Eclectic Floridian

Once again

2006-08-14T12:21:00.000-05:00

This says it all, from Cox and Forkum

Hezbollah: This cartoon says it all

2006-08-02T09:54:00.000-05:00

This Cox and Forkum cartoon says it all about Hezbollah (and terrorists in general).

I have to hand it to these guys, they're masters of media manipulation. When you store your missiles in bunkers beneath schools, mosques and apartment buildings, then fire them next to the same kind of buildings, you have the perfect setup to highlight civilian casualties.

My question is, why do the civilians put up with acting as targets for Hezbollah? Are they forced to, at gun-point, or just so stupid they don't realize Hezbollah doesn't give a damn about their safety?

Wiretaps - Judicial Review - Smell a rat?

2006-07-13T17:03:00.000-05:00

Let me see if I've got this straight ...

The President is going to agree to a review of Warrantless Wiretaps.

The review will be conducted by the FISA Court of Review.

The judges of that court will be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a recent Bush appointee.

The (puppet) Court of Review will review the legality of Warrantless Wiretaps, and, if illegal, no one will be held responsible. That's the way I read the agreement, correct me if I'm wrong.

New legislation will be passed to give the president the OPTION of FISA review and extend after-the-fact warrants from 3 to 7 days.

To summarize, the Prez will get:

1) a review to see if he's broken a law
2) if he has he won't be punished
3) his new appointee will appoint the judges doing the review
3) this review covers actions the Prez says are his perogative
4) the review is to be done by a group the Prez says have no authority over him
5) FISA rules, which the Prez doesn't acknowledge, will be modified so he can use them if he wants, or not if he doesn't.
6) we get a law that _allows_ the Prez to use FISA, which he could have done anytime without breaking the law
7) even if he doesn't like the new law, he can nullify it with a signing statement.

Gee, I think something may be wrong here. Whaddya think?

An Alternative to Bush's "War on Terror"

2006-06-30T18:07:00.000-05:00

I've been having an email conversation with "Kagro X" over at dKos that keeps coming back to my mind. My previous post on this subject did not seem to drive home my strong feeling that there is a better way handle the "War on Terror". Remember that that "war" was declared by our Decider-In-Chief, not by our Legislature.

Kerry, in 2004, tried to recast terrorism as “simply” a criminal enterprise and that attempt failed. That is not that same as proposing a solution to the problem.

I am not just asserting that terrorism is "only" criminal, I’m proposing a solution.

Yes, the solution requires the acceptance of terrorism as criminal rather than an act of war. But, that is “all” it is, criminal behavior. Terrorism is not about one nation violating another’s territory. It is about the tactics of those who hold certain beliefs.

In scope, terrorism is different, but, in tactics, it is no different than the Mafia.

Just like the Mafia, Terrorism is:

ruled by a diverse group of families (leaders)
acts across national boundaries
violates the laws of most nations
instills fear in those confronted by it
has an international network of interacting leaders
has a support group that finances it

Consider Interpol, an international police network. Imagine if the responsibility for the “War on Terror” were transferred to Interpol, or an organization like it (but devoted to terrorism). Possibly, such an organization could take a form more like an truly international NATO.

If that were to happen:

the SWIFT problem would not exist
Western Europe (and Russia?) would no longer resist the U.S. because they would be partners in a fight that makes sense to them
Other nations would feel comfortable signing on to a truly international effort, thus increasing cooperation on intelligence and enforcement to include [local?] military options)
The wind would be removed from the sails of our Decider-In-Chief, that is, "War" powers would no longer be an option for him to rewrite our Constitution
The Democratic party (if it adopted this as part of its platform) would be providing a solution to a major source of hatred toward the U.S., that is, providing a solution instead of unilaterally stirring up international trouble
Nations would be willing to join an international group that is for their mutual protection from terrorism so long is the U.S. was only another signatory, rather than a unilateral bully.

Am I nuts? Tell me why, or why not. It sure seems logical to me.

War (?) on Terror - A Viable Alternative?

2006-06-28T17:25:00.000-05:00

I've had problems with the "War" on terror since it was declared. I've had this vague "tickle" in the back of my brain since this war was declared by Bush. Many blogs and articles have tickled it. You'll recognize some of them.

At Putin Wants Hostages' Killers Hunted Down, Russia's Putin seems to have a good idea. He did not declare a War, he simply ordered hunting down and punishing international criminals. If Putin is willing to participate in that effort, why not Germany and France? Why not many other nations?

Websters Online defines war as:

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations ...

2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

Why do we as a nation have to accept Bush's definition (definition 2)?

He's the only one who has declared war, Congress hasn't.

[For political strategists] Why not just elect a congress that will repudiate the president's war powers, since the conflict is not "between states or nations" (definition 1)?

Did the L.B.J invoke presidential war powers during the "War on Poverty"?
Have presidential war powers been invoked during the wars on drugs or crime?
Is the "War on Terror" really a war? After all, no nations are involved.
Are war powers really required by the President?
Can you wage war on a tactic (terrorism)?
Isn't terrorism really just a crime-wave that requires special handling?
Has the Cheney/Rumsfeld career-long fixation on a "Unitary Presidency" found the perfect patsy in George W. Bush?
Has the Cheney/Rumsfeld career-long fixation on a "Unitary Presidency" used the [non-]War on terror as a means to that end?
Wouldn't worldwide cooperation be more likely if a Terror Interpol were to be formed authorizing military enforcement where necessary?

Please understand, I agree terrorism must be defeated and vigorous measures are necessary.

But, our U.S. freedoms are being squandered each time the Bush Administration invokes it's "War Powers".

We can diffuse that power and gain a coalition of many nations by accepting terror as a massive crime-wave. An International Treaty (like Interpol) can be created to combat the unprecedented crime-wave.

Considering the terrorist attacks on many nations, many now have a stake in defeating terrorism. Enlisting them is this effort would likely succeed.

Bush - The Safest Man On Earth

2006-06-21T21:07:00.000-05:00

Our Illustrious Leader is the safest man on earth.

No matter how angry his citizens are about his disregard for our Constitution, the Secret Service protects him,
No matter how outrageous his violations of our laws, the Congress backs him up,
No matter that he is ignorant and incompetent, his stooges (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Gonzales) supply new ways to attack good government,
He could walk into a meeting with Bin Laden with complete immunity. After all, who could better represent the effort to tear down Western Civilization than Bush,
Regardless, of unconstitutional actions, the Judiciary will not prosecute for fear that The Decider's secrets may be exposed to the citizenry,
No one would dare assassinate his butt, his Constitutional successors are no better.

Good News from Iraq - Believe it!

2006-06-21T10:33:00.000-05:00

I ran across this excellent post, you should read the whole thing. It's long, but extremely well written and cogent.

I should also say that a precipitous departure from Iraq is in no one's best interest. Anti-war sentiment can easily lead one to condemn the Iraq action. But, let's face it, regardless of the reasons, we started it. We put the Iraqi people in this situation. We have an obligation to help see them through the aftermath.

The author of this article is Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper. He is the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe. His work appears regularly in the New York Post. I will excerpt a number of his salient points:

Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. ... It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom...

Sounds like his view of MSM coverage is a bit jaded. With his qualifications, he has a right.

It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq.

... the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.

For someone like myself who has spent considerable time in Iraq a country I first visited in 1968 current reality there is, nevertheless, very different from this conventional wisdom, and so are the prospects for Iraqs future. It helps to know where to look, what sources to trust, and how to evaluate the present moment against the background of Iraqi and Middle Eastern history.

Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I have relied on several broad measures of social and economic health to assess the country's condition. Through good times and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurate as accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs.

The first sign is refugees. When things have been truly desperate in Iraq in 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990 long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape.In 1973 ... some 1.2 million Iraqis left their homes in the space of just six weeks .... it was a scene regularly repeated under Saddam Hussein.

Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television sets and we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to be shown. To the contrary, Iraqis, far from fleeing, have been returning home. By the end of 2005, in the most conservative estimate, the number of returnees topped the 1.2-million mark. Many of the camps set up for fleeing Iraqis in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia since 1959 have now closed down.

A second dependable sign likewise concerns human movement, but of a different kind. This is the flow of religious pilgrims to the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Whenever things start to go badly in Iraq, this stream is reduced to a trickle and then it dries up completely. From 1991 (when Saddam Hussein massacred Shiites involved in a revolt against him) to 2003, there were scarcely any pilgrims to these cities. Since Saddams fall, they have been flooded with visitors. In 2005, the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank ... The countrys gross domestic product rose to almost $90 billion in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), more than double the output for 2003, and its real growth rate, as estimated by the IMF, was 52.3 per cent. In that same period, exports increased by more than $3 billion, while the inflation rate fell to 25.4 percent, down from 70 percent in 2002. The unemployment rate was halved, from 60 percent to 30 percent.

Related to this is the level of agricultural activity ... In the past two years, by contrast, Iraqi agriculture has undergone an equally unprecedented revival. Iraq now exports foodstuffs to neighboring countries, something that has not happened since the 1950s.

Finally, one of the surest indices of the health of Iraqi society has always been its readiness to talk to the outside world. Iraqis are a verbalizing people; ... There have been times, indeed, when one could find scarcely a single Iraqi, whether in Iraq or abroad, prepared to express an opinion on anything remotely political ... Today, again by way of dramatic contrast, Iraqis are voluble to a fault. Talk radio, television talk-shows, and Internet blogs are all the rage, while heated debate is the order of the day in shops, tea-houses, bazaars, mosques, offices, and private homes. A catharsis ... 100 privately-owned newspapers and magazines and more than two dozen radio and television stations. To anyone familiar with the state of the media in the Arab world, it is a truism that Iraq today is the place where freedom of expression is most effectively exercised.

He disagrees that Democracy cannot be "imposed" on Iraq because it has no tradition of Democracy.

The country came into being through a popular referendum held in 1921. A constitutional monarchy modeled on the United Kingdom, it had a bicameral parliament, several political parties (including the Baath and the Communists), and periodic elections that led to changes of policy and government. At the time, Iraq also enjoyed the freest press in the Arab world, plus the widest space for debate and dissent in the Muslim Middle East.

... by any reasonable standard, Iraqis have made extraordinary strides. In a series of municipal polls and two general elections in the past three years, up to 70 percent of eligible Iraqis have voted. This new orientation is supported by more than 60 political parties and organizations, the first genuinely free-trade unions in the Arab world, a growing number of professional associations acting independently of the state, and more than 400 nongovernmental organizations representing diverse segments of civil society. A new constitution, written by Iraqis representing the full spectrum of political, ethnic, and religious sensibilities was overwhelmingly approved by the electorate in a referendum last October.

There is so much more in the article that you must read it! He discusses how the insurgents have failed at every turn, how the quality of life has improved and how determined the Iraqi people are to make a go of this opportunity.

The Bush administration seems to have done much more good in Iraq than they have in the U.S.

Close Guantanamo? That's not the Issue. UPDATED

2006-06-19T17:02:00.004-05:00

Whether or not to close Guantanamo is not the issue.

Closing the site of the travesty is not an answer. Germany's closing of Bergen-Belsen would only have produced political eye-wash. No change would have been effected. And, yes, I intended the implied connection between Hitler's and U.S. policies.

Closing Guantanamo will not change the fact that prisoners are being held in violation of our Constitutional and Geneva Convention guarantees of the right to confront our accusers. Our government can play word games about whether or not the prisoners are or are not to be afforded rights under the Geneva Conventions. Word games do not change the innate right to human decency.

Even those wrongly detained (after four years of confinement) receive no justice since U.S. courts will not allow a suit that would reveal state secrets.

Our government must act to reclaim any semblance of moral authority. The Guantanamo prisoners must be released or Charged, Tried and found guilty or innocent. The secrets revealed in trials over a human being's freedom are secondary. Additionally, courts have ways of handling state secrets if they are truly pursuing justice.

Hiding behind secrecy concerns is abhorrent.

The only secrecy of concern is the secret that this administration will negate any law to pursue it's predetermined plan.

UPDATE:
Just to be clear. The U.S. government has stated that water-boarding is used as an interrogation technique. Is it torture? Well, I won't suggest you try this at home, so let's just pose a hypothetical situation.

You have your husband/wife/friend tie you to a board. Then have them tilt you so your head is lower than your lungs (that is very important). After they blindfold you, they stretch a cloth above your face. Then they begin pouring water through the cloth over your nose and mouth. Drowning is unlikely, since your lungs are higher than your nose and mouth. But ... the sensation of drowning is so real that broken bones often result from the thrashing of the restrained victim.

Now ... have you had time to fully imagine this? Would you call this torture?

Back in the Day of Y2K

2006-06-19T11:35:00.000-05:00

The post at Outside the Beltway got my brain working, always a dangerous proposition. But, abandoning wisdom, I'll continue anyway.

Ineke, my Dutch-born life-partner, and I went to The Netherlands for the celebration of the millenium. By the way, flying on Christmas day is wonderful ... 60 passengers on a 767 is very comfortable.

During the course of a three week visit, I had a conversation with Ineke's brother. The European Union was not yet sure to be ratified. Jaap (pronounced Yap), Ineke's brother, asked of my feelings about it. My reply was that I hoped the E.U. would succeed and become a major world power.

Jaap was surprised, saying, "I wouldn't expect an American to feel that way."

My reply simply fell off my tongue before my brain had time to process it, "If the E.U. becomes a world power, then the rest of the world has another group to hate besides the U.S." Since then, I've had time to process that thought and find more meaning than I meant at the time.

The additional meaning became evident a few minutes later. Jap made the (I think justified) comment that he wished the U.S was less arrogant about it's place in the world. I agreed that I wished that too.

But, only minutes later, Jaap began telling me of what the U.S. should do about the situation in Israel/Palestine, the Middle-East and other parts of the world. I could only respond,

"Just a minute. You just stated that we (the U.S.) should be less arrogant. Now you assert that we (the U.S.) should arrange the world is thus and such a way. How can We not appear arrogant, when you (Europe) expect us to manipulate the entire world?"

This is the dilema the U.S. faces. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, no matter the international issue.

This said, I must also say I am personally ashamed of our showing under Mr. Bush's administration.

Suspension of Habeus Corpus (uncharged prisoners at Guantanamo)
Warrantless Wiretaps
Torture
Subversion of judicial process using state security as a straw man
Questionable facts surrounding 911
Unilateral commitment to a "war" using questionable intelligence
Gross dereliction of duty surrounding Katrina (and probable catastrophies yet to come)
Economic havoc in the form of huge deficits, unprecedented, undocumented unemployment
Surpression of authoritative scientific warnings about global warming
Vice Presidential misconduct in awarding Iraq re-construction projects
Congressional failure to exercise it's Constitutional responsibility to oversee the actions of the Executive branch
Allowing the President to exempt himself from over 750 new laws through the use of "Signing Statements"

In short, I'm so mad at our government I could spit. The government as it is currently run should be aware that there is a Fourth check and balance.

That is the right of the citizens to bear arms. Does our government really want to make us mad enough to exercise that Constitutional right?

Southern Whites and Blacks - Modern History

2006-06-18T09:58:00.000-05:00

I read the yK Rebel Ass diary by grapes. It talks about the South as a political entity. It engendered thoughts that are really off topic, so I thought I'd diarize (new word?) it myself. Some light may be thrown on the South as a political entity, but that isn't the intent.

I was raised in pre-Disney Orlando, then, a sleepy southern town. My grandparents, as was normal for reasonably affluent southerners then, had a black woman, Rosa, to help in the house, and a black gardener, Rosa's husband. This was in the early 1950's and I was about six years old.

Rosa grew bitter about the plight of blacks in the south and moved to Chicago, where she had relatives. Only a year passed, when she returned. My mother asked her why:

My mother told us of Rosa's answer and I've remembered it for the last 55 years. Note, I remember Rosa as a loving care-giver, not as a servant. When my family came for dinner she always managed to have one of my favorite dishes, she'd give me a big, sweet hug and a kiss on the cheek and tell me she had missed me.

When Mom asked Rosa why she came back to the south, Rosa replied:

"Miss Virginia," she said, "the Powell family (my Mom's family) has always been good to us. When my husband got drunk and arrested, your daddy went down and bailed him out of jail. You've always paid us well and treated us with respect. You've treated us as good friends, not as servants or slaves.
I have friends that work for other white families and they are treated the same way. But, most white folks in town don't treat us that way.
Even though you treat us well, I came to feel that you controlled our lives, not us. I wanted to try living on my own, without the control of a white family.
Up north, in Chicago, I learned something. I learned the difference between North and South attitudes toward blacks.
Up North, whites say they accept blacks as equals, but dislike them as individuals. Down South, whites say the don't like blacks as a race, but accept them as equals individually."

My attitude on race relations has been colored by that last paragraph for all my years. After all, how do we judge anyone, regardless of race, if not by their actions, if not as individuals? Judgements formed any other way are, at best statistical approximations, at worst, simple bigotry.

A heartfelt, Thank You Rosa ... and a big hug!

Flag Burning Amendment? Poppycock.

2006-06-14T14:09:00.000-05:00

My main irritations with the Flag Burning Amendment are two-fold:
1) It's a stupid election-year waste of time,
2) It is an attempt to legislate the intentions of the citizenry.

Point #2 is the major factor when contained in a Constitutional amendment. If memory serves me correctly, burning is the recommended method of disposing of dirty, torn, frayed or otherwise unserviceable flags.

With that thought in mind, which of these flag burning scenarios would be illegal?

1) A VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) post collects unserviceable flags. Then, once a year they are burned according to accepted practice with appropriate salutes.

2) A homeowner has displayed the flag in his yard. It has become unserviceable. He has raised and lowered it according to tradition. Out of respect, to decommision the flag he builds a fire in the barbeque and, with appropriate salutes, burns it.

3) The homeowner from #2 above is a young person with a shaved head and numerous body piercings. His treatement of the flag is the same as in #2 above.

4) Homeowner #2, in the same situation described, takes the same actions, except out of disgust for Bush's disregard for the Constitution, spits on the flag as it burns.

5) Homeowner #3 takes the same actions described in in #4 above.

6) A 14 year-old boy, disgusted by his school suspension for bringing a realistic looking water pistol to school (we've all read these stories) burns the flag publicly screaming of the gestapo tactics.

I could go on, but you get the idea? Which of these people are guilty of a crime under the proposed amendment?

No Way Bush is an Incompetent Liar

2006-06-14T09:39:00.000-05:00

There is simply no way George W. is an incompetent liar ... he's had too much practice for that.

(Adapted from Silent Running's Quote of the Day)

Iranians Aren't Stupid

2006-06-02T17:12:00.000-05:00

I should preface these remarks with the statement that Iran's Amadinejad's remarks about Israel and the holocaust are ridiculous on their face.

But, I suspect, that he and his government are playing a very well-thought-out strategy.

That strategy, in short is: Make best use of your oil resources while they last. Meanwhile, position yourself to be ahead of the "no-more-oil curve."

Most of us know the Iranians are very intelligent, well-educated, proud people, as are we. As you read this, keep that in mind.

At The Moderate Voice I had a bit of an exchange in the comments section about the "Olive Branch" extended to Iran by Ms. Rice. This discussion seems to illustrate the arguments over the Iran Nuclear program fairly well.

My original comment was:

Let me get this straight:
Iran asserts it's right to use it's resources for generation of nuclear power, thus positioning itself for the day their oil reserves are gone.

Iran raises the suspicions of the US/EU/Russians/Chinese by refusing IAEA verification of peaceful intent.

The US/EU/Russians/Chinese offer a plan to stop sanctions if Iran will stop it's nuclear program before negotiations about that very issue even begin.

Iran refuses to cede it's negotiating leverage before negotiations begin.

The US/EU/Russians/Chinese conclude Iran's intentions are bad and begins sanctions (at least).
Wouldn't a "diplomatic" proposition, at least, offer a semblence of negotiable points instead of a bullying requirement.

For example, an honest diplomatic approach, might offer Iran the acceptance of it's right to exploit it's own resources (uranium) if it accepted IAEA verification of peaceful use.

Even if Iran's intentions are malignant, and it gets the bomb in 10 years, the US alone would still be in possession of 11,000 times that many (deliverable) warheads.

Another commenter (who's only link is an email address I don't feel I should post) took my points one by one (headed in bold) after which I reply:

Says Iran conducts "a secret enrichement [sic] program."

Wrong! There's nothing secret about the Iranian enrichment program. They have been open about it since breaking the IAEA seals. It's what's required for peaceful, nuclear-generated electricity. They've stated that it's their right to do it for peaceful means.

Says Iran has engaged in "3 years of defiance, stonewalling, and deception during negotiations with the EU3."

Wrong! For 3 years Russia/China have been saying that Iran should stop enriching their own resources and pay Russia/China to do it instead. Meanwhile, for 3 years the US/EU have been screaming for them to stop finding the best use of their own resources.

Says Iran must "SUSPEND their ENRICHMENT program. They dont have to suspend their nuclear program, which isnt the same thing."

Wrong! If you can't enrich uranium, even your own, you HAVE no nuclear program, peaceful or otherwise.

The responder then goes on to say:

"Iran refuses to cede it's negotiating leverage before negotiations begin. "

By suspending actions at the UNSC to move toward sanctions, we suspend OUR negotiating leverage. In turn, they must suspend theres [sic]. Otherwise they can drag negotiations out, deferring sanctions, while moving closer to a bomb.

"The US/EU/Russians/Chinese conclude Iran's intentions are bad and begins sanctions (at least). "

If they wont SUSPEND enrichment, thats a pretty logical conclusion.

My reply was:

Have you considered the possibility that Iran refused IAEA inspections as a negotiating "strawman?"

Isn't it possible that they are willing to accept IAEA inspections in return for the right to best use of their own resources?

We, the west, have no right to deny them best use of their own resources ... and they resent that. Thus, they throw out the "strawman" knowing they'll give it up ... What Iranian would think the international community was too stupid to see the opening for negotiation.

I am convinced the Iranians will accept IAEA verification in return for freedom to use their national resources for peaceful purposes ... if only the diplomats would act like diplomats rather than Texans.

In light of the approach of US/EU/Russia/China, here's an idea to use the same approach in your everyday life!

Carrot-and-Stick your employer (heh-heh, a pun) when raise time comes around:

Tell him to give you a 20% raise or you won't be willing to talk about your raise.

Yeah! That'll work ... er ... won't it?

UPDATE: FYI, per Wikipedia,

naturally occurring uranium is composed of three major isotopes, ²³⁸U, ²³⁵U, and ²³⁴U, with ²³⁸U being the most abundant (99.3% natural abundance) ... To be considered "enriched" the ²³⁵U fraction has to be increased ... (typically to levels from 3% to 7%).

The point here is, ²³⁸U is not fissible, it must be enriched to get a larger percentage of ²³⁵U. Therefore, without enrichment of percentage of ²³⁵U, no one can have nuclear power, peaceful or otherwise.

George, Don't You Get It?

2006-05-11T17:18:00.000-05:00

No matter how many time you tell us to trust you, it doesn't change a thing. We don't trust you. Don't you get it?

Telling us Warrantless Wiretaps are legal, requires us to trust you. Whether you tell us or have your stooge at the Department of (Bush) Justice tell us. We don't trust you! Get it yet?

After all the deceit we've seen, George Bush telling us to trust him is the equivalent of Iran's Ahmedinejad telling the world to trust that they aren't going after nukes.

In both cases, we're being told there is no sinister intent while being denied verification. The two are incompatible.

The Bush excuse that these matters are too sensitive to reveal is patently ridiculous. Please don't pretend the whole world doesn't already know that the NSA:

can tap into any communication that goes through the air or over a wire,
must look at domestic calls in order to track extended links beyond domestic/international calls,
must scan every international call in order to determine which are sinister, that is unless they begin by knowing one party is a "bad guy", in which case a legal warrant would be obtainable, even 3 days after the fact.

Mr. Decider, it's time for you to decide that you have thumbed your arrogant nose at the people, the Congress and the Constitution too many times. The people and Congress are not as stupid as you believe them to be.

I have adult memories of every president since JFK and you, Mr. Bush, are the most arrogant with the least reason to be. No president in my memory has made me angrier nor more ashamed. Simply impeaching you, Mr. Bush, would not begin to solve the problems you've created. The situation could only begin to be solved if you and your entire administration stepped down now and presidential elections were held this November.

... er ... sorry ... I just lost for a little while, but it feels good getting it off my chest.

A Complaint to the Office of Inspector General

2006-05-09T14:41:00.000-05:00

Here is my letter of complaint to the Office of Inspector General (hotline@hudoig.gov):

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, at a forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council of the Dallas Housing Authority, repeated a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something … he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect — the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'"

Federal law clearly shows these actions to be illegal due to discrimination based on political bias. In addition, there is a public admission of guilt. Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 3.101-1 says:

Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct.

Please take legal action against Mr. Jackson, if only to show U.S. citizens that we really are not in a Bush administered dictatorship. Your office’s failure to act in this matter will prove its tacit complicity in political bias in the award of Federal contracts.

U.S. Oil resources Three-times All Mid-East Countries

2006-05-04T11:22:00.000-05:00

The U.S. government-owned Green River Formation contains three-times the oil in all Middle Eastern countries combined. The formation contains 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Compare this with Saudi Arabia's 261 billion gallons (Update: make that barrels). The U.S. federalized the land, which straddles Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, in 1930. It conservatively, contains one-half the world supply of shale oil.

What's the catch? It's shale oil, that is, oil contained within a layer of rock. Until now, it has been too expensive and environmentally destructive to recover economically. Well, times are different now and the technology is better.

According to the Dept. of Energy, the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Rand Corporation and Shell Oil (links below), the recoverable amount is between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels. Think conservatively, 800 million barrels ... 400 years worth at current consumption.
Using In-Situ Retorting, according to the experts linked below, oil can be removed from the rock without mining the rock, then processing it. Instead, In-Situ Retorting:

Freezes the perimeter of an area of rock, using wells to inject coolant to keep out groundwater and contain the oil,
Heats the rock in the interior area to cause oil to seep from the rock so it can be pumped to the surface.

Shell has been working on In-Situ Retorting for 20 years. They expect the extraction cost to be $25 per barrel, though some estimates are $20. Shell currently has a test well in the Green River Formation.

Maybe it's time to provide ourselves with our own oil supply until we can develop better energy sources ... ya think?

Refer to:
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Dept. of Energy
The Oil and Gas Journal
The Rand Corp.
Shell Oil

If you hit me, I'll punch your friend!

2006-05-02T12:13:00.000-05:00

I knew the Iran government was nuts, but even they can't be this stupid. When they threaten to hit Israel if the US uses force, they're telling us, "If you hit me, I'll punch your friend."

Maybe they need to recall the last time a hostile Arab country (Iraq) pushed the envelope on nuclear power (double meaning intended). Then, the friend (Israel) punched them first. They are positioning themselves to be hit by someone. My bet is on Israel, not the US, see here.

They have exposed themselves as:

Fearful of US military action,
Fearful of and paranoid about Israel,
Duplicitous, by insisting they are peacefully pursuing nuclear power, while refusing inspections by the IAEA,
Agressive, by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz and "wipe Israel off the face of the earth."

Do these guys really expect the world to view them as a nation peacefully going about the business of governing?

How did U.S. get low on oil?

2006-05-02T08:47:00.000-05:00

"Nobody bothered to check the oil. The reason for that is purely geographical. Our OIL is located in Alaska, California ,Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington DC." (Thanks Rich Kuchinsky)

No Need To Trust Bush In Iran

2006-04-19T09:55:00.000-05:00

The Moderate Voice has a good article on potential strategies for the Iran nuclear enrichment program. It ends with the question, "Why on earth should we trust George W. Bush in Iran?"

I don't think we will need to trust George W. Bush (thank heavens). The Israeli Prime Minister has made it clear how the problem will be resolved if diplomacy fails. When asked, "How far will you go to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power?", his answer was, "About 2500 kilometers." That pretty much says it all. The Israelis have already dealt with this situation once ... with a straightforward bombing raid. I see no reason for them to hold back this time, should diplomacy fail.

In fact, the Bush administration must realize that another pre-emptive strike by them would make the ridicule universal. Instead, if Bush can overcome his I'm-the-Decider mania, he would realize that passing a few rewards (read military hardware) to Israel in return for a bombing raid, would solve the problem without additional blemish to his already dirty-grey administration.

Ingenious Engine

2006-03-24T09:57:00.000-05:00

"Why didn't I think of that?!" That's what you'll be saying when you read about this engine.

Four cycle engines run hot and require heavy radiators and fans to cool them. Well then, why not add an extra power stroke that cools the engine. Voila, the six stroke engine!

Yes, a six stroke engine! At PESWiki they tell the story of Bruce Crower's great idea:

The first four strokes are the same as an internal combustion engine.

In Crower's design, after the exhaust cycles out of the chamber, rather than squirting more fuel and air into the chamber, his design injects ordinary water. Inside the extremely hot chamber, the water immediately turns to steam, expanding to 1600 times its volume, which forces the piston down for a second power stroke. Another exhaust cycle pushes the steam out of the chamber, and then the six-stroke cycle begins again.

No Cooling System Required

"Besides providing power, this water injection cycle cools the engine from within, making an engine's heavy radiator, coolant, and fans obsolete. Despite its lack of a conventional liquid cooling system, his bench engine is only warm to the touch while it is running."

Potential Efficiency

Crower estimates that eventually his six-stroke engine could improve a typical engine’s fuel consumption by as much as forty percent.

Our Universe, created by committee

2006-03-15T14:59:00.000-05:00

I found the Pootle and Frick Study. This tongue-in-cheek study proves our universe was created by committee(s).

The thrust of the argument is that our universe could not have been created by a single omniscient entity.

This is clear because, being omniscient, there would be no need to create multiple creatures with many ways of dealing with the same natural situations, take frogs and salamanders, for instance. This entity would know (being omniscient) the one correct way to deal with nature's quirks.

In addition, an omniscient creator would not need to hang around as the maintenance engineer. All the little "tweaks" that change creatures over time would not be necessary. After all, a single omniscient creator would have done it right the first time.

Given this finding, the only logical way to explain the diversity of nature and the duplication of solutions to identical situations, is (aha!) a committee, probably many committees. The study goes on to deduce that the number of committee members (creation entities) must be at least five times the number of species on earth times the number of life-containing planets in the universe.

With an explanation this simple, who could possibly believe that mutation of genetic material combined with natural selection could produce the life we see around us?

See? Intelligent Design believers still have it wrong! After all, we know that intelligence is not an attribute of a committee!

You may also want to review my Nov '05 post on Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design, Pastafarianism and Goatism

The Bush Administration Legacy

2006-03-13T12:45:00.000-05:00

(Adam Kotsko has asserted the moral right to be identified as the author of this post.)

Humor: FBIs New Internet Tracking Technology

2006-03-08T09:21:00.000-05:00

HUMOR
See here for a safe demonstration of this technology

Leaking Illegal Government Action: Illegal?

2006-03-07T13:40:00.000-05:00

I'm no lawyer, so could someone who's qualified, enlighten me? When Bush's Attorney General starts going after the officials and reporters who leaked Warrantless Wiretaps, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot?

Assume for a moment the Justice Dept. actually charges someone for leaking the Warrantless Wiretap program (I refuse to call it "Terrorist Surveillance Program"). If I were the defense attorney, my first questions would have to be:

Is it illegal to release information regarding government actions of questionable legality?

Isn't it an official duty to expose illegal government activity? After all, it is a soldier's duty to refuse an illegal order. That was proven by the Nuremburg Trials after World War II.

The Administration, by charging someone with this "leak", is asking for a court test of the legality of their own actions. In my mind, given our current laws, Warrantless Wiretaps on US citizens are patently illegal. The Administration may jam a law through Congress making it legal, but, that would not "grandfather" in earlier, illegal actions. Thus, "leaks" on this subject are simply the actions of conscientious "whistle-blowers."

If Mr. Bush and his shill, the Attorney General, want to shoot themselves in the foot, wouldn't it be simpler to go hunting with Cheney?

A Starr Performance

2006-03-06T14:36:00.000-05:00

Well, Ken Starr's true colors finally show. He is now accused of presenting fabricated documents to California Governor Schwarzenegger as part of a clemency proceeding. See this Washington Post article.

Now that sounds like the Ken Starr I remember from the "get-Clinton" investigation he ran for years at taxpayer expense. At the time, Clinton wasn't my favorite person, but Starr's year-in/year-out investigation infuriated me. Jailing people, planting moles, spending millions and generally subverting the legal system, still didn't produce any substantive dirt.

Oh yeah ... a blow job. I forgot about that one. It must be because our current president has re-written the Constitution with impugnity.

It looks to me like Starr enjoyed spending the taxpayer dollar so much that he wanted room and board too. Well, I suggest we give it to him ... in San Quentin ... in the general population ... after he is disbarred.

A Shamed American

2006-02-28T12:55:00.000-05:00

More and more these days, I read what the rest of the world thinks of our Bush dominated United States. Originally, I supported Mr. Bush, generally, except for his christian-fanatic take on some subjects. Now, I'm simply ashamed for us.

The rest of the world sees us as a nation too weak or stupid to stop an international and domestic bully. For example, here's an excerpt from The Hindu about Bush's upcoming visit to India:

" ... on the 2nd of March, Bush will be taken to visit Gandhi's memorial in Rajghat. He's by no means the only war criminal who has been invited by the Indian Government to lay flowers at Rajghat. (Only recently we had the Burmese dictator General Than Shwe - no shrinking violet himself.) But when George Bush places flowers on that famous slab of highly polished stone, millions of Indians will wince. It will be as though he has poured a pint of blood on the memory of Gandhi.
We really would prefer that he didn't.

It's not in our power to stop Bush's visit. It is in our power to protest it, and we will. The Government, the Police and the Corporate Press will do everything they can to minimize the extent of our outrage. Nothing the Happynews Papers say can change the fact that all over India from the biggest cities to the smallest villages, in public places and private homes - George W. Bush, incumbent President of the United States of America, world nightmare incarnate, is just not welcome."

Condoleezza Rice had to be informed of the reasonable and logical approach to the Hamas government in Palestine. You'd think she would have been able to figure this out for herself, but, she, smart as she is, has been around Mr. Bush so long that she has bought into the strategy: "Prejudge, then stick to your guns."

From Le Monde, here is a condensation of what the arabs had to explain to our Secretary of State:

Allow for an initial grace period and refrain from making Palestinians pay for a political agenda yet-to-be outlined by the fledgling Hamas government. This essentially is the message that was addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, during her tour of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

It seems like an obvious, logical approach doesn't it? That is, let's, at least, wait for Hamas to form a government and establish policies before we condemn them. I still think Hamas is in a no win situation, but what harm does it do to see if they can extricate themselves?

When a French newspaper commented on how Mr. Bush "struts" around, Bush's comment was "in Texas we call that walking." I'd suggest that some lessons in "walking softly" are in order.

Is George Bush a clone of King George III?

2006-02-22T15:28:00.000-05:00

This post began with me thinking that George Bush could be seen as leading a "Taxation without Representation" movement. The thinking was that, coopting the powers of our Congressional representatives (who pass taxes and spending) is actually "Taxation without Representation."

Okay, I admit that's a stretch, but a tantalizing thought. The point is, that thought led me to look up the record of King George III. Remember he's the guy the colonies revolted against because of "Taxation without Representation."

The similarities between King George III and King George Bush are absolutely wild. Bush could be a clone! The King George III quotes are from here.

King George III: "George was not very intelligent and could not read until he was eleven. However, his tutors praised him for the amount of effort he was willing to put into solving his academic problems." (See here)
King George Bush: Though his intelligence seems about the same, we only heard King Bush praised for the effort he put into cheerleading in college (a practice he continues to this day).

King George III: "In 1760 George succeeded his grandfather, George II, as king." (See here)
King George Bush: George followed in his fathers footsteps (I can't bring myself to say "succeeded") instead of his grandfather.

King George III: "A year after becoming king, George III arranged for the Earl of Bute to become prime minister. This decision upset a large number of MPs who considered Bute to be incompetent." (See here)
King George Bush: While the timing and posts filled are different the tendency to appoint incompetents is the same.

King George III: "In the newspaper that he established, The New Briton, Wilkes accused the king and his ministers of lying. Wilkes became a symbol of free speech and the king was blamed when he was imprisoned for 22 months for libel." (See here)
King George Bush: Well, in King Bushs' court, no one has been tossed in jail for free speech yet. But it's clear that neither George was fond of free speech.

King George III: "In 1770, George appointed Lord North as prime minster. Lord North stayed in office for ten years." (See here)
King George Bush: Read "Cheney/Rove" in place of "North."

King George III: "George III supported Lord North's policies that resulted in the American War of Independence (1776-1783). Some MPs, led by Charles Fox and William Pitt criticised the conflict as an "unjust war" and urged Lord North's government to bring it to an end. Fox and Pitt were also critical of the way that George III tried to influence and manipulate those in Parliament. They argued that parliamentary reform was necessary for the preservation of liberty." (See here)
King George Bush: Does the term "unjust war" ring a bell? ... King Bush try to influence and manipulate those in the legislative branch ... of course not!

King George III: "When the House of Commons passed the India Bill, the king warned members of the House of Lords that he would regard any one who voted for the bill as his enemy. Unwilling to upset the king, the Lords rejected the bill by 95 votes to 76." (See here)
King George Bush: Doesn't this sound eerily similar to Karl Rove twisting Congressional arm in an election year to prevent full investigation of Illegal Wiretapping?

King George III: "[In] 1783, the king invited his former critic, William Pitt, to form a new government. George now used all the powers at his disposal to help Pitt maintain control of Parliament. This made the king unpopular with the Whigs, a group who favoured a reduction in the powers of the monarchy." (See here)
King George Bush: Hmmm ... misuse/overuse of the power of the Monarch ... er ... Presidency? Certainly, not in the USA!

King George III: "In 1793 war broke out with France. Soon afterwards William Pitt brought in a bill suspending Habeas Corpus. Although denounced by Charles Fox and his supporters, the bill was passed by the House of Commons in twenty-four hours. Those advocating parliamentary reform were arrested and charged with sedition. Tom Paine managed to escape but others such as Thomas Hardy, John Thellwall and Thomas Muir were imprisoned." (See here)
King George Bush: You have to hand it to old Will Pitt. At least he brought a bill before the representatives of the people before suspending their rights.

King George III: "To pay for the war Pitt was forced to increase taxation and had to raise a loan of £18 million. This problem was made worse by a series of bad harvests. When going to open parliament in October 1795, George III was greeted with cries of 'Bread', 'Peace' and 'no Pitt'. Missiles were also thrown and so Pitt immediately decided to pass a new Sedition Bill that redefined the law of treason." (See here)
King George Bush: Raise taxes to finance a war? Hmmm ... I hadn't thought of that. Redefine the law of treason? Hmmm ... is that the same thing as saying "If you don't support this measure, you're aiding our enemies." And, King Bush has already thrown his missiles. If he keeps screwing with our form of government, Congress and the people may well return the favor ... figuratively, of course (gotta be careful of the NSA you know).

Cartoon Politics - Turkish PM

2006-02-11T15:09:00.000-05:00

Once again, back on the subject of Cartoon Politics, the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan called on the United Nations, NATO and the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Friday to act with wisdom and common sense, and display leadership, saying:

"No culture has a given right to insult the sensitivities of other cultures. The minimum prerequisite of harmonious coexistence is that different civilizations and traditions recognize and mutually respect each others' cultural differences ..."

I can certainly agree with that.

After all, why should we, as free societies, expect to be held to the standards of Muslim culture regarding what our newspapers do or don't publish. The "minimum prerequisite of harmonious coexistence" requires that a given culture must make a minimum effort to understand cultures that don't adhere to their beliefs.

Did the West burn embassies and threaten beheadings when Iran

Kidnapped American civilians,
Advocated wiping Israel off the map created by modern societies
Declared that the historically proven Holocaust never happened and Israelis should be moved back to Europe
Refused inspections by the IAEA while pursuing "peaceful" nuclear technology?

No, of course we didn't. The logic of fanatics is compelling, on the surface. But, when turned around, it is revealed as pure, emotional garbage. For example:

Maybe we, the West, should declare that the Crusades never happened. The Crusades are a Muslim plot to discredit Western social philosophy and that Muslims should return to the Middle East. The logic is the same, ridiculous, yes, but the same.
Maybe we, the West, should kidnap a few Imams living in our cities because they don't respect our beliefs about the role of religion, free speech and women.
Maybe we, the West, should advocate wiping Muslim countries off the map because they don't adhere to our beliefs of acceptable actions by modern society.
Maybe we, the West, should accept that a nation which has an avowed goal of wiping another nation off the map has a right to disallow UN inspections to prevent development of weapons to further their stated purpose.

And, while doing all these ridiculous things, we should burn the embassies of Muslim countries and threaten them all with destruction of their citizens.

The logic is the same. Yes, it's stupid, but the same. Moderate Muslims are history's most Silent Majority. When are they going to speak up ... I sure haven't heard them yet!

Bush: 2002 Plane attack on L.A. foiled ... bait?

2006-02-09T11:35:00.000-05:00

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush announced that an Al Quaeda plane attack on L.A. was foiled in 2002. He said an Al Quaeda operative was arrested in a southeast Asian country and this led to foiling a 9-11 style attack.

Hmmm ... interesting timing. It seems a bit off the wall that this information should be divulged right now.

Do you suppose this is just the bait to get our attention? Then, a "leak" that the plot was foiled by information obtained through a warrantless wiretap would be the sinking of the hook, right?

Democrats: Please don't run this person for President

2006-02-01T12:48:00.000-05:00

Given the level of discontent with Mr. Bushs administration, I think the Democrats have a good chance at the presidency ... if they pick the right candidate.

This REUTERS/Jason Reed picture is proof of why I simply don't trust Mrs. Clinton to be our president. Democrats please don't nominate this:

Hamas: "A fine mess we've gotten into."

2006-01-26T13:42:00.000-05:00

If Hamas ever watched Laurel & Hardy, one of them is now saying, "A fine mess we've gotten into."

Hamas is now a majority leader of the Palestinian Parliament, elected by their own people. It appears Hamas achieved this because their people were fed up with the corruption of Arafat's regime. Now what are they going to do?

Hamas has few choices:

Govern for the good of the people or legislate terrorism.
- They're ill equipped to govern, terrorists don't need to govern.
- How do you legislate terrorism? What laws do you pass? How do you concentrate on terrorism and provide for the needs of the people who voted you in?
Accept Israel as a state or continue their terrorist war.
- Accepting Israel as a state forces Hamas to back down from their stated purpose of wiping it off the map. Their loss of face would likely be fatal to them ... individually and as an organization.
- If accepting Israel is not a choice, they don't have much choice but to declare war. After all, there isn't much room for compromise given Hamas' past rhetoric. But, then, they'd already declared war prior to the election. Though they've produced many barbaric killings, their war on Israel has been fatal to many of them individually, too.

It looks to me as if Hamas has only two choices now that they're the winner ... Be killed or, uh, be killed. Can you say, "planting the seeds of your own destruction?"

Insurance Company Slime

2006-01-24T18:52:00.000-05:00

A post at the Moderate Voice caused me to consider this. An insurance company is going to court to stop having to pay benefits because they are too expensive. Apparently an AIDs victim has lived too long. What crap!

Though this is much more gruesome, at it's heart, it's not much different than car insurance.

Your car insurance premiums are calculated based on the statistical chance of a claim. That's fine and good.

What I never understood is that the insurance company raises your rates if you do have a claim. Wasn't the cost of that claim built into the rate in advance? If you've ever done the calculations, you'll find your rate increase will pay the company back within a couple of years.

I guess I just need to buy me a couple of politicians to pass regulations that guarantee me a profit! Mr. Abramoff, where are you when I need you?

US Attorney General as President's shill

2006-01-24T18:17:00.000-05:00

When the Attorney General of the US becomes a shill for Presidential usurpation of Constitutional separation of powers, it's time to worry.

Attorney General Gonzales is clearly so greatful for his job, that he will spout what the administration wants in order to keep his position. That is eerily similar to Alito saying that opinions offered during his Reagan era job application were meant to get the job, not necessarily his own.

Neither Bush nor Gonzales have offered anything more substantial than, "we have studied this and concluded it's right." BULL!

What part of the Constitution don't they understand? There is no Constitutional power giving the President the power to override written laws because he thinks it necessary and legal.

Remember, in order for the NSA to find suspicious stuff in phone calls, they must be either:

From known terrorists to US citizens, or,
From NSA filters that found suspicious words.

In the first case, it is clear that a warrant could be obtained from FISA, even 3 days after the interception.

In the second case, it is clear that my wife's calls to her family in The Netherlands must be monitored by the NSA to determine whether or not sinister communications are taking place. I certainly hope FISA would find that a clear violation of our rights.

Get it? To find suspicious calls ... ALL calls must be monitored! Is that a violation of our rights? You BET!

Bush: "I Robbed a bank the other day."

2006-01-23T17:00:00.000-05:00

NOTE: Humor/Satire (NSA, got a sense of humor?)

If President Bush said,

I robbed a bank the other day. Now trust me on this, it was 'legal and necessary'. This bank had communications with people we suspected of being Al Quaida operatives.

This is the only way to freeze terrorist funds. There was no time to get a warrant. We knew that getting a warrant, even three days after the robbery, was too constricting.

And, by the way, the U.S. Constitution, that protects citizens' privacy rights, was written 200 years before there were phones and electronic banking so it can't apply here. Don't kid yourself, the people depositing money in that bank were aiding terrorists, trust me on this.

I'm looking out for the interests of the American people. Those depositing money in these terrorist banks are warring against America, believe me. Some of you may lose your money, innocently, but, that's what you get for dealing with terrorists.

I just felt it was time to exercise the Nucular option. You have to trust me to do the right thing. The courts are too slow, and liberal to help us interpret the Constitution in this time of crisis."

How do you think that would fly? Isn't this the same argument the Bush Administration is using to defend Domestic Spying.

Of course, now Mr. Bush is calling it the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". That raises a question. How do they know my phone calls are to terrorists, not family, unless they listen to my calls to begin with, regardless of how innocent? Get the idea?

18 "Innocents" Killed in Attack on Terrorists!

2006-01-20T13:15:00.000-05:00

Was this attack justitied? Maybe it's just me but:

When I invite guests for dinner, I generally don't invite mass murders. I guess it's just a personal quirk.

If I did invite several mass murders to dinner at my house, I think I'd expect that unpleasant things might happen.

It's Legal Because "I Said So!"

2006-01-20T11:53:00.000-05:00

So far, the only justification of Domestic Spying that I've heard is, "Because I said so."

That's just not good enough. Even members of the legislature who have supposedly agreed to it, have expressed that they didn't realize that's what was being discussed.

The important questions are not:

Is it needed?
Is it important?
Isn't it the patriotic thing to do?
Wasn't it disclosed to Congress?
Aren't we in a war?

The only important questions are:

Is it authorized by our Constitution?
Should the president abide by the Constitution whether or not it is convenient for him?
If changes are necessary to allow Domestic Spying, shouldn't a Constitutional Amendment be required?
Should an Attorney General appointed by a President who appears to be creating Constitutional Amendments from thin air, be allowed to interpret the Constitution?

Ladies and Gentlemen, important precedents are being set here. Speak up or get what you don't deserve!

Domestic Spying - Its sinister consequences

2006-01-17T18:13:00.000-05:00

I’ve been following the domestic spying story closely. Its effect on me has been subtle and disturbing. First, some necessary personal information. My spouse was born and raised near Amsterdam in The Netherlands. As a result, she frequently calls friends and family.

I suddenly realize that I've not stated my concern on this subject because of a nagging worry that the NSA may be listening to my phone and internet posts as a result of my spouse's connection to Western Europe. Suddenly, it dawns on me ... my freedom of speech has already been abridged! Well ...

NSA Listen up! Leave me alone! I'm as patriotic as most Americans, but the President of the US nor his NSA have rights to shut us up simply because he/they are willing to commit treason. I await their jackbooted thugs.

As you can tell, I'm concerned about our country. I'm sure the Taliban's outrageous performance in Afganistan began as subtly as this.

The legality doesn't seem clear.
The administration keeps telling us that "We need to do this." But, the legality isn't clear.
The traditional media seems to accept this reasoning. Maybe that's because the U.S. Attorney General tells us they have had many lawyers review the legality of domestic spying. Let's remember who he works for and that the Attorney General's opinion only counts when determining who to prosecute under our existing law. The interpretation of those laws is left to our courts, not the President or his lackey, the Attorney General.
"Because I think it's important" isn't a good enough reason to contravene the Constitution.
Whittling away at our rights is extremely dangerous, no matter the reason. Even assuming George Bush's intentions are honorable, the precedent is being set unless "we the people" object. After all, we don't know what the next President's intentions may be.
George Bush's intentions are not clear. I suspect they're not clear even to him. He seems to have fallen for the view that what he does is best. Maybe his God tells him that is so, just as Pat Robertson, and Mayor Nagan hear God's message (to hear them tell it).

Pat Robertson confirms the religious nature of Intelligent Design

2005-11-11T13:32:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson responded to the citizens of Dover Pennsylvania after they voted out of office all the school board members who voted to include "Intelligent Design" in the curriculum. He told them:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city,"

Later he decided this statement should be "clarified." Then he said:

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Well ... it's clear to me that God must be telling Mr. Robertson how he feels. Or, his Mr. Robertson telling God how He should feel, or, maybe he's telling us how we should feel. Gee, I wish he'd be clearer.

At any rate, Pat Robertson has let the cat out of the bag.

Maybe the church should religiously indict him for "outing" the fact that "Intelligent Design" really is a disguised campaign to introduce religious Creationism into the schools, even though the courts have already ruled against that one.

We must be in Kansas Toto!

2005-11-09T16:21:00.000-05:00

Well, as expected, Kansas Board of Educations "Intelligent" Design advocates passed rules requiring the teaching of Alien Design (after all, they wouldn't want to imply God had anything to do with it) along with evolution.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is "no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena".

Excuse me??? Science is not about explaining natural phenomena?? Assuming The Designer created everything, then are not all phenomena "natural" by definition?

Next, I guess, we will be teaching our children the "science" of miracles! Maybe, we can teach the "science" of life after death, ghosts, The Flying Spaghetti Monster (see previous post), or maybe the "science" of cultism.

One "natural phenomenon" the Kansas Board of Education will have to face is the one faced by the Dover, Pennsylvania Board of Education. After voting in similar rules, they were just voted out of office! Now there's science at work! Of course, it was only a natural phenomenon.

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design, Pastafarianism and Goatism

2005-11-05T13:25:00.000-05:00

Humor/Satire

I have had my ignorance pointed out to me by David Trevaskis (YahooID: tdiedesign).

Darwinism (the theory of evolution) is beset by several other beliefs with logic and proof of other methods of creation and evolution.

Intelligent Design which purports that complexity necessitates belief that some higher being (Alien?) created the universe.
Pastafarianism, which purports that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe beginning with a mountain, trees and a midget. They believe that global warming, earthquakes and hurricanes are caused by the decline of pirates since the 1800s (graph available). Prayers to "Him" are ended with "Ramen" rather than "Amen." An open letter to the Kansas Board of Education requests that Pastafarianism be included in education about Evolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Goatism, which claims everything is a Goat. The appearance of a herd of goats is a miracle, since it is mathematically proven that there is only one Goat, all others being multiple instances of The Goat. Further information about Goatism, with formal proofs by scientists from renowned universities can be obtained at http://www.goatism.org/index.htm

All these religions depend on the same premise. Believe or be damned!

Now, don't you Intelligent Design believers feel silly? ... No? ... well you should!

Intelligent Design's faulty logic

2005-11-05T10:49:00.000-05:00

Intelligent Design proponents beliefs frustrate me when they try to force our public school children to consider science a subject that can be done based on invalid logic.

The IDers logic is summed up in the Latin phrase

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

That translates to: This happened after that therefore that caused this.

When IDers say that the universe is so complex it must have been intelligently designed, they are using Post Hoc logic.

That same line of logic proves that frogs are the offspring of mud. That is, the frogs showed up after the mud so the mud caused the frogs. Sorry, boys and girls, that just isn't scientific.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a conclusion based on invalid logic. That's what happens when you try to do science based on conclusions that must be taken on faith.

For Intelligent Design to be a scientific theory it must follow proven scientific method:

The ID conclusion must be approached as a Hypothesis.
The Hypothesis must be proven using proofs that hold up to real-world facts, processes and events. The Hypothesis will then have become a Theory.
The Theory must be published along with the proofs, evidence and methods used.
The Theory must be reviewed by the scientific community for accuracy of facts, evidence, and validity of methods.
If the proof is accepted by the scientific community (in general), only then can ID be accepted as science.

Do Intelligent Designers believe Aliens created Life?

2005-11-04T17:54:00.000-05:00

A Kansas institution has now been granted the money and responsiblity of renovating a satellite. Given the Kansas Board of Education's position on "Intelligent Design", I must question whether or not that state should be entrusted with any scientific project.

Question for Intelligent Design advocates:
If a "higher being" created the universe, then, that being also created Carbon 14 which has been used to validate the Origin of Species (not the Origin of Life). How do you explain that conundrum?

Also, If a "higher being" created the universe, does that mean life was created by aliens? Apparently you believe in either aliens or God. Which is it?

Are you aware that Darwin never claimed to explain the origin of life? Afterall, his book was entitled "Origin of SPECIES" (my emphasis).

I have a scientific turn of mind. Even I wonder if Intelligent Design is the only thing to explain the "Big Bang". Afterall Quantuum Physics may only be saying that The Designer introduced a certain amount of uncertainty into the EVOLUTION of the universe.

But, assume for a minute that an Intelligent Designer created the Universe.

Does that not assume that our laws of probablility were also created by that Designer? Does that not assume that The Designer created the very Carbon 14 we use to validate the "Origin of Species?"

Come on you fundamentalist nuts! Do you believe our Universe was created by Aliens (confess now!) or maybe God (who you don't want us to know you mean when you advocate ID) or maybe its just something we (ALL of us) don't understand yet.

Saying that it's too complicated for us to understand, is not a SCIENTIFIC reason to assume some ALIEN created our world. Do you people really want to be known as people who believe that an ALIEN created our Universe. You then begin to sound like the crazies I currently think you already are!

Attention! Western Europe! Achtung!

2005-07-07T18:21:00.000-05:00

What does it take for France, Germany and Russia to realize that they are also in the war on terrorism?

The London bombings simply show that fanatics do not rule civilized nations.

We must recognize that it is impossible to protect all our infrastructure from attack by amoral fanatics. Therefore, we must detect and eliminate these monsters! When we have shown sufficient resolve in this effort, their recruitment efforts fail.

In particular, France, Germany and Russia are in aid of the fanatic efforts through their refusal to take substantive action in resistance.

France, Germany & Russia childishly refuse substantive help in the effort to crush fanatic bombers, because they are still upset about the loss of their lucrative contracts with Saddam's regime. If they do not "get over it" and help in this effort they are, in effect, aiding terrorism. If that continues to be the case I advocate that the US withdraw from NATO.

You may or may not like the way the US entered Iraq and Afganistan, but the results appear to be positive to the people of those nations if you read their weblogs..

France: How many troops does it take to defend Paris? No one knows ... it's never been tried! --- Get some guts and help!
Germany: You showed lots ot guts in defense of a lousy offensive ... try doing the same in defense of a noble objective.
Russia: You have always defended yourselves admirably ... now help defend yourselves and the rest of us too!

Pro-Life and Anti-Research

2005-05-06T16:54:00.000-05:00

This morning, research results were released that a group from Univ. of Tennessee stated stem cells could be removed from adult female reporductive organs. The cells could then be stimulated to produce viable eggs. These eggs could be used to store reproductive capability for those women about to undergo chemotherapy.

Sounds innocent enough, right? Of course, the Anti-Abortion ... er sorry, Pro-Lifers went into over-drive. These same eggs could be used to produce embrionic stem cells simply by fertilizing them. Somehow, they see this as Anti-Life.

Mysteriously, by this afternoon when I started to write this piece, the story seems to have disappeared! No kidding, I can't find it anywhere!

Added Note: I just found this reference, on Google, by way of India/UK. Even this story is not nearly as complete as the one I read this morning (and cannot find now).

Please steer me to the story, if you can find it. If you can't please let me know that because:

If the Pro-Lifers have the power to make such a story invisible, we should worry.
If the Pro-Lifers are against producing protoplasm that was never intended to become a life, we should worry.
If the Pro-Lifers are against research, using that protoplasm, to heal our Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Spinal Column damaged, Liver & Kidney Transplant recipients, we should worry.

At some point, Pro-Life beliefs must allow for research to continue existing life. I refuse to believe that a glob of ... er ... snot is a life and should not be used for research to extend and repair existing life.

On Mothers Day, for those of you who have lost her, think of how much good science can do to prevent similar losses for future children. God created the physical laws that direct scientific study, the "Absolute Values" that some say proscribe it, ignore this.

The believers in Moral Absolutes will tell you that God gave us "Free Will" to decide these studies are wrong. The other side of that coin is that we were also given "Free Will" to DO the study. In addition, if it so happens there is no God, in the Theocratic sense, we have an obligation to study these things.

MAD - about Iran nuke power (pun intended)

2005-05-04T17:24:00.000-05:00

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article about the flap surrounding Iran's nuclear power controversy.

Generally, it says that if Russia supplies the fuel for Iran's nuclear (not nuculear) power plant, then the likelihood of them developing their own enriched uranium technology declines. Developing this technology is so expensive. That is if it isn't given (figuratively speaking) to you by the Chinese or "others".

That got me thinking ... always a dangerous thing. I'm not sure that even I believe what I'm about to say.

It's just an idea, one that I think may apply to Iran, but is shakier regarding N. Korea. Let's see if I can make it stick.

The Nuclear Genie is out of the bottle.
Nuclear power does provide a lot of relatively cheap power, with controllable side-effects, if done correctly.
Producing Nuclear power correctly requires existing expertise.
Existing Nuclear Powers have the expertise.
Russia, France and Germany, are existing Nuclear powers.
All three countries are frothing at the mouth to help Iran (as they were for oil production facilities in Iraq).
Inexpensive power is a quick way to increase the living standard of any nation.
Increased living standards always lead to a more enlightened citizenry (I know, a somewhat shaky assumption).
Nations with increased living standards have a lower tolerance for radical action Internationally (they have more to lose).
Russia needs cash. See the item above, remembering they still have more nuclear bombs than any nation but the US.
Iran, the Middle East, and maybe even Europe and the US, could benefit from an empowered, modern Iran with a middle-class their leaders have to answer to.
Even if Iran used their nuclear ability to generate nuclear weapons, how long would it take them to match the cold war capabilities of the U.S.S.R.
MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, though distasteful, got us through the cold war. It did that because those on both sides realized that use of the bomb would result in their "territory" becoming a sea of molten glass.
The US still has it's stockpile in place and ready for use.
If you were Iran, would you produce nuclear weapons, then risk using them, in hopes of becoming the world's leading purveyor of Iranian Nuclear Glass?

I readily admit that you can never be sure what a fanatic will do. But, I do find it difficult to believe that any government will make Moves to Assure its own Destruction.

I also admit that such a policy would be a huge gamble. The gamble might be the diplomatic equivalent of the parent telling the teenager that it's their decision to take a risk. That is, encourage responsibility by showing faith in their intelligence, all the while, holding the Nuclear option.

Florida Pro-Lifers - Stumbling over their tongues

2005-05-03T16:37:00.000-05:00

Re: an AP/Yahoo story of:

a pregnant 13 year old
who wants an abortion
whose guardian is Jeb Bush's Florida Dept. of Children & Families

I'll bet you can't quite see where this is going.

You see, an earlier post of mine, "Definition of a Woman", is about a bill in the US House and Senate, "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005" (H.R. 356 & S. 51, SEC. 2901(6)). The bill is sponsored by a number of Anti-Abortion ... er ... Pro-Life, women (and men). It contains a definition of the word "Woman", specifically for this bill only:

"WOMAN: The term `woman' means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority."

The 13 year old, young lady is a "Woman", according to even a Pro-Life definition of that word.
By definition, her age makes her the victim of statutory rape.
Almost everyone agrees that abortion is warranted in the case of rape.

These points raise some questions:

Should the, er, Pro-Life proponents be held to their definition of a woman?
At what point does absolute moral belief give way to real life circumstance?
If absolute moral belief should never give way, then, whose moral belief should our government enforce: yours, mine, the Taliban, Jerry Falwell (maybe the same as the Taliban), Rev. Frank Pavone (the priest representing his views to the press, as those of Terri Schiavo's parents)?

Florida's Dept. of Children & Families (DCF) gratiously, bowed to the decision of the court. The court said the abortion should be allowed. The, er, Pro-Life camp is now claiming that DCF should have appealed. The DCF record in the Schiavo case wasn't so illustrious. In fact, their record overall hasn't been anything to brag about.

I guess Jeb Bush learned that hiding behind his DCF won't protect him from the public's anger at manipulation of Constitutionally guaranteed Separation of Church and State.

The Grand Jury System - Accused's Rights (HA!)

2005-05-02T16:00:00.000-05:00

I know people who were unfortunate enough to be subject to a Grand Jury investigation. It put a burr in my shorts that just won't go away. I'm working on a ... er ... mini-series on the subject. Today, I'll only ask you some questions.

Most people pay no attention to the Grand Jury system. Afterall, what's the chance they'll ever be subject to an investigation! In short, very good if you upset a prosecutor. Here are some facts that I've cleverly disguised as questions. In each case, the answer is, "a Grand Jury".

What judicial body:

allows a prosecutor to charge anyone with anything, anytime?
doesn't generally allow the accused to be present?
never allows the accused to have an attorney present even if he/she is required to appear?
doesn't screen it's jurors in any way?
grants the accused no right to rebut lying witnesses against him?
has no judge present during deliberations?
specifically tells jurors that most of their procedural questions will be answered by the prosecutor (only natural since no defense presence is allowed)?
presents the jury with only the witnesses provided by the prosecutor?
allows presentation of illegally obtained evidence?
allows the presentation of hearsay evidence (pronounced "RUMOR")?
gets an indictment 99.9% of the time, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse?
is referred to when prosecutors say, "I can indict a ham sandwich"?
has no requirement that evidence of innocence be presented?
gives the accused no compensation, even for the 0.1% that are not indicted?

This is "The Land of the Free!" ... well if you're a prosecutor, otherwise, even ham sandwiches aren't free.

Desktop Fusion - Progress!

2005-04-29T09:58:00.000-05:00

Imagine a $2000 gadget you can plunk down in your backyard, wire into your electrical panel and turn it on to power your house, recharge your electric car and charge your cell phone. Then disconnect yourself from your power utility. Add water or hydrogen (the universes most abundant resource) now and then and go about your business. Too good to be true? ... er ... well, it is, but it may not be in the near future. If it were to happen, imagine the impact on our lives ... got any stock in a utility company? ... Maybe it's time to sell short ... well maybe not yet!

The Holy Grail of environment-friendly energy has traditionally (since 1988) been "room temperature" fusion. Two new experiments appear to be there, or close. Neither, seems to produce more energy than is required to run them ... but, ya gotta start somewhere.

Fusion involves combining atoms of light elements to generate energy. The byproducts of fusion are nothing but still lighter elements. That is, if you fuse hydrogen, you get energy, non-radioactive neutrons and helium. It's the opposite of fission which splits atoms rather than combining them.

Since fusion is the same process that powers stars, the operating temperature has been assumed to be around 100,000,000 degrees. Pretty warm, huh? "Room temperature" fusion does away with the problem of containing all that hot stuff and makes it easier to control.

Seth Putterman and associates at UCLA have produced fusion (it appears) with a heated crystal which generates strong magnetism throwing hydrogen (deuterium) atoms at other hydrogen atoms. It produces helium and non-radioactive neutrons.

Right now, the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security. The process appears to be easy and cheap to reproduce. It is reported in Nature's May issue.

"This doesn't have any controversy in it because they're using a tried and true method," David Ruzic, professor of nuclear and plasma engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told The Associated Press. "There's no mystery in terms of the physics."

There is another hope on the horizon. "Sonoluminescence" involves the violent collapse of tiny bubbles in a liquid using sound waves. It generates heat, some say in the 100,000,000 degree range, but only for short time spans and in a very small area. The science is still not validated or reproduced, but it is said that validation may come as early as this May.

Najma (17 yrs) - Leaving for Baghdad from Mosul

2005-04-28T14:42:00.000-05:00

For once, this isn't about the right or wrong of the world. This post is just to provide a glimpse into the world of Iraq ... people I've come to admire. If this doesn't illustrate how brave the Iraqis are, you're hopeless!

Najma just turned 17 years old on April 23rd (I'm 17! I'm 17! ... from an earlier post). She and her family are about to leave Mosul to travel to Baghdad. Here are some of her thoughts:

I put some new music in the MP3 player.. It will only work in our way to Baghdad since I won't be able to charge it there.. Dad wouldn't let me take the laptop with me, a relative was arrested for doing so once.

Dad isn't coming because he can't leave the clinic, a relative who has a taxi that drives between Baghdad and Mosul is going to take us there.. He's a nice man, and always have adventures to tell.. You see, traveling in Iraq is an adventure itself. The weather doesn't seem promising, there's loud thunder (might be bombing though) and it's raining, I hope it'll calm down by tomorrow. It's summer, it can't rain for two days!

So, I might not be posting for the coming week, if it took longer, you should ask if I'm alive! Till then, good bye.

Najma
Off to Baghdad, my dear Baghdad.

An Iraqi says: How could life be better when ...

2005-04-28T14:01:00.000-05:00

Ahmad, an Iraqi now living in London, makes a well stated case for how life is better in Iraq today, compared to Saddams rule. In Iraqi Expat, he says:

There are security problems in Iraq, created by many including those who made Iraq look secure and stable in the eyes of the world during Saddam’s rule; but were Iraqis really secure back then? If you think that when the security servicemen come to your house and wipe out your family is security, then Iraqis were secure! If you think that when the government terrorize people is security, then Iraqis were secure!

He lists a series of the atrocities endured under Saddam's regime. All of them, of a type that Westerners cannot imagine enduring.

I have now read many of the Iraqi's stories. I know I would have been killed early in Saddam's rule. I know myself well enough to know that blind rage at the evil of it would have gotten me killed. Ahmad ends, saying:

How could life be better when you have no hope?

Living hopelessly is much more destructive than any problem you see in Iraq today, and Iraqis were hopeless before the war. If you don’t see the possibility of a bright future for Iraq, if you have no hope today, then you must be either blind, short sighted or living in denial.

[Christian] Strategy for Invasion and Conquest

2005-04-27T13:47:00.000-05:00

The title of this post is not mine ... it comes from the National Reform Association's, Christian Statesman. A number of christian groups are pushing for a Theocracy, that's their word, also called, Dominism. If this doesn't worry you, read some of the quotes below, check the links for yourself. Then you'll worry.

I'm not kidding. This is real. This is getting scary! I quote from their link:

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land [of all the states in the United States] for Jesus Christ--to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish."

Are you worried yet? No? Religious fundamentalists you have heard of are saying this stuff. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are supporting it. They're mentioned in this next link. Try this from Americans United:

"The Rev. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, declared that no one who is pro-choice is fit to hold public office in America. Even though his group is tax exempt, Pavone promised it would influence the outcome of the November races.
'Of course I’m trying to influence the election!” Pavone said. “This is what it means to be an American.'"

Well, there's one fanatic organization we can collect taxes from! For more on the rabid (and removed from his post) Rev Frank Pavone look here. This is the same priest that claimed to be representing Terri Schiavo's parents when he told AP that the U.S. was committing an "atrocity".

Still not enough? How about Christian Coalition field director, Bill Thomson, saying the "leftist" foes should be destroyed:

"You're going to run over them. Get around them, run over the top of them, destroy them - whatever you need to do so that God's word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures. That's your job."

The U.S. belief in personal freedom has been underestimated by many. A Christian Theocracy (their term) should be made aware that they will be seen or dealt with no differently than:

King George in 1776
Kaiser Wilhelm
Hitler and his Nazis
the U.S.S.R.'s communism
the Afghan Taliban
Saddam Hussein

If a Christian Theocracy (their words) is allowed to establish itself, we could see Mount Rushmore dynamited in 20-40 years, like the Buddhist figures were in the Taliban's Afghanistan (it's idolatry, you know). Do we want to go there?

Wake up! Through apathy, we can allow these crazies to destroy our way of life. They are talking about repealing the U.S. Constitution. Do I sound like an alarmist? I hope I'm wrong. Check the links, do your own research ... but do something!

Bush on Social Security: You Reap What You Sow ...

2005-04-26T20:30:00.000-05:00

Mr. Bush, I have tried to support you. I still think the unilateral move into Iraq was the right thing to do. But, that same tactic will not work in the U.S. domestic arena. Your actions since the "Christian Election" have, only slowly, made me turn against you.

You have tried the "jam-it-down-their-throat" tactic too often. Mr. President you will not force us to:

accept a "faith-based" style of government ... the Christian Taliban is not acceptable,
believe that stem-cell research is evil because it uses cells that were never intended to be "human beings,"
think that changing ethics rules to support the DeLay-ing Hammer is good for ethics overall,
accept the idea that the Judiciary is wrong to interpret the Constitution when that is their role in government,
think more of DeLay's ethics because you took him on an Air Force One trip to talk about something other than his ethics,
accept your blind support of right-wing religious fanatics.

You, your party, and anyone else that tries to make Americans accept anything less than TOTAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE will soon be out of power.

Remember, this country was founded on religious freedom. I don't think you or any other potential tyrant, do-gooder or religious fanatic can run roughshod over the Constitution and the current will of the people. Luckily, our Constitution, provides a Judiciary, which is beginning to look like the only balancing factor to keep you in check ... at least until the next election.

My suggestion Mr Bush ... chill out, or you'll look really stupid in the history books.

Definition of a Woman ...

2005-04-26T09:36:00.000-05:00

WOMAN: The term `woman' means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.

This is NOT my definition! It's worse than that! This is the definition in a bill before U.S. House and Senate committees right now.

It is included in the bill called "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005" (H.R. 356 & S. 51, SEC. 2901(6)).

This bill is an Anti-Abortion … uh … pro-life … bill requiring abortion providers to inform their clients that after 20 weeks, a fetus experiences pain during the procedure.

It is sponsored by a number of Congressional women (and men).

Questions:

Why is a separate definition needed for a single bill?
Wouldn’t you think that our Legislature could at least agree on this definition for All legislation?
Would you want this definition to be used in future, unspecified laws?
Would you want this definition applied to laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Remember, a 13 year old girl could fit that description.
Where did our legislators have their heads when they thought this one up?
How could they allow this definition to stand?
If your wife is post-menopausal and cannot bear children; does that mean she is not a woman?

Please check the sponsors of this bill. If your Legislator is on it raise hell! You may agree or disagree with the bill itself, but no one should allow this definition to stand.

BTW, the house version went from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (?) to the Subcommittee on Health which is where it has been since 2/25/05. The Senate version went to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions where Sen. Brownback presented opening comments on 1/26/05. No further action is listed in the Congressional Record to date.

Japan vs China: Heavy-weight bout in the making?

2005-04-24T14:27:00.000-05:00

I don't claim to be an expert on Asia ... but I read alot. You Asia experts, does this make sense?

1) We know that China, more that most countries, plans its policy in long time spans.
2) Recent (20 + years) economic growth has taxed its resources (i.e., cement and steel demand is affecting the rest of the world).
3) As the Chinese population becomes more affluent, demand for other resources, like petroleum, is sure to rise
4) China has begun to develop natural gas resources in the East China Sea's Chunxiao field, an area claimed by both China and Japan
5) This unilateral move by the Chinese coincides with "spontaneous" outrage over Japanese text books.

C'mon boys and girls, inscrutable this is not!

1) I doubt that Chinese citizens read many Japanese text books
2) I doubt that "spontaneous" demonstrations of any kind are the first thought of even those Chinese that DO read Japanese texts (Remember Tiananmen Square?)

Is Tom DeLay taking a page from Chinese texts when he attacks federal judges to distract the media/public from his ethics or are the Chinese learning from him?

I certainly hope the Chinese government is smarter than to emulate Tom Delay!

Iraq under Saddam: "a ship with a blind deaf and brutal" captain

2005-04-22T18:58:00.000-05:00

Here's a small sample of a great post from an Iraqi citizen about the time of the Kuwait invasion:

"I see Iraq at that time, like most Arab/Muslim nations now, like a ship led by a blind deaf and brutal sailor that managed to keep the ship safe by the fact that all ships with real sailors managed to avoid hitting his ship while he was leading the ship without having any course or plan depending only on his intuition."

It deals with the Iraqi's mixed feelings about the suffering under Saddam and the ... different ... suffering the US invasion forced them to deal with. You see, the US did not solve Iraqs problems, in The Free Iraqi's words, Saddam was an Iron Fist and:

"An iron evil fist was gone but it was not replaced by an 'iron good fist' as many Iraqis wished ...

This is one of the main reasons why many Iraqis were and still are disappointed with America. No, these Iraqis do not hate America as most like to think, they're just disappointed with her for not fitting the image they had in their minds; the just tyrant that should've taken full responsibility for some time until they could find their own just tyrant who would make their life much better without forcing them to share a burden and a responsibility they never thought it was among their duties as citizens."

These people clearly have "Leaders" in their midst. They will survive this with imagination, and honor. I am convinced that 100 years from now, the Iraqi people will be hailed as the force that brought about a more peaceful world. I've spent enough time reading their words to feel they can be a major voice for more humane international relations.

Americans and Europeans, if you think that's "over the top," check the links and sub-links on this site ... only then, tell me I'm full of it.

Iraqi's private thoughts ...

2005-04-21T15:51:00.000-05:00

NOTE: This post has been modified: I originally posted saying that Raed was in attendance at the conference. I got an email saying that he is the son of Faiza who actually attended and posted the comments. Faiza, my apologies and ... honestly, it was not male chauvinism, just a misunderstanding. The name Raed has been replaced by Faiza and he/him has been replaced by she/her. Accept my apology... please?

A post on "A Family in Baghdad" on April 10th, made me more aware of how easy it is for Americans to go wrong in the Middle East. Faiza attended a conference for Iraqi women leaders. I prefer to believe that those espousing the US view feel they are using established "communications techniques" to educate Iraqis. But, reading Faiza's feelings about the presentation makes me have to re-think.

I am a scientific-minded son of a fundamentalist Protestant minister. Imagining my thinking in one of those church services today, I feel I have stepped into Faiza's shoes. Here are some of her thoughts about an Arab lecturer (in her words):

"The lecturer was well-cultured, but he looked like there was a brand on his brow that says: Made in America… they wouldn't have employed him as the head of an American university if he wasn't of the brand that was: Made in America…
How do we trust him???? This is a big point of suspicion that wouldn't let us believe in his intentions, and won't imagine them to be innocent.
As if he was saying: The solution is; topple all those governments, push the clergy out of your lives, have reconciliation with Israel…
Oh, yes, we do want to topple these rotten, tyrant governments, we do want to change the narrow minds of the clergy; we do want to solve our problems with Israel…
BUT NOT THE AMERICAN WAY. We should solve our problems the way that suits us, without the interference of America, because America is not completely innocent of the devastation that has befallen our life…
We have an Iraqi parable that describes some man: He tells the thief to go on and steel, and tells the wealth owner to beware…
And that is exactly what the imperial western countries are doing with our governments, and people… they provoke one against the other… and play the role of the adviser to each.
And in truth, they want nothing but their interests."

Finally, the conference breaks down because the lecturers do not want to respond to angry questions about how divisive the proposed government is along religious lines. With tears in my eyes (literally), I give you some of Faiza's parting words:

"I have hope in the Iraqis who didn't join Saddam in his injustice, nor joined America in her injustice. Those who endured the embargo, the war, the injustice, the devastation, and destruction… those who were not satisfied with what happened to Iraq, or what is happening now….
Those are the new opposition…
An opposition against the existence of the foreign occupation of Iraq… and against all who support this occupation, or spread and market its thoughts…
An opposition against every terrorist act targeting the innocent Iraqis, civilians, army, and police…
Those will not take refuge in another country, encouraging her to wage a war on Iraq… who believe that Iraq is for Iraqis, the wealth of Iraq is for Iraqis, and take their strength from their people, not from foreign forces."

I, a US citizen, sincerely hope that Faiza is just misreading our way of communicating. If she is reading our intentions correctly, I am ashamed of us. Americans! Please read this with an open mind.

The nature of conspiracies

2005-04-21T11:22:00.000-05:00

I once had a John Birch member suggest I read their literature. I did. When we met, later, he asked what I thought. I told him,

“Your theory is that a Tri-Lateral Commission has conspired to control world economics, wars and nations for hundreds of years, right?” He agreed with that assessment. “Let’s assume that overnight the majority of world citizens read and agreed with your hypothesis. On that belief, worldwide, governments are voted out of office and John Birch Society members are voted into office. My question is … Then who are the conspirators?”

He was quite taken aback by this idea. After all, everyone who works with another person to accomplish a goal is, by definition, a conspirator. Examples:

1) Mother Theresa conspired with the Catholic church to help the plight of the poor.

2) Every ruler/president of every nation conspires to further their vision for their nation.

3) Every religious leader conspires to further his/her vision for “the flock.”

Let’s try and remember conspiracy is not necessarily bad. Only motivations and methods are bad.

A lack of Faith in Government

2005-04-21T10:58:00.000-05:00

Our government really does have a crisis of Faith.

A casual conversation over an after-work beer brought this home to me. The gentleman next to me commented on what a mess our Iraq policy is.

As you know, I follow the Iraqi blogs. I mentioned to him that many Iraqis, living in the country, make it clear that the problem is insurgency not an American presence. In fact, I told him, they clearly favor a continued American presence until they can handle the situation themselves.

The gentleman’s reply demonstrates a crisis of Faith in our government. He said,

“Why do you listen to that crap? Everyone knows that the CIA is posting that stuff to keep people in line.”

It just goes to show that “Faith-based initiatives” Are needed! You might guess that I am not talking about a government based on faith in God. That is, rightfully, unconstitutional.

When American citizens assume that news and events are manipulated by our government for its own purposes, WE HAVE A CRISIS. The worst part is that recent self-serving actions lend strength to this view.

When the House of Representatives Ethics Committee changes rules to protect one of their own, one must wonder. When an unconstitutional law is rammed through the U.S. legislature for the benefit of one family, one must wonder. When Mr. DeLay feels the House of Representatives has the power to pass judgment on the Judiciary for their interpretation of the Constitution, one must wonder.

Maybe the only platform the Democrats need to regain some power is, “Restore Faith in Our Government.” That's a "Faith-based Initiative" I can support. It would be nice to see the Republicans jump on that bandwagon too.

Open Letter to Tom Delay

2005-04-20T15:14:00.000-05:00

Mr DeLay:

May I point out that if the House does, in your words, "find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions," you have just created Catch 22.

Should you accomplish passing such legislation, it would immediately be challenged in court. Um ... you think the Supreme Court would uphold your law as constitutional?

The Judiciary IS the final authority on Constitutionality, whether or not you agree with them.

A Whiff of Stagflation

2005-04-19T15:28:00.000-05:00

Our Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has a history of fighting inflation ... even when inflation is not really the problem. He is back at it, with "the word" being they'll raise rates again in May. Superficially, this may look right, but, there may be another way to see things. Remember, stagflation is rising inflation without full employment.

The NY Times columnist Paul Krugman says it well about our economic situation in the US. To summarize his comments:

1) Unemployment at 5.2% - the average for Clinton years (Note: 4% generally considered full employment)

2) "A lower fraction of the adult population is employed; the average duration of unemployment - a rough indicator of how long it takes laid-off workers to find new jobs - is much higher than it was in the 1990's."

3) "Above all, the weak job market leaves workers with no bargaining power, so they aren't getting ahead: wage increases have been minimal, and haven't kept up with inflation."

4) "... sluggish job creation. Private-sector employment is still lower than it was before the 2001 recession."

5) "... those whose standard of living depends on wages, not capital gains - in other words, the vast majority of Americans - aren't feeling particularly prosperous. By two to one, people tell pollsters that the economy is "only fair" or "poor," not "good" or "excellent."

6) Oil and Medical costs are on the rise while cement and steel are being driven up by demand from Asia [read China].

7) Wages are not rising (a true indicator of inflation). "... labor costs have been falling, because wages are growing less than productivity."

If there is an oil distribution disruption, or the housing market tanks, or consumers continue to "pull in their horns," or the dollar gets less attractive the US economy could be pushed into REAL stagflation.

MY WORDS: Mr. Greenspan, stop running OUR economy with your mouth! Try using your brain, or at least those of your advisors! Stop fighting the inflation you imagine and watch the stagflation you aren't paying attention to.

BOLTON, possibly a jerk, BUT maybe ...

2005-04-19T15:16:00.000-05:00

Bolton may be an arrogant jerk, but maybe there's a reason for his nomination.

Could the Bush strategy be to put the UN on notice that their crooked, wimpy approach to dealing with world-class criminals hasn't gone un-noticed by the US? After all, the US IS the UNs major monetary supporter.

I'm begining to wonder if we don't need to send a message to the UN (and to NATO). "You want the advantage of US support, send a little support in return."

Don't get me wrong, Bush's "faith-based" government scares Hell out of me. The GOPs recent attacks on the judiciary, constitutionally protected states rights, and legislative rule-changing for self protection, is disgusting.

But, I'm not sure but what the Bolton nomination may be what is needed to let the UN know they need to get their act together. If it works, maybe NATO needs a nudge to remind them they should start financing their OWN protection.

Amazing Synthesis of Islam and Christianity

2005-04-18T18:02:00.000-05:00

I just read an amazing document. It's an exposition of how simple the interface between Islam and Christianity really is.

I'll just quote the Introduction to give you a feel for the document. It doesn't even begin to tell you how clear and logical the whole is.

"The war in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was viewed by some as a clash between Muslims and Christians, or as a clash between the Iraqi nation state and a coalition of other nation states. But the best way to view the clash was between subjugators and anti-subjugators. Or non-humanists vs humanists. Or dogma vs science. This document makes the case that True Islam is anti-dogma, humanist and anti-subjugation, and if this sect of Islam is adopted by Muslims, it will avoid a genuine Muslim vs Christian clash at a future date. The basic problem is that with the end of colonialism, all that happened was one subjugator was replaced by another subjugator, with no safeguards in place to make sure that the government was benign. This document is also designed to reduce the prison population in western countries by creating a good environment for children to be raised in. This document is all scientifically-derived - there is no need for revelation or reliance on other texts."

I couldn't resist another Iraqi post ...

2005-04-18T12:08:00.000-05:00

This quote from The Messopotamian says it all perfectly. At least the people who benefit from US actions in Iraq are pleased. France, Germany, Russia and US naysayers ... eat your hearts out!

"Yes indeed, the war toppled a monstrous regime of a bestial clan, and freed a hostage majority. Whatever other motive lay behind the intervention, this was a valiant act of chivalry. And when the American people ( as proved by their vote) and their president are willing to spill the blood of their children and the treasure of their land to help the Iraqi people regain their freedom and build their democracy, this comes from their respect and belief in the humanity of their fellow humans, regardless of distance and racial differences. Racism consists of ignoring the plight of your fellow humans. 'We must not mess about with the problems of the third world, withdraw immediately and leave them to their own resources.' they say. That mayhem and genocide can ensue does not seem to bother these 'do-gooders'.

Make not [sic] mistake, my friends, this infant democracy that is just beginning in our country will grow and become strong but it needs the helping hand and protection of its powerful friends who were the basic instrument of God’s mercy to bring it into being ... "

For the Iraq war conspiracy nuts ...

2005-04-18T10:30:00.000-05:00

Check out the link above or here. It's a petition started by the Iraqis. Check out the Baghdad Dweller blog.

The petition is a thank you to the U.S. for taking them out of their Saddam created misery. It calls Saddam himself a WMD. It includes a promise to respect and uphold their new rights and freedoms. It recognizes that U.S. intervention provided this opportunity.

If France, Germany and Russia weren't so miffed at losing all those profitable contracts they had with Saddam for when sanctions were lifted, even they might recognize the correctness of U.S. actions.

This petition doesn't appear to be an isolated opinion. Check the Iraqi Blog links on the right.

New Beetles Named after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld

2005-04-14T15:57:00.000-05:00

Humorous, but apparently true science headline.

Physorg says:

"Two former Cornell University entomologists who recently had the job of naming 65 new species of slime-mold beetles named three species that are new to science in the genus Agathidium for members of the U.S. administration. They are A. bushi, A. cheneyi and A. rumsfeldi."

Hmmm, insects that live in slime named for our President and his appointees. Is there some hidden message here ;-\

Drug Companies ... Cut $3.25 Billion in Advertising!

2005-04-13T19:09:00.000-05:00

According to IMS Health, a global pharmaceutical marketing research company, $3.253 billion were spent on advertising directly to the consumer in 2003.

I object! I am a consumer who cannot purchase the advertised product without a doctor’s prescription. U.S. drug costs are skyrocketing and the pharmaceutical industry spends over $3 million to get us to tell our doctor what to prescribe.

Does this make sense?

DeLay of de Land

2005-04-13T13:04:00.000-05:00

About Tom DeLay's comments on meeting with Republican senators regarding his ethics difficulties ...

Washington Post's Mike Allen writes:

"DeLay dismissed questions about his travel and his relationships with lobbyists as 'the Democratic agenda.'

Attendees said DeLay, in extremely brief remarks, told the senators that, if asked about his predicament, they should blame Democrats and their lack of an agenda."

Mr. DeLay: Are your ethics difficulties caused by the "Democratic agenda" (paragraph 1) or by the "Democrats and their lack of an agenda" (paragraph 2)?

Mr. DeLay: Aren't your ethics problems caused by Your actions?

If you can pull off this verbal sleight of hand, maybe this line will work too: "But, Officer, I wasn't speeding, the car next to me was going too slowly."

"The Imperial Judiciary" - Such Hogwash!

2005-04-12T23:22:00.000-05:00

USA Today through News.Yahoo posted interesting comments:

"Protests against an "imperial judiciary" have existed since the earliest days of the Republic ... But the latest round, long percolating and now nearing a boil in Washington, is a particularly nasty mix of intolerance, opportunism and religious fervor."

Since I am new to the blogosphere, a little background is in order. I am the son of a Fundamentalist Protestant Minister, though I have a scientific, logical turn of mind. Imagine, the moral and logical dilemmas you must deal with to reconcile these diverse points of view within your own mind.

Winston Churchill once said, "Trust the Americans to do the right thing... after they have tried everything else."

We are now trying "everything else." Fundamentalist, evangelical, rightists are declaring the judiciary to be in violation of the Constitution because they are acting as legislators. It can also be said that the judiciary is, per the Constitution, simply doing their job.

That is where things become very interesting. When any segment of our society accuses the judiciary of "legislating," then they call into question the very governmental body we have empowered to decide those questions. Now isn't that an interesting dilemma? Are we, the USA, on the verge of a constitutional crisis?

If the courts are accused of taking over the responsibilities of the legislative branch, then what constitutional authority is empowered to pass judgment on that accusation?

After asking these questions I am left in fear. Can the U.S. really be divided over the question of whether or not the judiciary has the constitutional mandate to interpret the U.S. Constitution? If the religious/non-religious, Democrat/Republican, Right/Left have the power to decide that question, the United States of America is in DEEP trouble.

First Post: Conversation with Schiavo Priest

2005-04-12T17:40:00.000-05:00

This is my first post. It shows a bit about my thinking, though, I am interested in many, many other things, as you'll see later.

The Schiavo situation got me so involved that I ended up emailing the Schindler family's priest. At least, the one that talked for them to the Associated Press. While I never got a reply from the priest, Rev. Frank Pavones, his cohort felt comfortable replying to me. Here's the conversation (and BTW it really did end where I show it, I never got a reply to the last email):

From: Eclectic Floridian
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 3:34 PM
To: info@gospeloflife.com
Subject: Regarding Rev. Frank Pavones Schiavo comments

Rev. Frank Pavone,

Your comments regarding those with opposing views in the Schiavo case seemed very unchristian.

Read your Bible: “Blessed be the peacemakers”

From: Dr. Paul Chaim Schenck [mailto:pschenck@priestsforlife.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 4:25 PM
To: Eclectic Floridian
Subject: RE: Regarding Rev. Frank Pavones Schiavo comments

I'm writing on behalf of Fr Pavone who is in Florida with terri's family. May I ask, what is unchristian about telling the truth about Terri's treatment? Was she not deprived of food and water? Was she not deprived of therapy? Was she not deprived of a faithful husband? Was she not abandoned by the courts, whose moral responsibility is to protect the weakest? Was she not called "comatose", "brain dead", "vegetable", even "bulimic", all not true? Recall the money-changers, the "white washed sepulchres" the Baptist chastising Herod and the elders. And, the quote is "Blessed are the peacemakers", present tense, not "blessed be" which is in the future tense.

From: Eclectic Floridian
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:28 PM
To: 'Dr. Paul Chaim Schenck'
Subject: RE: Regarding Rev. Frank Pavones Schiavo comments

My, my aren’t we huffy.

Since we’re in question mode, let me ask you. Why is it Christian to accuse the husband of “heartless cruelty” in his time of distress when none of the courts have found it such? Why is it the church’s place to accuse our nation of an “atrocity”? Why is a husband accused of unfaithfulness when his wife has been declared mentally dead for over 8 years by those better qualified that the church? Was she not abandoned by her parents when, without her permission, they insisted she become a visual drooling symbol for a fanatical, archaic crusade for the church’s agenda? Was it not true that she was called "comatose", "brain dead", "vegetable", even "bulimic" by those with far better medical training that a group of fanatical priests? Am I to assume that an incorrect tense in the Peacemaker quote means only present peacemakers are blessed and future ones are not? Is it possible that I feel that You are the one referred to in your comments on “money-changers, the "white washed sepulchres" the Baptist chastising Herod and the elders”?

Is it possible that the Popes feeding tube is in his nose, not his stomach, because, if need be, it is not a sin to remove it from his nose, but IS if removed from his stomach? How would the church like to have, though I do not wish it, a Pope in Terri’s condition for 15 years? Is it possible that the church is extremely wise to stay out of the Constitutional affairs of the United States? Should the church consider that it may feel a backlash from your fanatical actions, just as the Executive and Legislative branches of government are sure to for their self-serving ones? Is that an outcome the church would like to have as a result of Your actions? Do You want to put yourself in that position with your church?

From: Dr. Paul Chaim Schenck [mailto:pschenck@priestsforlife.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:36 PM
To: Eclectic Floridian
Subject: RE: Regarding Rev. Frank Pavones Schiavo comments

A brief review of history indicates that the Church has perdured while countless cultures and governments have risen - dominated "popular" opinion, only to fall into oblivion. Some mighty popular ideas - like anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, communism, facism, and others have gripped popular imagination and become entrenched ideologies - only to crumble, while the Catholic Church, and Christianity as a whole, has endured.

Even our own government has survived "popular" uprisings against it - including the greatest of all, the Confederate States of America, what must have seemed a certain blow to the integrity of the Federal government, especially the Congress (which was splintered to smitherines) - but nevertheless, endured.

Many bad ideas were popular ones, but Truth always triumphs in the end.

Do I detect some personal bitterness towards the Church? What is it?

Shalom,

Paul Chaim Benedicta Schenck

Pastoral Associate

Priests for Life

From: Eclectic Floridian
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:41 PM
To: 'Dr. Paul Chaim Schenck'
Subject: RE: Regarding Rev. Frank Pavones Schiavo comments

Well, a more reasonable tone. I appreciate that.

An extensive review of history indicates that the church is indeed a colossus in the annals of bureaucratic organizations. Yes, many cultures and governments have risen and fallen in the time your church has existed. A number of the fallen have been due to the animus of your church. Your churches longevity is no guarantee of a correct view on morality, government or doctrinal correctness. Rather, it may only be a function of more mature “spin control”.

Christianity is not entirely in the purview of your church. In fact, your church has spawned many other doctrines simply because of its bureaucratic, archaic, dogmatic inability to understand that civilization may change in the course of 2000 years.

Your reference to the “popular uprisings” our government has survived is surprising. Please note that our government has survived those “uprising”. Since, survival over time seems to be your criterion for efficacy, does that not prove we are on the proper track? Since you introduce US history into the equation, wasn’t it the Revolutionary War that produced the US Constitution, which specifically excluded your church and all others from wielding governmental power? Maybe, for the sake of your career and that of Rev. Frank Pavones, you should consider whether or not You want to answer to the Vatican for the US disgust with your manipulative, self-serving, insulting comments about the way the US government (not in your purview) does it’s job.

About your “Truth always triumphs in the end” comment”: You’re right, it does. In your heart, do you truly believe your comments about “cruelty” and “atrocity”? Are you so lacking in understanding that you cannot conceive that all parties are trying to do what’s right? Do you, in your heart, believe that all the doctors stating Terri was brain-dead were lying or stupid?

Lastly, I’ll discuss your comments regarding bitterness toward the church. I know that little “disgruntled parishioner” game. That guilt-trip game seems to be a favorite defense of your church, which by the way has never been mine. The only unstated agenda I have is that I, as a citizen of the USA, have to listen to a church, any church, pretend that it has the authority to question the workings of a government that rejected that authority 230 year ago.

Oh, and I have to wonder why, you felt the need to play the personal “bitterness toward the church” card. Would you like me to come discuss that little problem in front of your congregation, if you have one?

From: Dr. Paul Chaim Schenck [mailto:pschenck@priestsforlife.org]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:09 AM
To: Eclectic Floridian
Subject: RE: Regarding Rev. Frank Pavones Schiavo comments

I still detect a personal bitterness, but I cannot insist that you reveal it. I will drop it.

Though you make some good points regarding the endurance of our form of government, nevertheless, you seem to have as much over confidence in her as you insinuate I have in the Church. Recall that it was our Federal government that sustained slavery for nearly 75 years, segregation and Jim Crow for another 100. It at least tolerated, if not promoted an insitutional anti-semitism for more than 150 years. It condoned anti-catholicism for over 150 years. My point: it has been an instrument of moral evil for most of its history. That it now wrestles over the treatment of the disabled and infirm is no wonder at all.

You seem so convinced that all parties (except ours) are acting in good faith. If your brother-in-law moved in with another woman while still married to your infirm sister, fathered children with that woman and announced his engagement, would you be happy with him? Michael "remembered" seven years after Terri collapsed that she was emphatic that she didn't want to live. Why so long? If he was so convinced (his only witnesses were his siblings and friends), why did he provide care for those seven years?

I cannot read his mind nor try his life - but I can respond to his actions. Terri was in the bosom of her family, her parents (who do know their children better than their spouses - I am a parent of eight, one married at 26 yrs, 23, 21, 15, 13, 13, 11 and four. I can assure you that my wife and I know them better than their boyfriends and girlfriends do or will. We did not "give" our daughter to our son-in-law, he joined our family and we joined his. Terri wasn't "taken over" by Michael, she shared her life and that of her family with his. ) Michael worked very hard to bring an end to Bob and Mary's daughter's life. Had he asked a judge for permission to walk into the hospice, put a 22 cal. to her temple and blow her brains out, would anyone have taken him seriously? Would he not have been adjudged a threat? Would any judge or would you for that matter have approved of that? I think not. Denying her food and water was exactly the same, sans the bullet and blood. The shooting would have been more merciful though, as any Ethiopian would know (I have been part of an intervention in Ethiopian draught and famine).

I wonder why you think the Church's role mediating the Middle East, bringing Palestinian and Israelis together, the Holy Father's work with the UN on Jerusalem, the extensive humanitarian work of Catholic Charities world-wide, the vast Catholic educational system (even in Muslim countries) the largest AIDS hospice network in the world, is so useless? Is it because the Church maintains a moral teaching that proscribes certain behaviors and practices? That she adheres to Natural Law? That she insists that reason requires humans to discern certain verities in nature and creation? In the relations of men and women?

I do believe that what was done to Terri - denying a sick woman confined to her bed food and water - and not even medication to control pain (starvation is painful in spite of George Felos' incredible claim that it is blissful, peaceful and beautiful, I have seen starving people, and that it is not what they experienced) is cruel and atrocious. What if we decided that it was the solution to the health-insurance crisis? Here is a simple solution: deny food and water to all persons with less than a 50% chance of recovery from their illnesses or conditions? Isn't that reasonable? Think of the cost to health care system that would be saved. Simply deny them "artificial nutrition and hydration" - and, those of us paying exorbitant insurance get a discount!

Would you favor that? Why not? Isn't it more blissful, peaceful and beautiful than paying out the wazoo for health insurance?

From: Eclectic Floridian
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:43 AM
To: 'Dr. Paul Chaim Schenck'
Subject: RE: Regarding Rev. Frank Pavones Schiavo comments

Apparently you don’t want me to come discuss bitterness with your congregation. Or maybe it’s that you don’t have a congregation because you are too busy meddling in affairs that further your personal fame. That would be good for sales on your online bookstore and your $150 per DD degree business. What you detect is not bitterness, it is distaste. It is distaste for the intellectual dishonesty compounded with paternalistic approach to what amounts to “spin doctoring”.

As to your comments about the past evils of our nation, I must say “Let he who is without sin …” Your implication is that past wrongs, condemn the nation, regardless of the simultaneous striving to correct them, e.g., treatment of blacks continued while arriving at our present, more enlightened state. If past wrongs condemn an organization, then the Catholic church is condemned. Let’s not forget the Crusades, the Inquisition, medieval persecution of non-believers, papal intrigues for political and sexual purposes and the newly exposed pedophilia of a significant number of your clergy. That you wrestle over the treatment of the disabled and infirm in an instance of brain-death (not disablity) and artificially maintained life (not infirmity) is no wonder at all.

Michael’s actions are perfectly consistent with a caring husband. This is easily understood unless one is blinded by a personal agenda. I would be comfortable with a brother-in-law who provided extensive treatment for 7 years in hopes of her recovery, This care was later proven in court many times over. If your church, through you as its representative, has evidence to the contrary, I’m sure you would have found a true party to the case who would present it to the courts. After seven years, with well qualified doctors advising proven brain-death, if my brother-in-law felt it time to let her pass, I would agree with him. In fact, I would wonder why he waited so long.

The law endows the brother-in-law to make these decisions without a written or oral statement by the wife. After all, the Bible certainly sets precedent that each spouse is the others guardian. Inventing a conspiracy is the only “spin” you can place on this fact to justify your actions. Your family history nor your apparently profound knowledge of the desires of your children has no relevance to the standards just stated. I have never met a parent who knows the deepest thoughts and desires of a child. Starving people have no relevance to a brain-dead woman who cannot be aware of her plight while morphine is being administered just in case there is discomfort.

I’m afraid I do not understand your last paragraph. I don’t remember questioning the church’s missions around the world. Most of them are admirable. What I do understand is the tactic that fanatics have so well developed of late. If your argument is weak, make up an accusation. I once knew a minister who’s marginal notes in his sermon read, “Argument weak, YELL LIKE HELL!” Please don’t play those manipulative games. That is one of the reasons I find the actions of Rev. Frank Pavones, and apparently yourself, so despicable.