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…