Florida Theatrics Points to Future Erosion in the American Political System

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

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

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

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

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

Shelved State Dept. Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq

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

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

Is Scalia Hurting the Conservative Cause?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cuban Embargo Should Be Lifted

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

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

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

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


• Cracking down on illegal money transfers.


• Imposing controls of shipments to the island.


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


• Increasing the number of Cuban immigrants in the US.


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

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

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

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

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

Further Carnage On the Road to Illusive Peace…

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

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

Limbaugh Voices true feeling of Republican Party Towards Black Americans!

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN reports:

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

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

The American Way...

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

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

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

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

In Serch of A National Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush Proposes Limiting Federal 2004 GS Pay Raise to 2 Percent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War Zone is no Place for Civilian Contrators...

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

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

Links to other articles of interest concerning this story:

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

Martin Plan: A Blueprint for MIddle East Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

The main points of the Martin Plan are as follows:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• The Gaza Strip would be incorporated into Israel proper.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Moore Suspended

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

The Roadmap Takes a Very Wrong Turn

Who could have predicted this?

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

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

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

Who is Arianna Huffington

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

Huffington sponsored Websites:

* Arianna Online
* Arianna Huffington for Governor of California

LATimes Feature Articles:

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

Bush is Looking Through a Glass Darkly...

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

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

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

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

The Terminator Seeks to Erase Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Clarence Thomas...

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