Putin Unplugged

While there was little that was novel in the Russian president's press conference two weeks ago, it wasn't so much what he said, but what wasn't reported, that deserves a closer look. Apart from the fact that most major international news organizations were onhand to question Mr. Putin, and one from the Wall Street Journal was among them, for the most part the mainstream media was missing in action, and conspicuously absent in covering either the conference, or Vladimir Putin's remarks. Indeed, apart from an editorial in The Washington Post, Information Clearing House, a few other notable alternative Web sites, and the Russian president's site, were the only ones to distribute the text of the conference.

Judging by the deafening silence, we can sure use cup of homemade Russian glasnost around here, especially given Rep. Henry Waxman's report today that more than half of nearly 90 White House officials who had e-mail accounts with the Republican National Committee have had e-mails disappear including, not surprising, those of Karl Rove. Somebody's trying really hard to cover some bones and, one might say, not without what the president calls "political theatre."

But, who would expect the Russian leader to be such a drama queen? And, anyone who thinks of Vladimir Putin as being as flamboyant as a card-carrying mortician is in for a surprise when they hear him say things like: "Am I a ' pure democrat'? Of course I am, absolutely. But do you know what the problem is? Not even a problem but a real tragedy? The problem is that I'm all alone, the only one of my kind in the whole wide world," and point to "torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial and investigation," as well as findings by Amnesty International that America is the number one violator of human rights worldwide. He further bolsters his claims when he says that Russia "has not abandoned its moratorium on the death penalty."

You can see why the mainstream media ducked when you hear him assert that the Russians didn't initiate withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and that while Russia is "disarming unilaterally...Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems." Indeed, as he suggests, the Cold War is now over; it's now a virus!

Herein lies the crux of the undercoverage, Putin's revelation that "For the first time in history...there are elements of the U.S. nuclear capability in the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuation of international security." And, Congress is now actively looking into ways to rein in the Bush administration's production of a new generation of warheads, as well as trying to dramatically reduce funding for the so-called Reliable Replacement Warheads program. (WaPo) Yet, while both the House and the Senate are doing a tap dance for our tax dollars, nobody is putting nuclear non-proliferation back on the table. Monica Goodling makes for a better headshot, no doubt, than a Reliable Replacement Warhead does. Maybe it's time to learn something not just about glasnost, but about perestroika, too..

It is Russia, not France or Germany, who now points to the U.S.as the rogue state that endangers global security with its placement of "low yield nuclear weapons" in Europe under the pretext that it needs to stave off Iranian missiles when, as he suggests, "there are no such missiles." Notably, it is the president of Russia not the United States who categorically exclaims: "We do not want a confrontation. We want cooperation" at this June 4th press conference. The U.S. press has been too busy cultivating its enhanced vegetative state, and preparing for another major stab at newspaper consolidation which, in these dark and dangerous times, is thoroughly unacceptable. Whether it's self-censorship, or too much Paris to waste time on Moscow, for shame, for shame, America; your leaders are running off with your booty, and dictatorships are closer to democracy than you are. The age of empirical monarchy is, once again, upon us.

"There is no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died," says Vladimir Putin; not in Chechnya, sir. What a statement about the upside down world in which we live that a government whose wanton torture, and murder of insurgents in Chechnya under the ever-widening umbrella of a war on terror should be the one to invoke the name of Gandhi, and not the leader of the so-called free world.

What a statement about the convoluted age in which we live that assertions made by the leader of a totalitarian state should sound more reasonable than those of our own government. Indeed, and coming from not merely a totalitarian, but one who many believe had a hand in the murder of Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who was gunned down in her apartment building elevator, last October, while investigating her government's systematic abuse, and torture of those it detains, and interrogates in Chechnya. What a statement coming from one who gave the command to put down a mass protest for gay rights, just weeks ago, in which many got bloodied. He may get to blink, but on whose watch?

Importantly, the distance between Russia and the United States cannot be measured in miles, but only in heartbeats. Despite the rhetoric, from either side, thousands of human hearts, an ocean of heartbeats, will soon join the endangered species list as a result of the flamboyant, inflated, and mercurial thoughts, and actions of those who claim to work for peace, and pervert the word peace by doing so. The politics of entitlement have quickly transformed into the privilege of concealment, and those who work to cover the tracks of those who surreptitiously infect the planet with their contagion of hate, and fear, are, without question, just as perverse.

Some Thoughts on the Middle East from a Father...

"Nowhere are the dangers of weapons of proliferation more urgent than in the Middle East. After consulting with governments inside the region and elsewhere about how to slow and then reverse the buildup of unnecessary and destabilizing weapons, I am today proposing a Middle East arms control initiative. It features supplier guidelines on conventional arms exports; barriers to exports that contribute to weapons of mass destruction; a freeze now, and later a ban on surface-to-surface missiles in the region; and a ban on production of nuclear weapons material."

President George H.W. Bush, in a speech to the US Air Force Academy, May 29, 1991

Bloomsday---------

Happy Bloomsday
to all
103 years young today
and
to Leopold Bloom

"Will you tell him he can kiss my arse? Miles Crawford said...

--He can kiss my royal Irish arse, Myles Crawford cried
loudly over his shoulder. Any time he likes, tell him.

While Mr. Bloom stood weighing the pint and about to
smile he strode on jerkily."

and from James Joyce's Ulysses, too:

"DEAR DIRTY DUBLIN

Dubliners,

--Two Dublin vestals, Stephen said, elderly and pious, have
lived fifty and fiftythree years in Fumbally's lane.
--Where is that? the professor asked.
--Off Blackpitts.
Damp night reeking of hungry dough. Against the wall.
Face glistening tallow under her fustian shawl. Frantic hearts.
Akasic records. Quicker, darlint!
On now. Dare it. Let there be life. "

Happy Bloomsday to all, and to all a good night!

Moyers on Libby

The below essay comes courtesy of Bill Moyers, and Public Affairs Television:

"Begging His Pardon"

By: Bill Moyers

It is well known that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby-once Vice President Cheney's most trusted adviser-has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.

Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places-including his boss Dick Cheney-outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered," wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B.Walton-a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush-called the evidence"overwhelming" and threw the book at Libby.

You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to "free Scooter." Vice President Dick Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as "a man...of personal integrity"-without even a hint of irony about the collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

"A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and tireless, honorable, selfless human being," said Donald Rumsfeld-the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction and who boasted of "bulletproof" evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. "A good person" and "decent man," said the one-time Pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a "cakewalk." Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise "the noblest spirit of selfless service" that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" and that Iraq would "finance its own reconstruction." The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently a president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness.

The praise kept coming: from Douglas Feith, who ran the Pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press; from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby's "honesty, integrity, fairness and balance" as he had been about the success of the war; and from William Kristol, who had primed the pump of the propaganda machine at The Weekly Standard and has led the call for a Presidential pardon. "The case was such a farce, in my view," he said. "I'm for pardon on the merits."

One Beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving-"weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness" of Libby's sentence.

And there's the rub.

None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fourad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing "in the nobility of this war," wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a "casualty"-a fallen soldier the President dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.

Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover.

There are contrarian voices: "This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice," said Pat Buchanan. "The Republican Party stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators." From the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: "If the public believes there's one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system."

So it may well be, as The Hartford Courant said editorially, that Mr. Libby is "a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot...but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn't matter much."




Bill Moyers is managing editor of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS.

This essay appears on tonight's program.

Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog www.pbs.org/moyers

Term Limits on the Supremes

For many, the idea of term limits for members of Congress is a good one, and three terms sounds about right. But, in light of Thursday's draconian ruling by the Supreme Court, as well as other recent rulings, it might be time to consider imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices, too.

Yesterday, consistent with what appears to be a trend, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to throw out the challenge to his murder conviction by an Ohio inmate, Keith Bowles, who was sentenced to 15 years to life, back in 1999. Mr Bowles sought to appeal his sentence on constitutional grounds, but the federal court denied his application due to a technicality---he was 3 days late in filing his papers. After being denied on first appeal, he reopened the case years later, and a federal district judge erroneously gave him 17 days instead of 14 to file. So, his appeal was thrown out of appeals court as he passed the deadline, and the Supreme Court upheld their ruling which precluded Bowles from legal remedy to challenge his sentence. Bottom line: regardless of whether Mr. Bowles deserves to do the time he was given, his Eighth Amendment appeal was tossed because of a mistake made by a federal judge, and he missed out on his legal right to appeal. (NYT)

The decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the U.S. Court of Appeal ruling was, in a word, callous, and calluses are for feet not courts. Indeed, since the president's appointment of two new justices to the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, recent rulings increasingly demonstrate that the hard, bony tissue which often develops around the ends of a fractured bone now exemplifies the body politic, too. After all, what is it if not crude and callous to deny someone the right to appeal because he was late for filing his paperwork due to a j]judge's mistake?

So it is then that we can no longer talk about the composition, but the decomposition of the Supreme Court in light of this ruling, as well as one, in mid-April, in which the court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions, also by a 5-4 ratio, again reflecting a slim majority. And, here, too,, we can thank the usual suspects, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, for a ruling that represents the first step in overturning the constitutional amendment that protects reproductive choice. But, whether you're for choice or against it, think that the inmate in Ohio was guilty and had no case for appeal, this literalism, and rigid adherence to technicality, may someday jeopardize your rights, too.

Notably, the minority justices, in the challenge to the Bowles' appeal, did not go gently into that good night. Justice David H. Souter argued that "It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch." (NYT) Souter also suggests that it would have been completely reasonable for the Supreme Court to make an exception, in this case, and decide to allow the appeal to go through and, in effect, "to rely on an order from a federal judge."

But, there appears to be a subtext at work here. By challenging the ruling by a district federal judge who clearly made a mistake in allowing for a few extra days in which to file the appeal, the majority in the Supreme Court asserts its power, its "unitary" judicial rights, not unlike the argument made by its colleague in the executive branch. So, not only is this a Supreme Court on steroids, but one that is setting the stage for validating only those district court rulings, down the road, that support its ideological mindset.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in speaking for his conservative colleagues in the court, effectively said that those who think the rules are "inequitable" should look to Congress to change them: "Congress may authorize courts to promulgate rules that excuse compliance with the statutory time limits." This is wishful thinking on the part of Justice Thomas as, since the midterm election in November, Congress seems to be capable only of passing water, not legislation.

While a prisoner in Ohio just lost out on his constitutional right to appeal what he thinks is a sentence that imposes "cruel and unusual punishment," fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments about executing a Texas man who was convicted of murder despite the fact that new evidence surfaced, 10 years after the crime, which strongly supported his claims of innocence. Leonel Herrera was sentenced to be put to death for murdering two police officers. He was scheduled to be executed back in 1992, but won a stay of execution while his attorneys went before the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of executing an innocent man. While Herrera confessed to the murders, he later recanted. And, more importantly, his nephew came forward and told authorities that it was Herrera's brother, Raul Herrera, who killed the officers.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration supported the Texas argument that the defendant had no "constitutional claim to a new hearing," (NYT) and it was the argument of a Texas assistant attorney general, at the time, Margaret P. Giffey, that it was not unconstitutional to execute someone convicted of murder, and sentenced to die, even if indisputable exculpatory ev idence were to emerge that vindicates him when that evidences surfaces after an established time limit. Ms. Giffey stood by Texas law which only allows new evidence to be considered when it is presented within 30 days before the trial ends. So, despite powerful proof that the state of Texas was executing an innocent man, and as a result of the court's refusal to reopen Herrera's case, 45 year old Leonel Herrera was put to death in Texas on May 12, 1993, while crying out that he was innocent until his dying breath.

This barbaric adherence to rules and regulations is not merely medieval, and callous, it is an insult to common sense, justice, and basic human rights. Moreover, this attitude from the highest court in the land is not only "intolerable," as Justice Souter contends, but flat out unacceptable.

While there is much talk, in progressive circles, about impeaching Mr. Gonzales, and Mr. Cheney, their terms as attorney-general and vice president are nearly over. On the other hand, we are only beginning to see the direction in which the newest members of the Supreme Court are taking us, and their rulings will affect, and shape, our constitutional protections, and civil liberties, for generations to come.

So, given that the majority justices, on the court, appear to be such sticklers for sticking to strict deadlines, and time limits, it seems only fair that they, too, comply with term limits. Justice Thomas was right to suggest that it is Congress that makes the rules, and it is Congress that must soon decide to put an expiration date on any appointment to the Supreme Court.

Happy Birthday...

William Butler Yeats ...

"AN IRISH AIRMAN FORESEES HIS DEATH

I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love;
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan's poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before. "

W.B. Yeats
Irish poet and dramaturge
Born June 13, 1865
remains a "monument of unageing intellect."

The New Frontier: Monitoring Academic Research

In a move that would put a huge smile on J. Edgar Hoover's face, the top gun at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Boston, reportedly paid a visit to Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Massachusetts to warn university officials to be "on the lookout for foreign spies," or "terrorists" who might be after "sensitive" research. These visits are, at the moment, confined to the state of Massachusetts, yet, according to Special Agent in Charge, Warren Bamford, this is the beginning of a national program. (AP)

Bamford insists that the attempt is not to censor information, or hinder an atmosphere of academic openness, but merely to raise "awareness." He contends that he's only suggesting that if anyone is poking around suspiciously, or expressing "unnatural" curiosity about a research project that university professors, and scholars, should simply give him a call. But, at a time when reports on global warming have been tampered with, and when military reports on killing of civilians have had whole sections blacked out, one can hardly expect this move to go unnoticed among civil liberties' advocates.

That the head of a local office of the FBI should meet with university officials to discuss creating an environment in which those who are accustomed to pursuing unrestricted, and unsupervised, scholarship must now look over their shoulder, is an egregious extension of the USA Patriot Act which advises neighbors to report suspicious behavior by other neighbors to local law enforcement.

And, while chilling, this program appears to be part of a growing practice on the part of government to monitor, and surveil its citizens electronic, and telephonic communications. Some might even argue that academia should not be exempt from governmental surveillance, but the medical research being done at Harvard may one day save their lives. Unfortunately, too, this is not the first attempt to compromise the concept of the university as a haven for expressing divergent, and controversial thought.

Sometime, in the next several weeks, the Board of Regents will decide whether or not to fire a tenured professor of ethnic studies, Ward Churchill, who has taught at the University of Colorado at Boulder for nearly 20 years for an essay he wrote, back in 2001, comparing victims of the World Trade Center bombing, on 9/11, to Adolf Eichmann. You'll recall that, over the past 6 years, Churchill's speaking engagements at several universities were cancelled. Clearly, whether one agrees with his thesis or not, the right to express one's viewpoint, with impunity, in an academic context, was a given until the current terror frenzy took hold. What we have here is not the aroma of mendacity, but of McCarthyism.

What's more, Churchill is not the only educator to question the authenticity of 9/11 to face expulsion from an American university. Ideas themselves have become contraband material for this administration. Last June, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security barred a professor from Athens, Professor John Milios, from entering the U.S. upon his arrival at Kennedy Airport on the basis of "irregularities" in his Visa. Many groups, including the American Association of University Professors, expressed outrage. Notably, Dr. Milios was en route to read from his paper, "How Class Works," at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. when he was detained at the New York airport.

This is not a solitary incident, but represents what AAUP general secretary, Roger Bowen, calls "a troubling pattern" in which foreign scholars are precluded from entering the U.S.Back in 2004, the government refused to grant a Visa to a prominent Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss citizen, when he was appointed to a tenured faculty position at the University of Notre Dame. The AAUP joined the ACLU and PEN American Center to challenge the provision of the Patriot Act which was used to bar Ramadan from entering the United States. This process by which Homeland Security intervenes in the routine travel of foreign scholars is one that gets remarkably little notice from the press, or Congress.

Whether it's asking neighbors to observe each other, and report any "suspicious" behavior to law enforcement, or asking scholars to be mindful of possible "foreign spies" in their classrooms, it's part of the same pattern which speaks to an attempt to cultivate a climate of self-censorship, and repression in which behavior is modified such that one avoids the kind of inquiry needed to advance higher learning, and higher order thinking, too. If a university researcher is inhibited, and hesitates to ask the kinds of questions he, or she wants for fear of being labelled a possible "foreign spy," the consequences may be devastating. How can one be expected to find a cure for HIV/AIDS, address issues of climate change, or political dissent in Iran and Israel, if they must concern themselves with whether or not a colleague is taking notes, and monitoring their behavior for the local FBI?

Arguably, the kind of ubiquitous suspiciousness the FBI, and CIA, should be monitoring is the illegal monitoring of domestic and foreign communications in violation of FISA and the First Amendment. The country is at more risk of foreign spies and terrorists infiltrating the government than the university, and we need to quarantine fear as much as TB. Any college official, or federal agent, who chooses to enable this program must be channeling J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI founder notorious for investigating individuals not for crimes, but for their political beliefs and activities.

It was Hoover's penchant, too, for using illegal wiretaps which makes him remarkably contemporary, but even he might be hard pressed to conceive of the day when one of his agents broke bread with head honchos of some of the biggest think-tanks in the country, and asked them to launch a program in which faculty engages in mutual self-surveillance. The ACLU, in Massachusetts, is already speaking out against this nascent, and spreading program, which is a deplorable byproduct of the Patriot Act, and must be stopped, and stopped now.

"A Recipe for National Health: More Colin, Less Rice"

Colin Powell, former secretary of state, isn't stalling when it comes to speaking his mind on closing down the naval base at Guantanamo Bay unlike his successor, Condeeleezza Rice who approaches Gitmo the way most of us approach doing our taxes. In fact, Powell says that he would close Gitmo "not tomorrow but this afternoon," acknowledging that the detention center, in Cuba, has done more damage to America's reputation, and national security than good. (Reuters)

And, while many remember him for his counterfeit claims to the United Nations about weapons of mass distraction, he must also be remembered as being the first public figure, in the Bush administration, to assert that the U.S. is breaking international law, and the Geneva Conventions by its handling of prisoners of war.

Not only does the former general talk about getting rid of Gitmo, but of the revisionist "military commission system" established by the Military Commissions Act, last year, by the Bush administration which skirts the law in innovative, and singularly terrifying ways, he tells Reuters that turning close to 350 Gitmo detainees over to our federal courts would be "more understandable in constitutional terms."

While it would be wonderful if Monday's headlines read "prison in Guantanamo Bay closed until further notice," the underlying, ongoing, and odious problem of transporting terror suspects over global airspace to secret prisons, and/or countries, where torture is not prohibited, extraordinary rendition, would remain unsolved.

And when, only a few days ago, British police insisted they have no proof that CIA planes involved in the activity landed "illegally" at British airports, they did so in defiance of findings by the European Parliament, last year, that the CIA flew 1245 secret flights into European airspace with the United Kingdom coming in second only to Germany in the number of stopovers. As director of the human rights group, Liberty, says: "When politicians spin it's disappointing. When police engage in the same activity it is rather more dangerous." (Reuters)

What's more, a senator from Switzerland, Dick Marty, contends that he was told by American intelligence that Poland and Romania hosted jails to "kill, capture, and detain terrorist suspects deemed of 'high value'," naming Britain as one of the countries that provided "refueling stopovers" while illegally, and covertly, transferring detainees. As the Dylan song goes, " But to live outside the law you must be honest," a concept increasingly missing in action over the past six plus years.

But, how is it that one can refuel without landing? Also, is there anything more than a rhetorical difference between flying over a country's airspace, and landing at its airport? Clearly, allowing the CIA to fly in U.K. airspace would require the same degree of collaboration as allowing the aircraft to land at one of its airports. If, as chief constable of Greater Manchester Police suggests, there is no evidence to substantiate claims, by the human rights group Liberty, that the CIA planes landed in England more than 200 times since 2001, how is it that the European Parliament reported more than 170 flights into the U.K. as of late November? Somebody is clearly not telling the truth here.

Possibly, during one of his recent meetings with outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair, the president asked for, and got, his cooperation with respect to concealing the fact that, since 9/11, British airspace, and airports, provided a safe haven for covert operations by the CIA, operations which are in violation of international law. The larger question remains as to why the European Parliament is investigatiing these unlawful flights, and extraordinary rendition, when the U.S. is barely up to investigating a covert visit to the hospital bed of a former attorney general?

And, while much of European and American media had been squarely focused on manufactured reasons for taking the country, and the world, to war, the egregious, and contemptible practice of holding prisoners of war, using linguistic sleight of hand, as well as secretly flying suspects to be tortured in hiding, and over cooperating airspace, has gone largely unnoticed by the American people, and their elected representatives. Would that it were, but it's not enough to shut down Gitmo, and send those 300 plus back to the United States; it's a good place to start, not stop. Until we eliminate the mindset that would concoct a detention camp for indefinite incarceration without access to counsel, or evidence, in defiance of the Fourth Amendment, we won't solve the problem that brought us Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

Until Congress, and the Supreme Court, confront the concept of extraordinary rendition, and get to the meat of the human rights abuses committed under the pretext of a war on terror, we may rest assured that torture "made under the auspices of the U.S.A." won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and can only lead to more attacks, and greater condemnation against the United States. And, for those friends who think impeachment is a solution, constitutional amendments, Supreme Court rulings, and legislation are designed to outlive presidents and presidential regimes.

While Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faces a no-confidence congressional vote tomorrow, the issue that now brings him to his proverbial knees, remarkably, is the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, and not his collusion in the core issue of human rights abuses, redefining torture, dismantling of habeas corpus, and dismantling of due process by the Military Commissions Act.

It isn't Mr. Gonzales' competency that 's in question here, but his honesty that Congress will consider in deciding his fate. And, by extension, it is our honesty, as a nation, that Europe, and the rest of the world, will take into account when it casts its no-confidence vote in us as a member of their community, a vote that will affect quality of life,in the U.S., for generations to come.

Despite what anyone may say about him when he was under the White House thumb, few can deny that Colin Powell currently provides positive, and outspoken, leadership with regard to his concern not only for America's image abroad, but for the U.S. Constitution, and the rule of law. One can only hope that Congress, and the Supreme Court will consider the words of this former secretary of state, and close Guantanamo, as well as every secret prison, end terror flights, and get rid of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Paris for Sale

Now that CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and every major news network has succeeded in draining every last drop of advertising dollar out of the plight of this poor little rich girl:

Will someone please explain to Ann Coulter, Fox News, and anyone else who is confused about this case that Paris Hilton was picked up this time, and given a 45 day sentence for violating her parole, and not for drunk driving!

"generational"

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, slated to replace ousted Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, has already raised the stakes, in Iraq, by claiming that this is "a generational war" as we're not fighting the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, or the Serbians, we're fighting "evil."

We agree with Mr. Mullen that this war will go on as far as the eye can see, as long as there is any money to be made from it.

Make no mistake, our involvement in Iraq, and the Middle East, has nothing to do with evil, and everything to do with profit.

Paris and Other Pariahs

Okay, so maybe we can all sleep a little better tonight knowing that Paris Hilton is neatly tucked away in jail in Los Angeles. Justice has been served. After all, she violated the terms of her parole, so why not take her in handcuffs in the back of a squad car, and show her what law and order is all about. Yes, and while we're at it, why not put her in the middle of the public square, subject her to ridicule, whip her with headlines, and purge ourselves of all that evil envy we all, to some degree, possess.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I hate Paris Hilton, too, because she's young, blonde, and beautiful, because her breasts are firm, and her dreams in tact. Yes, there are times I think-- why not feed her to the gladiators because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and will return to a palatial estate n West Hollywood while the rest of us serfs can only stutter at her opulence, and say "pass the remote." But, explain something to me, how is it that Augusto Pinochet, a man who killed many thousands in his native Chile, was allowed to serve out his days in his mansion, and not a peep was said by anyone?

How is it that Richard Nixon was pardoned, and left to walk, after masterminding the break-in of Democratic headquarters known as Watergate? How is it that war crimes, and massacres, are taking place every day both here at home, and in Iraq, in secret terror cells, and in state penitentiaries, and no one is saying a damn thing. Instead, the news media can't get enough of the mug shot of a young girl whose freedom, or incarceration, in the final analysis, doesn't mean a bloody thing to anyone but herself, and those closest to her.

We have made a national pastime of scapegoating those who do the least damage to us, as a society, while letting the real criminals walk free, unscathed, and without scrutiny. While Scooter Libby may be next to cry his eyes out in the back of a squad car, and the media blitz will convince us that, once again, justice is being served when those who most deserve to be handcuffed, and carted away will finish out their terms of office with feckless, and tearless impunity. So, while those who feel vindicated by the equalizing of stigma, and penalty as applied to Ms. Hilton are taking a huge sigh of relief, and thinking that, at last, the system works, think about this, for a moment, we have destroyed a human life. Yes, it isn't just her short sentence in a county jail that Paris must put behind her, but the miserable memory of having been subjected, and eviscerated, by ongoing deprecation, and communal venom, and this from this most Christian of countries.

What's happening to Paris Hilton is a crying shame for any of us who have ever known what it is to be ridiculed, and despised, to have your dreams dashed. Anyone who thinks that even one day in jail is a good thing deserves to be there themselves. Moreover, anyone who thinks that the disparity between rich and poor, right and wrong, has been addressed by incarcerating, and humiliating this young girl will be hugely disappointed when they discover it hasn't accomplished a blessed thing.

A word on immigration and neo-nationalism

Apart from the war, immigration is the most explosive issue on the menu, at the moment, and assimilation is all too often confused with patriotism.

With the Fourth of July less than a month away, it pays to revisit flags and flag wavers. Thankfully, despite the best efforts of many to endow it with magical, or supreme powers, a flag is just a piece of fabric; a symbol, yes, but not something sacrosanct. If only those who approach the flag with reverence approached the Bill of Rights the same way, what a great country this would be.

After all, when you think about it, more people have died over flags than from cigarettes, coffee, smog, cars, drugs, and booze combined. When was the last time a war was fought over a martini?

I think Betsy Ross should have inscribed: "Caution: May Be Hazardous to Your Health" on every flag she designed.

On Offense

In a curious reversal of the stereotype of a flag burner, or one we might expect to demonstrate within blocks of a military base, Wednesday's arrest of a mother, in Nebraska, for allowing her 10 year old to "stomp" on an American flag at a soldier's funeral, shows just how much social profiling is starting to break down.

Aside from being a protestor, and mom, Shirley Phelps-Roper is also an attorney, and member of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that attributes the deaths of American service members to God's punishment for a nation that has become more tolerant of gays and lesbians. Group members have reportedly participated in nearly 300 demonstrations in more than 40 states just in the past two years. (AP)

The arrest took place prior to the funeral services when the police noticed her 10 year old son jumping up and down on the flag. While flag desecration is constitutionally protected, there are some prominent congressional members, on both sides of the aisle, who would prefer to change that. According to Nebraska's flag law, "A person commits the offense of mutilating a flag if such person intentionally casts contempt or ridicule upon a flag by mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon such flag."

The 49 year old mother faces 90 days in jail, a $500 fine or both for mutiliating a flag, and disturbing the peace. On the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, she could get a year in jail, and be fined twice as much.

Not only is Phelps-Roper a member of Westboro Baptist Church, she's also the daughter of church founder, Rev. Fred Phelps. Not only is she refusing to back down, she says she eagerly awaits the chance to see her day in federal court. While it is difficult to make heroes of those who would just as soon torment a woman on the way into an abortion clinic, or call someone queer, as incite her child to stomp on an American flag, it is reassuring to see the born again ethos spread to include a newfound affection for the Constitution.

So, now that the left has found religion, the right has found the First Amendment. Who knows? Maybe "Mother Courage," in 2050, will look more like something out of Ayn Rand than Bertolt Brecht.

Even if the incongruity implied by a member of an ultra conservative group, one that would ban sodomy defending her constitutional right to free speech, is vexing, clearly this lawyer mom gets that "committing an offense" on a piece of fabric is not the same as trampling the ideas behind it.
After all, those who conceived the concept of free speech, freedom of assembly, and a free press would have to accept even the most execrable characters, the cross burners. If only those with the moxie to get arrested, and go to court to affirm their right to desecrate a national symbol, would have the courage to acknowledge that the First Amendment, in protecting freedom of expression, affirms diversity, whether it be social, political, or sexual.

What to Wear with Libby...

Something contrite doesn't appear to be in order, at least not according to the judge who sentenced the vice president's former chief of staff to 30 months in prison for perjury and obstructing justice. Apart from the gravity of the charges, Judge Walton was clearly not impressed with the lack of penitence, as well as hubris the defendant displayed in his courtroom.

But, after all, why should Mr. Libby be anything less than smug given that, at tonight's Republican presidential debate, all three of the top contenders have already decided to pardon him. They may not know what to do about Iraq, but there's a consensus when it comes to Libby. Imagine, and this when his mugshot isn't even dry yet.

What McCain, Guiliani, and Romney don't appear to get is that Mr. Libby isn't facing jail time for outing Valerie Plame, but for lying, and actively hampering an investigation into who revealed this undercover agent's identity.

Scooter Libby's date with destiny is in limbo pending the prospect, too, of a presidential pardon. I, for one, can't recall this kind of clamor to pardon someone since Gerald Ford stepped in to rescue Richard Nixon.

Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor in the case, the only one who has consistently demonstrated that he has the chops, waxed quixotic today when he told the press "We need to make a statement that the truth matters ever so much." Well, then, if the truth matters even half as much as Mr. Fitzgerald suggests, it is Mr. Cheney, not his aide, who should start packing a box lunch. After all, it was the vice president who revealed the identity of CIA agent, Valerie Plame, to Mr. Libby in the first place.

The smart money says that, in the end, Paris Hilton will spend more time in jail than Scooter Libby.

A Dubious Honor

On the basis of one word, "unlawful," a military judge threw out charges today against a 20 year old Toronto man Omar Khadr, held at Guantanamo Bay, who is accused of having murdered an American soldier, in Afghanistan, when he was only 15. The judge, who is an Army colonel, Peter Brownback, said that Khadr's classification as an "enemy combatant," by a previous panel, instead of an "unlawful enemy combatant" makes him ineligible for prosecution under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oh, the power of a single word.

Given that not a single detainee, at Guantanamo, has been designated as "unlawful," this ruling has the stunning potential of resulting in dismissals of all charges against any detainee lucky enough to find themselves in front of a military tribunal, or even know what they are charged with. Khadr's attorney, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, insists that the judge's decision to dismiss his case comes not as the result of a mere "technicality," but instead is proof of "a system of justice that does not comport with American values." (AP)

While human rights abuses, suicides, and related outrages, at the detention camp in Cuba are receiving lots of media attention, few are reading the fine print in the legislation passed, last year, that allows for a new system for trying war crimes in which the prosecution must comply with a 72 hour window for appeals to a court that has yet to be created. Kafka would have loved that! Yes, for now, the "court of military commissions review" , exists only on paper, and as part of the Military Commissions Act which New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat, plans to investigate, asserting that the legislation is "riddled with problems and created a process that operates outside the rule of law." (AP)

Arguably, the whole notion of a military tribunal to try detainees, as created by this administration, suggests that the so-called "rule of law" operates within its own vacuum, one that is itself not merely insular, legally anachronistic, but immune from accountability, and congressional oversight. That said, the system is not immune from oversight by the Supreme Court which rejected previous attempts at military tribunals, calling the method by which this administration wishes to try detainees, in a word, unconstitutional. Of course, new guidelines for war trials were quickly put in place, and passed by Congress, which allow for the kind of hearing today that resulted in the extraordinary dismissal of charges against Khadr and, in a related case, of those against Hamdan, too.

More troubling than the notion that one may seek redress from a military commissions review that has yet to be created is a look at the revisionist stance on terror espoused by chief prosecutor in the Hamdan case, Army Lt. Col. William Britt, who contends that one might even argue that the war on terror began in 1993 when the World Trade Center was first bombed. This kind of mangled logic ranks right up there with that of criminalizing certain war crimes, such at conspiracy, retroactively or, for that matter, classifying and declassifying information based on political expediency. Once again, we witness a precedent setting proclivity on the part of this administration to break the law, and then make it law.

But, plainly, there is no nuancing one essential fact, the U.S. now has the dubious honor of being the "first country in modern history to try an individual who was a child at the time of the alleged war crimes," (AP) as well as to try to revive practices that were vestigial even in feudal times.

So it is then that a young man, Omar Khadr, one who isn't even old enough to drink in most states, may yet get to return to his native Canada, and leave Guantanamo Bay where he remains, as a consequence of the ruling of one military judge who turned ambiguous terminology like "enemy combatant" into the samurai's sword it deserves, showing that the law as written and rewritten over the past half-dozen years must surely backfire when an infrastructure of injustice comes apart, bit by bit, thanks to the efforts of those who still remember to read the fine print.

in the words of a great man, and a great President...

Thomas Jefferson...


" I have the consolation to reflect that during the period of my administration not a drop of blood of a single fellow citizen was shed by the sword of war or of the law.""Equal and exact justice of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.... Freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the HABEAS CORPUS, and trial by juries impartially selected.

These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heros have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which we try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error and alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety

The Oscars for Intelligence

A U.S. attorney, police commissioner, members of the transit authority, and local law enforcement, in New York today, participated in a press conference that rivals the academy awards in their determination to praise each other for foiling an alleged "conspiracy" to plant explosives to blow up aircraft, terminals, and gas lines in one of the nation's busiest, and best loved airports, JFK. While no explosives, or any concrete evidence, has yet to turn up, the investigation into this plan for a massive strike against a major U.S. airport appears to be a slam dunk for an administration aiming to make its citizens more aware of the prospects for "terrorist attacks;" arguably, more of these foiled plots will come to light as the presidential race draws closer.

Does this sound cynical? Well, let me assure you that, having been born and raised only miles from JFK, few could be happier that the 18 month plot haa been averted, and that three suspects have been taken into custody on conspiracy charges. Abdul Kadir, Kareem Ibrahim, and Russell Defreitas are being held, and a fourth man, Abdel Nur is being sought in Guyana. Notably, Mr. Defreitas, a former airport employee, is a U.S. citizen. And, while we m ay take a collective sign of relief that the nation's financial mecca has, yet again, been spared, it is socially irresponsible not to ask if Defreitas will meet the same fate as Jose Padilla, or to ignore the fact that, while precluding another terrorist act, we're still no closer to apprehending the usual suspects, and understanding the root causes of a global wildfire of hatred of U.S. foreign expansionism, and corporate gluttony. Rest assured that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be thrilled, too, to see another attack on a beloved city fail, but to use a so-called war on terror to eviscerate an American citizen of his constitutional rights is not what the framers had in mind.

Moreover, while lately the administration talks more about a growing threat from al Qaeda in Iraq, yet to be addressed is the harsh reality of how our government's policies are fanning the fire of universal contempt for our landmarks, institutions, and people.

While the four alleged to have spent more than a year hatching this latest plot which, had it happened, would have been a devastating blow to aircraft, terminals, and fuel lines, they did not even possess the means to implement ; authorities moved in, and brought three into custody based on its own surveillance, and the belief that one suspect had been planning to travel. So, picture it: law enforcement surveillance of suspects using the Internet to monitor activities of Kennedy Airport; we have surveillance of surveilance. What happens when the watchers are watching the watched who are watching the watchers? No one is looking into the root causes, but only the outward manifestations. More importantly, what happens to free movement on the Internet when government authorities are allowed to track that movement, at will, based on evidence, however dubious, that a "conspiracy" is taking place. I know, I know; we're not suppsed to worry about our First Amendment rights when threatened with an attack on our shores...right?

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly urged New Yorkers, once again, to be "vigilant." In fact , he used the word "vigilant" twice in less than a minute. He's right. All Americans need to be vigilant of anything that looks suspicious, or that could lead to an attack against the city, and country, we love. But, we also need to be mindful of excesses that may result from so-called vigilance, such as the potential for racial profiliing, harsh and illegal interrogation techniques, government surveillance of electronic and telephonic communications, as well as the prospect of domestic internments camps for Muslims, in the U.S., not unlike those for the Japanese after World War II.

Indeed, it may be said that every man or woman who is killed, or kills himself may be seen as a victim of terror in this war. A few days ago, a young Saudi man is alleged to have killed himself while in detention at one of our notorious camps at Guantanamo Bay. He is one of four, since 2002, who has been moved to this most desperate act which doubtless arose, at least partially, from being held without charge, and with no end in sight. Does might give us the right to detain without due process, threaten, and humiliate?

So, while the heads of law enforcement, transit authorities, and U.S. attorneys, in New York, pass out accolades for having deterred another horrific act on our soil, this week, a landmark lawsuit was brought by the ACLU against Boeing aircraft for its complicity in transporting terror suspects, across international airspace, to countries that don't have to comply with Geneva Conventions against torture. It's time we ask ourselves, do the ends justify the means? Can the means be proven to correlate with the ends? Is torture not terror? And, when will we recognize the connection between those crimes we commit, and those that are committed against us. No one regime may be allowed to wipe out world history since the Enlightenment.

There is only one way to end the war on terror, and that is to address the vast, and growing, disparity between wealth and indigence, abundance and famine, and work, with compassion and dignity, to eradicate poverty and fear. This cannot be accomplished with bombs and bloodshed, but undertanding and diplomacy.

Paging John Ashcroft

As he lay in his now famous hospital bed after gallbladder surgery, then attorney general, John Ashcroft, received a call from then White House chief of staff Andrew Card asking if he and the president's counsel Alberto Gonzales could pay him a visit. Mrs. Ashcroft reportedly declined. Minutes later, according to Newsweek, the phone rang again, only this time the identity of the caller remains unknown. The response to that request was in the affirmative. So it was then that, shortly before he resigned in 2004, John Ashcroft received a bedside visit which has come under icreasing scrutiny, and has led to an atmosphere of what the president calls "grand political theatre."

Next month, the Senate will hold a vote of no confidence hearing for Alberto Gonzales, and it's time to call upon the one person in the room at the time who can answer essential questions as to what was said, what the NSA program looked like in its original state, why he refused to sign off on the legislation, and what role the president had in this whole affair. It's time for the Senate to subpoena John Ashcroft and, if necessary, provide him with the same limited immunity that was given Monica Goodling in exchange for talking.

That Ashcroft thought the program was illegal, and that more than two dozen members of the Justice Department, including then director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, threatened to resign over the executive branch attempt to monitor even greater number of Americans communications without a court order, we know, but his refusal to approve the program was not merely heroic, but shocking in light of some of the shady, and legally dubious post-9/11 prosecutorial gestures. Even a cursory look at some high profile litigation in which Mr. Ashcroft was involved peripherally will reveal just how egregious the initial NSA surveillance legislation must have been.

Back in April, 2003, Ashcroft was admonished by a federal judge for violating a gag order in the trial of four Detroit men who were indicted for operating a terror cell. He is also said to have ignored gag orders in the case of John Walker Lindh leading one observer to remark that "It is especially disturbing that it is the Attorney-General himself who has violated court orders and ethics rules." (FindLaw)

As recently as last September, a judge in Idaho denied a request to grant absolute immunity to the former attorney general from testifying in an indictment of the government for the wrongful arrest of Abdullah al Kidd as a material witness in a computer terrorism case. Should the case go to trial, and Mr. Ashcroft be compelled to testify, he will now have to answer allegations, under oath, that he was himself responsible for compromising Kidd's rights by "creating a national policy to improperly seek material witness warrants in an effort to arrest individuals without probable cause." (Jurist) Importantly, the judge's ruling prohibits the government from pre-emptive strikes against its own citizens, and a policy of "preventively" detaining suspects by labelling them material witnesses.

So, taken in context, we have a former attorney general who has defied explicit court orders, and spoken to the press about high profile terror cases, as well as one who attempted to detain suspects without probable cause defying efforts to bully him into approving a warrantless surveillance program that was brought to him, ostensibly for signing, at his hospital bed. What in the hell was in that program that prompted an anti-terror hawk to stand up to this president when he was in no condition to do so, and who better to answer that than Mr. Ashcroft himself?.

Failure on the part of Congress to obtain testimony from this former attorney general, who is now a material witness, on the original NSA legislation, who it was that sent Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales to visit him, what they discussed, and what role the White House plays in this so-called grand political theatre will constitute a breach of contract between government and the people, and an ethical lapse of seismic magnitude. Whether one votes no confidence in the current attorney general or not, the Senate must get to the truth, once and for all, even if it means they must put John Ashcroft on the stand.

cynicism

We have more to fear from cynicism than from global warming.

Tom Hayden on Iraq...

"A likely result of the war may be troops out, oil companies in. "


courtesy of The San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2007

Climate Change

Clinton is in Iowa this weekend and, once again, climate change is on the menu. While global warming is clearly uppermost on everyone's agenda, the kind of toxicity most folks in Washington are concerned about these days isn't the kind that comes with greenhouse gases.

After watching the president's glee in signing the new Iraq funding bill, it's easy to see that the midterm election wasn't an election, after all, but a narcotic which is finally starting to wear off. That the mood of the nation crashed, after seeing the promise of a new Congress diminish so quickly, is evident from Mr. Bush's rumored U-turn on Iraq, and recent hints at troop withdrawal as early as 2008. Judging from the growing body count, bringing the troops home in July would be too late. But, most importantly, for those who felt passionately about the prospects for progressive social change, that passion is starting to fade as quicky as it does for a seasoned call girl, and indeed it may be said that only politics can make old whores of us all.

So, those who awoke from the narcosis that was the past six months only to find the playing field littered by candidates who, like Hillary, voted for the original appropriation bill that sent our troops to Iraq, letting it be known that they voted "No" this time, are duly cynical, and outraged. Many who expected revolutionary transformation to occur following November's Democratic victory experienced a letdown of crisis proportions, but either they didn't do the math, or don't remember that there are 233 House Democrats to 201 Republicans, and 50 Democrats in the Senate to 49 Republicans, hardly a mandate for a change in direction in Iraq, or anywhere else, for that matter.

After the election in November, the media spoke about the lame duck presidency, and how it would be all uphill for this administration. True, but given the numbers, and the presence of leadership that belongs at the Christian Embassy, not at the White House, Congress is guaranteed to have an uphill battle, too. So much for instant revolution; even Karl Marx suggested revolution is really, at its core, evolution in drag.

That said, principally, the problem is more one of leadership than legislation. When, as one often hears, people say that all the Democratic presidential candidates are good that means that no one candidate has gained their support. Some say they like Obama, others say Clinton, others say Edwards, and others are waiting for Al Gore to declare which may prove to be rather like Waiting for Godot.

Picking a presidential party nominee is not like choosing which flavor frozen yogurt to order, especially for an election as substantive as the one in 2008. Odds are, whoever we choose, given that we get to choose (unlike in 2000) will stick around for eight more years, and may have the chance to make another lifelong appointment to the Supreme Court with far reaching consequences.

Whether it's Hillary and big business, or McCain and big war bucks, it must remembered that a president's first four years are often spent appealing to the special interests that got them there, so who are those special interests? What policy, or practices will a president most likely endorse to get re-elected, and at whose expense? How much are they willing to compromise to get to where they want to go? Will it be Roe v. Wade for Hillary, and/or the invasion of Iran for McCain?

Most of all, we must be mindful of political posturing. Everyone is totally focused, during a debate, when the gloves come off, yet few even notice when the masks come off, and yet invariably they do. While, to a greater or lesser degree, every candidate, on both sides of the aisle, does their share of posturing, it's the politicians who buy into the charade that do the most damage. If you think Richard Nixon knew when he was posturing, and when he wasn't, forget about it. Our present president hasn't a clue, either, but it's easier for him, he's posturing almost all the time.

Every president, including Kennedy, had some kind of ideology, or demon, but it's the ones who don't question, and aren't willing to think, and re-think that we have to be wary of. Remember that, only days before his assassination, President Kennedy was questioning whether to lift the trade embargo against Cuba; he was rethinking his commitment of 15,000 troops in Vietnam, too, and didn't do his analysis behind closed doors, but shared his views with the country he governed. Alas, the spirit of collaboration, in government, appears to have died with him.

So, why not think about a president who would be the first to admit that he did his share of posturing, and one who was smart enough to see it for what it was, honest enough to admit that he was barking up the wrong tree, and truthful enough with the American people to say that maybe, just maybe, he needed to rethink his decision to send young American service men and women into combat without sound justification for doing so. This is the kind of intelligence that keeps us safe, not the pork that purports to be in the interest of "homeland security."

One wonders why anyone evolved enough to recognize, and own up to their own limitations would even consider being president of the United States in a climate that is user-friendly for trigger happy blind faith.

Vision never comes with a mandate. When the sedative wears off, there is always pain. What emerges from the rubble is not a green light for apathy, but a road map for radical change, the kind envisoned by the civil rights movement nearly fifty years ago The challenge now is to find leadership that is wide awake, vigorous, honest; and that doesn't confuse preemptive with proactive. Anything less is an insult to those who brought us to the brink of progress, and were destroyed by those corporate interests which continue to pollute, and corrupt.

Now that the novacaine has worn off, it's time to focus less on the presidency, and more on transformng the political climate from one that promotes secrecy, and privilege to one that engenders intellectual probity, humanity, and grace.

Connecting the Dots...

The following is a comment posted, on The Huffington Post, in response to my piece "Atheists in Foxholes:"

"I am and always have been an atheist, I am also a Staff Sergeant in the National Guard, currently in the process of retiring. Concerning the famous quote about "no atheists in foxholes", Sen McCain, who has the experience to know, once said that battlefield conversions don't mean much. Yelling "Jesus save my stupid ass" as bullets fly overhead isn't exactly High Church. When I was in Iraq, there were only 2 admitted atheists in my cavalry platoon, I was one of them.

While there is a subtle expectation in the military that everyone is a Christian, no one ever ostracized or penalized me for my views, and I was never shy about expressing them. I was invited to participate in unofficial bible study sessions, but no one gave me any grief when I respectfully declined. I got more hassle for being a Democrat. When I was looking for enlightened conversation, not on the subject of religion, the chaplain was my favorite companion. My Lieutenant did express some concern over my views: He asked several times "as an atheist, what if you get killed here?" My answer always was "I'll convert to Islam on the spot."

It does seem to be true in some places, like the Air Force Academy, that inappropriate religious pressure has been applied to some people. This needs to stop. However I am more concerned about inappropriate pressure to conform to conservative political ideology than religiosity. Armed Forces Network, in an attempt to be evenhanded, broadcasts a variety of cable news sources. In practice, this means an hour of CNN, an hour of MSNBC, an hour of CBS, followed by 15 hours of FOX News and talk shows.

At National Guard drills, I have seen senior NCOs "strongly encourage" troops to vote for conservative issues and candidates. This is not appropriate. It is true that military culture tends to attract people of a conservative social and political outlook. As long as this doesn't lead to favoritism, no problem. "



By: "Sgt. Mac"
May 27, 2007 01:20pm PM EDT

Atheists in Foxholes

Congress handed the president a belated Christmas present yesterday with passage of a new Iraq funding bill sans deadlines, or exit strategy. The Senate vote was nearly 8 to 1, (80 for, 14 against), and the House 2 to 1. Some may see this as a referendum on a unitary executive, and say the president won. Others might suggest the vote illustrates an executive branch on steroids, but as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin observes about Congress, "We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land."

Simply put, the vote conforms to the laws of gravity; Congress came up against an immoveable force---the president of the United States. This administration only proves, yet again, that despite our technological prowess, ideology can still triumph over reason and common sense. And, if nothing else, the past six years have shown us that ideology is a contact sport.

So, on the eve of a holiday that pays tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of those core values that distinguish us from theocracies and dictatorships, principles like religious tolerance, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state, why not look to those in the military who have served in Iraq, in active combat, and who openly differ with the ideological bent of their commanding officers. And, by extension, why not think, too, about religious coercion, in the U.S. armed forces, as an attempt to stifle political dissent.

While we may appear to have lost the battle to end the president's war in Congress yesterday, something very exciting is happening in the military that is so threatening to the Department of Defense that it has refused access to Web sites like You Tube and My Space, on department computers, to those in uniform. What, and who, is DOD trying to protect, and from what, and whom? If there is a crisis in belief, on all levels, and if groups are forming to ardently profess disbelief, is it any wonder?

It's no wonder, too, then that there are atheists in foxholes, and they're organizing, and speaking out, in greater numbers, about discrimination, and coercion, about infringement on their First Amendment rights, and maybe, just maybe, about an extremist vision that is a menace to the very principles they are fighting to defend.

Make no mistake, being an atheist, in the theatre of war, isn't just about the absence of belief in the Almighty, it's about the affirmation of choice, as well as acknowledgment that unbridled, and unchecked, zealotry poses a threat to society regardless of what the peculiar brand of ideology is. Some 20% of those now in the service profess to being atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers; that religious dissent is more prevalent in the military than in the civilian population leads one to wonder if disbelief isn't also a statement of profound, and unparalleled distrust in political leadership.

More active service members are coming together not merely to affirm their disbelief, but as resistance to extremist Christian proselytizing by their commanding officers, as well as in response to discrimination based on their refusal to participate in religious practice. While there have always been atheists and agnostics in the military, they are more vocal now, and we can expect their numbers to increase in direct proportion to the numbers of those dying, wounded, and a growing sense of helplessness, the kind of powerlessness suggested by Senator Durbin .

But, if we really want to know what it means to be an atheist in the military today, why not ask one, the president of Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Jason Torpy. MAAF is a group with members in 15 countries, 45 states, and over 100 military installations and ships.

Torpy, MAAF president since 2000, is a West Point graduate, trained intelligence officer, who enlisted in the Army back in 1994, and held the rank of Captain when he left the service in 2005. He calls for preserving the separation between church and state, and for protecting the First Amendment rights of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers.

When asked how one preserves one's humanism in active combat situations, Mr. Torpy said "Combat lays bare any misconceptions one might have about any special place humanity might enjoy in the natural world." And, this former Army captain confirms the pressure placed on service members to participate in prayer at what they thought were secular meetings, and testimonials on MAAF's Web site attest to efforts, by extreme Christian fundamentalists, to convert, and ostracize those who refuse to be converted.

He contends that religious discrimination comes "in two basic forms—active and passive. Active discrimination might involve denying a promotion, forcing undeserved labor, or providing undesirable assignments. Passive discrimination is far more common because it is sometimes unintentional, it is nonetheless very divisive… Our greatest concern is when leaders use their military power to express their personal religion by instituting personal religious ceremonies, symbolism, or statements in official activities."

"Combat does not inspire religion, and it certainly does not inspire Christianity," says Torpy adding that atheists "maintain their convictions despite external pressures, including combat." While belief in a higher power doesn't factor into those convictions, service in the military requires adherence to the Constitution, not the Bible.

Those in the service today who stand up for their constitutional rights are honoring every man and woman who gave their life so that they may enjoy these protections. By challenging ideological coercion, they are showing Congress how to take power back from those who have abused it.

Back to the Future...

for the quote of the day which comes, courtesy of The Washington Post, from Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, an anti-war Democrat from Illinois, in response to the passage yesterday of the Iraq funding bill:

"We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land."

Sadly, today, we are one step closer to being a monarchy.

The Bleeping Truth

So, you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the bleeping truth? Not only has this administration put government surveillance back on the map, and in ways that would make J. Edgar Hoover proud, but it has also engaged in the kind of censorship of scientific, and military, documents that would raise an eyebrow or two even at the Kremlin. And, burgeoning governmental intrusion poses a far graver threat to Internet safety than any garden variety computer virus ever could.

Among the more controversial issues former Vice President Al Gore mentioned last night on Larry King Live was this administration's unprecedented proclivity for blacking out parts of scientific reports on global warming, and anything else it considers "inconvenient." A study recently conducted by Oxford and Harvard, released last week, reports that fully two-thirds of the 40 countries surveyed block or edit Internet social, and political posts.

While the nations surveyed include the usual suspects like China, Iran, and Korea, so-called "social filtering" is said to be happening in France and Germany where Web sites that deny the Holocaust are blocked. Whether we agree that Nazis and Holocaust deniers are not a desirable bunch, giving any government the right to decide what we see, and what we say, online may portend a dangerous trend. As John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, suggests"The survey shows us that online censorship is growing around the world." (Agence France Presse) Coming soon to a Web site near you?

Already in China, Internet censors not only block Web pages, but entire Web sites based on what they perceive to be threats to national security. Companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, as well as media moguls like Rupert Murdoch are giving the green light to filtering, and deleting content which may be objectionable to the Chinese party line. Indeed, corporate profits make strange bedfellows.

But, more importantly, this kind of zeal for protecting national security isn't peculiar to the Chinese alone. As attorney-general-gate is quickly revealing, there may be many, thousands of miles from Beiing, on Pennsylvania Avenue, who want to reserve a front row seat, whether warranted or unwarranted, and check in with those sites that present a "dissident" view of government. And, after all, how does one distinguish between filtering and intelligence interception?

While some countries like Ethiopia and Pakistan are disabling blogging by blocking entire domains, others like China and Iran are only monitoring those Web sites they consider to be extremists, and/or those of political dissidents. While few would argue that some regulation of the Internet was inevitable, who can refute the ubiquitous threat to civil liberties posed by pervasive online censorship?

It's important to keep in mind, too, that the U.S. and most of Europe were not among those surveyed, and the folks at Oxford expect to find more nations that participate in the insidious practice of Internet snooping and blocking. The World Wide Web is, relatively speaking, in its infancy, and this is the first major study of its kind. Consider this in the context of what Al Gore, and others, report as censorship of scientific reports.

Mr. Gore is right. For those of us who look to the Internet for the kind of investigative reporting that would never make it past the editor's desk at mainstream newspapers, we'd better wake up to the fact that, sooner or later, we will see the same intrusion, and inability to tell the bleeping truth in cyberspace that we now see in the mainstream marketplace. Unless we want to lose our unfettered, and mostly unpaid, right to rant on a cyber soapbox, we'd better start paying closer attention to censorship. The Defense Department has already blocked active service members from visiting You Tube on department computers, so it's just a question of time before the blocking spreads to a personal computer near and dear to you.

The only way to prevent this administration, or its clones, in coming years, from blocking out dissenting political and social commentary, on the World Wide Web, as well as anything it considers a threat to "national security" is to ask Congress to pass legislation that makes it a felony to intercept, edit, or block any post, Web site, or domain without a Court order. We must act now to protect the First Amendment, in all its applications, before it is so neutralized that it will no longer be able to protect us.

Another "I" Word: Irrelevant

When White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, called Jimmy Carter's comments made on Saturday to an Arkansas newspaper "increasingly irrelevant," he was not only impugning the intellectual integrity of a former president, but one who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. As a private citizen, Mr. Carter is entitled to say what he will about anyone in office without having to field accusations of "reckless personal criticism" from anyone on the president's staff. As Mr. Carter rightly suggests, the only thing he leads now is the Carter Center." (AP)

Obviously, the former president was quoted out of context. As you recall, his remarks dealt specifically with foreign policy. He was comparing the foreign policies of George W. Bush with that of Richard Nixon. No one can deny that Mr. Nixon was an expert marksman when it came to foreign policy. On the other hand, Dick Cheney amply demonstrates the kind of marksmanship at which this administration excels. Clearly, there was nothing "reckless" about anything Mr. Carter said, especially about the erosion of religious freedom, and separation of church and state.. .What is "reckless" is the attempt to bully former presidents, and anyone who publicly disagrees with this president, and his administration.

Moreover, Mr. Bush's spokesperson may not realize it, but when he denounces comments made by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, he implicitly condemns the committee that awarded him his prize. But, what the hey, why not challenge the Nobel Committee- while they're at it; this administration has already challenged the Geneva Conventions, the Magna Carta, and Habeas Corpus, too. This is a higher octane hubris we're seeing, and one that may yet outlast the Ever-ready Battery.
.
Jimmy Carter has every right to express his opinion as a citizen, and as a former president. There is absolutely no reason for him to back down from saying what he thinks. If anything, Mr. Bush's people should retreat, and issue a formal apology for their insolence. The unmitigated arrogance of this administration never fails to amaze.

That the White House would dismiss observations made by a Nobel Peace Prize winner as irrelevant should come as no surprise in light of their actions. After all, they increasingly demonstrate they consider the concept of peace irrelevant, too.

Quote of the Day

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Leon Trotsky

Faith-based Initiatives

Former counsel to Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal who for ten years served as Air Force Judge Advocate, Mikey Weinstein, founder of a group called Military Religious Freedom Foundation said "We have a Christian Taliban within our U.S. military," and that "this administration has turned the Department of Defense into a faith-based initiative." Arguably, this administration has turned government itself into a faith-based initiative.

There are some like former President Jimmy Carter who lament that the separation of church and state has been compromised, that this executive branch endorses religious coercion, and who consider the Bush White House responsible for the blurring of boundaries not merely between the various branches of government, but between church and state.

Mr. Carter has expressed righteous indignation at the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives which has, in 2005, awarded more than $2 billion in federal funding to religious groups even, as he says, "those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion." The former president insists, too, that "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one." (AP) It must be remembered, however, that our current president claims to be serving the Almighty not the people and, indeed, any president making such a messianic claim poses a threat not merely to the concept of statehood, but to the separation of powers.

If we consider the military as a microcosm of what is going on in the country, and see religious coercion as symptomatic of an egregious, and growing, intolerance of conceptual diversity, it becomes evident that not only are we quickly approaching the winter of our disbelief, but that skepticism about a higher power is itself a form of political dissent.

One has only to look at recent bestsellers like Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" to get a sense of the groundswell of revolt fomenting in response to more than a decade of faith-based initiatives in government prompted by the likes of neo-conservative Christian extremists including former attorney-general, John Ashcroft, who reportedly conducted Bible study groups in Congress.

The numbers of those who express confidence in secular leadership, and in the President, have reached record lows, yet Americans who say they believe in God prevail by a 92 to 6 margin. And, while more say they would vote for a homosexual for president before they'd vote for an atheist, the outspoken expression of disbelief, in the U.S. military, may be as much an act of resistance to religious coercion, and an affirmation of constitutional entitlement, as it is an expression of disbelief. . Religious proselytizing can only lead to an environment of increased cynicism, and greater distrust of leadership.

In a world where one is inclined to inspect a head of lettuce for signs of foul play, it should come as little surprise that nearly half of our troops find themselves at official gatherings, at least monthly, that advertise themselves as being secular, but that open with a psalm or some form of prayer. Nonstop media coverage of the sudden demise of Rev. Jerry Falwell shows what a muscular grip the "moral majority" has on America's psyche. Not surprisingly, too, in this bifurcated culture, while we have renowned journalists speaking out against blind faith, three out of ten Republican presidential candidates, at a recent convention, gleefully declared that they don't believe in evolution.

And, let's not forget Monica Goodling, Justice Department appointee of a born-again president, who invoked her Fifth Amendment rights straining credulity in her claim that she, and her colleague, Kyle Sampson, a devout Mormon, were not personally involved in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But, then what are we to make of a Department of Justice who has, in a senior position, someone with a law degree from Regent University, a school whose motto is: "Christian leadership to change the world?" Ostensibly, this is quickly becoming the tag line, too, for the Department of Defense.

Even public education is beginning to confuse its function with that of Sunday school. Some Georgia school districts are thinking about offering state-funded Bible classes, and Texas is taking it one step further by considering a proposal to make Bible study a high school requirement. In fact, last week, the ACLU took up the cause of a handful of parents, in the Western District of Texas, who are concerned about their religious liberty, and have chosen to resist efforts of the born again to infuse their schools' curricula with Bible courses which promote the peculiar brand of religion that has received their God-housekeeping stamp of approval.. While the number of religious groups hasn't increased dramatically, the funds earmarked for their expenditure has; faith-based lobbying appears to be a burgeoning field.

Despite the glut of newfangled Creationists, those who never had faith, or have chosen to leave it in the trunk are becoming more audible, and more visible perhaps in proportion to those who question the assertions of the commander in chief whose claims about the war in Iraq seem to correlate with those of weapons of mass destruction. Maybe those who question their leaders are more likely to challenge the existence of God, particularly when the God that is being offered up is one that doesn't accept diversity of opinion, or practice.

Clearly, when generals are daily defecting from the established party line, there is a crisis in belief in authority of all stars and stripes which goes to prove that we might not have trickle down economics, but trickle down disbelief. It isn't so much a crisis of faith that is insinuating itself into our military and our public schools as much as a crisis in credibility with some fairly stalwart confusion as to when knowledge is required by way of intervention.

For a country bent on purging itself of sexual predators, the issue of religious predators seldom comes up, not in polite society, especially not in our armed forces. But, what is it if not predatory when a commander tries to usurp his position of authority, and use his influence to impose his notions of religion on a subordinate? Is this not a form of metaphysical rape? While atheists now comprise more than 20% of the military population, it is increasingly more common to find those in power exercising their control by seducing lower classmen into attending group functions which begin with a command to pray.

Among many underlying questions, one looms large—can it be that lack of faith in military leadership has resulted in a climate of increasing religious skepticism among the ranks of those who serve? Has cynicism towards government carried over to a pronounced loss of confidence going up the chain of command as far as it can go? These are probative questions that require a closer look as does the use of coercive tactics by those in command of our armed forces to ensure conformity in religious practice which constitutes a violation of these soldiers' First Amendment rights. It might be a good idea, too, to examine how a militaristic, Crusader foreign policy has been superimposed upon U.S. armed forces.

Undoubtedly, loss of faith in leadership may correlate with, or result in, swelling of the ranks of disbelievers, both in the service and in civilian life, as would attempts by born again Christians, in the upper echelons of command, to impose their belief system upon their subordinates. What is ironic here is that, overall, there is far more emphasis on freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, as well as the separation of church and state, among members of the military than among their civilian counterparts, and Jimmy Carter may be the first prominent public figure to call attention to this problem.

When religion becomes politicized, freedom of choice is corrupted. Failure to connect the dots between Dominionism, a religious ideology that strives to convert as many as possible, and a foreign policy predicated on notions of pre-emptive war may prove to be a fatal one for civilization as we know it.
Moreover, belief in a higher power, and the right brand of higher power, must not be a prerequisite for service in the military which requires adherence to the Constitution, not the Bible any more than Bible study should be a prerequisite for admission into a state-funded college .

Whether, as Christopher Hitchens argues, God is, or is not, great, those who originally came to this country to escape religious persecution wouldn't want to find government faith-based initiatives on the menu. It's time for parents to stand up to school boards who want to confuse belief with knowledge, and for more in the military to speak out against coercion from fundamentalist Christian commanding officers. It's time for dissent to move from its foxhole into the public domain where it belongs.

Jihad Joe

Upon resigning as attorney general, in 2004, John Ashcroft wrote that he "believes the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration." The irony of those words is not lost on anyone who has been following recent developments in the campaign to get at the truth behind what someday be called the purges of Al Gonzales.

Keeping in mind that his predecessor in the Justice Department, Mr. Ashcroft, is considered the point man behind the USA Patriot Act, recent revelations that Ashcroft, his deputy James B. Comey, and then FBI DirectorRobert Mueller considered quitting in response to what they considered the dubious legality of the NSA program is stunning. Even more startling is the account of then White House counsel, and President Bush's chief of staff Andrew H. Card's visit to the hospital bedside of the ailing Ashcroft in an attempt to strong arm him, and get him to sign off on a program that he would otherwise not approve, a program that allows this administration to bypass the need for warrants to intercept, and monitor, international telephone calls in violation of FISA, and the First Amendment. Mr. Comey made these extraordinary allegations, earlier this week, before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of their investigation into another dubious activity, the authorization to fire nine U.S. attorneys.

Picture a dark hospital room, a heavily medicated patient, and the arrival of two high powered government officials, Gonzales and Card, not only asking that Ashcroft authorize the spy program, but in defiance of the fact that James Comey, his deputy, had now taken over as acting attorney general. According to Comey's testimony, Ashcroft had already decided that the program was dubious, and didn't want to renew it. Nevertheless, trying to slip in under the radar, Gonzales was on a mission to get what the president wanted, a blessing from the Justice Department to monitor phone calls. "Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program." (NYT)

Despite what anyone tells you, Gonzales is, and has always been, a glorified hit man. He doesn't give the commands, he merely executes them. Getting what Mr. Bush wants is consistently number one on the Gonzales agenda. Indeed, this president couldn't have conceived of a more submissive, and subordinate, Justice Department; not exactly what the framers had in mind by the phrase "balance of power."

John Ashcroft was to the war on terror what Leonard Bernstein was to the New York Philharmonic yet, curiously, Mr. Ashcroft has been conspicuously silent on the events of that evening. One might expect him to acknowledge that not only was the executive branch on human growth hormones, but so was the Justice Department. More importantly, Justice was busying itself with something even more radical, a jihad of its own; the subversion, and subrogation, of our civil liberties.

Consider, for a moment, that the architect of a radical right wing, neo-conservative agenda stood up, barely conscious, from his hospital bed, and refused to go along with the program; what a defining moment for democracy. And, while the president agreed to Mr. Comey's demands to tweak the N.S.A. legislation so that it would at least have the illusion of legality, that doesn't lessen the statement Ashcroft made against a constitutional implosion, nor make his subsequent defection from the ranks of Bush loyalists any less significant.

Those who now call for Attorney General Gonzales to step down echo the cries, months earlier, for Donald Rumsfeld's head. Neither resignation has made, or will make, a palpable difference in business as usual in Washington. What is increasingly lost in the shuffle is that both Gonzales and Rumsfeld are henchmen. What's more, should Gonzales step down as Ashcroft did before him, the president will merely appoint another likeminded attorney general, and one who doesn't make the mistake of getting caught.

You may recall a character strip figure that emerged during World War II, GI Joe, who won the hearts of millions. Joe went on to become an action figure, and Hasbro's best loved boy doll. In response to concerns about the war in Vietnam, the toy manufacturer chose to transform GI Joe from a warrior into the leader of an adventure team, one that was inspired by the idea of fighting evil. The war on terror has created a climate that's ripe for a new doll, Jihad Joe, and the adventures of the great avenger of the axis of evil. If the mentality of some of Bush's appointees is any indication, it's a safe bet that GI Joe found his way into the hands of the president.

But where did the arbiter of constitutional law, and justice, get his notions of blind obedience to the burning Bush? Clearly, his predecessor managed to maintain some independence of thought, which may explain why he's no longer attorney-general.

The fact that the Justice Department actually contemplated terminating more than 25% of the U.S. attorneys in the middle of a presidential term, no less, is quite a story, but the bigger story is not who the department wanted to fire, and why, but that documents pertaining to their termination were "withheld from the public." (WaPo) That the lists of prosecutors up for elimination provided evidence of the randomness involved in the decision-making process only goes to show that the president's fingerprints were all over it, but the quintessential question is why the Justice documents were accepted for release " in censored form," and include only limited, approved information. What is there on these lists that is classified, and what threat to "national security" would their release pose? More importantly, how are they any different from those kept by another GI Joe---Joe McCarthy?

David York, among the U.S. attorneys targeted for dismissal, called the lists of US attorneys slated for firing a "non-story." ( WaPo) He's right. The real story is censorship, the Bush administration's ongoing efforts to withhold public documents, and an appointed attorney general who doesn't recognize, or respect, his independence from the executive branch. This hyper focus, by the media, on minutia of the story, as well as on Gonzales's famous memory lapses only serves to distract from how it is that a government is allowed to operate, with impunity, in secret, and in defiance of its Constitution, for nearly a decade.

The Jihad Joes will have won their war on civil liberties if this government is permitted to use turbulent discourse on the war in Iraq as a way to deflect attention away from its efforts to play hide and seek with the First Amendment, to operate in secret, as well as to put a silencer on open dissent.

Alas, the only smoking gun many in the mainstream media are willing to cover is the one used by Phil Spector. Unless the focus changes, and fast, we will soon come to see that the only difference between government and organized crime is that organized crime pays better.

Photo Op for Bigotry

Below is an open letter I wrote, last week, to CNN news commentator Lou Dobbs which appeared on The Huffington Post, and the Atlantic Free Press. One of those who read the post, at HuffPo,made an astute, and important observation which is that Lou Dobbs has the courage to take on a difficult subject matter, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, which no one else wishes to tackle. For this, Mr. Dobbs is to be commended. For his obstinate insistence on sticking to "facts" of his own invention, however, he is entitled only to censure. Indeed, we need to see more, and greater forays into the arena of intelligent, informed discourse on illegal immigration, and soon. We don't need petulance from either side of the debate, but pertinence and, more importantly, accuracy, as well as respect for truth..






My Dear Mr. Dobbs:

Please allow me to begin by saying that I have the utmost respect for you, and think that you're a highly intelligent, and knowledgeable fellow. Any self-made individual holds a special place in my heart, particularly one who attended a prestigious, and demanding school like Harvard.

Having said that, I must express my dismay, and disappointment, at your failure to acknowledge, and take responsibility for, some dubious numbers that you used to assert that illegal immigrants have crossed the border with 7,000 new cases of leprosy just iin the past three years when, in fact, statistics show that the new cases have evolved over thirty years not three. Moreover, there is no hard evidence showing just how many o f those with the disease were illegal immigrants, as you suggested.

At a time when the government is using a program called "Operation Return to Sender" in order to detain illegal immigrants, as well as seeking to deport them in unprecedented numbers, it is flat out irresponsible journalism to foster a climate of hysteria, and fan the flames of the kind of neanderthal ban which recently passed, in a suburb of Dallas, that prohibits landlords from renting to illegals, one that is unconstitutional. Anyone who fans this kind of fire is promoting tabloid journalism, and one unworthy of any major network.

When, during last week's broadcast of "60 Minutes," reporter Lesley Stahl (no relation) called this egregious error to your attention, your response was something considerably less than one might expect from someone literate, and educated, let alone the son of a farmer who managed to go to an ivy league college. You said something like "I'm the managing editor, and if I said the number is accurate, then it is."

Such defensive posturing is strongly reminiscent of the kind of argument that "commander guy," President Bush, is so fond of making, as well as the failed attempt to validate weapons of mass destruction. To suggest that illegal immigrants carry a pernicious, and dreaded disease across the border without solid, and incontravertible evidence is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous for one at the helm of what purports to be a news show. . You recall, I'm sure, the program "Truth or Consequences." One shudders to th ink of what will come from the kind of distortions that are legitimatized by your failure to acknowledge factual error.

While it may fail to deliver, on occasion, journalism aims to tell the truth, and not engage in the kind of sensationalism that may result in high ratings, yes, but will no doubt set a dangerous precedent one in which hysteria rules, and cultural xenophobia is confused with scientific fact.. To refuse to back down when shown that your facts are less than authentic is nothing short of hubris, and thanks to fellows like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, we have enough hubris to last us through the next millenium. So, I, for one, ask that you carefully inspect what you bring to the table, and not add to the ruffage. Everybody makes mistakes. Surely, you don't want, as your legacy, an inability to acknowledge erroneous information, especially when the environment which you're fostering is one in which accurate facts are what distinguish it from the tabloids.

I'm sure your viewers, as well as those who occupy your air time a generation from now, will want to think of you not only as as a self-made man of intellect, but one who has the courage to admit that he made a mistake.

Question of the Day

What is a benchmark, and does it give you hemorrhoids?

How Is George W. Bush like the Weather?

Now that Prime Minister Tony Blair has tendered his resignation, and will step down the end of next month, it gives one pause to reflect on the impotency of American public opinion, and a Congress which, like Sisyphus, continues its uphill battle to mitigate against the military excesses Mr. Bush and his corporate gang bangers have brought to bear not merely on his native soil, but on the planet.

Those of us who give a crap about human rights and civil liberties might wish to tell Congress, it's time to show that the vote is not a vestigial organ of the body politic.

It looks like the old adage about the weather now applies here, too: everybody talks about the Bush administration, but nobody is doing anything about it. Let's get a move on, guys, the Old Country just passed us.

we think...

We think we have free elections in this country. They're actually very costly; they're costly to anyone with thinks we have free elections.