Now I'm confused

I've watched much of the hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice. In fact, I've actually watched about 5 or 6 hours, and I've got a few more hours on my TiVo that I'm trying to catch up on. (I wasn't kidding when I said it's riveting television. This is the true "reality TV," with real life-or-death stakes. Yeah, you have to wait 30 or 40 years to find out the full score, but it's better action than watching golf on television, even with Tiger Woods, and only slightly longer than a game of cricket.) None of Judge Roberts' testimony that I've seen so far gives me serious pause, and I had until today not seen a convincing argument against him, nor have I even yet heard a clear indication from his opponents of what an acceptable nominee would look like. Furthermore, my Senators have not yet given me any indication that this nomination is worthy of a filibuster.

Democrats, it is time to shit or get off the pot.

Why is it that the American people have such a strong sense that the Democrats would oppose John McCain if he were the Chief Justice nominee?

John McCain never attended law school, but I think we could get him at least an honorary Doctor of Laws, based on just a wee bit of on-the-job experience in the field. I defy the American Bar Association to rate him unqualified. John McCain has an impeccable reputation for fairness and honesty, whether you ask Republicans or Democrats, or even independents! It is true that John McCain personally opposes abortion, but I trust him when he says he accepts that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. (Beyond that, I can imagine John McCain facilitating the creation of common ground in the abortion debate. The phrase that appeals to me is "safe, legal, and rare." We have to find some middle ground — abortions available with some set of restrictions that all sides can agree to.) How about John McCain for Chief Justice? How about John McCain as Chief Justice and John Roberts as Associate Justice?

If the Democrats don't have some pretty dazzling alternative, it is time to get out of the way. You need to demonstrate not only that Roberts is bad, but that there is someone else who would be better.

I said that I support the confirmation of John Roberts. I have rendered a decision on that case. Based upon the principle of stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by that which is decided"), I must stand by that decision, even if I might decide differently if I were now reviewing the case de novo (from scratch), unless I am presented with substantive evidence that my previous decision is unworkable.

In other words, if you can't even convince a blogger, then how are you going to convince the American people that your opposition to John Roberts is something more than knee-jerk?

(As I was writing this, I saw Senator Biden comment that if he believes that John Roberts will be an Antonin Scalia, he would vote not to confirm; if he believes Roberts will be a Tony Kennedy, he would vote to confirm; if he believes Roberts will be another William Rehnquist, he would probably vote to confirm, since it would preserve the status quo. Senator Biden himself admits that he, too, is confused by the process, so I don't feel so bad about wondering what the blank is going on here.)

I also found Senator Feinstein's comments illuminating:

I think there was significance in the fact that [John Roberts] laid out [the factors to be considered when you look at a precedent of the Supreme Court] at all, because he didn't have to do that. I didn't really expect he would ever answer [whether he would overrule Roe v. Wade], one way or another. I think it's an unrealistic expectation. My interest is to see, would he be open to reviewing various things carefully and cautiously, or did he come in with a bias? (We all grant that he's conservative, and there's nothing wrong.)

The nominee that I would anticipate from this President would've been really conservative, would've come in here and said what he was going to do, and probably could've mustered the votes, but it would've been definitive. I see nothing definitive, but I do see things that provide a level to believe that this is a fine legal scholar, who will truly look at the law. I think he said he gives a serious regard to precedent. — Senator Dianne Feinstein, John Roberts confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate, 2005-09-15

The other thing is, I would really like to hear from the Boy Scout troup that John Roberts spoke to the day after he was nominated as an Associate Justice. What did John Roberts say to a group of Boy Scouts about what he believes a judge's role should be? Let's get that on the record, so that if he violates his stated principles we can throw at him that he lied to a bunch of Boy Scouts.

I would also like to mention a quote from Senator Paul Simon (D-Illinois) at the confirmation hearing for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoted this week by Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) in reference to nominee John Roberts: "You face a much harsher judge than this committee. That's the judgment of history. And that judgment is likely to revolve around one question: Did you restrict freedom or did you expand it?" [Thanks to Scoop Independent News for highlighting that quote.]

Still, it is telling that such an impressive array of African Americans, and others, came to speak of their lack of faith that the Supreme Court as an institution will treat them fairly. I single out African Americans in that comment because the simple reality is that African Americans have a unique perspective on oppression and inequality in the United States, as do Native Americans. Many segments of our nation have known oppression and unfair treatment, but only African Americans have been literally enslaved within our nation's borders, and only Native Americans have been the victims of genocide here.

Give me a convincing rebuttal to witnesses like Theodore Shaw, Nathaniel Jones, and also people like Judith Resnik, Marcia Greenberger, and Beverly Jones.

You [Senate Judiciary Committee] are considering, under the Constitution’s Advice and Consent clause, the fitness of a Supreme Court nominee who has, in the past, argued against the use of federal judicial power to eradicate the vestiges of slavery and badges of servitude. This record triggers serious questions and demands straight answers. — The Honorable Nathaniel Jones, retired federal judge, 2005-09-15

Whatever else you say, there are clearly large segments of our nation who are NOT satisfied that a Supreme Court chiefed by John Roberts would protect the legal rights essential in their lives.

And then there's Robert Reich. He is so brilliant that he gets his own thread.

Read More......

Confirm John Roberts

I'm sitting here watching today's confirmation hearing for John Roberts to be the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. My conclusion, after watching several hours of the testimony over the last couple of days, is that John Roberts is the best nominee we can hope for from our current Commander-in-Chimp. Barring some major unforeseen catastrophe in his remaining testimony, it is my view that he should be confirmed by the Senate.

We don't know whether or not John Roberts would have voted with or against the majority had he been on the Court in 1973 to decide Roe v. Wade. However, I am satisfied that John Roberts has appropriate respect for the value of precent (stare decisis) in our judicial system. In a few cases — Plessy v. Ferguson, Bowers v. Hardwick, and, soon, I would hope, Kelo v. New London — it is necessary and proper for the Supreme Court to reverse a standing precedent. However, those cases are the exception, even if the judges now sitting on the Court might have voted differently on the previous case. When the Supreme Court decides a case, that decision should be firm and solid unless that decision is so flawed as to be completely unworkable. That principle is — as Judge Roberts affirmed in his confirmation hearing — allows the people to rely on the settled understanding. The Court must always tread carefully in reconsidering any decision on which people rely in making substantive decisions about their lives.

George W. Bush on his best day is a far worse, stupider, crazier, more psychotic President than Ronald Reagan on his worst, but John Roberts is no Robert Bork. I opposed Robert Bork, and I remain glad to this day that he is not on the Court. He is undoubtedly not the person I would nominate, but I do believe that the Senate should vote to confirm John Roberts. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, but I know enough about the law to follow the questions in the Roberts hearing. Even without pubic hairs on Coke cans, this hearing was riveting television. No, I'm not kidding. I would like to add, though, that while there were some annoying moments, I felt that the Senators conducted themselves quite professionally, with intellectual rigorousness and sincere devotion to their patriotic duty. In that assessment, I include Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, but also Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch and Lindsay Graham. The only exception, to my knowledge, is Tom Coburn, whose performance in the hearing was a disgrace to the Senate, to the Republican Party, to the Constitution, and to the State of Oklahoma.

John Roberts is not a deranged ideologue inhabiting a completely different reality from the rest of us — in other words, he is neither a Robert Bork nor a George W. Bush — he is a thoughtful, careful jurist. In fact, my view of both George W. Bush and the people who actually run the government is moderated by watching John Roberts in action.

Of course, all that C–SPAN (tape-delayed replay of the part I missed live this afternoon) means that I now have both a Daily Show and a Nightline to go back to. (Is it any wonder that I love Sarah Vowell?) In the mean time, sign me up as the charter member of Genderqueer Gay San Francisco Progressive Democrats for John Roberts.

Read More......

Full-frontage failure

In today's San Francisco Chronicle, reader Robert Becker from Yolo County (about 150 km NE of San Francisco) writes about the breadth of the Bush administration's failures, not just in the Katrina response, but across the board. Click here and scroll about halfway down for the full text of the letter from the SFChron web site.

As this country awakens to the nightmare of Bush-think, don't we need an impartial, bipartisan debate that scrutinizes everything that has gone wrong in the last five years? What if we need prompt, strong steps to redeem America from enduring more failures "on all fronts"? ... This country is not unlike New Orleans — still taking water, listing and crying for effective emergency responses. — Robert Becker, letter to the editor, 2005-09-14

In what arenas has the Bush administration been an abject failure? Let's see:

• Iraq war justification
• Iraq war planning
• Iraq war aftermath
• Fiscal restraint
• Medicare drug benefit (intentionally lied to Congress, which fits under "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the sense of Article II, Section 4)
• Protection of the environment
• just about everything else he's done in office

It is time for not just Michael Brown, the unqualified, ineffective leader of FEMA, but also for George W. Bush, the unqualified, ineffective leader of the United States of America, to recognize his incapacity and mitigate the damage of his bungling by removing the source of the problem: himself. Of course, Cheney must also go, which means that we will have Dennis Hastert as President. What I am advocating is a wrenching change, but it is even more necessary today than it was necessary for Richard Nixon to leave on August 9, 1974. The pain of an unwarranted impeachment campaign against President Clinton pales in comparison to the pain of a justified impeachment of President Bush.

Mr. Bush, it is your patriotic duty to step down and let someone capable of handling the office of President take over. For the sake of the nation, resign! Do you really want your legacy to be that you were the first President impeached and removed from office? That is where "stay the course" will take you.

Read More......

California-style Recall Election for Dubya

The Bush faction overwhelmingly supported the recall of California Governor Gray Davis less than a year after he easily won re-election. It is now less than a year after President Bush won election to a second term, and America is finally waking up to the realization that, only partly due to circumstances beyond his control, President Bush is doing a terrible job of leading our nation. Should we not remove this buffoon from office, just as we did Gray Davis? The piracy of Enron wasn't Gray Davis's fault (indeed, it was more George Bush's fault), but his response to it was ineffective and inadequate. Likewise, the hurricane wasn't Dubya's fault, but his response to it was ineffective and inadequate. Further, the devastation in Iraq is Dubya's fault, because he led us into it with his ineffective and inadequate leadership.

In the next three years, there is no possibility that the U.S. Constitution will be amended to provide for the popular recall of the President and Vice President, and I'm not sure that it should be. However, the mechanism currently in place is perilously close to being triggered. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been consistenly and flagrantly derelict in the duties of their offices and of their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and that is a path that must lead to impeachment if indeed Bush continues to "stay the course."

Read More......

New Google Blog-search Tool

Google has a new tool specifically for searching blog entries (like this one!). Check it out at blogsearch.google.com, but keep in mind it's still in "beta," so it may misbehave at first. Hopefully Google will iron out any remaining glitches in this promising feature.

Read More......

Gwen Araujo jury rejects "tranny panic" defense

In the retrial of the three individuals charged with the murder of "transgender teen Gwen Araujo," as she is consistenly called, the jury firmly rejected the defense contention that the fact that Gwen concealed her male anatomy from her sexual partners in some sense justified their decision to kill her.

The jury reached a guilty verdict on charges of 2nd-degree murder on two of the defendants, and deadlocked on the third by a vote of 9-3 to convict. It remains to be seen whether the last defendant will receive a third trial.

However, the fact that the jury completely repudiated the victim's status as a transgender person as a justification for her murder, stands as a victory for justice and the rule of law.

Read More......

I Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution

Just minutes ago, a federal judge here in San Francisco ruled that the recitation in public schools of the current form of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "one nation under God," is unconstitutional and impermissible, in line with the precedent of the 9th Circuit.

Attorney Michael Newdow brought the case on behalf of three unnamed parents, since his suit last year was dismissed on technical grounds. The subject is headed back to the Supreme Court, although that Court will have two new faces on it.

Newdow hit the bullseye with this quote:

Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, "We are one nation that denies God exists." I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, "Oh, what harm is that." They'd be furious. — Michael Newdow, to the Associated Press, 2005-09-14

The United States Constitution says that there shall be no establishment of religion in this nation. That means that the government must not prefer the exercise of one set of religious beliefs over another.

Removing the words "under God" from the Pledge, as Newdow and others advocate, does not express a preference for atheism, nor does it in any way discourage, disparage, or burden the exercise of faith in God. It simply returns the Pledge to the religiously neutral ground of patriotism, where it belongs.

The history of the Pledge is too often left out of the discussion of those two words. The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who was a Baptist minister. However, before the so-called Christian Right leaps to claim Bellamy as their own, I hasten to add that Bellamy was also a utopian socialist. Bellamy was kicked out of his Baptist church in Boston for preaching socialism.

The original wording was:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Bellamy considered adding the word "equality" near the end, but that would've been too controversial in an era in which women and Negroes were not considered the equals of white men. The words "under God" were not added until 1954, during the "commie under every bed" period of anti-Communist hysteria.

I endorse this wording for the Pledge:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty, and justice for all. [uncredited slightly modified version of Bellamy's original Pledge]

If our Nation is to be indivisible, we must learn to stand together, Christian and Jew, Jew and Moslem, Moslem and Hindu, monotheist and polytheist, and even fundamentalist and atheist. If freedom of religion only means the freedom to pick exactly one god, it is not freedom at all.

Read More......

Kurt Vonnegut's list of "Liberal Crap"

The Daily Show web site has updated with Kurt Vonnegut's list of "Liberal Crap I Never Want to Hear Again." Check it out.

Read More......

Kurt Vonnegut on the Daily Show

Kurt Vonnegut has been busy promoting his new book, A Man without a Country, showing up on Bill Maher's show on Friday and on The Daily Show on Tuesday. He had a few choice words about our leadership in Washington. My favorite quotes:

My training is scientific, but I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine Engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this Engineer knows exactly what He or sHe is doing and why and where evolution is headed. That's why we have giraffes and hippopotami and the clap.

Everyone has been so mean about the President lately, as though he had caused the hurricane. He didn't. I'd like to say something good about him: he is not the dumbest man at the top of our government. The dumbest man at the top of our government is the Secretary of Defense. He is so dumb, he thought he could take over a country and its oil, population 27 million Muslims. He thought he could take it over — and the oil, which is what he was after — with a whole bunch of big BANGs and then 200,000 American soldiers who didn't even know how to say "Hello" in Arabic. What a mess he's made! I've wanted to give Iraq a lesson in democracy, because we're good at it. In democracy, after a hundred years, you have to let your slaves go, and after 150 years, you have to let your women vote. At the beginning of democracy, quite a bit of genocide and ethnic cleansing is OK, and that's what's going on now.— Kurt Vonnegut, on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 2005-09-13

You tell 'em, Kurt!

Jon Stewart promised to put up Kurt Vonnegut's list of "Liberal Crap I Don't Want to Hear Any More Of" on the Daily Show web site. As of this writing, I don't see it there yet, but I'll check again in the morning. Those East Coast folks just seem to get a 3-hour jump on us Californians for some reason.

By the way, if you want to know how to say "hello" in Arabic, it does not sound much like "kourat al-qadam."

Read More......

Next to fall on his sword: Senator Tom Coburn

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart skewered Senator Tom Coburn (Republican from Oklahoma) on Tuesday's show.

When I ponder our country and its greatness, its weaknesses, its potential; my heart aches for less divisiveness, less polarization, less finger-pointing, less bitterness, less mindless partisanship, which at times sounds almost hateful to the ear of Americans. — Senator Tom Coburn, in the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing for Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, 2005-09-13

Coburn is about as great an actor as Gray Davis, rising almost to the level of artistry of the bartender-turned-Congressman from The Love Boat, but not rising to nearly the level of a William Shatner, much less the creepy new D.A. on Law & Order. Happily, the folks at the Daily Show have an even better library of dusty old quotes than I do:

The gay community ... is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. — Sen. Tom Coburn, Spring 2004

I favor the death penalty for abortionists. — Sen. Tom Coburn, 2004-07-09

Indeed, Senator Coburn is so passionate about healing the partisan rift in our body politic that he was moved to do a crossword puzzle during Roberts' hearing.

It is this sort of inescapable airtight proof of hypocrisy on the part of a political figure that is the reason the Daily Show gives me such hope for the future of American democracy.

There is only one way out for Senator Tom Coburn. He has been caught undeniably faking it for purely partisan reasons, so his only path is to resign and remove himself from public life forever.

As President George W. Bush says, "I'm a divider, and if you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself." (as quoted by Stephen Colbert on the Daily Show)

Read More......

Hanson grows up

In a world full of plastic pop stars taken right from the cover of Lisa Simpson's Non-threatening Boys Monthly magazine, I saw these three children (the oldest one not only still too young for me to take serious notice, but also embarrassingly overshadowed by his "no other word for it" pretty middle brother) performing some fluffy bubblegum pop tune on MTV one morning as I was dragging my ass out of a motel room near the beginning of my two-month trans-Canada road trip. It was 1997. The tune was pretty meaningless, but it was catchy. I occasionally enjoy pretending I'm a high-school boy with a crush on someone like Nick Carter or the queenie one from New Kids on the Block [don't actually care enough to google for his name], but Hanson were all just way too young — if I had had a son right after college, he would've been about the right age to have a crush on the middle one. I wound up buying their Middle of Nowhere disc mostly as a prank on my friends who feign concern over my taste for younger men, nearly fainting when I expressed interest in a man who was almost two years older than I am, as a sort of a "You think I'm a chicken hawk? At least the guys I chase after are legal!" I put it in about the same category of serious musical interest as Weird Al Yankovic or Björk or Dick Feller.

The joke was on me. Unlike Back Street Boys or N'Sync or New Kids or Insert Interchangeable Boy Band Here, these children wrote their own songs, wrote their own lyrics, and played their own instruments, and they worked more on the song than on the choreography. Sure, the love song written by the pre-teen youngest brother was impossible to take seriously, so I always skipped over it, but that was a matter of limited life experience, not lack of musical talent. Put it this way: it was as good writing as the short story I did in fourth grade, and I like to think I've gotten better with experience. On the other hand, I can only just carry a tune in a bucket if I have a little help from a dozen of my friends.

Of course, the fact that I associate Hanson music with the great prairies and mountains of the Canadian west — including pulling off the road to wait out a summer thunderstorm while listening to "Where's the Love" and "Man from Milwaukee" — doesn't hurt their case, because Canada is Shangri-La or Tir na nOg, or something like that. Everything Canadian is wonderful — Degrassi, Matthew Ferguson, Rush, Queer As Folk, the last couple of years of X Files, half of Showtime's schedule, really just about everything except Celine Dion. Oklahoma isn't yet a province of Canada, but I'm patient. I can wait.

But I digress. After four years, Hanson has a brand new album released on their very own indie label, and it has reached #1 on the indie charts. Did I mention these Tulsa boys are serious about music? Their bubblegum pop roots still show, but so does the talent underneath, and (gasp!) artistic integrity. The oldest one also has graduated from gawky jailbait with braces to a bit more of a Matthew Fox look. I didn't even recognize the youngest one, who once saw himself in a video and asked "Who's the pretty girl?"

I'll close with a quote from the middle brother:

It’s not about us. Music is going down because it sucks. But you [the audience] have the power to change that. — Taylor Hanson, fall 2004

Zowie.

Read More......

Dubya's version of "Accountability"

Needlenose brought to my attention President Bush's statement an hour or so ago during his joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that "I take responsibility" for the failures in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Bush has been harping on the issue of "accountability" since the 2000 campaign. We need to hold our teachers accountable for the pathetic level of education of so many of our graduating high school students. We need to hold bureaucrats accountable for their wasteful expenditures. We need to hold the President accountable for getting a little extramarital nookie in the Oval Office. But we don't need to hold anyone accountable for lying about WMD's in Iraq, for failing to plan before the invasion of Iraq, for failing to plan after the invasion of Iraq, and for diverting resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden — thereby allowing him to walk free four years after the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Capitol Building attacks. [The Capitol appears to have been the intended target of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.]

We also focus more on the "disrespect" of photographing corpses that have been left to rot in the open in New Orleans, than on the disrespect of leaving them there in the first place. We couldn't get food and water to New Orleans in a hurry, but yet we have already issued open-ended no-bid contracts to Bush cronies to rebuild Naval bases. When money was sought to upgrade the ability of first responders to communicate in a crisis, it was rejected by the Bush administration. When money was sought to reinforce the levees, it was rejected by the Bush administration. Yes, the Clinton administration also rejected some proposals, but the fact that your predecessor made an error does not excuse your continuation of that error.

President George Walker Bush is personally and directly responsible for a great many of the problems in the United States and in the world today. Whether he will do anything more than make empty declarations that he accepts that responsibility, remains to be seen. Of course, it also remains to be seen whether Dubya is really a robot from a little lavender planet on the far side of Alpha Centauri. I'd give the two possibilities roughly equal odds.

Read More......

Open thread, anyone?

To commemorate last night's major milestone (the rolling of my blog's odometer into four whole digits!), I present you with an open thread.

What's up in Kiev, Zagreb, Utrecht, Hong Kong, Sydney, Wichita Falls, or Seattle, or wherever else you might be reading this fabulous blog?

(Utrecht, IJtrecht, we all trecht for Utrecht? Or should that be You crane, I crane, we all crane for Ukraine?)

Read More......

Questions for John Roberts

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, professor of law at the University of Tennessee, and blogger of InstaPundit, has an opinion piece in Monday's New York Times, discussing some of the issues of judicial philosophy that are crucial to the discussion of confirming a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Robert Bork, the lunatic ideologue whose presence on the Supreme Court we only narrowly dodged, describes the 9th Amendment as an "inkblot" with no substantive meaning. In case you don't have the entire Constitution memorized (or handily bookmarked, courtesy of Cornell University's Legal Information Institute), the 9th Amendment says simply, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The meaning is pretty simple: all rights and powers belong to the people except for those which they specifically give to the government, not the other way around. It is nothing less than the cornerstone of freedom in our nation.

The 9th Amendment is also the cornerstone of the "implied right of privacy" in Constitutional arguments ranging from abortion to the right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct without interference from Busybody Big Brother.

Reynolds also poses the question of what limits apply to the government's power in a time of war. Does a declaration of war remove all constraints on executive power, as President Bush seems to believe (even though he hasn't bothered to ask for a declaration of war!)?

I would also like to mention the lead editorial from the September 6 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, "Ten questions for John Roberts." All ten questions are apt, but I particularly appreciated #3, #5, and #9:

3. Do corporations have the same rights as individuals on matters such as free speech?

5. What is your view on the scope of the Commerce Clause? [Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3]

9. What is your view of "originalism," the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning at the time of ratification?

In the law, a corporation is a "fictitious person." It acts as an independent entity from the individual human beings who control it. The entire purpose of this legal structure is to allow corporations to do things like borrow billions of dollars without leaving the managers and directors personally liable for those debts. However, corporations do not have the same natural interests as actual humans. Even if a corporation has children, the concept of family loyalty is considered more of a bad thing than a good thing. Should a corporation have unfettered freedom to influence the political process? If not, what are the limits?

The Commerce Clause permits Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." Does that enable the Congress to demand that individual states pass mandatory seat-belt laws? Does it enable the Congress to pass a nationwide speed limit, or a nationwide minimum drinking age? Personally, I think that's more than a bit of a stretch. If indeed we need national (rather than state by state) legislation on these matters, we should explicitly amend the Constitution to permit it, rather than making the dubious argument that the drinking age in Fresno somehow affects Kentucky.

The problem with "originalism" and "the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution" is that the original intent of the Framers was quite clear: the words of the Constitution should be the sole reference in interpreting its meaning. That is precisely why the Framers quite intentionally left painfully sparse record of their debates. Any person who holds to the doctrine of "originalism" is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court or any other court in the United States.

With all due humility, I would also like to bring up an entry I placed in this here blog back when we were talking about mere appellate judges: "My Challenge to Bush's Judicial Nominees."

[Note: the New York Times web site requires free registration to view articles.]

Read More......

Senator Landrieu is part of the problem

Monday night's Daily Show highlighted comments that Senator Mary Landrieu (Democrat from Louisiana) made over in the last week regarding the blame for the inept, inadequate, and untimely response to Hurricane Katrina.

I intend to find out why the federal response, particularly the response of FEMA, was so incompetent and insulting to the people of our states. ... They gambled that no one would notice if Louisiana's critical and vital role in our national economy was threatened, and Washington rolled the dice, and Louisiana lost. — Sen. Mary Landrieu, on the floor of the United States Senate last week

Now is not the time for finger-pointing. ... [New Orleans] Mayor [Ray] Nagin and most mayors in this country have a hard time getting their people to work on a sunny day, much less getting them out of the city in front of a hurricane. — Sen. Mary Landrieu, on Fox News, 2005-09-11

It is absolutely true that FEMA's response was incompetent and insulting to the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. However, that point gets lost, not highlighted, by trying to sweep under the rug the responsibility that state and local officials share for the failures in preparing for and responding to the hurricane.

Americans must hold President Bush accountable for putting an unqualified person in charge of FEMA, and for leaving him in place for far too long. However, Americans, and especially Louisianians and New Orlinians, must also hold people like Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin accountable for the mistakes they made. The fact that FEMA was missing in action does not excuse the fact that the state and local governments also did too little, too late.

We've known for years that New Orleans would be submerged by a serious hurricane, and that the result would be that the city would be uninhabitable for months. Armed with that knowledge, the Congress should have given the Army Corps of Engineers the funding to improve the levees and repair the coastal wetlands. However, armed with that same knowledge, the city, the parish, and the state should have had emergency evacuation plans in place, ready to be put in motion. At the least, every person willing to evacuate should have had the means available to do so, and the fact that the means were scarce represents a failure at the local level.

It is FEMA's fault that thousands of people went for days without food and water at the Superdome and at the Convention Center. However, it is Mayor Nagin's fault and Governor Blanco's fault, and probably also the fault of whoever is in charge of Orleans Parish [equivalent to county government in most states], that there were so many people left with no other option.

The Democratic Party has much to gain by pressing for full accountability, but that principle must not be applied only to Republicans. For the sake of the American people, we must press for full accountability of all parties in this mess.

Why did it take FEMA so long to arrive in New Orleans? Why was FEMA so out of touch with the reality on the ground, even days after it arrived? Why did President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue on their vacations while thousands of people suffered needlessly? Why were dozens of school buses left to swim in the rising flood waters instead of being driven to safety, full of evacuees? Why did New Orleans not have an evacuation plan already in place for such an obvious potential calamity? Why did the State of Louisiana do so little to step into the breach left by the failures at the local and federal levels? ALL of these questions deserve answers, and soon.

Read More......

A "Man of God" Preaching Hate and Division in New Orleans

Nightline also featured J. Nelson Brown, the pastor of the Greater Saint Mary Missionary Baptist Church. Unlike Michael Brown, Reverend Brown took immediate concrete steps to help those stranded by the hurricane — his church provided cold water, hot meals, and ice to the people left in a poor, predominantly African American neighborhood of New Orleans, beginning the day after the hurricane hit.

The reporter, Jake Tapper, said, "It is worth noting that Brown believes God sent Katrina to the Delta."

There are some people that are saying, Why Katrina came to New Orleans. The wickedness of New Orleans. Just last week, Labor Day weekend, the "decadence fest" [Pridefest, the annual Lesbian/Gay Pride celebration] would have been held in New Orleans. But when God say, Enough, you've gone far enough, you've overstepped your bounds, then God steps in. — the so-called "Reverend" J. Nelson Brown of New Orleans

Back in the studio, Terry Moran, filling in for Ted Koppel in the anchor chair, closes off the segment saying, "one man of God, making a difference."

Just for starters, it is deeply offensive for a "man of God" to preach that God has sent Hurricane Katrina down to kill hundreds (possibly thousands) of people as punishment for the sin of allowing homosexuals to march in the streets. It is no less offensive than if the KKK were to declare that Katrina was God's punishment for mixed-race marriages. Nightline should be ashamed for failing to call out the bigotry more sharply: "it is worth noting" is hardly the condemnation such a statement demands.

There's another issue involved, though: the simple fact is that "Reverend" Brown apparently doesn't know how to read a calendar, because Pridefest took place in New Orleans almost three months ago, the third weekend in June, although "Southern Decadence" had been scheduled for Labor Day weekend. Or did someone forget to tell God that the organizing committee changed the date this year? "Oops, sorry folks, I meant to smite thee a while back, but I was taking a nap."

[Mea culpa indeed. "Pridefest" (the gay pride parade) took place this year in New Orleans in mid-June. However, "Southern Decadence," a much more sexually oriented gay event, was scheduled for Wednesday, August 31 through Monday, September 5, corresponding quite closely to the time that Hurricane Corinna, um, I mean, Katrina struck the Big Easy and breached the levees. I maintain, all the same, that my analogy to the KKK holds, as most definitely does the paragraph below. As for accountability, I was wrong in "correcting" the chronology, and doubly wrong to claim it as a news "scoop," and I admit it freely.]

Make no mistake: I applaud J. Nelson Brown's efforts to feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, and give blessed ice to the overheated, most especially because the government (state and local, as well as federal) has been AWOL in providing relief, particularly in the Algiers neighborhood. However, I call upon all good Americans and all good Christians to condemn his attribution of this disaster to God's wrath upon homosexuals, just as we must all condemn Pat Robertson's call to assassinate the President of Venezuela, and just as all good Muslims must join with people of good will all over the world in condemning Osama bin Laden's twisted, hateful version of Islam.

[Incidentally, as far as I can tell, I am the first news outlet to report on this little news item. My very first "scoop"! If you repost information from this report, please link back to The Third Path, including the retraction.]

[Incidentally, contrary to previous postings, in this blog entry, strikethrough indicates prior version text now deleted, and red text indicates new text added.]

Read More......

FEMA staffer on Nightline

Leo Bosner, a 26-year veteran at FEMA, spoke on Monday's ABC News Nightline. He lays much of the blame for the mismanagement of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort at the feet of Michael Brown, whom he describes as "a great guy," but unqualified to run FEMA. The new acting director, R. David Paulison, does have actual emergency management experience, which is a promising sign. However, unless major changes are made, FEMA is going to lose many of its career staffers — their pride in their work was their main reward, since they aren't making the big bucks, and now that pride has been taken from them because the top job at FEMA has gone to Congressmen who lost their re-election bids and to college friends of college friends.

Even more importantly, Homeland Security is impeding FEMA's rescue efforts. DHS staffers call FEMA, insisting that emergency responders drop everything to fill in the numbers so that Secretary Michael Chertoff can tell his press conference exactly how many pounds of ice were delivered to such-and-such county.

I would hope that the administration would realize they need to take this seriously, make FEMA an independent agency, and put someone in charge who has an emergency background. If they can do that, I can be an optimist; if not, I'll take my retirement. — Leo Bosner, 2005-09-12, on ABC's Nightline

The debacle created by President Bush's rampant cronyism is only beginning. Removing Michael Brown from the picture was a necessary, but not sufficient, step in restoring FEMA to the competence and dedication to duty that were once its hallmarks.

Read More......

U.S. Policy on Nuclear Weapons

The Washington Post discovered a draft of a U.S. military policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons, posted on a publicly accessible web site. Of course, the DoD has removed the document, but not before it was archived on other non-government sites, including the one linked above.

U.S. policy regarding first use of nuclear weapons is intentionally ambiguous to avoid giving the impression of having a list of circumstances in which we would not make a first nuclear strike. However, one specific scenario envisioned by the current draft document is the imminent threat of a strike using biological weapons where a nuclear blast is the only safe way to neutralize the biohazard. After all, if you toss a stick of dynamite into a container of aerosolized anthrax, you get the anthrax spread almost as effectively as if the terrorists did it themselves, but a nuclear blast hotter than the surface of the sun would toast the anthrax into a nice caramelized dessert topping.

The United States is debating resuming development of "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons, designed specifically to take out hardened subterranean targets, including a bunker drilled directly into the side of a mountain. Nuclear weapons are almost unimaginably powerful, but they also carry enormously damaging side effects, poisoning the landscape for generations to come. The fuel-air bomb (thermobaric explosive) carries an explosive punch exceeded only by nuclear weapons, and it can create an overpressure equal to a nuke. Any chemical or biological weapon within the blast area would be incinerated. The benefits of a bunker-buster nuke do not outweigh the costs of even being perceived as willing to contemplate using one.

Read More......

Ooh, baby, give me that comma!

My hit counter is poised on the brink of its very first comma! One day, when this blog is read by every sentient being in 27 neighboring galaxies, you, dear Reader, will be able to say that you were here in the early days, when you had to walk two miles [3.218 km] through the snow to read The Third Path over a 45-baud TTY connection. Warble, warble, weeble. Well, something like that.

Read More......

Bye, Bye, Brownie!

Mike Brown has resigned as director of FEMA, "to avoid further distraction from the ongoing mission of FEMA." In other words, "to let someone competent take over the job so that more people don't suffer unnecessary misery." Let's hope that David Paulison fits that bill, at least in the interim.

Today is a red-letter day: someone in the Bush administration actually accepted responsibility for his incompetent malfeasance! Will September 12th go down in history as a more important date than September 11th?

Bush highlighted the admittedly admirable fact that he signed declarations of emergency even before the hurricane hit the Gulf Coast. However, the fact that he saw ahead of time what an enormous potential for disaster serves only to highlight his lack of follow-through. If he signed these emergency declarations in advance, why did he and his entire administration take so abysmally little concrete action to mitigate the disaster? Why did it take so long for federal assistance to reach New Orleans, even with a significant head start?

Michael Brown has fallen on his sword, implicitly admitting that his incompetence and ineptitude cost the lives of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of American citizens. Now all we need to do is pass the sword up the chain of command to its incompetent, inept head. Brownie was a buffoon, but the responsibility for putting him in charge rests with the chimpanzee who appointed him.

I want to address one point of unwarranted criticism of the Bush administration and of President Bush personally. The charge has been laid by many, including musician Kannye West, that George W. Bush doesn't care about black people. Nothing could be farther from the truth! George W. Bush is not a racist. He does not care about the color of your skin. The truth is that George W. Bush doesn't care about poor people, and it is a mere accident of history that poor people are disproportionately black. George W. Bush has no less interest in helping poor black people than in helping poor white people or poor albino Puerto Ricans.

Of course, given that David Paulison, the interim FEMA director, is the very same man who recommended that every household keep plastic sheeting and duct tape in its emergency kit to protect against an anthrax attack, I can't say that I'm overly optimistic that FEMA is headed in the right direction. Vice Admiral Thad Allen, the new point person for Hurricane Katrina relief and a career Coast Guardian with over three decades of experience, is a rare ray of hope in a depressingly benighted landscape.

Read More......

Libération speaks about Katrina and Bush

PBS's The McLaughlin Group today featured a quote from the French newspaper Libération about the true colors of the Bush administration. After the 2004 election, Libération's headline was "L'Empire Empire," which is French for "The Empire Gets Worse." (The pun doesn't translate, but the sentiment does.)

This week, Libération said (by McLaughlin's translation):

On September 11, America found a common cause for pride in the bravery of its [people]. This time, there is no heroism and nothing left to see but the dark side of the empire — that of a country gnawed away by money and segregation, in which those shipwrecked in the system are left behind, abandoned to the elements.

[Note: as was highlighted by another quote on today's program, the fact that Libération printed such a quote does not necessarily reflect the paper's editorial position. I was not able to find this quote in French or in English on Libération's web site.]

McLaughlin also quoted some other European newspapers:

Where was the President in his country's hour of need? And why has it taken him five days to go to New Orleans? — The Independent, London

Third World America — The Daily Mail, London

The Tragic Cost of Bush's Iraq Obsession — The Financial Times, London; note that this particular headline was by a guest columnist

Incredibly Unprofessional — Deutsche Zeitung, Germany

For Bush, the poor do not exist! — Le Figaro, France

Was Katrina Colorblind? — Der Spiegel, Germany

Katrina: Ordeal for a Blind America — Le Temps, Switzerland

The Europeans quite clearly perceive the horrific destruction of Hurricane Katrina and the astonishingly slow response (causing the suffering to be far greater than it might otherwise have been). President Bush dropped the ball by putting unqualified cronies in important positions. He dropped the ball again by slashing FEMA's funding. He dropped the ball again by responding slowly to the crisis, and he's dropped the ball yet again with his response to the criticism.

The weekend edition of Libération, by the way, carried the headline "Pompons les pétroliers. À la suite des profits records qu'ils ont engrangés, le ministre de l'Économie a menacé de les taxer. Résultat immédiat: Total et BP baissent le prix de l'essence." In plain English: "Let's pump the oil companies. Following the record profits they garnered, the Minister for the Economy threatened to tax them. Immediate result: Total and BP lowered the price of gasoline."

Gosh, us Americans don't know nothin' 'bout no oil companies makin' windfall profits from the sudden disruption in oil supplies. I reckon we'd better give them oil companies some more tax breaks so's they'll have some incentive to go out and drill fer oil. Yep.

Read More......

Imaginary Risks

We have been hearing about how the glut of warnings — some of which prove to be uncanny for their foresight, while others are empty blathering — as if that somehow excuses the fact that all layers of government shirked their responsibility to take action to prevent or reduce the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina.

We knew that the levees were not designed to withstand a Category 4 or 5 hurricane, and we even knew they would not withstand a slow-moving Category 3. We also knew that it was an absolute certainty that such a hurricane would eventually hit New Orleans. Yet the city of New Orleans, Orleans Parish, the State of Louisiana, and the federal government all brushed aside those inconvenient reports.

Meanwhile, the media's response has been to say, as in Michael Kinsley's fatuous self-serving op-ed piece in today's Washington Post [see below], we had so many warnings about all these various dangers, how were we supposed to know?

The answer is that the media needs to ask tough questions — as it is finally remembering how to do in the aftermath of Katrina — and make an honest effort to objectively evaluate the claims of various factions.

We have some people telling us that frequent use of a cellphone might cause BRAIN CANCER [warning: overuse of the BLINK tag in HTML may cause seizures], and that risk is presented on an equal footing with the counter-claim that there is absolutely no evidence of even a correlation (much less causation) between cellphone use and cancer.

Here are a few things I can tell you with absolute scientific certainty about cellphone use:

• the radiation from a cellphone cannot cause cancer
• the risk of any other harm from cellphone radiation is tiny
• little foil stickers do nothing to reduce the risk
• if you're really concerned, just get a hands-free kit — it will reduce the risk a million-fold

I can also tell you that evolution and "intelligent design" are not scientific equals worthy of the same level of respect. Global warming is not some insubstantial scientific fad of the moment.

I can tell you with absolute political certainty that critical thinking on the part of the people, and most especially on the part of the press, is essential to democracy. Not all risks are equal, so we need to appraise the risks in order to set sensible priorities.

Read More......

I Pledge a Grievance to the Flag

I was given an interesting poster at Burning Man the other day:

I pledge a grievance to the flag of the Plighted Stakes of America, and to the republics upon which it stands, one nation, playing God, blind and visible, with the illusion of Liberty and Justice for all. — Jupiter Jones

[If you want a copy, contact passionpeace @t hotmail d0t com, or send $10 money order to P O Box 620892, Woodside CA 94062-0892.]

The United States flag is a symbol of liberty and justice. However, just as the Confederate battle flag represents both southern pride and the racist legacy of slavery, so, too, the stars and stripes have also come to represent American imperialism and in general a "fuck you" attitude towards the entire world.

The solution is for the nation to recommit itself to the principles for which the flag is meant to stand.

Read More......

Hindsight: A User's Guide

Today's Washington Post carries an editorial from the opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, Michael Kinsley, in which he says, "There is no foresight. We fight the last war because hindsight is all we have."

If so, that in itself is a remarkable indictment of our nation, our politicians, and our entire society. It is, in particular, an abdication of the responsibility of our news media.

Anyone who has watched the National Geographic Channel in the last decade knew that New Orleans was in danger of being submerged by a medium-to-large hurricane. It was no great secret. It was not hidden in some arcane technical journal. The Army Corps of Engineers has been warning Congress about it for years. As Kinsley acknowledges, in August 2001, the federal government reported that a devastating flood of New Orleans was one of our top three potential national disasters. And yet the ACOE's proposal to spend $2.5 billion to strengthen the levees was rejected, because it was not "cost-effective." This wasn't a "dusty Corps of Engineers report in a filing cabinet somewhere" [Kinsley's phrase], it was a prominent report loudly trumpeted from the ramparts — and yet it was still ignored.

We knew that a catastrophic flood was likely, we knew that it would cost tens, possibly hundreds, of billions of dollars to recover from, and yet $2.5 billion to prevent it was "not cost-effective"? It is certainly true that the Clinton administration — and the Clinton-era Republican Congress — share blame for underfunding prevention efforts, and Louisiana politicians share blame for directing federal money to politically motivated projects, but if the Bush administration had reacted responsibly and in a timely manner to the August 2001 report, New Orleans would be returning to normal today instead of anticipating months of clean-up and years of rebuilding. The record is clear and unmistakable.

Yes, that's in hindsight, but it's hindsight not of foresight lacking, but of foresight ignored.

Our political leaders are supposed to have vision, including foresight. They are also supposed to listen to the wise counsel of experts. They are supposed to dig until they find solid truth upon which they can rely in making their decisions.

Was appointing political cronies to the top three positions at FEMA an example of vision or foresight? Was it listening to the wise counsel of experts? How about slashing the budget for FEMA the year after we had four hurricanes in six weeks in a single state? How does that stand up for wisdom or foresight?

Indeed, our current government not only ignores foresight, it all too often brushes aside hindsight. Was it a good idea to invade Iraq on false pretenses, with inadequate force to restore order? Oh, we mustn't play the "blame game." Freedom is on the march.

Also, the news media are supposed to take the overwhelming glut of warnings, both from inside and outside the government, and filter them through a critical appraisal. We had a warning that New Orleans was in danger of flooding. Was that warning on target? Was ignoring that warning a wise policy decision? Was deepening the Port of Iberia, Louisiana, a more important project than strengthening the levees? Then why was it funded? These are the questions that the Fourth Estate is supposed to ask, but the media has become more of a lap dog than a trusty news hound.

I can give you another, more 9/11-related example. I flew to Texas for my recent trip to Crawford. Because I purchased my ticket less than a week before my departure, I was "randomly" selected for extra security measures. As I approached the TSA employee, I said, "I've been randomly selected for having bought my ticket less than a week in advance." (It's no great secret, either: my ticketing confirmation warned me that, due to the last-minute nature of my travel, I should allow extra time for security procedures.) The screener's response: "Yeah, we really should refine that one." Any security measure that is that obvious to everyone, serves no useful purpose. The same goes for automatically picking everyone with a one-way ticket. Suppose just for a moment that you're a terrorist, bent on sacrificing your own life for the glory of your cause. Is there any real point in making you plan more than a week in advance and buy a round-trip ticket, as a means of throwing a monkey wrench into your plans? Do you really think that Mohammed Atta just woke up on a Tuesday morning and decided, yeah, I think today's a good day to die?

The problem with our society is not that we have no foresight, but that we have too few willing to make a critical evaluation of the deluge of conflicting foresight. We dismiss as pork-barrel a request for major funding to prevent a flood, without considering that it might actually be money well spent.

[Thanks to Bill for calling this article to my attention. Also please note that the Washington Post requires free registration to read articles on its site.]

Read More......

Bill Maher, live and in person

Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, made an in-person appearance this afternoon at A Clean Well-Lighted Place for Books in San Francisco. He did a brief Q&A with the people waiting for autographs, and then got down to the business of signing books. I gave him my "Bush's Chicken" cup as a souvenir.

Bill Maher is one of a handful of people who give me hope for the survival of America and American democracy.

Read More......

Brownie quietly shuffles back to Washington

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was just on C-SPAN at a press conference announcing that FEMA director Michael Brown has been relieved of duty overseeing the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and nearby areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Chertoff brushed aside a direct question as to whether this move was a prelude to Brown's resignation, but it's a question that won't go away so easily.

Michael Brown's management of the Katrina crisis has been woefully inadequate and hopelessly incompetent — an obvious and foreseeable result of the Bush administration's policy of filling crucial posts with political cronies who lack all relevant knowledge and experience. Not only Michael Brown, but also the #2 and #3 posts at FEMA, must be fired immediately, since they didn't have a single day of emergency management experience among them before this crisis. Running FEMA is not a task for which on-the-job training is appropriate. Lives are at stake, as is the economic survival of the entire region. This is not a time for faith-based direction, but rather direction based on experience and solid planning. I sincerely hope that Vice Admiral Thad Allen (Coast Guard) and Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré (Army) are better equipped than Brownie and his cadre of clowns.

Read More......

George Bush's eulogy for William Rehnquist

Here is what George W. Bush had to say about the impact that William Rehnquist had on our nation in his 33 years of service on the Supreme Court of the United States:

William H. Rehnquist was born and raised in Wisconsin. He was the grandson of Swedish immigrants. Like so many of his generation, he served in the Army during World War II. He went on to college with the help of the G.I. Bill. — President George W. Bush, as replayed on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart 2005-09-08

To be fair, Dubya did get someone to ghost-write a somewhat more in-depth eulogy for the memorial service, although it was still fluff like "We remember the integrity and the sense of duty that he brought to every task before him."

Read More......

Ted Koppel on Preparing for Disaster

Ted Koppel on ABC News Nightline 2005-08-30:

We don't like anticipating disasters. It suggests pessimism and America is largely a nation of optimists.

But when you look at the damage inflicted by an accidental storm, you have to think about the sheer havoc that an intentional terrorist attack may produce one of these days.

We want to believe that no one will ever use a weapon of mass destruction against one of our cities. But it's almost inevitable that someone will. We don't like to hear that; we certainly don't want to contemplate the consequences. But we need to talk about it and we need to plan for it.

The very worst thing you can do when confronting a potential disaster is to take the position that it'll never happen to us.

As of two days after the hurricane struck, the Bush administration was still maintaining that it could never happen.

This isn't a matter of "the blame game"; it is a matter of critical urgency that we remove Michael Brown and other incompetent Bush cronies before they can do any further damage to the recovery effort.

Read More......

NOAA Weather Alert on Katrina

The full text of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) alert issued at 10:11 a.m. (Central Daylight Time; = 15:11 UTC) on 2005-08-28 is available on the web. This is not some wacko conspiracy theory; the authenticity of this alert was verified by Brian Williams of NBC News on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on 2005-09-08.

Here are some selected quotes:

...Devastating damage expected...

Hurricane Katrina, a most powerful hurricane with unprecedented strength, rivaling the intensity of Hurricane Camille of 1969.

Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer. At least one half of well-constructed homes will have roof and wall failure. All gabled roofs will fail, leaving those homes severely damaged or destroyed.

The majority of industrial buildings will become non-functional. ... Airborne debris will be widespread, and may include heavy items such as household appliances and even light vehicles. ... Persons, pets and livestock exposed to the winds will face certain death if struck. ... Power outages will last for weeks ... Water shortages will make human suffering incredible by modern standards. ... Only the heartiest [trees] will remain standing, but be totally defoliated.— excerpts from NOAA alert issued at 2005-08-28 15:11 UTC

And yet President Bush, FEMA chief Michael Brown, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have all claimed that they had no way of knowing the hurricane would be devastating to New Orleans.

We had no way of knowing that Saddam didn't really have WMD's. We had no way of knowing that Saddam didn't really have WMD programs. We had no way of knowing that the people of Iraq would view us as occupiers, rather than greeting us as liberators. We had no way of knowing that some Iraqis would resist the occupation by force of arms. We had no way of knowing that thousands of extremists would flock to Iraq to help the resistance. We had no way of knowing that the war in Iraq would increase, rather than decrease, the risk of terrorist attacks in the United States and our allies. We had no way of knowing that a Category 5 hurricane would breach the levees in New Orleans. We have no way of knowing whether or not evolution is the best scientific explanation of the origin of species.

But we should have absolute faith in the man that President Bush wants to install as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, without asking pesky questions about things like his view of the Constitution and its role in society.

Read More......

Katrina and New Orleans

Almost immediately after returning from Crawford, I headed off to Burning Man, so I haven't had time to say much about Hurricane Katrina and the City Formerly Known as New Orleans. I grew up on the Gulf Coast, and I've seen hurricanes. I sat through a direct hit from a Category 2 hurricane in the Caribbean a couple of years ago. Even a mere "tropical storm" is not to be taken lightly, and Katrina was a hurricane of epic scale.

Hurricane Katrina has exposed the incompetence and callousness of the Bush administration with unprecedented clarity. Anyone who has watched television in the last five or ten years knew that New Orleans was in danger of catastrophic flooding if a major hurricane broke the levees that keep the Mississippi River, Lake Pontchartrain, and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico from reclaiming the city. The Army Corps of Engineers sought $2.5 billion to reinforce the levees, but the Bush administration insisted on slashing the ACOE's budget instead, because they needed the money for the war in Iraq and for tax cuts for the wealthy. One after another plea for funding to prevent this disaster was rebuffed. Building levees and sea gates and other mechanisms to prevent or at least control flooding is not the province of individual citizens or private enterprise. On this scale, I believe it is not even the province of local or state government, but rather of the United States government. Bush is willing to spend piles of government money to protect golf courses in Wyoming from non-existent terrorist threats, but not to protect an entire city from a well-known, entirely foreseeable natural threat. We are the righteous servants of God, so He will protect us from hurricanes, earthquakes, and plagues of locusts.

Congress has already allocated $10.5 billion in emergency aid for the Gulf Coast region, and more will be needed. The city of New Orleans will take months just to clean up before it can even think about rebuilding. The Port of New Orleans will be unusable for the foreseeable future, and economic devastation will ripple outwards, ultimately affecting every corner of the country. $3 gasoline is only the beginning. Certainly there would have been considerable destruction even if the New Orleans levees had held, but how can Bush justify refusing the money to bolster them?

Now Bush wants to keep all news media out of New Orleans, so that you won't see the piles of rotting corpses, especially the people who died after the hurricane passed through, waiting for relief that came too little, too late.

What should Bush have done? As Katrina was approaching New Orleans, he should have had Homeland Security mobilize a fleet of buses to carry evacuees out of the danger zone. About 20% of the population of New Orleans stayed behind simply because they had no way to get out, and the federal government hardly lifted a finger to help them. After the storm itself passed, Bush should have had FEMA on the ground within hours, with emergency food and water and medical care. Bush should have immediately federalized the national guards from nearby states such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, even before the hurricane hit, to help with evacuation, relief, and security.

Instead, Bush sat on his duff doing nothing, saying that no one could have predicted that which was repeatedly and loudly predicted.

The people of New Orleans have George Walker Bush to blame for their plight. It's time to make him pay for his blunders, for once in his life.

Read More......

Blame the Victim

Gwen Araujo was a transgendered teenager. She went out with some boys, and they wound up getting quite intimate, which was all fine and well until the boys found out that Gwen was born biologically male. According to testimony in the first trial and then in the re-trial, the boys beat her up, then tied her up, and then strangled her to death.

One of the defense attorneys argued in his closing statement that Gwen had "provoked" her own murder by deceiving these poor innocent boys into thinking that she was a "real" girl. (She was a real girl, just with some mismatched body parts.)

Solely for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Gwen wasn't a real girl, and that it was her fault that she deceived her sexual partners in that regard. Does that deceit in any way mitigate the crime of killing her? When the TV news talking head tells me that they'll be right back with an important story after these exciting messages from our sponsors, and they come back to tell me about the nice firemen rescuing Mrs. Appelschmutzling's kitten from the neighbor's pomegranate tree, does that shameful deception mitigate my crime if I go down to the studio and go postal? Or is it only a deception that makes the killer feel like less of a muy macho hombre that can partially excuse the crime? The defense attorney also described the killing as a crime in "the heat of the moment," which sounds a bit odd, given that, according to testimony in the trial, the boys beat up Gwen, took her to the garage, then argued about whether or not to kill her, and then strangled her. That's not a timeline that sounds much like "heat of the moment" to me.

It's so nice to know that we can still blame the victim in an American court of law.

[Read more about the Gwen Araujo murder re-trial at GwenAraujo.blogspot.com]

Read More......

Christopher Hitchens on the Daily Show

Christopher Hitchens was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart again the other night. Hitchens has travelled more to the "Axis of Evil" countries than any other journalist. (I for one certainly have no ambitions to overtake him.) He has been to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan and other places that Americans are being prodded into caring about. He has studied the Founding Fathers in great depth.

[President Bush's] Saying "fighting them over there instead of over here" is contradicting himself: it's either global or it isn't, so we're either fighting them everywhere or nowhere. ... That's stupid. — Christopher Hitchens, 2005-08-25

Where Hitchens begins to unravel is in his answer to Jon Stewart's question about the "urgency" of invading Iraq militarily when countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are home to the greatest supporters of terrorism; and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea are the greatest threats in terms of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Hitchens says that we waited 12 years to go into Iraq while they committed repeated aggressions against their neighbors, repeatedly violated their non-proliferation commitments, repeatedly harbored terrorists and gangsters, and repeatedly committed acts of genocide — each of which is grounds under international law for Saddam Hussein to have been stripped of his sovereignty in Iraq.

What Hitchens says is true, and yet it still fails to explain the sense of urgency for invading Iraq. None of those transgressions was specifically against the United States; they were offenses against the community of nations and against the people of Iraq and its neighbors. They were offenses that needed to be addressed by the community of nations, not by a single vigilante state, even with the help of the posse of the willing. A vigilante is as much of a threat to law and order as a cattle rustler.

Jon Stewart then hits the problem with the Bush administration squarely between the eyes.

The people who say that we shouldn't fight in Iraq, aren't saying it's our fault [that terrorists attack us]. That is the conflation that is most disturbing to me. ... There is reasonable dissent in this country about the way this war has been conducted, that has nothing to do with people believing we should cut and run from the terrorists, or we should show weakness in the face of terrorism, or that we believe that we have in some way brought this upon ourselves. They believe that this war is being conducted without transparency, without credibility, and without competence. ... I ridiculed the President [because] he refuses to answer questions from adults as though we were adults, and falls back upon platitudes and phrases and talking points. That does a disservice to the goals that he [Bush] himself shares with the very people he needs to convince. — Jon Stewart, 2005-08-25

As Jon Stewart observes, Bush addresses his critics as if we were retarded. I would add a second point: Bush addresses his critics as if he himself were retarded. In that respect, he reminds me of another slimy politician from Texas, former Speaker of the House Jim Wright. I lived in Dallas, right next to Wright's district in Fort Worth, so I saw more than my fair share of Jim Wright on local television as a kid. Even as a pre-teen, I found Wright's condescension infuriating. It's good ol' Jim Wright that we have to thank for the fact that it is illegal for a commercial airline to fly me from California to Dallas Love Field airport. For a good time, look up [ "Jim Wright" scandal ] on a search engine.

George W. Bush does not give direct answers to questions from those who do not already share his views. There are only two possible explanations: he is unwilling, or he is incapable. Which is it? Does Bush hold the American people in such low esteem that he refuses to address real and serious concerns about the way he is leading our country, or is he so mentally retarded that he cannot answer our questions? Back on May 31, President Bush spoke about "people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth"; was it really a slip of the tongue, or was that morning the first time Bush had ever heard that particular big word? Did he think from the puzzled look on the reporters' faces that perhaps he was using a big word they didn't know? Or is he just another graduate of the Jim Wright/LBJ/Tom DeLay school of respect and ethics?

Read More......

Learning from the Drudge Report

The Drudge Report has a page highlighting President Bush's counterpoint to the protest by Cindy Sheehan. Jon Stewart also showed a video clip of the President's photo op, in which Dubya said:

Tammy [Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho] has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard: Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff. Last year her husband, Leon, and another son, Aaron, returned from Iraq, where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul. Tammy says this — and I want you to hear this — "I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country." And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in. America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts. — President Bush, 2005-08-24, as quoted on DrudgeReport.com

Well, what can I say? How about this: unquestioning willingness to fight, die, and even kill based on blind faith that your cause is just and your enemy is evil, is exactly the justification that the terrorists use for their acts of barbaric inhumanity.

Am I equating the terrorists with George W. Bush and the Pruett family? No, far from it. Loyalty to your nation is an admirable trait, so long as it is tempered with skepticism towards your leaders. I am saying that unquestioning faith is the central threat to the very core of civilization. It matters less what the faith is in, than that it is blind and unyielding. Blind, unyielding faith in Pat Robertson's vision of God is no less threatening to America than blind, unyielding faith in Osama bin Laden's vision of Allah. Julius Caesar demanded blind, unyielding faith in his vision of the Roman Empire, including declaring himself a god. Osama bin Laden demands blind, unyielding faith in his vision of the pure Islamic global caliphate. George W. Bush demands blind, unyielding faith in his vision of Iraq, his vision of life and death and taxes, and his vision of morality and justice — and he thinks he gets it from the Pruett family.

[addendum, 2005-09-07: After the President highlighted her family, Tammy Pruett offered her condolences to military families who have lost loved ones, specifically including Cindy Sheehan. She also said that she did not want the Pruetts to be a "poster family" for the war: they support the war, but do not judge those who oppose it. She also said that if she were in Cindy Sheehan's shoes, having lost a son, she might be out there with the protesters.]

There are some realms of life in which blind faith is the right path. One of those is your choice of religion. It's silly to reason with someone about religious faith (not that I don't still try).

But George W. Bush doesn't trust your religious faith. He believes that the federal government must be remade in the image of only one religion. His religion says that abortion is wrong, so that must be the policy of the nation. His religion says that homosexuality is wrong, so it must be the policy of the nation that heterosexuality shall be the only true path. His religion says that Islam is wrong, so the United States must become a Christian nation. (The United States is not, and never has been, a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers intentionally did not enshrine Christianity in the U.S. Constitution even in the manner in which the Iraqi draft constitution enshrines Islam. Christianity, or even so-called Judeo-Christianity, is not the basis of our laws. To quote the very first treaty ever ratified by our young nation's new Senate, "[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." [Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate, 1797-06-10])

Islam is not our enemy. Blind faith is our enemy.

Read More......

A particularly clueless letter to the editor

The San Francisco Chronicle printed a letter to the editor in yesterday's edition that struck me for its utter and absolute cluelessness.

Go home, Cindy

Editor — I support Cindy Sheehan's right to protest the war in Iraq but I detest her giving hope and encouragement to the enemies of America. The Crawford media feeding frenzy and the platform for anti-war protesters goes way over the top. Thank goodness for all the brave American soldiers who volunteered and are fighting for our freedom. Casey [Sheehan] and all the others who gave their lives did not die in vain. Cindy, you have protested too long; now go home. Your home is not Washington, D.C.

— Bill Garrison, Napa (may have been edited by the Chronicle)

Where do I start?

I support your right to protest, as long as you don't protest too much. (In other words, you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't use it.) You are giving hope and encouragement to the enemies of America — such as? It is not Cindy Sheehan, but rather George W. Bush, who gives hope and encouragement to the enemies of America (such as al Qaeda and its pals) by giving them a recruiting poster and a training ground for terrorists to learn how to kill Americans (and our allies) in Iraq so they can be that much more efficient when they come here to do the same. It is not those who reveal that the United States is torturing prisoners who tarnish our nation's reputation, it is those who do the torturing, and even moreso those who condone or excuse or seek to conceal it.

As for all those volunteer soldiers in Iraq, how many of them actually volunteered to go to Iraq? Alternatively, how many of them were "stop-lossed" when they thought their stint was over — even months or years after being discharged? How many of them were promised the opportunity to make a little money and maybe help out in the event of a local disaster (oh, I don't know, maybe a hurricane) by being "weekend warriors"? The methods by which our military has obtained its "volunteers" in Iraq are shameful.

As for "your home is not Washington, D.C.," when I took civics, I was taught that our government was "of the people, by the people, and for the people," and that Washington, as the seat of our government, was the home of all the people, not just Republicans who support the illegal Iraq war.

It is not only Cindy Sheehan's right to protest this war, it is her duty to her nation and to the memory of her son. If Casey Sheehan's sacrifice inspires the American people to question what we are doing in Iraq and how the war is being mismanaged, then his death will not have been in vain.

Read More......

Wow, that's me!!

I did an audio interview with Brian Shields of KRON-4 online's "The Bay Area Is Talking" site. You can listen to it here.

Read More......

HBO's Rome and Dubya's America

I was watching HBO's excellent new miniseries Rome last night, and it really got me thinking.

In the period of Roman history covered in this week's episode, Rome is a republic, governed by the people. There is no king or emperor, although there is a system of hereditary nobility. A peasant can be elevated to noble by serving the Republic, but the son of a nobleman is noble by birth. Julius Caesar is a military commander, fighting a war in Gaul (France) while Pompey remained in Rome. The fear expressed by many Roman citizens is that Caesar's enormous popularity as both a military leader and as a "man of the people," delivering tax cuts and other populist measures, would lead him to declare himself king.

HBO does a pretty good job of conveying the qualities that made the Roman army so successful. They had far superior training and discipline, compared to their foes, and they were ruthlessly brutal. Roman soldiers did not waste time wounding opponents; they went directly for the deadly blow. No dissent of any kind was tolerated among the troops. Conquered soldiers were taken as slaves, if they were allowed to live at all. Random individuals would be tortured or crucified simply as a display of power against a village. A Gaul being hoisted on his cross begs not for his life, but "Please, let me die!" The Roman soldiers knew that if they deserted, they too would be crucified.

All in all, it sounds pretty much like George W. Bush's idea of paradise: the superficial trappings of democracy covering the reality of absolute rule by the unchecked exercise of military might and extreme torture. Of course, one of the key points to remember is that Dubya sees himself as Gaius Julius Caesar, not as some lowly soldier, and certainly not as a peasant farmer. Dare I even mention that it would never occur to Dubya to wonder what life was like for the slaves?

I've often said that those who compare Dubya to Adolf Hitler are dangerously wrong. Dubya has no ambition to exterminate the Jews. He doesn't believe in the supremacy of the Aryan race (only of wealthy Americans). He will exterminate the homosexuals and the gypsies only if it becomes politically expedient to do so. It is far more illuminating to compare Dubya to Julius Caesar. I'm not saying that Dubya is like Caesar, but rather that he thinks he is.

Remember this quote?: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." (George W. Bush, 2000-12-18)

A little advice to Dubya: if you're reading a story about Julius Caesar to inspire your Presidency, don't forget the last chapter.

Read More......

Another Grieving Mother at Camp Casey

I met a woman at Camp Casey who was trying to get some kind of publicity around her plight with the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (equivalent to Child Protective Services in many other states). It seems the DYFS took custody of her infant son because she refused to ignore the serious medical problems with which he was born.

I hope to contact someone at DYFS or at the hospital next week to see if I can corroborate the mother's account.

Read More......

A.I.M. for Peace

I am back at Camp Casey II for one last blog entry before heading back to Dallas/Fort Worth. I arrived just in time for a ceremony in which Dennis Banks, Viola Hatch, and other leaders of the American Indian Movement presented Cindy Sheehan with two ceremonial shawls and an eagle feather to commemorate the fallen hero Casey Sheehan.

The folks up on the stage represented Anishinabe, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Mojave. Cindy Sheehan added that "Sheehan" is the Gaelic word for "peace," to which I will add a little bit of Lakota: "Hecel lena oyate kin nipi kte," long may our people live.

Right now, though, it's time for "long may my rent-car drive."

Signing off from Crawford, this is blogger Lincoln Madison.

Read More......

Great pictures from Camp Casey

For some wonderful photos of the Camp Casey experience, check out Alaska Gyrl's blog, AlaskaGyrl.blogspot.com. Tell 'er I said hi.

Read More......

Truly Petty Theft

I had my car parked at Camp Casey II today, and both of my magnetic stickers were stolen from my car. One said "God Bless Our Troops • God Forgive George Bush"; the other was a Code Pink sticker against the war.

I won't pretend that there aren't petty gestures by some misguided idiots on the anti-war side, but still, it saddens me to see the public discourse cheapened in such a pathetic way. It's yet another example of the bullying herd mentality that is so typical of Bush's partisans. It is exactly the kind of yahoo-ism (and I don't mean the search engine) that led me to flee my native state.

Read More......

Bush's Neighbors

I'm at Camp Casey II, situated on the corner of Prairie Chapel Road and Canaan Church Road, about 10 miles out of the town of Crawford, Texas. President Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch is less than two miles to the east, complete with reinforced concrete bunkers in case of nuclear attack. But if you go about two miles south, you will find the town of Coryell City. Bush's ranch is much closer to Coryell City, so why does he say he's going to Crawford?

Well, you see, the folks in Coryell City aren't nearly as enamored of Dubya as the folks in Crawford — and don't forget that the local paper, the Crawford Iconoclast, endorsed John Kerry in 2004. It seems that even in the red heart of one of the reddest of red states, the message is starting to sink in that Bush is doing a tragically bad job as President.

There are a few other sights worth mentioning in the area, though. Just up the road a bit there's a Sikh temple, and I'm disappointed to say I missed their monthly fish fry on Friday night. There's also a road sign for "No. 10 Downing Street"; I knew that Bush and Blair were close, but I didn't think they were that close (about 20 km, I think).
Of course, Fort Hood is also right over yonder, giving Dubya handy access to a military base and plenty of armed guards to back up the Secret Service, the McLennan County Sheriff, and the Texas Department of Public Safety. I'm told that Fort Hood is the largest military base in the United States. Yet again, Dubya wants people to think of him as a military figure by juxtaposition.

However, shortly I shall cease to be in Dubya's neighborhood, at least until the last weekend of September. Yup, Camp Casey is relocating northeastwards, headin' up to the real White House. I sure hope there are some tent sites on Pennsylvania Avenue, 'cause they're expecting a couple dozen people to show up. (I'm sure Fox News will still give "balanced" coverage to the two draft dodgers and an inflatable date who show up to support the Chickenhawk President.) I don't know for sure that I'll be there, but I'm going to see what I can do....

Signing off from Camp Casey II, we return you to your regular blogging, at least until I take the show on the road to Burning Man.

Hasta luego, y'all!

Read More......

The Acting President

As I write this, Martin Sheen, the actor who plays President Bartlet on NBC's The West Wing, is leading a memorial rosary at Camp Casey II in honor of the fallen soldiers in Iraq. Casey Sheehan was a devout Catholic, so the gesture is fitting.

When he arrived, Mr. Sheen referred to himself as "the Acting President," and commented, "I think you all know what I do for a living, but this is what I do to stay alive." He then took time to visit the Iraq Veterans Against the War before kneeling to pray before the field of crosses that has been dubbed "Arlington West."

My name is Lincoln Madison, and I have to say that President Bartlet is by far my favorite President of the 21st century. (In the 20th century, he has to compete with Morgan Freeman, FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton. In the 19th, I suppose I would have to go with my namesakes.)

Read More......

Unspeakable Irony

All weekend, "counter-protesters" have been driving by Camp Casey, expressing their disapproval of the message that Cindy Sheehan and the rest of us are trying to carry to President Bush. The slogans some of them have on signs or windshields or banners are astonishing for their irony, hubris, and utter disconnection from reality. The common ones include "Support Our Troops!" (as if we don't), "We Support the Bush Plan for a Strong, Safe America!" (I would, too, if he had one), and my favorite, "Freedom Isn't Free!"

I didn't personally witness this specific incident, but it is in keeping with what I have seen. One of the counter-protesters got into a shouting match with one of the veterans who's here to oppose the war. The counter-protester, a man who clearly has never known military service in his pampered little life, was screaming "Freedom Isn't Free!," to which the Vietnam veteran replied, "Man, you don't know. You weren't there!"

It never ceases to amaze me how many of the chickenhawks — just like their leaders, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and company — know so much better than the people who have actually "been there and done that" what war is all about and what principles are worth the sacrifice of human life and limb.

I know for absolute certain that I would not be willing to risk my life for one millisecond for the benefit of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. It seems that a lot of Americans agree with me, which might be why the military is falling short of its recruiting goals. It also goes a long way towards explaining why President Bush's approval rating (outside of McLennan County) is plummeting.

Read More......

I Favor Peace and Freedom in Iraq

I want the U.S. (and "coalition") military forces to withdraw from Iraq. Does that mean that I want to hand the country over to whatever warlord(s) can seize power? Does that mean that I want to condemn Iraq to a (dare I say) quagmire of civil war with yet more guns, bombs, and extremist hotheads?

No. (Gosh, what a surprise. We were so sure you were going to say yes.)

I favor peace and freedom in Iraq. I support the right of Iraqi women to have jobs, own property, and be the legal equals of Iraqi men. I support the creation of a new Iraqi state by the Iraqi people to serve the needs of the Iraqi people. In fact, you might call it a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," if I may borrow a phrase from my namesake. I support the creation of an Iraqi state in which "all people are endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.

The thing is, our "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," was created by the people, not by a foreign army. Yes, the French helped the colonial army, but they did so under the coordination of colonial leaders. Iraq might have its answer to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, John Hancock, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, but instead it got George W. Bush, Ahmed Chalabi, Paul Bremer, and General Jerry Boykin, plus the occasional dose of Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz.

When the United States was formed (not "born"; that suggests that it was inevitable), there were issues dividing us about as deeply as the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds are divided today. There was the little issue of slavery, just for one example. Six states had it, seven did not. There were also pesky issues of the degree of federalism appropriate to the new nation. Some states were deeply committed to "states' rights"; others wanted a more powerful central government. There were issues of small states and larger states.

It took 11 years from the Declaration of Independence to sort out compromises on those and a few other issues and write our Constitution. Some of the compromises were awkward. The compromise on slavery — slavery was protected by Article V until 1808 — merely postponed the inevitable conflict that led to the Civil War. The compromise on small and large states led to the House of Representatives, with votes based on population, and the Senate, with two votes per state, regardless of size. Then there was the electoral college, a unique institution in the world. Each state gets a number of votes equal to its Reps plus Senators. Thus, California gets 55 votes while Wyoming gets 3. Sounds nice for California, except that California has over 70 times the population. That means that if Wyoming has 3 votes, California would have 212 by population alone.

(Side note: am I the only person on earth who saw Karen Hughes on CNN in late December 2000, proudly stating that if — as many pre-election polls suggested — Bush had won the popular vote but Gore won the electoral vote (instead of vice-versa) that the Republican team was fully prepared to launch a court challenge to the Constitutionality of allowing the electoral college to override the popular vote. If anyone can document that, or if you can prove that it was a feverish delusion and she never said any such thing, please let me know.)

Anyway, now Dubya expects to march into Philadelphia Baghdad, depose King George III Saddam Hussein, and have the Iraqi people rise up and write a Constitution on the back of a napkin in twenty-two minutes.

Does Dubya have a recipe for peace, freedom, and stability in a democratic Iraq? If he does, he must be hiding it in Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location," 'cause what he's doin' ain't workin'!

Just a few more thoughts, live from Camp Casey II, Crawford, Texas....

Read More......

Here Comes the Bride

You just never know what to expect at a protest rally. This afternoon, Camp Casey II will host a wedding ceremony. Genevieve Christine Van Cleve and Peter Albert Ravella will be joined in "a celebration of life, love and hope" here under the big tent.

Here is their message:

Our Wedding in Crawford
Weddings are celebrations of life, love and hope and a statement of tradition and values. We spent the weekend of August 20–21 at Camp Casey, meeting the fantastic military families and Gold Star moms who have assembled in Crawford, Texas. ... We join those who affirm the value of peace even in time of war ... We ask that [our American soldiers] be called to a higher mission, one that will reduce the propensity for terror and violence in the world, instead of a war that has and will increase it. We support freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people but doubt the wisdom of an American military invasion as a means to accomplish that goal. We honor the courage of the Gold Star Families and Military Families Speak Out who seek the end of our misguided venture in Iraq. — excerpt from the wedding program, August 28, 2005

See also Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Be the Change USA, Operation Truth, and Meet with Cindy.

Read More......