Anyone who watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions must be stunned by the difference in tone. With the exception of John McCain, who actually acknowledged that many of the troubles of the past eight years fall squarely on the shoulders of his party, the convention was bitter, snarky, deceitful and meant to induce fear. With the shape the United States is in, I guess the tried and true is all they have to go with.

Before I continue, hats off to John McCain for speaking against the grain of his party! You are an honourable man.

However, your party, at least in its current incarnation, is not honourable. Sarah Palin talked much about alternative energy, so let's take a moment and explore the fuel of the Republican Crap Machine.

Fear

As if all of the rhetoric about "radical Islamic fascists" hasn't been enough, they reached a new pinnacle in bad taste with their 9/11 Tribute film. Showing images of Osama bin Ladin firing weapons, the Iran hostages and the World Trade Center crumbling, this was no tribute. This was an attempt to fan the flames of religious fear. It was crass, it was manipulative and it was exploitative of the many who died on that day. How dare they!

Spin

The Republican convention talked a good deal about reforming Washington, how "insiders" would be shaking in their boots at the prospect of reformer Sarah Palin coming down from Alaska to clean up town. What they conveniently forgot to mention was that they have held Congress for ten of the last twelve years, and the Presidency for the last eight. Their convention championed the ideas and themes of the last eight years, while they professed that their candidates would enact a culture of change. How exactly will that work?

Lies

Heard at the convention (and found on the RNC webpage) . . .

Rudy Guiliani: A few years later — a few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He spent most of his time as a celebrity senator: no leadership, no legislation to really speak of.

Sarah Palin: But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

The core fuel of the modern day Republican party is full out blatant lies. Maybe their base doesn't check the facts, but I assure you, I do. Their most egregious lies cluster around their allegations that Senator Obama hasn't done anything in Congress. What they fail to mention is that any bill in Congress needs to be supported by their members and signed into law by their President. So here's the record:

Senator Obama has sponsored 136 bills.

He has co-sponsored 653 bills.

Hardly a case of not doing anything. Now let's look at what some of those bills were:

S. 2590 : Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to ensure transparency in government spending.

S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

S.692 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.

S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

S.114 : A bill to authorize resources for a grant program for local educational agencies to create innovation districts.

S.116 : A bill to authorize resources to provide students with opportunities for summer learning through summer learning grants.

S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.


S.737 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in order to measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the States.

S.823 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to facilitating the development of microbicides for preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and for other purposes.

S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans.

S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil.

S.1222 : A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes.

S.1271 : A bill to provide for a comprehensive national research effort on the physical and mental health and other readjustment needs of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and their families.

S.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States.

S.1790 : A bill to make grants to carry out activities to prevent the incidence of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among teens in racial or ethnic minority or immigrant communities, and for other purposes.

Conclusion: Sarah Palin, Rudy Guiliani, Lindsay Graham can say whatever they want about Mr. Obama's record and they can make sarcastic statements about community organizers, but that doesn't mean that they're right or being honest. The truth is the truth and it's available for anyone to check up on. Senator Obama's legislative efforts have been focused on helping returning military personnel, education, health and the environment.

Can the Republicans say the same?

For years the Republicans have touted the virtue of abstinence only education. In fact, programs that promote it received a fair amount of funding during the Bush presidency. Current nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, was a big proponent of it in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Never mind that studies, including one authorized by Congress have shown a zero percent effectiveness in decreasing teenage sexual activity. Conservative Republicans continue to bang the drum loudly for it.

Which makes the news that Bristol Palin, the seventeen year old daughter of Sarah Palin, is pregnant, particularly interesting.

Now let me be clear, as far as I'm concerned, the media needs to leave Ms. Palin alone. As she prepares for the birth of her child, she has enough to deal with, let alone the fact that her family is now in the national spotlight. She didn't ask for this attention and she doesn't deserve it. But, what her case does underscore is the need for the very education that her mother would deny young adults.

The question is: Why?

The answer is simple. Morality. The proponents of abstinence only sexual education base their argument on religious values rather than scientific data. They argue that comprehensive sex ed encourages promiscuity, promotes HIV and increases teen pregnancy.
Perhaps they should ask themselves, then, why Bristol is pregnant.

In the end, it is really about power. The power of fundamentalists to impose their religious views on the masses. These are the people who are the first to support the "war on terror" because of the need to defeat "radical Islam." What they fail to realise is that they are mirror images of each other. Sure, fundamentalists in the U.S. don't look as scary. They look like us, they speak our language and sometimes, they even sound reasonable. But deep down the message is the same: Our policies are formed by our understanding of the word and will of God. And if you don't share our beliefs, you don't understand the word and will of God.

The difference between John Hagee and Mullah Omar is smaller than most people think.

Many will say that dragging Bristol Palin into the national debate is wrong. Barack Obama himself said that families should be off limit, especially the children of candidates. He is right in the sense that Ms. Palin's pregnancy and the choices she makes regarding it are her own. But the issue that it calls to light and the choices that her mother made around the formulation of her own policies and values are not.

So leave Bristol Palin out of the discussion, but please do have a discussion about what type of sex ed your child should receive in school. And please explore deeply not only where your candidates stand on their positions, but also why.

When I first heard reports on CNN about the mysterious flight from Alaska and speculation that governor Sarah Palin might be John McCain's pick for Vice President, my thought was, "clever decoy." After all, with the mountain of criticism he and his party have thrown Barack Obama's way for being too inexperienced to be President, there was no way he'd choose someone with a mere 18 months of gubernatorial experience. Right?

Wrong!

It seems that Senator McCain decided to give the dice one big assed roll to see if America was paying attention. No doubt his intentions were to a) shore up his reputation for being a maverick, b) try to woo perceived disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters, c) add someone with better conservative credentials than he himself possesses, d) add a reform minded Washington outsider to the ticket and e) try to capture some of the young energy that the Obama campaign is generating.

Years from now it is likely that this will be viewed as one of the biggest misreads in the history of presidential campaigns.

There's being a maverick and there's coming across as reckless. Senator McCain appears to have crossed that line. As countless others have already pointed out, the man is 72 years old with a checkered health history. By selecting someone with such limited political experience, he's put the "heartbeat away from the Presidency" argument in play. Curious judgment call.

But stranger still is his apparent belief that the Palin pick will somehow engage Hillary Clinton supporters. Governor Palin is an anti-abortion, pro-NRA, anti-gay rights type of Republican. In other words, the "Anti-Clinton." Does he really think that Hillary supporters will vote against their best interests simply because Governor Palin shares the same genitalia? Not exactly the strongest analysis of the data!
The best thing that can be said for the pick is that it will energize the aspects of the Republican party that feel disenfranchised by the selection of Mr. McCain as the nominee. But whether that will be enough to get them out to the voting booths in November, remains to be seen.

Perhaps the most troubling thing about the pick is that it does not seem as though Ms. Palin was well vetted. Republican Alaskan leaders have been in the spotlight a lot lately for a slew of ethics improprieties and indictments. Right or not, the media will focus their attention on Alaska every time the Ted Stevens or Don Young indictments go the next step. Is that really where the McCain campaign wants the national spotlight? True, the governor does not seem tied up in those particular scandals, but there are rumblings that she may have used her authority to get a former brother in law fired. Two days ago that might have been an issue for the local media. The bloodhounds will be out now.

Perhaps Governor Palin is a great up and coming Republican. Perhaps she will even be their presidential nominee one day. But putting her on the national ticket now seems like a move of style over substance. Of course the Republicans will try to package it as bold and historic. If you're the first party to have a woman on the ticket, that's historic. If you're the first party to have a woman almost win (or win) your nomination, that's historic. If Ronald Reagan had put a woman on the ticket in 1980, that would have been historic. But if you put a woman on the ticket after the opposing party has done both of these things, and then don't even choose the most qualified woman your party has, you run the risk of looking both cynical and stupid. Congratulations, John McCain, you just hit the daily double.

And history will view it as the last desperate act of a party doing anything it can to hold power.

With a scant 175 days left in the Bush presidency, you would think that there wasn't much left for him to destroy. How wrong you would be!

Today, the White House has forecast a budget deficit for 2009 of $482 billion dollars. To provide some perspective, each trillion dollars is equal to 1,000 millionaires. Do the math and you'll quickly discover that we're not exactly talking chump change here. This figure does not include the 80 billion dollars that supports the war effort. If the forecast is correct, it would shatter the previous record of $413 billion, which was also set by the Bush Administration in 2004.

While, esteemed Republicans like Phil Gramm write the state of the economy to pessimism, the real data suggests something much uglier.

The job market is -438,000 jobs this year.

Gas prices while not at a record, are nevertheless well over $4.00 a gallon.

The Federal Reserve has identified lowering inflation as a key objective.

The housing foreclosure rate according to research firm, RealtyTrac, is up 121% from last year.

And then there's Wall Street. A look into the year ahead seems pretty grim and don't be surprised when unemployment creeps up significantly, new college hires decrease, interest rates rise to combat inflation, the housing foreclosure rate increases to 150% and gas stays right where it is.

The best advice that I can give to either presidential candidate is to get their economic team together. Not in 2009, but now. And here's a hint, you may want to put Robert Rubin, arguably our best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton, on it. There is not a minute to spare.

As for Mr. Bush, I have just one simple thought.

Take Your Hands Off The Lever And Slowly Back Away From The Economy.

I don't envy the Senate or Barack Obama on this one. Technology has changed a lot in the thirty years since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was first passed and, with it, the world. The amendments to FISA, passed by both the Senate and the House of Repesentatives, are an attempt to acknowledge these changes and to give security agencies both tools and guidelines with which to work. On the balance it seems an honest effort and one that the President is willing to sign into law.

As debate rages over whether the updated FISA is actually a good deal for the American people, two areas seem to be generating the most discussion:

• That the law provides retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that gave private information to the government, without a warrant.
  
  
• That Barack Obama by voting for the revised bill, seems to have reversed some previously held positions.

Yes, as the McCain campaign charges, Senator Obama does seem to have compromised his position on this, and that’s a shame. It takes a little of the luster off his candidacy. However, considering that Senator McCain didn't bother to vote at all on the bill, it seems to me that they might reconsider the wisdom of putting the issue under the spotlight. So, while worth noting when assessing the candidates in the upcoming election, their vote (or lack of) is an ancillary issue.

As for the telecommunications companies, it could be argued that in the shadow of 911, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. While we might hope (and have every right to expect) that they would take a stand against giving over our private records to the government without the benefit of a warrant, in the context of the time, I understand why they did. Yes, it should be an issue for the courts to decide, but it too is ancillary to the real issue, which is this.

The Bush Administration, after 911, knowingly and willfully broke existing law and violated the Fourth Amendment rights of numerous Americans.

So rather than spend our efforts trying to hold the telecommunications companies accountable, we should be petitioning, cajoling and berating our elected congressional officials to hold the president and the Executive Branch accountable.

Until that happens, all of the FISA amendments in the world aren't going to matter.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, effectively dumping the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay and other off shore sites into an unchecked legal black hole. The law gave the government sweeping powers including; determining whether interrogation methods violated international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the ability to present hearsay evidence (not legal in U.S. Courts), and the imposition of death sentences. And just to keep things interesting, it did not require that detainees be granted legal counsel or have the right to challenge their detentions in Federal Court. A veritable slam-dunk if you were on the government side of the case.

Today the Supreme Court took a peek at the U.S. Constitution and set things right. Well 5/9ths of them anyway.

Of course, right wing commentators and their well educated listeners railed against the ruling and offered insightful comments such as this by one of Rush Limbaugh's ditto-heads, "I'm absolutely sick of the liberals and the leftists raping our country of all our rights and giving it to foreigners," but that was to be expected. Yep, liberals and leftists are running amok in America raping the Constitution and stripping us of our rights. Oh wait, it's the President and his administration that are doing that.

What amazes me is how little faith the President, Rush, today's ditto head and others of their ilk seem to have in the foundations of the country they claim so much to love. From their lamenting, you would think that terrorists are regularly set free to roam the streets of our towns, raping, pillaging and salting the earth as they leave. The record in fact is quite different. The four individuals charged with the 1993 World Trade Center bombings were convicted and received life sentences. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, in 1995 was convicted of seditious conspiracy for encouraging attacks against U.S. civilian targets and received a life sentence. Terry Nichols, a convicted accomplice in the Oklahoma City bombing received a life sentence, and Timothy McVeigh the convicted bomber was put to death. Each of these defendants enjoyed the rights afforded by the Constitution and it would be hard to argue that the defendants did not have to account for their crimes.

What the Court did today was ensure the basic legal protections that all of the detractors of this decision enjoy.

It was the right decision and it is a decision that subscribes to our higher ideals. It is a decision that ensures the United States of America stands for something. It is a decision that honors the freedoms for which so many Americans have sacrificed their lives. Perhaps Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion said it best, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."

Unfortunately this view is not shared by all. Justice Antonin Scalia in a dissenting opinion declared that the decision, "warps our Constitution," and that our, "nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

How sad that, like that angry ditto head, Justice Scalia too has so little faith in the Constitution he interprets and the founding principles upon which the nation he serves were built.

White House spokesperson, Dana Perino, characterised herself and
the White House as "puzzled" by excerpts just released from former spokesperson Scott McLellan's new book. The question is, why? While this blog has often noted and commented on the alternate reality that seems to envelope 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the allegations in Mr. McLellan's book do not appear to be particularly shocking. It's just that he had the bad taste to confirm them while Mr. Bush happens to still be in office.

Let's see here . . . the president doesn't possess a curious mind . . . check . . . Cheney and Rumsfeld are bad . . . uh-huh . . . Hurricane Katrina was a huge disaster . . . o.k. . . and the administration lied about the Valerie Plame affair. Yep, that pretty much covers most of the highlights.

These topics have been well ruminated on by progressive news sites, written about in blogs such as this one, and mildly covered by the mainstream media. Some of the issues have even been the subject of Congressional hearings and investigations. In other words, they are not exactly unknown to a large portion of the American populace or the greater world for that matter. What should puzzle Ms. Perino is not that Scott McLellan finally fessed up, but that it's taken him so long.

The problem is that everything in the White House is self-referential. If they say something is true, then it is and everyone believes it. In this context, truth isn't so much about what is true as it is a tenet of faith, like creationism and the effectiveness of abstinence only sex education. Those in the Bush administration defend this truth vigorously and wash it down with the Kool-Aid, which makes it infinitely easier to swallow.

It's all part of being in the cult.

Thankfully, as is the way with many cults, once out of their clutches, a former member's ability to grasp reality appears to return. And when that day comes for the currently puzzled Dana Perino, we'll look forward to reading her book.

The "People's Republic" of China has a lot riding on the 2008 Olympics. Many in the media have characterised it as China's coming out party, their opportunity to establish themselves as an elite presence in the modern 21st century world.

But China has a problem. They're not.

While they may have economic prosperity, largely due to the inability of the citizenry of the United States to stop gorging themselves on cheap and dangerous Chinese made products, their modernity seems to end their. If one takes a deeper look at the Chinese government we find a body that looks remarkably similar to that of the Mao era. A communist government still exists, freedom of religion and expression remain suppressed, and arrests for dissent are firmly in place. Hardly an enlighted 21st century nation.

So freaked out is the Chinese government about the games that they have been kicking it old school. Websites critical to the government have been banned and dissent in occupied Tibet have been met with violence and arrest. In China's moment to show that they've evolved beyond the heavy handed, jack booted tactics beloved in the Mao and of course, by the former Soviet Union, they've blown it. In fact, their human rights record seems to be as bad as ever.

With that in mind, several European world leaders have decided to publicly express their displeasure by boycotting the open ceremonies of the games. For a country that is extremely concerned about their image, this is a huge slap in the face. And it's likely to be damn effective. The United States as one of the largest consumer of Chinese made goods, though no longer that the standard bearer for human rights, has an opportunity to send a very strong message.

And in typical Bush Administration fashion, they're about to blow it.

National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, on morning talk shows indicated that President Bush will attend the games stating that boycotting them would be, "http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/13/us.olympics.ap/index.html">"a cop out". He believes that quiet diplomacy is what the situation requires. Right, because that's been working so well. What the situation requires is loud and active diplomacy. A diplomacy that says, enough is enough. Human rights matter, fair trade matters, religious freedom matters and until you, China, recognise it, we're going to call you on it every step of the way and in every venue.

By attending the opening ceremonies, President Bush simply validates for China that their behaviour is acceptable. Given Mr. Bush's horrendous track record, perhaps it is.

That is to say, everything he touches turns to fertilizer. And I'm not just talking about the stuff that comes out of his mouth. With less than a year left, I thought that Mr. Bush had applied his Guano Touch to just about everything that he could. Turns out I was wrong.

But first, let's review a small sampling of his highlights:

• He turned a $236,200,000,000 budget surplus into a $263,000,000,000 budget deficit.
  
  
• The war in Iraq has gone on longer than World War II, World War I, or the Civil War and by the end of 2008 will have cost more than 800 billion dollars.
  
  
• US casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom approach 4,000. The Army according to their own experts is stretched and troops over the course of the war have received inadequate armor, substandard water and poor medical care when they return.
  
  
• Through the use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding our standing in the world community has been damaged. These violate Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, specifically; Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
  

On these points alone Bush's touch would put King Midas to shame.

And that's the edited version. But it turns out that all of the, miscalculations, manipulations and acts of malfeasance were merely the appetizer and entree'. For dessert, Mr. Bush is serving up the coup de'grace:

Recession

Now I'm not talking your average, sluggish economy type of recession. I'm talking about a "holy crap, one of the major investment banks went down for the count, better fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy ride," type of recession.

The evidence:

• Energy prices, both for crude oil and at the gas pump, are at an all-time high.
  
  
• The value of the dollar against foreign currencies has dropped dramatically. As this is written, one U.S. dollar will get you; .63 Euros, .49 British Pounds, 99 Japanese Yen (the lowest it's been in 12 years) and get this, .99 Canadian Dollars. That's right, our currency and that or our neighbour to the North is essentially equal!
  
  
• A 738 billion dollar trade deficit, which is not the record. 2006 holds that honour.
  
  
• The collapse of Bear Stearns, a top five global investment bank. Why is this important? These are the organizations that move capital into the economy on a grand scale.
  
  
• The delinquency and foreclosure rate for home mortgages is 7.3 percent, the highest it's been since the Mortgage Bankers Association began tracking it in 1979.
  

Now the Bush White House will tell you now that we're in a severe economic downturn and the truth is, whether it's technically a recession or a downturn, it's getting ugly out there.

Here's why:

The President largely ignored developing a cogent domestic agenda. And when he was paying attention to domestic things at all, he focused on hot button issues; defense of marriage acts, stem cell research, immigration.

While some of these issues are worthy of debate, they tend to be emotional issues that don't really impact the average American on the day to day. What does affect the average American is the rising cost of healthcare, rising energy prices, jobs that are heading out of country, etc., etc., etc. These are foundation blocks of a modern economy and they impact a nation's long term fortunes.

In the end analysis, had the President put effort into developing sound policies instead of throwing a small amount of money at people through tax cuts, we would likely be in a very different economic situation.

Eliot Spitzer, what in the hell were you thinking?

That's the question that's at the top of my mind at the moment. On a day when I knew that I'd be commenting on something, the last thing I expected it to be was a prostitution scandal involving a Governor with a mostly squeaky clean reputation. When I awoke this morning, the news seemed rife with several plum topics, any of which would have been worthy of examination and perhaps even a small rant. Among my choices were:

• A country on the brink of, if not over the brink into, recession.
  
• Near record gas prices.
  
• Seven new categories of sin courtesy of the Vatican.
  
• Oklahoma Congressional Representative Sally Kern's assertion that homosexuality is a bigger threat to the United States than terrorism.
  
• The conclusion of Pentagon internal investigators that U.S. troops in Iraq fell sick from "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" provided to them by KBR, Inc. a subsidiary of Haliburton.
  

Any of these Republican led disgraces and catastrophes would have been a suitable topic, but no, instead the headline stealer is my own, apparently, whore mongering Governor. I wrote to him today and here's what I wanted to say:

Eliot **G-DDamn** Spitzer. You stupid, hypocritical motherf**cker.

Here's what I actually said:

---

"Dear Gov. Spitzer:

It is with deep regret that I find myself writing to you today. I greatly admire the work that you did as state Attorney General and when the time came to cast my vote for Governor, I gladly pulled the lever for you.

As we are just over 14 months into your term, I have become increasingly concerned about your leadership. Early on, it was alleged that you ordered the State police to investigate Senator Bruno, with the apparent hope that he might be caught in illegal activity. While I am no fan of Mr. Bruno's, I found this allegation troubling. Today, I was stunned to hear of your alleged involvement with prostitutes and of what is just short of an admission of guilt on your part. I am used to reading about corruption and law breaking on the part of our Republican counterparts, but from a Democrat and one of your reputation, I am frankly, saddened and disappointed.

If this allegation is true, you have disgraced your office, our party and perhaps most importantly, yourself. I hope with all sincerity that you are able to mend the breach within your family and that together you can heal the hurt. However, I do not feel that in light of this situation it is either tenable or desirable for you to remain as Governor of New York State. Unless you can assure your constituents that these allegations are entirely false, it is in the best interest of New York State that you resign your office."

---

I expect better from my elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation. In a time when corruption, homophobia and religious zealotry seems to have defined the Republican Party, I especially expect better from members of my own.

If all is as it appears to be, Governor Spitzer needs to leave office, and he needs to do so now.

The Associated Press is reporting today that Pentagon officials have announced their intent to seek capital punishment against six terror suspects who are alleged to have instigated the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. Included in the six is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks.

It is a colossal mistake.

The morality issue of the death penalty aside, the men will be tried within the military tribunal system that was set up by the Bush administration. The system, though approved by Congress, has been widely criticized for its rules on legal representation for suspects, hearings behind closed doors and past allegations of inmate abuse at Guantanamo.

Don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. The crimes of September 11, 2001 rank among the most heinous in United States history and the callous disregard for human life that they displayed certainly could put them in the higher echelons of global atrocities. It’s just that there is little upside to executing the perpetrators.

1) Something with a penalty as final as an execution should only be conducted when the accused is in possession of his/her full legal rights. In this case, it should be the full rights to which someone accused of a capital crime in the U.S. criminal system would be entitled. To do anything less is unworthy of the United States.

2) Executing the perpetrators is unlikely to serve as a deterrent, but rather as a rallying point. Nothing resonates more with fanatics than martyrs. They inspire the faithful and move those who are neutral to action. In short, it makes execution a stupid strategy.

3) It's too damn easy. While I am a death penalty opponent on moral grounds, I am also a pro-life in prison advocate on punitive grounds. In the case of al Qaida members, I don't believe that death is a particularly big fear. A long life in an American prison, being held by your fellow inmates with the same regard as a child rapist, now that's something to lose sleep over. Hell, I'd go so far as to build a prison with the rubble of the World Trade Center and wallpaper each cell with photos of the victims and their families.

Don't think that would get to them? I’m not so sure . . .

But thanks to the old testament style of the Bush Administration, we'll manage to create icons for future terrorists, fail to live up to our principles as a nation and let the perpetrators off the hook easily. There’s a trifecta of which we can all be proud.

Like cigarettes, super-sized Big Mac meals and reality T.V., this course of action may feel good in the moment, but assuredly, it will come back to bite us in the collective ass.

While George Bush, Mitt Romney and other empty-headed Republican blowhards continue to spout platitudes about freedom and patriotism, while at the same time attempting to undermine them at every turn, there exists in the world individuals who really know what these words mean.

Meet Mr. Hu Jia.

Mr. Hu is an average citizen of the "Peoples Republic of" China. He and his wife Zeng Jinyan live in an apartment with their beautiful newborn daughter, Qianci. Like many people of the world, Mr. Hu blogs on the internet and uses modern telecommunications tools such as Skype. Unfortunately, in the "Peoples Republic of" China, he is not free to do so without the risk of harassment and arrest from his government.

Who Says The Chinese Government Doesn't Have A Sense Of Humour?

After spending almost two years under house arrest in the ironically named Bo Bo Freedom City, for engaging in these very activities, on December 27, Mr. Hu was dragged away by the state police on the charge of "subverting state power." He had become involved with the case of Yang Chunlin, a former factory worker who organized a petition campaign entitled, “We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics." The petition was part of an effort to help local farmers seek legal redress over land confiscated by the Chinese government.

While The Petition Wasn't Wildly Popular With The Chinese Government, It Did Manage To Collect 10,000 Signatures.

As China prepares for the Olympics, it seems that they are also preparing to clean up any hint of dissent within their culture. There have been crackdowns on internet sites and arrests of dissidents. Reporters Without Borders has stated that China has jailed 51 online dissidents, the most in the world, and blocked more than 2,500 Web sites in 2007. But wait, there's more. So paranoid is the Chinese government that even Mr. Hu's newborn daughter is under house arrest, making her possibly the world's youngest political prisoner.

If George Bush Loves Freedom So Well . . . Ah, Forget It.

It's time for the Republican Party, the neo-conservatives, the religious right and every other flag waiving, SUV driving with the magnetic ribbons on the back, freedom loving, "God Bless America" spewing American to man up and put an end to this. It's time for the mouthpieces of "American Values" to transform their voluminous rhetoric into action. Note to O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity: If you are not willing to speak out against a baby and her mother being under house arrest for expressing dissent, then it is time for you to shut the f-bomb up.

What's it gonna be, America? Dangerous, but really cheap goods at your local Wal-Mart or our founding values? If you chose the latter, here's what you can do about it:

1) Stop buying products made in China.

2) Let companies that are outsourcing jobs to China know that you will no longer buy those products.

3) Write your congressional representative and demand that the United States boycott the Beijing Olympic games.

4) If the United States does not boycott the games (and they probably won't), refuse to watch them.

If you chose the really cheap goods option then, frankly, you deserve all the toxic lead paint that the Chinese government can ship into your house.

The bottom line is this: We as a nation are helping the Chinese government engage in repression of the basic civil rights that we enjoy.

The question is, are you going to participate?

The 2008 presidential campaign appears to have had more candidate debates in recent memory, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's been a good thing. In spite of the fact that the early debates featured all of the candidates in a party's field, you couldn’t help noticing that the "fringe candidates" always seemed to be on the fringe of the stage and the "front runners" always seemed to be well, front and center. Then there was the format. Assuming that the typical American attention span is about 45 seconds, the affairs offered plenty of sound bytes and little actual debate.

Blame the media outlets.

The vaunted fourth estate, once charged with keeping our government honest, has let us down. Let's face it, moderators such as Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer are celebrities in their own right, with images and ratings to maintain. Even the “historic” YouTube debates were laughable, their historic significance seeming to derive from the fact that CNN told us they were. It’s a blurring of entertainment and news that makes it hard to distinguish where one ends and the other begins.

And whether it be CNN or Fox News, none of it is fair, balanced or unbiased.

In perhaps the most recent mark of shame, ABC News has decided that they now get to determine the threshold that a declared candidate must meet in order to participate in their debate. The Associated Press reported today that three candidates have been cut from their upcoming debates for failing to meet benchmarks of support. They are Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich. Said ABC political news director, David Chalian, "In previous debates where the stage was more crowded you had to make sure all of the candidates got equal time. Here you will have more time to go in depth on the issues."

While Mr. Chalian's point may be true, the fundamental question is this: Why does he get to decide?

Could it because he's beholden to his advertisers? Advertisers who perhaps will fare better should one of the "front runners" be elected?

The bottom line: The only way to make the debates work is to change the format.

What we need is a series of topical debates such as foreign policy, the economy and the environment. Then we need to do a draw system where one randomly drawn candidate debates another randomly drawn candidate, picked from the bowl, right there, live on stage. "Senator Clinton, your opponent is Representative Kucinich." "Governor Romney, your opponent is Mayor Guiliani." Give them the opportunity to make an opening statement. Give them 1 question. Give them 15 minutes and let them go.

Until that time our corporations and media will decide the most acceptable candidates and our candidates will regurgitate empty headed sound bytes for us to swallow.

And by the way, if you don't think that ABC should be doing this, maybe you'd like to drop them a note. Contact ABC.

Each time an allegation of improper conduct by the Bush administration comes to light, I find myself wondering if it will be the one that brings the Bush presidency crashing to the ground. As the story of the destruction of CIA tapes depicting the interrogation of al Qaeda suspects comes into focus, it seems like things may have reached critical mass. The truth is, they should have happened a long time ago.

For those of you keeping score at home, here's a brief recount of the improprieties involving this latest scandal.

1) The interrogations were conducted in secret prisons abroad. This avoided a law that prohibits this kind of treatment of prisoners on U.S. soil.

2) The tapes are reported to depict interrogation techniques that are widely viewed as torture and which violate the Geneva Conventions, specifically Article 3 which prohibits, "Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;" The administration contends that waterboarding does not amount to cruel treatment.

3) In June 2005, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy ordered the administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

4) The administration failed to comply on the grounds that the tapes were not made at Guantanamo Bay. However, the existence of CIA secret prisons was not widely known until November of 2005.

Every step of the way, the administration has attempted to justify its egregious behaviour by way of technicality and to date it's gotten away with it. This time, however, things may be different.

As news of the tapes' destruction broke, the administration assumed a defensive position. First Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to cooperate with Congressional requests for information. Then, the administration warned off both Judge Kennedy and congressional investigators on the grounds that their inquiries would interfere with a joint Justice Department/CIA investigation. Both have decided to continue their investigations.

And, now for your consideration, the tipping point . . .

The New York Times reported today that four senior Bush lawyers including Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers participated in discussions between 2003 and 2005 on the destruction of the tapes. The White House had previously denied such extensive conversations.

Sing along kids: "It's beginning to look a lot like a cover-up, all through the White House!"

And if history is any teacher, the public will not stand for a cover-up or even the hint of one. It took down Richard Nixon, it hurt the Reagan Administration and it paralyzed Bill Clinton's presidency. It may well take down George W. Bush, and it's about damn time.

I have no doubt that presidential candidate Mitt Romney considers himself to be a man of faith. Today he made his pitch to the American people as to whether his being a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) should be something on which he is evaluated as a presidential candidate. The truth be told, he made his pitch to conservative Christians who for so long have had a strangle hold on the Republian party. It's sad that we live in a time where he feels that he has to. But it isn't religion that is the problem with Mitt Romney as a candidate, it's the man himself.

There's a big difference between being a Mormon and being a moron. Unfortunately, Romney doesn't seem to know it.

Without a doubt, Mr. Romney looks Presidential. He's tall, good looking and has impeccible hair. When on message, his voice sounds commanding. But that's where it stops. When asked a direct question his answers are too often vague, evasive or just plain wrong.

When directly asked in the recent YouTube debate if he supported homosexuals openly serving in the military, he dodged the question saying, "this isn't that time." When asked by another questioner if waterboarding meets his definition of torture, he said, "I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use." When asked by a questioner holding a Bible, "Do you believe every word of this book?," he danced again saying, "I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible." When pressed by moderator Anderson Cooper, Romney said, "You know -- yeah, I believe it's the word of God. The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it."

Three direct questions. Three direct dodges

It supports the criticisms that Mr. Romney has no true moral center, but rather that his beliefs are fluidly forged by whatever he perceives as the politically expedient position.

But there are some things about Romney that are not so murky. For example, his feeling on habeous corpus. When debating torture during the debate he tipped his hand a little, saying, "I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks in this country to be brought into our jail system and to be given legal representation in this country."

In his speech this morning, he demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of our founding principles. Said Romney, “The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust." Well not exactly. Mr. Romney implies that the ideas of "One nation under God" and the slogan that adorns our coinage, "In God We Trust" have direct lineage to the founders. It's what the Christian right wants to hear, but it's patently false. "One Nation Under God" was adopted as a national slogan in 1954 and "In God We Trust" didn't appear on a coin until 1864.

As George Bush has demonstrated, a person who is vague with the facts can be a dangerous person indeed!

And maybe that's what Mr. Romney is, a better looking model of George Bush. And George Bush was a better looking model of Dan Quayle. When you look under any of these hoods all that's there is an empty hampster wheel.

You've been warned, America.

Where weapons are concerned, it seems that George Bush just can't get anything right. After leading us to war in Iraq based on bad or manufactured intelligence, it now seems that all of his assertions about Iran's nuclear capabilities are also incorrect. In light of the most recent national intelligence estimate, which represents the consensus of all intelligence agencies, one might think that it's time to ratchet down the rhetoric. Maybe have a cooling off period, find a time to talk and dare I say, perhaps even find some common ground.

To quote Steve Martin's Saturday Night Live character, Theodoric of York . . . "NAAAAAHHH!"

Said the President, "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." In other words, in spite of the current evidence, not only does the President believe that Iran continues to develop a program but he continues to entertain the possibility of pre-emptive military action.

No weapons? No problem!

If there's one thing that can be said about George Bush, it's that he's consistent. It's a hallmark of his administration. If politics were a sport, his consistency might put him in a hall of fame. Statues and monuments might be built and commemorative coins issued in his honour.

But there will be no hoopla or fanfare for Mr. Bush. Because unfortunately, where consistency is concerned, Mr. Bush is consistently wrong.

This evening while channel surfing, I landed on CSPAN which was broadcasting live from the floor of the House of Representatives. Excellent, I thought, an opportunity to check in on what our wards in Washington are up to. Let's face it, with Turkey and the Kurdish area of Iraq on the bubble of all out conflict, Pakistan going into meltdown and lots of poor children without health insurance, surely they would be discussing something of import.

(Sung to the tune played by the chimes of Big Ben and maybe your doorbell) . . . Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong . . . (Big Breath) . . . Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Instead of the people’s business, I was treated to five minutes from Idaho Representative Bill Sali on why love matters and his belief that Jesus loves him. Now I have no issue with an individual’s faith and if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's love. In fact, I'm a big fan of love. But I'm also a big fan of the idea of the separation between church and state. So when an elected official decides to take the time he's allotted for doing the people's business and instead does a commercial for Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Buddha, Moses, the Force or whatever, it pisses me off.

It especially pisses me off when said Representative espouses and endorses the values of a particular deity, but votes in ways that are incongruent with those values.

So let's see how the votes cast by Representative Sali stack up against the values of Jesus, a noted protector of children, the poor, the downtrodden and of course, a proponent of peace.

• January 9, 2007 - Vote 15: H R 1: A bill to implement many of the remaining recommendations proposed by the 9/11 Commission in 2004. One of the provisions of this bill was to give faster and more efficient funding to first responders, the ones who would render aid during a time of crisis. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 10, 2007 - Vote 18: H R 2: A bill to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years. In other words raising the standard of living for the poorest of the poor. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 12, 2007 - Vote 23: H R 4: A bill to allow the government to negotiate directly with drug makers for lower prescription drug prices for individuals using Medicare. In other words lower the cost of medicine for the poor and the elderly. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 17, 2007 - Vote 32: H R 5: A bill to lower the interest rate on student loans. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 18, 2007 - Vote 40: H R 6: A bill to repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. In other words, a bill to recoup some of the record profits that oil companies have made since Hurricane Katrina and maybe use them to help people. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• May 24, 2007 - Vote 425: H R 2206: A bill to provide funding in Iraq without setting withdrawal deadlines for troops, but rather “benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid”. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• July 27, 2007 - Vote 757: H R 1: An amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that would require the inspection of all cargo traveling on passenger aircrafts and establish the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• August 8, 2007 - Vote 836: S 1927: An amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 that would give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order. Representative Sali’s Vote: Yes

• September 25, 2007 - Vote 906: H R 976: A bill to fund and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

It would seem that when the cameras are on, Representative Sali chooses to use his legislative time to provide us with a good old fashioned Sunday morning sermon. But when it comes to actually doing his job, instead of voting to help those who Jesus in his own lifetime protected, Mr. Sali does the opposite.

When the evidence is weighed, Bill Sali is not just a failure as a Representative, he is a failure as a Christian. One will get him voted out of office. The other? Well if he knows the Bible as well as he claims, then I think he probably can figure out the answer to that one.

If you find Representative Sali’s voting record, use of his speaking time or both to be repugnant, drop him a line!

Reality. It's something that the President is so disconnected from that even if a galactic GPS system existed, he still wouldn't find his way back to it. Just when I think there's no way that the bar can be set any higher, he opens his mouth. Yesterday, at a late afternoon press conference, he issued these gems:

Number One

The President: The Democratically controlled Congress has, "little to show for all the time that has gone by. "I think it is their fault that bills aren't moving."

Yes, it's true. Rather than pass legislation that would be easy for him to sign into law such as a 'Defense of Marriage Act', the Democrats insist on forcing him to veto irrelevant measures such as health insurance for children.

Number Two

The President: (On using the veto) "One way to ensure that I am relevant; that's one way to ensure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto."

Right. It's not about leading, or moving the business of the country forward, it's about being relevant. Then at the end of his term, it's about cashing in.

Number Three

"I'm looking forward to getting some things done for the American people," Bush said. "And if it doesn't get done, I'm looking forward to reminding people as to why it's not getting done."

Perhaps he'd like to issue commemorative coins with his image. That way each American can keep the reason right in their pocket.

Number Four

On his relationship with Vladimir Putin: "We don't agree on a lot of issues; we do agree on some. Iran is one; nuclear proliferation is another. Reducing our nuclear warheads was an issue that we agreed on early."

Oh, nuclear weapons are bad! Other tidbits that you may not know: The sky is blue. Fire burns. Oh, and chicken pox, it'll make you itch.

Number Five

On a Congressional movement to condemn genocide of the Armenians in World War I: "One thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire"

For God's sake, leave the past alone! Bad Congress, go back to debating important issues like flag burning amendments and writing blank checks for operations in Iraq.

Number Six

On the Dalai Lama: "One, I admire the Dalai Lama a lot; two, I support religious freedom, he supports religious freedom"

In other words, I'm the Dalai Lama. C'mon, you know that's what he's thinking. But while he supports the Dalai Lama and religious freedom, he doesn't want to get too crazy and take a stand on freedom for Tibet and Taiwan, or keep dangerous products coming out of China, or address the myriad of human rights abuses by the Chinese government. Let's be reasonable here.

The presidency of George W. Bush, is a lot like an extreme action movie. In order to swallow it, you just have to suspend your disbelief. Unfortunately, unlike the movie which mercifully ends, the Bush presidency just goes on and on.

Sometimes I just don't understand what is wrong with George Bush. He certainly claims to be a pro-family, anti-spending, small government conservative, practically the second coming of Ronald Reagan. But while spouting these values, he often does something in diametrical opposition. It's as if he was beamed here from the mythical D.C. Comics alternate Universe, Bizarro World.

Point and case, the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate, across party lines, felt that this is an important enough program, to not only put forth a bill to continue it, but also to expand it. The recipients of this expansion would be the nine million or so children whose families are too poor to afford private health insurance, but who make too much to qualify for Medicare. Sounds reasonable, right? Help families to keep their children healthy. America's future. Who could be against that?

Well . . .

The President's response: "The proposal congressional leaders are pushing would raise taxes on working Americans and would raise spending by $35 to $50 billion. . . Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage."

Fascinating

What the President doesn't mention is that the "tax increase" comes from cigarettes and is essentially a usage tax. The implication that it raises taxes on "working Americans" is dubious. And since we're looking at costs to "working Americans," he fails to mention that the World Health Organization estimates the annual cost of smoking to the U.S. economy to be $76 billion. I wonder what kind of burden THAT puts on "working Americans"?

Equally mystifying is the fact that the President offers no plan as to how he will move uninsured children to private health coverage. It's nice to have the goal, but how's he going to get it done? In other words, Congress is offering a plan that will cover millions of uninsured children, Mr. Bush is offering a goal of moving them to private insurance at some future date.

Hmmm. . . Which to pick? Which to pick?

The final insult is that while the President talks a good game about finance and taxes talk is all it is. His administration, after all, has presided over the largest deficit in the history of the United States. This by the way came on the heels of inheriting the highest SURPLUS in the history of the U.S. And it's not as though the President has been shy about spending when it suits his needs. His 2008 budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to be $200 billion! If we can spend $200 billion for the war effort and not even get our money's worth, is $35 billion for the kids so outrageous?

Apparently in the confines of the Bizarro World Bush White House, it is.

Appalling.

It seems this past summer that you couldn't open up a newspaper, turn on the TV, or visit an on-line news site without finding a story about the recall of some product made in the "Peoples" Republic of China. So significant is the problem that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, put this notice on their website:

"The increasing number of voluntary recalls of imported consumer products manufactured in China is of serious concern to the Commission. It is essential to the Commission’s success in reducing the risk of injury and death to American consumers that the Chinese government learn the identity of a manufacturer whose product presents a significant risk of injury associated with such product."

A search of the CPSC website reveals that of the 60 products recalled since August 1, a whopping 63% (39) were manufactured in China.

Of these, over 60% are products made for children!

They include:

Simplicity Cribs

Novara Afterburner Trailer Bicycles

IT400 Iced Tea Makers

Cook’s Essentials Convection Ovens with Pull-Out Rotisserie and Deni Convection Ovens with Rotisserie

"Avant Yarde" Decorative Glaze Outdoor Candles

Ohalee FA-A70 Youth ATVs

Big Big World 6-in-1 Bongo Band toys

Geo Trax Locomotive Toys

Barbie Accessory Toys

Imaginarium Wooden Coloring Cases

B&F System Emergency Tool Kits

“Aloha Breeze” Portable Electric Heaters

Zippity Hoodie and Sherpa Full Zip Children’s Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings

Gerber EAB (Exchange-A-Blade) Pocket Knives

Paramount Apparel Toddler and Youth Nylon Bucket Hats

Oregon Scientific Weather Radios

Wal-Mart Ceramic Oil Torch Lamps

Wolverine Logger Boots

Robbie Ducky™ Kids Watering Cans

Priddy "Trucks" Shaker Teether Books

SpongeBob SquarePants™ Address Books and Journals

Thomas and Friends, Curious George and Other Spinning Tops and Tin Pails

Children’s Divine Inspiration Charm Bracelets

TOBY & ME Jewelry Sets

Hampton Direct Magnetic Toy Train Sets

Classic Beauty Rest Electric Warming Throws

Mattel Polly Pocket dolls

Doggie Day Care™ play sets

Barbie and Tanner™ play sets

“Sarge” die cast toy cars

Batman™ and One Piece™ magnetic action figure sets

Formation Inc. Coca-Cola® Themed Drinking Glasses

Toshiba Notebook Computer Batteries

Garden Treasures Cloud 9 Beyond Chairs

Basic Blindz® Window Blinds

Stuffed Plush Horse/Pillows and Fairy Dolls

2007 Raleigh Cadent Bicycles with Carbonage Carbon Forks

Fisher-Price Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer, and other children's toys

The number of poorly made products from China seems to be exploding, which brings me to the point of this particular post:

What in the hell was Thomas A. Debrowski of Mattel thinking when he apologized to Chinese product safety chief Li Changjiang?

Said the Mattel VP: "Our reputation has been damaged lately by these recalls and Mattel takes full responsibility for these recalls and apologizes personally to you, the Chinese people, and all of our customers who received the toys."

Don't get me wrong, an apology on the part of Mattel is certainly appropriate. But not to the Chinese government!

China's inconsistent regulations, poor safety standards and questionable business practises have led to these problems and they bear a large share of the responsibility for fixing them. Apologising to them is a bit like a robbery victim apologising to his mugger. "Oops, sorry that all I had was a pocket full of loose change when you got me. Hope this didn't damage your standing in the robber community."

It's a ridiculous and shameless attempt by Mattel to curry good will from the Chinese government so that they can continue to expolit the CHEAP labour force.

To make it right, Mattel should issue the following statement:

"To the Chinese people, we apologise for infusing capital into a governmental system that denies you the basic liberties that we ourselves enjoy. To the American people we apologize to you for valuing profit more than quality which led us to export many jobs overseas and do business with shoddy manufacturers."

If you agree, take an action and let them know. E-mail Mattel.
If you want to go even further, stop buying products made in China.

Sometimes having a majority means squat and the United States Senate is a perfect example. Three very important issues faced this body, this past week and in spite of strong public support, the Republican minority was able to kill them. In some cases, by only four votes.

The issues were:

• A bill that would have allowed military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.

• An amendment to a defense bill that would have required troops spend as much time at home training with their units as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

• A bill that would have brought the majority of troops stationed in Iraq home within 9 months.

It seems as if there's a wrong side of an issue to be on, most Republican Senator's will line up to be on it.

Afterall, why should a foriegn detainee have access to the same legal rights that we enjoy? And is Iraq really so terrible that our troops need time away from it? Afterall, it's sunny and hot. How many Americans would love to have fun in the sun during a cold bitter winter?

It's ridiculous, of course.

But once again, instead of doing what's in the best interest of our troops, or upholding a founding principle of our nation, they instead drink the Kool-Aid and line up behind a man who not only doesn't know that Nelson Mandela is alive but thinks that he was somehow associated with Iraq.

The only thing missing from the Republicn schtick is a snappy, "Heil!"

George Bush is an amazing human being. Every time I think that he has reached the pinnacle of stupidity, he opens his mouth and behold, there's one more peak for him to ascend!

In interviews granted to GQ reporter, Robert Draper, the President sketched out his plans following his term in office. It has been my long held belief that we will see Mr. Bush on the board of oil corporations, Haliburton, or other defense contractors soon after he departs the White House. Through record gas prices and numerous war related contracts, these institutions have flourished under his presidency. It seems only logical that they would repay the President in kind.

But does Mr. Bush want that kind of retirement?

Afterall, some former Presidents dedicate themselves to public service. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have done notable work in the aftermath of both the Asian Tsunami disaster and Hurricane Katrina. Jimmy Carter has built a legacy of service that eclipses his presidential accomplishments. These include; his work with Habitat For Humanity, human rights advocacy, and that little thing known as the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Carter provides proof positive that a less than successful president can still be a more than successful human being.

So what grand aspirations does the current President Bush have?

Let's hear from the man himself: "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch,” he told Mr. Draper. “I'll give some speeches, to replenish the ol' coffers, I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 (thousand)”and "Clinton's making a lot of money".

Apparently the $20,000,000 or so that he currently has is not enough.

Mr. Bush’s cronies have gotten exceedingly rich during his term in office. They have done it through plum contracts and through thievery. They have done it through an administration that regularly turns a blind eye to price gouging. They have often done it at the expense of the people whom they were supposed to be serving, especially the very troops that our President so professes to care about.

So if it's riches that the President wants, there is no doubt in my mind that he shall have them in plenty. His buddies will have his back and his coffers will not only be refilled, they will overflow with riches. Yes, George Bush’s wish will come true. And it’s nice when that happens, because it’s inspiring. In fact, the next time that I see a shooting star or blow out the candles on my birthday cake, I’m going to close my eyes tight and wish for the following:

That Lady Justice refills the coffers of Mr. Bush's ass, fully, with her foot.

CNN reports today that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is rapidly losing support in his home state. The Conservative Senator is under fire from both the left and the right for allegedly engaging in lewd conduct in a Minneapolis Airport restroom. The Senator, who pleaded guilty to a charge of Disorderly Conduct, is vehemently denying that he is gay, though rumours have persisted for many years.

There are many things about this case which are strange, not least among them this: If the Senator was doing nothing wrong, why did he plead guilty? He claims that "In pleading guilty, I overreacted in Minneapolis because of the stress of the Idaho Statesman's investigation and the rumors it has fueled around Idaho." Apparently the Senator thought the best way to quell said rumours was by admitting guilt to a charge that would lead people to draw exactly that conclusion.

Not exactly the brightest strategy.

But beyond that, who cares? While this story is certainly made of the stuff that sells advertising, whether or not Senator Craig is (hushed whisper) G-A-Y, really isn't the point. What should be the point, is the following:

• If in fact Senator Craig is guilty of no wrong doing, why did he plead guilty?

• If he "overreacted" due to stress caused by rumours, is he in a mental state that leaves him fit to serve?

• Regardless of his sexual orientation, Senator Craig has; 1) been a strong opponent of expanding the federal hate crimes law to cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias, 2) voted against outlawing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 3) strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Not exactly a record to be proud of.

It boils down to this: If Senator Craig chooses to resign or decides not to seek re-election, it should not be because of his sexual orientation.

Rather, if he is gay, then he is in conflict with his inner self and should take some time to resolve it. If he is not gay, then his behaviour is at best bizzare and calls into question his competency to make the types of judgements that a United States is required to make.

It's probably time for him to go, but let's make sure it's for the right reasons.

The world seemed just a little bit brighter this morning as the radio brought forth the news about the resignation of Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. It comes on the heels of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's recent announcement of his intention to step down at the end of September. Both leave under heavy clouds of suspicion regarding their involvement in activities of questionable legality. Their collective works allegedly include;

• Releasing the identity of a covert CIA operative to the media.
• Crafting guidelines for interrogating techniques that are widely considered to be torture.
• Failing to abide by or enforce Federal guidelines for preserving communications records.
• Bypassing existing laws regarding warrantless surveillance.
• Participating in the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
• Suppressing the right of accused terror suspects to legal counsel and a jury trial.

It is a long and shameful record and our country is better off without their continued service.

Both men have garnered increasing attention from Congress and it would be easy for them to now turn their collective attention elsewhere. To do so, however, would be tantamount to stopping treatment for a disease once the obvious symptoms have gone.

It's sometimes the hidden things that will kill you!

Given the close personal relationship that both Mr. Rove and Mr. Gonzales enjoy with the President, it is likely that they will remain influential. By being out of the Washington limelight, they'll be better able to exert it away from the increasingly watchful gaze of the Democratic controlled Congress. It's critical now, more than ever, that investigations continue.

Some say that the country doesn't need partisan investigations, that to do so amounts to political payback. I disagree. Free roaming inquiries into alleged shady land deals that then morph into allegations of sexual harassment are partisan. Focused investigations into allegations of the suppression of constitutional rights, treason, or violations of the Geneva Conventions are not. They are due diligence, and due diligence lies at the very heart of our system of checks and balances.

Under the 109th Congress, the Executive Branch ran amok. If the 110th does not fully assert it's Constitutional authority and reign the administration back in, then it's members have abandoned their oaths of office.

In order to ensure that this doesn't happen, we need to do our due diligence and let them know that we expect our rights to be protected. Congressional vacations end on September 4. Give them a call: 202-224-3121.

In what may be the most egregious affront to privacy rights in at least the last week, both the Washington Post and Fox News are reporting that the Bush Administration has approved plans to allow domestic agencies access to data from U.S. spy satellites. Approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, state and local law enforcement officials will soon be able to utilise imagery from systems that have largely been restricted to foreign surveillance and occasional scientific study. The systems are believed to be sophisticated enough to penetrate clouds, buildings and even underground bunkers.

Now here's the REALLY interesting Part . . .

Oversight of the imagery data will come from officials in the Department of Homeland Security and from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's right, no court obtained warrants and no approval from Congress. But don't let that worry you. According to Charles Allen, the chief intelligence officer for the Department of Homeland Security, "We can give total assurance" that Americans’ civil liberties will be protected. "Americans shouldn't have any concerns about it."

Well the executive branch of government has never lied to us. Wait, reverse that.

It is clear to me that Congress's latest passivity with regard to renewing the warrantless wiretapping has emboldened the Bush Administration. In no part of the United States is it legal for the police to just knock down your door and search your premises. Yet this technology provides law enforcement the ability to do just that. But it's not our local law enforcement departments you should be concerned about. Most are comprised of men and women of good faith. The problem goes a little higher. Consider this: In 1972 members of the Nixon Administration had the audacity to orchestrate a burglary of Democratic Party Headquarters. Had they access to this type of technology might they have gotten away with it?

Make no mistake about it: This is the type of activity that was condoned and utilised by the German Nazi government, by the Soviet Union, and by Communist China. It is antithetical to every principle upon which the United States of America was founded.

The idea that honest people have nothing to worry about is no longer, if it ever was, a valid response to this latest action. The administration has broken faith with the people whose rights it pledged to uphold and protect. If you have sat silently while civil liberty after civil liberty has been peeled away in the name of security, you can afford to sit no longer. You can afford to be silent no longer either. Our nation is in peril and the danger is coming as much from within as from without. You must act. You must raise your voice in protest, write letters to your paper and put placards in your yard. You must call your Congressional Representative and demand action. You must call the White House and voice your opposition.
These are the imperative actions that each of us must take.

And if that doesn't get their attention then WE must march on Washington until the only sound that can be heard is that of our voices raised in protest and in defense of our most cherished freedoms.