Livin' it up, American style

2007-05-18T13:18:00.000-05:00

Never underestimate the role of family values.

I think Giuliani's campaign is pretty much dead since he came out as a pro-choice candidate. He was already very weak on the family values front with the whole living with one woman while married to a different woman, and estrangement from his children, but now to top it off he's pro-choice! No way he's winning many primaries, I'd be surprised if he won any. His only hope is if the Republican field is split among several strong candidates and he gets a decent percentage from the more moderate wing of the party. But so far it doesn't look like that'll be the case.

Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, recently scaled back her job in order to spend more time as the obligatory adoring candidate's wife. It is unfortunate that a high powered, very successful woman doing a job she seems to love has to basically quit because her husband is running for president. Presidential candidates have frequently been criticized for the actions or words of their spouses, and an outspoken, or absent, or too smart spouse can mean trouble for a candidate. Just ask John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Bill Clinton. Instead of working full-time as VP for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, she now has to work full time talking about domestic life. Despite her background, she hasn't even spoken out on health care policy yet, probably taking a lesson from a certain first lady, now presidential candidate, who received a lot of flack over her attempt at tackling US health care policy.

This is a little old, but a few weeks ago Hilary said that if she were president she would appoint Bill to be some kind of roving world ambassador. I am displeased that Hilary is trying to subtly campaign on a two for one deal. Elect me, and you'll get Bill back too. As the first serious women candidate, it is annoying that she is using her husband as a way to woo over reluctant voters who loved Bill but aren't too sure about Hilary. I'm also frustrated that Bill gets to galavant all over, giving speeches on the lecture circuit, without any serious expectations that he be there at the end of every debate to give Hilary a hug, or smiling and schmoozing at every fundraiser like the wives of the other candidates are.
It's all part of the reason why I'm fully convinced that America is much more ready to elect a black man as president than a woman of any skin color.

2007-05-04T09:18:00.000-05:00

Science is Optional, Another Massachusetts Flip-flopper, all Part of the Republican Presidential Candidates Debate.

Last night was the 2008 Republican presidential candidates debate. I read a recap of the debates and was more than slightly dismayed to see that 3 of the candidates indicated that they do not believe in evolution- Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo. How did we get to the point where it is optional to believe in science? Man, I wished I could have pulled this back in high school chemistry. "I'm sorry, I don't believe in protons, electrons and neutrons. Can I skip the test?" You can bet these guys don't believe in global warming either.

It is interesting that Sam Brownback was one of the candidates who says he does not believe in evolution. His main hook as a candidate is that he is a very vocal and proud Catholic. However, Catholicism is not one of the religions that preaches against evolution. It is totally acceptable to believe in evolution, because the idea is that God is the one back there pulling the strings and making creatures evolve. So Brownback is not only out of the mainstream of the general population, he is also misrepresenting the Catholic position.

Mitt Romney spent part of the night defending his major flip-flop on the issue of abortion. Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts, and while governor, he was pro-choice. However, as he started to sniff the airs of presidentiality, he suddenly decided he was pro-life. Just like that, he switched sides on one of the most personal and also most public issues of American politics. But that's what the smell of becoming president will do to a candidate. Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich, though long a staunch progressive, was always pro-life. That was, until several years ago when he decided he would like to run for president in 2004. And just like Romney, he switched his position and is now pro-choice. I'm so excited that America will be run by old white men who can switch their view on issues like abortion for political convenience and never have to personally be affected by their positions.

2007-02-23T09:11:00.000-06:00

Maybe Nancy Pelosi is secretly a member of al-Qaeda?

Vice-president Dick Cheney has been claiming this past week that Nancy Pelosi's position on the Iraq war benefits al-Qaeda. He was referring to attempts by Pelosi and other House Democrats to register opposition to the recently announced troop surge. The opposition measures include a non-binding resolution (which passed the House on Feb 16), and increasing restrictions on funding for the war. But Cheney thinks that advocating for less troops or a withdrawal from Iraq is admitting defeat to al-Qaeda, by showing that their campaign of violence succeeded in scaring America away.

Unfortunately, the vice president's reasoning is misguided propaganda (what? Cheney engaging in misguiding propaganda? that's so.......typical). First off, I'm a little confused at the idea that drawing down troops from Iraq would mean a victory for al-Qaeda. Despite the publicity of false evidence to the contrary, al-Qaeda did not have operations in Iraq prior to the 2003 US invasion. Let me repeat that-Saddam Hussein was not working with al-Qaeda operatives, and al-Qaeda had a very small presence in Iraq under Saddam's authoritarian regime. Saddam was a Shi'ite heading a secular government, al-Qaeda is a Sunni Islamist organization. Those two things don't mix well, and with Saddam's tight grip on his nation, al-Qaeda wouldn't have found it easy to establish a presence undetected.

In fact, it has only been since the US invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam, and watched the country dissolve into chaos and civil war that al-Qaeda has managed to establish itself as one of the leading terrorists groups in the region. The real victory for al-Qaeda was when the US rushed to dethrone Saddam and created a war zone that is the perfect breeding and recruiting ground for terrorists. Leaving American troops in Iraq in order to make the point that al-Qaeda has not 'won' will only lead to more US and Iraqi deaths by leaving the troops in a place where they make an easy and obvious target for insurgents and terrorists.

I also don't know how passing a non-binding resolution in the US House will somehow 'embolden' al-Qaeda. I just can't really picture a bunch of young Arab men with AK-47's huddled around the TV watching al-Jazeera and then giving each other big high fives when they hear that the House of Representatives doesn't think the US should send more troops. Heck, I think hearing that America is increasing troop populations would be more of an 'emboldener', spurring the insurgents to work even harder at recruiting and bombing and buying weapons. If your enemy starts building up their forces, you sure better respond by improving your own forces too. But hey, at least America is winning the moral victory here, by showing that even if a hundred thousand troops and Iraqi civilians have to die, nothing is going to scare us away from promoting peace in Iraq.

2007-02-16T10:55:00.000-06:00

NASCAR cheaters, another Middle Eastern war, it's all in a day's news.

Just when you thought the use of illegal steroids and performance enhancers couldn't get any more rampant among American athletics, a new scandal pops up. This time, the 'athletes' involved are some of NASCARS biggest names- including Jeff Gordon and Michael Waltrip. This weekend is NASCAR'S most famous event, the Daytona 500. After one of the races qualifying runs, an illegal additive was found in the fuel of Waltrip's Toyota, specifically in his intake manifold. Think steroids for car engines. He was docked 100 championship points, and his crew chief was fined and suspended.

Jeff Gordon, probably the most recognizable NASCAR driver, (that guy in the orange suit on every other Pepsi vending machine), is in trouble because his car was found to be almost one inch too low. Evidently this is illegal in NASCAR, though I have no idea why. Four other drivers were also charged with lesser violations recently. First corked bats, then Barry Bonds, then Floyd Landis, and now NASCAR drivers. Next thing you know, the president of the United States will start cheating and lying to...uhh...oops.

Continuing our fight for peace
The Bush administration has been actively excoriating Iran lately, over more than just their nuclear program. On Wednesday Bush said that groups in the Iranian government were responsible for giving Shiia rebels in Iraq roadside bombs that were used in a recent attack that killed American troops. Bush admitted he did not know if these bombs were distributed at the direction of the top echelon of the Iranian government, even though a top Defense Department analyst claimed it was so the previous week. All this confusing talk resembles a few years ago when Bush was building his case for war against Iraq, using what we now know was faulty evidence to justify the invasion based on the presence of WMD's. The Bush administration denies it is planning to attack Iran, but I wonder then why they are so determined to keep showing the public how Iran is responsible for some of the violence in Iraq. Why weren't they so enthusiastic in displaying how Saudi Arabia was responsible for producing most of the 9/11 bombers? Bush clearly intends to do something about Iran, but with an already overextended military, his choices may be limited.

I tried to find some funny news to write about, but everything today seemed kind of gloomy. But here's a link to a great website- Cute Overload. I especially recommend the pictures of kittens and hedgehogs.

2007-02-09T09:27:00.000-06:00

Will she be leaving on a jet plane?

There's been a big hullabaloo about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi asking for a large, luxurious Air Force plane to fly her and her family and friends non-stop between DC and California. According to some conservative spinmasters, this plane would hold 40-some people and have a crew of 16, which is an obvious reflection of how out of touch the wealthy and spoiled Pelosi must be with the common middle-class person. But this story is really just a prime example of how easily news stories can get exaggerated and spun to serve an agenda.

First off, conservatives are leaving out the little detail that former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a Republican, also used a big Air Force plane to travel between DC and his home district of Illinois. Not because he didn't like to fly commercially, but as a security measure enacted after 9/11. After all, the Speaker of the House is 3rd in line for the presidency after the Vice President. It's not like Pelosi suddenly decided she wanted to have her own tax-payer funded private jet; it just happens to be a perk of this dangerous job, no matter which party is in power.

It is also a security concern that her plane be able to fly non-stop to California and not have to stop somewhere for refueling along the way. This is where some of the controversy has arisen. Apparently, California is a little further away from DC than Illinois is, so in order to fly non-stop to California (like Hastert used to fly non-stop to Illinois), Pelosi needs a bigger plane. I don't know a lot about planes, but seems kind of obvious to me that a bigger plane would have a bigger fuel tank, just like cars do.

Another perk of being a congressperson is the House Members' Representational Allowance. This fund pays for congressional travel to and from DC and the member's home district. So if someone were to be outraged that Pelosi gets to travel across country on the taxpayer's dime, then they need to be outraged at all 535 members of Congress. Also note that only congresspeople get to fly for free; if Pelosi wanted to shuttle around family and friends, she would have to reimburse the Air Force for their travel costs.

There's also the very important point that Pelosi did not actually request the use of this military plane; it was Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms. He put in the request for a larger plane that could fly non-stop for security reasons. It wasn't even Pelosi who requested a bigger plane! She actually said she would be willing to fly commercial if the Air Force didn't have a plane that could get her coast to coast. Even the White House came out defending her, with Press Secretary Tony Snow calling the story 'silly' and saying that Pelosi is 'entitled to military transport.' Yet this mostly mundane story has still been all over the news the past few days because of the creative way it was twisted to sound so juicy and negative.

2007-02-01T15:29:00.000-06:00

Megachurches making mega-mistakes.

When driving into Memphis from the east on I-40, one sees the normal fast food restaurants, hotels, and strip malls. But among these trappings of suburbia rises something you don't see in every town, 3 gigantic white crosses. And I mean gigantic, you couldn't miss these crosses if you were blind. These crosses mark the site of the Bellevue Baptist megachurch, which currently has 27,000-30,000 members, making it one of the largest churches in America.

But like numerous other churches in America, Bellevue is suffering from a scandal relating to some of its ministers. A man who had been a pastor and staffer for 34 years was placed on administrative leave on December 18, and the reason why has just become public. He had sexually abused his young son back in 1980's. In June of 2006, he and his wife had gone to the head pastor and he admitted the abuse and said he was attending counseling. But it was not until December that the head pastor decided that maybe this other pastor should go on administrative leave. There have been demands for the head pastor to resign, not only over this issue, but accusations of mismanagement of church money and a consolidation of pastoral authority.

There are many aspects of this news to get upset over, such as the head pastor's very questionable decision to wait 7 months before placing the offending pastor on leave. There is also the issue of lack of transparency regarding the governance of the church, as the people of the church did not find out for a month and a half why this particular pastor had been placed on leave. Then there is the issue of how someone can preach about morality and forgiveness, while having committed a transgression much worse than most of his congregates ever will, and waiting 20 years before confessing.

But I want to touch on the increasing frequency of news stories such as this chronicling the downfall of priests and pastors in churches across America. There are the high profile ones, like Ted Haggard, and various priests and bishops in numerous dioceses of the Catholic Church, and the lesser known instances like this Memphis church. I guess I could pontificate on how sad it is that these scandals seem to be happening more often lately, as though people are becoming more degenerate as time goes on. But instead I want to focus on the positive thing about these scandals, and that's the fact that we're even hearing about them at all. It shows that churches are less likely and less able to sweep dirty incidents into an abandoned closet. Hypocrisy among ministers who rail against people who are gay, then visit male hookers is no longer going to be ignored (Ted Haggard). You can't transfer a priest to a new parish and hope his child molestation problem will just end, unless you want to get hit with some lawsuits. (perhaps America's litigious society has a positive side?)

I think it's good that these stories get out, and causes people to reexamine their own beliefs, and challenge the organizational structure of their church. In response to the scandal at Bellevue, a group of church members formed a non-profit group with the aim of restoring more control of the church to the congregation. A more decentralized church government will allow increased participation by a wider group of people, instead of concentrating all church power in the hand of one or two people. Often these people may become more concerned with maintaining their own power and avoiding any scandal, instead of doing what the congregation would want. A governing body that has concentrated, centralized power may be the most efficient kind, but when it deals with the issues of people's faith- openness, participation, and understanding should be the leadership's role. If more churches reexamine the way they distribute power and authority to their leadership, and decide to create a more democratic system, then some small good will have come from these scandals.

2007-01-23T14:54:00.000-06:00

Eenie, meenie, minie, mo. Who can raise the most dough?

Hilary Rodham Clinton announced she was entering the presidential race on Saturday, declaring she was "in to win". At the same time, she also said that she was forgoing money from the public election funds for both the primary and general elections, becoming the first candidate to ever do so. Unfortunately, her move may signal the end of public financing of elections.

You may have noticed a little checkbox on your tax returns that said check here if you wish to donate $3 to the public election fund. This fund is used to help finance the primary and/or general election cycle of someone running for president. A candidate who accepts the public funding can no longer accept private contributions and has to follow certain spending limits, both state-by-state and nationwide. The idea was that after a candidate had been nominated by his party, he would rely on the public funding for his money instead of continuing to focus on fundraising, which would free up more time for campaigning and public appearances.

Candidates have given up the public funding money in primary races before, like Kerry and Bush in 2004, but not in the general election too. Doing so gives Clinton a big financial advantage, and will put pressure on her rivals to also refuse public financing in order to have a chance to compete. She is no longer limited to spending only what the fund gives her, which in 2004 provided over $80 million to Kerry and Bush. But now she has 2 years to go all out and raise as much money as she can, and can simultaneously raise money for both a primary race, and a general election race.

Many of her other rivals for the Democratic nomination have made no comment on whether they too will opt completely out of public funding, but some Republicans contenders have already stated their intentions. Mitt Romney, former Gov of Massachusetts, has opted out of funding for the primaries, and John McCain (yes, the same John McCain who was the sponsor of the most recent campaign spending reform act, the McCain-Feingold Bill) has said he may also opt out of public funding.

How did public funding fall so far out of favor that even the man who built a reputation on fighting for changes in election spending is considering abandoning it? (other than the fact that he has consistently shown how he is willing to sell out his beliefs if it puts him closer to the presidency?) Public funding first began to break down when Bush opted out of it during the 2000 primary. He had no limits on his money raising and spending, but his opponents did, giving him a large and obvious financial edge. In 2004, Bush, John Kerry and Howard Dean all opted out of public financing during the primaries, and it is quite certain that Clinton will only be the first of many candidates to opt out of the public financing in 2008. In recent years, the election season has been extended, with people declaring their candidacy almost 2 years before the next election. 2 years is a lot of TV, radio and print ads to pay for, and a lot of fancy fundraising dinners you can hold. It's time to let the money raising and money spending race begin.

2007-01-19T13:50:00.000-06:00

Hey Obama, slow down a little!

A few days ago, Illinois's junior senator, Barack Obama, announced that he is forming an exploratory committee to determine whether he should run for president in 2008. I like Obama, and think he should consider running for prez, but I feel he made a misstep in so quickly forming his exploratory committee, which is widely acknowledged as the one of the first formal steps potential candidates take in deciding if they are going to run. Obama should have waited several more months at least, and I fear that this early declaration may hurt him a little bit.

For a while, most of the hype about Obama for president has not been propagated by him or his campaign. Oh sure, he has maintained a very polished and presidential demeanor, released two books, and had some important appearances that have positioned him as a rising Democratic star. But for the most part, he has been very low key, and tried to play himself off as humble and modest whenever someone asked if he was going to run for president. Most of the hype came from the general press and public, not his office.

Forming this exploratory committee means he has given up being coy and is admitting outright that he is definitely thinking of running for president. But I think it's too early. Not even Hilary Rodham Clinton have taken this step yet*, despite being widely recognized as the party's front runners. Instead, she busy in the Senate getting her name on high profile resolutions. Clinton just got back from a trip to Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where she visited with US troops. Instead of announcing her candidacy (which forming an exploratory committee is almost tantamount to) she is busy in the senate building up her foreign policy credentials (an area that she used to be seen as weak).

Obama has only had 2 years in the senate, and he should be spending this time to take strong positions on issues and work on passing some legislation that will boost his credibility. I fear he will get caught up in running for president, and neglect building a background that shows he has sufficient government and policy experience to become president.

*I wrote this blog on Friday, and on Saturday she announced she was forming her exploratory committee.

2007-01-17T13:56:00.000-06:00

Really, what good lawyer these days isn't a card carrying member of the al-Qaeda Bar Association?

Charles Stimson was in the news again today; you may remember him from the headlines a few days ago. He is the deputy assistant of defense who is in charge of the US's military detainee program. About a week ago, Stimson expressed his dismay that lawyers at several of the nation's top law firms were representing prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. He called upon corporations to not use these law firms, and even named the names of the firms, which were also listed in a Wall Street Journal editorial. According to Stimson, corporations need to choose between using reputable law firms, and law firms that support terrorists. Because, clearly, everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist, despite there never being any trials or hearings, cause that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing doesn't apply to military prisoners. I mean duh, why would it?

Stimson also commented that some of the lawyers representing the detainees were getting paid, and that he was curious to know where the money was coming from and called on the lawyers to disclose this info. Well, it turns out all of the lawyers are working pro-bono, so clearly no one is being paid off by al-Qaeda or Tehran, or whichever evil entity Stimson thought was funding these lawyers.

Fortunately, Stimson saw the error of his ways and apologized today for his statements, saying they don't really reflect his personal views and core beliefs. That's good, considering that he himself is a lawyer, and one of the fundamental tenets of the judicial system is equal treatment under the law. It's also good because currently, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, is being represented by one of these 'terrorist' law firms in his trial for his role in the Valerie Plame affair. Perhaps this is why Stimson's statements were not very well received in the White House, which tried to distance itself from his comments.

But really, the White House didn't have to embrace this viewpoint at all, because the damage was already done. The list of law firms was printed in a national newspaper, and aired on a Washington area radio station aimed at government workers. Many of these lawyers will probably experience some lost revenue and bad publicity, even though they were trying to remedy what many people see as a miscarriage of justice by the White House in not allowing the military detainees to have lawyers. If you say something controversial, and then wait 5 days to retract your statement, it's hard to believe you are really that sorry about it.

2007-01-11T12:19:00.000-06:00

Phased troop withdrawal? That's soooo last week. Now Bush says bring 'em on!

After the midterm elections in November, there was hope that this new Congress would be successful in implementing a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened, courtesy of President Bush. He has decided to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500. The idea is that this 'surge', as it's being called, will de-escalate the violence in Iraq. I would appreciate it if someone would explain to me how putting 20,000 fighting soldiers with guns and tanks into an already war-torn country is somehow going to de-escalate violence. Seems as though the opposite is likely to happen.

On Wednesday night, Bush gave a public speech to the nation about this new strategy, but was a little vague on some key details. For one thing, he forgot to mention how long the 'surge' of troops would be in Iraq. Maybe he doesn't realize that one of the defining characteristics of a 'surge' is that it is a strong feeling or event that only lasts for a short time. If these troops are staying in Iraq for longer than a couple months, then really he is just plain old 'increasing the number of troops', which polls have shown to be a very unpopular move among the American people. Calling this a surge gives people the image of a temporary increase in troops, and makes it a more politically palpable idea to people who are against permanently sending more troops, even though that is probably what this move will really end up being.

At least Bush has become more open in admitting that maybe things aren't all daisies and lollipops in Iraq, and maybe it's partly his fault. In his speech last night, he said “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me”. Of course, he was also quick to blame Iraq and the Iraqi government for the situation there too. The Iraqi government has in the past promised to make reforms in laws and security measures, but as Bush said ""If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises," Bush said, "it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act."

So first we invade the country, destroy the infrastructure, completely redesign their government, occupy the country with 100,000 troops, and when they don't deliver on some security reforms because the country is descending into a chaotic civil war, we blame their weak, puppet government for being ineffective at controlling the country. Then we threaten that if they don't follow through on their promises (which they probably made in the first place under pressure from the US), we threaten they will lose the support of the American people. And then at the same time we say this we send more troops over, despite the fact that every poll says the American people don't support sending more troops. I hate to see what would happen to a place the American people really supported.

And unfortunately, Bush has pretty much made this decision unilaterally. The Congress can't stop him, short of cutting all funding for the war, an unlikely move. Even many of the military generals who have been Bush's advisors throughout the war are against this troop increase. But that's ok. According to the New York Times, when Bush was asked why this new strategy would suceed where all others have failed, Mr. Bush shot back: “Because it has to.” I know I'm reassured.

2006-12-12T10:01:00.000-06:00

Just type in evil, Iran, nuclear, destroy, America, and hit search. Congratulations, you've just gathered vital US intelligence and the State Department will be in touch with you momentarily to see your results.

The State Department needed some intelligence information regarding the names of Iranians involved in building Iran's nuclear program, so like any good government agency, they approached the masters of intelligence, the good guys over at the CIA. Well, the CIA refused to give the State Department any help, saying they were too busy and didn't want to reveal any trade secrets on how they gather intelligence information. I guess the CIA missed the memo explaining how not sharing information can lead to the government overlooking the potential danger of plane-crashing crazy terrorists, or the false creation of a large WMD program. Anyway, the State Department really needed to get some names of dangerous Iranians, so they turned to the most reliable source of information out there- the internet, more specifically, Google.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Google. I use it easily 5 times an hour, not to mention Gmail, Google Talk, and a multitude of other Google programs that I probably don't even know are owned by that internet behemoth. I used it to write papers in college, to find the nearest bank, look up recipes, and to coo at pictures of cute kittens. However, please note I did not mention 'look up classified intelligence information about Iranian terrorists'. But that's just what one poor Foreign Service officer had to do, all because the CIA wouldn't share its info on Iran.

I guess you could say he was successful, because by searching terms such as Iran and Nuclear the internet yielded over a hundred names. Too bad many of the names were of Iranian diplomats and other people who are working with UN inspectors, in other words, the good guys. But the State Department submitted the list to the CIA anyway, to get their approval. But the CIA said the list was too long and would take too much work to go through the whole list. So the State Department cut the list in half and resubmitted it. Eventually the CIA approved 12 of the names, but they also said that none of the names are people connected to Project 1-11, which is apparently "Iran's secret military effort to design a weapons system capable of carrying a nuclear warhead" (Wash Post). (Just to check the effectiveness of Google, I searched for Project 1-11 and Iran, and got zero results except that Washington Post article) So I guess those 12 people are somehow suspicious in other ways, so suspicious that they are being dealt with in a US backed resolution at the United Nations.

Yep, this carefully researched intelligence is being put in a draft resolution backed by the US, Britain and France that would call for a ban on international travel and the freezing of the assets of those 12 people. First we rely on evidence gathered from people we tortured who may or may not have been terrorists, then we get our intelligence on Iran off the internet because the CIA is too paranoid to share its information. Great, just great. I feel totally confident in what the government tells me, don't you? Next it's going to ban tin foil because the internet told them that some Americans are communicating with Osama through tin foil satellites. Actually, that's true. Google told me so.

2006-12-08T13:26:00.000-06:00

You thought Saddam's digs were fancy? Wait until you see our new embassy.

The Iraqi people may not have sewers or electricity, but they will soon be the proud hosts of the largest US embassy in the world. Most embassies cover about 10 acres, but this new one will be a whopping 104 acres alongside the Tigris River. We're talking a $529 million facility with 21 buildings, an apartment complex, a gym, a pool, restaurants, shops, a beauty salon, a movie theater, a food court, and of course, its own sewer, water treatment plant, and power generator. Of course we wouldn't want to rely on the Iraqi sewers or water or power plants, because frankly, they're quite unreliable, if not mostly non-existent. I for one sleep easier knowing that while the Iraqi people in Baghdad may only get 4 hours of electricity a day and very little access to clean water, the Americans in Iraq will not have to suffer at all. Really, who doesn't believe it's more important for Americans to get their hair done and watch a movie than for Iraqis to have power to run an oven, or air-conditioner, or refrigerator, or lights in a school or hospital?

We're also outfitting the embassy with 15 foot thick walls, cause we don't want to risk the chance that some Iraqi might get inside and see that while they don't get electricity at their house a few miles down the street, the Americans have so much they can run lights all through the night so construction on the embassy can take place 24/7. Well, you may think, I bet all that construction is providing lots of Iraqis with decent paying jobs. Sadly, you would be wrong. The construction company building the embassy is Kuwaiti, and the 900 on-site workers are almost all Asian. It's really too bad these 900 workers couldn't be drawn from the Iraqi population, which has an almost 50% unemployment rate. Security is usually the cited reason. I guess we are afraid any Iraqi workers would get upset and resentful to see how lavish everything at the embassy is compared to life outside the 15 foot walls. Locals are already calling it George W's Palace.

The government is remaining very quiet about the whole issue. Reporters' questions are directed to the State Department, which says it cannot comment because of security concerns. The government has not released any photos of the project, and any unofficial pictures of the complex just show a wall with about 10 large construction cranes behind it rising in the sky. So first Saddam built lavish, expensive palaces while the Iraqi people starved, and now the US is doing the same thing.

2006-12-04T17:59:00.000-06:00

The Revolving Door

The New York Times had an article today about the deregulation of the US semi-trucking industry. It talked about how the powerful trucking lobby has convinced the Bush administration to loosen regulations and safety standards. Truck drivers are now allowed to stay on the roads for longer periods of time, and there is little oversight of truckers' hours to make sure they are not driving more than the allowed hours a week and are resting for the mandated time between trips.

The trucking industry has partly been able to achieve these changes courtesy of Bush, who has placed many former trucking officials in key administration positions, mostly in the transportation department. For example, to lead the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Bush selected a man who was the former chairman of Roadway, a large trucking company. This same man was a leader of an industry foundation that sponsored research that determined fatigue was not a factor in trucking accidents, despite the fact that every other study on the same topic has found the exact opposite. Yeah, this is really the man I want making decisions about my safety on the road. Next he's going to tell us that the safest drivers in America are parents who talk on their cell phone while simultaneously yelling at one of the 5 screaming kids in the back seats.

This story about the trucking official who made it big in the government is a shining example of something political scientists call the "revolving door". The revolving door refers to the way that industry officials leave their position in the private sector for a job in the government that mainly involves oversight or regulation of their former industry, like the above example of the trucker official. It also refers to the way that Congressmen, their staff, and other government officials will leave their government jobs to take a position as a lobbyist in an industry that they were previously overseeing or working with in their former position.

In fact, 43% of former Congressmen who have left Congress since 1998 and are eligible, have become lobbyists. (former Congressmen have to wait one year after leaving office before they can lobby their former colleagues) A former Congressman still holds many privileges at the Capitol. He/she can roam freely on the floors of the House and Senate, they get to keep using the House gym, and they can go anywhere in the Capitol labeled for congress members only. This gives these congressmen-turned-lobbyists almost unfettered access to the law makers of the country to push the agenda of the industry for whom they now work.

This revolving door quite understandably leads to many conflicts of interest. A newly appointed government official who has spent 20 years working for a logging company is not going to be very sympathetic to the idea of restricting logging in order to save the spotted owl. One specific example is James Connaughton, who is currently the chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, the main environmental advisors to the president. His former job? A lobbyist for the utility industry and large electricity users. He was one of the great guys who led the fight to allow more arsenic in drinking water, and he persistently advises Bush to ignore the evil conspiracy theory of global warming. Going the other way in the revolving door is Edward Aldridge, who as a Pentagon official long criticized an overpriced plan to buy 20 Lockheed Martin planes. Well, one day he decided that he did approve of the $3 billion dollar plan. And then a few weeks later, he left his job at the Pentagon to go join the board of Lockheed Martin.

Talk about conflict of interest. And it's all legal, and it's all your environmental safety, and drinking water healthiness and your tax money, and YOU that is the loser in these dealings.

2006-12-02T12:02:00.000-06:00

The Fat Russians are Coming

A few posts ago I talked about a former KGB-spy, Alexander Litvinenko, who was a vocal critic of Putin. He had been investigating the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, and had recently been taken seriously ill, ostensibly by poisoning. He continued to get sicker and sicker, and just died last week. It was determined he was killed by exposure to polonium-210, a rare and little known radioactive substance. Traces of polonium-210 was also found in his widow's body, and in the body of the man that Litvinenko had met with on the day of his poisoning. Several planes and restaurants in London that Litvinenko had been in also tested positive for traces of radioactive polonium. This is pretty crazy, it's like the Cold War never ended, except that now these things don't happen in secret behind the Iron Curtain, and now Russia's not supposed to be a repressive regime that does stuff like poison its government's critics. Unfortunately, we will probably never know who is to blame for this spy's poisoning, because it is very difficult to trace the origin of polonium 210, which is probably why it was the radioactive substance of choice.

In other news, being fat, even just 30-40 pounds overweight, is more expensive than being of normal weight, and not because of money spent buying lots of food. Fat people pay more for health insurance, and are at higher risk for diabetes, an expensive disease. They will also face discrimination at work, and earn less money over their life time, and have a harder time getting hired and promoted. (Weight discrimination is only illegal in Michigan). Just a week or so ago, I was reading about people at universities and think tanks promoting 'fat studies', kind of like gender studies or something. It championed the right of people to be fat, and wants to work to fight discrimination against fat people. I can understand wanting to fight the discrimination and low self-image that comes with being overweight, but it's a lie to tell people it's ok to be overweight. It's been proven that their wealth and health will suffer as long as they are obese. It's irresponsible to positively promote being overweight.

I was trying to find some funny or ironic news to talk about, but there's not much good news out there today, with all those car bombs going off in Baghdad. So I'll just finish with a couple of recent Bush-isms.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006 -Well, it's easy to connect Iraq to Bush's war OF terror.

"I've reminded the prime minister—the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship."—Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006 - Ummmm, okay?

President Bush: Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?
Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times: I can take them off.
Bush: I'm interested in the shade look, seriously.
Wallsten: All right, I'll keep it, then.
Bush: For the viewers, there's no sun.
Wallsten: I guess it depends on your perspective.
Bush: Touché.
—Exchange with legally blind reporter Peter Wallsten, to whom Bush later apologized, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006 -I'm guessing Bush probably isn't endorsed by the National Federation of the Blind.

2006-11-28T09:13:00.000-06:00

Undermining American laws, one signing statement at a time.

Signing statements have been around for a while, but they have been used more and more frequently by recent presidents, with George W. Bush as the most profligate and controversial user of this power. A signing statement is used by the president when he gets a new bill to either pass or veto. Instead of vetoing the bill, the president can issue a signing statement next to the part or parts of the bill with which he disagrees. In this statement, the president says that he will interpret the law in a way that will not interfere with presidential authority. Or he can say that one part of the bill is just advisory, and not really mandatory like Congress wrote it to be. Basically, a signing statement is as if the president put an asterix next to a certain paragraph and said he is not going to enforce or follow this part of the bill because he's the president and these rules don't apply to him.

Never mind the whole Constitutional thing that says that only Congress has the power to MAKE laws, the Supreme Court interprets laws, and the President ENFORCES the laws. In order to enforce a law, the president kind of has to follow it. But in the case of the signing statement, the president can effectively pick and choose which part of a bill he thinks he will follow or ignore. These signing statements are virtually identical to a power called the line-item veto. With a line-item veto, the president would have the power to nullify certain lines of a bill. President Clinton was briefly given this power in 1996, ostensibly to control pork barrel spending. Well, Clinton only had this power for a few months, then the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal. The Supreme Court has revisited this issue several times since, and has continually ruled it illegal. Bush even asked for the power of the line-item veto in his 2006 State of the Union address. I don't know why he even bothered, since he has been using signing statements in exactly the way he would be using the line-item veto.

The use of signing statements really took off during the Reagan administration, when a little known staff attorney in the Department of Justice, named Samuel Alito, recommended the use of signing statements to "increase the power of the executive to shape the law". Bush has taken that recommendation of a now Supreme Court judge to heart, issuing 750 signing statements so far. One of Bush's most outrageous signing statements was regarding the McCain detainee amendment in a Department of Defense bill. This amendment prohibited the use of inhumane treatment and restricted the use of torture on detainees and prisoners. But Bush didn't like that idea, so he just issued a signing statement saying that he would interpret this amendment as consistent with the authority of the president to "protect the American people from further terrorist attacks." In others words, he's still going to use torture if he wants to.

Americans need to be worried about the use of these signing statements. The US constitution lays out a division of powers among the three branches of the government, but signing statements allow a president to both make and interpret laws, a power he was not given. The system of checks and balances is being undermined, and the executive branch of the government is growing more powerful than it was intended to be. And unfortunately they are using this power to support torture and take away more and more American's rights.

2006-11-23T13:30:00.000-06:00

America, defender of democracy and freedom everywhere! Oops, I meant destroyer, not defender.

So there was this theory that when Saddam was gone, Iraq would get install/elect a new government, preferably a democratic one. This new democratic nation would become an shining example of Mid-East democracy, and one by one, all the surrounding nations would soon have to succumb to this wonderful type of government. This is similar to the idea that if Vietnam was to become communist back in the 60's, the rest of Asia would also inevitably turn communist. Well, that turned out not to be true, and we are also seeing that the exact opposite is happening in the Mid-East region. Because of America's invasion in Iraq, there is actually now less support for democratic reforms in the Middle-East.

Syria is now the last country that is run by the Ba'ath party, of which Saddam was also a member. Despite promises of democratic reforms, current president Bashar al-Assad has been very slow in enacting any new policies. There had been an active democratic rights movement in Syria, but they are now hampered by the war in Iraq. The normal people on the street who were once sympathetic to the idea of democracy have seen the chaos and civil war that 'democracy' brought in Iraq, and they don't want that in Syria.

These new anti-democracy sentiment has also emboldened president Assad. There is no longer a large public demand for democratic reforms. He has been cracking down on pro-democracy supporters and other critics of the government, and he can do this in the name of stability and public safety. While there may be restricted freedoms and no democracy, Syria is a stable country. There is no civil war, or daily car bombings. Syrians look around at Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine, and think that maybe they don't have it so bad, and reform really isn't that necessary.

So instead of bringing democracy to the region, we've brought an inevitable civil war in Iraq and less support for democracy among Syrians and most likely other Middle Easterners. Well, that's just great. Way to go, America. If you want more details on why Syrians don't want democracy and how Assad has been persecuting activists, read this Washington Post article.

2006-11-20T17:03:00.000-06:00

Vladimir Putin, is he Stalin-redux?

Despite the US's mostly friendly relationship with Russian president Vladmir Putin (remember Bush looking into Putin's eyes and sensing his soul?), there have been several recent incidences that should cause the US to reconsider this friendship. It seems the former KGB man has not been able to move past the paranoia, suspicion, and repressive tactics of the Soviet Union.

Soon after Putin was elected president in 2000, he centralized the control of the federal government, taking away some autonomy from federalized terrorities and giving it to a few elected regional governors. In 2004, Putin decided that the regional governors would be nominated by the president, and then approved or disapproved by regional legislatures. This move was criticized as a step away from democracy and a return to the centrally run political apparatus of the Soviet era.

The Kremlin also controls most of the radio and TV stations in Russia, which came in handy during the 2003 parlimentary elections and then again in the presidential election of 2004, when the airwaves were filled with campaign ads largely for Putin and his party. Putin has been active in pursuing lawsuits against the biggest economic players in Russia, which is how he then gains more power for the Kremlin (like if the US government sued media mogul Rupert Murdoch, then made his FOX TV a government entity) and eliminates political competitors. The Russian government has also recently banned, errrrr, made a "negative recommendation" against theaters showing the movie Borat, which is the first instance of censorship since the Soviet Communists used to run all artistic productions through state censors.

One of the more troublesome recent events was the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, a prominent anti-government journalist. She had written many newspaper articles and books about human rights abuses committed by the government, especially regarding Putin's crackdown in Chechnya. She was found shot 4 times in the elevator of her apartment on Oct 6, in what is suspected to be a contract killing. The next day, police seized her computer and investigative materials she had gathered for a story on torture practices used by pro-Russia Chechen officials. She was to have filed her story the day she was killed.

Today, inspiring this particular blog, was an NY Times article about the suspected poisoning of a now deathly ill ex-KGB officer who was investigating her death. He was also a vocal critic of the KGB and President Putin. There are other incidences of people who were 'inconvenient' to the Putin administration getting conveniently poisoned, such as a KGB defector, and another journalist. Of course, none of these things can be traced back directly to Putin, but it is disturbing that these incidences are happening alongside a centralizing of government power away from the Russian people and towards the Kremlin and Putin.

2006-11-18T10:00:00.000-06:00

The growing Latino vote is up for grabs. Who's going to get it?

Buried under a subheading on the Washington Post's homepage was an article about Latino voters and how they voted in the last election. It said that 30% of Latinos voted for the Republican party, down from the 45% of Latinos that voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election. Latinos have historically been a Democratic leaning party, but were basically a small voting segment just taken for granted. Neither party actively courted the Latino vote for decades, but that has been changing recently, as Latinos are a quickly growing bloc that are becoming more active in politics.

Bush is largely responsible for the Republicans winning almost half of the Latino vote in 2004. His nephew is part Mexican, and Bush was well known for speaking in Spanish at public events. He knew that as a largely Catholic group, the Latinos would identify with the more socially conservative Republican party. For a few years, it looked like the Latino vote would trend Republican, giving them the coveted votes of this growing demographic.

But this latest election showed that the Republicans may be isolating and losing its Latino voters. This is mostly due to the Congressional Republicans' stance on immigration. They have come out supporting more restrictive measures to control immigration and make it harder to legally stay in America (Ironically, President Bush supports fewer restrictions on immigration). An anti-immigration stance plays well with many Americans who somehow feel cheated that Latinos are taking all the good jobs cleaning toilets and mowing lawns. But this policy also alienates the immigrant community, which while currently commanding less votes than African-Americans, is growing more quickly. If one party consistantly suceeds at winning a decisive majority of the Latino/immigrant vote, they may become the dominant political party in American politics.

2006-11-16T18:10:00.000-06:00

Let's see what's in the news today.

One of the main headlines of the day is Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) failed attempt to get John Murtha (D-PA) elected as the Majority Whip in the House. This was a very odd battle for her to choose, especially as it was basically the very first thing she did after getting unanimously elected as Speaker of the House. She had first said that she would remain neutral and not endorse anyone for the position of Majority Whip, which is the second in line after Speaker and has the job of making sure party members are loyal and vote with the party. Then she came out very strongly for John Murtha, even though Steny Hoyer (D-MD) had been a very popular minority whip and was clearly the front-runner for the position (and was indeed elected by a large margin).

As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does have the right to strongly support someone, especially since the Whip and Speaker work together closely. However, it is odd that she choose to come out and endorse a black horse candidate. If Steny Hoyer had been an unpopular or ineffective whip, then I can understand Pelosi wanting to support someone else that she considered better. But Pelosi didn't really have many good reasons for why she preferred Murtha so strongly over Hoyer. Certainly one of her reasons is that it is well known that she and Hoyer don't get along, and haven't for 40 years, but she and Murtha are very close. She also said Murtha would be a better choice to get us out of Iraq, because he came out very vocally against the war about a year back, saying we need to start redeploying the troops. Well, Steny Hoyer's view on the war in Iraq is 'phased redeployment of the troops'.

I think that Pelosi did a disservice to the Democratic party in general. Her first move makes it look like there is dissension in the ranks, like the party is not very cohesive. I also think she did a disservice to her own reputation, by overestimating her popularity and power. There are several congressmen who have complained of her strong arm tactics to get them to vote for Murtha. Starting out her term as Speaker by going after a long-time rival for very flimsy reasons was not the best move for Nancy Pelosi, personally and politically.

2006-11-13T18:14:00.000-06:00

What everyone needs to know before they run for political office.

So you're thinking of running for Congress. First, start low in lesser known offices that will still give you some name recognition and some campaign experience. You should start off in your county prosecutor, county commissioner type jobs. Then you work your way to being a state senator. You'll have to work hard when holding lower political offices in the country and district level. You want to work on building your base of supporters, and finding some rich people and oil companies to make frequent donations, or use some of your family's money that they earned from being in the Youngstown mafia. But don't admit that, just say the money is from all the high-quality shopping malls your family owns. Stay as a state senator a few years, then decide if you want to run for the US House or the Senate.

If you're going the House route, state senator is an excellent springboard. Try running directly for the House from this position. If you want to run for Senate, it's going to take a little more work. Run for a state-wide office like state auditor, state attorney general, or secretary of state. After your term is up in that position, decide whether you want to just be a Senator, or if US president is more your thing. If you think you want to be president, then run for state governor. You'll have a much better chance of being elected president as a former governor than as Senator.

You can also just wait for your local House Rep or Senator to be involved in some kind of scandal, or dig up some dirty work he's done, or wait for him to retire, then run for office. You might fail the first time, but at least even more people would get to know your name. And try not to be involved in any scandals or say anything racist or sexist, unless you are calling your opponent a racist or sexist. That's ok to do. It's also sometimes ok to have extramarital affairs, just don't get caught beating her. (See Don Sherwood) And if you do get caught in an indelicate situation, just appear on TV with your wife and apologize very sincerely, and talk about realizing how much you hurt your family, and be sure to mention God and the massive amounts of praying you are doing. That should get you out of trouble. Oh, and make sure it's not a gay affair, because you can't really apologize your way out of that. You pretty much blow all your chances of any political office with that mistep, specially if you built your reputation on a family values/gay-bashing platform. Watch out for the car accidents/involuntary vehicular homicide scandals too, only people with the last name of Kennedy and...and...ok, only Kennedys can still get reelected under those conditions.

One popular way to try to defuse a scandal is to admit alcohol and prescription drug abuse, and enter rehab, whether you were an addict or not. It helps deflect attention from the real scandal, and makes it look like you are sincerely trying to change for the better. This strategy helped House Rep Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) get reelected after crashing his car into a Capitol barricade and then appearing very drunk/drugged to the cops. But of course it doesn't always work, as the now disgraced Mark Foley and Rev Ted Haggard can testify. Maybe it's just a Kennedy thing. Having a very well-known last name will get you far too, like Kennedy, Bush, Schwarzeneggar, Dole, Clinton, Oscar Mayer. It's even easier if you can just win a position almost purely out of your connection to another famous person, or if your father or mother previously held the same seat you're running for. Heck, sometimes your daddy will even go ahead and give you the political seat you want, just ask Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) how that works.

But really, however you chose to go about it, I wish you luck in deciding to run for political office. And money, I wish you tons of money, cause otherwise you don't have a chance.

2006-11-11T11:49:00.000-06:00

Congressional incumbency advantage was not so much of an advantage these past midterms.

In this past midterm election, 6 US Senators were not reelected to their seats, losing to strong challengers. It is unusual to see this many incumbents not get reelected, usually incumbents have a 97% chance of getting reelected, and only 1 or 2 senators lose a reelection race every senate election year. Sitting senators and house representative enjoy something political scientists call congressional incumbency advantage.

One of the main advantages of being an incumbent is that the perks that come with being a US Congressman can be used to run a reelection campaign. Congressmen get a budget that allows them to set up large offices with staffers in both DC and their home district. They get travel allowances for trips between DC and their home state. They also get to send letters to their constituencies without having to pay for postage. Having a free staff, free travel home, and free postage gives incumbent Congressmen some helpful advantages in running a reelection campaign.

While a large part of a sitting Congressmen's job is to schmooze with his constituency, his challenger may be holding another job and can't campaign full time and still pay their bills. A challenger also has to work harder to gain the name recognition that a sitting Congressman enjoys. Congressmen often appear on TV and in the media, so their public will know more about them than any challenger. Incumbents have already won one campaign, so they have valuable experience campaigning, and have a base of core supporters already. A challenger has to win over all of their supporters. And then there is the biggest difference- Money. Incumbents raise 2-3 times more money than a challenger.

There are ways to overcome the incumbent advantages. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was a sitting US House Representative, and therefore had free travel and postage, plus a base of loyal supporters from his past election campaigns. Bob Casey (D-PA) had the advantage of built in name recognition across the state, as his father Robert Casey had been a governor in Pennsylvania. Many people who try to run for office have a lot of money already, so they don't have to worry about working another job at the same time. They can also put their own money into the race, and buy a few more dirty ads than their opponent who may be relying more on money from donations and the state and national party. A challenger can also make gains if the person they are running against is involved in some sort of well- publicized scandal, which definitely helped John Tester (D-MT) beat Jack Abramoff's buddy Conrad Burns (R-MT).
The general atmosphere of annoyance with Bush also helped mightily in the election of 6 new Democrats. Sometimes the time is just ripe for change, and not even once popular incumbents can survive, despite all their reelection advantages.

2006-11-08T13:41:00.000-06:00

Let's see some checks and balances, people!

I'm waiting for someone, some brave Congressmen, to start the impeachment process against Bush. I mean, which is worse, perjury regarding a personal relationship with a women, or secretly and illegally running a wiretapping program aimed at American citizens? Or lying about the evidence to go to war? If Clinton's offenses were deemed impeachable, then this Congress for sure better start investigating the Bush administration. I wonder what Ken Starr is doing these days?

Sadly, Nancy Pelosi, the probably soon to be Speaker of the House, has said she does not want to start the impeachment process against Bush. She said this a few weeks before the election, so I am holding out hope that Tuesday's results may encourage her to rethink this position. Impeachment is one of the checks and balances that Congress holds to keep a rein on the power of the presidency. While I do not think Congress should abuse this power, like it may have been abused in 1998, Congress at least needs to take the first step and start an impeachment inquiry into the administration's actions.

The Bush presidency is notable for being responsible for the largest increase in the size of the US government since FDR (so much for small government Republicans). This administration has also increased and expanded the power of the presidency much more than any recent president. The Congress needs to show that it is still an active and equal branch of the government, and not just let the president get away with most anything he wants to. They need to show that they are alive and well in the role of presidential watchdog. If the Congress does not do this, no one else will. I'm not just being paranoid here, the Bush administration has greatly increased the power of the presidency, and has shown its disregard for the powers of the Supreme Court and Congress. I'll try to do a future blog on this.

Even if the Congress and the Democrats don't want to impeach Bush and throw him out of office, they need to at least take the first step and open an impeachment inquiry into his actions. They need to get the facts, to see if anything illegal has happened, and then proceed from there. All three branches of government have separate but equal powers, and it's time for the Congress to step up and do its job.

2006-11-08T12:07:00.000-06:00

The times are a'changin.

Wow. I don't even know where to start after that exciting election day. The Democrats won the House quite decisively, and they are just barely leading in the Senate race in Virginia, which would give them control of the Senate. I was right in 3 of my predictions, Bob Casey and Sherrod Brown trounced their opponents in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and Bob Corker eked out a win in Tennessee. The Rhode Island race really surprised me; I had expected moderate Lincoln Chaffee to hold onto his senate seat, but he was beat by the Democrat. Winning in Missouri and Montana was also a pleasant surprise. Missouri and Virginia had been the closest races in the country. Now we're just waiting for the results out of Virginia which may not be settled for a few weeks. Democrats also picked up quite a few state governorships and now have a sizeable majority. So wow. Thus ends the Republican Revolution of 1994.

Things are already changing a little. Rumsfeld just announced that he is resigning as Secretary of Defense. Of course, things may or may not change depending on who replaces him. (Just say NO to Paul Wolfowitz) Nancy Pelosi is set to become the first female Speaker of the House, further 'breaking the marble ceiling' for women. That pretty much leaves just the Presidency, Vice Presidency and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the highest ranking positions that women haven't held yet.

Ah, Bush just announced that he is nominating Robert Gates, former Director of the CIA, to replace Rumsfeld. Currently he is the president of Texas A&M University, and sits on several corporate boards, including those of some oil drilling companies. I think to be appointed to a job in the Bush Administration you have to have the prerequisite of being sleazily connected to a huge corporation that will possibly benefit from you holding that job, despite all your denials that there will be no conflict of interest (like Haliburton/Cheney and Alcoa/O'Neill).

Gates definitely does have an impressive resume when it comes to working in the intelligence community; he started out in the Air Force for 2 years, then worked at the CIA for several years, then was on the National Security Council for 9 years, then went back to the CIA. It does seems like he knows his stuff. Unfortunately, 'his stuff' is the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Uhhhhh, ok, I'm sure he's really smart, but his knowledge is kind of obselete when it comes to today's military climate. This guy has pretty much been a college president since September 11. I guess I was hoping Bush could find someone a little more modern, who maybe, ya know, knew some Arabic, or is a China expert, or had served in the military a little more recently than the mid 1960's. Or maybe, I know this is just a crazy idea, but maybe Bush could even have chosen someone who hadn't also served in his dad's administration. Or maybe someone who's not an old white guy. Oh well.

2006-11-07T11:02:00.000-06:00

Don't forget to vote!

I stand by my previous predictions; Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Bob Corker, Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb will be elected or reelected to the US Senate. I also think the Democrats will pick up one of the houses, but I'm not sure which, and it will only be by 1 or 2 seats. I wouldn't really be that surprised if they didn't win a majority in either house, but we'll see.

They're already reporting voting problems in several states. I don't understand why America has such problems with its voting. India can hold elections in a country of 1 billion people without near as many problems as America. But we have to have fancy computerized touch screen voting machines. Why can't ballots just be like the Scantron tests we would take in high school? You're given this half sheet of paper that is numbered through 100, and has 4 round bubbles with A, B, C, and D in each of them. Then you have a testing booklet that has all the questions or elections numbered and all the answer choices have letters, and you just fill in the corresponding bubble on the answer sheet. Then these answer sheets get zoomed through a machine, or checked by people to see who you voted for. It's easy, and it's a format that at least all younger people are very familiar with. You can also recheck your answers, and since you have to use a pencil, you can change any mistaken votes. So much more comforting then voting on a touch computer screen and never getting a paper receipt that confirms you voted for the right people.

I'm very disappointed that the trend in America has been to make voting more difficult. More and more states are requiring voters to have government issued ID's. At first that doesn't seem so difficult, I mean, everyone has a driver's license, right? Well, there are a few segments of the population that often don't have driver's licenses-poor people who may not own cars and rely on public transportation (remember Katrina?), and older people who can't drive anymore or live in nursing homes and don't get out much. They don't need driver's licenses. So are we not going to let them vote? Unfortunately, some people, usually Republican lawmakers, are saying they shouldn't get to vote. And really, it makes sense because these populations are not big Republican strongholds. (I'm not being petty here, it is overwhelmingly Republicans who are calling for all these restrictions on voters).

But, requiring a government ID is almost tantamount to a poll tax. It costs about $20 for a driver's license in Ohio and Tennessee, but you can only get one of these if you've previously owned a license in the past. A non-driver ID in Ohio is only $8.50, but $19.50 in Tennessee. You also have to have transportation to the nearest license bureau, which I've never lived closer than 15-20 minutes to one. Then you need to have the time to wait for your ID, because if you're getting your license in a big city, like Nashville, you will wait for hours on a Saturday, unless you want to lose money on a work day and take time off to get your license on a less busier weekday. Oh, and you'd better be able to speak English, or be able to bring a English fluent friend along. During my hours of sitting in the Nashville license bureau, I saw many Hispanics struggling to communicate with the license people who didn't speak a word of Spanish.

I just think there has to be a less restrictive way to let people vote. If we have to have ID's for national security or to prevent fraud or whatever, then why not include college ID'S, work ID's, passports, social security cards, birth certificates, expired driver's licenses, or an electric or water or rent bill with your name and address on it? We should make it as easy as possible for people to vote, not harder.

2006-10-31T14:10:00.000-06:00

And the winner is...

Well, like any good political blog, I feel I must make some intelligent yet mostly abitrary predictions about who will win in the upcoming US senate races. I'm just giving predictions for 5 of the most highly publicized races, or races where an incumbent may actually lose. Senate incumbents historically have a 97% reelection rate, but I think that rate will be much lower in this election.

Ohio- Mike DeWine(R) Vs Sherrod Brown(D) -I'm going with Sherrod Brown on this one, the Republicans are just too scandal plagued in Ohio to have much hope to win this seat. But the numbers will be close, specially with DeWine being an incumbent and a moderate.

Tennessee- Bob Corker (R) Vs Harold Ford (D)- I think that Corker might win this one. But ask me tomorrow and I'll probably have a different answer. This race is basically too close to call, but if I had to give an answer I think the Republican has the advantage. But really, it's going to be very close. It's hard to separate all the national hype and publicity over Harold Ford from what local Tennesse people really think about him.

Virginia - George Allen (R) Vs Jim Webb(D)- It's close, but I think Webb has an edge. This race has been a messy, dirty campaign. If I were a Virginian I wouldn't want to vote for either of these guys. Webb's victory relies largely on the DC vote, as the liberal DC suburbs spread further and further across northern Virginia.

Pennsylvania- Rick Santorum(R) Vs Bob Casey (D). Goooood-bye Santorum. No close call on this race, moderate Bob Casey is going to win. Santorum's viewpoints have never been in line with most Pennsylvanians, who lean moderate to liberal. Bob Casey may be fairly boring and uninspiring, but he will be a nice change for voters sick of Santorum's vitrol.

Rhode Island- Lincoln Chafee(R) Vs Sheldon Whitehouse(D). I think Chafee is going to hold onto his seat. He is the Republican version of Joe Lieberman; he is very moderate and tends to vote with the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans. Everyone seems to love a moderate these days, and he is pretty popular in Rhode Island, so I think he'll just barely beat the Democrat.

Of course, we'll see how right I am after election day. I'll be happy with 3/5's accuracy. Please ring in with your own predictions or comments.

2006-10-30T13:03:00.000-06:00

3rd Party candidates, they're rare, but they do exist.

Back in August, Joe Lieberman (D-CT) lost the Democratic primary race for US senate to Ned Lamont. Leiberman promptly announced that he would run for his 4th term in the Senate as an independent candidate. Currently, he is leading Lamont by 14 points in the polls. So what exactly does it mean for the Democrats if Lieberman is re-elected as an Independent?

Well, not much will change. Lieberman is running his campaign saying that he will continue to caucus and vote with the Democrats if he gets elected. He'll basically take over the spot of Jim Jeffords (I-VT), the current Senate's lone independent who is not running for reelection. Leiberman claims that he will even retain his seniority within the Democratis Party, meaning he'll still get to hold high ranking positions on certain committees, just as Jeffords did.

If Lieberman is reelected, he probably won't be the Senate's only independent. Current House Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is likely to win the Vermont Senate seat that Jeffords is vacating. What party is Sanders, you ask? He's a Socialist. Not too many of them around these days, but he's quite popular up in Vermont. As a House Representative, he caucuses with the Democrats, so it's likely he will continue to do so if elected to the Senate.

Lieberman isn't the only 3rd party spoiler candidate running a legitimate race. Harold Ford Jr is the current US House Rep from the 9th district of Tennessee, but he is vacating his seat to run for the US Senate. The 9th district is a large, heavily Democratic district that includes almost all of the city of Memphis. The district was created after the 1980 census, and was gerrymandered to be a majority black district. In 1975, Harold Ford Sr won the seat, and held it until he retired in 1997, whereupon his son, Harold Ford Jr won the seat and has held it until now. The winner of the Democratic primary race back in August was Steve Cohen. Unfortunately, it is important to note that Cohen is white (and Jewish). See, the 9th district was created "so African Americans and white people could send an African American to Congress." (Memphis Flyer) Prominent African-Americans in Memphis are upset that Cohen won, saying that the 9th district, as 60% African American, should be represented by an African American.

And here enters Jake Ford. You may notice a similarity of last names, he is indeed the son of Harold Ford Sr and brother to Harold Ford Jr. He decided to enter the Congressional race as an independent, though he says he would caucus and vote with the Democrats if elected. He has 2 'qualifications'; he is black, and his last name is Ford. I know I personally don't consider being a high school drop-out and spending time in jail as qualifications for the US Congress. But he is actually attracting some supporters.

I can understand the desire of African Americans to be represented in Congress by someone of their own skin color, but I don't think that this desire is so absolute that they would not vote for a qualified non-white person, if they felt him to be the best candidate. I also wonder if they would prefer to vote for a very unqualified, high school drop-out who is incapable of articulating his platform and has a bit of a temper merely because he is black. Several prominent African Americans have shown that they agree with that, but I hope normal people realize that Steve Cohen has been representing Memphis in the TN General Assembly for the last 24 years, while Jake Ford has um, well, he was arrested about 4 times, and uh, he did get his GED, and oh, of course, his last name is Ford.

2006-10-27T14:13:00.000-05:00

Benchmarks, timetables, stay the course...they all mean the same thing- The Troops Aren't Leaving.

I saw a great article in the Washington Post the other day. As you are probably aware, Bush just recently held a news conference about the Iraq war and how we were going to start marking progress in the war by a series of benchmarks. These benchmarks are supposed to measure how well the Iraqi police forces and Iraqi government are doing in gaining control of their own country and internal security. The point of this news conference was to make Bush look more flexible in his Iraq strategy. Instead of just saying "we'll stay the course", he came up with specific goals that the US and Iraqi government will work to reach together. Ok, so when the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces reach these goals, the American troops will be withdrawn, right? Well, first that would assume that the Iraqi government has any incentive to follow these benchmarks. The Bush administration has specifically stated there will be no pressure, punishments or recourse of any kind if the Iraq government does not reach the benchmarks on time. Plus Bush never said that if the Iraq police and government reached these goals that America would draw down their forces. So in other words, this news conference was to let Bush just remind America that we are going to be in Iraq a long time and to quit all this fool talk about bringing the troops home.

In fact, Donald Rumsfeld would prefer it if some people quit all their fool talk about the Iraq war. In the Washington Post the other day, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told critics of the 'new' Bush strategy that they "ought to back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it's complicated, it's difficult". In case you need a translation, "Quit critising us, you couldn't possibly understand something so complex". Right. How complicated could this plan be if George W Bush understands it? (ok, sorry, that was a cheap shot) But what is most disturbing is he told this to a group of reporters. Ok, reporters are the people who are supposed to ask the tough questions and figure out the policies and then report it to the millions of people who don't get to attend Pentagon and White House press conferences. I guess Rumsfeld doesn't like these pesky things like freedom of speech or freedom of the press. And I guess it makes sense for him to dislike these rights. After all, even Republicans such as Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) having been publicly stating that Rumsfeld has made many mistakes and needs to resign. If we didn't have freedom of speech, then he wouldn't have to hear annoying statements like that.

2006-10-25T14:17:00.000-05:00

Enough already with the 'rights for the unborn' thing, let's see some rights for the living.

When the Military Commissions Act of 2006 came before the Congress, the vote for and against it split along party lines. Almost all the Democrats voted against the bill (with a few notable exceptions. why, Sherrod Brown, why?), and almost all the Republicans voted for the bill. I have a difficult time understanding the contradictions within the Republican party. How can the party that proudly labels itself pro-life vote to continue a program that tortures and sometimes kills other people?

The Republican party is the champion of the unborn, wanting to restrict abortions as much as possible in order to protect the sanctity of life. They also are against embryonic stem cell research, saying that those frozen embryos are living humans, even though research done with the cells could save the lives of living and breathing humans. But yet they are also the party that supports the death penalty, and condones torture. I don't get it. I see much less contradiction in the Democrat's platform, which supports stem cell research to save the lives of currently post-birth humans and condemns the death penalty and torture. Most Democrats are just as anti-abortion as Republicans. They don't want to see pregnant women get abortions, they want to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

But I don't want to go down the dead end road of the abortion discussion. I just wanted to point out the contradictions in the Republican party's stance of being pro-life only sometimes. Maybe they are just pro-life when it comes to certain people. If you are a convicted killer, or a suspected terrorist, your life is less important. But then we are getting into the dangerous area of thinking that we have the right to make value judgements on whose life is more important. It is even worse that we have given a group like the CIA the power to make that judgement. We are on a slippery, slippery slope, and I think this new torture law (and the death penalty) should worry anyone, Republican or Democrat.

2006-10-24T12:22:00.000-05:00

So I'm going to cause you a lot of pain, and then you're going to tell me your darkest secrets. Ok? Sound good?

In addition to setting up military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 also allows the continuation of a CIA torture program. This program, cited by Bush to be one of the most potent weapons in the war on terror, allows the CIA and the President the power to detain suspected terrorists and 'interrogate' them. The CIA has been capturing hundreds of suspected terrorists and interrogating them, and as I mentioned yesterday, someone who is totally innocent has absolutely no recourse, not even Americans. The methods that the CIA use to 'interrogate' is what most people would consider torture, including tactics like sensory and sleep deprivation, water boarding (strapping the person down and sticking them underwater), and good old fashioned shaking and beating.

The CIA does this because it is trying to get information to help fight the war on terror. See, if you hurt someone really badly, they'll tell you all their darkest secrets. Or at least that's the shaky premise. First, the CIA has to actually have captured a real terrorist who even knows any kind of helpful information about future bombings or other terror plots. Unfortunately innocent people are sometimes being captured, such as Maher Arar. Then, if the CIA actually has someone who might have connections to some terrorist group, they use different torture/interrogation tactics to get them to talk. Well, unfortunately these tactics don't often lead to useful information. If these people absolutely hate America, they are going to try as hard as they can to resist spilling any information, or they are going to feed the interrogators false information. But interrogators can't always tell what information is real or fake; in testing, professional interrogators were able to separate the truth from lies only 45-60% of the time. Some people who are being tortured are going to confess to anything to end the torture. If someone had strapped me to a board and was submerging me head first into water, I'd confess that I was the Queen of England and married to Osama.

If we look back at other examples of times where torture was used to extract information, we see it has a messy past of ineffectiveness. Salem witch trials anyone? People, usually young girls, were tortured in order to get them to confess to being witches or to name other witches, which many people did. Now I personally find it a lot easier to believe that these people confessed in order to end the pain, then to believe that there was a big coven of witches, plus satan, having fun fooling around with the people of 17th century Massachusetts. But hey, if you believe in witches, then what about Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the Al-Qaeda guy who, under torture by American forces in 2002, claimed that Al-Qaeda and Iraq had many significant links. His statement was frequently cited by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. But oops, he later, when not under pain, retracted this statement. Even Bush has now admitted Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not connected. Talk about going to war based on faulty information.

Or how about the example of US Senator John McCain, who supports this new law? He was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years during the Vietnam War. He has often talked about the lies he told the Vietnamese, and how he believes that torture leads to the gathering of large amounts of false information as people being tortured will say anything to end their suffering. He even signed a statement (that was in Vietnamese) confessing to war crimes that he had no connections to or knowledge of, which makes it so hard to believe that he could have been such a strong supporter of this bill. Just so everything's clear, John McCain is a POW, he gets tortured, feeds false information to his torturers, signs false confessions to end the pain, and then heartily supports a bill that continues a US program that captures people, does not determine if they are innocent or guilty, and then subjects them to torture to get information to help fight the war on terror. Ok, my point was not supposed to be that John McCain has totally sold out to become the next US president, but that America never seems to learn that torture doesn't work. Yet we continue to arrest people, not determine first if they are an evil terrorist or just a regular Arab, and then hurt them to useless ends. I just don't get it. We'd rather continue to hurt people than try to find some effective means of getting useful information from real terrorists.

2006-10-23T11:35:00.000-05:00

I think America's the greatest, please don't arrest me!

The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Sounds innocuous enough, like maybe it deals with pay raises for people in the army or navy. But this bill that President Bush just signed is one of the most misguided and dangerous laws that America has seen in many years.

The Military Commissions Act authorizes the use of military commissions to try people who have been labeled an "unlawful enemy combatant". An unlawful enemy combatant (UEC) is someone who "has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States". A military tribunal composed of three 'neutral' officials choosen by the President or Secretary of Defense has the power to decide if a person is an enemy combatant. Once a person has been labeled an UEC, he will be tried for his crimes by a military commissions. But these military commissions are very different from a normal American court, and defendants have greatly restricted rights in these commissions.

Someone who has been labeled an UEC and faces trial by military commission does not have the power of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the right of a prisoner to appear before a court to challenge his arrest and detention as wrongful. The right has long been used to check the power of governments to arrest people without a reason. This right is longstanding in America, having only been suspended once before by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War (though in that case Lincoln asked Congress for permission, whereas this new Act is going against a recent Supreme Court ruling that suspending Habeas Corpus in military commissions is illegal, not to mention the US Constitution). But now people can be arrested and jailed indefinitely without any recourse if they are innocent. I don't know about you, but the idea of getting arrested and put in jail while being totally innocent of any wrong doing, and being totally helpless to do anything about it is a very frightening idea. It gives too much power to the government and too little power to normal people.

Many rights that are guaranteed in regular American courts are not guaranteed in these military commissions. There is no guarantee of a speedy trial, no right to a pre-trial investigation, and civilian lawyers are not allowed to try cases. Judges are allowed to hear evidence based on hearsay, which is basically where someone can say "I saw Ted Kennedy eating dinner with Osama and they were discussing bombing Pizza Hut", and that statement can be entered as evidence against Ted Kennedy in these military courts. Yeah, so if there's someone you really don't like... Judges can also entertain evidence gathered without a search warrant, evidence gathered under coercion, or classified evidence that was kept secret from the defense. A guilty verdict needs only a 2/3's consensus of the military commission. So I don't know about you, but to me these commissions sound like courts set up to obtain as many guilty verdicts as possible.

This lovely bill also permits the continuation of a CIA program on torture, which I'll talk about later.

2006-10-20T13:25:00.000-05:00

I Love the Smell of Formaldehyde in the Morning.

The New York Times had an article today about virtual science labs replacing hands on science in high schools. There was a picture of a young girl staring at a computer screen as she 'dissected' a fetal pig. Increasingly, virtual experiments done online are replacing the ones that used to be done by students in a classroom. I can understand the use of online science lessons if a student wants to take a course that their high school does not offer, but I am afraid of schools using online labs to substitute for the real thing.

Clicking on the computer screen to virtually dump this test tube of chemicals into that test tube of chemicals is a sorry substitute for doing it in a classroom. The students are taught that these chemicals may be dangerous, and they need to wear gloves and goggles and be careful. There is the process of getting the Bunsen burner ready, and measuring out all the ingredients. There is the process of trial and error, as students add too much or too little of one chemical. There is the experience of smelling the different chemicals, or seeing the different viscosities. There is that moment of elation when students realize they did the experiment perfectly, or disappointment when they realize they did something wrong. There is that initial gross out factor when students first slice into their dead, cold, formaldehyde smelling frogs, which is quickly replaced by exclamations of 'cool' when students see little lungs and hearts that look like human's.

These hands on experiments are what makes students want to become scientists and doctors. These experiments make even the slacking, disinterested students in the class get excited and ask questions. There was never more energy in the biology or physics classrooms than the days we were going to do a lab. These types of projects are one of the most important types of lessons because they are not something that can be read about, or understood from pictures in a book or computer. I feel that if online lessons become more widespread and replace traditional lessons in labs, that fewer students will become biologists or pre-med majors. I think schools should go the opposite way, and have more chances for students to do hands on learning, to learn something that can't be learned from a book or computer screen.

2006-10-18T12:49:00.000-05:00

So what exactly is the difference between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites?

A Congressional Quartely reporter has been asking that same question of people in Washington who should know the answer, such as counterterrorism officials in the FBI and Congressmen who sit on House and Senate intelligence committees. Overwhelmingly, people don't know the answer. They don't know whether Al-Qaeda, Iran, Hezbollah, or Iraq are Sunni or Shi'ite. So much for knowing thy enemy. But, I'm sure as most normal Americans were reading this article in the New York Times, they were wondering the same thing. What is the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites and why do those differences matter regarding peace in Iraq?

They are different branches of Islam that resulted from a disagreement over the line of sucession in the religion. After Muhammed founded Islam in the 7th century, he had 4 elected successors, called caliphs. The Sunnis believe that these caliphs were his rightful successors, and that their heirs are the leaders of Islam. These heirs ruled the Arab world until the Ottoman Empire broke up after WWI. The Shi'ites, also called Shias, thought that Muhammed's successor should have been a family member, or been one of the Imams choosen by God himself. Shi'ites therefore thought only the 4th caliph, a relative of Muhammed's, was a legitimate successor. The Shi'ites do not recognize the authority of elected spiritual leaders, (unlike the Sunnis) and instead follow a line of Imams they believe were choosen by God.

The Sunnis represent the majority of Muslims, about 85-90%, and also control the governments of every country in the Middle East, except Iran. Most of the Shi'ites are found in Iran and Iraq, and in large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon. Despite the majority Shi'ite population in Iraq, the government was controlled by Sunni Saddam Hussein and his secular Ba'ath Party. This longtime power imbalance has contributed to the animosity now seen in Iraq, and the difficulties the US will have in creating a coalition government. If a government is created based on majority rules, the Shi'ites will have the majority, as they represent 60% of the country's population. But will a Shi'ite majority government be able to resist getting revenge on the Sunni minority that had been repressing them for decades? Many of the positions in the government are still filled by the Sunnis who held them under Hussein, and they are reluctant to give up the power they have held for years. The Sunni minority is also based in the center of the country, around Baghdad, while the Shi'ites are spread around the outer edges of the country. And where does the 20% Kurdish minority fit into all of this? The US needs to balance all these concerns as it tries to form a new government. It is disturbing that government officials who work on Iraq every day don't know the basic differences between the religions and what that means for peace in Iraq.

By the way, Iran and Hezbollah are Shi'ite, Iraq under Saddam and Al-Qaeda were/are Sunni. Years ago, the US had supported Saddam, because they saw a Sunni controlled government in Iraq as a counterweight against Shi'ite controlled Iran. So now, with Saddam gone, have we created a playground for Iran to support Shi'ite insurgents as it hopes to create the second Shi'ite led country in the otherwise all Sunni Middle East? Will Iraq become a hotbed for Hezbollah, an Iranian backed, Shi'ite, anti-Israel terrorist group? I guess one could try to argue that at least with Saddam gone, there will be no more collaboration between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Except... Saddam was never friendly with Al-Qaeda, as the 9-11 commission reported. And really, why would a radical group whose main mission is to overthrow un-Islamic regimes and install Islamist ones collaborate with a leader whose government was secular and socialist? Perhaps if American officials had had just a basic understanding of Middle Eastern religions and geo-politics, we would have approached the whole war on terror and war in Iraq much differently.

2006-10-17T12:10:00.000-05:00

Does America Need a Draft?

At first the idea seems ludicrous. The draft during the Vietnam war was very unpoplar, and America switched to an All Volunteer Army in 1973. The issue of the draft hadn't been relevant in the following decades of the Cold War. But in this post 9-11 world, the US army is finding itself stetched thin. The military was restructured after the Cold War into a force meant for fighting limited campaigns for limited ends, of limited duration, and with a defined exit strategy. The US is not prepared to fight several troop intensive battles at one time, and that has made America vulnerable and its enemies emboldened. Whether or not one agreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq, American troops are likely to be there for at least the next several years, and there's only so many times the same troops can be redeployed. In fact, many military officials have called for more troops to be sent to Iraq, saying the number there is insufficient to prevent a civil war. America has pulled troops out of South Korea to move to the Middle East, and has let NATO take over most of the operations in Afghanistan so American troops could be sent to Iraq. The recent announcement of a nuclear test by North Korea and similar nuclear rumblings by Iran show just how obvious it is to other countries that America has over extended its troops and military.

So is it time to start talking about reinstating the draft?

US House Rep Charles Rangel (D-NY) wrote a bill in 2003 to do just that. But he was concerned more with the fact that the poor and minorities are overrepresented in the military and share a disproportionate burden of the fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. He sees the draft as an important way to give middle and upper class families a personal connection to the soldiers and raise awareness of all the death and violence. As Bush was running for reelection in 2004, many people were saying that he would reinstate the draft if elected, depsite numerous denials by his administration. In October of 2004, Republicans ultilized an unusual parlimentary procedure to quickly introduce and bring Rangel's bill to a vote.. The bill failed, 402-2, but served to show that neither Republicans or Democrats wanted to bring back the draft.

It seems like such a politically unpoplar idea will not be put back into practice anytime soon. But can America afford to not have a draft? If we are going to take on the mantle of being the world's military superpower, we need to have the manpower to credibly back that claim. If North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons, and makes a troop offensive into South Korea, will we be able to support our long time ally? Will America have enough military power to stop a crazy dictator, one who we know for sure has weapons of mass destruction? Or will our enemies call our bluff, as North Korea already has.

We also need to draft to serve as America's conscience; perhaps administration officials and congressmen would have thought twice before authorizing war in Iraq if their sons and daughters were the ones who would have to do the fighting. And what will happen if there is no draft and we must go to war in another country? We've already made it clear how little importance we place in military coalitions or the United Nations. What is America going to do if there's another war?

2006-10-16T12:41:00.000-05:00

The new axis of evil- North Korea, Iran and ... Japan?

The policy chief of Japan's ruling party, the Liberal Democratic Party, said that Japan needs to revisit the issue of arming the country with nuclear weapons. Shoichi Nakagawa said that Japan needs to discuss this issue in light of North Korea's recent nuclear test. He was quick to say that he does not support the rearming of Japan, but he pointed out that Japan's constitution does not prohibit or ban the posession of nuclear weapons, and that owning such weapons might reduce the risk of Japan getting attacked.

The new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has flatly denied that Japan will rearm itself, and indeed, it seems unlikely that the only nation to have ever been a victim of nuclear bombs would consider arming itself with those same nukes. But the real issue is the fact that this discussion is even going on in Japan. Just 7 years ago, a vice defense minister had to resign after suggesting the same thing Nakagawa did. There is also evidence that this once highly taboo topic is becoming more popular among the Japanese public, and other lawmakers of lower rank than Nakagawa have also been discussing this issue. These are the same people who may be living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or have neighbors who are survivors of the atomic attacks.

I wonder what the Bush administration's response will be. Will Bush condemn this idea, and chastise the Japanese for even discussing it? Or will he turn a blind eye because Japan has been our allies since...well, pretty much since we dropped some nukes on them. Bush does have a history of picking and choosing which world problems he thinks are truly troublesome (A military coup in Thailand? Eh, never liked that prime minister anyway. Hundreds of thousands rioting in the streets of Nepal because the king/dictator was eliminating civil liberties? Civil liberties are so overated anyways. The 9-11 bombers were Saudis? Well, they're our friends, so let's bomb Iraq instead) Will Bush fight the nuclear armament of other countries as much as he has the arming of North Korea and Iran? Or will he once again pick and choose who gets to labeled a bad guy or rogue nation?

2006-10-13T12:11:00.000-05:00

Warner in...2012? McCain in...never?

I was disappointed to see that Mark Warner, former Democratic governor of Virginia, has decided not to run for president in '08. Warner had been seen as the candidate of choice for those who are not thrilled by the idea of supporting Hiliary Clinton (D-NY). His withdrawal has led to some donors to turn to his heir apparent, Evan Bayh, a very moderate Democratic Senator out of the very red state of Indiana. I, on the other hand, hope that Warner's absence leads to some new, more liberal candidates jumping into the race. Enough of all these careful moderate Dems, I want to see some unabashed liberal run, someone like Paul Wellstone, like...Russ Feingold. Feingold (D-WI) has long been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, and can't really be described as a moderate on too many positions. Perhaps a Feingold/Obama ticket? One can only dream, but like the saying goes, The Midwest Will Rise Again!

Meanwhile, John McCain (R-AZ) is continuing to posture himself as the front runner for the Republican nomination. He came out swinging against Hilary Clinton, the perceived Democratic front runner. Republicans are hoping for a Clinton V McCain matchup in 2008, because they think that McCain would attract more moderates from both parties than Clinton would. It annoys me that McCain still has this reputation for being a moderate who is not afraid of going against his party. That John McCain no longer exists. That McCain wasn't afraid to write a bill on campaign finance reform, when most other Republicans and many Democrats avoided the topic like the plague. He criticized leaders of the religious right, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. He was the leader of the Gang of 14, the 14 moderate Senators who worked together to keep the Senate from using the nuclear option to end Democrat filibusters on judicial nominees. He was pro-environment, and against passing several of Bush's tax breaks.

But that was the old McCain. Now we are in the era of the McCain who goes to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to give a commencement address, even though he once called Falwell an agent of intolerence and said he would never back down from that opinion. McCain evidently realized that isolating the religious right might not be the way to become president. He also supports the teaching of intelligent design in schools, another pandering to the religious right. During Bush's reelection campaign in 2004, McCain became a staunch supporter of the same man who had run an extremely dirty primary campaign against him in 2000. He has been an unwavering supporter of the Iraqi war and Bush's actions there.

However, the final unveiling of McCain as a party line conservative was when he sold out and supported a bill that permits the administration to continue to use torture. For a little while back in September, it had looked like McCain, Sen. John W. Warner (R-VA.), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) were going to make the Bush administration clarify the interrogation tactics it was and was not allowed to use on detainees. These senators were being lauded for not giving in to the Bush administration and giving it a carte blanche for torture. But the so called compromise bill they came up with did just that. Basically it said that people who commit torture that causes serious bodily harm or death could be convicted of a felony, that there should be a ban on interrogation methods that inflict "serious and non-transitory mental harm", and none of these rules apply to people who committed torture before the bill goes into effect. So um, that's it? So you're saying...uh...only really, really bad torture is wrong? How is this new bill going to do anything to change what the CIA is currently doing? You'd think a man who had been a POW for years would take a more decisive stand against this issue, but I guess getting a few more conservative votes is more important.

2006-10-12T11:35:00.000-05:00

CNN, Rep. Chris Shays, and Pandas

There were some enlightening articles on CNN.com today. Well, maybe enlightening isn't the right word, because c'mon, it's CNN. CNN specializes in articles that you hit you emotionally, like child abuse, kitty cat stuck in well, Michael Jackson to marry Kevin Federline, Bush calls Ted Kennedy an Islamofacist. If you want articles with some substance and policy in them, you might want to read elsewhere.

But that doesn't mean their articles aren't interesting. Here's one- "Shays on Foley handling: At Least No One Died". Thank you Chris Shays(R-CT) for personally being responsible for giving your Democratic opponent for US Senate, Diane Farrell, a few more points in the polls. Hello? Do we only judge scandals by the body count? Cause I seem to remember a huge scandal, worthy of impeachment, surrounding a certain White House intern named Monica who is alive and well and hosting reality TV shows. And if body count is so important, where's the outrage over the ~45,000 dead Iraqis since the American invasion? See, Rep Shays was referring to Ted Kennedy and the infamous Chappaquiddick incident where his car went over a bridge and his passenger died. At least Hastert didn't kill anyone, Shays said. -3 points to Shays for insensitivity, especially when his opponent's own daughter had been a White House page a couple years back.

On a lighter note, CNN has deemed this topic worthy enough to go up on its list of top headlines- "Panda Cub Opens Eyes for First Time". The zoo veterinarian at the Atlanta Zoo says that the panda cub is "probably able to see now". No Way! So like, eyes are for seeing? And they work better if they're open? Wow, thanks CNN, I was kind of wondering if somehow panda's eyes were different from human's and maybe they like ate with their eyes or smelled with them, or something else all wacky.

But enough with the sarcasm, because pandas are really the cutest animals around. If I were an evil terrorist, I would totally kidnap Tai Shan, the baby panda at the National Zoo in DC. The Zoo has an excellent webpage about pandas, but for those who just want to gawk at pictures of baby Tai Shan, check this out.

Even though pandas are very popular, the 4 zoos in the US that have pandas are having a hard time affording them. These pandas are big pigs and eat up to 85 pounds of bamboo a day. In addition to food costs, the zoos have to pay 1 million dollars a year in rent per bear pair to the Chinese government, plus another million for conservation projects in China and America, and a one time fee of $600,000 for each cub born. The other zoos are in Atlanta, Memphis, and San Diego, and all 3 zoos say if they cannot renegotiate their contracts with China, the pandas will have to be returned. Sad.

2006-10-11T11:38:00.000-05:00

Grrrrr.

So I was almost finished typing my first big blog entry on the pertinent yet little discussed issue of "Does America need to bring back the draft?" when the stupid computer just shut off and I lost everything. So instead of trying to retype it all I'm going to ramble a little.

My favorite newspaper headline lately was related to the Rep. Mark Foley scandal. It was in the Washington Post, and paraphrased, it said "Hastert wants anyone connected to cover-up of Foley scandal to resign." Um, excuse me, Dennis? Uh, that would be you. yeah, you. I guess he meant just staff members, not any important people like a Speaker of the House or whatever.

I spent a semester in Washington DC (no, not as a Congressional page or a White House intern), and I remember my teacher warning our class against interning with certain Congressmen. Unfortunately, I can't remember if Foley was one of them, though I think he liked his men a little younger than college age. The only warning I can remember by name was Rick Santorum (R-PA). My teacher warned females against interning with this senator, and basically told us we would be treated like dirt, totally disrespected, and not given any kind of work to do. If you don't know, Santorum has built his reputation on being a champion of family values and is one of the most far-right Christians in the US Senate. He is against any kind of abortion rights, contraception, and privacy rights even in marriages, he is for teaching intelligent design in schools, he thinks society is founded upon children and marriage and that's why homosexuality is wrong, he says WMDs have been found in Iraq, and the clincher- he thinks anyone who didn't evacuate New Orleans during Katrina should be penalized. I guess it makes sense he would hold with other mainstream ideas like -females should not be in the workplace, females are too weak and fragile to answer constituents' mail or make photocopies, and any female who tries to have a job in his office should be shunned until they see the error of their ways and return home to start making babies (after they get married, of course).

Fortunately, Santorum is up for reelection this year and it's looking very likely that he is going to lose to Democrat Bob Casey. I was always surprised that a moderate state like Pennsylvania would vote for such a conservative Senator. Let's see if neighboring Ohio also ditches conservative senator Mike DeWine in favor of the progressive Sherrod Brown. I think Bob Casey has a stronger chance of winning Pennsylvania than Sherrod Brown does of winning Ohio, but Brown is running a surprisingly competitive race, especially for someone who is as liberal as he is. Not that being liberal should be liability. It would serve Harold Ford Jr well to be a little more liberal. He is running for US Senate in Tennessee, not a liberal stronghold. Yet he is conservative on so many issues that there is little to motivate liberal voters to come out and vote for him, especially when his opponent Bob Corker is a fairly moderate Republican. I understand that he needs to try to win as many moderate voters as possible, but he also needs to win every single liberal vote in the state to win. And right now those liberal voters are wondering why they should support a candidate who's going to vote yes on torture bills, and continually refuse to clarify his position on abortion.

Oh well, never a dull moment in politics.

2006-10-11T10:23:00.000-05:00

Testing 1..2...3..