Are You An Enemy Combatant?

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… Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…U.S. CONT. art II, §. 2, cl. 1.

Of all the post-Sept. 11 denials of fundamental and civil liberties, the “Enemy Combatant” doctrine is the most egregious, because it is unprecedented in the history of the United States and created out of the thin air of the President’s mind. There is no clear legal definition of exactly what an "enemy combatant" is; there is no law that defines it, no constitutional principles that govern it. However, if the President designates a person an enemy combatant under this doctrine (s)he can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial by military authorities, with no right to appeal and no right to a lawyer - even if (s)he is a U.S. citizen.

The Bush Administration claims that the power to designate someone—anyone—an enemy combatant springs from constitutional roots, claiming that the President’s constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces permit him to order the military to seize suspects he (and he alone) designates enemy combatants in the War on Terror. Yet there is nothing in Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution that gives birth to this doctrine, or even hint at such a power to detain an American citizen in times of War. How then can the President lay claim to a power that is not constitutionally sanctioned, nor mentioned within its foundational decrees?

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power...Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

In its recent argument in front of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Bush Administration insisted that military-style rules like the enemy combatant doctrine now apply to American citizens, even on American soil, because Al Qaeda has "made the battlefield the United States." Really, since 9/11 there has not been one terrorist attack on American soil; indeed, the President has stated that we should live our lives as usual. We should be aware of our surroundings, but otherwise sally forth and be capitalists. When I step outside my doors every morning and travel to work, there is no evidence of battlefield America. But even if this were the case, there is no provision in the Constitution—at least that I am aware of—that allows the President to declare Marshall Law.

In time of crisis governments are always tempted to detain perceived enemies without charges, hold them incommunicado and deny them counsel. It happened during WWII, and in 1971 Congress passed a law referred to as Section 4001 which states that: No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress…Limitation on Detention; Control of Prisons, 18 U.S.C., § 4001.

But the framers of the Constitution—ever mindful of history—knew that if the government was allowed to act on those impulses, the result would be tyranny and oppression. That is why they built into the constitution the very rights the Bush Administration is now intent on crushing under the throne of Monarchical rule.

Let My People Go

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it...U.S. CONT. art I, §. 9, cl. 2.

Most of us are familiar with the cases, of Jose Padilla—a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir—and Yasser Hamdi argued before the United States Supreme Court on April 28, 2004. Both of these men were labeled enemy combatants by Bush, and both have been subsequently held without charges and in isolation since their initial incarceration, denied even the right of Habeas Corpus, which is the right of every American to appear in court of law, so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

These cases, contrast sharply with that of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, and points to the arbitrary, and some might say, racist application of the enemy combatant doctrine.
While both Lindh and Hamdi were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan at the same time, Lindh, who is white and from an upper middle-class family, was shipped back to the U.S. and was never labeled an enemy combatant. After he was flown back to the U.S. after a brief period of interrogation, Lindh was allowed to see a lawyer and appear before a criminal court in Virginia. He was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison in October 4, 2002 as part of an agreement reached in July 2002 under which he pled guilty to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a criminal information charge that he carried a rifle and two hand grenades while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance. And while neither Padilla or Hamdi can be connected to the death of an American citizen Lindh took part in the prison uprising which cost a CIA operative his life.

Once more America’s racist past (and present) makes itself felt in a system that is supposed to be predicated on equal justice for all before the law. Had Padilla—born in Brooklyn of Puerto Rican ethnicity, or Hamdi who was born in Baton Rouge Louisiana of Saudi Arabian parents and subsequently raised in Saudi Arabia—been white would they now be labeled enemy combatants? My guess is no, they would have treated like Lindh, and the press would have lamented their sad ordeals.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court… U.S. CONT. art III, §. 3, cl. 1.

The enemy combatant doctrine begs another question: why, if there is such compelling evidence against Padilla and Hamdi have they not been charged with treason? Is this because there is such a high threshold to skirt in order to prove a case of treason, and the government is relying on the testimony of one man who admits that his intelligence is not exactly creditable?

It is my hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, despite the conservative minority that seems bent on deferring to the executive, can see clearly the danger in allowing this doctrine to stand. At no other time in American history, with the exception of the illegal internments of Japanese-Americans during WWII, have the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans—especially minorities once again—been under such assault from the government that is supposed to champion their cause. Indeed how can we as Americans stand by and re-elect a man who would hold high the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq as a reason to prosecute a War, while trampling them underfoot here in America? Is it because we think that we can’t be labeled enemy combatants?

It is clear to me that George W. Bush does not understand or respect the document—the United States Constitution—he has sworn to uphold and protect, except in cases where he believes it will lend credence to his agenda. Of our constitutionally codified rights as Americans, he cares not a whit. Indeed when speaking of citizens’ rights he refers not to the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for U.S. law, but to the bible, a happenstance I find frightening.

So the next time you are walking down the street, talking on the phone, engaged in political debate that might be considered critical (like this article) of the Bush Administration, or returning from an Arab country, have a care, for you too can be considered an enemy combatant and locked away without cause or charge. And according to the Bush Administration you will have no rights the American government is bound to entertain.

Padilla and Hamdi are in effect no longer American citizens; their rights (and perhaps yours), have been arbitrarily stripped away by the President without due process of law. Is this how we want to fight the War on Terror? Is this how we want to spotlight American democracy around the world, with hypocrisy and tyranny? Is this how OUR government is supposed to treat its citizens?

The true measure of the greatness of any society that holds liberty, equality, and due process sacred before the law, is not how it treats its citizens in time of peace and tranquility, but how it treats them in time of strife when it is all to easy to smother liberty in the name of preserving the Republic. George W. Bush is President and answerable to us the American people for his action, not a monarch where his word should go unchallenged by the two co-equal branches of government. No matter what angle it is viewed from, the enemy combatant doctrine is illegal.

It is hard to imagine that America would look kindly on a foreign government that demanded the right to hold some of its own citizens in prison, incommunicado, denying them access to legal assistance for as long as it thought necessary, without ever charging them with a crime.

Nevertheless, that is the position that George Bush's administration has tried to defend in the courts with regard to American citizens whom it has deemed to be "enemy combatants." —The Economist, London, December 14, 2002

Fox News Channel Refuses to Show Flag Draped Coffins of American War Dead

Fox News Channel, you know that bastion of “Fair and Balanced” news reporting, once again shows it neo-conservative leaning by being the only major news outlet in the United States not to air photos of the flag draped coffins of American soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq. A Fox News spokesmen as reported by the New York Times this morning stated:

[a]mong the national television news organizations, only the Fox News Channel had no plans to use any of the photos or explore the issue of why they had been barred from use in the news media…

Humm, sounds fair and balanced to me.

In a free and open society this sort of open censorship should not be allowed to stand, and the unabashed distain for the truth by a purported news outlook should not go unanswered. I for one will never trust Fox News to bring me the unvarnished truth—not that I trust the other news outlets to tell the complete truth, but at least they showed some journalistic integrity in pursuing the story.

One more reason to make sure Bush and his increasingly crooked, deceitful, arrogant, autocratic Administration has to go, and when they do, lets hope they take Fox News Channel with them.

What Were We Thinking When We Elected Bush?

As I paced in a square around my living room tonight listening to my President (try) to speak, one though kept rolling over and over in my head, playing like a broken record: how did anyone so ill-suited to the job ever become President of the United States? I listened to Bush and I was embarrassed once again for our nation, that we should have such a man represent us before the world. Do we (Americans, or at least the one who voted for Bush), think the Office of the President of the United States that superficial that just anyone can occupy the Oval Office? The Office calls for a man—or woman—of intellect, of vision, of wisdom, a person able to think on their own and on their feet—which by the way Bush admitted he was not able to do. It is not a job for the mediocre, the lazy thinker, the easily malleable, the simple minded; all qualities Bush clenches in his hands with gusto.

Bush did not answer one question with a direct intelligible answer, not one. I gleamed nothing from the news conference. I know no more about U.S. intentions in the Iraq and Afghanistan then I did when he mumbled his first words. He spoke of a plan to combat Terrorism, where is it? He holds doggedly to the June 30th date to hand over power to the Iraqis but freely admits to not knowing which Iraqi will assume the mantle. Bush side-stepped question after question, rambling off on unrelated topics, or repeating a now tired theme of comforting the families of the victims of 9/11 and the ongoing War in Iraq, leading my wife to dub him the Consoler-in-Chief. I ask you my fellow Americans, is this leadership? Is this the man and the Administration that is going to win the War on Terrorism, the War in Iraq, and the War on Drugs? How has he done so far? He clings to some arcane notion that bring democracy to Iraq will end terrorism when in fact the key to that treasure chest lies a couple of hundred miles the east in the Israel.

It was painful to watch our President fail so miserably at that which we so sorely need right now at this juncture in our history: leadership. Bush is not now, nor was he ever, nor will he ever be a leader, at least not the caliber of leader needed to see this nation through one of the most difficult periods in our history. The Presidency is not a an office in which little power is vested in our Republican system of governance; the President in fact wields an enormous amount of power, and with that power comes an equal amount of responsibility not only to the people of the United States but, increasingly to the world.

Bush is not the right person for the job, he never was, and never will be. Listening to the man for five minutes will starkly illustrate my point. What were we thinking as a people to cast even one vote for the Bush, and how can we even begin to reelect him?

Antonin Scalia Has Journalists Recording Erased

It is often hard for me to hide my deep distain for one Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Antonin Scalia, probably because the man is an arrogant, self-absorbed, hypocrite who lauds the traditional underpinning of the federal constitution while he is busy undermining them. Case in point: while giving a speech recently at the Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg Mississippi, the good justice was lauding the beauty of the first Amendment while the U.S. Marshals who protect him were busily and forcefully violating federal law by erasing two reporters’ electronic recordings of his speech on his standing orders.

Joel Campbell, the Freedom of Information Committee co-chair of The Society of Professional Journalists, issued a statement today calling on Scalia,

"to respect the First Amendment rights of journalists to gather news when he speaks at public events…[i]n what can be only described as an ultimate constitutional irony, Scalia was praising the Constitution and its First Amendment while a federal marshal harassed reporters and curtailed their right to gather news at a public appearance…"

I must say I agree, and loudly! I am so tired of conservatives holding up our Constitution in one hand and the Holy Bible in the other, praising their foundational principles, while like an octopus other hands are busy signing the orders that would deny you and I the right to live by them. V. Edward Martin to Justice Scalia: either you believe in the first amendment or you don’t, or perhaps you believe that you and yours should be the only ones to enjoy the umbrella of its protection. It is not lost on us (the average American), that your deeds sour your lofty words. And speaking of words, if you fear yours enough to disallow their reproduction in print, then perhaps you have no business pontificating in public forums where not only you enjoy the rights and protections of our Constitution.
How dare you sir, how dare you!

The Case For Gay Marriages

This posting is a direct rebuttal the my fellow WatchBLOG editor’s article on the right, entitled The Case Against Gay Marriage. Rather then respond with a rather lengthy comment I decided to post my response here.

First, a few points:

1. The Institution of Marriage as regulated by the many States is a Civil undertaking not religious. While a couple can decide to get married by a church, they are in no way under any obligation to do so. The state issues the marriage license not the church. True a member of the clergy is sanctioned by the state to sign a marriage certificate, but so is a Justice of The Peace. Bottom line: a marriage is not legal unless and until a State sanctioned marriage license is obtained.
   
   
2. The religious issue is separate from the Civil issue. Churches are free to decide on religious grounds whether they will sanction Gay marriage or not, the State as a public entity cannot. For the state it is a matter of equal protection and due process before the law, religion plays no part; separation of church and state doctrine.
   
   
3. Families formed by marriage are the backbone of any society. It is in the family unit that children are supposed to be protected, nurtured, educated, and made ready to enter society. Families provide stability form neighborhoods and communities in which schools and other civic activities are set. Families are more than tax breaks and contracts, they are the basic underpinnings of human existence, and have been since the beginning of recorded human history; the same history that shows that the breakdown of the family unit is a major contributing factor in societal disintegration.
   
   
4. The Constitution of the United States is a blueprint for government, the main body (first seven articles) of which, does not address the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. And I chafe to call it a contract. Contracts can be broken, contracts end; the Bll of Rights spells out our rights under law, rights that cannot be put away by law. But I agree that the constitution is no place to address the issue of Gay Marriage.
   
   
5. There is no such thing as “Activist Judges,” only judges that are doing their jobs in our Republican form of government while following the doctrine of checks and balances. The religious right (Conservatives) brands anyone who does not agree with them anti-something; the truth is the judges are doing what they are supposed to do: interpret the law as written by legislators, and or as written in the state constitutions. The Massachusetts Court of Supreme Justice did what it was supposed to do: interpret Massachusetts law governing the Institution of marriage, held against the light of the Massachusetts constitution, which guarantees equal protection & due process before the law. If not judges to interpret law, then who?
   
   
6. Both the state and federal governments have a stake in marriage; the state because it regulates the institution, and the federal government because certain entitlements—Social Security, Taxes, Medicare, and military survivors benefits—are based on marriage. So Civil Unions for Gays and lesbians will not fit the bill unless and until they are recognized by the federal government. Even then, we are back to the “Separate But Equal” doctrine the Supreme Court overturn in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education.
   

Conservatives assert that allowing Gay Marriage will hurt the Institution of Marriage; I ask how? and they have no answers. So I ask again, how will allowing Gay marriage hurt the Institution of Marriage? How are children harmed?

I think, no, I am certain, that families formed as a result of Gay marriage will only strengthen, not denigrate the Institution. How can children suffer under the mantle of love and caring intact gay headed households can provide?

Gay marriage as regulated and sanctioned by the many States is a Civil Institution not religious, period and should be approached as such. It is an Equal Protection and Due Process under Law issue. For the many States there is not other consideration.

While Nero Fiddles Health Care in America Burns

Health Care in America continues it long painful decline while the Republican led Congress and the Bush Administration do nothing but pay lips service to the problem, which does nothing to stem the decline. A story in today’s Chicago Sun-Times highlights the growing problems doctors face while trying to provide quality care to their patients. And the soaring, un-checked cost of malpractice insurance is surely at the top of the list.

While the President, Republican leaders and the insurance industry point to the rising cost of malpractice litigation—and resulting payouts—as the reason for the dizzying pace of malpractice insurance premium increases, recent reports indicate it has do more to the insurance carriers trying to shore up lost profits from investments in the stock market—their primary source of income. The cost of settling claims, which actually dropped last year, has little to do with the crisis reports say.

Yet another bait and switch by the Republicans at the expense of us all; how much tomfoolery, half-truths, and neglect is enough, before the American public cry foul?

As the article in the Sun-Times points out, doctors in certain fields are now being priced out of business by absurd malpractice premiums that are in some cases approaching $140,000 a year! How long before the sky falls and the average American can no longer receive decent health care, or find a qualified doctor to administer it, without traveling tens of miles from home?

I say that time is now, given that my spouse cannot find an OB/GYN or Neurologist within 50 miles of our home in the second largest city in the state of Illinois. And we jointly cannot find a non-resident Primary Care Physician for continuity of care; both of our doctors left the state citing the ballooning cost of malpractice insurance as a one of the primary reasons for their exodus.

I quite frankly am fed up with government (state & federal) no longer working for me, but against me at almost every turn. How about you?

The Facts About the Electoral College

A lot of confusion, misunderstanding, and down right falsehoods exist about the functionality of the Electoral College. Many seek to replace it with direct elections, even the Founding Fathers were of two minds concerning its creation and usage; Alexandra Hamilton supported it (see Federalist Paper No. 68), while Thomas Jefferson opposed it, stating:

I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Hay, 1823.

Herein is an overview on how the Electoral College works straight from those guardians of the American electoral process, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

• Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
  
• The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
  
• On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
  
• Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
  
• On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
  
• The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
  
• The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
  
• In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
  
• At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.

More Warnings About Medicare: Insolvency Likely by 2019

And the economic news just keeps getting worse and worse, under the stewardship of Bush Jr. Seems the new Medicare law will not cure all senior health care ills as the Republicans would have us believe. And with each passing day the law once hailed as the savior of seniors and the disabled, is nothing more then a prescription for disaster, one which might leave the Medicare trust fund drained of reserves by 2019, some seven years earlier then expected.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and in his annual report on the Medicare Trust Fund stated that increased health care cost—which has to include prescription drugs—and decreasing revenues (tax cuts), are the primary motivators behind the revised forecast. He went on to predict that changes to the program called for under the new Medicare law will help slow the growth in spending, however, this predicated on seniors enrolling in managed-care programs. Thompson stated

"When you use the opportunity to allow the free-market system to work, it has the tendency to drive down costs."

Am I missing something or haven’t health care costs risen exponentially over the last 20 years under the free-market system? The free-market has not held down the cost of health care thus far, quite the contrary, as Thompson points out in his own report, health care cost continue to rise at an alarming rate. What makes him, or anyone else think that as seniors and the disabled enroll in private managed-care programs, the cost of health care will even out and eventually decline? What indicators are there in today’s economy that this happy circumstance will come to pass?

Vocal opponents (democrats, independents and other people with common sense) of the newly enacted Medicare law state that there is little evidence the changes called for under the law will slow the growth in health-care costs. It is more likely they contend, that little will change and that as is the trend today, managed care companies will make it more difficult—not less—for seniors and the disabled to see specialists, and continue to line their pockets with the resulting profits.

The Medicare trustees report blamed last years “higher spending” and “lower tax revenues” as primarily responsible for shortening by two years the estimated insolvency date of the trust fund. Wasn’t it Vice President Dick Cheney who said—irresponsibly—that budget deficits were nothing to worry about? Seems they are indeed something to worry about.
The report went on the state that from 1998 to 2002, health care costs spiked 35 percent. By 2002, the last year for which figures are available, such costs accounted for nearly 15 percent of the nation's gross national product, and more than likely accounts for a higher percentage of GNP today. Last year, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose by 14 percent the report said. And this year my health insurance premiums rose some 12 percent over last year, and the price I pay for prescription drugs increased again for the fourth straight year. Yes, the free-market is really helping me lower my health care, and prescription drug costs.

Still think the Bush economic plan of tax-rebates and spending is good for the overall fiscal health of the nation? I go on record as saying that the Medicare Law needs to be repealed, and redone right, better still Bush and the Republicans need to go before the U.S. has to declare bankruptcy.

Could 9/11 have been prevented if Bush had paid attention to intelligence?

Well the mud just keeps getting deeper and deeper in front of the White House this election season, and the lies become more and more pervasive and despicable in their scope. Now comes compelling evidence that had the Bush Administration listen to the intelligence being presented, there is a more then even chance that 9/11 could have been prevented.

For anyone that missed it, 60 Minutes held an interview with Richard Clark the Bush Administration's former counter-terrorism coordinator. He stated:

“[f]rankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke said during the 60 Minutes interview. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

I don’t know about the rest of the American public, but I am growing increasingly weary of the almost daily litany of half-truths and impeachable offenses perpetrated by the Bush Administration swathed in the clothing of leadership. With each passing day it is growing increasingly clear that Bush’s mediocre standing, marginal intelligence, and lack of understanding even the most basic foreign policy doctrines make him unfit to hold the office of President of the United States. Perhaps the American public will now wake up and see that being a good ole boy is nigh enough to be President of the worlds mightiest nation; the job requires intellectual curiosity, wisdom, and more then a passing interest in the world outside Crawford Texas.

Again, I call for impeachment. Anyone care to second the motion?

What Price Unilateral Free Trade?

Question: is the sole purpose of humankind to consume goods? And if so, to what end? How much stuff can you accumulate before it’s too much? How far do you chase prices downward before the interest of societal preservation take hold? How much profit is too much, or is there such an idea in the free-market mindset?

A fellow WatchBLOG editor bade us all to read a paper written by Milton and Rose Friedman The Case for Free Trade, and I am stunned by the near-sidedness of their collective viewpoint. This paper is totally divorced of common sense and the real world understanding, or values that would make it germane to the realities of today.

Nobel laureate or no, the man makes little practical sense; he is after all an economist. The Friedman’s paper leaves aside the fact that people are more then the sum total of their pocketbooks. In a vacuum the Friedman’s stance on free-trade would laudable, but we do not live in a vacuum, we live among other living breathing greedy human beings who last thought is free-trade. Just yesterday the U.S. filed its first claim against China in front of the World Trade Organization (WTO), to protest Chinese governments’ illegal protection of its semi-conductor industry.

The answer one day might be free trade, but that day is not here, and the time is not now. We have our own self-preservation to consider, or should we in the name of free-trade and lowest possible consumer prices disregard that as well?

We could say to the rest of the world: We believe in freedom and intend to practice it. We cannot force you to be free. But we can offer full cooperation on equal terms to all. Our market is open to you without tariffs or other restrictions. Sell here what you can and wish to. Buy whatever you can and wish to. In that way cooperation among individuals can be worldwide and free.—Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, The Case for Free Trade, Hoover Institute, Hoover Digest 1997 No 4.

Let’s take the Friedman illogical argument to its logical conclusion. We throw open the doors to all nations to freely trade with the U.S. How long would it be before what is left of the U.S. manufacturing sector vanishes in the name of free-trade; 10, 15, 20 years? How many more white collar service jobs would be outsourced to the lowest bidder; 1 million, 2, 5, fifteen million? The U.S. economy would suffer irreversible damage, as one industry after another vanished over the horizon of free-trade: ship building (military and commercial), steel, heavy construction, aircraft manufacturing, tank building, munitions, textiles, semiconductors, appliances, electronics, automobiles, heavy vehicles, farm equipment, die-casting, computers, building materials, paper products, plastics, aluminum, etc., all gone because they would no longer be able to compete on the uneven playing field of unabashed world trade.

Make no mistakes, if the U.S. were to unilaterally lift tariffs the playing field would not suddenly equalize despite our principled(?), foolish and self-destructive stance. The rest of the world is inhabited by folks just as greedy as us; wishing for civility will not make it so; hoping for integrity and fair play, ignorant.

Agriculture would follow the manufacturing and service sectors and soon we would no longer be able to feed ourselves, but depend on other nations for our substance, as consumer flock to lower priced foreign produce. Within say 15 years the agriculture industry would be in shambles as the world dumped its unregulated produce on U.S. shores.

What then would we have to offer the world to trade? We would in effect manufacture and product nothing! Job lose would be staggering, far exceeding what we see today; can you say depression? And as U.S. small businesses (reportedly the largest employers of American workers), fold in droves, or ship jobs overseas and large U.S. business in a bid to survive, either relocate entirely or outsource every job possible, the tax base shrikes, and the standard of living plummets. Massive job lose shrikes the tax base even more, and states are forced to drastically cut social services. And the unthinkable occurs: the federal government defaults on some long term bonds and worst yet teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, the result of too much debt and not enough funds to pay even the interest on the bonds (Treasury Notes). State and federal governments lay off thousands of workers, and shutter whole agencies in a bid to save money exacerbating the already historically high unemployment situation, and worsening the depression.

Homelessness rises to epidemic proportions as Americans lose their homes to foreclosures because they lack jobs, and racked up too much debt in the pursuit of goods, cheap or otherwise. Diseases long thought under control rage out tear through the inner cities, because basic health care is now a pay as you go affair and most Americans no longer can afford it. Across the U.S., counties long the last refuge of the un-insured by-and-large can no longer afford to run county hospitals, and even doctors apply for unemployment. Need I speak to the devastation a shrinking tax base and rising population would have on Medicare and Medicaid?

Crime rises to historical highs as police forces around the country are slashed, and drug use spreads unabashed to all corners of the American society, fueling crime sprees heretofore realized in America. In some large cities, Marshal Law has been declared as the populace becomes increasingly unruly and restless without jobs and hope.

The nation infrastructure crumbles for lack of skilled labor and cash; bridges, roads, rail road tracks all fall into disrepair. Phone service become unreliable, and electrical blackouts common as the utility companies search for skilled labor to effect repairs.

The U.S. military, once the world’s greatest, is a showdown of it former self. Navy ships lie at pier-side because there is no money to buy fuel from foreign supplies who are charging a premium for it, or because they are in desperate need of repair, but there are no U.S. ship yards left to do the work. Pilots (all services) cannot log enough flight hours to remain combat ready for the same reason, and because military aircraft now have to be shipped overseas to be repaired; and hundreds lie dormant awaiting spare parts or service. The military has cut manpower drastically no longer able to afford the personnel to fight a one-front war, let alone three. The U.S. closes bases across the world, leaving power vacuums to be filled by who else, but China and India.

China becomes the predominate economic and military power in the world, and Taiwan finally falls to mainland China. Without the U.S. to counter balance it, China turns is sights on its old nemesis Japan and threatens invasion. Skirmishes are now common along the Chinese Indian boarder, as both flex their newly acquired muscles…need I go on?

Bush Pulls Plug on Manufacturing Czar at Last Moment

Talk about egg on your face (boy it looks good). Just hours before the Bush Administration was set to announce the nomination of its long awaited manufacturing Czar, or the new Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Services the Kerry Campaign revealed that the nominee, one Anthony F. Raimondo, chairman and chief executive of Behlen Manufacturing Co. of Columbus, NE had himself shipped U.S. jobs overseas to China. It seems Raimondo’s company laid off some 75 U.S. workers in 2002, four months after publicizing plans to build a 3 million dollar 150,000 sq foot factory in northwest China, which employees 180 people.

I wonder if the Bush Administration will be able to find a viable Republican “Captain of Industry” candidate without the stain of manufacturing and or service job loss on their hands? And what exactly with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Services do anyway? Will the position be mostly symbolic, or will it actually produce a workable blueprint to keep U.S. manufacturing and medium to high wage service jobs in the U.S.? Here’s a hint: start with a workable reform of the U.S. Health Care industry; in case you (Republican’s) haven’t noticed, for the average American it is no longer working. Hello!

The debate for and against Gay marriage in America is undeniably in full swing. From coast to coast, cities and towns are marrying gay and lesbian couple at a brisk rate in deviance of state laws prohibiting such practices. And just last week the city of San Francisco upped the ante considerably when it threw down the preverbal gauntlet and sued the state of California over its laws which prohibit same-sex marriages, stating that they violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause’s of the California state Constitution, and are thereby discriminatory.

Until recent I was four-square against the idea gay marriage, opting instead to support Civil Unions as a reasonable alternative; see my article post on Dec. 23, 2003 entitled: Toward a More Civil Union; A Case For Civil Unions Between Gay & Lesbian Couples in America. Since that time I have done more research into the subject, and because of the lack of federal protections guaranteeing equal protection under federal law, I have changed my position. And I see no other way for the interests of liberty, equality and fairness before the law (state and federal) to be served short of allowing gay marriage. Because at its base, this (gay marriage rights) is not a theologian debate, subject to the canons of religious doctrine, but one governed by the many states regulation of the institution of marriage.

Marriage as regulated by the many states is a “Civil” Institution, not a religious one, and as such, they (the many states) have to recognize and respect the rights of gay and lesbian couples, as full citizens of this country, to marry and form families. And unless and until the many states can show harm to society or family units from the practice of same-sex marriage, it cannot under our form of governance prevent same. Taken in that context, which the courts are constitutional bound to do, the debate becomes one of Equal Rights and Due Process before the law, which mere Civil Unions do not guarantee because the federal government does not recognize state sanctioned Civil Unions.

For myself I had to ask as well, what harm could same-sex marriages do to the institution of marriage that heterosexual couples haven’t already set in motion? Britney Spears and company should be allowed to make a mockery of the institution, but two loving committed same-sex adults who wish to form a lasting family unit should be denied the right?

Vocal opponents of gay marriages state that marriage is first and foremost a contract entered into for forming families; i.e. raising and protecting children. A little scenario if you will: a gay or lesbian person with a long time partner adopts a child in a state where gays are denied adoption rights as a couple. They raise the child together for ten years, but then the partner that adopted the child dies suddenly, and the child now becomes a ward of the state because the surviving partner has no rights under the law. So, although the remaining partner is in all respects to the child, the child’s parent, the child is placed in foster care at the very time emotional support for the child is paramount. In effect the child loses both parents, and a family unit is broken up. Is this fair; is this just; would this scenario be in the “best interests of the child?” Is it better to raise a child in a single parent household, or consign them the foster care then it is to permit gay and or lesbian couples to adopt and thereby form a loving family unit? If the family is indeed the bedrock of society, and the traditional American family continues to decline, isn’t it better for children to grow up in intact loving families with two parents of the same sex, then not? Isn’t this, in the short and long term better for society? If the institution of heterosexual marriage were such a sparkling example to follow, would there be a need for foster care in the first place?

As for the proposed constitutional amendment that would outlaw same sex marriages: I am vehemently opposed it. How could we even think of placing such wording in a document which is supposed to embody freedom and equality for all before the law? The Republican’s are by-and-large for such an Amendment, but at the same time they yell and screen that government should stay out of people’s lives. They are all for states rights, but not in this instance because state courts with those nasty “activist judges” might actually uphold their state constitutions and rule in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Seems the Republican platform has become the parchment of the religious right and no longer bears any resemblance to notion of equality, liberty and justice under law.

To me there are only two avenues open that make any sense; 1. The federal government should extend those federal laws and regulations concerning marriage to citizens entered into a Civil Union contracts, or; 2. repeal the silly Defense of Marriage act and let the states define marriage within the scope of the respective state constitutions, allowing the Full Faith and Credit clause of the federal Constitution, which states:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 1.

to hold sway, thereby granting the benefit of federal law upon such lawful unions.

Again marriage as governed by the many states is a Civil Institution, not religious one, despite the fact that most marriages are performed by clergy. As such, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual ordination and still remain faithful to the underlying tenets of our Republican form of governance, you know that which states:

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. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.

It Was a Breast – Get Over it Already!

Okay, now that we have all had a good laugh, or cry at Janet Jackson’s expense can we please get back to concerning ourselves with the state of our Union and of the world. You would think that the one minute exposure of a woman’s pasty clothed breast could bring ruination to the nation and forever devastate the minds of our child who most likely suckled at a breast for the first 18-24 months of their lives.

American soldiers continue to die daily mired in a War we never should have started; the Republican led Congress has rack up the biggest national debt in the countries history with no real plan to deflate it; our president has a serious and mounting credibility problem; the U.S. economy continues to shed jobs across collars; health care costs continue to grow at a frightening pace; the debate on the right of Gays to marry is boiling over; we are in the middle of a Presidential race, most likely one of the most important in American history, and yet the nation is abuzz with the sighing of a breast during the “scared family hour.” Please, give me a break!

In a nation where pornography is now a multi-billion dollar business and growing, sex sells everything from cars to tooth paste, scantily clad, buxom women routinely festoon the screens of American television set at all times of the day, it is hysterical, and somewhat twisted that the one second sighing of a woman’s breast during the advertising slugfest called the Super Bowl could cause such a uproar. Can we get back to reality now and get back to governing the nation and tackling the real issues facing the nation?

What, More Men For The Army?

Since the war in Iraq began the Bush Administration with Rumsfeld as its talking head, has insisted that the Army could meet its current obligations without growing the force. Many experts on military tactics and policies state that this was impossible given the level of obligation the U.S. Army is currently committed to. Seems they were right (of course we knew they were). The Bush Administration has quietly announced plans to grow the Army by 30,000 men in the near term.

Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday the Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker stated that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave him the okay "to grow the Army by 30,000 people."

But instead of increasing recruitment, or gasp, instituting the draft, the Bush Administration is extending the enlistment of thousands of soldiers due to leave the service. Is there no end to the Bush Administrations duplicity?

Bush Recess Appoints Pickering

On the eve of Martin Luther King’s birthday celebration, President Bush showed once again his distain for Black Americans by appointing to the Federal Bench a man know for his racial intolerance. President Bush using his power under the Constitution to install Judges and others while the Senate is in recess, named controversial Republican Judge Charles Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. Pickering’s confirmation has been blocked in the Senate for the last three years.

Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer said of Pickering on Friday that he is:

"A man who defended cross burning does not deserve elevation to the bench."

He went one to state that

"[a]s the new year began, many of us had hoped the president would adopt a more bipartisan approach in his selection of judges. Instead, this recess appointment is a finger in the eye to all those seeking fairness and bipartisanship in the judicial nominations process."

Is this what Bush means by inclusiveness? Is this what he means by healing? Is this his faith in God at work? Bush has said repeatedly that he wants Black American to embrace the Republican Party, be how can we when the Party, led by Bush, shows a continual disregard for our interests and opinions? Most Black American don’t buy the rhetoric, and are tired of the half-truths and platitudes. I for one share their ire.

Clark Tax Plan Falls Short of the Mark

Retired General Wesley Clark unveiled his version of the great American tax cut today, one that benefits the common man at the expense—literally—of the richest 1% of Americans who will see a tax hike. About time the rich were finally asked to pay their fair share? I say yes, but the plan does not go nearly far enough.

It is well know by Congressman and average American alike, that the Federal tax code is too large, too complicated, and overly burdensome on all (yes even the rich), and needs to be completely overhauled. But it seems, since talk of the flat tax (an idea I support) flared and died, there is little stomach—or vision—in Congress, or the Executive, to radically change the code. So, Congress tweaks around the edges, but never really digs into the meat of the code, leaving Americans to once again slog through tax regulations that are more complicated then the manual to fly the space shuttle.

To Clark’s credit, he does propose finally providing relief to those American families making less then $50,000. And he did issue a challenge to Karl Rove stating:

"If [Republican strategist] Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it"

However, his proposals lack real vision, or transformation and falls far short of common sense tax reform, a package that once and for all equalize the tax burden for all Americans. Say it with me: flat tax, flat tax, flat tax, flat tax…

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.