Towards a More Civil Union

Once again the tide is rising on the question of gay marriage (same sex marriage) in America just in time for the 2004 Presidential election. And despite the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that to gay marriage is not illegal and the network/cable television’s infatuation with everything gay, a recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows that Americans are still not ready to give gay and lesbian couples their day at the altar.

I too, am reticent to say yes to same sex marriage, mindful as I am of the overall good of society. True, due to a number of factors, the traditional American nuclear family is in trouble, but I wonder if society is better served by allowing gays and lesbian to marry. In a society in which individual rights seem to supersede all at the expense of common sense and personal responsibility, it is wise to move with caution. In a country where the push is on to allow pets their day in court, if gay marriage were allowed, would other forms of unions outside the norms of society be espoused?

That being said, I do not agree with the current push for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. As a purely social matter, the definition of marriage should be left to the states to regulate as long as they stay within the framework of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of law. And this to me is the heart of the matter. How then to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry within the framework of the 14th Amendment without gutting it? In the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, the court stated:

”The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

I cannot condone the denial of due process and equal protection rights for gays and lesbians under the law. As tax payers and citizens of equal standing, same sex partners have a right to the same legal protections their heterosexual counterparts enjoy under marriage “contracts.”

In a now much lauded and maligned case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health, that:

“Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the long-awaited ruling. "For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations."

Having said that, the Court stopped short of ordering the state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, but wisely referred the matter back to the state legislature for future action. Which way the legislature will go—a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, or some sort of Civil Union—is the subject of speculation and debate. But the country is watching.

I vote for the Civil Union. I believe the Civil Union to be a reasonable and just alternative to marriage for gays and lesbians. Under Civil Union contracts, gay and lesbian couples could enjoy all of the rights and responsibilities married heterosexual couples enjoy, including hospital visitation rights, death and insurance benefits, survivors benefits, adoption rights, and family leave benefits, just to name a few.

The first state—and to my knowledge, the only state—in the union to institute Civil Union is Vermont. In accordance with 15 V.S.A. (Vermont Statues Annotated) Section 1204:

“Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.”

This compromise seems to me a win-win situation for all involved; we who oppose gay marriage give rest to the question and protect societal interests, and same sex partners receive all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage.

Those who oppose even Civil Unions would just as soon place the Constitution in a lock box and forget the spirit and letter of the document. We as a society cannot go down a road where we circumvent the legal rights of a whole class of people; didn’t we as a country do that once? And what was the result?
I believe strongly in the spirit of the Constitution and its promise of equal protection under law, and I am ever mindful of the words of the Preamble to our federal Constitution:

“We the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity…”

Those words mean something to me, and should to all of us who sip at the fountain of American freedom. We have a duty and responsibility to each other to ensure that the blessing of liberty and equality are conferred on all, while at the same time maintaining a viable society. And while I oppose same sex marriage as contrary to the tenants of a harmonious society, I do support Civil Unions as a workable alternative, one which guarantees same sex couples the equal protection and due process under law married couples enjoy under law.

Two Party System Fails Us Once Again

It must be the week of the corrupt Republican governor. Fresh on the heels of Connecticut Republican Governor John Rowland’s disclosure of yet more ethics violations, comes the federal indictment of the former Republican governor of my state of Illinois George Ryan, on you guessed it, corruption and ethics violations.

In Connecticut the Democrats, surprise, surprise, seem powerless to remove the scoundrel John Rowland from office. And the scoundrel is unwilling to put the public good above his own bloated ego, and therefore refuses to do the honorable thing, and step down. Meanwhile, here in Illinois, the acrimony between the former governor and the current Democratic governor is taking on a live of its own. Ryan, of course refuses to admit that he did anything wrong, despite the conviction of some 59 of his former inner circle cronies on a vast array corruption and ethics violations, the most egregious of which were perpetrated by his former Chief of Staff, Scott Faywell.

But underlying it all is a further erosion of the public’s trust in the institutions of government upon which we rely to enforce our laws. How much longer before this sort of unabashed, immoral greed, coupled with stupefying lapses in personal integrity, vastly undermines the very foundations of our Republic; or am I naïve enough to believe that the process is not already well underway? And one could argue that this is yet another failing of our two party systems, because it both cases a Republican governor was kowtowed to by Democrat controlled legislatures. Huh?

A Vote For Revolution Seconded

Author’s Note: This article in response to fellow political editor’s David R. Remer’s excellent article entitled “A Vote For Revolution.” It started out as a comment, but in my passion it grew too large for that section.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed—The Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776

David, I agree 100% with what you have said. Our government no longer works for or represents “We the People.” I used the believe that those who said that “Big Business” was running the county exaggerated, but no more. At no time in American history has the interest of big businesses in America so superceded and infringed on the rights of the people to be heard and governed with vision and the overall good of the nation in mind. Law after law is offered up and sighed into law which has little to do with advancing the cause of our society, and everything to do with the profit of Corporate America at the expense of human beings! I, for one, am tired of living in a nation where the business of the nation is business and unrelenting, immoral, greed; said greed being looked upon by the current ruling majority as somehow good for America and Americans!

The two party system, which used to work when governed by principle and a drive to do public good, is no longer working. Political rhetoric is all too often composed of empty promises and vision that rarely sees beyond the confines of capital hill and its plethora of lobbyist fat with corporate money. In the end, the only interests that are served are those of the rich, whose sole concern is increasing their wealth beyond imagining, or need. Meanwhile, “We the People” continue to suffer the inadequacies of government—at all levels—that is increasing corrupt and shot through with mind numbing greed. No public official seems to be able to actually work for the public good any more; it is all about feeding at the trough of public taxes. It is, in a word disheartening.

The current Republican administration would have us regress back to the turn of the last century where the robber barons delighted in their ill-gained wealth, won wholly on the backs working class Americans. Is that where we want to go as a nation? Are we content to live in a nation where the middle class is swept away in an orgy of corporate greed, leaving only the uber rich and uber poor? What of our standard of living, our economic status? Wake up America….wake up, before revolution is the only course of action left to those who value democracy.

We are no longer a nation of vision, anchored by the foundation of principles upon which the country was founded. We hold ourselves up as shining examples of democracy in action, a Utopia where the rule of law is sacrosanct, and yet our government continues to hold men in Cuba and in this country in absentia, denying them their day I court. The President, without judicial review can label any American an “enemy combatant” and have said person carted away to who knows where and deny him (or her) their rights under the Constitution. A high ranking Bush Administration office even went so far as to state that the Judiciary has no sway over the executive branch in times of War. Really, since when? Where is it written, or even implied that the Constitution should be set aside in times of war, real or implied?

We arrogantly refuse to join international bodies whose sole objective it is to advance the cause of civilized discourse among nations, and the protection of the innocent or those too young or weak to protect themselves. We subordinate those interests to those of profit and other meaningless concerns that further separate us from the world to our unending peril. We start unjustified wars based on lies, and half-truths, and seek to push our flawed agenda on to other societies; welcome to the world of Imperialist America.

I fear for America future, and the partisan bitterness current un-hatching across state houses across the nation, in the nation capitol, only heightens that fear. I often wonder what will be left of America for my daughters to inherit; our society, our way of life is falling into disrepair. Institution after institution is being ripped apart by corruption, outright stupidity, greed and a growing pension toward immoral behavior.

“We The People” are no longer united in search of a common purpose, “A More Perfect Union.” We are no longer one nation, and promoting the “General Welfare” of the people is a goal long since abandoned. We are fractured, unwilling or unable to compromise for the good of the nation on even the simplest of issues. The two party political system only mirrors American society as it slides into mediocrity, no longer viable, no longer potent, no longer a force for the betterment of society, or the world, but a hindrance to same. The America Dream is dying, and with it, the America the world had grown to respect, and looked to for leadership. If pressed, I would maintain that it is past time for revolution.

The Energy Bill Filibuster is On

Who says the Democratic Party is dead and dying? Certainly not the Republicans in Senate and certainly not the White House who were all but gloating about passage of the much ballyhooed Energy Bill, before it cleared the Senate floor. Now it appears as thought the ill-conceived bill might be dead as the Democrats launch a filibuster. Should Americans rejoice at its passing? Is there any reason to decry the death of a bill that does nothing to address the cause of American energy independence now, or in the foreseeable future?

Better in my estimation to let the Energy Bill die, then to sigh into law a bill that on its face is bad for America.

In the latest round of partisan politics, in which Senate Republicans are engaged in a 30-hour debate about the state of the Bush Administration’s judicial nominees, are the Republicans crying wolf when in fact there is none to be found? What is the issue one might ask? It is this: out of a total of 172 judicial nominees for vacant Federal Judicial benches put before the Senate so far, 168—some 98%, have been passed by the full Senate while, 4—a mere 2% have been held up by Democrats.

In a sound bite today Bush called this:

”ugly politics," and further stated that, "[i]t's wrong and it's shameful, and it's hurting the system."

How is this ”ugly politics,” and how is it “hurting the system?" The last time I read it, the Constitution still gives the Senate the right to advise and consent on Federal judicial appointments. I do not believe the wording has been changed to advise and rubberstamp. Does Bush, and as an extension, Senate Republicans, awash in the glow of their arrogance believe that they should (be entitled) get everything they wish for? Have they forgotten how our government operates? Instead of compromising and finding more mainstream candidates—you know jurists that might represent a fair majority of the American people—the Bush Administration seems bent on packing the court with neo-conservative, strict Constitutionalists. Knowing what I know about their dogma and believes, that is not a road this Moderate wants to travel, how about you?

Is Gore Spoiling For Round Two?

Is Al Gore spoiling for a re-match with his nemesis George W. Bush? In a speech given over the weekend, to an audience of about 2500 Gore, spoke to members of two liberal advocacy groups: the American Constitution Society and Moveon.org, and based on the voracity of his presentation, it sure sounded like he was ready to fight.

Gore stated: "President Bush has stretched this new practical imperative way beyond what is healthy for our democracy," and "[t]hey have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, Big Brother-style government -- toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book '1984' -- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America,"

Is Gore building a case whereby he would enter the race for the 2004 democratic nomination as the savoir of American Principles. The man on the White charger destined to save American democracy from the neo-conservative Republican hoards? Or perhaps he’ll decide to run as an Independent.

At the end of his speech Gore asked the crowd, "[s]o what should be done?" and the audience shouted "Run Al, Run," which no doubt he wanted to hear. There is also little doubt that if Gore did to decide to run as a democrat he would be the immediate front runner. And if he ran as in independent, his popular support would be more then any Independent candidate has heretofore enjoyed.

I join the crowd shouting Run Al Run! Could one imagine a Gore/McCain ticket?

Green Party Candidate Matt Gonzalez vies for San Francisco’s Top Slot

San Francisco is in flux, Willie Brown is out, the victim of term limits and the mayor’s office is up for grabs. The election, which was held yesterday ended with millionaire entrepreneur and city Supervisor Gavin Newsom on top, but not with a high enough margin to win the mayors office outright. A run off election will be held next month to decide the race and fellow city Supervisor Matt Gonzalez the highest ranking Green Party member to hold office in the city could very well become San Francisco’s next mayor. Who is Matt Gonzalez the man who be mayor of the California city that is arguably America’s most liberal? Follow the link gentle reader, follow the links.

* Chinese immigrants, small businesses back Gonzalez

* In S.F., it's a race to be second
Gonzalez, Leal, Alioto vie to face Newsom

Continuing Security Issues in Iraq Hamper Bush Administration Mission

The Bush Administration claims that the latest attacks in Baghdad are a sign of desperation by those opposed to the U.S. led occupation of Iraq. Huh? What crystal ball is he looking into? Bush stated yesterday that:

"The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react. The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can't stand the thought of a free society."

Is the measure of our success in Iraq now to be gauged by how many lights are on, how many schools are open, and how many policeman are created? I would argue that the attackers have grown even more brazen in their attacks because we are failing in Iraq, not succeeding. More and more American soldiers are dying every week in Iraq denoting a deteriorating security situation which can only get worse, because despite protestations to the contrary by Bush Administration officials there are not enough “boots” on the ground to carry out the mission.

Oil fire continue to burn as a result of sabotage; sizable former Iraqi Army ammunition dumps are left unguarded, in effect arming the very men we seek to guard against; borders are left largely unguarded and foreign fighter are infiltrating Iraq and killing American soldiers; dozens of attacks are carried out daily, the result of which is an erosion in the Iraqi people confidence in American competence and leadership.

Without even basic security how can meaningful progress be made toward a more stable and democratic Iraq?

Florida Theatrics Points to Future Erosion in the American Political System

How bad has the state of political discourse gotten in these United States? Look no further then the state of Florida for the answer wherein a Republican governor and Republican led Legislature have—contrary to the stated platform of the Republican Party which decries government interference in our lives—drafted and signed into a law a bill designed to effect just one person! I am referring of course to the heartbreaking case of Terri Schiavo.

It is bad enough that the Florida legislature over-stepped its authority in drafting the law, and the governor ill-used his office by signing the law, but in doing so they subverted our democratic process by sidelining the third branch of government, the judicial. And they did so not to save a life, but to garner the votes of the people from the religious right who support them in this foolishness!

Said noted and highly regarded Harvard law Professor Laurence Tribe of the goings on:

"I've never seen a case in which the state legislature treats someone's life as a political football in quite the way this is being done."

How sad a happenstance that American politicians have started to resort to Third World shenanigan and abuse of power and process in order to obtain and stay in office. Shame on the Florida Legislature and shame of governor Bush!

Shelved State Dept. Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq

Further confirmation of the Pentagon’s inept handling of Iraqi peace came to light last week with the release of a comprehensive State Department study which envisaged many of the tribulations that have beleaguered the American-led occupation of the troubled country. The State Department began drafting 2000 page report in April 2002, at a reported cost of some 5 million. The Department gathered together more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics as diverse as creating a new justice system to reorganizing the Iraqi Army after the War to overhauling the Iraqi economy.

The working group’s conclusions for instance, painted a far more dire assessment of Iraq's dilapidated electrical and water systems than many at the Pentagon were ready to admit. As a result the Pentagon (Rumsfeld & Wolfawitz), though the department denies it, shelved the report and the results of their short-sidedness and arrogance play out nightly on national television news broadcasts. Shall we renew the calls for Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz to resign? I say yes! What lessons can the Bush Administration learn from the deepening debacle, better yet what lessons can the American electorate learn from the inept leadership that brought us to this place?

Is Scalia Hurting the Conservative Cause?

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is once again in the news, but this time it is not for an overly emotive dissenting opinion. This time at bat it is for his self removal from a case whose outcome is sure to be controversial no matter which way the court swings. The much maligned and celebrated case from California in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the words “one nation under God” was un-Constitutional rankled Scalia to such an extend that he spoke out against it, making his views unswervingly clear.

Speaking at function on Jan. 12 Scalia told an audience that the 9th Circuit’s decision in the case was an example of a:

”new philosophy" among judges "that says, '[The Constitution] doesn't mean what Thomas Jefferson thought it meant, what the Framers thought it meant. It means what we think it ought to mean.' "

I hasten to point out that Thomas Jefferson was not the chief architect of the Constitution, that accolade belongs to John Adams.

By publicly lashing out at the 9th Circuit’s decision even before the case was accepted by the Supreme Court, Scalia biased himself, almost assuring his eventual self-exile from the case. The Associate Judges judicial philosophy is well know in legal circles, but his “traditionalist” interpretation of the Constitution is not shared by enough justices on the High Court to give his opinions serious sway.

I do not hold his view of the Constitution as unswerving and not open to “reading between the lines” so to speak. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom allowed for the amending of the Constitution recognizing that societies are not static vehicles immune to change and upheaval, both social and political. How then can the document that governs them be immutable and unyielding in its body?

Does this view make Scalia increasingly ineffective as an advocate of the Conservative cause on the Court? Some think so, among them fellow Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who thinks Scalia, who has become increasing belligerent in his dissents from the bench, should tone down his rhetoric in order to better get his point across. I agree, his often emotional dissents, while speaking volumes of his passion for the law, do little to advance its cause, or further the conservative agenda.

In the instant case, his removal from the bench could result in an even split of the bench, in which case the judgment of the 9th Circuit stands and the offending line goes away; an outcome I hasten to add would be contrary to how Scalia would have ruled. But in his rush to “bash” the 9th Circuit he did his own cause an injustice. Perhaps in the future the Justice should confine his remarks to the pages of an opinion.

Cuban Embargo Should Be Lifted

Here’s a question that begs a thoughtful, well reasoned answer: what interest(s) does the United States have in the further isolation of Cuba, and a continuation of an embargo I believe most of the world sees as a failure despite the (confusing) rhetoric of the Bush Administration to the contrary? Now that the Cold War is long over and the Soviet Union has been added to the list of nations securely affixed the “also ran” column, and has long since deserted Cuba, what is gained by further punishing the Cuban people with an embargo that has failed to deliver democracy to island nation, or bring Castro to his knees?

Stating that, "Cuba will soon be free," President Bush in a Rose Garden speech on Friday, October 10th, 2003, outlined a raft of new indicatives designed—in theory—to bring about the demise of Communism (Castro) in Cuba and from its ashes plant the seeds of life affirming Democracy.

The new measures include (Source—BBC.com):

• Strictly enforcing (via the Department of Homeland Security) an existing US law forbidding Americans from traveling to Cuba for pleasure.


• Cracking down on illegal money transfers.


• Imposing controls of shipments to the island.


• Aggressive campaign to inform Cubans of safer routes to reach the United States.


• Increasing the number of Cuban immigrants in the US.


• More US radio, television, satellite and internet broadcasts to break the "information embargo" Mr. Castro had imposed on his people.

Bush stated that Castro has answered his recent diplomatic overtures designed to ease restrictions on trade and travel between the two countries "with defiance and contempt and a new round of brutal oppression that outraged the world's conscience." Really, has there been a great outcry across the world relating the Castro’s treatment of the Cuban people we have not heard about? Bush went on to say, "Clearly, the Castro regime will not change by its own choice, but Cuba must change."

Change, why must it change? And who are we (Americans or the Cuban exile community) to once again be the instruments of that change? Where is it written that democracy should be the political system of choice in every nation? Shouldn’t be up to the people actually living in Cuba to decide what shape and form their government should take, and not some self-styled exile community with little or no vested interest outside of monetary and or material gain at stake. And certainly the U.S. government should not have a vote. If they (the self-styled Cuban exile community) were really that concerned with change in Cuba, why aren’t they there in Cuba bringing about such a change instead of living in South Florida basking in the glow of American freedoms? If Castro fell from power tomorrow and the seeds of democracy were allowed to flourish how many of them would return to Cuba immediately and help the country realize true freedom whose foundation rests on the rule of law and the equality for all?

Our (the United States government) policy towards Cuba indeed needs to be re-addressed, but not like this. I have always been a strong advocate of ending the embargo, not only because it hasn’t now, and will not in the future work, but also because it’s just wrong. It’s a double standard we dared not impose on China, or the former Soviet Union, and only impose on Cuba because it is politically expedient to do so. I believe that if we lifted the embargo and reestablished trade with Cuba, the country would take a similar path as China, embracing capitalism in small steps, thereby allowing the flowers of democracy to bloom slowly in the sunshine of the free market economy. Once freedom has tempted the palate, its taste is hard to excise from the hearts of those who have sampled it.

The Bush Administration latest salvo across Castro’s bow amounts to little more the political hubris designed to win the votes of the so-called Cuban exiles in the upcoming 2004 Presidential election. It has nothing to do with the real needs, or wants, of the Cuban people. And the new policies certainly do not spring from a place of compassion, or genuine concern for the state of the Cuban society. If that were the case common-sense and rational thought would prevail and the Cuban exiles would not be allowed to dictate American Foreign Policy as it relates to the now militarily insignificant island some ninety miles south of the Florida coast. Mr. Bush, end this embargo!

Further Carnage On the Road to Illusive Peace…

Israel’s early Sunday morning raid into Syria to strike at an alleged training camp of the Islamic Jihad after that group claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack Saturday in the Haifa which killed 19 Israelis and wounded scores more, is further evidence that all of the countries in the Middle East “must” be involved in the peace process. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, and Egypt must be made active participates in the peace process or it is doomed to failure. The violence in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank cannot, and will not end until state sponsored terrorism by Arab and or Muslim nations ends, and they in turn recognize Israel’s right to exist as a free state.

The Roadmap is dead, and while we continue to lose men in a country we should never have invaded, Middle East violence is once again spinning out of control. All hale U.S. leadership!

Limbaugh Voices true feeling of Republican Party Towards Black Americans!

Rush Limbaugh that big fat (not so fat any more) idiot, sensible, rational, intelligent people love to hate, once again painted the true picture of the Republican Party, in glowing bigoted hues. His latest remarks only booster the impression I have always held of the man and his Party: he is a bigot and a not so in the closet racist. And he is a reflection of his Party. The Republicans talk a good game (no pun intended) about wanting to be the Party of inclusion, but at its core, the Party membership would rather not associate with Black Americans. Those old, dusty, oft-dispelled racial stereotypes about Black Americans still cling to the Party like ivy on the façade of Harvard, ever present, renewing with each generation of Party membership. Rush (and his fellow conservative commentators, and imitators), each time he speaks, reminds me that the Republican Party will never be one I would want to associate myself with.

Smoke and Mirrors: Administration Flails in its Efforts to Justify War…

The Bush Administration’s mouth-pieces were out in force on the Sunday “news” talk shows trying to justify a War that never should have been prosecuted. Condoleezza Rice (who I now find it very hard to trust) said the administration relied on "an enrichment" of 5-year-old intelligence to rationalize its—now much maligned—claims that Iraq had WMD, and was therefore a clear and present danger to the United States.

The house of WMD cards is slowly crumbling, and even the usually muted Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is chiming in, stating that it has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors was of little or no military or intelligence value. How can any intelligent, rational person still cling to the fantasy that the Bush Administration did not lie to the American people in its zeal to invade a sovereign nation?

Poverty Level Rises for 2nd Straight Year in U.S.

Fresh on the heals of Bush’s dismal showing in the latest polls, comes word that the number of Americans living at or under the Poverty Line has risen “markedly” for the second straight year, due to plummeting pay rates, and a dismal job outlook. According to the Census Bureau the country’s median income fell $500 in 2002.

CNN reports:

The Census Bureau Reported that 34.6 million people, or 12.1 percent of the population, were living in poverty, up from 32.9 million people or 11.7 percent in 2001, when the economy went into recession after a decade of growth. The median household income, when adjusted for inflation, fell 1.1 percent to $42,409, according to the bureau, which released two comprehensive annual reports looking at poverty and income in America.

Yes, those tax breaks for the rich are really helping the economy, see how many jobs they are creating: trickle, trickle, trickle…

The American Way...

I have of late been feeling not myself: moody, irritable, conflicted, and torn in too many directions at once by life, family, societal responsibilities, and national inflictions. I find myself fearing for the future of my nation more and more as the days slip by into the past of minute remembrance.

As an American I am proud live in a country where I am free to express the voice of my soul, but at the same time I often feel ashamed of the way mine government is conducting itself in mine and every other Americans name. At the same time I consider myself a citizen of the world, having lived abroad for many years and tasted the distant and satisfying flavor of other cultures and societies. From the tip of Spain to the Black Sea Coast; from the museums of Paris to the pubs of Portsmouth; from the wharfs of Yokahama to the teeming bazaars of Istanbul; from the fjord’s of Oslo bay to the coral reefs of Puerto Rico; from the whit mountains of Italy to the beautiful city of Vienna; from Korea to Denmark, I have cross crossed the globe experiencing life, but never fully grasping the inter-connected nature of our lives.

But always I was conscience of what it was to be an American, and our reputation in foreign lands, and I treated each person I met as an equal, with the respect and dignity that should be afforded all humans no matter their national origins. And in return, I was treated with respect (with very few exceptions) and equal dignity. I made many friends, and through the years we had kept in touch, but alas, the last of them has drifted away leaving my without a picture of the real world beyond my sphere of influence.

I worry now how Americans are thought of around the world. Are we hated, despised, feared, loathed, distained in distant lands? I wish now that I had not allowed those past relationships to drift away with the sands of time, but alas the past is the past, and I must concentrate on new friendships in new places blooming…am I alone in my thoughts and trepidations, in my fears of my countries slide in the eyes of world opinion? Am I wrong to fear for America’s future if those in power are allowed to remain securely fixed to the reins of power?

In Serch of A National Identity

In light of California governor Gray Davis’ ill-informed, vote pandering decision (the GOP is predictably livid) on Sept. 5 to sign into law a bill making it easier for “illegal” immigrants to obtain “legal” drivers licenses, ones, I hasten to add that by virtual of Constitutional proclamation (Article 4, Section 1) would have to recognized in all fifty states, I once again examine the issue of a national ID card:

There can be no denying that since the September 11, 2001 attacks America has changed in ways we never would have imagined on September 10, 2001. Before September 11th, an attack on U.S. soil in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives in 30 minutes of stupefying evil was unthinkable to most Americans; it simply was not on our collective to-do lists. And yet life hasn’t changed in America in some very important and costly respects. We still as society cling to the notion that we can have safety without giving up even a modicum of personal privacy or freedom.

I have read about and listened with consternation to the debates swirling around even the suggestion of a national identification card. For the record I see nothing wrong with a national I.D. card, one which has embossed upon its surface a picture of each citizen and embedded in its plastic sheathing a microchip with your current address, phone number, date of birth, blood type, driver’s license number, SSN, and any police record(s). In other words nothing that is not already a matter of public record! All of this information would be part of a federal database and could be used by law enforcement officials to spot-check the collective identity. The card would be the size of a driver’s license and clearly state that it was a Federal I.D. card. Measures would be taken to ensure that the card could not be counterfeited in much the same was our currency and military ID cards are now protected.

Much of the negative debate surrounding this issued has centered on issues of privacy and the right to be anonymous, to blend into the crowd, to go un-noticed by the various state and federal authorities. But haven’t we as a society already given up much of we seek to protect? Every baby born in the U.S. is now issued a Social Security Number before (s)he leaves the hospital; in order to dive a car you have to have a drivers license, with your picture, current name, address, birth-date, sex, and physical characteristics emblazoned across the front and or back; colleges and universities issue student I.D.’s with the students picture on the front; and many companies require some sort of picture I.D. Credit card companies and other financial institutions routinely collect various types of personal information from us, and insurance companies delve into our personal medical histories with (and without) our consent. And yet we readily accept these intrusions into our lives, why, because it benefits us directly. Since when has public safety not been in our collective interests’?

For the record, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymity, nor is there a stated right to privacy. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments to the federal constitution, does it say that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the citizen to remain anonymous, nor shall Congress institute any law, which encroaches upon the citizen’s right to privacy. In the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court implied the right to privacy citing historical court precedent and the 14th Amendments guarantee to due process under law. However, constitutional scholars still debates the merits of the Courts decision, and point out again that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the citizenry have a right to privacy!

I personally believe that every citizen has a right to privacy within the confines of his or her home, or other private dwelling. That “right” erodes sharply once a citizen enters into the public domain, wherein he/she interacts with other citizens. In this domain, the public domain, the overall safety of society must outweigh—to a very real degree—the right of the citizen to privacy and anonymity. If this means that we have to carry national identification cards in order to differentiate between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, then so be it. Will the card in-and-of itself make the U.S. a safer country? Of course not, but it could be part of a whole range of steps we can take to ensure our national safety. Am I afraid the government will misuse the information gathered? No, not really, not any more than it already does, or has. Do state governments routinely misuse the information it gathers on its citizens as part of the many drivers’ license programs? I have yet to hear, or read about any wide spread abuse. Has the federal government used to evil ends, the vast amounts of personal information it stores in its various databases on every service member and veteran that is servicing or has served in the U.S. Armed Forces? I don’t think so. I have been retired from the Navy since 1995 and a have heard nary a peep from the government; they have not come knocking at my door, nor have they intercepted my mail, or in anyway interfered with my comings and goings from the country.

To me a national identification card is a small price to pay for putting into place another small piece of the home security puzzle. Perhaps instead of fighting the proposal, the civil libertarians could form a partnership with the government and come up with a system that protects the citizenry without compromising those rights we as a nation have come to embrace.

Bush Proposes Limiting Federal 2004 GS Pay Raise to 2 Percent

Our Accidental President, Mr. Bush after pushing through a record tax cut for the rich and building up the largest budget deficit in U.S. history, now has the audacity to transmit to Congress a plan to limit the pay increase payable to civilian federal employees. Mr. Bush proposal would affect General Schedule (GS) and certain other pay systems limiting their January 2004 raises to a total of 2 percent. And of that amount, only one and a half percent would be allocated to an across-the-board increase, and the remaining 0.5 percent to locality pay.

In accordance with Title 5, Part III, Subpart D, Ch. 53, Sub-Chapter III of the U.S. Code, these federal employees would receive a two-part pay increase in January 2004: (1) a 2.7 percent across-the-board increase in scheduled rates of basic pay, and (2) a locality pay increase based on Bureau of Labor Statistics' salary surveys of non-federal employers in each locality pay area; e.g. Chicago, New York, Los Angles, Atlanta, etc.

In Bush’s August 27 letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, he states that he is exercising his statutory authority to limit the January 2004 GS pay increases. The president may implement an alternative pay plan if he believes the full adjustment is inappropriate due to national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare. Bush said a national emergency has existed since Sept. 11, 2001, which now includes Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The letter further states that full statutory civilian pay increases of 13 percent of payroll in 2004 would cost the Treasury about $13 billion in fiscal year 2004 and would build in later years.

Such cost increases the letter said, would threaten U.S. efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or federal employment to stay within budget. Bush stated that: "[n]either outcome is acceptable. Therefore, I have determined that a total pay increase of 2 percent would be appropriate for GS and certain other employees in January 2004."

The Accidental President lobbied for passage of his FY 2004 Budget and H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act. The president stated that the 2 percent increase should be complemented by 500 million dollars from the proposed Human Capital Performance Fund, which is contained in the Authorization Act.

"Providing higher pay for employees whose exceptional performance is critical to the achievement of the agency mission is preferable to spreading limited dollars across-the-board to all employees regardless of their individual performance or contribution," Bush said.

"I do not believe this decision will materially affect our ability to continue to attract and retain a quality federal workforce," states the Accidental President. "To the contrary, since any pay raise above the 2 percent I have proposed would likely be un-funded, agencies would have to absorb the additional cost and could have to freeze hiring in order to pay the higher rates."

Bush also stated that GS quit rates are at an all-time low of 1.7 percent per year - well below the overall average quit rate in private enterprise. "Should the need arise, the government has many
compensation tools, such as recruitment bonuses, retention allowances, and special salary rates, to maintain the high-quality workforce that serves our nation so very well."

One has to wonder, once again, at the wisdom of the tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. Where is their sacrifice for the good of the nation, nation in the words of the Accidental President, under a state of emergency?

While Bush is asking dedicated federal workers to forgo their statutorily mandated pay raises, those who can well afford to forgo one are dancing in the shadows cast by multi-billion dollar estates so large as to defy the imagination or common sense. Such audacity and arrogance can only be born on the lips of a Republican.

Full text of Bush’s letter can be found here.

War Zone is no Place for Civilian Contrators...

Like an unwelcome house guest, stories of civilian contractors failing in their support of U.S. troops is Iraq and elsewhere, keep flooding the airwaves and newsprint. An Army is totally ineffective without reliable support; troops need to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained, and medicated in the rear. I always thought it was folly to replace military support personnel trained to deal with the rigors, dangers, and horrors of war, with civilian contractors who may or may not show up and do their jobs.

War is not an IPO and the U.S. Armed Forces is not a corporation. Despite Sect. of Defense Donald Rumsfelds’ protestations to the contrary, we need more men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces, period! Civilians, no matter their function, do not belong in a war zone. That is what the country formed a professional military for. Is this further evidence of the shrinking ethical and moral base of our society? Have we (the American society) in an effort to find profit in anything become completely blinded to ethical and moral principles and behaviors? What is going on?

Links to other articles of interest concerning this story:

* U.S. involvement deepens as armed conflict escalates in Colombia
* Thousands of Private Contractors Support U.S. Forces in Persian Gulf
* Corporate Warriors {audio interview with Peter W. Singer, author of Corporate Warriors}.

Martin Plan: A Blueprint for MIddle East Peace

I go on the record as stating that I think the quagmire currently swallowing the Middle East in a cesspool of senseless violence and childish thinking, is fault of both sides. That being said, I believe the Palestinians, led by Yasser Arafat(?) and Mahmoud Abbas—also known as Abu Mazen—shoulder a far greater proportion of the blame than do the Israelis at this point. The Palestinian people had peace in their grasp back in January 2000, but they had a fool representing their cause before the world. He blew it and the violence continues apace.

And now it appears as thought the Roadmap to Peace has veered off the on-ramp to civility after less then a month of peaceful co-existence. That peace was shattered by yet another militant Palestinian lunatic with a bomb who ended twenty Israeli lives and ruined scores, and scores of others. The Israeli’s, in turn, dusted off targeted assassinations, which prompted the militant Islamic factions to call off the ceasefire. And the cycle continues anew.

Quick question(s): where is the general outcry from the world when Israeli women and children are being murdered by high-grade explosives, ball bearings, nails, broken glass, rocks, and shrapnel? Where are the demonstrations in the streets of world cities against the Palestinian thugs who murder the innocent, pushing peace off a cliff into the abyss? Where is the indignation? Where are the UN resolutions denouncing terror and calling on the Palestinian Authority to once and for all rein in its militant arms?

But I digress. I believe in order to advance the cause of peace and stability in the Middle East, a new paradigm needs to be realized (no, I mean a real one this time), one in which the Arab nations and the Palestinian militant groups play a central part in the peace process; the Roadmap to Peace, however well-intended, falls way short of the mark. This new paradigm is one in which Israel is recognized as a viable state; one in which the state of Palestine finally comes into being. Let’s call it the Martin Plan for Middle East Peace.

The Martin Plan would have three over-riding objectives at its core:

1. Recognition of Israel by the Palestinians (to include Islamic fundamentalist groups) and Arab nations as a legitimate state;



2. It would seek to create that which the Palestinians claim they want: a homeland of their own with its capital in East Jerusalem, and;



3. A cessation of the violence by militant Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The main points of the Martin Plan are as follows:

• Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation with internationally recognized borders.


• The Palestinian people have a right to a separate homeland bordering Israel.


• Israel would withdraw all troops from the occupied territories and will cease all work on settlements.


• The Palestinian Authority would renounce violence and terror. And the Authority will further renounce all claims to land in Israel proper, and give up the right of resettlement in said lands.


• All West Bank lands north of the Dead Sea, together with land given over by Jordan adjacent to it, would form a new Palestinian state, with its capital in East Jerusalem.


• All remaining West Bank territory bordering the Dead Sea in the east including the cities of Bethlehem and Hebron would be incorporated into Israel proper.


• Jordan would cede a tract of land (size to be negotiated) east of the West Bank to form a new Palestinian state.


• The Gaza Strip would be incorporated into Israel proper.


• The Sinai Peninsula would be spilt evenly between Israel and Egypt.


• Militant Islamic fundamentalist groups; i.e. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. would recognize Israel’s right to exist and would further cease all hostilities against the Israeli people and state.

Under the Martin Plan, the United States would be called upon to act as mediator in the ongoing dispute between, not only the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the Arab states and Israel as well. Also, the U.S. would be called upon to stay engaged, and exert whatever pressure, and or, influence necessary to bring about as broad a blue print for peace by the end of 2003, and a final settlement by the end of 2004.

Under the Martin Plan, the United Nations would be called upon to become more actively engaged in the Middle-East beyond its current presence in the Sinai. This engagement should take the form of an official UN representative hand picked by the UN Secretary General to act as his surrogate in all matters concerning the UN’s part in the on-going negotiations, and the final agreement. The UN would provide a forum in which the on-going negotiations would take place. Finally, the UN and its member states would be called upon to provide those peacekeeping forces deemed necessary by the negotiating parties, to ensure the tenants of the final agreement are adhered to by all parties.

Under the Martin Plan, Israel would be called upon to immediately cease all military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and cease all work on existing Israeli settlements therein, and halt plans to begin any new settlements. Israel would be required adopt UN Resolutions 1397 and 1402, which recognizes need for a Palestinian state, and call for an immediate ceasefire between the two parties.

Under the Martin Plan, the Palestinian Authority led by Yassar Arafat/Mahmoud Abbas would be called upon to immediately denounce—in Arabic and English—the use of violence and terror as a means of achieving a political settlement to the current crisis. Failure of Arafat/Abbas to definitively denounce violence and terror, would lead to a UN resolution branding him/them an enemy of peace and call for his/their immediate replacement as the head(s) of the Palestinian Authority. Finally, the Palestinian Authority would be required to recognize UN Resolutions 1397 and 1402, which identifies the need for a Palestinian state, and call for an immediate ceasefire between the two parties.

Under the Martin Plan, the Arab Nations of the Middle East region (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq(?), Kuwait, the UAE, and Yemen) would be called upon to immediately recognize Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. Each would be asked to sign a UN security counsel resolution supporting said declaration. In addition, each Arab state would pledge to exchange ambassadors within a month of the resolutions’ adoption and agree to enter into separate negotiations with Israel to secure formal peace treaties. And they (Arab states) would end support for militant Islamic Palestinian extremist groups, whose sole aim is violence and terror, and denounce those Arab states that do not. Lastly, the Arab nations would be called upon to immediately cease state sponsored negative media coverage of Israel in which the destruction of state and the extinction of it people is called for, or endorsed.

Under the Martin Plan, those Arab states surrounding Israel: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, would all be asked to join the negotiating table and prove that they had the best interests of the Palestinian people and the cause of peace at heart. Also, under the plan, the main Palestinian militant groups Hamas (Gaza Strip), Hezbollah (southern Lebanon), Islamic Jihad, and Arafats' own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (West Bank) would be asked to join the peace process, denounce terrorism and declare their support for a viable Jewish state, with recognized boarders. Failure of these groups to join the negotiating table in good faith would exclude them from future consideration; each would be branded an enemy of peace and its members accorded the same status as terrorist.

Under the Martin Plan, Jordan—which has by far the largest Palestinian population of any Arab nation—would be called upon to relinquish some land (size to be determined during negotiations) in the western part of that nation directly north of the Dead Sea. This sacrifice would be necessary to form a new Palestinian state, whose borders would be contiguous with those of the West Bank, and whose territory would be large enough to accommodate Palestinians both in the “occupied territories,” and in Jordan wishing to migrate to the newly form Palestine.

Under the Martin Plan, Syria would relinquish all claims to the Golan Heights and seek instead a lasting peace with Israel. Syria would further withdraw all troops from Lebanon, and cut off all financial and military aid to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Under the Martin Plan, Egypt would relinquish the eastern portion of the Sinai Peninsula to Israel, and reclaim the western portion as its own. Neither country would be allowed militarize the peninsula except for those forces needed to patrol the border in peacetime.

Under the Martin Plan, Lebanon, with the blessing and active participation of Syria, would formally expel any and all Hezbollah forces from the central and southern regions of the country and no longer welcome them with open arms. The border with Israel would become demilitarized except for those forces needed to patrol the border in peacetime.

In closing, I am all too mindful of the ancient and emotional ties of all concerned to this small sliver of the Earth known as the Holy Land. And I am mindful as well of the deep spiritual meaning of the city of Jerusalem to Muslim and Jew alike. However, like a marriage between two souls seeking unity, peace, understanding, and mutual purpose, a compromise has to be struck. Neither side can have all of what they desire, each has to give, in order to get. The Martin Plan I believe is meaningful framework from which to build a lasting peace.

The old model for a lasting peace in the Middle East no longer seems to work; ceasefires fail, the bloodletting continues apace, and peace is pushed further and further from our collective grasps. We need a new mindset, a bold new plan (newsflash: the Roadmap to Peaceisn’t it), and a nation willing to lead the parties to a lasting peace with every tool in its arsenal. The United States is looked to by the rest of the world for leadership, its time Bush started exercising it (is that even possible?) and lead the region to a lasting peace, and I think the Martin Plan can help him realize that peace.

Judge Moore Suspended

This just in: Alabama's (clueless) chief justice was suspended Friday for his refusal to obey a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of his courthouse. I say here, here! It is comforting to know that Judge (and I use the term loosely) Moore is alone in his elementary interpretation and understanding of our federal constitution.

The Roadmap Takes a Very Wrong Turn

Who could have predicted this?

The Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have called off their ceasefire after an Israeli missile strike killed a Hamas leader in Gaza City. This after a Palestine suicide bomber killed scores of Israelis (and others) in Jerusalem on Tuesday.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the attack did not mean the end of the roadmap, but doesn’t it? With neither side willing to truly compromise, the Roadmap to Peace(?) really never had a chance to succeed, and now it is just another in a long line of failed proposals. And the Bush Administration seems ambivalent, at best, to the entire situation, unwilling or unable to make the really hard decisions that would move the process forward and put an end, once and for all, to the bloodshed. Action on the part of the U.S. needs to go beyond mere rhetoric to a solid plan of action that draws the surrounding countries into roadmap.

Syria for instance must be persuaded, or pressured, into ending its support of the militant Islamic factions now at work in The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Lebanon. And Lebanon must be persuaded to finally crack down on Hezbollah and expel them from the country. Peace, I submit, cannot move forward without an end to the bloodshed fostered by militant Islamic groups who claim to have to best interests of the Palestinian people at heart. Failure of leadership from the Bush Administration? I say yes, what say you?

Who is Arianna Huffington

Who is Arianna Huffington, the woman who would be governor of California? Herein lies (almost) all you ever wanted to know about the articulate flip-flopping handsome woman with the Greek accent who lives in an estimated 7 million estate in Brentwood California. Would she make a better governor then the current embattled Gray Davis? I certainly think she would make a better governor then the (overly) popular Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has yet to spell out in any significant way his position on the problems vexing the state.

Huffington sponsored Websites:

* Arianna Online
* Arianna Huffington for Governor of California

LATimes Feature Articles:

* Candidate Profile: Arianna Huffington
* Huffington Manager Also Works as a Lobbyist
* Huffington Can’t Dodge Tax Questions
* Huffington Calls Schwarzenegger GOP Insider
* Huffington Paid Little Income Tax
* Camejo, Huffington Form Unorthodox Alliance

Bush is Looking Through a Glass Darkly...

The Accidental President is looking through a glass darkly if he sincerely believes that Iraq is more secure now than the day the 3rd Infantry Division’s mechanized juggernaut first rolled through the shattered Baghdad streets. Safely ensconced in Crawford TX, with the “good old boys” of his administration, Bush, when asked about American progress toward quelling the violence in Iraq and returning the country to a sense of normalcy offered only this,

"This is our 100th day since the major military operations have ended… [a]nd since then, we've made good progress. Iraq is more secure. The economy of Iraq is beginning to improve.

Really Mr. Accidental President? On the way to work this morning I heard a rather lengthy report on National Public Radio about the continuing problems with the Iraqi electrical grid. Looting and sabotage continue to fester as an issue. And so much copper is being smuggled out of Iraq and onto the world copper market, that it is beginning to effect world copper prices. Is this what Bush means by improvement? How then can the economy of Iraq be improving without a reliable electrical source(s)? And this is only one of the problems vexing American administrators fighting to bring Iraq under control.

Where is the end game; where is the exit strategy; when are the national elections; where is Saddam; when are American troops coming home? None of these questions, nor many others, will be answered by the Crawford tumbleweed trio (Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld), because none of them have the answers. Leadership, I say, at its very best; America’s finest hour!

The Terminator Seeks to Erase Davis

Okay, now that Arnold S. is in, this could very well turn into a popularity contest where the real issues facing the state no longer matter. I have listened to, and read about Ms. Huffington’s views on the issues (local and national) and she makes sense where it counts. Can the same be said about Arnold S.? What are his views?

Arnold said on the Jay Leno show, to air tonight: “[t]he politicians are fiddling, fumbling and failing… [t]he man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis. He is failing them terribly, and this is why he needs to be recalled and this is why I am going to run for governor."

The big question is, however does Arnold S. have a keen enough grasp of the issues, and more importantly California politics to make a real difference, or like Bush—the Accidental President—will he come with strings attached to his extremities?

Huffington in, Springer out, Schwarzenegger: who really cares!

Its official, Arianna Hunffington, the virtual co-host of satirist Bill Maher’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, is running for governor of the embattled state of California. Speaking in Los Angeles this morning, Huffington stated,

I'm not, to say the least, a conventional candidate…[i]f we keep electing the same kind of politicians, we'll never get out of this mess.

Meanwhile, Jerry Springer has decided not to run for Senator from the State of Ohio. Citing concerns about his image stemming from his less then upstanding talk show, Springer stated “I can’t do it at this time.” Pity for those of us who wanted to see American politics sink even lower into the pit of mediocrity!

One more tidbit of note: it is now an open secret that Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to bow out (today as a matter of fact) of the governor’s race in California. Too bad, I was looking forward to hearing what the bodybuilder turned action hero, turned political wannabe had to say about the mess brewing in the nation most populace state.

More on Clarence Thomas...

As the debate rages on in the Senate concerning the fitness of certain neo-conservative Bush nominations to serve on various federal District Courts and or Courts’ of Appeal, one that got by in the eighties, quietly serves. The Washington Post recently ran an involved article on Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, which shed new and disturbing light on the man, who according to some, might well become the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The article only served to solidify my opinion of the man as out of touch with most of Americans in general and Black Americans in particular.

Gov. Davis Endorses Illegal Immigrants Driver’s License Issuance

Does anyone but me think that it is batty and just down right bad public policy (not to mention a violation of U.S. law) to pander to illegal immigrants? Should they for instance be allowed to apply for and carry valid state driver’s licenses? I say no, but the governor of California in an obvious bid to keep his seat, says yes. Should the top law enforcement officer in the state, in effect, sanction lawlessness in search of a vote? The answer to the reasoned man is clear, but it appears as though reason, the rule of law, and common sense have all taken a back seat while democracy in its purest form runs amok to the point of subversion, in the nations most populace state. It’s a great day to be an American!

Who Are They Kidding!?!?

So now that the Vatican, that bastion of moral, upright, uptight, sexually immature, red robed chumps have decided to launch a war against homosexual marriages. Umm, shouldn’t they be launching a worldwide campaign against child sexual assault and abuse within the church by priests? So let me get this straight, homosexuality is a sin, but sodomizing young boys and raping young girls is okay? Hello!!

New School, New Beginning?

I’ve been accepted to DePaul University’s School of Computer Science, Telecommunications, & Information Systems as a Graduate student pursuing a Masters in Computer Science. I received the acceptance letter in the mail on Saturday. I should be high on the news, but strangely enough I am not. Perhaps it’s because there was no mystery here, I mean since I am a DePaul Alum, I figured I would be accepted. So, now I embark on yet another education adventure and spend more money I will eventually have to pay back, yippee!

Don’t get me wrong, I am somewhat excited about pursuing my Masters, but a very large part of me just want to be done with school; when will it ever be enough? Seems every time you achieve one milestone, they (whomever they is) pushes the bar higher, so that even more skills are needed to land a decent job!

The Shine is Starting to Dull on Ms. Rice' Crown

The Iraqi Intelligence Debacle continues to churn out victims, next up Connie Rice(?) I have never quite trusted Ms. Rice’s, judgment, or analysis because she is an academic with no “real-world" experience to draw upon. Theory alone should never be used to make decision about foreign policy, especially if the person theorizing has never put his/hers theories to the test. And her public statements have always been a little too smug, and “on-point” to merit much regard.

In Search Democratic Party Leadership

I have been stymied by the Democratic Party’s lack of leadership and coherent platform. And as Bush’s “war-chest” grows daily, time marches on, and the Presidential election draws ever closer, there is still no clear democratic front-runner. It would seem I am not alone in my dismay over the Democrat’s disarray. If they do not get it together soon, they will have no one the blame—this time—for their failure to retake the White House, but the Party membership. Indeed the only embarrassment this election cycle is the Party itself.

GOP's Nasty Undemocratic Power Play

A decade after winning back the House of Representatives under the first Clinton Administration by promising brighter tomorrows and a “Contract with America,” the GOP has failed to deliver promised reforms. Is anyone surprised? Now that they are in power in the House, they seemed to have torn up the contract, (I wonder if we the American people, can sue them from breech of same?), and taken on decidedly unsavory tactics in a bid to exclude Democrats from all crucial decisions.

The GOP is fast becoming the party which represents a fringe of the American population, a party where neo-conservatism seems to flourish under the light the new American Imperialism, and where minorities (but only the darker ones), middle-class, and lower class Americans need not apply.

Ambush's on American Forces Continue Apace...

It would seem that the Iraqi resistance didn’t receive the fax, or email from Rumsfeld stating that they were suppose to stop ambushing American soldiers now that Uday and Qusay Hussein have been terminated with extreme prejudice. Three more American soldiers from 101st Airborne Division, died overnight in an attack on their convoy at approximately 2:30am (I thought we owned the night). Hopefully, the next week will see the cessation of attacks upon our soldiers as the fax lines are restored and emails finally get through!

A Modicum of Sanity Returns to the House

Could sanity be returning to the House? Say it isn’t so; the interest of the American people put before those of special interests? The House voted 400 to 21 yesterday to block earlier imposed rules from the FCC that would have allowed the countries largest broadcasting concerns to snap up more television stations, setting up a potential showdown with the White House.

Law School Byebye

Well, I have been thinking about it for most of the summer and today I made up my mind and did it, I quit law school, it was proving to difficult to keep all of the ball rolling in the same direction. It was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made, but I felt I had to for the good of the family.

On an up note I registered for entry into the Masters program at DePauls’ College of Computer Science, Telecommunications, and Information Services. I hope to gain entrance into the Distance Learning Computer Science Program. This will allow me take classes at home and hopefully finish my Masters by the end of 2005(?).

What Form Reparations?

I have given considerable thought to the subject of reparations for slavery and its legacy of late, a lot of thought. I have tried to wrap my mind around that which is fast becoming a flash point of both personal and political debate; not only across the country, but in Hollywood as well. A recent episode of the West Wing (a very fine show) addressed the issue and touched upon some of its complexities. And complexities there are.

But let’s leave that aside for now and address the broader issue; should the nation’s Black American population be given monetary compensation in order to atone for the forced labor of their ancestors? My short answer would have to be no! Now ask the same question another way; should the nation’s Black American population be given monetary compensation in order to atone for the forced labor of their ancestors and the resulting legacy of inequality that prevented many Black Americans from achieving even the basic tenets of the American Dream? My short answer is a hedged no, leaning towards a, “let’s see what we can do” refrain! All of which of course brings us back to the complexities of the situation.

The tide of support for reparations is rising all across the nation as the issue comes once more out of the doldrums of back room chats over poker and angry dinner table discussions, into the mainstream of American politics. Former President Clinton went on record as saying that he is against both an apology for slavery and reparations for slavery (http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/17/clinton.race/). Bush predictably has not mentioned either the apology or reparations issue. Blackvoices.com, a premiere web site dedicated to Black American issues conducted a poll on the issue, in which overwhelming support was given to the idea of reparations. The results of the poll can be viewed here (http://www.blackvoices.com/feature/reparations/main.html). And the old forty acres and mule argument is resurfacing as H.R. 29 introduced by Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, on March 11, 1867, makes its voice heard once again. The complete text of the bill can be read here (http://www.directblackaction.com/rep_bills/hr29_1867.txt).

But what form should reparations take? Except for the Thaddeus Stevens bill, that question has never been intelligently addressed. Should the reparations take the form of cash, real estate, or a college/technical school endowment, or voucher program? And how do we pay for them; through a special tax on just White people? Hardly fair. A one-time tax deduction, or some other tax relief for Black Americans? Again, hardly fair from a number of perspectives. And most importantly, how to craft the reparations so that they will be easy for all American to swallow (no mean feat I assure you!), or at least come to terms with?

And how does the government insure that only those directly descended from slavery receive reparations? Aside from the question addressed in the previous paragraph, this is undeniably the most vexing to answer.

Here are some thoughts. First, what form should reparations take? I think the reparations, if given, should take the form of educational vouchers to the school or technical institute of their choice for those Black Americans seeking a Technical, Vocational, Associates, Bachelor’s, Masters, or PhD degree. This not only helps Black Americans (especially Black American males) lift themselves out of poverty, but also helps the country as a whole. How you might ask? By assuring that a steady stream of highly educated and motivated individuals will join the work force well into this century as America continues to shift its economy away from heavy industry into high tech and the service industry. Any Black American alive when the bill is passed would be eligible and assured at least four years of study at an institution of higher learning, or technical program. And for those who have already completed their degrees, any and all outstanding student loans would be forgiven. The aforementioned would be the sole form(s) of reparations offered: no money, no cars, no land, and no houses.

Eligibility would be determined using census data from the latest census to determine heritage. Those Black Americans, who turned in their census forms and identified themselves, as Black Americans no matter what age, or social status, would be eligible for reparations. Census data currently on hand would be verified by home visits by census officials.

The only question left is funding. I am no economist, or self proclaimed expert on government funding, but I think a .5% to 1% hike in the corporate tax rate, along with a .25% tax on luxury items costing over $300,000 should be enough to fund the program, given the current state of the U.S. economy. In this way corporate America and the richest 1% of Americans give back to the country that gave them so much!

Good idea, or is there room for improvement? Or am I totally out to lunch? I don’t think so! The writing is on the wall; this issue will not go away and will no long stay under the rug where it has been brushed lo these past 135 years. If we are going to do justice to the past by addressing reparations for slavery and its legacy, why not do so with an eye on the future of our nation as a whole? An educated person is one of hope in the future and its promise of a brighter tomorrow. Education is now and will forever be the slayer of ignorance and the harbinger of hope. Let’s not waste yet another opportunity to enrich our nation and secure her future status by yet again turning our collective backs on her Black citizens.

Apology for the Legacy of Slavery

Apology: an expression of regret for an offense or fault.

On May 17th 2000, the mayor of the America’s third largest city, Chicago, made a public apology to the Black Americans in his city for slavery.

After tiptoeing around the issue for weeks, Mayor Richard Daley on Wednesday came out squarely in favor of reparations for the descendants of African slaves and asserted it is only right for America to say it is sorry for what it did. "You apologize for a wrong," Daley declared. "Slavery was wrong. ... Slavery has had an enormous effect on generation after generation." The mayor's comments came as the City Council voted overwhelmingly to urge Congress to consider reparations. - Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2000, Chicago Illinois

Chicago is just the latest city in a growing list of cities across the nation that has joined the cry for Congress to address the issue of an apology and reparations (the question of reparations will be addressed next month in another article), for slavery. Most White Americans—and quite a few non-white American’s, chief among them, Native Americans—have opposed the call for an apology, asserting that it was not they who were responsible for slavery. Or they assert their forefathers were immigrants, or migrant workers, or indentured servants, and therefore not responsible for slavery and all of it well documented ills.

Let’s leave aside for a moment those individual arguments and address the larger issue: should the United States Government apology for slavery? I say no, not for slavery alone. It should instead apologize for the legacy that slavery left in its wake; a legacy I hasten to point out that the U.S. government helped endow, and fed through its own well documented institutionalized brand of discrimination, bigotry, and racism. It is the legacy of slavery that has haunted every Black American—man, woman, and child—for the last 135 years, and the haunting continues to this day!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws-14th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America, ratified July 9th 1868.

Citizens yes, equal under the law; in theory yes, but in reality, NO. For some 100 years after the end of slavery, the federal government was a co-equal partner in the systematic denial of Black American’s equal treatment under the law. There has been case after case, after case in which Black Americans were humiliated before the eyes of the world, denied, disrespected, set upon. And they were murdered by gun and rope, raped, blown up, and treated like second class citizens under the watchful eye of all three branches of the federal government. A federal government, which gave its support to this vile treatment by either doing nothing to stop it, or acted in concert with those who would seek to promote and champion racism and discrimination.

This against the backdrop of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, the very words of which speak like no other document, before or since, to the human need to be free of the shackles of oppression, tyranny, and injustice! I have often wondered how forward thinking classically, or liberally educated persons who claim the word of God as their own, can come to terms in their minds, hearts, and souls with the very obvious contradictions and ethical, moral, and spiritual dilemma’s this paradox creates.

If, and I say again, if the federal government had upheld the Constitution and believed in the spirit and the letter of the Declaration of Independence and in so doing vigorously enforced the law from the outset (end of the Civil War), how different today would America be?

Would Jim Crow laws have been enacted and enforced in the south for close to 100 years? Would the KKK have ever become the force for evil, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry it became? Would Black family’s be torn asunder and Black children—especially Black boys—feel hopeless and rudderless, finding no cause in America to call their own? Would the American dream remain but a dream for so many disenfranchised Black Americans? Would the Black Panthers ever have been born? Would the race riots of the sixties have ever flared? Would Martin Luther King Jr. and countless other Blacks and Whites have lost their lives in a struggle to bring equality to a people who should have already been enjoying its fruits? Would the deep biting pain of school desegregation and forced busing have been necessary to enrich young Black minds that heretofore had gone undernourished by the blatant indifference of the many states? Would the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights Act have been necessary? Would affirmative action and the entire ugly debate it invites have been necessary in our nation’s corporations and schools of higher learning? Would we today be talking of reparations and apology’s if the federal government had lived up to it obligation and responsibility’s to uphold the law fairly and equally for all its citizens? And in so doing binding the many States to their collective and individual obligations and responsibility’s to do the same? I think the answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO!

Apologize for slavery in and of itself, NO, because the federal government, indeed the country was not even in existence when slavery was introduced to the thirteen colonies. Apologize for allowing slavery’s legacy, a legacy born of hatred, racism, and intolerance, which it helped, foster, YES! An apology for that and the incalculable pain and emotional scaring it caused is in order and dually demanded! A nation of the people, by the people and for the people, should not tolerate the continued subjugation and unequal treatment of ANY of the people!

In A Quest for National Identity

There can be no denying that since Black Tuesday our country has changed in ways we never would have imagined on September 10, 2001. Before September 11th, an attack on U.S. soil in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives in 30 minutes of stupefying evil was unthinkable to the average and above average American; it simply was not on our radar screens. And yet life hasn’t changed in America in some very important and costly respects. We still as society cling to the notion that we can have safety without giving up even a modicum of personal privacy or freedom.

I have read about and listened with consternation to the debates swirling around even the suggestion of a national identification card. For the record I see nothing wrong with a national I.D. card, one which has embossed upon its surface a picture of each citizen and embedded in its plastic sheathing a microchip with your current address, phone number, date of birth, blood type, drivers license number, SSN, and any police record. In other words nothing that is not already a matter of public record! All of this information would be part of a federal database and could be used by law enforcement officials to spot-check the collective identity. The card would be the size of a drivers license and clearly state that it was a federal I.D. card. Measures would taken to ensure that the card could not be counterfeited in much the same was our currency is now protected.

Much of the negative debate surrounding this issued has centered on issues of privacy and the right to be anonymous, to blend into the crowd, to go un-noticed by the various state and federal authorities. But haven’t we as a society already given up much of we seek to protect? Every baby born in the U.S. is now issued a Social Security Number before (s)he leaves the hospital; in order to dive a car you have to have a drivers license, with your picture, current name, address, birth-date, sex, and physical characteristics emblazoned across the front; colleges and universities issue student I.D.’s with the students picture on the front; and many companies require some sort of picture I.D. Credit card companies and other financial institutions routinely collect various types of personal information from us, and insurance companies delve into our personal medical histories with our consent. And yet we readily accept these intrusions into our lives, why, because it benefits us directly? Since when has public safety not been in our collective interests’?

For the record, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymity, nor is there a stated right to privacy. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments to the federal constitution, does it say that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the citizen to remain anonymous, nor shall Congress institute any law, which encroaches upon the citizen’s right to privacy. In the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court implied the right to privacy citing historical court precedent and the 14th Amendments guarantee to due process under law. However, constitutional scholars still debates the merits of the Courts decision, and point out again that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the citizenry have a right to privacy!

I personally believe that every citizen has a right to privacy within the confines of his or her home, or other private dwelling. That “right” sharply drops off once a citizen enters into the public domain, wherein he/she interacts with other citizens. In this domain the, the public domain, the overall safety of society must outweigh—to a degree—the right of the citizen to privacy. If this means that we have to carry national identification cards in order to differentiate between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, then so be it. Will the card in-and-of itself make the U.S. a safer country? Of course not, but it could be part of a whole range of steps we can take to ensure our national safety. Am I afraid the government will misuse the information gathered? No, not really, not any more than it already does, or has. Do state governments routinely misuse the information it gathers on its citizens as part of the many drivers’ license programs? I have yet to hear, or read about any wide spread abuse. Has the federal government used the vast amounts of personal information it stores about every service member and veteran that is servicing or has served in the U.S. Armed Forces to evil ends? I don’t think so. I have been retired from the Navy since 1995 and a have heard nary a peep from the government; they have not come knocking at my door, nor have they intercepted my mail, or in anyway interfered with my comings and goings from the country.

To me a national identification card is a small price to pay for putting into place another small piece of the home security puzzle. Perhaps instead of fighting the proposal, the civil libertarians could form a partnership with the government and come up with a system that protects the citizenry without compromising those rights we as a nation have come to embrace.

The Long, Slow, Painful Decline…

“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation…” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence 1776.

There was a time in American public discourse when words of eloquence and principle were the norm; when our political and spiritual leaders, intelligent, well-read, and grounded in philosophical astuteness were undeterred in their speech, and with words painted a vision for the nation. They are words from the minds of men (and women) percolating with intellect and wisdom and speak to a mastery of the English language seldom heard, spoken, or written in these modern times. From the quills of these great orators dripped words, phrases, principles, and ideas which launched a nation that would arguably become one of the greatest mankind had ever envisioned. Their words nurtured by lofty ideas with notable philosophical underpinnings, sprang forth with impassioned vigor, giving birth to speeches that moved the human spirit, and captured the imagination. They were (and are) words that inspired, that motivated, that warmed to such a degree, that men and women would die to see their edict carried to fruition.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”…Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863

Fast forward to the here and now and wonder in the age of the sound bite and “Axis of Evil” speeches, where have all our great political leaders gone? Where are the great intellectuals and orators of our age? Our politicians today remind one not of the inspired brilliance and vision that fashioned a nation of principles, and ideas that fueled the imagination of the world, but of insipid, naughty, elementary school children vying for a piece of turf on the playground. Their words do not inspire, they do not motivate, they do not move the soul or swell the heart; they in short leave me wanting and waiting for greatness.

Nothing illustrates this shortcoming more than the recent one year anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which felled the World Trade Center. The nation’s political leaders so void of intellectual capital and inspired vision, so mired by the quicksand of modern American politics with it’s increasingly shallow center, could not produce one original or memorable speech for the day; NY Governor George Pataki recited the Gettysburg Address, while NJ Governor Jim McGreevey recited from the Declaration of Independence! As for Mr. Bush, well, no memorable words left his sneering lips that day.

We elected a President whose words tumble from a mouth fed by a befuddled brain, which doesn’t reason, a soul which has no vision, and a heart devoid of meaningful passion. We accept, and in some cases, celebrate the limitations of our Accidental President, while the world looks on in wonder at this sad spectacle we have spawned. How could a nation that bequeathed to the world wondrous institutions of higher learning such as DePaul, UIC, Northwestern, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Grambling and MIT, long suffer the unfocused ramblings of a dullard? How could a society which crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, documents hailed around the globe as enlightened, visionary, and worthy of emulation, suffer long the indignity of a body politic whose intellectual discourse is little above adolescent squabbling.

“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”…Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963

It is said that a nation receives the leadership it deserves. Is that true in our case? Have we started the long slow road to intellectual, moral and ideological decline that has marked the passing of so many great human civilizations? Does our current state of public intellectual malaise signal the closing curtain on the grand experiment that is American (flavored) democracy? Will this nation with its government so ineptly led; this nation founded on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, perish from this earth, because the principles that form the foundation of its society, its government, its very way of live, no longer have an inspired voice in its public, private and political discourse? When did idealism and praiseworthy intellect, eloquent prose, and impassioned speech, become character flaws in a nation founded by men who wore all in unapologetically abundance?