Wake up, America!

My friends. My countrymen. My fellow Americans. I want you all to sit or stand upright where you are. I want you to hold out your hand, either one, whichever you prefer. I want you to open the palm of this hand, and look at it from arm's length. Now, listen carefully. I want you, with all of your might, to slam that hand into your own face! What is the matter with you? How much more of this are you going to take? Why have you allowed it to come this far? These people are out of control! I mean that literally. There has been absolutely no accountability from the administration of President George W. Bush for the numerous violations of law that they have willfully, intentionally, and unconstitutionally committed. Of that there can be absolutely no dispute.

Previous Attorney General John Ashcroft would frequently pop up at times when it looked like bad news was coming out unfavorable to the administration, with a new "terror alert" meant purely to scare the bejesus out of you. At one point, he actually made an announcement while attending a conference in Moscow, Russia, that they had caught and arrested a terrorist who, they claim, was an al Qaeda supporter. This suspect was said to have tried to plant a "dirty bomb". Or he was going to try to get one. Or he was thinking about trying to get one. The thing is, the guy had been arrested a month before that announcement. There was no sensible reason to go through the trouble (at taxpayer expense) to make this announcement with all this fanfare when, at that point, there was no danger to the public? Why didn't they make this big announcement a month before when they had arrested him? I think it's because they knew back then that he was a nothing, but they needed something today to distract everyone from the bad news making headlines.

In an odd echo of that all-to-frequent type of incident under Johnny "Let The Eagle Soar" Ashcroft, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff tells the country that we are in increased danger of an attack from that dreaded terrorist group al Qaeda, not because they have intercepted and translated messages indicating an attack was imminent, messages that might have said, "The match is on", or something to that effect; not because of intelligence gathered from people with ties to the "organization", with knowledge of plans in the works, specific or otherwise; and not because there's been any pattern of activity observed which suggest a prelude to some sort to an attack. No. We are told that we should be worried because "it is summertime", and that's when al Qaeda "likes to strike" and, most important of all, he has a "gut" feeling. Strangely enough, a report is issued shortly after which claims that al Qaeda has regained its strength to "summer 2001" levels. Is he deliberately trying to scare us? is that what the Secretary of "Homeland" Defense is supposed to do? Terrify the citizens of the "Homeland"? I thought he was supposed to be providing the "Homeland" with "Security". I thought he was supposed to be protecting Americans not just from "the enemy", but from Mother nature herself. After all, some dimwit thought it would be "a good idea" to place FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency [get the damn link, Wayne], the ones who respond when Mother Nature decides to smack a few things around, like cities and buildings and people, under the newly created, barely staffed, hardly functioning Department of Homeland Security. So not only was he responsible for protecting us against threats to the "Homeland" (this is still the United States of America, isn't it?) from terrorists by sending in armed military troops to our communities, but also for rescuing us from natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina by sending in armed military troops to our communities.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a man who is supposed to represent the people of the United States of America, instead feels that it is his constitutional role to represent their president. Never mind that he already had that role as White House Counsel. But he has been given a new duty to perform for this country. He is the people's representative in the judicial system against those who would flaunt, sneer at, disrespect, disobey, and flat out trash the laws of the United States of America. No matter who they are. Be they you, be they me, be they the president of the United States. His sworn obligation is to support and defend the constitution of the United States, not support and defend the president against the constitution. By now everyone knows that he has given sworn testimony that indicates one of two things. Either he is a completely incompetent boob who has no business being allowed near a court room, let alone speak for the people in one; or he is a liar and a perjurer, and should be arrested and sent to jail the moment he is impeached and removed from office. And he is not the only one.

Vice President Dick Cheney is, IMHO, without any doubt whatsoever, the most lawless man in the United States of America. And I'm not just talking about the time he downed "a beer" at lunch, shot a 78-year-old man in the face, sent his friend out to the press to lie about what happened ("Zero. Nada. Zilch" about alcohol at lunch?), refused to submit to a blood alcohol test by the local police and refused to answer their questions until the next morning, didn't tell the president personally until the next day what had happened and, to top it all off, had the victim of the bird shot to the face, Harry Whittington, apologize for inconveniencing the vice president! No, I'm not talking about that.

It is arguable that from the time Dick Cheney chose himself to be the running mate of the 2000 Republican Party Presidential Candidate, he laid into motion a series of plans that, once in office, he could implement for the purpose of making the Office of the President of the United States the most powerful entity on the planet, answerable to no one. Not to the nation's citizens, not to the nation's government, and not to the nation's constitution.

Dick Cheney was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century. He was not himself a signatory to the infamous PNAC letter to President Clinton dated Jan 26, 1998. Indeed, look at the letter and see how many names became important people in the new administration (or worked in or for past ones): His long-time friend, Donald Rumsfeld, for whom he used to work in the Ford Administration, Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick. (See list here of where many of them were, or went to, inside or outside government .) Now see what it said in the opening paragraph:

In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

And look how many of them did just that. It was almost as if there was some kind of plan in place so that when the opportunity arose, they would put as many PNAC members as possible in positions of enormous influence and power and carry out what they felt needed to be done whether anyone else thought it was a good idea or not. At least it seems that way. To me. Maybe to you? I mean, it did kind of, sort of turn out that way. Didn't it? It's not just me. Someone at Crisis Papers wrote a PNAC Primer:

Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

And what did they do with it? Destroyed Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and displaced millions more, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, and, oh yeah, killed more than 3,600 of our brave men and women in uniform. And for what? The market for oil hasn't been glutted to the point where gasoline is affordable, nor is home heating oil. In fact, oil production out of Iraq is actually down by about two million barrels a day (more). Gee, high demand and a low supply. Now I wonder who would benefit from a scenario like that? Still think it's just a coincidence? Still think it's just a bunch of men who took advantage of an opportunity to make themselves rich "the good old-fashioned American way"? Remember, these people did not all do this from a position of private enterprise. They used the federal government to enact these plans. Your federal government. With your tax money. As far as I'm concerned, Vice President Dick Cheney should be immediately impeached, tried and removed from office; and then, before he even has a chance to leave his office from where he would be watching his trial, he should be arrested and hauled off to jail along with each and every person who was member of the Project for a New American Century. I would not be surprised if RICO statutes applied to what they have done. Let's tell our representation in Congress to investigate just that, and no more bullshit "Executive Privilege"! Demand accountability! See also.

And when we are finally rid of that criminal cabal, we must immediately turn our attention to President George W. Bush and, if he hasn't already done the honorable thing and resigned by that point, impeach him, try him, and remove him from office. Without further delay. I ask you, seriously. To anyone who honestly supports the president and who reads this blog (all two of you), do you truly believe that he has done nothing to warrant being impeached, convicted and removed from office, before how many more thousands of humans have to die because of his, and only his, belief system?

The run-up to the war, which was driven by Dick Cheney, was an exercise in obsfucation and deliberate manipulation of intelligence.Words were carefully chosen and positioned in speeches so as to give the listener the false impression that he has heard something he hasn't. As a result, a majority of Americans believed that Iraq was somehow connected to the attacks of 9/11. But, as Bush himself admitted, they were "very careful not to say that Iraq and 9/11 were connected." This, in itself, was a admission that they were aware of how they were phrasing things. They wanted this war to happen. They did not want a diplomatic solution. And they sure as hell didn't want Saddam to suddenly start complying with everything the U.S. and the World were telling him to do. They were not going to let anyone stop them. It was something they talked about doing since one of their first cabinet meetings.

They decided to tell the world that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and that the world couldn't wait for him to disarm because he might pass those weapons off to the terrorists. Of course, all the while they're saying this, they're bringing up al Qaeda. Then they start passing along a bogus report that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. The Office of the Vice President sent a request to the CIA to verify that story (though the documents alleged to back that claim up were already proven to be forgeries.) The CIA sends former Ambassador Joe Wilson to Africa to check out the story. He comes back and give an oral report that there is no way in hell that this sale could have happened and, furthermore, it's highly unlikely that Saddam really tried because there are too many safeguards in place with the sale of yellowcake uranium down there, and too many other countries watching everything going on. In short, the report is completely false and the administration should stop saying it.

The war hawks, led by Dick Cheney, are furious at Wilson. Cheney decides to start putting out the word that Wilson's wife works at the CIA, and she's the one who sent him. It's totally false, but how often did you hear it before it was proven so? They start picking reporters who will listen and try to tell them Wilson's wife was covert and worked in non-proliferation. (This was both true and classified at that time. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise because they are lying.) After talking to Richard Armitage, Novak learns about Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA status. Although he at first tells everyone that this exchange was inadvertent and off the cuff, Novak will put out a book soon in which he will reveal that the way in which Armitage discussed it gave, what seemed to him, a clear sign that Armitage expected Novak to publish this information. When Novak tried to get confirmation from the CIA, he is told that he should not go ahead and print that story although the exact reason is never given (because it was classified.) Novak then claims that the man simply did not try hard enough to stop him, so Novak took that as confirmation. (I'll have more to say about that whole thing in another post.)

The CIA officially asks the Justice Dept (then under John Ashcroft) to investigate how a covert operative's name ended up in the press. Many people naturally suspect Karl Rove though no outward evidence exists. Ashcroft, shortly after the FBI started asking questions, recused himself from further involvement because, and this was the reason given, Karl Rove had worked on one of his campaigns. (Of course, if Rove was never involved, there would have been no conflict of interest to worry about.) When asked by reporters what he would do if one of his staff was involved in the leak, Bush said "If anyone in my administration was involved in leaking classified information, that person will no longer be a part of this administration." Of course, that was before the person John Ashcroft turned the investigation over to appointed Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was hailed by both Democrats and Republicans as a perfect choice to get to the bottom of this. Little did anybody know at the time that Bush and Cheney had no intention of letting anyone get to the bottom of anything.

Bush has finally admitted that someone in his administration was involved in the leak, but that he intends to "move on." Not so fast Mr. President. Just because you later changed it to "if someone did something illegal, then that peson will no longer be in my administration" does not absolve you of your first promise. But I guess what you really meant was your third version, and that was that anyone "involved in any wrongdoing would be taken care of." And that's the promise you kept, wasn't it? Scooter Libby was involved, and he was certainly taken care of. (WELL taken care of.) Richard Armitage admitted he was Novak's original source, but because Fitzgerald was told that it was "inadvertent", he was given a pass (for now). And everyone, including the jurors at Libby's trial, knows that Karl Rove was "involved". Why hasn't he been fired? Libby obstructed the investigation, so it was hard to tell if Rove did anyting "illegal". Or are you skipping right to "taking care of" Rove by shielding him from having to raise his hand and take an oath to tell the truth (and risk bursting into flame on the spot) or go to prison for lying.

Do you honestly believe that anyone in the world is safe from this man and the people in his administration? If you have any lingering doubts (and I hope there can't possibly be many), get a load of this. A policy statement regarding Bush's demands for the new Defense Authorization Bill for 2008. Among other things, Bush will veto any bill that contains language that prohibits him from taking military action against Iran. The problem is that Bush thinks he already has the constitutional authority to attack anyone he wants because he's the "Commander-in-Chief". He doesn't understand that he has it backwards. The Congress decides if we need to use our military, and when that decision is made, the president becomes the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces. He doesn't get to go deploy them at his whim and then claim he has extra-constitutional powers through his role as C-in-C. This president is very, very dangerous, because he does not believe that there is any limit to his authority, that he is not answerable to the Congress if he chooses to ignore them, and that he can ignore the Supreme Court if he wants to. He is not supporting and defending the constitution of the United States, as per his oath of office. And through his notorious signing statements, he clearly is not "taking care that the laws be faithfully executed." He must be impeached, tried, convicted (I don't see how he could be acquitted) and removed from office. He has sent an unmistakable message on what he thinks of the constitution, the law, and the wishes of the American people, and that message is this:

Et Tu, Surgeon General?

In Washington, politics trumps science. Even science related to public health issues. While that may not surprise some people, it should anger you. According to the official Surgeon General's website, "The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury." It's a shame, then, when presidents past and present have decided to suppress scientific information in favor of ideology or politics. This should not be allowed to continue.

According to an article in The New York Times, many of the past few Surgeons General have been used more for politics than for public health information dissemination. And, yes, Clinton did it, too. His Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher, was asked not to release a report that showed that needle-exchange programs actually worked to help reduce the spread of disease. To his credit, he released th report anyway. While I find the Clinton Administration's actions on this deplorable, I can at least understand the politics of it. A report like that would make them appear to be "soft on drugs", and would give the Republicans political ammunition to distort reality (which I believe they would do in a heartbeat.) And I applaud Dr. Satcher for doing the right thing. Many who oppose needle-exchange programs are completely clueless when it comes to drug addiction. They do not understand that a drug addicts you to it, not the other way around. Imagine being told that you couldn't have your morning cup of coffee any more and that you would just have to "be strong". It's not simply a matter of having or lacking will power. It goes beyond that.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General in the Reagan Administration, felt political pressure, too. The Reagans, who believed that the way to avoid anything unpleasant, including sex, was to "just say 'no'", did not want Dr. Koop to discuss AIDS. This is especially sad because the AIDS crisis became a serious problem during that time, and many people who contracted AIDS or became HIV-positive, were ostracized out of an ignorance of what caused the disease. To Dr. Koop's credit, he discussed it anyway. I believe that doing so helped educate the public about the fact that homosexual sex was not the only way one contracted AIDS, nor was intravenous drug use. The late, great tennis star, Arthur Ashe, contracted the virus through a blood transfusion while having a heart operation. I believe that Dr. Koop's speaking up may have saved countless lives. How many more might have been saved had he been allowed to carry out the mandate of his office?

But to me, the worst of the bunch of presidents has been our current one, George W. Bush. According to his former Surgeon General, Dr. Richard H. Carmona, on issue after issue the administration made decisions about important public health issues based not on scientific considerations, but on political ones. “I was told to stay away from those because we’ve already decided which way we want to go,” Dr. Carmona said, as if science was a subject decided by politics and not empirical evidence. No topic, it seemed, however controversial or important, escaped the Bushies' pursuit of ideology over science. Even the stem cell debate. From the article:

When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance “so that we can have, if you will, informed consent.”

“I was told to stand down and not speak about it,” he said. “It was removed from my speeches.”

The Bush administration rejected the advice of many top scientists on this subject, including that of the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.

Is it any wonder now why more federal money hasn't been put into research? These people equate stem cell research with abortion, which they equate with human murder. So, to them, destroying a cell that would have been destroyed anyway, as often happens when couples trying to conceive through artificial insemination have succeeded, is tantamount to murder. The stupid thing is that even though the cells won't be used for scientific research that could benefit all mankind, they'll still be destroyed anyway, benefitting no one, and saving no one's life. And all because of an ideological position on abortion. Thank you very much, Religious Right.

And it doesn't stop with stem cells. Topics such as healthcare in correctional facilities, global warming, second-hand smoke, and even the Special Olympics (among other subjects) have been subjected to a refusal to see science as the final word, and pure ideology as being the preferred choice for public health issues. As if this wasn't all bad enough, the Bush administration is lying about the whole thing:

Bill Hall, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that the administration disagreed with Dr. Carmona’s statements. “It has always been this administration’s position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science,” Mr. Hall said.

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said the surgeon general “is the leading voice for the health of all Americans.”

“It’s disappointing to us,” Ms. Lawrimore said, “if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation.”

Even now, hearings are set to begin shortly for confirmation of the new Surgeon General, and the Bushies have nominated a man, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., who believes that homosexual sex is "unnatural and unhealthy". Both points are debatable. Bonobo monkeys have been observed in the wild having homosexual sex, and the use of condoms makes sex safer and healthier regardless of the partners. It's clear why this administration chose this man. Gays bad, Bush good. Gotta please the base. Political ideology is better for public health information than empirical science. Never mind that many people will likely die unnecessarily because of this administration's "win-at-all-costs" style of politics. Do we have to wait until Jan 2009 to be rid of these people?

Meet the Cats: Kittens--Valerie, Fitzgerald and Cecilia

Here they are! From left, to right, Valerie, Fitzgerald and Cecilia. The separate picture is Fitzgerald (I added it because you can't see his markings when he's sprawled on his back.) Isn't it amazing how comfortable kittens can be in almost any position? Fitzy is a bit under the weather right now, but I'm giving him antibiotics and hopefully he'll be as right as rain soon. (Cecilia suffered from the same thing, but a few days on antibiotics seemed to do the trick.) I will, of course, hate to give these little sweeties up for adoption, but with all (something)-teen of our other cats, we just can't keep three more. These three have great personalities already, and I'm sure that our vet will find them all good homes. (sniffle!)

Meet the Cats: Dulcinea

Dulcie is our most mischievous kitty, too smart and too bold for her own good. We ended up keeping her because, when we brought a bunch of kittens to the vet to be put up for adoption, she was deemed too unhealthy (she has runny eyes from Bartonella's disease--supposedly extremely contagious, but to date only two of our cats had ever contracted it.) Dulcie loves to burrow under the bed covers, so if we see a lump in the bed we have to feel it to see if it's her. Her coat is beautifully sleek, which helps us to identify her in the dark! When she's in an affectionate mood, she'll butt her head against our hands, elbows, face, anywhere she can reach. Her ultimate sign of affection is a (more or less) gentle chewing on the tip of my nose (I say 'my' because Wayne is more wary of this habit, but I don't mind it so much--it's more stinky than painful.)

Not That Executive Privilege Crap Again?

This is BULLSHIT!

An attorney for Sara Taylor, a former top aide to White House adviser Karl Rove, notified the Senate that she was unlikely to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 11.

There they go again! What is it with these people and "executive privilege" this and "executive privilege" that. They can't claim that every single conversation that the president has must be protected from public disclosure. The only things that can be kept secret are matters of national security (which includes troop movements and such). Everything else falls under the category of "in the public interest" and, therefore, IMHO, should be disclosed as requested. To anyone who wants it. Including you and me. Why not? We're paying for it. You and I pay their salaries. They work for us, not the other way around, no matter what these blowholes in the White House think. Or the Cheney House.

Sara Taylor is no longer in the employ of the White House. There is no reason that she should be allowed to enjoy any kind of Executive Privilege. If she was still working there, an argument can be made. But she is now a private citizen and can be compelled to testify before Congress. She would be a fool to rely on her love and support for Bush to keep her out of that hearing room, for she will still go to jail if she doesn't. And in the end, she'll talk anyway. Besides, she wants to talk because she feels she's done nothing wrong. If she's done nothing wrong, what is the White House so afraid of? (I know, rhetorical quesiton to most of us. I'm interested in what the people out there who think they should be doing this have to say in its defense. Read on.)

To read the Art II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of non-military and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of a “workable government” and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art III.

United States v. Nixon [1974]

They don’t have a leg to stand on with this “executive privilege” claim. And whose interest are being protected when they claim that? There's something about this from the decision that bothers me:

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as a trial judge in the Burr case, supra, was extraordinarily careful to point out that


"[i]n no case of this kind would a court be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual." 25 F. Cas., at 192.

Marshall's statement cannot be read to mean in any sense that a President is above the law, but relates to the singularly unique role under Art. II of a President's communications and activities, related to the performance of duties under that Article. Moreover, a President's communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any "ordinary individual." It is therefore necessary[Footnote 21] in the public interest to afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice. The need for confidentiality even as to idle conversations with associates in which casual reference might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen is too obvious to call for further treatment.

Hold on there a minute. "No further treatment? This is what I do not understand. What is the theory behind the idea that if a person's conversations with the president of the United States (conversations regarding non-classified public policy, mind you) were ever made public, it could cause embarassment for that person? So? What's wrong with that? What do they think they should be allowed to do, lie about it publicly? If they don't want to discuss it with the press, thena simple "No comment" will do. But if subpoenaed by Congress to testify about these conversations, then the public absolutely has the right to know in whose interests the government was acting. Ours, or Corporate America's?

Remember, it's YOUR money they're spending, and you are constitutionally entitled to know how it's being spent and why. THEY work for YOU, not the other way around. THEY are accountable to US, not to themselves, not to their party leaders, and not to the president of the United States. To US. And that goes for President George Bush and his President of Vice, Dick Cheney. Like it or not, they are answerable to us, and not just on Election Day 2004. EVERY day.

I have come to believe that every day that these two men, Bush and Cheney, these two men in particular, remain in office, is a spit in the face of every man and woman who died in Iraq, and every one of their family members, and every one of the friends they left behind, and all because of a big, huge, steaming pile of bullshit lies!

Meet the Cats: Mouse

Mouse arrived at our back door with her father, Smoky, one cold winter's night, looking like a fat miniature version of her dad. Although she wouldn't let me near her, her mother, Mamacita (a regular fixture at our back door practically since the day we moved in), and her brother, Butterball, were more sociable. Butterball was killed by a car when they were about six months old, and it was terrible to see how much Mouse missed him. Mouse eventually became pregnant (she still wouldn't let me catch her, so she hadn't been spayed.) When she went into labor, she seemed to be having a difficult time, so I sat near her and gave her moral support for a couple of hours, until we decided that we had to take her to the emergency vet. Apparently the one unborn kitten was so big that Mouse couldn't push it out without help, and the kitten was stillborn. However, that traumatic day cemented Mouse's relationship with me, and she became totally devoted to me after that. Her nickname was "Mousie Dung". Mouse was a fixture in my lap every night for years, and loved to wash my hands and face (which could be extremely uncomfortable sometimes!) She became terminally ill when she was about 12 years old, and died about a month before my mother did.

Meet the Cats: 'Becca

When Wayne and I moved into this house in 1990, we were renting half the house (we bought it outright about 5 years ago.) We had been married for just two years at the time, and we decided to adopt a cat as our anniversary present to each other. Having given it a lot of thought, we elected to adopt an adult cat from the Putnam County, NY, Humane Society. They had so many adults to choose from, but I made a beeline for "Rebecca", a female Abyssinian mix who had had a broken leg. Her entire leg was still shaved, but she had that beautiful 'ticked' Abby fur. She was in washing-up mode when we arrived at the shelter, and, as soon as I put my hand up to her cage, she immediately started washing that, too. That was enough for me! And thus, we adopted 'Becca, the smartest, sweetest, and most beautiful little girl we ever had. She died several years ago, but remains first in our hearts, and we both still miss her very much.

Meet the Cats: Kittens--Valerie

Okay, so it's only one of the three new kittens. I couldn't find clear pictures of the other two yet. (The others are named Cecilia and Fitzgerald.) This is Valerie, and the gray-and-white longhair behind her is her mother, Pip. Valerie seems to be the most rambunctious of the three, but is also just as happy as the others to curl up in my lap for a kitten-nap.

Meet the Cats: Troi

Troi was about six weeks old, her eyes still blue, when she decided to adopt us. Although her mother, Motley, tried to get her to leave after each feeding time, Troi resisted as much as possible. Even though many of the adult cats who had known us much longer still shied away from us, Troi was completely unafraid of us. Her penchant for sitting on my foot while I prepared the cats' dinner earned her the nickname "Foot Soldier". She was such a cute "little one" (a name we had taken to calling her), that we decided to name her that. Sort of. Actually she's named after Deanna Troi, a character on "Star Trek: The Next Generation". In that series, Troi's mother always called her "little one". So that's how she got the name "Troi". She has grown into a real sweetheart, and sleeps on our feet every night.

Picking My Brain 07-07-06

It's President George W. Bush's birthday today. I'll say the same thing as I do about my own birthday. Who gives a shit? Really.

If you really, really, really love that "Dramatic Look" video, follow the link. You'll either thank me later, or curse me. In any case, you're welcome.

I have to confess that I am going to miss Stargate SG-1. I liked that show. It was smart and funny, and it put forth an image of "man's place in the universe" that fits in with my own. That we are just one voice in a chorus of thousands upon thousands. I may have some personal differences about some of the extra-terrestrials along the way, but all-in-all, it was a good show. And its spin-off series, Stargate Atlantis, has been picking up nicely with its story lines. I also highly recommend Eureka. And Heroes on NBC. These are all good shows.

If you missed David Shuster's excellent Hardballing of Fouad Ajami, you can catch it at C&L here. So, according to something I read here, this Mr. Ajami was one of the people who helped shape the argument that persuaded the top officials in the administration that Saddam had to go, he had to go now, and we should prepare for a “two-generation war”. And he got upset because he was misunderstood? Sorry, pal. You deserve to be called out on your lies every time you open your mouth in public. Way to go, David. Put me on the list of people who would rather see David Shuster host Hardball than Chris Matthews.

"Michael" and Me

As some of you know, I post frequently at Think Progress, and I recently had an interesting exchange with another poster who was using the screen name "Michael". Now, it's perfectly normal to go onto a blog and post comments under an assumed name. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are shy, but feel empowered when speaking up under a new name. Some are concerned about being noticed by supervisors if they post under their real names, especially if their personal views do not match their employer's. (I'm thinking of government people wishing to speak up here, too.) And, who knows? Maybe some of them are famous people trying to drop into a famous blog anonymously to see what happens. I suppose it's possible. Probably unlikely, but still, not impossible to believe.

And then I had this exchange with "Michael". This occurred on the Think Progress thread about a Congressional Republican speaking out against Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence. I figure since it is out there anyway, why should they mind if I quote it? The numbers to the left are the comment numbers as of when I last saw them. Post deletions by the site moderators (all too infrequent, if you ask me) may alter the numbering. It's best to look for them based on the time.

110. Gee, michael, why do you link your name to Ann Coulter’s website? Just curious.

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 4, 2007 @ 3:35 pm


113. “Gee, michael, why do you link your name to Ann Coulter’s website? Just curious.

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 4, 2007″

Because I think VERY highly of her!

Comment by michael — July 4, 2007 @ 3:37 pm


116. “Gee, michael, why do you link your name to Ann Coulter’s website? Just curious.

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 4, 2007″

Because I think VERY highly of her!

Comment by michael — July 4, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

Is that because you are her?

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider - July 4, 2007 @ 3:38 pm


121. “Is that because you are her?

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 4, 2007″

You caught me!

Comment by michael
— July 4, 2007 @ 3:46 pm

Nah! Couldn't be her. Could it?

Epilogue: Though this poster named "michael" did not return to this particular thread, the name, and a link to Ann Coulter's website, were observed on another thread later in the day. Had I realized this, I would have gone there and continued to ask questions.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney Must Resign

On July 3rd, the day before we celebrated the 231st anniversary of the declaration of our nation's independence, Keith Olbermann delivered a powerful and persuasive Special Comment calling for both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to resign. Immediately.

Simply put, there is no rational explanation for allowing either of these two men to remain in power. They have taken control of the most powerful political office on the face of the Earth, and shamelessly and unapologetically usurped it for their own purposes. These are not men of honor. They are not men who live up to the public oaths they take. If either of these two men thinks that they were even close to preserving, protecting and defending the constitution "to the best of [their] ability", then clearly they were deceiving themselves. And the American people.

The president has used signing statements to ignore the will of the Congress, by saying that he would sign the bill into law, but he wouldn't obey it himself. This alone is an egregious violation of Art. 2 Sec 3. ("...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..."). How can he argue that he is doing that? "Faithfully" executing the law? Obviously a president can use a signing statement to describe how he intends to carry out the law. But he can't use it to say that he won't carry out the law! That's what the veto is for.

Through a doctrine of preventive war he launched an illegal attack against Iraq. That nation was no threat to our national security, and it had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite what Bush and Cheney had people believing through carefully crafted speeches and political talk show appearances. And, as history and sworn testimony have revealed, it was all based on lies. Not misunderstandings of the intelligence, but lies of all kinds. From being told that the war would pay for itself "and relatively quickly", to the insurgents "are in their last throes" (on more than one occasion.) Is it even possible that a rational mind would accept that these are facts, but that the men responsible for the war and its aftermath should suffer no penalty?

If these men had even the tiniest shred of decency and honor left within them, they would recognize the wrongs they have committed and spare the nation the time, trouble and torment of another impeachment (however rightly deserved, but clearly more so than any other in history), and walk away now. Resign at once.

Happy Independence Day to Everyone!

As we celebrate the 231st anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from tyranny, let us pause and reflect on a few things.

It is always appropriate to be thankful, today and every day, for the ultimate sacrifices our men and women in the military have made throughout the years that we may continue to observe this holiday. I thank each and one of you, and I thank those who serve their country today. We wouldn't be here without you.

We should also remember from what it was we were declaring our independence.

Enjoy your holiday safely, and do take care to help ensure there will be another one next year. Democracy takes participation, and participation requires that you be informed of the issues, the candidates, and the ones who support those candidates. (Find out why people get the support of the people whose support they get. This is often more revealing than what the candidate actually says in public.) But the important thing is to VOTE!

And remember, it is your vote to cast, not theirs to take. Vote for whomever you wish. That is what democracy is all about. If you think the Democrats and Republicans only offer you the choice of the lesser of two evils, then you haven't been a good citizen, and you haven't played your role properly. Don't stay home and say it doesn't matter. It does matter. And YOU make the difference.

Happy Independence Day. Peace on Earth.

The Acerebralists™ Among Us

I own a great book (thank you, Jane) called "The Superior Person's Book of Words", by Peter Bowler (1985). It's very funny and has definitions (or explanations) of a bunch of great and, almost always, actual words that describe things perfectly. Not quite Ambrose Bierce, but chosen to effect an air of superiority when the occasion calls for it. Words like

CONTRADISTINCTION, n.

Why say "in contrast with" when you can say "in contradistinction to"?

There's another great entry for

EREPTION n.

Snatching away. Do not confuse with EREPTATION (creeping forth). Snuggling up to your beloved at the drive-in, you say, "I sense an ereption coming on," and suddenly snatch the M&Ms from her lap. If it transpires that she has put the M&Ms somewhere else, you will be compelled to perform an ereptation.

The whole book is like that. It's great. On the back cover can be found this:

ACEREBRAL a.

Without a brain. A word for which there would at first sight appear to be no use, since no entity to which there would be any point in applying the term could in fact possess this attribute. (There would be no point in speaking of an acerebral windowsill.) However, recent researches into the central nervous system of the wire-haired terrier have conclusively demonstrated the need for such a word.

I then (technically improperly, I think) applied a suffix to indicate a person who practices or is concerned with something ("-ist"), and came up with "ACEREBRALIST n. A person who tries to think without having the capacity to do so. (i.e. A person without a brain who insists on trying to use it.)"

You'll probably derive your own variations on the theme, but it's one of those words that you either get it and know to whom it applies or you don't, and probably never will. Remember, you heard it from me first. Don't go trying to steal it, Colbert!

Yes, I'm Finally Here

Hi! Yes, I'm finally here. I'm sure that some of Wayne's more frequent visitors are curious to see what I look like, so here you go. Although it's blurry (taken with a phone), it's the most recent picture of me.

Those of you who are familiar with me from Think Progress are probably saying to yourselves, "WTF is Jane doing with a dog?" Well, for a while at our office, for some reason a few people would occasionally bring in their dogs. The puppy in my lap is a pit bull named Kayla, one of the sweetest, friendliest dogs I've ever met. She loved to visit with everyone in the office, and we all adored her.

I know that I promised certain people that I would get my cat pictures up here for any who are interested. I'm still working on that project, plus some other photo displays. Unfortunately, some of my best photos are older and need to be scanned, but I have enough already in the computer to work with, and that I think you'll enjoy. Just give me a little time, and I hope that you'll think the results are worth the wait.

Please don't expect me to be as prolific as Wayne, especially since I'm just starting out on this adventure. However, if there's any topics that you'd like my thoughts on, I'd love to hear from you.

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate Pointlessly Continues (And There's a Simple Solution)

For some reason, when the subject of "Gay Marriage" comes up, people on both sides get emotional and make senseless arguments. Liberals will say that the government has no business deciding who should be allowed to marry whom, and conservatives venture off into Fantasy Land when they start claiming that Gay Marriage will lead to Polygamy and Beastiality. (Former Senator Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum (R-PA) was famous for thes kinds of rants.) There is a simple solution once people recognize where the problem lies.

As I see it, the problem is with the use of the word "marriage". Those who would deny a gay couple the right to "marry" often say that "marriage is a sacrament", and that if you start letting gays get married, you start forcing churches to recognize that which they say is wrong. This is a false argument. The reason is that there are two aspects to any couple joining in a legal bond - the civil aspect (the rights and responsibilities each inherits under the law as a "married couple") and the religious aspect (the following of the rituals of one's faith in the completion of this joining.) It's easy to understand why those who view marriage from a religious aspect would be upset. But they don't have to be. All we have to do is abolish the idea of the federal or state governments recognizing these joinings as "marriages" and start recognizing them simply as "civil unions". And to satisfy the ones who still worry about what this will lead to (Rick, I'm looking in your direction), we then define a "civil Union" as being between two, and only two, human beings. That should put an end to all those bizarre fantasies.

Now, it could remain perfectly acceptable under all laws that a "wedding ceremony" (or "marriage") performed by a member of the clergy just as it is today, would be automatically recognized as a "civil union" for legal purposes (just as it is today). The only difference is whether or not a church or religion would recognize anyone's "civil union" if it was not done in accordance with their religion's rules and teachings. If your religion does not recognize same-sex civil unions, then it should not be required to perform the wedding ritual for a same-sex couple. Nor should it have to accept a same-sex couple for any "couples outings" they might have. Of course, the same-sex couple does not have to practice that religion, either.

It's a win-win for everyone. The same-sex couple gets to enjoy all the legal benefits that heterosexual married couples get, while the churches and religions that oppose the idea do not have to marry anyone whom they do not wish to, nor recognize such people as being "married" within their eyes.

So what's wrong with that?

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 3 - How You Can Change Washington, DC

As I began doing more research into this subject, I found that some states provide more detailed records on election results than others, at least as far as what's available on the internets. ("It's a series of tubes!") I started with in my home state, New York, but I had hoped that I could find one central place with a link to each state's "Elections" page, and I found one here. I also came across a Non-Partisan website called Smart Voter, sponsored by The League of Women Voters. It has details for some Congressional races, but not all of them. They do refer you to other places. And then I found this, Answers.Com, which, at first glance, looks pretty good ,too. In addition, New Yorkers may want to check out this.

New York has 29 Congressional Districts. In the 2006 elections for US Representative, seven political parties ran candidates, with a few running in almost every district. They were:

• The Democratic Party (DEM), nominated 29 candidates, 23 of whom won
• The Working Families Party (WOR), nominated 26 candidates, 20 of whom won
• The Republican Party (REP), nominated 25 candidates, 6 of whom won
• The Conservative Party (CON), nominated 22 candidates, 7 of whom won
• The Independence Party (IND) (website used to be here), nominated 19 candidates, 15 of whom won
• The Libertarian Party (LIB), nominated 2 candidates, neither of whom won
• The Freedom Party (FRE) (no website could be found) nominated only one candidate, Ollie McLeanin, in the NY-11. He got 996 votes to the LIB candidate's 671. They also nominated the REP Stephen Finger, whose line got most of his votes, but lost to the DEM Yvette D. Clarke. The Freedom Party did not field a candidate in the US Senate race.)

All WOR candidates were the same as the DEM candidate in that race, and 20 of them won. All but five of the CON candidates were the same as the REP candidate, and 7 of those had won (including one who was also nominated by the DEMs instead of the REPs.) The INDs nominated 10 DEMs who won their races, 5 REPs who won their races, 3 REPS who lost their races, and 1 DEM who lost his race in a close vote. [Ironically, my district (NY-19), was one of the few in which WOR did not field a candidate for US Representative. Both CON and IND endorsed the REP candidate, Sue Kelly, but she (and her three parties) lost to DEM nominee John Hall.] Still, the voters were given the opportunity in most races to cast a vote for the very same person they would have voted for anyway, just on another party's line. This would increase that party's chances of not having to go out and get signatures to get on future ballots. This is a HUGE step toward taking back control of Congress. And this is how you can play a part.

The NY Congressional delegation consists of 23 DEMs and 6 REPs. If each of the candidates who ran as a WOR received more votes than as a DEM, we could have sent 20 WORs, 6 REPs and 3 DEMs, instead. The WORs would likely have voted with the DEMs, so it may not have made much differrence. BUT, check this out. If every candidate who ran as an IND and won went in as a member of that party, we would have sent 15 INDs, 13 DEMs, and 1 REP to Washington. And with not all INDs necessarily Liberal, it could have affected the balance of power in the House of Representatives immensely. Imagine how a similar scenario in your state involving candidates on multiple party lines could have affected the outcome of the entire 2006 elections! And all you have to do is vote for the same candidate but under a different party line, and you already effect a humongous change.

In the race for US Senate, in addition to the parties previously mentioned, there were also three other parties running a candidate to unseat incumbent Sen Hillary Clinton. They were The Green Party, and the Socialist Equality Party and the Socialist Workers Party (which you can read about here). These last two parties' nominees garnered less than half the LIB candidate's votes combined. But, if nothing else, they offered the voters another choice, an alternative to the "politics as usual"-mode of the two major political parties.

So, I recommend each of you (and everyone you know with access to the internets), check out the websites above, and begin looking at what other parties are running candidates in 2008.

Bring The Troops in the Middle East Home NOW!

In Afghanistan, the carnage continues and more and more innocent civilians are getting killed. Why? Why are we still trying to find a military solution to a political problem? We invaded Afghanistan for the purpose of finding and bringing to justice those responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Establishing a democracy was a secondary goal, if it even was one from the beginning.

At first, I supported military action in Afghanistan. Like all Americans, I was hurting, especially being from NY and an AF vet. I wanted someone to pay for what had been done, and in my emotional state, I thought that our armed forces were the surest way to give them payback. I came to realize much too late that I was not thinking clearly then. I was wrong.

I came to believe that no matter what al Qaeda said or did, their “declaration of war” was an illegitimate excuse to use our military in such magnitude. Perhaps a small strike force penetrating the hills and seeking out bin Laden might have been acceptable, but a full-scale military invasion was not a proper use of force for this particular issue.

The use of terrorism, however high on the list of deplorable activities it may be, is still a crime, not an excuse for all-out war. With the possible exception of the killing of Zarqawi, every “success” at defeating the terrorists has been through good old-fashioned police work, not the use of our military. I call it “success” because many of those efforts may result in failure because our government mishandled the situation, and the people arrested may have to be let go. Mission NOT Accomplished there.

Military force should only be used a last resort, but that list of options should be very, very long. In the case of Afghanistan, it was probably only two items: 1) Turn over bin Laden, now! NO? 2) Send in the military. Even though the world was behind us at the time, it was thought that this military action might achieve its goals quickly and decisively. (After all, ours is the greatest military force in the history of mankind, isn’t it?) But the chances for success were turned into almost certain failure when we did not go in and finish the job ourselves. We relied too heavily on the absurd adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." This is moronic, because once your common enemy has been vanquished, your "new friend" just goes back to being your enemy again. We assumed that because the Northern Alliance (which had no great love for us) hated bin Laden, we could ally oursleves with them. We bribed them to go in and get bin Laden in the caves at Tora Bora. As has often been pointed out, anyone who can be bribed once can be bribed again. Bin Laden bribed them again to let him go. Again, Mission NOT Accomplished there.

But terrorism is a crime with no military solution. It can only be solved through education and cooperation among nations. Children around the world are being taught, at an age when they want to believe everything their elders tell them, that it is okay to kill people to achieve your goals. Sadly, Co-Presidents Bush and Cheney do not believe in either education or international cooperation. Plus, being business opportunists, they saw a chance for people just like them in mind and spirit to make a boatload of money, which has always been their goal in life. I do believe it was their goal here.

We need to educate people everywhere in the world about how and why these despicable people use terrorism as a tactic. They have grievances, I don’t doubt that. But somewhere along the line (for some, their childhood) they were told that violence is a legitimate way to resolve disputes, even when other means have not been tried first. Violence can be used in self-defense, but not as pre-emptive action. This is why I deplore Bush’s pre-emptive strike foreign policy. It is illegal, and it is inhumane. Only a small number of well-financed people want to do us harm.

We must also learn the role that poverty plays in terrorism. While the people funding it have plenty of money, the people (sometimes kids) doing the actual deeds at the expense of their own lives are often poor, without hope, and desperate to do something, anything, if they think it would bring an end to the injustices they perceive. They are often uneducated (by our standards) and many grew up attending schools where hatred of Western ideals is taught, and that their poverty can be blamed directly on us. They grow up never meeting or speaking to someone from the West who might open their eyes. For some of them, their first sight of a Westerner is the last thing they see as they blow themselves up. It's sad that children can taught to hate; it's even sadder that they can be taught to kill.

Killing innocent civilians in an effort to prevent the terrorists from killing innocent civilians is simply unjustifiable. No two ways about it. How long can we continue saying that the killing of 3,000 of our citizens justifies the killing of an even greater number of innocent civilians elsewhere in the world? Actually, I think we’re long past the point where this war is in any sense justifiable.

I remember watching Nightline years ago during the Iran-Iraq war. Ted Koppel had both of their ambassadors to the US on his program and he asked one of them (I forget which), “If (the other nation) agreed to just lay down their arms and talk this situation over, would your government do the same?” The ambassador’s answer? “They started it.” I could see Ted’s face just drop in exasperation. There’s just no getting through to some people.

Diplomacy with the nations who fund and support terrorists (like Saudi Arabia, our so-called “ally) is the answer. We must also engage in diplomacy with the other nations of the Middle East with whom we've had no meaningful, productive discussions since this president took office. The idea that if you're not with us, you're against us is not only foolish, it's antagonistic and a little bit childish, too. But what would you expect from the Boy King?

It’s time to pull all of our troops out of both Afghanistan and Iraq and face up to the fact that we are doing more harm (on so many levels) than we are good by remaining there. Support the troops by taking them out of a militarily unwinnable situation. Support them today.

Peace on earth.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 2 - Boards of Election

To aid you in finding out who besides the Democrats and Republicans are running for Congress, here are the links to each state's election information. Some additional navigation within the website may be necessary to find particular information about candidates. I tested each link before posting this, and they all appear to work correctly. If you find a link that doesn't work or that goes to the wrong page, please let me know in the comments and I will check it out and try to fix it. Remember, it's YOUR vote to cast, not their vote to take: Give 'Em The Bird, Vote For A Third!

Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming

An Open Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I was extremely disappointed that you announced, even before taking over as Speaker of the House (congratulations), that "impeachment was off the table." This was wrong of you to do. Impeachment is part of our constitutional process, and the only means we have to remove from office those who abuse their powers. It is your constitutional obligation, as part of your oath of office, to not only put it back on the table, but to order up several servings.

You should start with Attorney General Alberto Gonzeles. He has abused his office and violated the oath he took on numerous occasions, as we learned from Congressman John Conyer's and Senator Pat Leahy's hearings. The evidence is quite clear that General Gonzales has not faithfully executed his office. His conversation with Monica Goodling about her "recollection" of events is a clear case of both witness tampering and obstruction of justice. He cannot be allowed to continue in that office, and since he refuses to do the honroable thing and resign, you must begin proceedings to remove him from that vey important office.

Vice President Dick Cheney is even worse. Is it even necessary to list the myriad of constitutional violations for which he is guilty? He has had a long history of snubbing his nose at the law both in the public and private sector. (As CEO of Halliburton, his company did business in nations where it was prohibited for US companies to do so. Doing it through a subsidiary is not a loophole.) He is a staunch defender of the unconstitutional thoery of the "Unitary Executive". But more than that, he has implemented it throughout his terms of office. (Remember, he thought that Nixon got a bum rap.) He has, through his actions, assumed the role of president when it was inappropriate to do so. He, too, must be impeached and removed from office.

And then there's perhaps the worst one of all, President George W. Bush. This is a man with a well-documented history of breaking the law and using his positions and family connections to avoid being held accountable. His signing statements are proof enough that he has violated not only his oath to "support and defend the constitution", but Article II, Sec 3 where it says that he shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Are you going to try to tell me that when he issues a signing statement saying that he won't obey certain parts of the laws Congress has passed, that this is within his constitutional rights? I don't, and a large part of the American population doesn't think so either.

I understand that at the time you said that, there wasn't enough evidence gathered to prove these charges, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that put loyalty to a person ahead of loyalty to their country. (Don't deny that was, and for some of them still is, the case.) But now that there have finally been oversight hearings, the truth and the evidence is beginning to emerge. Your duty is clear, Speaker pelosi. You must set into motion impeachment proceedings against, at the very least, these three people. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Attorney General Gonzales MUST be held accountable for their egregious behavior.

Thank you for taking to time to read this. I look forward to seeing the impeachment hearings on C-SPAN. Start with AG Gonzales, as he is "an enabler" of the president.

Sincerely,
Wayne A. Schneider

I've Just Seen a Post

Well, I've been back "full time" now for a few weeks, and some things just don't change. I've been posting a lot primarily at ThinkProgress (affectionately known to us as "TP"), and it's likely that most of you visiting this blog know me from there. I thank all of you for coming back. Now that I can do this from home, I can do it more often. Before, when I could only do this from my computer at work, I either had to stay late, come in early, or sneak in for a few minutes during the day. It wasn't quite working out, hence my ban from internet access at work.

Anywho, I've noticed that TP still has a problem with trolls. Trolls are people who jump into a topic and post false, misleading, deceptive or inflammatory remarks with the sole purpose of derailing the conversation so that we waste our time, and the site master's bandwidth. They often have no rational basis for the things they say. They know that if they jump in and say something like, "Liberals are baby-killers," they'll get a reaction. They aren't interested in discussing anything rationally. They're just trying to piss us off. Unfortuantely, they all too often succeed.

The ironic thing is that while they often accuse us of trying to suppress free speech, if you go to one of the more popular conservative websites (such as Redstate.org) and post something even the tiniest bit critical of Bush or Republicans in general, they ban you. (At least, that's what some have said.) I guess the truth hurts.

So, my experiences since I returned to the blogosphere inspired me to write another song parody. This is to the tune of The Beatles' "I've Just Seen a Face". (Original words and music by John Lennon and Paul McCartney.) I wanted to have it finished by yesterday, but I couldn't quite get it done. Consider it a belated birthday present to Sir (James) Paul McCartney, whose birthday was the 18th. I hope you enjoy it. As usual, thank you Jane for your help and advice.

I've Just Seen a Post
by Wayne A. Schneider

I’ve just seen a post I can’t resist
What he did boast and I insist
He check his facts for me,
And I want all the world to see
He lied.
Lie-lie-lie-la-la-lied.

Had he not been so absurd
I might have let him have his word.
But I have never been so mad,
I never saw a post as bad
As this.
Dum-dum-dum-duh-duh-dumb

Trolling, yes he is trolling
And he keeps rolling
Them out again

I just sit and moan
When I see shit like this I’ve known
To be untrue, but still it gets to me,
And everyone can plainly see
He lies
Lie-lie-lie-la-la-lie

Trolling, yes he is trolling
And he keeps rolling
Them out again

Trolling, yes he is trolling
And he keeps rolling
Them out again

I’ve just seen a post I can’t resist
What he did boast and I insist
He check his facts for me,
And I want all the world to see
He lied.
mmm-mmm-mmm-la-la-lie

Trolling, yes he is trolling
And he keeps rolling
Them out again

Trolling, yes he is trolling
And he keeps rolling
Them out again

Oh, Trolling, yes he is trolling
And he keeps rolling
Them out again

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third!

Like many people, I've come to the sad realization that the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have not, in general, been acting in the best interests of the people who voted them into office. But, for reasons passing understanding, even though many Americans are not simply dissatisfied, but disgusted with their Congress, they keep voting the bastards back in. They do it because they think that their own Senators and Representatives are not part of the problem. Little do they realize how much gets done outside the eye of the public. The Senate likes to talk about coming to the floor and "debating" a bill, but the truth is that the "debate" happens behind closed doors and what takes place on the Senate floor is for show. I would be truly surprised if any Senator's vote was ever changed by anything said during the floor debate portion of the show. (Same with the House of Representatives.)

Then there's campaign finance reform. Very few Members of Congress (and when I phrase it that way, I am referring to both Houses) have made any effort to change the way federal elections are financed. That's because they made it good for themselves. They rigged the system to give themselves a huge advantage over any challengers. And they didn't do that for us, they did it for themselves. The most obvious explanation is that they fear having to justify you sending them back to Congress, so they make it as difficult as possible for third party candidates to gain any foothold on the electorate. Part of the overall difficulty comes from the individual states and what they require to get on the ballot. But most of it is because of what the Democrats and Republicans have done over the years (going waaaaay back) at both the state and federal level. Well, I say it's time we changed that.

Whenever someone mentions that they might for a third party candidate, they are too often met with the attitude, "Well, if you want to waste your vote, that's your right." I don't understand that. How exactly is voting for the candidate you think will best represent you a "wasted vote"? Isn't ours supposed to be a democracy? Doesn't that mean that everyone who is allowed to vote casts their vote for the person of their choice? And the irony is that the ones who most vocally claim that by not voting for a Democrat or a Republican you are wasting your vote are............wait for it......the Democrats and Republicans! Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Well, there is something we can all do to change things, but it's gonna take courage, and lots of it. And it's a gamble because if only part of the country does it, we risk not only the possibility that the guy we want out stays in, but we might also get the guy from the other major party in there instead. Then we'd be right back to square one. What you have to do takes several steps, and you should begin at least a month or two before the primaries.

First, understand that politics is about compromise. You can't always get what you want, so you have to give a little to the other views and let them have something they want. Then the final bill will contain things that make everyone happy. Of course, it will contain things that make some people unhappy, but that's the nature of politics and I don't believe there's any way of getting around it, unless you want to give up on the whole democracy thing. Remember what George W. Bush said, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator." Is that what you'd prefer? Didn't think so.

Second, do some research on what other political parties exist in your state. Not all parties operate in every state, but some are around in almost all of them. But since we're not talking about a presidential election, we don't have to worry about whether or not the party you like can get on the ballot in all fifty states. You are only concerned about doing your job of replacing your own Democrats and Republicans.

Third, find out what each party in your state stands for. Some are limited in what they are trying to achieve (saving the whales, ending all abortions, etc.), while some are very broad in their goals (tax reform, education reform, foreign policy, etc.) Find one that would best represent what you believe in. After all, you are trying to get someone in there who will do what you want, not what everybody else you know wants. Remember, you are voting for YOUR representation, not anybody else's. In our system, we agree to let the one with the most votes get the job. (If you find a party you like but it isn't putting up a candidate, contact them and ask why. You may want to consider putting yourself up as their candidate. Why not? Sure seems like a cushy job, doesn't it? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. We're doing all this to change that.) Keep in mind that it is entirely likely that there will still be a lot of Dem's and Repub's left in Congress (because not enough voters have courage), so you'll want to figure out which of the two parties your candidate would caucus with. For example, there are conservative libertarians (Ron Paul), and there are liberal libertarians (Wayne A. Schneider). Mr. Paul would caucus with the leftover Republicans and I would caucus with the leftover Democrats. Most Americans are more libertarian than authoritarian (like the 28%-ers who still support Bush), so a libertarian candidate might, at first, appeal to both liberals and conservatives. If a libertarian candidate seems to be getting the support of everyone, you might want to try to figure out why he's getting support from the other type of libertarian than you. If you can't find a political party whose platform suits your needs, then look around for any independent candidates who have signaled one way or another that they will be in the race. Contact their campaign headquarters and learn about them. They might be the one for you.

Fourth, find out who the people trying to get that party's nomination are. This is important because you want to make sure that the candidate that party chooses will stick to that party's platform. (In my state of New York, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are strong enough to be able to get candidates on the ballot each year. So we have those alternatives.) Also, the Democratic and Republican candidate might also get the nomination of another party. If so, when it comes time to vote, vote them on the third party line. A candidate running as a Democrat and a Liberal might get more votes on the Liberal line then on the Democrat line. (To be honest, I don't know if any or all states break down a candidate's votes by party. The candidate is still entitled to all the votes from both parties, but one might get a lot more than the other.) If so, then he might have to go down to Washington as a Liberal and not a Democrat. Don't forget to formally register with that party, especially if you are currently registered as an Independent (which many of us are.) If you don't, you might not be allowed to vote in the primary for the person you want. (Rules vary by state. Contact your local Commissioner of Elections to find the rules in your state.)

Fifth, find out which candidate that party intends to put up for the next election. If they're not putting anyone up, then consider running yourself. Learn what you can about the candidate. (If it's you, then find out as much about yourself as anyone looking into your past would find out. If there's dirt, someone is likely to find it. So be prepared to answer questions about it.
Reporter: Mr. Schneider, is it true that in college you once tried to marry a mule?
Schneider: Once? No.)

Sixth, find out if that party's candidate will be invited to any debates. Some parties, other than the two major ones, have been around long enough and are strong enough to get their candidate on the ballot every year, so they would likely be invited to any debates. If they aren't being invited, ask why. (This is especially true of independent candidates.) Contact the sponsor of the debate and tell them that you would like to see your chosen candidate at the debate. You alone might not be able to make the difference (unless the person you're complaining to is a friend of yours), but many, many of you from that district calling in could change the debate sponsor's mind. Make sure you pay close attention to what your candidate says in that debate. This may help you convince others to vote for your candidate.

Seventh, Election Day! (It should be a federal holiday, but, as the old folks say, "That's a topic for another thread." Well, the ones that are hip to today's technology say that.) As you step up to the booth, take a deep breath, pull back the curtain behind you, and VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE OF YOUR CHOICE! And if the Democratic candidate is running on another line (like the Liberal, the Green, or some other) and the Republican is running on another line (such as Conservative, Right to Life, or some other), and you like the way the way they've been representing you, then vote for them on the third party line. They'll still get your vote, but they'll get it with a message. Then sit back and hope everything turns out right. (That part's no different than any other year.)

Now, it may take a few election cycles to weed out enough Dem's and Repub's to wrest control from them, but the effort will be well worth it. The trick is to get the word out to as many people as possible. And the next time someone you know starts complaining about the politicans in Washington, remember to tell them this:
HELP SPREAD THE WORD
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD
GIVE 'EM THE BIRD
VOTE FOR A THIRD.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.

Portrait of the Blogger as a Young Man

Some of you might be curious to know what I look like. Well, I found an old picture of me from my days at college taken by a very good friend of mine named Robin Wasserman. I think the year was around 1979. I'd rather put this one up than any current ones I might have available. It will have to do. :)

Bush and GTMO - Why They Are Dangerous

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was interviewed on Meet The Press recently. During the course of the interview he was asked his views about Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (known as "GTMO" - pronounced Gitmo - because that's the military designation for it.) He said that he would not close it down tomorrow, he would close it down "this afternoon."

While he did say that everyone detained at GTMO should have access to the courts, he also stressed that they should not just be set free. But, of course, as soon as any of them start getting access to the courts they will start getting freed by the judicial system because of several factors, including that their rights to speedy trials were denied, their rights to the evidence against them was denied and even, for some of them, there just isn't any solid case against these guys that would stand up in a court of law. Most of them will be set free by a judge just as soon as their processing in the normal court system begins. And the world knows the true reasons we kleep people there. So far they have managed to keep all but a handful from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. And if Bush has his way, they never will. GTMO is an affront to human rights and it needs to be closed immediately. It's too dangerous to have a facility where people go to be never heard from again. What would we say if that started happening to Americans?

It's because of the mentality of the Bush adminstration. They don't operate in the "fact-based world", they operate purely out of ideology, and they see nothing wrong with doing that. They feel it is perfectly legitimate to adhere to the principles of a belief system even when the facts contradict the tenets of the belief system. (And since this is true of most conservative-leaning people, it is a good argument for why they can't govern and shouldn't be allowed to.)

These people (Bush admin-types) all believe in the KJV interpretation of a Jesus quote in which he supposedly said, "Those who are not with me are against me." It's my understanding that other bibles have translated what Jesus said to read, "Those who are not my enemy are my friend." It's an important distinction in order to understand the mind set. In the former, if you are not an open, avowed friend of the administration, then you are, by default, an enemy. The latter interpretation says that you don't have to go so far as to consider yourself their friend, just as long as you don't consider yourself their enemy, they'll consider you a friend. This is clearly not how the Bush administration has acted, and it is one of the main reasons why they are so hated and despised around the world. If you don't agree with every single thing they want to do, then you're no friend of theirs. How stupid is that?

And because of this childish, selfish, me-first attitude, they have absolutely no interest in trying to make friends with other countries around the world. You're with us or you're against us, and if you're against us, go screw yourself. No intention at all of going up to our enemies and asking, "Dude, why all the hostility, man?" (Okay, diplomats don't normally talk that way unless they've been hanging out with the Jamaican ambassador.)

And this is why they're dangerous. They are convinced based on nothing more than a mythical "can do" attitude that if anyone wanted to attack us, we could kick all of their asses with one battalion tied behind our backs. Of course, they're wrong. If two other countries tried to gang up on us, they could probably cause some real damage. But then, if that ever happened, the American people would recognize the actual threat and join up to fight them. We will all stand behind retaliating against any country that attacked us. Since the "War on Terror" is just a slogan and an excuse to abuse power, the American people are not buying it.

My concern is that the next president, no matter which party, is going to need two terms to accomplish any agenda because he or she will be spending the better part of the first term flying around the globe aplogizing for everything Bush did. If Bush wasn't hell-bent on pleasing Corporate America instead of the people, we wouldn't be in the messes we're in right now. He is a very dangerous man because he has no respect for the rule of law and no respect for our constitution. He also has no respect for people who aren't rich, either. He is entirely ill-suited to lead a country founded on the principles we claim to hold dear.

Dangerous men should not be allowed to remain President of the United States. It's not just in our best interests. It's in the entire world's best interest.

Honk If You Love Peace!

This past Saturday, June 9th, the Pawling Democratic Committee (here you go) organized the first anti-Iraq War protest in Pawling since, gosh, I guess you'd have to say since the war in Iraq began. (I don't recall hearing about any during the first Gulf War but, then, if it got the same publicity ours did, you'd probably only be hearing about it from me.) Still, the turnout was better than feared. Okay, better than I feared. I don't know what the organizers feared. We never got into that. It's not a topic that normally comes up, I guess. ("Say, Bob. Before we go marching into town, possibly embarrassing ourselves in front of our neighbors, is there anything you otherwise fear?" "Well, Jim, besides you and me being the only ones to show up at this march, I'm afraid of lawn ornaments." "Don't worry, Bob. I'll shield your eyes if I spot any, okay?" "You're a good friend, Jim.") I was afraid that Jane and I would show up and, like, four other people would be there. But there were about two dozen people, young and old, all concerned enough about bringing an end to this war to want to march through the village and tell people about it. Some brought their kids so they could be part of it, too. At least one was a Vietnam vet. (A marcher, not one of the kids.) Several of them were from the local Democratic Party chapter, of course. All of us felt we should no longer have any military in Iraq fighting someone else's battles, which is what it has basically become.

In addition to the obvious fact that Jane and I hate what this war in Iraq has done to our nation on so many levels, one of the main appeals of this march was that it started and ended within walking distance of our house. It literally began a block away from our front yard. A short four-minute walk and we were there, all ready to start protesting! (It was my first actual anti-war protest march, so I was trying to accentuate the positive.) Our planned route was to take us down the street toward the middle of the Village of Pawling and end near a memorial erected to honor war dead from our community. Only one short uphill section of the Mile-More-or-Less-Long March gave us all an excuse to "catch our breaths", and it was downhill from there right into the village proper. Throughout the walk we had several people (I'd guess at least a dozen or so) give us supportive honks on the horn (car horn, what did you think I meant?). That's when Jane gave me the idea for the title of this post. She shouted back, "Honk if you love peace!" (which I find amusing on several levels.) And I saw a few peace signs flashed. It might have been my smudgy glasses but I'm pretty sure most of them had two fingers up.

When we got to the memorial we took a closer look and realized that there would be no place to stand and talk without being in the middle of traffic, and it wasn't our intention to get arrested (though more than a few of us were prepared to go through with it; it just was never our intention. And it didn't happen.) We saw a spot on the median of the boulevard where it looked like all two dozen of us could stand and not get run over. (It was Charles Colman Blvd, for those familiar with downtown Pawling, NY. Yeah, like the European visitors to this blog know all about downtown Pawling, NY! But do keep coming back, my European friends. You have nothing to fear from me. I've been to Europe and I like it.) We stood for a while waving our signs (you gotta have signs or else how would people know you weren't just a bunch of mental patients who couldn't find the bus?) and had a few half-hearted, mostly-forgetful attempts at some protest songs. (Even if there were any record producers there, I'm sure they would have reached for their iPods very quickly once they heard us sing.) I did quite clearly hear one guy yell "Hippies!" at us as he drove by. Personally, I didn't mind, but I understand from my sister that the kids today take that as an insult. So what? I like being called "Liberal", too. Then I wondered if anyone had called the local newspaper, which had an office literally across the street from us though it was normally closed on Saturdays, but, no, they forgot to do that. But we decided we would do it the next time. Then we started talking about if there would be a next time, and we agreed that there would be. Then we talked about which day would be good and we agreed that since this was the second saturday of the month, and since the first one of next month (that would be July for you keeping score at home) was a holiday weekend, we agreed that we would do it again the second weekend. So it sounds like we'll be doing this the second Saturday of each month until the war ends. Fifty years, my ass!

Then Ralph, the organizer, gave a little speech at the end of which he said, "I realize now that I should have read this at the beginning of the march." Still, though it had some initial awkwardness (most if us were new at this), I think it was a worthwhile effort. We got to walk through the village proudly pointing out our opposition to the war. I even saw someone I knew sitting outside the laundromat. Considering that he did some work at our house a few times and that he's seen the collection of bumper stickers on Jane's car, I don't think he was all that surprised to see us there. But it was fun. And I look forward to doing it again next month. And if you're not with us, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and say you got lost trying to find the place. Could happen to anyone.

Picking My Brain 07-06-03

Little Known Fun Factoid
In none of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes mysteries does any character ever utter the famous phrase, “No shit, Sherlock.”

The History Channel
I know they show movies that have some relation to history, such as “Patton” and “The Longest Day”. But why do they show the movie “The Planet of the Apes”? That wasn’t part of our history, was it?

Are There Any Standards?
I've been listening to news reports of the lengths the people in the Bush administration went to to circumvent their constitutional responsibilities and I have to wonder: Is protecting themselves from being held accountable for their actions the only thing that motivates them?

My brain's starting to hurt on account of I haven't been picking at it this hard in so long, so I'm going to stop this one right here. Thinking's hard. It's hard work.

It's Good To Be Back

Whew! I finally figured out how to get back into my blog and, well, here I am! Everything seems, as first glance, to be right where I left it. So far, so good. I'm going to start exploring how this whole blogging thingy stuff works again, since it's been months since as I've done it.

I want to thank everyone who checked in from time to time to see if I had returned. I hope you soon feel your patience being rewarded. (We can discuss whether this is the kind of behavior that society wishes to encourage another time.) I also want to thank the new visitors to my blog since I stopped posting. I'm curious to know how some of you found me, since I wasn't really trying to solicit new visitors during my hiatus. Not that I mind that you came here. I appreciate your stopping by, and I hope you enjoyed your visit.

Well, now that I have a computer on which to write things and a blog to which I again have access, it's time to start stirring up some trouble! :)

TTFN

Or, as Tigger from Winnie the Pooh likes to say, "Ta-ta for now!" I will probably not be posting for a while. I have no computer or internet access at home (which will not change until certain other things change first), and my internet privileges at work have been taken away for the foreseeable future. So, this is going to be it for a while. I probably won't even be able to post anything at www.ThinkProgress.org, where I frequently like to post. If that changes, I'm sure that word will get out somehow.

Thank you everyone for being part of my blogging experiment. I do appreciate the visits and the kind words left behind. Take care of yourselves out there.

A Legal Question

Could any lawyers out there seriously explain something to me? I honestly do not understand the idea that the president (and, by extension, the vice president and anyone in the executive branch) can keep the advice he gets secret. Exactly what is being protected by this? The right of the President to lie to the American people? The right of corporate executives to lie to shareholders and the public? We’re talking about public policy here, not personal investments. If someone is giving advice to the president about how to run the country, shouldn’t that advice be in the public interest? What kind of advice would they want kept secret if not advice that was not in the public interest? Don’t you think we would have a right to know what that advice was? Whose interest is being protected by saying advice not in the public interest should be kept secret?

Let me give a hypothetical example. An advocate from a non-government agency specializing in feeding the hungry tells that president that he should increase the budget for feeding the hungry because there are (I’m making this up) five million children going to bed hungry each night. (Let’s suppose that they can back these numbers up with facts and figures.) After meeting the president, he happily tells the press that he advised the president to increase the budget for feeding the hungry. Now suppose that a big agricultural business executive (an “agrixec”) tells the president that there are only about 250,000 hungry kids, and that not only should he cut the feed-the-hungry budget, but that he should just give big agri-business a tax break if they promise to do more to reduce hunger in America. (Note: proof of accomplishment is not required for the tax break, only the promise to do so.) Afterwards, the agrixec tells the public that he told the president to increase the budget for feeding the hungry. Turns out that when the president releases his budget, he did exactly what the agrixec privately told him to do. Are you going to tell me that the president has some kind of constitutional right to keep that advice he got secret from the public? How are we, a public with a need and right to be informed, supposed to know that he’s being told crap like this if he’s allowed to keep it secret from us, the people on whose behalf he is supposed to be working! Can you explain that to me? Because if the public is the one who is supposed to be served by our government, it really doesn’t make any logical sense. (And yes, this relates to the Cheney energy policy. Do you think the advice that Cheney got was in the public interest, or in the corporations’ interests? And how much of that discussion involved the eventual fate of Iraq’s oil fields? Could that be the real reason he wanted that advice kept secret? No, I can’t prove it because he won’t release the records. But he could easily prove me wrong by releasing them.) By the way, I should emphasize that I obviously support keeping properly classified information secret. That much is obvious. By law, information is only supposed to “classified” when its disclosure could harm national security. It is explicitly illegal to classify information just because it might be embarrassing to the government, or any of its officials. Remember, they are supposed to be working for our good, not their own.