Jedi Jew and the Bad Brahmin

What if Foley were a Dem?

2006-10-14T17:34:00.000-04:00

I've been wondering, what if Mark Foley were a Democrat? What would the Republican leadership, like Hastert, Reynolds, and the rest, have done? Methinks they would have trumpeted it to the skies, no warning, no nothing. Same for Dobson and the other Republican-leaders -who-claim-to-be-nonpolitical-in-their-roles. Foley would have been pilloried. Dobson would not have dismissed it as a "joke."

Total hypocrisy. All these people care about is Republican power.

Heckuva Job, Fristie!

2006-05-30T16:48:00.000-04:00

Dear Senator Frist,

I heard you on TV last weekend, declaring that flag burning and gay marriage were two of the most important issues facing the American people.

I wanted to write to you and say how glad I am to hear that you have solved the really pressing problems that America confronts today.

However, I am very disappointed that the liberal news media chose not to cover the fact that you have balanced our trillion-dollar deficit, revived the tanking stock market, reversed the export of all of our good jobs, and subdued the inflation that has been lately been creeping upon our economy.

I'm disappointed that the liberal media ignored your solution to out-of-control fuel and utilities prices; and more so that none of the companies that deliver those commodities seem to know about your solution, either.

I'm also very disappointed that your solution for the 46 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance has not been acknowledged or acclaimed.

It's good to know that the troops remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan will have adequate armor, and that they will no longer have to pay for their own uniforms. It's good to know that they will return soon from their president's war of choice; and that those who are wounded or traumatized by what they have seen will receive the medical and psychiatric treatment they will need.

And it's good to know that you've finally stopped the secret police reading my email and listening to my telephone conversations.

I'm thrilled that the Congress has reasserted its Executive oversight role, and that we once again have a Government of the People, where the President must act within the law. I'm glad to know that we are so free, and that our government is so trustworthy that we can now discard the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution.

I'll get over my dismay that you didn't receive proper credit for attending to the many daunting challenges that our country faces. What I'll never be able reconcile though, is how you can minister so zealously to the evil passions of the most fearful and ignorant among us, while expecting the more thoughtful among us to believe that you actually care about our country and Promoting its General Welfare, and yet, you still are able to walk so proudly by day and sleep so soundly at night.

Heckuva job, Fristie!

[jj]

Carbon dioxide is death?

2006-05-24T10:02:00.000-04:00

Jedi Jew commented below on the Competitive Enterprise Institute's ads claiming that "carbon dioxide is life" - my two cents (which I sent to CEI) are below.

Your statement that "carbon dioxide is life" is at best disingenuous and at worst a deceitful, intentionally misleading apologia for the fossil fuel industry. I refer you to the story of Lake Nyos in Cameroon, where on August 21, 1986, a huge CO2 bubble rose from the lake and killed 1,700 people. ( http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lakes/description_volcanic_lakes_gas_release.html)

Sounds like "carbon dioxide is death," doesn't it?

You probably know that story yet chose your oversimplified statement about CO2 anyway. The reality is that our atmosphere requires a healthy balance of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, and even small amounts of argon and other gases. Fossil fuel burning over the last 150 years has shifted that balance to a degree where we have to mitigate its effects.

You may want to cover this truth up, but you have a responsibility to tell the truth and not propagate misleading lies.

KKK loves Marilyn Musgrave!

2006-05-22T12:11:00.000-04:00

Soapblox.net is reporting that the Ku Klux Klan strongly supports Marilyn Musgrave, U.S. House Representative of Colorado's 4th district. Interestingly, Musgrave's spokesman suggests that the Klan's website is not legitimate. But the comments section below the Soapblox piece notes that the site is registered to the Knights Party, a party that is essentially the KKK. And if you google "Knights Party" and go to their website, you get the KKK, including links to jewelry, T-shirts, and other merchandise, and links to their main page. Whether or not this is the legitimate KKK website, it might as well be.

Support Angie Paccione for Colorado's 4th District!

Carbon Dioxide: It's Good for You!

2006-05-19T12:22:00.000-04:00

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which cynically pushes a message that global warming is a completely natural phenomenon, and not related to human activity, has produced two 60-second television spots focusing on the alleged global warming crisis and the calls by some environmental groups and politicians for reduced energy use. The ads are airing in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006. View the ads here.

As it turns out, the CEI receives significant financial support from Exxon Mobil. According to The Washington Post...

"The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a "major donor" largely as a result of its effort to push that position."

"I think what attracted them to us was our position on global warming," said Sam Kazman, CEI's general counsel. "And we hope to get support from other industries that agree with us."

If you are as impressed by their scientific prowess as I was, I'm sure that they would love to hear from you, too.

Here's what I told them....

I watched your video on The Competitive Enterprise Institute's web site. I am truely amazed that you would sell the idea that carbon dioxide, (CO2) is good for people.

Carbon dioxide, while a necessary functional environmental component, is not good for humans or any other animals. It is an animal waste product. It is waste in exactly the same sense as are feces and urine. If enough CO2 accumulates in Earth's atmosphere, plants will flourish for a while, since plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen.

But if the CO2 concentration becomes sufficiently high, the plants will die. CO2 traps heat inside our atmosphere. It is a major source of planetary warming. A good example of planetary warming is the planet Venus, where CO2 is the main atmospheric constituent, and the average temperature is 872°F. Not a good model for a futuristic vision of Earth.

Earth can process a certain amount of CO2, interacting with water and plant life to convert it to oxygen and carbonate rock. But there is a point, perhaps a point already reached, where the rate of human CO2 production will exceed the rate at which Earth can recycle it.

This is not my opinion; it is sixth-grade Science class.

I don't believe that you really think carbon dioxide CO2 is good for you, but in case you do, here's a simple demonstration experiment that may change your perspective. (To ensure safe conduct of this demonstration, you must enlist another, trusted person to assist you. Take turns if you like, so each of you can enjoy the experience.)

1. Find an old refrigerator, big enough for you to climb inside. You can find one at a salvage yard or used appliance store. Maybe your neighbor, Jethro has one in his back yard.

2. Climb into the refrigerator, and let your helper shut the door from outside. Stay inside with the door closed for fifteen minutes, or until your helper hears you bang on the door to let you out.

As you inhale the oxygen inside of the refrigerator, your metabolism will gradually convert it to CO2, which you will then exhale. After a few minutes, there will be more CO2 than oxygen in your atmosphere. If CO2 is good for you, you will soon begin to feel so good that you won't want to leave the refrigerator. That's why you need another person with you; because if someone doesn't open the refrigerator and let you out, the CO2 will make you feel so good that you will suffocate.

If you want to wallow in your own waste, be my guest, but don't ask me wallow with you. Your advertisements demonstrate either absolute stupidity or or a diabolically porcine lust for profit, or both. I sincerely wonder if you have sense of responsibility to anything but yourselves.

[jj]

Estate Tax? More like No-Royalty Tax

2006-05-17T22:29:00.000-04:00

The "estate tax" has been fought by Republicans because, they claim, families are losing their family farms and businesses when the parents die. They have cut the tax to 0% for 2010 and hope to abolish it permanently.

But everything up to the first $1.5 million dollars doesn't get taxed! So if Grandpa's assets don't exceed $1.5M, no estate tax applies at all!

So... who do you think benefits most by repealing the estate tax? That's right, people with assets exceeding $1.5M.

And who do you think has been lobbying hard for the repeal of the estate tax? Eighteen families. The Waltons of Wal-Mart, the Gallos of Ernest and Julio, and even Campbell's soup . And they did it to save themselves $71.6 billion.

99.75% of Americans are not wealthy enough to qualify for this tax break, because our "estates" are worth less than $1.5M. In 2004, there were only 18,800 taxable estates in the whole USA. Not many in a country of 290 million people.

The estate tax was established in order to prevent the ascension of a nobility, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few families. It was intended to preserve healthy middle and working classes.

So let's just call it the no-royalty tax.

Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish

2006-05-10T15:34:00.000-04:00

The US Senate just passed a resolution stating that the Pledge of Allegiance and national anthem should be spoken in English only. This despite the fact that supposedly the State Department website contained both in Spanish.

This is utterly ridiculous, on a par with "freedom" fries. Is our country so weak? Are Senators who voted for this that stupid? (don't answer that.)

Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who was opposed, noted that "E Pluribus Unum" is on our coins and is Latin for "one out of many". Should we recall all the coinage?

In the spirit of inclusiveness, here's the Promesa de Lealtad, the Pledge of Allegiance. Thanks to the Washington State Secretary of State's webpage.

Yo prometo lealtad a la bandera
de los estados Unidos de America,
y a la Republica que representa,
una Nacion bajo Dios,
entera,
con libertad y justicia para todos.

Gas prices and capitalism

2006-05-02T11:26:00.000-04:00

Just a quick thought: gas prices are soaring and oil companies are showing record-high profits. How does this fit together? This suggests to me that despite capitalism's strengths, it has some downsides. The profits that benefit a tiny few are causing great pain to a massive number of Americans.

A weirder thought: what if we are so dependent on gasoline that it's no longer a commodity for which the consumer can shop for the lowest price? What if it's a utility, like electricity or water? And (scary music) what if it were made a state enterprise and regulated like the utilities in most towns?

Bush Authorized CIA Leak

2006-04-06T12:32:00.000-04:00

Murray Waas of the National Journal is reporting that Scooter Libby has testified that President Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's name to the media. (Correction: "..President Bush authorized the leak of the National Intelligence Estimate.") I have three questions.

1) Does the president have the power to declassify at will?
2) If so, was this leak an appropriate use of that power?
3) What did the president mean when he said the following on Feb 11, 2004?

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

These are lies and deceptions to the American people, if what Libby says is true.

Senator Salazar, Please Come Aboard!

2006-03-22T16:08:00.000-05:00

Dear Senator Salazar,

I recently wrote to urge you to support and vote for Senator Feingold's Resolution for Censure. I must say that I found your reply less than encouraging.

There is no doubt that the president has broken the law. He has openly and notoriously admitted so on national TV. I see no reason why the Congress should not document this in the Record.

Many people seem to believe that to attack this president in even the slightest way will backfire, by causing the Republicans to rally around the Dear Leader. Given the numerous polls that indicate that nearly 70% of Americans generally disapprove of his policies, I do not see the downside for us.

When you were running for election, my friends and I canvassed Colorado Springs neighborhoods on your behalf. It was not always pleasant, here in the Conservative Holy City.

You were elected, and now, it's time to fight for the values of the people who fought to help you into office.

I know and appreciate that you are working on many worthy initiatives. Water and forest Management, Veterans Support and other noble causes are important to me too; but they will fall by the wayside if we don't restore our Government of the People.

I become sick when I remember that we allowed President Clinton to be impeached because he lied about an affair with an intern. Surely, the president's open and notorious disregard for the US Constitution is worthy of a slap on the wrist. It is time for Democratic Representatives to stand up for what Democrats, and most Americans believe in.

Please get on board, and support Senator Feingold's Censure Resolution.

Yours truly,
[jj]

Censure is about Rule of Law and Accountability

2006-03-16T13:36:00.000-05:00

Here's an excerpt of a letter I sent to Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Dear Senator Salazar,

Please support Senator Feingold's censure of President Bush. The president has broken the FISA law. It is not fair that the rest of us have to follow the law and he gets to pick and choose when he follows it and when he doesn't.

I know you are a moderate guy. But a censure resolution is not an extreme thing. It simply tells the president that broke the law and misled the people - which he certainly did. He said that wiretapping required a court order, and all the while he was doing wiretaps without a court order.

Senator Salazar, his actions are a huge slap in the face to the rule of law. The rule of law implies that we follow the law in all its particulars, whether or not we agree with it or could work more efficiently without its hindrance. And while protecting the US from terrorists should be the president's priority, he had a perfectly legal way to conduct the wiretaps - by getting a court order. He chose to ignore that.

Do you remember in 2004 how no one was brave enough to criticize the president and the war, until Howard Dean came along and did so? That opened the door to a healthy debate on the war and on our nation's present and future. Please, Senator, be brave enough to support this censure. It will open the door to a healthy examination of what our Constitutional rights are and what the rule of law really means.

I know the Senate is in the midst of hearings on the wiretap program. Maybe this censure feels premature because those hearings are ongoing. But the president's misleading us - telling us he needed a court order while secretly not getting a court order - is still censurable right now.

Please take this step. Support the censure. It is not extreme or crazy. It holds the president accountable. If the president is not accountable, this nation is a dictatorship.

Thank you for reading. I send you my best wishes.

Sincerely, etc.

Senator Roberts -- Chairman, Senate Cover-up Committee

2006-03-08T16:28:00.000-05:00

Dear Senator Roberts,

I am very disappointed that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence rejected a proposal by Vice Chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller to conduct a Congressional review of the NSA warrantless spying program. As Chairman of the Committee, I trust that you can take significant credit for that outcome.

From reading the news, and other research, I estimate that more than 60% of Americans are feeling the way I do. We were really hoping that this time, our Congress would stand up for its People. The President of the United States first told us that "Wiretaps require a court order," and he later admitted on national TV that he had been authorizing and conducting warrantless domestic surveillance activities for nearly four years. One of those statements is a lie, which the president told all of the People.

Senator, do you represent the People of the United States; or do you represent the Secret Police?

I will spare you from the litany of instances I've observed, when you have supported the Administration's subversion of the US Constitution and the Rule of Law. It seems adequate to say that you have a consistent track record of having taken positions that favor the expansion of Executive privilege and power, while taking that privilege and power away from citizens. Your positions regarding warrantless domestic spying, Iraq intelligence, intelligence leaking and torture are contrary to everything I understand about the US Constitution and what it means to live in this country.

I believe that it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who told Americans that "We have nothing to fear, but Fear, itself." And I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who told us that if we gave up our Liberty for security, then we would have neither.

America and the world face a grave challenge from Terrorism. However, to meet that challenge, we need leadership; not governmental fear mongering.

We must play by the rules that have served us so well for nearly 220 years. If we must surrender our civil liberties to protect our national security, then I believe that the terrorists have already won.

As a US Senator, you are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, even if many citizens are sufficiently naïve that they would waive their Constitutional rights out of government-inspired fear. Your support for laws and policies that would nullify the Bill of Rights contradicts your Oath of Office, and it undermines the rights of all Americans.

Sincerely,

[jj]

"Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead." Sen. Jim Bunning, R-KY

2006-03-01T13:37:00.000-05:00

Dear Senator Bunning,

You are widely quoted, having said, in support of certain controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, that "Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead."

I offer a corollary to your hyperbolic statement:

Being alive doesn't mean much when you live under an authoritarian dictatorship. Life doesn't mean much when the secret police can listen to your phone, read your mail, and audit your library records. Being alive doesn't mean much when the secret police can apprehend you without warrant, probable cause, criminal charges or legal counsel, - indefinitely - while denying you all of the due process that our Constitution guarantees to everyone.

As a US Senator, you are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, even if many citizens are sufficiently naïve that they would waive their Constitutional rights out of government-inspired fear. Your support for laws and policies that would nullify the Bill of Rights belies your Oath of Office, and it undermines the rights of all Americans.

In applying PATRIOT Act, the president's warrantless-wiretap, and other off-the-record domestic spying programs, the criteria that may justify governmental waiver of a citizen's Fourth Amendment protections are nebulous, if they are defined at all.

Certain over-reaching provisions of the PATRIOT Act, as well as the president's no-warrant wiretap activities, the torture and humiliation of prisoners, and the existence of secret, offshore gulags are a black eye on America, and no one who loves the United States of America should lend countenance to such conduct.

I see no reason why the government cannot do its job and still play by the rules that have served us so well for nearly 220 years. If we must surrender our civil liberties to protect our national security, then I believe that the terrorists have already won.

Sincerely,

[jj]

Junkies and Compulsive Gamblers Sell the Family Jewels to Feed the Habit, Perpetuate the Denial.

2006-02-22T17:21:00.000-05:00

The FY2007 federal budget includes a scheme to raise money by selling off as much as 800,000 acres of America's treasured public lands. I oppose any such sale, and I reject these plans to privatize our national lands.

I am dumbfounded that everything in America, including access to the White House and Congress, our seaports, and now, our natural resources and public lands, seems to be for sale to the highest bidder.

Those lands are national treasures, to be preserved for all, and to be handed on to Posterity.

It would not be conceivable to liquidate public lands, were America not a bankrupt nation. And we would not be bankrupt, had we not squandered our FY2000, $230-billion surplus on an illegal, undeclared war against an unarmed, third-world country, and had we not given several successive, massive tax cuts to multi-national corporations and the people who control them.

I'm going to quit my job. Then I'm going to buy a new car and a big house. Then I'm going on a 'round the world vacation. I'll live on borrowed money -- from China. Why not? That's the kind of book keeping that the whole country seems to be doing these days.

Actually, this land-disposal scheme is analogous to a drug addict or a compulsive gambler who mortgages his home to feed his habit.

Before we resort to selling off our family jewels, perhaps we should consider making the Mineral Industry pay the $7-billion in royalties that we recently waived from them. We might also hold accountable the war contractors who are responsible for the missing $9-billion in Iraq Reconstruction funds. If that won't restore our national solvency, perhaps we should repeal the tax cuts we've enacted during the past five years.

Members of Congress should live up to their charter to represent the People, and publicly declare their opposition to this idea, immediately. Our public lands are not the government's slush fund.

It's time to contact your Members of Congress. Tell them to start doing their job.

For more details about what you can buy, (for the right price), see America for Sale: A Congressional Report on How America Is Being Sold to the Highest Bidder, by the US House Rules Committee Democratic Staff.

[jj]

$400 Billion, and Counting...

2006-02-17T13:39:00.000-05:00

The Iraq war would pay for itself, we were told. Three years later, after countless cuts to vital domestic programs, with massive tax cuts and outright giveaways to big multinational corporations and people who live off of inherited wealth, we're up to $400 billion.

There's no end in sight, either. Indeed, our illustrious leaders recently have gone from calling this the War On Terror, to calling it The Long War. How long?

Is this how the USA would prosecute a war?
Numerous military and other strategic experts have said that we don't have enough troops, and we're not adequately supporting the ones we do have. Far from supporting the troops, it often looks like we are abusing them.

Stop-loss orders keep our troops in service long after they have fulfilled their obligation. This imposes unfair, unreasonable hardship and risk to them and their families.

To cut funding for Veterans' services, and to charge veterans for the services they do receive is ungrateful.

Charging combat soldiers for lost equipment is absurd. It is also obscene.

Today's army is not the army in which I served. It sure as hell is not my father's army. I grew up in my father's army, and that army's motto was "The Army takes care of its own." What has happened to us?

Is the USA really at war?
I wonder whether, in spite of all the blood spilled and lives ruined, the huge price tag, as well as the degradation of morale and prestige within the Military Services, indeed, within the whole country; is the United States even really at war?

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. But our forces are in Iraq today because Congress gave President Bush the authority to use force against Saddam, who was falsely accused of an evil plot to launch an Armageddon upon everyone who is free. Is this what Congress had in mind? Did Congress really intend to give the president an open-ended, refillable debit card, with which to endlessly consume our national blood and treasure? I'll bet that if you could get your congressperson to tell the truth for just one second, he or she would say, "No."

I don't think we are at war at all. Were we at war, I don't think that we would have any idea who our enemy would be, much less, how we would know if we had defeated it.

I think we are victims of a very cruel hoax. A hoax that brings enormous rewards to a handful of hoaxters, while it bleeds us and our country dry. The hoax must be stopped, and the hoaxters must be called to account.

Your Congress people need to hear from you today. Tell them to start doing their jobs.

jj

February 17, 2006

Dear Rep. Hefley,

This latest $65 billion supplemental request is the fourth time in three years the Administration has requested off-budget billions to be taken from other critical needs and poured into the unending war in the Middle East.

I am ashamed and angry that we neglect health care, education, scientific and medical research, veterans' support, and other vital programs , while we pour limitless funding into an illegal, undeclared war, that is still being justified by ever-changing lies and misrepresentations; and which only benefits wealthy companies, such as Exxon and Halliburton. Insult adds to our injury as we watch massive tax cuts going to those corporations and the class of people who control them.

(Exxon earned nearly $37 billion last year, as America paid record fuel prices. According to Halliburton's latest quarterly report, their annual operating income more than tripled in 2005, and yesterday, the company declared a 20% dividend hike, a $1 billion share-buyback program, and a 2:1 stock split).

The war in Iraq is not helping the Iraqi people, it is not helping the future of the Greater Middle East, and it certainly is not helping the United States.

If Congress believes that we must wage this war, then Congress should ascend to its Constitutional charter with a legitimate Declaration of War, against an authentic, corporeal enemy that can surrender to us when they are defeated.

Congress should then call for the sacrifices that are necessary to quickly win the war from all American citizens and Industries. Finally, Congress should raise and support appropriate armies, to win.

"Staying the course" in "the Long War" is costing our nation $100,000 a minute. Our soldiers, our children and our nation are not served by continuing to plunge heedlessly ahead. We look to you in Congress to exercise responsibility for our future.

I urge you to vote AGAINST this supplemental appropriation.

Senator Allard: Live Up To Your Oath.

2006-02-16T13:12:00.000-05:00

February 10, 2006

Senator Wayne Allard

521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Via Fax: (202) 224-6471

Dear Senator Allard,

I am writing to you in reaction to an article I read in today's Pueblo Chieftain, entitled "Allard backs wiretaps, attacks public disclosure." The article's subject is a floor speech that you made on February 8.

You are quoted in that article, saying that "Most Coloradans are not alarmed by the use of this tool as many of my Democratic colleagues might think," he said. "Most Coloradans see the common sense and know why it is so important to our national security that we conduct such a program."

Senator Allard, this Coloradan is indeed alarmed, not only by the domestic spying, but also of your apparent lack of appreciation for our Constitutional rights, the necessity for Due Process, and the Rule of Law. Please do not count me, nor anyone I know among the Most Coloradans to whom you refer. Furthermore, as most Coloradans are generally perceived as rugged individualists who cherish their privacy and their property rights, I am certain that if you talked to more Coloradans, you would find that your statement is inaccurate.

You are quoted, saying that "This program is not being used to listen to communications of innocent Americans."

How can you be sure of that? How do you define "innocent?" How does the U.S. Government define what is a "terrorist?"

Is a peaceful environmental activist a terrorist? Were the vegan protesters who were subjected to false imprisonment, false arrest and harassment by officials of the Homeland Security Division of DeKalb County, GA terrorists? And what about those who openly criticize the president or the government; are they terrorists?

Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a terrorist?

It may be true that many people would not object to the government listening to their phones or reading their email. However, as our elected representative, you are sworn to uphold and defend our constitutional rights, even if some of us are nevertheless naive enough to surrender those rights out of government-generated fear.

Our Constitutional Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment guarantees our privacy. It explicitly states that the government may not invade our privacy except upon a duly-issued warrant, on Probable Cause, and supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing what the government is looking for.

I realize that modern times require modern methods, and so did the legislators who wrote the 1978 FISA law.

As you may know, FISA permits the government to spy on Americans, provided that the spy agency requests a warrant from the secret FISA court, within 72 hours (or 15 days in time of war), of the conduct of the surveillance activity. I understand that only four, of nearly 2000 such requests have ever been declined. Given that minimal rejection rate, along with the 72-hour grace period to file for a warrant, I don't see why the government cannot spy on whomever, whenever it pleases, while still complying with the requirement to issue a warrant when it believes it has acquired legitimate evidence of terrorist activity.

Here is the difference between the FISA regulation and the president's unwarranted domestic spy program:

Under FISA, the government must demonstrate just cause and reason for spying on its citizens. When incriminating evidence is acquired, charges must be brought and prosecuted through Constitutional Due Process.

On the other hand, if no warrant is required, then the government may spy, without documentation or accountability, on anyone. Such power, when coupled with a vague policy concerning what constitutes terrorism; as well as the fact that so-called "enemy combatants," (another vaguely defined presidential concept of dubious legal merit), may be apprehended, held and even tortured --indefinitely -- without warrant, charges or access to legal counsel; one could only describe the United States of America as an oppressive, tyrannical police state with unfettered governmental powers to abuse its citizens whenever it becomes expedient to do so.

I think that Most Coloradans would strongly object to the president's domestic spy program if they truly understood all that it implies. However, your speech appears to willfully mask those important implications.

All Coloradans expect you to uphold your Oath of Office to defend the Constitution. Your support of the president's warrantless domestic spying activities contradicts that oath, and it encourages the violation of all Coloradans' rights. You should reconsider your position on the matter.

Sincerely,

[Jedi Jew]

PS: It is widely reported that I. Lewis Libby testified before a grand jury that Vice President Cheney directed him to release classified information to discredit critics of the war in Iraq. This may have resulted in the exposure of a covert CIA agent and rendered ineffective whatever operations the agent may have been conducting. It also may have jeopardized life and limb of other friendly covert operatives, as well. Such flagrant disregard for national security in the pursuit of political advantage deeply troubles me. All of those involved must be held accountable.

[jj]

[For more on this, please read Senator Robert Byrd's speech from February 15, 2006.]

Why not follow the law?

2006-02-16T11:29:00.000-05:00

Warrantless wiretapping is forbidden by FISA. But the law says that the government can wiretap and then get the necessary court order within three days, or within fifteen days during a time of war. Why can't the President follow the law? He can wiretap first, then get permission (or forgiveness) within fifteen days. Why not do it? Why not respect the law? It's a demonstration of respect for the Rule of Law, and for all of us Americans who have to follow the law too.

It doesn't matter that he's the chief executive. He is not above the law. Why not follow the law, and build the trust and respect of the people he serves?

Why were they so busy that they had to break the law instead of following it?

Illegal immigration

2006-02-09T18:44:00.000-05:00

I just read several letters to a daily newspaper in Colorado decrying illegal immigration, because such immigrants are breaking the law. I find this argument very simplistic. But hey, what if we crack down hard on illegal immigration? (because it's illegal, silly!)

When we Americans are prepared to enforce employment laws for all employers equally, in order not to unfairly penalize the small business owner (building contractor, roofer, painter, grocer) trying to make a living, let's crack down hard on illegal immigration.

When we Americans are prepared to pay significantly higher prices on food, construction, domestic service and hotels (among other things), let's crack down hard on illegal immigration.

When we Americans are willing to invest a large sum of the federal budget on policing our very long southern border, let's crack down on illegal immigration.

When we Americans are willing to admit that hiring these people simply manifests Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of capitalism, and that the free market is what brings immigrants here, and that these folks are merely selling their labor at a higher price than what they can earn at home (a founding tenet of capitalism), and that expecting a long porous border to defend against this free market activity is unrealistic at this time, let's crack down hard on illegal immigration.

And when we Americans are prepared to privilege the Laws of the hated and derided Government over natural and hard-to-police free market activity (because it's ILLEGAL for them to come here), then, by all means, let's crack down hard on illegal immigration.

Cindy Sheehan arrested

2006-02-01T11:34:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night just before the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_State_of_Union_Sheehan.html?source=mypiShe was in the House chamber and was wearing a T-shirt saying "2245 Dead". When she removed her jacket, making her T-shirt visible, she was forcibly escorted out of the House and arrested.

Where is our freedom of speech? Why is it illegal for a protester to attend a speech by the President? Is our government that weak that it cannot stand the presence of a dissenter? Will the administration wither away and die just because they are questioned by a woman whose son died in the Iraq war?

I am stunned by our loss of freedom and the craven cowardice of our government.

A letter from JJ

2006-01-19T18:12:00.000-05:00

Here's a letter from Jedi Jew to NBC Nightly News. I thought it was eloquently written. Gore's speech is important far beyond politics - he addresses the fate of the Republic itself.

Dear Nightly News Team,

I was very disappointed that you treated your January 17, Nightly News story about former Vice President Al Gore's speech as the opening salvo of the 2006 political campaigns. This is not a political story. It is a story about abuses of presidential power that make the Watergate wiretaps look like schoolboy pranks.

The president has publicly acknowledged that he circumvented the Law and has indeed conducted warrantless wire taps of Americans on U.S. soil. He has arrogantly and erroneously claimed that as Commander-in-Chief, he is not subject to the laws that govern the rest of us. Such an attitude and such activities subvert the U.S. Constitution. If allowed to continue, they threaten to undermine our entire system of government and American Life as we know it.

Mr. Gore's speech about illegal domestic spying was delivered against the backdrop of a huge congressional ethics scandal, irrefutable evidence that the Bush Administration fraudulently misrepresented the facts to lead us into an unprovoked war against a sovereign, unarmed country, pervasive incompetence at FEMA and DHS, billions in missing and misappropriated Iraq-reconstruction funds, and relentless smearing of honorable people who have dared to question the Government -- not to mention a host of less serious, but equally embarrassing revelations about the impropriety of this government.

For Mr. Gore (and others, including some Republicans, such as the ultra-conservative former GA Rep. Bob Barr) to call attention to these offenses is not a partisan act; it is a conscientious act of patriotic duty.

The Bush Administration must be held accountable for its arrogant, flagrant disregard for Due Process, the Constitution and the guaranteed rights of all Americans. Otherwise, we surely will lose those rights, and we might as well repeal the U.S. Constitution.

Will the major broadcast networks ever quit feeding us pabulum and give serious treatment to the many things that are going so wrong in this country?

During the day, I receive my news from a variety of non-network TV sources. Each night I return home and tune into the evening news shows, with the hope that the major TV networks will share these outrageous stories with ordinary Americans. I am nearly always disappointed that these news items are either skimmed over lightly -- or entirely neglected.

In an earlier time, Chancellor, Smith and Reasoner, and Cronkite all had their well entitled personal opinions, and they often aired those opinions during a program segment that was clearly identified as such. But they all reported the news in a well-researched, unbiased way. It seems to me that the corporate news media has other motives than reporting the News, and I must say that I continue to lose faith in the traditional network news, and I continue to look elsewhere to learn about the important events of the day.

Sincerely, etc.

Lots on the Go

2005-10-26T15:04:00.000-04:00

Lots is happening that I want to comment on today.

First, the CIA leak grand jury has adjourned. Rawstory.com is saying that Rove and Libby will be indicted, plus two others not employed by the White House. I'm not believing anything until it happens.

Second, Bush has decided not to waive the Davis-Bacon Act for Katrina rebuilding. About time. He had no damn business lowering wages in an area already economically depressed. No kudos from me. Wonder what his big-biz buddies feel, the ones who will get the contracts down there?

Third, Bill Frist can't stop lying, according to the Tennessean. http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051025/BUSINESS01/510250350
He did know about his HCA stock - it wasn't blind at all. So any votes he did about health insurance or HMOs was informed by his knowledge of his own stock holdings. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Fourth, a speech by Harriet Miers has been discovered in which she supports "self-determination" in matters of abortion and separation of church and state. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102502038.html I am dying to hear the conservative response. This actually tempts me to support a vote FOR her, although up till this point I haven't supported voting for her because she lacks experience in Constitutional law.

Finally, our very humane Vice President Cheney is now campaigning to allow the CIA to use torture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501388.html
Are we supposed to be setting a good example for other nations, or a bad one?

One more joke

2005-10-03T16:48:00.000-04:00

Read this on the blogs.

What do Republican leaders in Congress say when they bump into President Bush? "Pardon me."

Ha!

Good stuff on HuffPost

2005-09-29T12:14:00.000-04:00

Some great laughs on the Huffington Post - how do they determine the rankings of Al Qaeda members?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/shots-across-the-brow-on_b_8043.html

And a special invitation! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-peretti/edite_b_8056.html

Very Current Joke

2005-09-14T15:25:00.000-04:00

Read this on Braving-the-Elements (see left)

Q: What is Bush's position on Roe vs. Wade?

A: He doesn't really care how people get out of New Orleans.

Reminds me of the other good joke:

Q: What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?

A: Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

Government has drowned in New Orleans

2005-09-14T15:04:00.000-04:00

Grover Norquist, the high priest of the antitax crowd and radical rightist, has a famous quote to the effect of "let's shrink government down until it's small enough to drown in the bathtub." Well, I and many others have observed that government has drowned, in New Orleans. Government has become so small, ineffective, and insensitive to the needs of actual people that it was swamped by Hurricane Katrina. And Katrina wasn't even a malicious "evildoer" who "hates freedom" and had a crafty plan to destroy New Orleans. It was a natural phenomenon made up of wind, energy, and water. Meteorologists could see it coming thousands of miles away. And that phenomenon drowned the government.

This idea has been adopted by ACTforChange.com as a fundraiser to put a billboard up in Grover Norquist's neighborhood. I'll post the link when it goes up on their site.

It's the poverty.

2005-09-07T20:53:00.000-04:00

New Orleans, my favorite city, has been devastated by Hurricane Katrina and the flooding afterward. The pictures I see of the survivors are heartbreaking. And while disaster preparedness is an important topic of current discussion, I feel like this:

It's the POVERTY, stupid!

This event lays bare the realities of American society: millions of people have no car, very few possessions, a fragile home, and no social safety net. So I offer below my thoughts on what needs to be done now.

1. Stop the tax cuts for the rich and the corporations. Period.

2. Tell people that taxes are the dues we pay for a healthy society: a society that is prepared for disasters, that offers decent health care benefits to everyone as a right, that builds infrastructure to get people to their jobs, that educates them to do good, meaningful work with some kind of job security, that cares for them adequately in their older years.

3. Make ending poverty in the U.S. the most important priority. The Democrats should do it but might not jump on it. Ending poverty is the most important domestic priority we have. And I dare say it is much more important than the sham effort at fighting terrorism we are doing now in Iraq.

4. Change the structure of campaign finance in this country. Without that #1 above is not possible. Campaign money is not the same as free speech. At best, it is a way to get ideas heard. But at worst, it is a manipulation of the electoral process in this country that shifts power away from individual voters and toward corporate interest groups.

5. Figure out how to get Americans working again in secure jobs. Jobs are being outsourced, yes, and that is a result of widely varying costs of living and environmental regulations in nations around the world. But the statement I read that "Americans should do the skilled, creative work" is a platitude. First, skilled, creative work is being outsourced too. Second, we need all kinds of work here. So what are our options? Punish outsourcing? Incentivize hiring Americans? Encourage other countries to raise their environmental standards (not a likely starting place for this administration)? I don't know the best answer.

Please Take Care of New Orleans

2005-08-29T10:49:00.000-04:00

Here's a prayer to Marie Laveau, the Voodoo Queen: Marie, if you're looking down (or up) at your lovely city of Nouvelle-Orleans, please spare it from destruction by Hurricane Katrina. It is too precious, mysterious, and unique for us to lose.

2005-08-24T16:44:00.000-04:00

Responsibility, Decisions, and War Dead

I want to debunk some oversimplifications about Cindy Sheehan’s protest that are being spread by war supporters. My comments are not particularly original but I needed to restate them in concise form.

Oversimplification: Casey volunteered to fight, so he knew he could die in war.
Fact: All volunteer soldiers take this risk, but they trust political leaders to decide to go to war only under the most necessary circumstances. This trust is total and sacred, and it places the responsibility of risking troops’ lives on our elected leaders, where it belongs.

Oversimplification: President Bush didn’t kill Casey; the insurgents did.
Fact: President Bush made the pivotal decision to go to war. What happened there is a natural consequence of this decision: some troops are killed at war. But the decision remains the responsibility of the President. Whether he chose to go to war under the most necessary circumstances is a different issue.

Oversimplification: Cindy Sheehan is dishonoring the troops by protesting the war.
Fact: Protesting the war means fighting against the decision to go to war. Protesting the war does not mean dishonoring the individual soldiers obeying orders resulting from that decision. Protesting the war also does not imply dishonoring the fact that many soldiers agree with the President’s decision. It is simply a legitimate difference of opinion about that decision.

Oversimplification: We must continue this war to justify the sacrifices of the fallen.
Fact: That argument only works if the US wins this war. The only outcome that could justify the sacrifices of the fallen is a peaceful, stable Iraq. And this outcome is far from a sure thing; indeed it may be be impossible. The surest way to justify the sacrifices of the fallen is to deal as honestly and realistically as possible with the American people about Iraq, the possible outcomes, and a reasonable exit strategy. The worst way to justify them is to allow more troops to be killed without any indication that a peaceful Iraq is in the offing.

Oversimplification: Supporting the troops means supporting the war.
Fact: Supporting the troops means just that: honoring their choice and sacrifice in serving, and getting them the body armor, veterans’ benefits, and health care they need. The most effective act of supporting the troops is urging Congress and the Administration to meet these needs. Supporting the war means agreeing with the original decision to go, either before or after that decision was made. Not supporting the war does not undermine the individuals who are fighting it.

In summary, it's the President's decision that is key. He holds the responsibility for what follows that decision. He knows (or, rather, has been told) what war is like, and he has gone forward with a "war of choice," in his own words.

Protestors are simply saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "We don't agree with your decision: the reasons for it keep changing and the loss of life is devastating."

Reasons and Excuses

2005-08-03T17:16:00.000-04:00

I'm ticked off at the fact that people aren't distinguishing between reasons and excuses. One of these people is Thomas Friedman, who wrote in his July 22 column that there should be blacklists of "excuse makers," people who try to explain why the terrorists do what they do.

Ridiculous! Explaining terrorist actions only exposes their motives, or reasons, for what they do. Explaining their reasons does not condone their behavior, or give them a legitimate out for the consequences, or require a response of "Oh, poor them!" A REASON just explains why an action is done. A reason need not be mitigating.

An EXCUSE is a mitigating reason. "I missed the exam because I got into a massive car crash/was very sick/etc." is an acceptable mitigating reason that might (with documentation) permit the retaking of said exam. "I paid my taxes late because I got my W2 on April 14" might also be a legitimate excuse. A legitimate excuse pardons the actor and protects them from the full consequences of their action, because some aspect of the action was out of their control.

There is a lot of outcry that even explaining the reasons for terrorist action is pointless because their acts are "evil." But a homicide is "evil" too, and police always seek a motive when investigating a homicide. This motive is just a reason, not an excuse (except in certain cases).

This attitude that understanding the reasons is pointless is a potent mix of framing and American triumphalism. It's easy to frame this: "It doesn't matter why they do it - it's wrong." And a refusal to understand other cultures is becoming the hallmark of our national discourse. "American values are the best, we're spreading them in the Middle East, and there is no need to understand other viewpoints - let's just convert them to ours."

As well, understanding other cultures is as important or more so than making war on other countries. Understanding why young Muslim men are finding it so attractive to end their lives and kill innocent people enables us to find a solution UPSTREAM of the actual killing.

Let me repeat the word UPSTREAM. Stopping terrorism before it starts involves understanding the reasons (yes, the reasons) why people's lives are so miserable that they are choosing to commit terrorist acts. Sometimes we do have to act downstream and punish violence that has already occurred. But prevention upstream stops the violence and addresses its root causes.

Let me also state clearly that no reason is a legitimate excuse for killing innocent people, in an airliner, a skyscraper, an armored personnel carrier, or any other setting. No one's providing "Get Out of Jail Free" cards by explaining the reasons.

You can lead a horse to water, but...

2005-07-28T17:00:00.000-04:00

I recently wrote to Senator Wayne Allard to ask him to support Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 29 co-sponsors, who are backing a Resolution of Inquiry which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."

For anyone who may have been living in Antarctica for the past couple of months, the Downing Street Memos are secret British government documents that provide a "smoking gun" that strongly demonstrates that Bush had decided to go to war long before the March 2003 invasion, and that he was willing to contort existing evidence in any way necessary to support his policy. If you'd like to read the Downing Street documents, you can find all of them online at www.afterdowningstreet.org

I don't launch such endeavors with any expectation that I will sway the senator; it's rare that we agree, and I hardly expect him to support an investigation of his beloved Supreme Leader based on something I've said. Nevertheless, I try. I think it's every citizen's sacred duty to speak up, and let your representatives know how you feel about matters of public policy that concern you.

The Senator's reply to my entreaty is contained in my subsequent letter to him, below:

Dear Senator Allard:

I recently contacted you to encourage your support for further investigation into the Downing Street Memos, the official British briefing documents that contain strong evidence, stated by senior British government officials, that President Bush and his administration had a pre-determined objective to attack Iraq, and that the president, at the very least, grossly misrepresented the facts in order to persuade the American People to support the Iraq war.

In your reply to my message, you said:

"I do believe that President Bush has truthfully stated the reasons to go to war in Iraq. In doing so we have maintained a coalition with many other countries throughout the world, including Britain. I do feel that the President has done a good job at trying to rebuild Iraq. It will not be an easy or quickly resolved task, but we will do our best to help Iraq to become a stable and productive country."

I wonder which of the president's reasons you believe? These are four of the justifications for war that the president has offered the American People at different times:

Did we attack Iraq to disarm its WMDs?

Did we attack Iraq to halt its "WMD Programs?"

Did we attack Iraq to liberate its people from an evil, despotic dictator?

Did we attack Iraq to establish a democracy there?

Each of the previous justifications was proven to be unfounded. The Downing Street Memos are among the latest in a series of revelations that support a thesis that the president was indeed not truthful about his reasons for going to war. As his deceptions have become more and more obvious, the administration has several times changed its rationale for going to war.

Blaming the CIA for generating these false justifications simply shunts responsibility off of the president, who is ultimately responsible for his decisions.

We have made a horrible mess of Iraq. I don't know how hard the president is working to rebuild that country, but I do know that its people are lucky to have electricity a few hours each day, that they don't have enough fresh water, that there is sewage running through the streets of Baghdad, and that a bloody insurgency kills many innocent people, nearly every day.

We have lost nearly 1,800 American GIs in this war, and maimed more than 35,000 others. I have read several estimates stating that between 35,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. We have already spent nearly $300 billion on this war, and there is no end in sight. I feel heartbroken and ashamed when I consider all of the ways this blood might have been spared, and how all of this money might have been spent on things to better the lives of the American People.

Senator Allard, I know that you believe that the president has been truthful, and I don't begrudge you the right to hold that belief. But how can you be sure if you refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary? It's time to put politics aside, and to be an American first. Once again, I urge you to support further investigation into the evidence in the Downing Street Memos. In light of growing criticism of the war policy, not to mention the many pre-war assertions by the Administration that have subsequently been discredited, this is your greatest opportunity to prove once and all that my doubts, along with the doubts of many other Americans, are unfounded.

Sincerely,

(Yours truly)

I think that the senator and many others will eventually have to capitulate to the overwhelmingly obvious. In the meantime, I am deeply troubled by how transparently his hypocricy, in the cause of political expedience, shines through. This is the same senator who, several years ago, so adamantly assured me that Bill Clinton's lies about his sex life were indeed an impeachable offense

To which I say,

"Never, ever trust a man who says he has never lied about sex."

JJ

Ask Your Representative to Investigate the Downing Street Memos

2005-07-27T17:10:00.000-04:00

Now is the time to write to your congressional representative to request an investigation of the Downing Street Memos and other evidence that we were hoodwinked into going to war against Iraq. Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 29 co-sponsors are backing a Resolution of Inquiry which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."

Today I wrote to my representative, Congressman Joel Hefley, of Colorado. So far, he does not support this resolution. Here's what I said to Mr. Hefley:

"I contacted you several years ago to ask you not to support the impeachment of President Clinton for a lie that he told about a personal matter that was of no consequence to the People of the United States. In your reply, you strongly disagreed with my position, and you stated your belief that lying about a personal indescretion was indeed a Constitutionally "high crime or misdemeanor," which was quite worthy of impeachment.

The Downing Street Memos and other evidence persuasively indicate that President Bush and members of his administration willfully misrepresented the facts and even lied in order to lead this country into an unprovoked war against a sovreign, unarmed country. This resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and nearly 1800 U.S. military personnel. Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers are wounded, and this senseless war has cost the People of the United States more than $300 billion, which would have been more wisely spent on Education, Healthcare, Energy Independence and many other worthy endeavors. We shall continue paying for this war in many ways, for many years to come.

I sincerely hope that you find the evidence in the Downing Street Memos a bit more troubling than President Clinton's lie about his sexual indescretions, and I urge you to support Rep. Barbara Lee's iniative to investigate these matters further."

JJ

Senator Wayne Allard (R Colo.) on Flag Burning

2005-07-22T11:47:00.000-04:00

Shortly after posting my thoughts about the pending anti flag-burning legislation, (June 23, below), I sent similar letters to my congressman (Joel Hefley), and both senators, (Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar). To his credit, Senator Allard is the only one of them who actually replied to my letter. To his discredit, he completely overlooked, although I'm sure he did not miss my point: The American flag is a symbol of freedom; and that if we take away the freedom it represents, the flag is just a rag.

I guess I should cut the senator some slack. He doesn't know any better. Before becoming a U.S. senator, he was a veterinarian, practicing his noble craft on the desolate plains of northern Colorado, where there live very few green things (making a lot of the locals not-so-regular guys), and a lot of very bored people who spend their cold, lonely nights BS'ing about God, Gays and Guns. I also would bet that his veterinary studies earned him a double PhD in Bovine Scatology.

(That reminds me of a point that I'll rant another time: We often hear legislators complaining about all of the lawyers in the Legislature. When Pete Coors ran for Senate in 2004, a primary plank in his platform was that he wasn't a lawyer. I don't believe that one must have a Law degree to serve in Congress, but I do believe that a profound ignorance of and a lack of respect for our legal process is in large part the reason why so many senators and congressmen come up with so many harebrained laws, many of which end up being "de-legislated from the bench." Why do you think they call them legislators, anyway?)

Here's Senator Allard's response to what I had believed to be my thoughtful appeal for him to stop this ridiculous exercise of panderbation:

"Thank you for your letter regarding an amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag. The American flag is a great symbol of this nation, and it should be regarded with highest honors.

The American Flag represents all that is good and just in this nation. In the past few years, 49 states have passed memorializing resolutions that ask Congress to give states the opportunity to ratify an amendment to the Constitution protecting the flag. This is well over the three-fourths majority needed for ratification and clearly demonstrates the popularity of protecting the American Flag.

I am proud to state that I am one of the original Cosponsors of S.J.RES.12, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. S.J.RES.12 was introduced on April 14, 2005 Senator Orrin Hatch, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it awaits further action.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at http://allard.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

A Wayne Allard
United States Senator

WA:SM "

###

Well, Senator... If three-fourths of the states approve, would you support an amendment to imprison anyone who refuses to salute the flag? Maybe we could have an amendment that would extend Bill-of-Rights protections only to Christians. How about an amendment to lock up all of the homos, or to burn witches? And what should The Majority do about all of those nasty people (including Yours Truly), who dare to question the wisdom of our illustrious Supreme Leader?

To quote nearly everyone's dear old Mom, "If everybody was jumping off of a bridge, would you follow?" And have you never heard of "the Tyranny of the Majority?"

I'll soon be writing to you again, Senator, to once again ask you to stop wasting your time and our tax money on this flag-burning nonsense. I'll be asking you to get busy "forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Isn't that what you are sworn to do?

JJ

Truth isn't enough

2005-07-14T14:59:00.000-04:00

I'm pleased by the White House press corps' aggressive questioning of Scott McClellan over Karl Rove (see post below). The truth must out!

But I see the trap that George Lakoff describes in _Don't Think Like an Elephant!_. He says that simply exposing the truth (however sleazy, illegal, immoral it is) does not change minds and shift the balance of politics. Somehow this truth has to be reframed in a way that fits with people's worldview (see most recent post).

How to frame the Rove issue? Dems are using terms like "national security" and "abuse of power."

I'm wondering what McCain thinks of all this.

Great Comment on Daily Kos

2005-07-13T16:03:00.000-04:00

Below is a comment I found today on Daily Kos. Really well-written.

Unfortunately... (none / 1)

Most people posting here and with Atrios and Josh and Kevin, et.al., don't get it. They aren't trying to win us over. They are trying to win over people who don't have the background, knowledge, critical thinking skills, or most importantly, the inclination, to cut through the bull.

That is their base, the True Believers, and the T.B. only need an excuse to go on believing. It has been proven time and time again that give them enough of these talking points, and they will find one that works for them, and generates the necessary emotional response to override any rational response to the cognitive dissonance that would be engendered by admitting that BushCo could be in any way Not Right.

This ain't about logic, and all the logic in the world ain't gonna cut it. It's about Belief. We can bitch and moan about that, but that's what the talking points are all about: providing a context for a continuation of the belief system.

So we gotta realize that if we attack the talking points, we are not engaged in a nice, Socratic dialogue, we are attacking peoples' belief system, and they will react very strongly to that, and resist any information that undermines it.

So our job, and it's not simple, and probably not immediately emotionally satisfying (or not as satisfying as anger can be), is to first establish somehow that it is possible for Bush and his folks to be wrong. I don't know how to do that, but just bringing up a laundry list of possible errors ain't gonna work--it's going to have to be a whole lot more subtle than that.

How do we gently but effectively break down belief systems that are very much tied in to peoples' self-concept? That's the question. And have no doubt that at this point, their belief in Dear Leader is tightly connected to their belief in themselves, and in their ability to make good judgements about reality, and good choices about behavior. Anger and name-calling isn't going to break through that, nor is frustration at an inability to accept logical arguments.

by sbguy on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 13:29:37 CDT

Don't know how to link directly to it.

Covertness - who's responsible for knowing or telling?

2005-07-12T17:54:00.000-04:00

The Rove-Plame thing is gaining some momentum. Rove's defenders are claiming that he did not know that she was a covert operative. If so, then who was responsible for telling him?

Isn't it his responsibility NOT to divulge the identity of a CIA employee unless he knows FOR SURE that she is not covert? After all, he is the deputy chief of staff and has a security clearance. Doesn't that grant him some responsibility and discretion not to name names until HE knows that he can name names? He is the active agent here, the teller of these tales. Shouldn't he be responsible for knowing what he can and cannot say?

And if he's not responsible, who rightfully is? His handlers? The CIA? Valerie Plame herself? (It's getting absurd here, folks).

Seems like classic pass-the-buck to me, perfected to high art by this administration. So no WMD's were found - it's the CIA/George Tenet's fault! Absolutely nothing is the responsibility of George W. Bush, President of the United States of America.

Also seems like Rove was getting revenge on Joseph Wilson and in so doing (maybe) followed the letter of the law, but not the spirit, which is to _protect_ the identity of a CIA operative.

WH Press Corps getting brave?

2005-07-12T10:17:00.000-04:00

Well, I haven't posted in a while because I've been moving to a new place. But I'm glad to post again today, and to note that finally the White House press corps is asking some tough questions! Finally they are getting brave enough to call the admin on what they do. The following is courtesy of Talking Points Memo.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006049

Sounds like they hammered McClellan.

A Cool Blog

2005-06-24T10:25:00.000-04:00

Hey y'all - check out my brilliant friend Mark's blog Braving the Elements. Link is on the left.

Enlist!?!

2005-06-23T19:02:00.000-04:00

A lot of bloggers out there are encouraging war-supporters (conservatives, 101st Fighting Keyboarders, etc) to enlist in the military. In a sense I agree - they wanted it, let them fight it! But I also don't think that an individual's life can provide a living illustration of every point of view they have.

Having said that, what is one solution to this problem? How about if our elected officials make a public relations campaign to encourage young people to enlist? They can make it sound patriotic, fun, exciting, whatever the hell. The big shots (like W himself) need to get on TV and say it. They need to lend their names and so-called political capital to the poor army recruiters who are having such a tough time. And, how many taxpayer dollars did he spend on his Social Security dog-and-pony show? Doesn't "supporting our troops" deserve the same effort? Maybe a bus tour through the country. If they need more soldiers, they need to ask.

I should also say that I don't support this misadventure in Iraq, I never have, and I would understand anyone who doesn't want to enlist. But the bigwigs need to put their money where their mouth is.

I take no credit for this idea- lots of bloggers are suggesting the same thing: that our "leaders" encourage young people to enlist. Why aren't they doing so???

Who Desecrates the Flag?

2005-06-23T13:05:00.000-04:00

Our illustrious House of Representatives yesterday passed a measure toward a Constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to outlaw desecration of the American flag.

To become an amendment, the resolution also must be approved by the U.S. Senate, and it would have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states. That's not likely, but it is likely that the discussion itself will further divide our country. Chalk one up for the pander bears.

I don't know anyone who wants to burn our flag, but it happens. From time to time, we see flags being burned in the news, usually by protestors in another country, beyond jurisdiction of U.S. law. We can't do anything about those actions, except perhaps to ask ourselves what we have done as a nation to arouse such ire.

For those on American soil who would vent their grievances in this harmless way, I defend their right to do so. The American flag represents our right to burn it. It is precisely that right that makes our flag -- and the people it represents worthy of honor. Jailing protesters and legislating allegiance to symbolism is common under authoritarian regimes, but it is not acceptable in the Land of the Free, or the Home of the Brave.

Are the American flag and the ideals it represents so weak and meaningless that we must protect the flag by penalty of law? I hope not. I am more afraid of the anti-desecration folk. They desecrate our Constitution by the mere suggestion that we must surrender our First Amendment rights to protect their precious symbol. If those people have their way, that symbol won't be precious any longer.

To criminalize flag desecration would desecrate Old Glory much worse than the occasional flag-burning protestor. Such a law would make great folly of the U.S. Constitution and the very freedoms our flag symbolizes. If flag burning were outlawed, it would be the duty of every freedom-loving citizen to Burn a Flag for Freedom, because that flag wouldn't represent Freedom anymore.

All of this flag-burning rhetoric is just political pandering that distracts the People and their representatives from the truly important issues to which they should be attending. 40-million Americans have no health insurance, thousands of hard-working employees at big companies like United Airlines are losing their retirement benefits because of managerial duplicity and incompetence, we are spending $1-billion per week in an illegal war against an unarmed, sovereign country, the U.S. Air Force Academy has become an evangelical seminary, and the polar ice caps are melting. There are many issues that are far more important than the occasional flag-burning crackpot.

It's unlikely that yesterday's measure will actually become law, but rest assured that if and when it does, yours truly will be one small point of light in a huge constellation of flaming Stars and Stripes.

First Amendment

2005-06-23T10:01:00.000-04:00

Why is "separation of church and state" so controversial? It simply means that the government does not set up one religion as the default state religion. Setting up one religion as the default can be either overt or subtle. There are countless subtle ways to make one religion the unwritten "official" religion, like requiring prayer time or posting religious documents in public spaces. "Separation of church and state" and the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibit these subtle as well as overt pressures.

The religious right has framed this battle as "anti-Christian bigotry." They seem to feel that any choice by the government not to exert these subtle pressures is a discriminatory slap against their religion.

This is crap. Total crap. Keeping the state free of subtle or overt pressure to participate in religion is one of the major purposes of the First Amendment.

I would reframe this debate in terms of religious privacy and freedom from state interference or establishment.

First post

2005-06-22T18:22:00.000-04:00

Here's my first post.