Musings

I beg of you

2006-06-03T17:00:00.000-07:00

Please, plesae, please go see An Inconvenient Truth.

Moments of brilliance

2006-05-21T13:44:00.000-07:00

I just heard Fred Edwards on the radio, and he made a brilliant point about the separation of church and state, specifically why the Ten Commandments cannot be considered the basis for our legal system. Compare, he suggests the First Commandment to the First Amendment. They’re incompatible. Oh, yes, one can follow the first commandment and still be a law-abiding American citizen. But to make the first commandment law violates the principle of freedom of religion.

Last night on Saturday Night Live, Robert Smigel produced another of his Read Audio cartoons, where he takes actual audiotapes of new events and animates them. Last night he took a serious of quotes by the Bush administration and after each quote someone did a spit take. The President talks about yellow cake in a State of the Union address and Cheney hurriedly wipes up someone’s spit. The President stands on the deck of an aircraft carrier (with the exaggerated codpiece that had G. Gordon Liddy salivating) and declares Mission Accomplished while military men perform spit takes. Vice President Cheney tells Larry King that the “insurgency is in its final throes” and King does such a violent spit take, his heart comes out of his mouth and onto the table. It was hilarious!

Later in the show, Kevin Spacey does a parody of Neil Young, who has a new album out severely critical of this administration. He’s sacrificed art for making his political points; he falls back on generic garage rock for the music, and his lyrics evolve from titles like “Let’s Impeach the President.” A bit on the nose, don’t you think? So Spacey as Young delivers another album, which the voiceover describes as “subtle-er.” The titles and the lyrics became more and more prosaic as the list went on. Too prosaic to remember specific examples, though an interesting point was made.

************************************************************************
Stephen Colbert is my new hero. (Actually I have a trio of heroes, Keith Olbermann, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.) Colbert was magnificent in his performance at the White House Correspondents’ dinner; Stewart described it as “ballsalicious.” Here are some of my favorite bits from that night:

“Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias. . . .

“I stand by this man. I stand by this man, because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things, things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo-ops in the world. . . .

“But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction! . . . .

“So, the White House has personnel changes. And then you write, "Oh, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg! . . .

“Jesse Jackson is here, the Reverend. Haven't heard from the Reverend in just a little while. I had him on the show. It was a very interesting interview, very challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is. . . . .

“Joe Wilson is here. Joe Wilson, right down here in front, the most famous husband since Desi Arnaz. And, of course, he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god! Oh, what have I said? Ay, gee monetti! I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife “Joe Wilson's wife.” Patrick Fitzgerald is not here tonight, right? Okay, dodged a bullet.”

I’m so proud of you Stephen!

I would like to end this blog entry with a breath-taking quote by Tony Campolo: “The question is would Jesus ask, ‘What doth it profit if you gain information from a tortured terrorist and lose your own soul?’"

A brief musing

2005-11-03T05:37:00.000-08:00

Last night I went to Steppenwolf and saw Last of the Boys. I had no prior idea of the content. It was about how the Vietnam War affected four people--two vets and two women, one widowed and the other orphaned by the war.

So of course the after-play discussion was about how the current war parallels the Vietnam War. I actually don't think there are many parallels. Vietnam always had that through line--gotta fight those godless communists. The rationale for this war changes quarterly.

Anyway, I've discovered my father reads my blog. But he will only comment on my eldest sister's blog--my other sister and I are the neglected middle children.

Just kidding!

Merry Fitzmas!

2005-10-28T10:03:00.000-07:00

Five felony counts against Scooter!

Not that I'm one to engage in Schadenfreude. . . .

To All The Republicans I've Loved

2005-10-12T14:09:00.000-07:00

Capital Times of Madison, WI quotes this obit:
"Theodore Roosevelt Heller, 88, loving father of Charles (Joann) Heller; dear brother of the late Sonya (the late Jack) Steinberg. Ted was discharged from the U.S. Army during WWII due to service-related injuries, and then forced his way back into the Illinois National Guard insisting no one tells him when to serve his country. Graveside services Tuesday 11 a.m. at Waldheim Jewish Cemetery (Ziditshover section), 1700 S. Harlem Ave., Chicago. In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans."

Consider these musings said acerbic letters.

Dissent

2005-08-28T14:22:00.000-07:00

“[The president] is. . . releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He. . .has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. [This does] not make for a sound foreign policy."-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

"I had doubts. . .from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to [this]."
-Tony Snow, Fox News

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military.. . . There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush

"This is [the president's] war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job. . . is to be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." Trent Lott

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain. . . what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush

"This is [the president’s] war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"[Attacking] a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership. . .is a farce" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the. . .administration taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation." -Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

Okay, there's a punchline. These folks are criticizing President Clinton, when our men and women in uniform were in harm's way in Kosovo. Is this treasonous, giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

No! It's okay when the right voices their opposition to military action, and it equally okay when the left does it. In fact, we should cherish our right to free speech and exercise it thoughtfully.

You go, Cindy!

An Open Query to the Right Reverend Pat Robertson

2005-08-24T06:18:00.000-07:00

“[Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop.. . .this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

These are the words of Pat Robertson on the 700 Club this week on his Christian Broadcasting Network.

Reverend Robertson, I respectfully ask you—what part of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” don’t you understand? Now I confess, I am rather broadminded. I believe implicit in this Commandment is the idea that “Thou Shalt Not Advocate for the Assassination of a Duly Elected Leader of a Sovereign Nation.” Maybe your tranlation of the Bible says that assasination is A-OK as long as it doesn't interfere with the flow of oil to our gas-guzzling nation.

Although you tried to depict him as a dictator, Chavez was elected in 1998 with the largest majority in Venezuelan history. Chavez has a 70% approval rating, compared to our own fearless leader’s 36% approval rating.

Maybe the folks behind GSAVE (the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism) could have a chat with you, our homegrown extremist cleric advocating violence—I mean, man of God.

Some insights into Plamegate

2005-07-13T16:33:00.000-07:00

Why Karl Rove should go:

The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson
From: TPMCafe Special Guests
The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
Jul 13, 2005 -- 12:47:20 AM EST
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.

I think if the first President Bush would agree with me:

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."-- George H. W. Bush, speech at CIA, 4/26/99

George H. W. Bush fired Rove from his campaign for leaking to Robert Novak (or as one wag calls him, Robert Nofacts.) But then again H. W. had Lee Atwater to rely on.

And finally:

FACT -- WHITE HOUSE ORCHESTRATED CAMPAIGN AGAINST WILSON: What Cooper may or may not have done is irrelevant to the central point that Rove leaked classified information. The White House did act in an organized way to push Plame's identity as a way to discredit Wilson. First, Robert Novak admitted: "I didn't dig it out [Plame's identity], it was given to me.... They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." Second, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame's identity was "fair game." Third, NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell noted in 2003 that she "heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story." Fourth, Time magazine reported the orchestrated campaign against Wilson in October 2003: "In the days after Wilson's essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson's conclusions." Fifth, an administration official admitted the leak "was meant purely and simply for revenge." Sixth, it is irrelevant what the purpose of the call may have been. The crucial question is whether Rove intended to disclose Plame's identity. Center for American Progress, 7/13/05.

But I don't think Rove will be leaving the White House any time soon, because as one blogger noted, Bush firing Rove is like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.

I love David Gregory!!!!

2005-07-12T12:30:00.000-07:00

I fell for David Gregory a few years ago, when he elicited this response from our Commander-in-Chief when Gregory had the audacity to speak French to a Frenchman:

"Very good, the guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental."-- at a news conference in Rome, Italy, after NBC News correspondent David Gregory followed a question to Bush in English with one in French to President Jacques Chirac. Gregory's question to Bush was, "I wonder why it is you think there are such strong sentiments in Europe against you and against this administration?" May 26, 2002.

But I fell that much harder for him after yesterday's exchange with White House press secretary Scott McClellan:

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?
QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?
MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.
QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.
You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...
QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate? MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.
QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.
You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...
(LAUGHTER)
... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

Isn't he dreamy?

Change of Pace

2005-06-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

Sorry I've been away for so long--it hasn't been for lack of opinions, you can be sure. It's just been hard to find time, and challenging to find a tone and/or topic that won't trouble certain loved ones.

This story isn't at all controversial; in fact, it's downright heartwarming. It's about a young woman who cancelled her wedding less than two weeks before the date, and decided to use the facility and party accoutrements for her reception to feed the homeless!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Canceled%20Wedding

Social Security Reform

2005-02-28T08:08:00.000-08:00

I was disheartened to see a group of College Republicans at Drexel University in Philadelphia chanting on CNN last week, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Social Security has got to go!" The goal of eliminating Social Security was underscored by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who called Social Security "a lousy program" in the L.A. Times. Even the less extreme notion of privatizing Social Security would be disastrous. Taking current Social Security taxes and putting that money into private accounts inevitably leads to benefit cuts, large deficits, and increasing debt to foreign governments. The safety net that Social Security is supposed to provide would become a net with gaping holes. Women are more likely to be hurt, as pink-collar jobs are less likely to offer pension plans, and women in pink-, blue- or white-collar jobs often take the Mommy track, meaning less time on the job earning money to be set aside for retirement. Bush tries to get minority support for privatization by noting that African-American males die younger than their white counterparts, but this argument is a non-sequitur. The mortality rate for African Americans is affected by poor access to adequate health care and a continuing gap in economic status among the races, not the current Social Security situation. Meanwhile, according to Senator Frank Lautenberg, the administration is using Social Security employees to promote the President’s plan—taking employees away from their jobs addressing the needs of current Social Security recipients. My outrage is further fueled by learning that the ironically named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have launched an attack against the AARP, because the AARP does not endorse the President’s plan. This incredibly misleading online ad implies that the AARP doesn’t support the troops and is pro-gay marriage, all in an attempt to discredit the group’s opposition to the privatization of Social Security. The dwindling funds in Social Security is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it is not as urgent as this administration would lead us to believe, and privatization is certainly not the solution.

Sailor in Chief

2004-11-22T05:51:00.000-08:00

According to Reuters, the new $388 billion package financing government programs includes funding for a presidential yacht. Is this part of the moral values we hear so much about? Because it sounds to be like a pretty secular, materialistic value.

How many children will be left behind for the cost of a yacht? How many soldiers won't be properly armored? How much research into alternate energy sources to reduce our reliance on foreign oil will go unfunded?

Maybe Spongebob Squarepants can be W's first mate. They share the same sunny outlook on life, among other things.

A brief musing

2004-08-27T18:26:00.000-07:00

My dear sister recently expressed concern that I seem so angry in my blogs. I came across something in the letters to the editor of Sojomail that I think encapsulates my feelings:

Jon Kuhrt writes from London, U.K.:
There have been a lot of e-mails in Boomerang about the negativity of SojoMail. Christians do need to be constructive and argue for what they are for, not just critique and deconstruct. But we also have to understand the context and reality of the current political landscape - that right-wing fundamentalism is the most powerful religion in the world. We have to subvert it. In extreme situations, it is not biblical to reduce our campaigning to an apologetic whisper. God told Isaiah to "raise your voice like a trumpet and declare to my people their rebellion"; John the Baptist publicly exposed Herod's hypocrisy; Jesus subverted the temple-cult by turning over the market stalls and denouncing the powerful; and John pictured the Roman Empire as a Beast. Were they going a bit over the top? Were they being "unpatriotic?" Christians should be passionate about justice to "speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31:9).

Jerry Falwell says God is pro-war. Blessed are the warmakers? I don't remember that part of scripture. So many of the policies of this administration seem antithetical to Christianity. I can't keep quiet about what I feel so passionately.

John Kerry's record

2004-08-25T10:39:00.000-07:00

Here’s some of what John Kerry has been doing for the past nineteen years:

Follow the Money
How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank
by David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin
Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.
All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.
By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.
More than a decade later, Kerry is his party's nominee for president, and terrorist financing is anything but a back-burner issue. The Bush campaign has settled on a new strategy for attacking Kerry: Portray him as a do-nothing senator who's weak on fighting terrorism. "After 19 years in the Senate, he's had thousands of votes, but few signature achievements," President Bush charged recently at a campaign rally in Pittsburgh; spin that's been echoed by Bush's surrogates, conservative pundits, and mainstream reporters alike, and by a steady barrage of campaign ads suggesting that the one thing Kerry did do in Congress was prove he knew nothing about terrorism. Ridiculing the senator for not mentioning al Qaeda in his 1997 book on terrorism, one ad asks: "How can John Kerry win a war [on terror] if he doesn't know the enemy?"
If that line of attack has been effective, it's partly because Kerry does not have a record like the chamber's dealmakers such as Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) or Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Though Kerry has been a key backer of bills on housing reform, immigration, and the environment, there are indeed few pieces of landmark legislation that owe their passage to Kerry.
But legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism.
From drug lords to lobbyists
Despite having helmed the initial probe which led to the Iran-Contra investigation, Kerry was left off the elite Iran-Contra committee in 1987. As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership in Congress made Kerry the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and told him to dig into the Contra-drug connection. Kerry turned to BCCI early in the second year of the probe when his investigators learned that Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was laundering drug profits through the bank on behalf of the Medellin cartel.
By March 1988, Kerry's subcommittee had obtained permission from the Foreign Relations Committee to seek subpoenas for both BCCI and individuals at the bank involved in handling Noriega's assets, as well as those handling the accounts of others in Panama and Colombia. Very quickly, though, Kerry faced a roadblock. Citing concerns that the senator's requests would interfere with an ongoing sting operation in Tampa, the Justice Department delayed the subpoenas until the end of the year, at which point the subcommittee's mandate was running out.
BCCI, meanwhile, had its own connections. Prominent figures with ties to the bank included former president Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance, and a bevy of powerful Washington lobbyists with close ties to President George H.W. Bush, a web of influence that may have helped the bank evade previous investigations. In 1985 and 1986, for instance, the Reagan administration launched no investigation even after the CIA had sent reports to the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities.
In the spring of 1989, Kerry hit another obstacle. Foreign Relations Committee chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), under pressure from both parties, formally asked Kerry to end his probe. Worried the information he had collected would languish, Kerry quickly dispatched investigator Jack Blum to present the information his committee had found about BCCI's money-laundering operations to the Justice Department. But according to Blum, the Justice Department failed to follow up.
The young senator from Massachusetts, thus, faced a difficult choice. Kerry could play ball with the establishment and back away from BCCI, or he could stay focused on the public interest and gamble his political reputation by pushing forward.
BCCI and the bluebloods
Kerry opted in 1989 to take the same information that had been coldly received at the Justice Department and bring it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who agreed to begin a criminal investigation of BCCI, based on Kerry's leads. Kerry also continued to keep up the public pressure. In 1990, when the Bush administration gave the bank a minor slap on the wrist for its money laundering practices, Kerry went on national television to slam the decision. "We send drug people to jail for the rest of their life," he said, "and these guys who are bankers in the corporate world seem to just walk away, and it's business as usual…When banks engage knowingly in the laundering of money, they should be shut down. It's that simple, it really is."
He would soon have a chance to turn his declarations into action. In early 1991, the Justice Department concluded its Tampa probe with a plea deal allowing BCCI officials to stay out of court. At the same time, news reports indicated that Washington elder statesman Clark Clifford might be indicted for defrauding bank regulators and helping BCCI maintain a shell in the United States.
Kerry pounced, demanding (and winning) authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee to open a broad investigation into the bank in May 1991. Almost immediately, the senator faced a new round of pressure to relent. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Democratic doyenne Pamela Harriman personally called Kerry to object, as did his fellow senators. "What are you doing to my friend Clark Clifford?," staffers recalled them asking, according to The Washington Post. BCCI itself hired an army of lawyers, PR specialists, and lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to thwart the investigation.
But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.
And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a "global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad."
By July 1991, Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history."
Bin Laden's bankers
Kerry's record in the BCCI affair, of course, contrasts sharply with Bush's. The current president's career as an oilman was always marked by the kind of insider cronyism that Kerry resisted. Even more startling, as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy, Bush himself did business with BCCI-connected institutions almost at the same time Kerry was fighting the bank. As The Wall Street Journal reported in 1991, there was a "mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding [Harken] since George W. Bush came on board." In 1987, Bush secured a critical $25 million-loan from a bank the Kerry Commission would later reveal to be a BCCI joint venture. Certainly, Bush did not suspect BCCI had such questionable connections at the time. But still, the president's history suggests his attacks on Kerry's national-security credentials come from a position of little authority.
As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security."
Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations."
Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency--even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best. "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did."

This article came from the Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank
Another reason why Kerry does not have many "signature achievements" is because he didn’t fight for credit on legislature he worked on, particularly when a colleague would be retiring and would request his own signature be on the bill as his last act in office. (Newsweek covered this in a fine profile they did of Kerry a month or two ago.)
The Swift Boat Veteran’s for Truth may have some legitimate criticisms of Kerry, namely his involvement in the anti-war movement after he returned from Viet Nam. (But who has a more legitimate right to declare a war unjust than a soldier who served?) But their preliminary strikes against Kerry insist that Kerry lied. Please note: NONE OF THESE MEN SERVIED WITH KERRY. In a clever use of semantics, those veterans, valiant though they might be, did not serve with Kerry; they were in Viet Nam at the same time, but that does not give them any direct knowledge of Kerry’s actions. The military records have existed for 35 years without challenge. Kerry acted heroically in Viet Nam, and he chose to go to fight and tragically kill for his country.
The current administration is full of chicken hawks who are so cavalier with the lives of our young men and women in uniform. Cheney has said he had "other priorities" than serving his country. Who knows what Bush was doing—there’s a significant gap in his "military" records. All of the surviving veterans who were on John Kerry’s swift boat support his candidacy.
God bless America, where we can voice our opinions without fear of reprisal, especially if you’re a conservative. But please stop with the lies and deal with the many crucial issues facing our nation today.

Separation of church and state

2004-08-08T18:05:00.000-07:00

Let’s revisit the Ten Commandments issue. This was an issue several months ago when a judge in Alabama refused to remove a monument in the courthouse which had the Ten Commandments on it. I believe that this is a violation of church and state. The counterargument is that our country was based on Christian-Judeo traditions. But that’s not really the case.

The Puritans came over from Europe to find freedom of religion, to not be forced to practice the state religion, to find a place where there is no state religion. But this group of people weren’t the founding fathers, who shaped our government.

The founding fathers were primarily Deists, who believed in God as the blind watchmaker, who set things into motion but doesn’t pay much attention to what’s happening these days. According to the Peace Dale Christian Deist Fellowship’s web site, "[Deists] believe that God designed and created the world, and governs it through natural laws that can be discovered through reasoning, observation, and experience. We feel that God does not reveal himself to us through inspired or revealed texts or by supernatural means, but through creation itself." Lord Herbert of Cherbury wrote in his book, De Veritate (1624), about the five articles of English Deists:

1. Belief in the existence of a single supreme God
2. Humanity’s duty to revere God
3. Linkage of worship with practical morality
4. God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins
5. Good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death

While some of the ten commandments, about killing and stealing—well, we do have criminal laws about that. Others fall into a grey area—adultery is usually only grounds for divorce (that is, not prosecuted) and false witness generally only pertains to perjury (although not always—poor Martha Stewart!). Others are not generally against civil or criminal law, such as honoring your parents, taking the Lord’s name in vain, coveting your neighbor’s possessions. During the whole to-do about the Alabama judge, NPR had a Jewish scholar on. According to him, the Decalogue is not as crucial in the Jewish faith as it is in the Christian tradition. The scholar said the Jews didn’t refer to them as the Ten Commandments, but rather the Ten Sayings.

I can’t vouch for that last statement, as I haven’t verified it from a separate source. My point is that it isn’t appropriate for the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in a courthouse.

Let's Talk about Rush

2004-07-01T11:12:00.000-07:00

Apparently you have to become a dittohead to gain access to archives of Rush’s show, for which I do not have the stomach. (And up with which, I will not put.)

I did find many of his comments quoted in an editorial. I’m cutting out the editorializing to present Rush’s own words, which I did hear come out of his mouth in several re-broadcasts.

"I'm talking about people having a good time, these people [CIA agents and MPs at Abu Ghraib], you ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off?" Limbaugh asked a caller. "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time."

On his May 3 show, [Limbaugh] said "have you people noticed who the torturers are? Women! The babes! The babes are meting out the torture."

The photographic evidence of the more sexually graphic abuse was the same as "good old American pornography," as Limbaugh said on May 6.

"I think a lot of the American culture is being feminized. I think the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country," he told his audience.

"It could well be that the whole purpose here, which has been said, was to humiliate these prisoners. And there's no better way of doing it than what was done. These are Arab males -- what better way to humiliate them than to have a woman have authority over them? What's the purpose here? What's the objective of this? The objective is to soften them up for interrogation later, later on. As I said, there was no horror, there was no terror there was no death, there was no injuries, nothing." [Twemty-five people died, as of early May, while detained in Abu Gharib. One was shot while fleeing. Ten deaths were determined to be from natural or undisclosed causes. Ten more deaths were still under investigation as of early May, and two were ruled homicides.]

I heard some excerpts from Rush’s show yesterday. He was talking to a caller, a self-described Christian, who was expressing concern that Rush’s viewpoints were often not very Christian. Rush disconnected the caller to respond. He said he was not a preacher and never claimed to put out the Christian viewpoint, only the conservative viewpoint, and that he never quoted the Bible. Then he proceeded to say that Jesus never said that wealth should be taken from those that earned it and given to those who didn’t. Rush went on to explain that Jesus said that if you give a man a fish, he eats for one day, but if you teach a man how to fish, he eats for a lifetime. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I do believe there are a few fish stories in the Bible, but this sure isn’t one of them!

I’ve been studying a bit of Methodist theology, and the concept of grace is central to Wesley’s philosophy. The idea of earned and unearned (implying deserved and undeserved) does not feel very compassionate to me. And certainly the ideas of manifest destiny and entitlement are very troubling to me. Rush boasts that his talent is on loan from God. . . .well, that is true of all of us. Just because some among us haven’t had the best opportunities or the best education doesn’t mean we aren’t all deserving.

Shiny, Happy People

2004-06-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

This is my attempt to be upbeat and positive on the topic of my choosing.

Well, come January, Bush will be heading to Crawford, Texas to begin his well-deserved retirement. I’ve been thinking about some wonderful ways he can spend his golden years. At first I thought he could coach a T-ball team, seeing his love of the game, even hosting games on the White House lawn. But I realized that’s thinking too small. He’s probably one of the most physical fit presidents we’ve had; he could take Ah-nold’s mantle and be the spokesperson for physical fitness. He could also do a lot of good by promoting sobriety. He could get across the message that it’s never too late to get sober and change your life. He didn’t sober up until he was forty—and he achieved some pretty impressive goals after that! Or he could put his compasisonate conservatism to work and help not-for-profit organizations use faith-based initiatives to help the less afluent among us.

Dick Cheney—well, I’m sure he’s nicely feathered his retirement nest with war profits, so he should do just fine duck hunting with Supreme Court justices, whose favor he could continue to curry.

John Kerry, meanwhile, will start to implement his bold plans to restore America’s reputation and heal a divided nation. His action plan—a list of actionable items, to quote Condi—includes a new national education trust fund, a new era of naitonal service, the end of the age of Ashcroft (thunderous applause), the end of the assault on the environment, a plan to make U. S. Energy independent, the rejoining the community of nations, universal affordable health care, rewarding companies that create jobs and not phony corporate profit, restoring the middle class, cutting the deficit and ending influence peddling. Ambitious? Very! But Kerry is a man of vision. He is a man who has devoted his life to public service. He was privileged enough to graduate from Yale, as was our current Commander-in-Chief, but Kerry chose to put himself in harm’s way and serve in Vietnam as an officer in the Navy. He was decorated for his service with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. He came back from his service, went to Boston Law School and became a top prosecutor, taking on organized crime. As the Kerry campaign notes, “Kerry came to the Senate with a reputation for independence -- and reinforced it by making tough choices on difficult issues: breaking with many
in his own Party to support Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction; taking on corporate welfare and government waste; pushing for campaign finance reform; holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal; working with John McCain in the search for the truth about Vietnam veterans declared POW/MIA; and insisting on accountability, investment, and excellence in public education.” Although Bush and Kerry are contemporaries, Kerry’s path avoided the pitfalls of hard drinking and the frivolity of owning a major league baseball team. Kerry, I believe, is more qualified for the job of President, because he has spent his life in public service, working to keep America great. Surely he believes the old adage, “To whom much is given, much is expected.” Kerry offers his nation so much hope.

Meanwhile, Fahrenheit 9/11 is setting box office records for a documentary. It seems that the film may be prompting voter registration drives and imbuing those who previously felt disenfranchised with an optimism that sparks action to right wrongs done in America’s name and to regain those rights that make us uniquely American—freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press—and to abolish the sinister Orwellian double-speak of government which makes every day in America Opposite Day.

I do get angry when I think about the lies upon lies that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an unspeakably brutal dictator, but his viciousness was at its peak at about the time photos were taken of him shaking hands with a smiling Rumsfeld and a cheerful Cheney.

But I feel great pride that we have soldiers like Paul Rieckhoff. Like Kerry, Rieckhoff graduated from a prestigious school (Amherst) and had the choice to pursue a cushy life. However, like Kerry, he felt a need to serve his country, and his father did before him (in Vietnam) and his grandfather in WWII. In Iraq, he did not feel total confidence in the policies of his Commander-in-Chief, but rather than turning to despair, he and his compadres worked to bring hope to the Iraqi people. He befriended his translator, a local artist, and immersed himself in Iraqi culture. He worked to bring joy to Iraqi children, and when he and his fellow soldiers learned that the local school had been closed for three months due to lack of funds, they pooled their resources and presented the school’s teacher with $300 so the children could resume their education. He learned of the plight of Big Foot, an Iraqi civilian of giant proportions who had never worn shoes to fit his size 19 feet, simply because shoes that fit were an unattainable luxury. Rieckhoff contacted his girlfriend stateside and she purchased a pair of gym shoes on Ebay and got them to Big Foot.

The American spirit is indomitable and we are capable of great things. I believe our future is bright. That’s why I’m wearing shades.

A Response

2004-06-28T18:37:00.000-07:00

I especially enjoyed the comments I got on my last entry, so I thought if I responded more promptly, it would encourage more of the same.

I did not set out to blog daily, which is but one reason why I don't. I decided against creating a daily journal; what I want to do here is not document my life story but rather my thoughts and philosophy. I often need to let those perculate, and I don't have a block of time every day to record my ideas. So I do what I can when I can. (Having something specific to respond to from someone else helps provide structure, which streamines the process.)

That said, my blog is pretty much stream of consciousness; I write quickly, do not take time to organize my thoughts, and seldom edit. (But you already knew that didn't you?)

Regarding the assignment of the nickname, The White Muse, it doesn't bother me, but it doesn't quite fit, either. I started working at this job as an ESL teacher, and my students--the factory workers--and I became very fond of each other. So one of them came up with a nickname for me. (Now I have had more than my share of nicknames in my life, most courtesy of my dad, so I associate nicknames with affection.) They call me Guera, which translates more to fair-skinned than white--more of type of Caucasian than simply generic Caucasian. My son's babysitter calls him Guero and he and I are referred to as Los Gueros. . . .and their yellow labrador is also called Guero. But I've come to not even think about the meaning of the word, and just think of it as me. So I use Guera as my handle in a variety of settings.

So the name of my blog, in my mind, is "Lori Muses," as in pondering the imponderables. I was not proclaiming myself to be a muse, that is, a being who inspires others creatively. It's an interesting thought, though. . . .

On to the next set of interrogatories--

The Daily Show is not daily at all, but on Monday through Thursday on Comedy Central. It is a parody of a news show, but it is very witty and very rarely sophomoric. Jon Stewart is the host and head writer, and the show has won Emmy's and the Peabody award. I look forward to it every day. Jon gets accused of having a liberal bias, but when I've seen him interviewed on other shows, he comes across even more as a bemused objective observer. Besides, the Daily Show is followed by Tough Crowd, which is much more conservative (five comedians discussing the day's news, very boisterously).

The pundit who made the crude analogy was Al Franken. Liberal, Harvard-educated, Al Franken. His books are very funny and very well-researched, as is his show on Air America.

My news sources are a bit varied. I get the headlines from AOL, and I get breaking news from CBS, ABC and CNN. I subscribe to Newsweek and I get articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post emailed to me. I occasionally will glance at Time or the Wall Street Journal, both of which my company subscribes to. Otherwise my news sources are from the radio, primarily Air America, NPR and WGN, and occassionally from WBBM, and if I'm desperate, from WLS. If I hear something that I want to verify, I try to research it from mainstream sources, such as U. S. News and World Report, the Chicago Tribune, etc. I get daily email from a think-tank called the Center for American Progress. Their information is well-documented, and beyond pointing out problems in current policies, they suggest coherent, sophisticated solutions.

I don't have the specifics on the cuts in veteran's benefits and police officers on patrol; I will research that and 'fess up if I am in error. The after-school program in particular which has been cut is really not an after school program. Head Start has been drastically cut, and that is a federal program. But I will look into this more.

I won't deny that previous Democratic administrations have sought to reduce the military. But I believe (and will have to research) that much of these cuts were related to hardware and not to cutting military pay or benefits. I believe that the Democrats have tried to cut funding for obsolete military equipment and fairy-tale systems like SDI. I do know that military retirement benefits and health care have been cut; National Guard soldiers are not eligible for government health insurance, for example. Hazardous duty pay was cut, I believe from $125 to $75 dollars a month. (I have to check those figures.) Meanwhile, soldiers of fortune in Iraq are paid six figures. Soldiers like Paul Rieckhoff find this inequity demoralizing. (But he had some wonderful memories of his time in Iraq, too; I'll share those in a future entry.)

I find it very difficult to accept that Halliburton is the only corporation qualified to rebuild Iraq. It seems to me perhaps several corporations, with many different specialties, could rebuild Iraq. It seems to me that the whole endeavor should have been much more international, if it were justified, and we would be sharing this enormous undertaking with many nations, instead of relying on one corporation with uncomfortable ties to the current administration.

Yes, Rush did compare the prison abuse to frat boy shennagins. To be fair, this was in the first few days of the scandal, before many of the more brutal pictures were released. But he continued to defend the actions of the soldiers. "Come on, people," he said, "these people are the Enemy!" But actually they were the people we were supposed to be liberating. 70 to 90% of the detainees were wrongfully imprisoned. I will try to document this in a future entry.

I define "knee-jerk" as a quick unthinking response; it can apply to any political persuasion.

I have not looked at Christianity Today much, but I do run across quotes from it very often. It has always struck me as a very objective source.

I think one reson I started writing this blog is an uneasiness I have with the Right co-opting the label Christian, as if one cannot be Christian and liberal. But I think Christ himself was pretty radical, and aren't we supposed to be striving to be more Christ-like?

The Latest Musings

2004-06-27T10:56:00.000-07:00

Last night, at the end of another long work day, I had an interesting conversation with one of my bosses. I stopped in his office to ask whether he wanted me to lock the door. He was checking the headlines online, and he mentioned to me that Jack Ryan had dropped out of the race.

We embarked on a discussion of politics that made me experience a heavy heart—an expression that I didn’t really understand until last night.

My boss is what I would call a knee-jerk Republican. I don’t think he ponders the issues much; he decided a long time ago that Democrats are bad, and Republicans may be bad, too, but at least they won’t ruin the economy.

So we chatted about the current global climate. I learned he thinks the Abu Gharib scandal is much as Rush painted it—just some frat boys blowing off steam. When I pointed out that people had been killed, he was surprised, but it didn’t seem to affect him too much. He said that we had to torture those people. In fact, he said, we were right to round up and incarcerate Japanese people during WWII. I would have been dumbfounded if I weren’t so opinionated and ready to speak my mind.

He asked me how many people had been killed, and I didn’t have the stats at my fingertips, but I knew it was more than twenty. I did the research and found out 25 detainees had died. The article I read (from the New Yorker) dated May 3, 12 deaths had been determined to be either from natural or undetermined causes, 1 death occurred when a fleeing detainee was shot, 10 more were still under investigation and 2 were determined to be homicides.

What I hunger for is a conservative with whom I can have a reasonable discussion who can clarify and support that point of view. I’m getting bits and pieces of this type of dialogue from my sister and little tidbits from my brother, but being geographically apart (as well as idealogically) makes such conversations difficult. But my boss is not the man to have the conversation with either, although we both certainly are respectful of our differing opinions. He admits that he is not particularly informed about poliitics, not being especially interested in it unless he knows the players personally. He surprised me by saying he thinks Clinton could have been a great president, but was unwilling to concede that Clinton did anything good during his administration.
I understand being extremely disappointed with the tawdriness Clinton’s immoral and unwise behavior brought to the presidency. Yet despite this scandal dominating the second term of his presidency, his administration thwarted at least three or four terrorist attacks on our soil, his economic policy was so much more responsible than the current administration’s, and America’s reputation in the world was not tainted by the man’s deep flaws and foolish mistakes.

I plan to see the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. I am not an enormous fan of Michael Moore’s; he uses theatrically tactics that are manipulative and as such, lessens the impact of his argument. For example, he takes a mother who lost her son to the war in Iraq to Washington and films her emotional breakdown in front of the White House. That is shameful, I believe. He can make his point without intruding on this woman’s grief. This mother, apparently, gave Moore permission to use the footage, but the argument against the war must be made intellectually, not emotionally.

On the radio I heard an Iraq War veteran, Paul Rieckhoff, speaking about his experience in Iraq. His grandfather had served in WWII, and his father in Viet Nam. Rieckhoff himself had gone to school at Amherst, and as such, was privleged enough not to need to go into the military. He joined the Army in 1998 because he felt he needed to give back to the country that had done so much for him.

He speaks without anger but pointedly about how the military was and is let down by this Commander-in-Chief. Supplies were scarce, from ammunition to body armor to vehicles. He says soldiers were on patrol in 120 degree heat with only one water bottle apiece. His unit, he said, did not have Humvees, but when the time came for them to need such vehicles, they stripped down SUV’s they could find but could not properly armor. (I have heard but have not verified independently that several of our war dead have resulted from injuries that would be preventable if our troops were sufficiently armored. I have heard that families of our troops have bake sales to raise money for Kevlar.)

Meanwhile veterans’ benefits are being cut, hazardous pay for the military is being scaled back dramatically, and solidiers’ tours of duty are being extended indefinitely. All so the President’s wealthy friends can buy a new yacht with their tax cuts. There are fewer police on our streets, after-school programs are being cut, and “tax cuts, corporate interests and union-bashing. . .come first.” Jack Huberman, A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years. Halliburton, with its extremely unethical ties to the President of Vice, Dick Cheney, gets no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq and charges our government for a bag of dirty laundry and $80M to purchase a new truck to replace a slightly less-new truck which is marred by a flat tire. Meanwhile, Halliburton executives stay in luxury suites at luxury hotels at the taxpayers’ expense.

Cheney is proving himself to be a pathological liar. I saw a delicious bit of tape about Cheney on the Daily Show. After the 9/11 commission released its report stating there was no operational link between Al Quaeda and Iraq, Cheney gets on TV to do his spin control. He points to a alleged meeting between terrorist Atta and Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague in April. He vehemently claims such a meeting has neither been proved nor disproved. The Daily Show cuts to a quote from the commission report: “We believe such a meeting in Prague did not occur.” [Cell phone and ATM records determined that such a meeting at that time was impossible.] The same female interviewer pointed out that Cheney had said in the past that there was no Iraq-Al Quaeda link, and Cheney angrily, vehemently denies saying that. Cut to Meet the Press tape, where Cheney used the exact words the female interviewer had just quoted.

So pathological is he, that Cheney’s latest mendacity is denying on Fox News (with the ironic slogan, Fair and Balanced) the foul language he used when speaking with Patrick Leahy on the floor of the Senate, in front of witnesses. When asked if he did indeed “drop the F-bomb,” Cheney shook his head demurely and said, “It’s not the kind of language I usually use.” (A non-denial denial, if ever I heard one.) Meanwhile, hilariously, Cheney’s aides are saying Leahy was deservedly cursed out! Thank goodness this administration is bringing decency and civility back to the government!!!

Another way the administration is trying to link Iraq to Al Quaeda, the administration points to a 1994 meeting between Bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. One of my favorite pundits cleverly yet crudely put it this way, “If I gave Britney Spears my phone number and she wiped her butt with it, does that mean we dated?”

Back to Fox News, for a moment. Their news is so absurdly biased that it would be laughable, if it weren’t duping so many into believing that the war in Iraq is justified. So I’m not laughing; I’m trying to find a remedy for the queasiness I feel.

To return to where I’d begun. . . I have tremendous respect and admiration for my boss because he is a very ethical businessman. Making opportunities for his employees to provide for their families is a very important part of his work to him—a moral responsibility. He has made many sacrifices for his workers—one year giving employees an energy bonus in a year where energy prices spiked, eating the increases in medical insurance premiums for several years, and giving all his employees a raise when the business relocated to a facility much further from where most of the workers live. So to hear such an ethical man defend torture was disheartening at best and devastating at worst. He scoffed at the Geneva Conventions as being irrelevant. Even setting aside the huge moral questions, torture can never be effective when the detainee has no useful information.

I have been trying to educate myself more and more on the Bush administration, and I’m finding so many reasons to want them out of the White House. I’ve been discussing this with my ex, and he has been trying to dissuade his mom from voting for Bush. (She is nominally a Democrat, but the story is that if you don’t register as a Democrat in the city, your garbage doesn’t get picked up.) He has offered her several factual arguments against voting for Bush, but she remained unconvinced. Then I told him something I thought was amusing, but not the least bit provable or even believable. I heard a psychologist on the radio speculate, based on partly on the pretzel-choking episode and the bicycle mishap, that Bush is drinking again. This was enough for the mother of a newly-recovering alcoholic to want the man out of the White House.

Yet again my thoughts are jumbled as I can’t type as fast as the ideas come to me. But the demand for my musings is there, so here is my offering.

Retraction

2004-06-13T11:09:00.000-07:00

My sister pointed something out to me that dilutes my previous rant, and I looked into it, and she was right.

The vast majority of presidents did not attend funerals of the fallen. I distinctly remember Reagan attending such funerals, reinforced by many of the images over the last week, and Clinton and Bush the Elder attended a few, but these were rare exceptions.

That said, this administration is trying to infringe on freedom of the press in many ways, including not allowing flag-drapped coffins of fallen soldiers to be broadcast.

My sage sister also provided me with a quote that I found quite poignant. "I do not know what the heart of a bad man is like. But I do know what the heart of a good man in like. And it is terrible." Ivan Turgenev.

Rantings

2004-06-11T17:08:00.000-07:00

I have a huge jumble of thoughts, so please forgive me if this is somewhat disjointed.

My wise and well-respected sister*** forwarded me an email from a soldier stationed in Iraq, wherein he enumerated many successes in our campaign in Iraq and expressed frustration at the negative American media coverage. I was so self-satisfied with my response to my sister that I decided to post an edited version on my blog. (Ouch--I sprained my arm patting myself on the back.)

I think it’s unfortunate that most of our media outlets have the philosophy “If It Bleeds, It Leads” guiding what stories get prominence. I’m delighted and not surprised to learn that things have improved in Iraq on so many different fronts.

But I believe it would be foolhardy to ignore the problems; they can’t be corrected if we refuse to address them. None of the wonderful things in the email contradicts the fact that there are horrible things happening in Iraq as well.

It’s interesting that the soldier in the email makes a remark about Kerry. Kerry voted for the war, and is not in favor of suddenly pulling out. He is upset about being misled about reasons for the war, and does not agree with how the president is managing the war.

I find it very disturbing that Wolfowitz could not accurately come up with the number of dead American soldiers when asked recently (he was off by 1/3!). I find it appalling that the majority of American dead have lost their lives since our Cowboy-in-Chief announced “Mission Accomplished” in that spiffy jumpsuit.

The Abu Ghraib scandal is very real, not a media fabrication. And the abuses are much worse than what Rush Limbaugh characterized as fraternity pranks. People died as a result of some of these abuses. Rush likes to remind us that these people are our enemies. But we’re supposed to be the liberators. Imagine if in WWII we went into the concentration camps and had attack dogs intimidate the prisoners. Yes, these people were being detained, but at least 70% were being wrongfully detained. Innocent until proven guilty—isn’t that part of our great democracy that we would like to see the Iraqi people enjoy? At the very least, the sophomoric “pranks” the prisoners endured are culturally insensitive. And I think that’s a problem.

I am ashamed to learn that my government has decided not to abide by the Geneva Conventions, not the Torture Treaty signed in 1994. This sends the message that while we are not as bad as the likes of Saddam Hussein, we seem to be cut from the same cloth. This makes it so much easier for others to hate us, and has made recruitment in Al Quaeda soar. Now, I don’t think we should pander and try to be loved the world over, but I find it troubling that we willingly scamper away from the moral high ground.

Meanwhile. . . .Al Quaeda was no friend of Saddam, and Iraq was not involved in 9/11. (That was our good friends, the Saudis.) But now with the instability of Iraq, Iraq is a training center for terrorists.

Okay. A year and a half ago, there weren’t terrorists in Iraq. There weren’t WMD’s. Bush has been taking resources away from the war on terror to fight his personal vendetta. He is sacrificing the lives of our soldiers in an unjustified war—at least not justified by the reasons we were given in 2003—and he does not even have the decency to honor the fallen by attending funerals of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Reprehensible.

A while ago, I pushed my dad to make a criticism of President Bush. All he would say is that he didn’t agree with the president’s plan to go to Mars, as our children and grandchildren would be paying off the debt of such exploration for decades.

Meanwhile, Bush is the only president to cut taxes during wartime. Thank goodness, he’s not a tax-and-spend liberal. He’s a cut-tax-and-spend compassionate conservative. And our soldiers don’t even have what they need. Families of soldiers are spending their own money to provide kevlar to protect their loved ones. Humvees are not properly armored, which has led to avoidable casualties. But Rummy wants to do this on the cheap. I guess that’s easy to do when you’re sending other people’s children into harm’s way. Bush has cut hazardous pay significantly and is cutting back on veteran’s benefits so his billionaire friends can have some walking-around money in their pockets. Is that supporting the troops?

Furthermore, I’m revolted by the war profiteering going on. Why is Halliburton getting no-bid contracts in Iraq? Honestly, I don’t know how Dick Cheney sleeps at night.

Vote for Bush--why change Horsemen mid-Apocalypse?

****My other sister is equally wise and well-respected, even if she is the one who outed me.

Sigh

2004-06-08T10:35:00.000-07:00

I've been outed as a blogger by my own sister!

Well, since my family can now find me, I'm very curious to hear reactions to this editorial: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=040512#3. (I don't know how to do a hyperlink, but you can cut and paste to your browser.)

I've been thinking a lot of the Christian Right's disagreements with the Christian Left, and since I'm the lone heretic in the family, I'm interested to hear opinions from people who I know have love in their hearts. (I'm not so sure about Tim LaHayne (sp?), Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et. al.)

The Passing of a President

2004-06-05T14:21:00.000-07:00

I just heard the news of Reagan's death. The cable news networks seemed ghoulish this morning pondering the eventuality after quoting Nancy saying something to the effect that Ronnie had gone somewhere where she could no longer reach him. I assume that meant he was comatose. But I don't get why the news media needed to report on that.

While Reagan seemed perfectly likable to me, I never understood how he got to be so deified. I don't think it's entirely accurate to attribute the fall of communism to Ronald Reagan. As far as his approach to governing, I think he basically let his staff do that. I never felt he had the smarts to really be in charge.

I feel that is even more the case with George W. The problem here is that Bush has surrounded himself with self-serving, war-profiteering, middle-class destroying, lying megalomaniacs.

I know, I shouldn't hold back like that.

Antisocial

2004-05-31T15:21:00.000-07:00

I just realized one of the reasons I've not been going to my exercise classes lately, or making the proper effort to get my son to his soccer practice, is because I have been feeling very anti-social these past several weeks.

I don't fit in well with the soccer mom crowd, although they are all very kind. I'm just the only single mom, and one of the few who works. In fact, lately I've had to bring work to do to soccer practice, which is off-putting to some extent to the others. I'm sure I probably come off like a snob, but my shyness has been rearing its ugly head and making it more painful for me to even make small talk. I find myself feeling that no one cares what I have to say, and it's even rude of me to force myself onto others, even through mundane conversation. If they wanted to talk to me, I reason, they would initiate the conversation. I realize how silly that is, but emotion does not always win out over intellect.

The exercise classes are filled with very fit people who have their clique with other very fit people, with the subset of trophy wives and those struggling not to be replaced by trophy wives. At work I have only one person I can really talk to. I can talk to the other women in the office about family things, but there's a guy at work that I can talk to about anything. It's very refreshing, because we both know we can be honest and agree to disagree without our opinions jeopardizing our friendship.

My ex-husband and I sometimes have spirited conversations, but I can't trust him with my feelings. Recently it appears that he has reunited with his ex-girlfriend, who is a wonderful woman and a good influence on him, but he's not telling me because he hopes to have a friendship with benefits with me. That has no appeal for me. Plus he sometimes is very illogical; yesterday he sent me two chain emails!

My brother-in-law posted in his blog yesterday about an argument he had with my sister regarding parenting. He is much more laidback, whereas my sister wants to force her opinions on her children; she insists they believe what she believes. Her children are all teenagers now; they are not going to agree with her 100%, especially since most of her views are quite conservative and not always based in logic. Her youngest is a girl, and I'm sure the next several years will be difficult for the two of them.

Memorial Day

2004-05-30T18:54:00.000-07:00

I'm more mindful this year of the meaning of this holiday than I have been in years past. When I realize that I'm old enough to be the mother of some of the young men and women losing their lives on the other side of the world, Memorial Day hits home. And I'm becoming more and more mindful of the freedoms our forefathers established and fought for. I've been complacent about them, and now I want to work to ensure we keep these freedoms, when the current political climate seems to encourage the erosion of our rights.

My ex-husband fancies himself a miltary man from a military family, although no one in this immediate family ever wore a uniform. He went to a military boarding school and flirted with going to West Point, but his whole adult life has been civilian. He gets choked up when he talks about how he wishes he were in the military in these times, but I think that's all horsesh*t. But I do think he is lying to himself about this as well.

My ex took our son to the Memorial Day parade yesterday. I hope my son has some sense of the meaning of the holiday, and not just an excuse for barbecues and excessive drinking and white sales. Of course he's only six, but he seems wiser than his years.

I feel very selfish in knowing that it would be hard for me to make the sacrifices our service men and women are making, and to know that I don't want my son to be one of them. His father would be proud to see him in uniform, but I would be terrified.

Memorial Day weekend

2004-05-29T15:43:00.000-07:00

This weekend seems to me to be like New Year's--I'm wanting to turn over a new leaf. I haven't exercised in nearly a month, and as I plan to get back to an workable regiment after the holiday weekend, I also want to make many other changes for the better.

Forced to clean up my act at work due to an ISO audit, I need to clean up my personal space as well. I also want to work harder at being a more involved parent.

My son takes my breath away sometimes with his six-year-old questions. On the car radio news, he hears something about Iraq, and he says, exasperatedly, "Are we attacking again?" He's been asking me what "we" (meaning he and I) believe about different political issues. The temptation to brainwash is strong, but I really want him to make up his own mind as he matures. (Really, I do. I think I do. I hope I do!)

I want to work to make the world a better place, and a way I see to do that is by becoming politically active. Mostly right now that just means getting educated. I'm reading several books and listening to the radio more and more, specifically Air America and NPR. I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh in short bursts, but I find them so hateful that my stomach turns. I don't even know where to locate O'Reilly on the dial, but I find him so masterful of spin, I don't believe he knows his own truth anymore.

Through Air America I've become familiar with a man named Jim Wallis, who believes you can be progressive and politically active, something the Christian right views as oxymoronic. He has a couple of websites, including Sojourners, and I plan to learn more about his ideas.

The current climate in the U.S. and the world frightens me. I'm more afraid than I was post-9/11. Granted, I live in the Midwest and can feel pretty safe, but now I'm ashamed of myself for being complacent. I need to work to make this world safer and freer for my son.

More to say, but I'll save it for another time. I just need to remember that loneliness is not an option.