back on the "American Way". As much as Republicans try to spread their filth, I KNOW the death tax is part of the American Way and I know abolishing it is un-American.

First let us examine what happens if we abolish the death tax. People like Bill Gates get to pass on their estates tax free. Lucky for Bill Gates' kids back in the "old days" we had a death tax. If not for the death tax in the past they might have to compete with the Rockefeller and Carnegy descendants for being the wealthiest snot nosed rich kids. But, thanks to present day politics, they get to ascend to the peak. They get to be the wealthiest snot nosed rich kids.

What happens as we allow others to become equal to the present day descendants of Bill Gates? Bill Gates passes on his mega billions on to his kids and future billionaires get to pass on their mega billions to their descendants. Just how many wealthy can America support? If "once wealthy, always wealthy" gets to be the norm just how much room is there going to be for new wealthy? All them wealthy people need servants. Once we have made enough of them wealthy that there is no more room at the top what will we call them? They are the permanently wealthy, so I suggest we start calling them nobility.

We will end up with a class society that goes against everything the America I grew up in and was taught to believe in stands for.

The death tax motivates the wealthy to continue to do good things for us. By us I mean "we the people". Bill Gates descendants, due to the silver spoon, already have a healthy head start on the rest of us on obtaining "the good life". They can either fritter away the wealth or try to reconquer the peaks their Daddy did. With the death tax, they are going to have to work to reestablish the wealth and they already have a major head start on everyone else. If they do not attempt to work for a living each succeeding generation is going to see the "mountain top" whittled away by half until they are just like the rest of us.

Bill Gates evidently has some good genes in him. I want to provide motivation to his kids to keep on doing good things for us. Them kids only being motivated to live the good life, jet set around the world, and waste his wealth is not acceptable to me. Without the death tax his kids can park his wealth in "conservative" investments, waste all they want and still find themselves ahead at the end of the day. I want his kids to have to take the risks he (Bill Gates) was motivated to take in order to reestablish Daddy's mountaintop. Maybe some good will come of it.

The federal "death tax" even allows for several million dollars to be passed on tax free. If that is not true in your state fix your own state's policies. But the federal death tax is not part of the problem it is part of the solution. No permanent nobility in America is the American Way.

The death tax is part of the American Way. Previous generations were geniuses when they came up with it. I see no evidence of genius in those who attempt to abolish it. I only see them selling themselves out to the wealthy and trying to sell the lies to the general public.

The death tax is part of the American Way. Attempts to abolish it are just downright un-American.