The Independent Liberal- A Lion Deciphering America

Coretta Scott King Passes Away At 78

2006-01-31T08:02:00.000-06:00

I woke up to find that America is a much lesser place than it was when I last lay down my head to sleep. Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King Jr's wife, passed away last night in her sleep. Against the deepening shadow of political extremism and hatred in this nation, King was an icon for peace and love whose voice will no longer sing for goodness over evil, love over hate. However, her memory and her message, like those of her husband, will live on and hopefully pass their torch on to a new generation that is as set on making America a better place as hers was all those years ago. Heaven is made more beautiful today as this world gives up yet another angel to the keeping of Almighty God. May the Lord bless you Mrs King! We will never forget you!

On Samuel Alito...And Other Things

2006-01-24T11:29:00.000-06:00

Since school started, I've been forced to do little more than sit and watch events unfold for classes take up my time in a big way. However, some things of importance have come up and I feel the need to mention and address them. We'll start with the plans of Flint, Michigan's mayor to build and operate an automotive plant with city funds.

Flint, Michigan To Go Corporate?

As Ford and GM continue to layoff employees and close plants as a means to pay for bad decisions on management's part, Mayor Donald Williamson of Flint, Michigan has an idea to save jobs by using city funds to build an automotive parts plant. Going a step further, he wants the city manage the operation independently of the companies it does business with.

When, recently, Williamson said, "We are going to do something different in this city that nobody else has done", he really meant what he said. To date, no such factory has existed in this country. The Mayor, however, believes automakers have proven they are either unwilling or unable to run automotive plants. Inevitably and despite the obvious beatings Flint has endured from automakers, there are opponents to this new plan.

"It seems like the private sector ought to be the one developing plants and not the municipality," Paul Keep, editor of The Flint Journal said. Keep and other critics claim Williamson's plan isn't legal. So far, however, nobody has stepped forward with anything resembling proof that the plan is anything but legal so long as the city's council and voters support it.

I leave it you, my readers. Do you believe Williamson is on a role? Is he cracking faster than the arctic ice sheets? Let me know!

Democrats: Socialist Champions Indeed!

Republicans and other Conservatives like to criticize the Democratic Party for its Socialist tendencies and for, God forbid, defending the working man from the greed of Corporate America. That's why I didn't know whether to sob or chuckle when I read how a key Democratic leader recently admitted that he's given in and accepted job outsourcing by American companies from America to cheaper labor pools abroad. I hope this gets the attention of every patriotic-minded Liberal. Read on!

The so-called "Democrat" in question was none other than Senator Max Baucus of extremely red Montana. He said and I quote, "Offshoring is a fact of globalization. Opportunities for U.S. companies come from everywhere." As he was in India giving an interview to reporters there, it's easy to see how this question came up. Anyhow, I found myself wondering whether Baucus is a Democrat, a Republicrat or a wolf in sheep's clothing. So on I read.

Padding his statement, Baucus added that, "Our {America's} challenge is to learn why these jobs are moving overseas and work to keep them at home by boosting America's competitiveness..." Ok, so I agreed with him here to a degree. Shortly afterwards, however, Baucus was off on the wrong foot again when he said "Investing in India to bring products for one-fifth of the world's population will be terrific for the U.S." How will the U.S. benefit, Max, from selling products to other countries when the products we sell are our jobs and the American worker gets nothing in return? I was a bit upset by this time as you can guess.

Overall, I was very angry at Baucus by the time I finished reading this article. I found myself being extremely dissapointed that so many members of our government believe in, accept and even promote job outsourcing. Don't they realize that America grows weaker with every good job we send overseas and weaker yet with each minimum wage job we create in place of them? Just how big a bribe does it take to buy a government official? Are both major political parties are on the payroll of Corporate America? How do Americans benefit from outsourcing? Is Capitalism proving that Karl Marx's vision of Capitalism destroying civilization was true? God, I hope not!

Samuel Alito- A Big Step For Rightist Extremism?

When Bush originally nominated Samuel Alito to replace United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I gave them both the benefit of the doubt. After all, this was immediately following Chief Justice Roberts' ascent to the SCOTUS throne and Bush didn't seem to go wrong with him. I thought maybe Bush would get it right twice. How terribly misled I was!

Alito has proven by his record that he is on the rightist fringe of American ideology. His record shows that he doesn't excuse himself from cases when personal bias and interests are in play. His record documents how willing he is to bend and even ignore the true intent of the Constitution when it disagrees with his personal views. Because of this, I can only assume that Senate Republicans are supporting his nomination because, as usual, the GOP is a rank and file party that pits ideology before America's best interests. Today's party-line vote proves my point. Therefore, I applaud Senate Democrats for standing against Alito's nomination. Their efforts cannot legally stop the GOP from committing a jurisprudential atrocity but at least members of the public who haven't bought into rightist extremism can see who is doing the right thing and who isn't.

Given the nature of this situation, there's little left to be done. Alito will be on the SCOTUS but I want you, my readers, to tell me what you think he will do. Will he use his power for Good or Evil? Will he legislate from the bench on an ideological basis or will he strictly interpret the Constitution? I leave it to you.

Wal-Mart Defeated By Maryland

2006-01-14T10:14:00.000-06:00

After considerable debate, an overwhelming majority of Maryland legislators voted Thursday to require Wal-Mart to spend at least 8 percent of its payroll budget on employee healthcare expenses. This vote came after a veto by Governor Robert Ehrlich, a Republican.

As a patriotic American, I can't begin to describe the excitement that moves through me after reading about the defeat Wal-Mart suffered the other day in Maryland. As anyone who pays attention can see, Wal-Mart depends in large part on local governments to pay for the healthcare of its employees. An increasing number of Americans these days find themselves asking why it is that Wal-Mart competitors such as Albertsons and Target can offer affordable insurance options while Wal-Mart, which is much larger, does not. The reason for this is because Wal-Mart receives unfair healthcare subsidies from local governments while its competitors do not. In effect, the taxpayers are paying Wal-Mart twice for everything they buy at Wal-Mart: First in the store and Second with their tax dollars. That clearly goes against everything America claims to stand for.

Wal-Mart's favorite tools are bullying, deceit, illegal underselling of competitors and propaganda. Naturally then, Wal-Mart's response to Maryland's new law is to try and bully the state into not executing it. After the bill passed, company spokeswoman Sarah Clark said Wal-Mart will have to "pause to sit back and look at the situation" before continuing with plans to build a new distribution center in Maryland. Isn't it funny how when the government tells Wal-Mart that it will no longer receive unfair subsidies, the company threatens to pull jobs?

Making matters more slippery with corporate slime, Wal-Mart is trying to rhetorically wiggle out of the wrongdoing limelight. Mia Masten, Wal-Mart's Director of Corporate Affairs, says Wal-Mart believes "everyone should have access to affordable health insurance" but adds "this legislation does nothing to accomplish that." Well, Mia, how does Wal-Mart's refusal to offer affordable insurance to most of its 1.3 million employees help "accomplish" that?

In addition to trying to wiggle Wal-Mart out of all responsibility, Masten blames Maryland's new law on "partisan politics" and says it is an attempt to fix Medicaid in one state by penalizing one company. Like most of what Wal-Mart says, that simply isn't true. What Maryland is trying to do is end Wal-Mart's unfair healthcare subsidy and hold the company at least partially responsible for its employees. Is that wrong? Evidently many Republicans think so. After all, many if not most Republicans in Maryland's House and Senate voted against holding Wal-Mart responsible and in favor of continuing to give it unfair healthcare subsidies. Maryland's Governor, a Republican, vetoed the bill the first time it was passed. It's easy to see whose side the GOP is on in Maryland, that's for sure.

Maryland is the only state so far to force Wal-Mart to compete fairly without healthcare subsidies but it's not the only state fighting Wal-Mart's corrupt system of profiteering. Colorado, Connecticut and Washington are all working on legislation similar to that which passed in Maryland. Twenty-five other states are also considering legislation to limit unfair healthcare subsidies given to Wal-Mart. In California, a jury recently awarded Wal-Mart employees $172 million for being illegally denied their lunch breaks. In a similar case in Colorado, Wal-Mart recently settled for $50 million. In Oklahoma, former Wal-Mart employees have filed a lawsuit against the company for deliberately refusing to rehire them on the basis that they left work after filing Worker's Compensation claims against the company. In Pennsylvania, a judge approved a lawsuit against Wal-Mart by employees who said the company tried to force them into working off the clock.

As you can see, Wal-Mart isn't a retailer but a government subsidy program. I'm including a link to Wal-Mart Watch.com and will add other pertinent links in future as I come across them. Fighting the corruption of Corporate America is an important step in protecting the American way of life. Wal-Mart is only one battle in this war but it is a very important one that the American people must win. I urge everyone who reads this to join the fight and boycott Wal-Mart. Remember that this war is just as important as the War On Terror. Good Day and God Bless!

An Example Of Corporate American Tyrrany

2005-12-27T11:08:00.000-06:00

Today, as promised, I want to take a few jabs at the corruption of corporate America and General Motors in particular. Most Republicans and other Conservatives likely will consider my attack part of some evil Leftist diatribe but then again, isn't it the Conservative wing of this country that says we should let corporate America operate without any government oversight because companies will make our lives better? Yes, Capitalism to many Republicans seems to mean letting corporate America walk all over employees and the public for the sake of the bottom line. The truth is, without doubt, that unfettered Capitalism leads to bad things. GM (like other American automakers) is a bad thing.

GM IS A Bad Thing

As is common knowledge now, GM has decided to eliminate approximately 30,000 jobs in the US and Canada over the next few years. I won't go into specifics of the plant closures because it doesn't matter where people are getting screwed; the fact is they are getting the shaft. Meanwhile, corporate executives continue to keep their salary and even to get ridiculously high bonuses. Yes, let's examine and reiterate this issue for a second.

Hourly employees who make $30-60,000 a year from back-breaking work are getting the shaft while executives continue to make million-dollar salaries and even bonuses to boot. If you doubt me, let's look at Rick Wagoner's tax filings from last year. According to Forbes, he made a salary of $2.2 million and bonuses worth $2.46 million. Also last year, he and other similarly paid executives deliberately flooded the market with automobiles nobody wanted in hopes they could force people to buy the things. At the same time, Wagoner and his ilk decided to maintain GM's profitability (which was thin ice at best) by cutting back on 401K contributions, a plan that went into effect in April 2005. In addition to other minor benefit cuts, flooding the market with unwanted vehicles, withholding bonuses from hourly employees and withholding 401K contributions, GM hoped to maintain its low but level of profitability. Incidentally, many analysts have considered GM's profits inflated for the last several years running. The company openly admitted to this in 2001 as a matter of fact.

What IS The Point?

The point I am jabbing at here is that 30,000 hard-working Americans are getting the shaft because GM executives, like executives all across America, ensure that they always get their piece of the pie even at the cost of the livelihoods of thousands of workers. This is the result of companies having too much control of their own affairs. This is the result of the Federal Government, a Republican institution, giving companies that amount of control. Is this part of the American dream? Is this that patriotic future that the GOP always predicts? Is this what we get for letting our government be on the payroll of corporate America? Rich politicians and rich CEOs are poor substitutes for the lives of American workers. It's a damned shame.

A Very Merry Christmas To All!!!

2005-12-24T15:50:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas to all- even the non-Christians among you. For you and your families, I wish only the best.

As I've mentioned before, I've spent a considerable amount of time lately deciding how to format my writing on this site and choosing the specific topics on which to focus my efforts, miniscule though they be. During the course of the two days I spent in bed this week thanks to a bout of food poisoning, I think I found my angle. What occurred to me was that of all the things I dislike about America today, the outrageous amount of control that corporate America exerts on the daily lives of Americans is perhaps the most insidious and troublesome. I'm sure that Republicans and other Conservatives will balk at most of what I say about the corruption of corporate America- that's their right. However, I am concerned for their well being as well as those of Liberals because companies don't care whom they screw. They'll sell Democratic voters' jobs overseas just as quickly as Republican.

Obviously, I've decided that in addition to adding my two cents on politics, I'm also going to dedicate this site to documenting the unforgiving way that corporate America treats people. I'll leave it at that. I'll probably post equally on politics and business developments in future but today I'm going to stick with politics. It's the holidays after all so who wants to stick around here all day?

Round I: Santorum Does A Republican Flip-Flop

This week, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) remembered he's up for re-election in 06'. At the same time, polls showed his support for teaching Bible creationism in public schools via Intelligent Design has made him unpopular. Instead of doggedly defending the undefendable, he did what any bad politician would do: he flip-flopped. This particular flip-flop took the form of withdrawing his long-time support from the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which waged a creationism crusade against the PA public this year. He now says the group "made a huge mistake in taking this case and pushing {it} to the extent they did." Santorum's flip-flop, as you can see, is also a backstab in the backs of his fanatic supporters on the religious fringe. Being Rick Santorum can't be easy in a reality-based community such as PA. Every time he thinks the state is tilting to the radical right, his hopes get dashed.

Round II: GOP Fails To Make Black Snow In Alaska

Thankfully, the Senate narrowly rebuked an underhanded attempt by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to stick oil-drilling language into a defense-spending bill. The measure was supported by House Republicans, President Bush himself and all but a few Senate Republicans. In return for millions of dollars in oil company donations to the GOP, Republicans wanted to allow polluting oil companies to drill and spill their dirty business all over the pristine Alaska wilderness. As you can see, most Republicans think greasy, black snow is a better answer to high fuel prices than raising fuel efficiency standards. Senator Stevens even yelled at his co-workers, threatening "I am going to go to every one of your states, and I am going to tell them what you've done!" Yes Ted, you go and kindly explain to the American people how you tried to ruin a national treasure and how they saved it from your greasy clutches.

Round III: Congress Tells Bush He Can't Officially Torture

After seeing watching millions of dollars of donations from his oil-baron buddies go down the drain with the defeat of the Alaska-oil drilling scheme, Bush was upset to learn that Congress wasn't going to let him officially torture prisoners. When both houses of Congress voted against his official torturing privileges, he knew his veto threats were worthless and caved in, signing the bill into law. Naturally, torture will have to be kept secret now like the domestic phone and email-tapping he perpetrated after 9/11. After all, if America doesn't spy illegally and torture Muslim prisoners so that other Muslims will grow to hate us, America might show signs of weakness. Any sensible person knows that, right?

Round IV: Daschle Says Bush Broke The Law Knowingly

As if Bush didn't feel he had enough setbacks this week, an old nemesis came back to haunt him. Yes, former Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) published an article Friday pointing out that the Bush Administration specifically asked Congress after 9/11 to insert language into the Patriot Act that would have given Bush war-time powers inside the United States, including the right to tap phones and emails without warrants. Daschle explains in his article that Congress specifically denied Bush these domestic wartime rights, thus making the Administration's recently uncovered domestic spying operation illegal. Isn't breaking the law an impeachable offense for a President? Naturally, Republicans are absolutely silent on this subject.

Merry Christmas!!!

Well friends, that's enough bad news for now. Make the most of your Christmas holiday because the politicians are slowly taking away everything you think is yours. Be ever watchful and on your guard! MERRY CHRISTMAS AND GOD BLESS!

Happy Holidays...Political Ones Anyway

2005-12-17T20:16:00.000-06:00

Greetings to you friends and also to those of you who belong to my small but loyal reader base. I've had trouble deciding what's important in politics this week. Ok fine- it's all important, right? After all, there's the usual bickering between Democrats and Republicans as each group tries to one-up the other by proving their party is better and the other is worse and all that jazz. That's important, isn't it? In the meantime, Christmas and New Years are fast approaching and it seems that both sides of the aisle have failed to improve this year- they just keep getting more dishonest and more corrupt on the whole. Do you think either party has lived up to its promise to leave the nation better off than it found it this year? You won't find evidence of that anywhere because it doesn't exist.

As the end of the year approaches, I find myself becoming more and more certain that the United States doesn't have a good, major political party. We basically have a bad party and a worse party- the identities of which each of us either decide for ourselves or are led to accept by those we trust. Despite the rhetorical certainties of others, I myself can't say that one party has been worse than the other throughout history. If we are honest, both sides have had good and bad leaders, glorious and evil days, eras of triumph and times of decay. No, we can only judge with any objective fact the parties as we know them today and in the last few decades. Based on that simple truth, I can only conclude that the Democratic Party is the bad albeit stupid party and the Republican Party is the worse, nay, fallen party. Briefly, I will explain why I draw these conclusions.

Back in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Democrats more or less ran the United States. I'm not just talking about Congress, the White House and Washington- Democrats ran the nation at both local and national levels. Many good things came out of this prolonged era of progressivism including increased realization of civil rights, working conditions that were good for both employees and employers for the first time ever, the most powerful military the world had ever seen, the end of Communism as a world threat and finally the economic boom-time under the fairly liberal-conservative President George W. Bush and conservative-liberal President Bill Clinton. Americans were happy, healthy, employed and on the move in a good direction. Sure, many liberals did bad and stupid things during their reign but they left America better than they found it.

Of course, starting in 1994, conservatives took control of American government. Most of them look back and blame America's current decline on the progressive era. Many of them say the stronger economy of those times was not the result of liberal leadership but rather the result of corporate America- the very same corporate America that began shipping jobs overseas when those evil liberals tried to make them offer employees the opportunity to earn decent wages and benefits with their hard work. Most conservatives say the rise of Islamic terrorism came about because liberals did not take a strong stand against it- which of course is the reason President Reagan funded militant Muslims including Osama bin Laden as long as they would fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Conservatives say almost to a man that America would have been better off with conservative leadership these past several decades- which of course is proven by the great Republican leaders like President Nixon of Watergate fame, President Ford who pardoned Nixon for no good reason, President Reagan who fired air-traffic controllers for complaining that fatigue from too much forced overtime was making air travel dangerous, and finally President George W. Bush who fights consistently to give tax breaks to corporate America even as corporate America continues to ship American jobs overseas. Truly, America is better off because of Republican leadership- there can be no doubt.

The truth as I see it, whether it is believed or not, ridiculed or not, accepted or even considered at all, is that while America has seen both benefit and suffering at the hands of liberals and conservatives in recent years, most of the good things have come from the Left, not the Right. The Republican Party, the main realization of the conservative wing of America, has done little but hurt the nation and it is growing more and more apparent that this isn't going to change any time soon. See how the GOP is trying to legalize spying on American citizens without a warrant? That's what the Patriot Act is, at least if the GOP has its way. How can a land truly be free where a person can't even buy a book without the government finding out about it? Does constant surveillance make us feel better? Does the constant risk of government spying make us safer? Does the potentiall loss of our Constitutional rights make us more secure in our lives? If it does, the US is truly a nation of the undeserving.

I think of these things as the holidays draw near and I ponder anew what the New Year will bring. I don't know really because I'm not a truth-sayer, a seer, a prophet or a visionary. The only thing I can say for certain, and so can all of you out there, is that America is not heading in a good direction. We need a new captain, a new and good leader, a rallying point to lead America forward. I don't know who this person is but her or she is out there. Therefore, I am going to weigh every vote next year extra carefully and I hope you will all do the same. Weigh candidates and ballot issues on merit and potential consequences- not the rhetoric of false promise that we so often are subjected to. Open your eyes wide and keep them open for the long haul. Trust me when I say we have fallen too far already. Thank you, Happy Holidays and God bless!

Recent Poll Results: Would You Consider Joining A Third Political Party?

Democrats: Yes 66.6% No 33.3%

Republicans: Yes 50% No 50%

Independents: Yes 92% No 8%

The SCOTUS To Review DeLay's Gerrymander

2005-12-13T10:22:00.000-06:00

As all of you Democrats, Republicans and others on the Left and Right who have followed the fight to bring Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) to justice are aware, he is accused of breaking fundraising laws in Texas. The true crime he is guilty of, however, is far more serious and yet receives far less attention. That crime is his gerrymandering attack on the people of the Great State of Texas. This is the most serious crime he has committed (in Texas at least) and yet little serious attention has been paid to it. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review the case. Hopefully the addition of strict constructionism to the court via Chief Justice John Roberts and perhaps in the end Alito will make a difference in how the court sees this case. After all, the SCOTUS has ruled against the American people before.

Last Year's Trial Of GOP Gerrymandering

As some of you may already know, the SCOTUS reviewed a GOP redistricting scheme last year in Pennsylvania that was very similar to DeLay's scheme in Texas. The court's 5-4 ruling in favor of Republicans at that time left little room for any kind of case to be brought against DeLay. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dissented with the majority ruling while then-Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas and Kennedy voted in favor of Republicans on the basis that the SCOTUS would not interfere in partisan politics. It appears that the court at that time was divided purely on ideological lines.

Changes In SCOTUS Provide Hope For Justice

Fortunately for America, the SCOTUS has changed since 2004 and is still changing as we speak. Chief Justice Roberts, who claims to and appears to be a constructionist, will have no choice but to view DeLay's political redistricting scheme in Texas as anything but gerrymandering and thus an attack on the people of Texas. He will have to rule against DeLay's scheme because it was an admitted ideological attack on Texas voters and nothing more. The SCOTUS must make sure the Constitution is protected from partisan politics. Soon-to-be-confirmed Justice Alito also claims to be a constructionist and as such he will have little choice but to rule against DeLay. Americans should be glad that such honorable individuals have been nominated to the SCOTUS.

What Will This Mean?- Lawmaking From The Bench Again?

In ruling against DeLay, the SCOTUS will not be making law from the bench but rather protecting the Constitutional rights of the American people and particularly those of Texans. If DeLay's scheme is rejected, depending on the manner in which it is rejected, that will mean that either the old Congressional districts be re-established or that Texas Democrats and Republicans sit down and work together in a fair and bipartisan way to ensure that Texas voters are accurately represented. The second would be the better of the two possibilities but knowing the bloodthirsty leadership that controls both parties, that is as unlikely as snow in July.

The Lionhearted Liberal Is Back...Hey There

2005-12-10T10:08:00.000-06:00

Yes, don't have a heart attack. The Lionhearted Liberal is back after a fairly lengthy hiatus. In these last few weeks, I've considered my political and social views as well as the hatred that has so deeply permeated the political situation in America. Quite frankly, it was this negativity that drove me into seclusion. I appreciate everyone who stopped by to check up on me. Now, let's get to business. I have been found by several epiphanies in my time away and would share them with you all if you would read them. It is important if you truly love your country.

My Epiphanies- They're For America You Know

The First Epiphany I had these past few weeks was a new awareness of just what the First Amendment and Free Speech mean- that everyone can say and feel any way they want to for any reason at all. I have always viewed Free Speech as people are free to say and feel what they want as long as society is better for it but that opinion was wrong. No matter how hateful, baseless or rhetorical someone's arguments are, they are worth hearing and must be accepted for what they are irregardless to how we feel about it. If we do not live up to this most basic requirement of the Constitution, then we aren't a Republic and we don't practice Democracy.

The Second Epiphany was that in God's own truth, I hate both major political parties in this country. They both have been for and against the majority views at various times throughout the centuries but they are not and for a long time have not been pro-what is right for America. I am tired and sickened by the perpetual use of strong, steroidal rhetoric that I continuously hear from Republican leaders, Republican voters and Republican sympathizers. It's disgusting to use the fear of terrorism as a tool to trick voters into supporting the GOP as one would pick up a sword and bash an enemy over the head to protect one's family. On the other hand, I am equally sickened by the constant and predictable minority squabbling that most Democrats practice these days. Kicking the President when he is down is only right and proper if you are pursuing him for reasons of justice- kicking him for political brownie points festers hatred instead of promoting truth. In any case, a person should not attack another unless they have committed a crime and neither party is innocent in that department. Fight ideas with ideas, not pot shots. Both parties have let us down in almost every way and I hate them for that.

The Third Epiphany was that I, like almost every other individual American, am an insignificant speck in the scheme of things. Sometimes I get a little pompous and start thinking that what I say and think really matters and that I alone can make a difference. Did you know that simply isn't the case? So, like everyone else, I want some sort of Superhero to come and fix everything that is wrong. Alas, however, as Superman found out in Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, that isn't possible. Besides, as Bill Clinton showed Democrats and George W. Bush is showing Republicans, there isn't a Superhero out there these days.

The Fourth Epiphany I endured was perhaps the most difficult of all. This epiphany said that I do not have to justify the way I feel or what I think to every single antagonist who stumbles on my site or runs into me in the supermarket. I can support the troops and the War In Iraq without supporting the policies that put them there. I can support a Democrat, Republican or a Third-Party candidate while not supporting his or her party. In short, nobody has any choice but to take or leave what I say and feel. This applies to all of us, did you know that? If someone doesn't support the Government Intrusion Act (Patriot Act), they are not un-patriotic but super-patriotic for standing up for the Constitution. If someone finds and publishes evidence that suggests a politician is guilty of a crime, that doesn't mean they're a Leftist or Rightist journalist- that means they're a super-patriot. You see, a patriot defends the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Only an un-patriotic person tells another person how to live their life. Liberals and Conservatives alike miss this fact completely.

The Fifth Epiphany I endured was the most obvious and it, surprisingly, came last. I discovered that my long-time opinion that politicians are inherently bad was true all along. No matter how hard we fight to elect the best leaders in either major party, we tend to always come out losers in the end. Some of us vote for them because it's nice to see our vote get counted. After all, who likes voting for the guy in the margins who never gets elected? Some of us vote for Donkeys or Elephants because we have bought the party rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Some of us have broken free and I ask those of you who fit that bill to help free our friends. Politicians are crooked no matter how much you try to justify their actions and no matter how much better or worse they are than leaders in the "other" party. While some politicians may be decent enough, almost every one of them went into politics for one of three reasons: power, wealth and/or glory. Don't be a fool and believe otherwise. What truly caring politician could ever have voted for and continue to support the Patriot Act (Government Intrusion Act) as it is? Mark my words, these people are not your friends.

That's It For Now

With these new discoveries of mine firmly in hand, I will begin a new chapter in my writing, bitching and complaining about politics. I appreciate those who have stuck by me and welcome anyone who wants to find out what I am going to do next. I don't know what's next to be honest but I can tell you I am not going to sell out ever again to a power-monger like Bush, a forked-tongue like Kerry or a fallen grace like Ralph Nader. From now on, I will assume each politician is being dishonest and I will grade each by their deeds, not their rhetoric. I beg each of you to do the same. Thank you and God Bless.

Judge Samuel Alito- Good For The SCOTUS?

2005-11-05T11:36:00.000-06:00

The time has come to get serious regarding Bush's newest U.S Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel Alito. There's enough bickering going on in the blogosphere and in Liberal/Conservative political circles to scare an angry elephant (no GOP pun intended). Instead of relying on non-scientific polls and rhetoric from our leaders, let's look at Alito's case-ruling background to decide if he is a good candidate or not. Many Liberals oppose Alito on the basis that, because Bush nominated him, he will vote to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Other Liberals oppose him simply for being a Conservative. Conservatives are skeptically supporting him because he's a Conservative. I even read a story where an Oklahoma Evangelical said she supports him simply because most Democrats do not. She said, "If the Democrats don't like him, he's got to be good." Let's put all of this aside for a bit and see what kind of Judge Alito actually is. We'll look at some of his rulings to get a feel for how the guy works.

Big, Bad Abortion

Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1991)- Dissenting with his colleagues, Judge Alito ruled that a woman married to a non-abusive husband should have to notify her spouse of her plans for an abortion before undergoing the procedure. Good: 0 Bad: 1

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey vs. Farmer (2000)- Concurring with Planned Parenthood, Judge Alito ruled that a law banning partial-birth abortions is unconstitutional. Good: 1 Bad: 1

Constitutional Issues

Sheridan vs. Dupont (1996)- Judge Alito dissented with his colleagues in this case, arguing that the plaintiff needed to provide a substantial quantity of hard evidence to prove she was the victim of sexual harassment. Good: 2 Bad: 1

Bray vs. Marriott Hotels (1997)- Judge Alito dissented with his colleagues in this case, saying to prove racial discrimination, a Marriott manager needed to prove that every case of the company promoting others in her place was racially motivated. Good: 2 Bad: 2

Saxe vs. State College Area School District (2001)- Concurred with a majority opinion that the school district's policy of prohibiting verbal harassment based on sexual orientation and other categories violates the First Amendment. Good: 2 Bad: 3

Shore Regional High School Board of Education vs. P.S. (2004)- Judge Alito ruled to reinstate a lower judge's ruling that the school district's failure to protect their child from bullies justified the parents' placing the child in a different school. Good: 3 Bad: 3

Conclusion- What Can We Take From All Of This?

I think this is enough case studies to show that Alito is neither an Ideologue nor a strict Constructionist. He seems, based on these cases at least, to be a Conservative-leaning Moderate. What that suggests is that he tries to balance the law with his personal ideas of right and wrong as well as social standards of morality. These cases also prove that we can't form an opinion of his rulings based only on any one case, something that many of both sides of the aisle are guilty of. He was given a fair confirmation hearing when President Bush (I) nominated him to the U.S Third Circuit Court of Appeals. It's true that those who once supported him may choose not to do so now that he has 15 years of rulings to judge him on. Just the same, his rulings and qualifications prove he isn't an Ideologue. Both sides of the aisle should give him a fair hearing. That's all there is to it.

PS- I've Added To My Blogroll

I've always had a tradition of blogrolling interesting sites that I come across in the political blogosphere. Keeping with that tradition, I've added four new sites to my Liberal and Other political sections. They are In The Middle Of America, Leftist Grandpa, Irregular Joe and All Facts And Opinions. I hope you'll check them out as they are really great sites.

The Da Vinci Code: The Politics Of Faith

2005-11-02T09:43:00.000-06:00

Well, it appears that my cold bug has evolved into or invited to visit me a strep throat bug. Thus, my two weeks of misery has been prolonged even further. Now I'm living on penicillin, orange sherbet, lime sherbet and chicken soup of various sorts. What a subtly miserable subsistence I am forced into these days! Anyhow, I began and finished Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" over the weekend while the cold was my greatest woe. It is a truly excellent book in expected and unexpected ways so I have decided to post a brief review of the book here on my political site. It isn't technically a political book but it merits a review on my site because it questions certain aspects of the religious faith that directly influences many prominent political views. Read the review and the book.

The Da Vinci Code: A Question Of Truth

In "The Da Vinci Code", Dan Brown tells a story of mysterious intrigue as long-held truths about the Bible and the ancients are called into question. Among the questions the plot brings into play, the most serious and disconcerting to the faithful are those about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Was Mary Magdalene one of Jesus' Disciples? Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Did they produce a child before Jesus' mortal death? Were the other Disciples jealous of the attention Jesus gave to Mary Magdalene? Did the Catholic Church ultimately hide the true story of Jesus? Most important of all, has the Church downplayed the importance of woman in religion by emphasizing the dominance of man? Seeking the answers is the quest of "The Da Vinci Code."

The Da Vinci Code: Truth Or Fiction?

Starting in Paris and winding to a climax in Scotland via adventures spanning millennia, this novel is an easy read and an interesting one. The historical facts are accurate to a large extent though it would be very tedious to verify all of them. A large part of the argument the novel makes is that many ancient truths have been downplayed throughout history by the Church and seemingly disproven by the destruction of evidence, also carried out by the Church and those in its employ. Many of the "trust me" points made in the Bible are placed under the magnifying lens in this novel, which explains why many theologians and Christian leaders dismiss the book as blasphemy. This suggests that at least some of the questions brought to light by the novel may have some basis in fact. In the end, the reader must form their own opinion by doing their own homework.

Conclusion: A Worthy Read?

In short, "The Da Vinci Code" is the latest tale in the ongoing Quest for the Holy Grail. The Grail itself, according to the novel, is not what most believe it to be. As the book draws the reader back in time, he/she will see that as the Bible itself says, we will never know the entire truth. It offers theories as to how the Church has gone to great efforts to replace inconvenient facts with mortal-invented "truths". Anyone who seeks to know how and if, in fact, their faith has been butchered and used against them would do well to read this book. Mystery lovers and other fiction fans will also do well to read this book. Take an open mind, an understanding that "The Da Vinci Code" is a mixture of fact with fiction and you will enjoy this book. What you take from it is up to you. Happy Reading!

Another Good Read

In my carousing of blogs and other political sites, I came across a really good post that explains why we are at war in words far better than any I could choose. I highly recommend it to both advocates and opponents of the War on Terror. You can find it at The Daily Blogster. CHEERS!

What A Hot Week For Politics This Was!

2005-10-29T09:44:00.000-05:00

So much happened this week that it's almost overwhelming to find a topic that stands out enough to be worthy of a post. That's fine and good though because my old nemesis, the upper-respiratory infection, has scored a touchdown at my expense and I am now sitting around the house in almost-misery. I say almost-misery because I'm reading Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and am enjoying the religious-mystery immensely. That's a story for another day though. In the mean time, I have decided to write a post responding to interesting things that happened this week but which the MSM didn't adequately cover. Let's get started before my throat starts tickling again.

Congress Sucks: Polls Say

All throughout this week, there have been a multitude of polls released about how awful our government is doing and how there is no love lost between the public and its paid criminals er..um Congressmen. Congress traditionally gets lower scores than the Judicial and Executive branches of government but in recent months, the overall approval ratings of Congress have truly fallen through the floor.

The new AP-Ipsos poll finds that almost half of the nation, 45 percent, gives Congress overall poor marks for honesty and ethics. An additional 21 percent says Congress is doing neither good nor bad. Only a meager 34 percent of the nation is pleased with Congress. Additionally, most of those who are pleased with Congress are found to be Republicans, not Democrats or Independents. What's interesting here is that the public overall is equally upset with both Democratic and Republican leaders.

One article I read included interviews with Americans on both sides of the aisle. This was the primary strength of the article. Interestingly, the author chose to end the story with a quote from an Idaho Republican who seemed as out of touch with reality as most of the rest of her party is from the American people. She said she has trouble believing Congressman are as bad as people say because she hasn't heard much about them, "specifically about Bill Frist and Tom DeLay." No offense mam, but where do you live in Idaho? In a cave? In a tree?

Republican Candidates Fleeing President Bush's Wake?

Speaking of bad politicians, it's interesting to see just how many Republican candidates are trying to distance themselves from President Bush these days. A year ago, he was the hottest commodity in Conservative politics. Now, in many cases, he can't volunteer to work for free without the prospectees running the other way. Isn't this an interesting aspect of that "mandate" his meager 3 percent win last year got him?

Look at it like this. Last week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) was pushing his "anti-union" legislation as well as trying to save his own sinking ship-of-state. Well, it appears that Bush never even got an invite whereas in previous years, Arnold couldn't get enough of the guy. Hmm....

This week, President Bush was in Norfolk, Virginia giving another rhetorical speech about the WoT. Guess who declined to be present? None other than Virginia's Republican gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore. It seems that the scandals swirling around the White House and the Washington GOP in general kept Kilgore at bay. Hmm....

I guess that's enough. If anyone cares to look into this further, they will find that this is a trend that's on the rise. Hopefully it will continue. Without their political savior, many Republicans will be at a disadvantage during upcoming elections. God knows that the right-wing direction in which this nation has been dragged for the last 5 years is a direction we can't afford to maintain. I mean, even when Bush tries to do the right thing, his own party shoots him down. Look at the Miers nomination. What about that?

Conclusion

That's it for now I guess. I'll post a small review of "The Da Vinci Code" this week, maybe Wednesday. God knows I feel awful enough to just sit around all weekend. That gives me plenty of reading time. CHEERS ALL!

The GOP: Cutting America Where It Hurts

2005-10-26T19:46:00.000-05:00

As per their party's usual designs, House Republicans voted today to cut programs that are not only important but essential to making America tick. Why did they do it you ask? Because, after all, they have to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the rich somehow. What did they cut and how deep will it sting you're wondering? Well let's take a look!

Student Loan Subsidies

Yes, proving a theory of mine that they like to keep the poor man poor by making it hard for him to get an education, House Republicans voted today to cut student loan subsidies from the budget. They probably figured hey, poor people tend to vote Republican (for some reason that God only can decipher) while the educated, middle-class people tend to vote Democratic or Independent. By making it harder to get a good education, Republicans can put a noose around the middle-class and slowly force it to shrink. I think that's exactly what they're up to.

Child Support Enforcement

If this is what it sounds like, House Republicans seem to be on the side of the dead-beat dad. That's appropriate though since the GOP is fast becoming the party of the dead-beat leadership. Like dead-beat dads who hang out with friends drinking beer and ignoring the problems of their kids, Republicans are big advocates of letting companies cut and eliminate their employees benefits to increase profits even when those employees lose everything they have because of it. Taking that into consideration, I guess letting dead-beat dads off the hook by cutting the funds that are used to force them to pay up is just a logical step in the Republican mindset, eh?

Aid To Firms Hurt By Unfair Business Practices

Last but not least, House Republicans voted today to cut financial assistance to firms hurt by unfair business practices. This is a pretty self-explanatory cut, don't you think? We all know how fair-minded the Republican Party is. They have a long history of playing fair (Watergate, 2000 Election Theft, 2004 Wolf Attack Election Ads) so it should surprise nobody that they don't care at all for the victims that illegal business practices leave in their wake. I guess Republicans figure Americans like the idea of being underpaid by their employers so their employers can turn around and cut insurance benefits to save money so they can then undercharge customers for products and services in an attempt to drive competitors (read companies who are actually competing fairly) out of business. Yes, that is exactly the kind of things Republicans want to see. What did the President have to say about it you're wondering? Let's take a look!

Bush Applauds His Party's Support of Dead-beat Dads

You guessed it! Bush was upbeat and supportive of his party's work today when he met with Congressional GOP leaders. He even said he encourages "Congress to push the envelope when it comes to cutting spending." Yeah right. Who was it that called for spending all of that money on a failed missile defense system a few years back? Who was it that gave all of those contracts to Halliburton without even trying to see if other companies could provide the services for less? Bush is proving, as he so often does, that he hates the middle-class and the American way of life. He's also proving that he's nothing more than corporate-America's paid spokesman. What a joke.

DeLay's Indictments A Strange Comedy?

2005-10-22T11:17:00.000-05:00

Is it just me or is Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) fast turning his indictments into a soap comedy worthy of a major motion picture?

The Latest "DeLay" In The Justice Process

Tom DeLay has a new defense strategy. Accused, as he is, of using illegal funds to engineer a theft of power by Republicans from Democrats, he's clawing for any defense he can find. His latest "defense" is to request a new judge to oversee his case because the current one, Judge Bob Perkins, donated a few thousand dollars to the Democratic Party last year. Are judges not private citizens who are free to donate to their party of choice? Is DeLay saying that judges are all incapable of legal oversight because of their political beliefs? Because of the potential precedent involved, I believe this case should not be sent to another judge on these grounds. It opens the door to all manner of abuses of the system in future.

Is This In Reality A Fastball By DeLay?

In light of the potentially damaging precedent that could result if DeLay's request is honored, it's interesting to note that the next judge in line to deal with the case is a Republican judge, B.B. Schraub. Should prosecuting attorney Ronnie Earle say that a Republican judge would be biased in favor of DeLay since DeLay says a Democratic judge would be biased against him? The answer you came to, I hope, is in the negative. If we're willing to take a judge off a case simply for being Democrat or Republican, we'll soon be out of judges. The scary thing here is that that may be DeLay's intent in the first place. After all, if he could get a precedent set for Democratic judges not to rule on Republicans and vice versa, could he not cause enough confusion in the justice system to allow seemingly corrupt politicians such as himself more of a free reign on power, at least for awhile? It might seem unlikely but after all, evidence suggests he's a criminal and do criminals not play outside of the law?

TIL Recommends A New Strategy For DeLay

It would seem to any legal-minded American (or it should) that if DeLay is innocent, he should try defending himself with evidence instead of petty mudslinging. He has, after all, tried to have the case thrown out on legal technicalities and when that didn't work, he tried to accuse the grand jury of being tampered with. When that didn't work, he accused the jury of being biased. When that didn't work, he tried to get a new judge because he didn't like the current one. In addition, DeLay is now using money from his election campaign budget to pay for attack propaganda aimed at the prosecution. Is that not improper use of campaign funds? These are all very petty defenses. If DeLay is innocent as he claims, he should try to provide facts that prove his innocence instead of trying to bully his way through the justice system. It is interesting to note that though DeLay claims arrogantly claims his innocence and says he will be cleared of all charges, his two associates who stand charged don't seem to share his confidence. They've both told reporters that they hope the case will be dismissed or settled out of court in some other manner. That suggests they aren't confident that evidence will prove their and DeLay's innocence.

Conclusion

Tom DeLay's "defenses", though accepted lock, stock and barrel by most Republicans, have so far proven baseless. He has failed to provide any evidence so far to prove his innocence and has instead stooped to petty accusations and propaganda as a defense strategy. His failure to provide evidence seems damning but it would be unfair to make that accusation until the case is concluded. However, smoke and shadows won't be enough to get him out of this mess. He forgets the most important fact in all of this: It was the Grand Jury that indicted him, not Earle or Perkins. As Juror Veronica Dixon put it, "The only thing the grand jury bases its decisions on is the evidence presented to us. We had quite a lot of evidence."

The Independent Liberal's Mission Statement

2005-10-19T11:00:00.000-05:00

In the course of publishing this blog, I have found that it's often difficult to write successfully about the controversial topics I love without a set code of conduct and a set mission statement to show where I stand on the issues. I have decided today to put down into words exactly where I stand on politics and at the same time explain to my readers in-depth how I intend to manage my site and its format. Let's start with my position on politics.

My Political Philosophy

I am neither an absolute Liberal nor am I an absolute Conservative; I'm not even an absolute Moderate. My views are a mixture of different positions, many of which come close to conflicting at times. My late mother was a very liberal Michigander (of 100% recent European immigrant lineage) so from her, I draw most of my Liberal leanings. My father is a very Moderate individual from Tennessee so from him, I draw some Liberal leanings but also some Conservative ones. The views that I have picked up on my own are heavily influenced by the traditional Southern values of my native Oklahoma. From these sources spring my views such as they are.

How I Believe The Government Should Function

I am a firm believer in every man and woman's right to earn a good life through hard work. I also believe the government's role is to protect the public from foreign and domestic threats and also through pro-public policies to help the people have every opportunity to earn success as long as they are willing and able to work for it. In the same token, I believe direct-cash assistance should be reserved only for those who truly need it. My belief is that the government (all levels) exists by, of and for the people, meaning that in all things, the people who elect government officials should be the ones for whom the government works. Any time the government or a government official puts one agency, ideology or organization's interests above the good of the public, the government or the guilty person has committed treason. I believe the government should remain as small as possible and should only grow when absolute need requires it. The Federal government should be in charge of national defense, international diplomacy, monitoring trade, monitoring inter-state and multi-national corporations and deciding state-to-state disputes by interpretation of the Constitution. In general, other rights and responsibilities should fall to each individual state and local municipality. This is a brief synopsis of my political theory but it should paint a detailed picture of what I fight for.

The Format Of The Independent Liberal

On this blog, I welcome all views. I ask that trolls do not rear their ugly heads but apart from those rude little creatures, all views are welcome. I ask that readers and responders to my posts read my work and the comments of others in an open-minded fashion and that they think critically of all views, their own included. There is no such thing as an absolute truth except for the secrets that God himself knows and keeps so we should never assume for any reason that we have all the answers. In short, I ask that everyone who frequents The Independent Liberal keep an open mind and remember that politics is about different views, debate and diplomacy. I will, if forced, ban hate-mongers just as I would ban trolls so please don't put me in that position. This site is intended to be an open forum where all sides of the political sphere can meet and mingle. That's what Democracy is supposed to be.

If I'm Being Unreasonable, Call 1-800-Biteme!

I just want to say that I appreciate every single comment that you, my readers, leave me. I don't always agree with you and that heartens me. What fun would this great sport of politics be if we were all pitching for the same team and could find no batter to challenge us? It takes all sorts as the saying goes and that means that every single point of view has value to some extent. Now you know what I think so let me know what you think as posts come and go. That's it for now. CHEERS AND BLOG ON!

Bob Woodward: A People's Advocate

2005-10-15T10:58:00.000-05:00

I recently had the honor of being invited to a state dinner at which Bob Woodward, one of two journalists famous for exposing the corruption of President Richard Nixon, was to be the keynote speaker. I honestly doubted that he would speak on politics all that much but was pleasantly surprised when my doubt was disproven. He spoke of Watergate and of politics since the infamous scandal. He also spoke in great depth on the state of politics today. I would like to record for you some of what he said for much of it will likely be surprising to both Liberals and Conservatives.

Watergate: Symptom Of A Corrupt President

The first thing Woodward said of Watergate was that it is, to people in his generation, "like Vietnam- a memory seared into your mind." He said that it proves why journalists and other investigators need to have anonymous sources. Without them, he suggested, it's too easy for the powerful to use fear and manipulation to prevent the truth of their actions from getting out.

"The President has immense power, and the possibility of having someone setup a secret government as Nixon did is the greatest danger we face," he said. "Watergate wasn't one event but a series of secret, criminal events and operations. When we published Watergate, most people didn't believe it. It was overpowering to see such a small man (Nixon) use the Presidency as an instrument of revenge."

At this point, a student asked Woodward if he thinks, as so many Americans seem to, that there are no good journalists in the business today. He responded that there are good journalists and said he believes the problem with today's media is that most people focus on the 24/7 broadcast media, which care more about being first with the story than first with the facts. "Journalists should be strict constructionists, not advocates of one way or another," he said.

To illustrate his point, he brought up a recent luncheon he had with former Vice President Al Gore. At the luncheon, he said Gore asked him, "Why aren't you bringing Bush down?" To which Woodward replied, "Becoming a political tool isn't my job; Being a people's advocate and providing facts is."

After this, he returned to the subject of live media and said that he believes it has gone downhill because, "pomposity has infected the profession and now they (the live reporters) are judging instead of describing."

At this point, the subject of discussion turned to President Bush.

An Interview With President Bush

At this point, Woodward began the discussion with a few questions to the audience. The first question was, "How many of you voted for President Bush last year?" The audience was split with about 60 yeas and about 60 neas. "How many of you in the audience think Bush's tax cuts were good?" The audience was biased on this with only about 20 yeas to 100 neas. "How many of you support the war in Iraq?" The audience was biased on this also, with only about 20 yeas to 100 neas.

"The Iraq war has become the center of the emotional state in this country," he noted. "The decision to go to war is the most serious a President can make and it defines us to the world but more importantly it defines us to ourselves."

Working on a book about Bush, he said he once interviewed the President for three-and-a-half-hours. He said that contrary to the experiences of many other journalists, Bush gave direct answers. When he asked Bush what his motives were for the war, Bush said, "We have a duty to free people." Woodward said he followed this answer with the question that turned out to be the last of the interview. "How will history remember the war, Mr President?" Woodward said Bush stood up, walked around the Oval Office for a bit and then turned and said, "I don't know- we'll all be dead."

Woodward said going to war takes courage, whether for the right or wrong reasons. Courage is the most important trait for any President to have. "Courage often means walking the road alone and re-examining your decisions," he explained. "I believe every President since Nixon truly believed their policies would help America. They had courage."

Again, Woodward returned to the matter of judging people. He said it is impossible to judge people and their actions without understanding the full scope of those actions and their consequences. Bush is judged for the war but until we know how it will play out in the end, Woodward said, we can't truly know the story. That makes it very hard to judge.

Just before he finished his address, Woodward said he doesn't think Bush invaded Iraq for oil. He said Bush truly believes he is doing the right thing. "I think Bush's goal is to liberate Iraq, Iraqi oil and then hand Iraqi oil over to Iraqis," he said. With this, he took a few small questions about his books then sat down to dinner.

Conclusion

In short, I will leave my readers to draw their own conclusions. I enjoyed the address and felt that Woodward's vast knowledge of Washington only proves what I already believe: that good and evil do exist but that they are not absolutes which can be judged with rhetorical opinions and bias. Only by collecting all the facts of a story and looking at each detail equally can we even come close to accurately judging whether something is good or evil. Apart from that, I will leave you good people to your own thoughts.

Democrats and Republicans: Reconcile!

2005-10-12T10:53:00.000-05:00

- President Richard Nixon, August 9, 1974 - "Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."

Richard Nixon stands out in history not only for his infamous abuse of the Office of President of the United States but also for his witty proverbs, none of which are more famous than the speech this statement is taken from. It is ironic that one of the wisest statements ever uttered by an American President was a product of the man who is considered by most to be the worst President of all time. Even more ironic is the way his words, proven true for all time by his criminal vices, still stand true today despite all the change that time has wrought on this nation. Sadly, his terrible example and hard-earned truth fall on far too many a deaf ear amongst our politicians, our leaders and our people. Why, today, do so many Americans of all political stripes forget or ignore the lesson of Nixon? The answer, I suspect, is because far too many Americans have fallen by the wayside of what America stands for and now walk the path to self-destruction that a President walked not so long ago.

A Call For Reconciliation Between Left and Right

After studying Nixon's crimes and failures as well as those of other leaders past and present, I would humbly like to make a call for Democrats, Republicans, Leftists, Rightists and all the rest of you to come together and remember that some things, indeed many things, matter far more than political ideology. Though it is difficult to tell by their politics, Democrats and Republicans were once two parts of the same party. That was almost 200 years ago. About the only thing they have in common now is their shared use of rhetoric, intentional misleading of the public and silent agreement to share power and prevent the success of any other political parties. In light of this growing political extremism, I ask everyone to take a good look at his or her own political views. I ask you to examine closely the similarities and differences that truly set you apart from your neighbors on the other side of the aisle. After you have identified these shared and unshared values, identify the subjects you can work together on. Finally, on the areas that you cannot reconcile, agree to disagree peacefully. You see, I have observed that those who hate others tend to fail more often than those who disagree respectfully with ideas instead of people. This, I deem, is the root of the Democratic Party's fall in the 1990's. It is also the seed by which the Republican Party is building towards its own fall. Work together or fail together, that is the lesson. Do not focus only on the evils of others but see the good in them and build on it. Evil will always be punished in the end because that is in its nature. Remember, it takes a better kind of person to reconcile than to injure an open wound. God Bless!

Why Bother Debating With The Right?

2005-10-08T10:09:00.000-05:00

There is both good news and bad news this week my friends. First, we'll look at the good news and then we'll get around the looking at the bad stuff. Fair enough?

The Good News

The good news is that I've decided to rethink the style of my posts. If anyone noticed, my posts tend to be really long, which is all fine and good I suppose but it seems to me that most bloggers don't like reading long in-depth articles. The Internet is all about getting information and ideas quickly after all, isn't it? With that in mind, I've decided to write shorter posts and I've decided to write on both Saturdays and Wednesdays. Hopefully shorter, more frequent posts will allow me to write about more topics and attract more readers. Now for the bad news.

The Bad News

As many of you already know, my friend Gun-Toting Liberal has been out of town for a while now. Before leaving, he asked several fellow bloggers, including myself, to fill in for him on his site while he is gone. Naturally I was happy to oblige him. Along with nine other bloggers, I began writing guest posts. At first this arrangement worked out fine as it seemed GTL's site was receiving a lot of hits from those familiar with his work. As time has passed, however, things have gone downhill. It seems that most of the visitors to GTL's site are now conservatives and they are using it as a conservative forum. In addition, they seem bent on forcing their views and methods on the site, evidently feeling that they now own it. I have grown tired of constantly debating with these folks and having my words fall on deaf ears so I've decided not to post there anymore. Hopefully GTL will clean house when he gets home. Godspeed GTL!

Did You Know Bush's Supporters Are Mad At Him?

I've been keeping a close eye on public opinion in recent weeks as Bush has attempted to wade through tumultuous political waters far too deep for a dishonest man. What I've noticed is that the deeper he wades, the more support he loses. I haven't found a good reason for this as of yet but I believe it has something to do with his system of covering up the truth and then showing his true colors later on. Let's look at the individual groups that are upset with him for a bit, shall we?

Americans In General

In the latest AP-Ipsos poll, it appears that the American people only marginally support Bush. Only a meager 28 percent of those polled felt that Bush is leading America in the right direction. That is opposed 66 percent who felt he is leading us in the wrong direction.

White Evangelicals, Republican Women and Southerners

Since November 2004, Bush's support in among white evangelicals has dwindled by 30 percent. At election time last year, this group overwhelmingly supported Bush but this is no longer the case.

Similar to white evangelicals, Republican women have lost their faith in Bush by a margin of 28 percent. Also like white evangelicals, Republican women overwhelmingly supported Bush during last year's election.

Only slightly less so than with white evangelicals and Republican women, Bush has managed to lose a lot of support from Southerners. In the last election, the South overwhelmingly supported Bush but that support has dwindled by 26 percent.

Hispanics

Over the last 10 years, Republicans have fought hard to convince Hispanics that the GOP is the party that doesn't screw the little guy. They've managed to convince a lot of them. However, the faith of many Hispanics in the GOP has been shaken to the core by Bush's refusal to nominate an Hispanic to the US Supreme Court. Considering that he won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in the last election, one would think he wouldn't want to upset this important group of voters. After all, there are 37 million Hispanics in the United States. By disproving years of campaign promises, Bush might be costing his party a few elections, don't you think?

Conclusion

While political polls are a non-scientific sport, they are accurate enough to tell us that things aren't looking good for Republicans right now. Given that the American people have clearly decided by the smallest of margins that they want Republicans to rule them, despite their tyrannical overtures, it would be prudent for Bush to carry out his position as the leader of the GOP with caution. Instead, he seems bent on doing whatever he wants to. This cowboy-cavalier attitude comes with a high cost: millions of swing-voters who swing left just as easily as right. Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio perhaps best summarized the situation Bush faces when he said recently, "There is a growing, deep-seated discontentment and pessimism about the direction of the country." Yes, that's true. The best part of it is that it's mostly conservatives that are getting upset now. Does that mean the Republican Party is slowly losing its grip?

Why America Needs Biased Media: Part 3

2005-10-01T10:25:00.000-05:00

Well friends, we've come to Part Three, the final part in my series about media bias. Once again, I'd like to thank everyone who read the first two posts and took part in the debate such as it was. As you can see, I firmly believe that bias has a place in media right alongside nonbias (on the rare occasions we can find it). In the first two parts of the series, I put media bias in an historical and political perspective, showing the ways in which it improved the United States of America. Today in Part Three, I will use a few modern political situations to show that we now have a negative and damaging media bias. I will then end the series with my final thoughts on where the media was, is and should be going. So with that in mind, let's get started.

The Clinton Case: Media Bias Is Good, But Now Twisted

Though the media is perpetually referred to as the "liberal media", almost every major media outlet is owned and operated by rich conservatives and is molded to fit their tastes. Add this to the manner in which many Republicans tow the line and follow the party's leadership and it's easy to see why most major media outlets have begun caving in to conservative views. After all, they don't want to lose all of those conservative dollars and viewers do they? This is exactly why the media followed President Clinton's sex scandals with gusto.

Republicans accuse the so-called "liberal media" of being slanted from the left. They say media outlets plaster their broadcasts and publications with attacks on Bush and other Republicans. While that was true originally, it is true no longer for reasons we will discuss later. What is true is that the MSM plastered their coverage of Bill Clinton with his scandals perpetually from the very mention of them. He never had a day go by that the MSM mention his scandals in stories in which he was involved, even when the story itself had nothing to do with his wrongdoings. They crucified the guy. How's that for "liberal media"?

I'm certain that my friends on the right are getting upset about now so let's take a look at several important facts.

First of all, while Clinton wasn't guilty of attacking his fellow Americans as Nixon was, he was guilty of cheating on his wife and telling lies to cover it up. That was something that needed discovering. Likely, without the so-called "liberal media" sensationalizing it and thus driving a bias, Republicans wouldn't have been able to turn his affairs into the big mess they spun them into. That, in turn, would have slowed or prevented the "Republican Revolution" they are so proud of.

Second, having sex and covering it up obviously isn't as big a crime as breaking into a political enemy's headquarters but Republicans hadn't forgotten the trouble Nixon got into for doing just that. They blamed Democrats for Nixon's downfall and thus were still out for blood after two decades (though Nixon did actually break the law when he tapped Democratic phone lines and broke into their headquarters).

Third, it's important to point out here that the media bias that was directed at Clinton wasn't like the bias of earlier times, which was usually targeted for or against a major social issue. The bias in Clinton's time was purely targeted to weaken one political faction in order to strengthen another, a purpose which didn't serve the American people and which severely wounded the nation by dividing it perhaps more than ever into ideological factions.

In conclusion, while we must concede the point that Clinton did some things wrong that deserved finding out, we must also observe the fact that media bias targeting him was not intended for the betterment of America but rather for divisive purposes intended to trick Americans into joining a subversive ideology. This is a case where media bias was detrimental to American well being.

The Bush Case: Media Bias Is Needed, But Lacking

While we're discussing how biased media can serve or harm the public during scandalous Presidencies, let's discuss Mr. Bush, a man who for soo many reasons should be investigated but whom for many more reasons can't be investigated. Let's look at these one at a time, shall we?

The first Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the original manner in which Bush came to power. Irregardless to the beliefs many Republicans hold, there is indeed something wrong about winning an election by such a close vote in a state ruled by one's brother and then being told by a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court which had no legal bearing on the case in the first place that no one would be allowed to investigate further. That is an issue the so-called "liberal media" should have stopped at nothing to investigate. Indeed, they probably would have had the GOP'ers not started heavily tagging them "the liberal media" at just that time. If the media had held to a little bias and developed some backbone, we might have at least known who had actually won the election. Bush: 1 MSM: 0

The second Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the fact that Bush was caught on tape saying that he would invade Iraq if he won the race in 2000. Does that not give at least reasonable doubt that he embellished WMD's claims as a means to "justify" his invasion at that time? This isn't about Saddam but it is about a claim Bush made that was either a lie or a gross embellishment. Americans deserve to know the truth either way. Besides, if we received "bad" intelligence about WMD's, as Bush claims, the intelligence has obviously proven faulty and can thus be released to the public to show that he did nothing wrong. Why hasn't he done that? Does he hide such "evidence" to protect, as he claims, national security or does he hide such things to protect his own guilty record? Clearly the "liberal media" isn't biased against him on this matter either. They seem content to let him get away with not coming clean about his intentions so long as he doesn't direct financial investigations or boycotts in their direction. Bush: 2 MSM: 0

The third Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the fact that Bush recently suspended prevailing wage to "help" in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region, which was totally devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Naturally, the "liberal media" is so biased against Bush that they let the matter all but drop only days after he made the decree. Do you think the construction workers who lost everything will appreciate being paid next to nothing for their services as they try to rebuild their communities? Do you think the workers who come in from out of state to help them will appreciate it? In effect, this is yet another case where the media that once fought over major social problems is now being trained to act with complacency when it comes to the White House. They are now happy to let Bush do as he pleases as long as he doesn't threaten them with investigations or conservative boycotts (and yes conservatives do boycott though they don't like to admit it). Sound like we need media bias? Yes it does but I'm afraid the media has already been sold to the highest bidder. Bush: 3 MSM: 0

Conclusion: Media Bias Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

I believe that history shows bias in the media has had, for the most part, a positive effect on America's development. It has brought to the foreground issues, facts and ideals that may never have surfaced without a bias to drive many a writer to persevere in his or her beliefs and causes, even under threat to his or her person. This willingness to take the hard road for the belief that the nation will benefit as a fruit of the effort should serve as a shining example to journalists today and in the future.

In saying that media bias has an overall great record, however, we must admit that the current system of media in the United States is stifled. Through the use of clever rhetoric, the very bias that once made American media so powerful has been used against it by a tide of political vigilantes in a quest to seize far more power than is their Constitutional share. As things stand at the present, the media is a tool of powerful rightist political forces. It is, in fact, being used against the masses though the masses themselves don't always realize what is being done to them. Through threats, bribes and buyouts, the media has been subverted and its once equally distributed bias along with it. In this way, the good things that come from bias in the media are now bad things. This proves that while media bias is a positive thing in that it can bring out all sides of an argument, it's strength is also a weakness that makes it vulnerable.

In the future, I would like to see the MSM undergo some changes that will give it a level of immunity to external forces such as those that now hold it hostage. For example, I would like to see media outlets declare their ideological positions whether they are biased, unbiased or centrist. I would also like to see journalists like those of old who refused to back away from a story simply because there was a chance that those in power would go on the offensive. Finally, I would like to see an increase in privately-owned media because owned by large corporations as most newspapers and news stations are, the personal feelings and emotions that drive good journalism are orbiting farther and farther from the journalistic mainstream and by association the American people. This can only make matters worse as time goes on. I hope everyone has enjoyed on some level or another my series on media bias. Thanks for reading!

The End

Why America Needs Biased Media: Part 2

2005-09-24T09:16:00.000-05:00

I would like to thank everyone who read and responded to Part One of this series last week. As expected, the post received a wide array of responses, which is exactly what I had hoped. Before we go on, I want to remind everyone that by definition, bias is simply the act of being influenced unobjectively in one direction or another. I'll be the first to admit that it's dangerous. However, it serves its purposes as my arguments show. For one thing, bias brings public awareness to important issues by capturing individual interests with rhetoric. In addition, it uses that public awareness to coerce the MSM into covering things that it doesn't want to cover. In turn, the MSM does (or used to do) an in-depth investigation and the facts, whatever they are, are brought to light for all to see. With that in mind, let's take up where we left off.

The Media Should Be Biased, For America's Sake: Part Two

Given the success of slanted media in the years before the Revolution, it shouldn't surprise us that the media was here to stay after. In fact, between the end of the Revolutionary War and 1800, newspapers popped up all over the United States. Also during that time, the ideological factions that had united to fight the British began to separate and grind against each other. Needless to say, newspapers took sides and often chose the wrong one.

President John Adams, Like Bush, Wanted To Be A King

When the Federalist Party put John Adams on the throne, er, in the White House, he set about destroying in as many ways as he could the rights guaranteed by the Constitution as well as the idea that the United States is a democratic republic. He was a fan of the British monarchy's method of rule and believed the masses were unworthy of ruling themselves. He was uncomfortable sharing information with his citizenry and even felt that his word should be law. Sounds familiar, like a certain tyrant sitting in Washington now, doesn't it? Needless to say, most newspapers were forced to tread lightly or not at all over his decrees if they wanted to stay in business. He even passed laws to make sure they toted the line.

In 1798, "President" Adams pushed for and got the Sedition Act, which made opposition to government measures illegal. Naturally, Federalist newspapers condemned anyone who spoke against it. However, Democratic-Republican (yes, the party that later split into the Democratic and Republican Parties) newspapers condemned the act openly. No paper was more critical than The Aurora, a paper owned and operated by Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache.

The Aurora and Benjamin Franklin Bache

Bache founded The Aurora in 1790. Located in Philadelphia, he drew on the liberal sentiments of that community for inspiration in his war-like condemnation of Adams and his Sedition Act. Very popular and a follower of Thomas Jefferson's liberal idealism (liberal for that time), he published article after article blasting Adams and the right-wing Federalists in general. Ultimately, this landed him in jail with a fine and prison sentence. His popularity earned him an early release but sadly he died of yellow fever shortly afterwards. While it's safe to say his passing wasn't truly mourned by Adams, his martyrdom helped bring the right-wing Federalists down. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson settled into his new job as President and within a few years, the Federalist Party died out.

In short, the lesson here is that if newspapers had simply reported on Adams' doings without spinning it so as to catch and hold the public's attention, it is highly possible that Americans who opposed his tyranny would have thrown in the hatchet, feeling that the Revolution had failed to prevent tyranny and that their cause was hopeless. It is hard, after all, to rally when there is no cause to rally to. Now let's skip ahead a few years and see how the MSM was coerced into discussing the immorality of slavery.

Opposition To Slavery Picks Up Steam

By 1830, every community that was a community had a newspaper. In the same token, every community that was a community tended to be either for slavery or against it. There were, by far, more opponents of slavery than advocates but the argument that slavery was immoral was relatively new and no one seemed to know how to use it advantageously. To make matters worse, the pro-slavery crowd tended to be rich and was willing to use that wealth to fund newspapers. These newspapers, in turn, rhetorically supported slavery and published arguments suggesting that Africans were inferior and thus lucky to be slaves. Mournfully, this environment maintained a high level of racism among the public and prevented the abolition movement from gaining ground. What the movement needed was a spark of rhetorical bias.

William Lloyd Garrison and The Liberator

In 1831, an abolitionist named Garrison founded a newspaper in Boston called The Liberator. Now, Garrison knew there were many abolitionists throughout America. He also knew that many were afraid to speak out against slavery because of the harm that slavery advocates' money could bring to bear against them. Thus, he was aware that it would be all but impossible to get local newspapers on his bandwagon. Because of that, he developed a system to turn to his own purposes the uneducated rhetoric of the conservative, pro-slavery crowd. Here's how it worked.

In The Liberator, Garrison would publish an article blasting the immorality of slavery and ridiculing slavery advocates. Naturally, pro-slavery newspapers would editorialize what he said and would then reprint his articles along with a nasty response. Then, Garrison would print a response to their response, followed by another article blasting slavery. Can you see where this is going? He figured out that the only way to get the MSM to discuss slavery was to be so blunt, so extreme and so outspoken that pro-slavery elements in society would have no choice but to respond. This of course divided the nation into two camps even more so than before but it also brought more Americans into abolitionist ranks by giving them a rallying point and by proving to them the ignorance and greed of slavery advocates.

The lesson here is that bias, if strategically used, can be a tool to force important issues into the public eye. The MSM often doesn't follow a story or cover a topic because they believe it's "too controversial" or "not sensational enough" or for other equally unjustified reasons. Sometimes, only a strong rhetorical bias can break the gridlock the MSM places or allows ot be placed or is paid to place on the flow of information. In this case, Garrison found that truth and reality were themselves a bias and used rhetoric to draw his enemies out where they were vulnerable. Though he had a $20,000 bounty put on his head by slave owners and couldn't mail his newspapers because the US Postal Service was destroying them, Garrison punched a hole in the pro-slavery lines using bias alone. Could he have succeeded by merely reporting the facts? There is no evidence to suggest this whatsoever.

Conclusion

Once again, it is apparent that without a strong driving bias, many of the things that are good about the United States would have been lost or simply wouldn't have come about. Bias is dangerous but it isn't inherently bad unless it's an evil bias, an abused bias or labeled as such by those who have something to hide. Today's examples along with those from last week demonstrate why we need a certain level of bias in our newspapers, magazines and television news. In fact, the very act of investigating something is a bias as is the act of choosing not to investigate. Thus, we come to the source of the controversy in our own time. There is nothing wrong with investigating the facts to find the truth. However, in the current political climate, extremist politicians are labeling investigative reporting as "negatively biased reporting" and by use of clever rhetoric, are convincing their followers that this is so. This is a case of good bias, evil bias and evil rhetoric by those with things to hide. Next week, in Part Three of this series, we will examine this current media bias controversy and compare it to the examples we've looked at so far. Where does the evil bias come from today? Who has something to gain or lose from it? Who is hiding something? Who is abusing the system? We'll look at all of those questions next week. For now, thank you for reading!

Why America Needs Biased Media: Part 1

2005-09-17T10:27:00.000-05:00

Good day friends and readers! It is my intent today to write the first of a three-part series on why America needs a biased media. Before I entrench myself in this week's arguments, however, I want to first of all thank my loyal friends and readers who take time every week to read what I write. Certainly there are weeks where I really have something to say and others where I'm somewhat less interesting than I should be, but I seem to have a base of readers. For that I am grateful. Now, let's look at why the media has always had and should maintain a bias.

The Media Should Be Biased, For America's Sake: Part One

I'll be honest and admit that I've spent most of my life believing that media should avoid bias whenever possible. However, I've studied the history of media extensively in recent weeks and have concluded that while there should always be media sources that fight bias, it is in the nation's interest to have so-called "media on a mission" as well. In fact, without biased media, there literally wouldn't be a United State of America. Let's look at why.

As most Americans know, the very reason the United States was founded was to protest tyrannical government. What most Americans don't know is that coming together behind this ideal was very difficult for pre-revolutionary Americans. After all, communities were few and far between. Thus, information and ideas traveled very slowly. To make matters worse, newspapers had to be endorsed by the King of England at that time to be legal and he certainly wouldn't allow any talk of rebellion or reform to be published if he could help it. This led to the formation of underground newspapers and even to the secret publishing of unofficial news briefs by "endorsed" printers. What did they publish? Well, bias for the most part. Read on and I'll show you.

Publick Occurrences

Publick Occurrences was one of the first pro-American newspapers and it was also the shortest lived. Published by Richard Pierce and edited by Benjamin Harris, it opened its doors in 1690 on the streets of Boston. Featuring criticism of the crown and crown-appointed members of local government, it was quickly ordered to close down after printing only one edition. Thus, though its bias led to its demise, the spirit behind that bias led Publick Occurrences to inspire hundreds of equally biased and pro-American newspapers in the decades to come.

The New England Courant

The first successful attempt at a pro-American newspaper was The New England Courant, which was founded in 1721 by Benjamin Franklin's older brother, James, to whom Benjamin was apprenticed. The Franklins, like Pierce and Harris before them, were based in Boston and printed news stories that were decidedly in favor of Americans and unforgivingly critical of the crown and crown-appointed government authorities. Among the more popular rhetoric the paper published were stories by Benjamin about a fictional character named Silence Dogood, the wife of a country minister who held strong opinions about the government. Like Publick Occurrences, The New England Courant caught the fury of government authorities and James Franklin was eventually imprisoned for printing "libel" about government officials. The fact that his accusations were true held no legal bearing at that time. All together, The New England Courant printed 255 issues between 1721 and 1726. It's stability led to increased literacy among New Englanders which helped increase public awareness. Increased public awareness, in turn, would later help fuel the case for independence.

The Pennsylvania Gazette

In 1729, Benjamin Franklin came to the forefront of the war on tyranny when he began publishing The Pennsylvania Gazette in Philadelphia. Instead of using blunt attacks on outrageous government activities, Franklin used humor and entertainment to point out the absurdities of tyranny. His soft attacks did not draw the harsh government criticism that his brother's newspaper had so he was thus very successful in his endeavors. He became rich and used his wealth to sponsor newspapers in both the northern and particularly the southern colonies, spreading both pro-American sentiment and literacy as he did so. Americans were not ready to revolt at this time but they were waking up to the evils of British rule.

The New York Journal

The next step that biased media took to lead America away from tyranny came in the form of The New York Journal, which opened its doors in 1733. Published by a man named John Peter Zinger for a group of rich merchants and businessmen, The New York Journal's aim was to spread awareness of New York Governor William Cosby's abuse of power. As was the usual British response to published attacks in those days, Zenger was imprisoned and put on trial for libel. However, by this time public opinion was turning against the British and the judge overseeing Zenger's case allowed "truth as evidence" and Zenger was acquitted. This was the first time that tyranny was allowed to be referred to as such and it added fuel to the cause of American freedom.

The Final Straw

The final straw that pushed Americans over the edge into open rebellion was Britain's heavy taxation of colonists after the French and Indian War (1754-1763). The war drained Britain's treasury and resources. American colonists, however, gained new territories and resources by taking lands from France during the war. Because of this, the British Parliament in London decided to recoup a large part of its war debt by taxing the colonies. This led the media to take up its most biased and pro-American role ever.

The Boston Gazette

In 1755, Benjamin Edes and John Gill became the owners and editors of The Boston Gazette. Instead of outright attacks on the government, they focused their articles on making the public more aware of politics and tyranny. They frequently published columns by patriots such as John Adams and helped in every way they could to further the cause of government reform and, eventually, American independence. Benjamin Edes even helped organize the Boston Tea Party. How's that for a biased newspaper?

Common Sense

Perhaps the most influential source of biased media came from revolutionary Thomas Paine, whose writings inspired passion among advocates of American independence.

Born in Britain, Paine attempted careers in several professions but found the British hierarchical system very difficult to navigate. As he met with failure after failure, he became increasingly opposed to the British way of life and in 1774, he immigrated to Philadelphia with Benjamin Franklin's help.

In 1776, Paine published Common Sense, an article that spoke blatantly against British tyranny. Instead of writing in the prose of high society, he used the language of common people in his writings. This meant that anyone who was literate could read and understand what he was saying. Thus, Common Sense was very successful. This success can be measured by the fact that before Common Sense was published, most colonists merely wanted government reform and representation in British Parliament. After it was published, most colonists whole-heartedly desired independence from Britain.

Conclusion

As you can see, it is frightfully obvious that without a heavily biased media, it is unlikely that there would be a United States of America. This is the first fact that I put forward as evidence of America's need of a biased media. During the next two weeks, I will post Part Two and Part Three of my series in which I will present further evidence of why biased media protects and promotes the common good of all Americans. I hope that with this series I will make everyone on all sides of every issue think critically of America's political and economic leaders because, as most of us know, power corrupts and few people are more corrupt than those who lead the United States. Thank you for reading and God bless! I hope to see you all back again next week for The Media Should Be Biased, For America's Sake: Part Two.

And The News Is Good, Bad and Foolish

2005-09-10T09:56:00.000-05:00

So very much has happened this week that it has been hard to keep up with it all. It has been even harder to decide what things to talk about today. Suffice it to say that much good, much bad and much evil took place and even some well intended but foolish things. Before digging into the bad news, the evil news and the foolish news, let's look at the good news. It is, after all, the most important, wouldn't you say?

Good News In The Gulf

The good news this week doesn't have me dancing a jig but it does have me exhaling a sigh of relief.

Authorities in New Orleans are now saying that the casualties don't appear to be nearly as bad as they had previously expected. Mayor Ray Nagin had suggested last weekend that "it wouldn't be unreasonable to have 10,000" dead so it is with great pleasure that I have received this update. Authorities have yet to give an updated estimate but they are now saying that fatalities in the wake of Katrina are far less than expected. Amen to that.

Another bit of good news this week is that the people of the Gulf Coast have received astonishing levels of support from average Americans, companies, several states including my home state of Oklahoma and several countries. As all of these new assets have been made available, the Army Corps of Engineers now says that New Orleans can be drained and dry within a month instead of the previously predicted 80 days. Amen to that.

Finally, it is very nice to see communities across America taking in the refugees from Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. I have no doubt that some of them will adopt their temporary lodgings as home but having known many a person from that region, I can tell you that most of them will eventually find their way home as time permits. The culture and roots of the Gulf Coast are an invisible and unbreakable bond between the region and its children. I look forward to the day when the Mississippi gleams again and its children return home to live as they have always done.

Grand Jury Indicts Tom DeLay's PAC

It was only a matter of time until the truth became official and finally, that time has come. Tom DeLay's PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority, has been indicted for accepting an illegal donation from a business organization and then using the illegal funds to steal Democratic seats in the state legislature. This illegal seizure of power led to a right wing re-mapping of Texas Congressional districts. That, in turn, led the GOP to steal several Democratic Congressional seats. The Texas Association of Business has also been indicted for working in tandem with DeLay's PAC.

Everyone in the reality-based community knew this was a serious charge but many Republicans have consistently rebuked the claims that DeLay and his PAC did many illegal things to steal seats from Congressman who were legitimately elected. As the facts began to come out, many Republicans attempted to claim that DeLay is not connected to what his PAC does. Of course, that is rhetorical bologna. PACs are formed by politicians to promote his or her agenda. That's what they do and that's what Texans for a Republican Majority did for DeLay. Anyone who honestly believes there is not a connection between DeLay and his PAC needs to see a doctor.

The Brownout Is Over

At last the brownout is over. Over the course of the last two weeks, I have begun to refer to the pathetic Federal response to Hurricane Katrina as a brownout, thanks in large part to FEMA Director Michael Brown's small part in relief efforts. Thus, it is with gratitude from me that the Feds have put the Gulf Coast relief effort under the command of Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen and sent Brown back to Washington with his tail between his legs. Let's examine the cause of Brown's lack of leadership.

Before getting involved with FEMA a few years back, Brown was a professor and lawyer in Oklahoma and Colorado. His only experience in emergency management was a brief stint in Edmond, Oklahoma as an assistant to the city manager, a post that gave him next to no authority and no power over other employees. Does he sound like he was qualified to become FEMA's director? The answer is no.

Promoting Brown to Direct FEMA was purely a mistake on Bush's part. I have no idea what Brown did to win Bush's favor but it must have been big. In any case, the Brownout following Hurricane Katrina is evidence enough why politicians shouldn't be allowed to merely promote friends and allies to high positions in government. No one should be able to take an office for which they are not qualified, end of story. Now, let's look at the bad news.

Fox Corporation's Journey To The Dark Side Is Complete

It pains me to see the company that gave birth to Star Wars, Independence Day and Aliens go so far right but indeed it has done just that. Not only has Fox Corporation completed its journey to the dark side, but it has also begun forcing its constituency to do the same. I came across yet another story this week that proves this to be so.

Brian Ellner, a Democrat running for the Manhattan, New York borough presidency, said Tuesday that the local Fox affiliate, Fox 5, had agreed to run his campaign ad. Shortly afterwards, the station rejected the ad because it is critical of President Bush and makes fun of him. Station officials said they are refusing to run the ad because it is "disrespectful to the office of the president." However, the very same station and network ran many equally nasty ads in favor of Bush during last year's election cycle. Is this a case of bias? Absolutely. Ellner says that so far, none of the other network and cable affiliates have refused his ad. Can we say Darth Fox?

The Blame Game

For his part, President Bush claims the Federal response to Katrina was great and punctual, despite the obvious 4-5 day delay in seeing anything happen. He is mysteriously quiet about his shifting of funds last year from New Orleans' hurricane protection system to the war in Iraq. Effectively, he is trying hard to avoid taking responsibility for the failures of the government that he supposedly leads.

For their part, Republicans across America are trying to shift the blame from Bush to local leaders in the areas mot heavily afflicted by Hurricane Katrina. They have been particularly critical of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who both happen to be Democrats. Admittedly, the blame does not lay with one person alone. Let's examine this briefly.

Truly, Mayor Nagin should have had a better evacuation plan for his city. Truly, Governor Blanco should have had a better system for helping local authorities fulfill the evacuation of their communities. On the other hand, it is important to realize that like most Gulf Coast states, most of Louisiana’s cities and assets lie in the south near the coast. Hurricane Katrina completely wiped that region of the state out and made it almost impossible for local authorities to respond. That is why the Federal government, led by Bush, should have stepped in immediately. That is as far as blame can be placed on local authorities.

For their part, the Federal response to Katrina, as far as most Americans are concerned, gets an F-. First of all, if Bush had completed the levee and pump system around New Orleans, that city's crisis would not have been as bad as it was to begin with. The system was only designed to protect from a Class 3 Hurricane and Katrina was a Class 4 but it would have at least slowed the crisis and lessened its impact. Add to that fact that Bush hired an unqualified man to direct FEMA and that Bush himself failed to step in and lead the national relief effort and you find that Bush is responsible in three ways for the epic scope of this tragedy. These three portions of responsibility lie firmly on his shoulders. Of course, his followers are massaging him so he probably doesn't feel a thing. How do you like that? Now, let's look at the foolish news.

Barbara Bush: The Hurricane Worked Out "Very Well"

Ever since I was a small child in the days of Ronald Reagan, I've liked George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara Bush. I didn't always agree with them but I always felt they had Americans at heart in most of the things they did. I still feel that way so don't get mad when I say I almost choked on my Dr. Pepper when I heard Barbara Bush tell Larry King the other night that Hurricane Katrina had worked out well for many of its victims. I was certain that this was merely a slight misuse of language on her part so I let it go. After all, her comment came as a response to King's questions about how the victims are responding to the hospitality of other states that are taking them in. Well, it was the very next day that she seems to have said the same thing in another interview, this time for American Public Media's "Marketplace" program. Here is the quote.

Barbara Bush: "Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them."

I still want to believe that Mrs. Bush is merely saying that refugees are welcoming the help they are being given but I am not completely sure anymore. It's starting to sound like she has grown a bit Mary Antoinette-ish. Is this her equivalent of Antionette's famous "let the peasants eat cake" speech? I have held out coming to such a conclusion but I must say it's not looking good as Mrs. Bush has so far refused to clarify her statements. I pray that she did not mean what it sounds like she meant.

September 13 Update: Bush Takes Responsibility?

Under very suspicious circumstances, FEMA Director Mike Brown quit his post on Monday, September 12 after having been under intense pressure to do so in the wake of his very weak response to Hurricane Katrina. Whatever the reason, this move was one in the right direction. However, the suspicion cannot be totally dismissed that he has been turned into a scapegoat by the Bush Administration.

For his part, President Bush admitted Tuesday, September 13 that "the Federal government didn't fully do its job right" in getting help to the victims. Going a step further, he even did something he has rarely if ever done: claim responsibility for the failure of the Feds in this matter. "I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong," he said.

For my part, I commend Bush for claiming responsibility for the Federal government's letting the ball drop. Every level of government failed on this matter so no one person or group is to blame. Be that as it may, Bush was in the wrong in almost every way. It's a nice change to see him admit wrongdoing for a change. Perhaps some good will come out of this.

The Failings And Vices Of A Presidency

2005-09-03T09:21:00.000-05:00

As the nightmare that is reality in New Orleans begins to take its final shape at last, there are several things that we Americans are obliged to do. First and foremost, we are obliged to help the people of the Gulf Coast. Second and equally important, we are obliged to identify those persons and agencies that have failed and put the Gulf Coast at catastrophic risk because of events such as Hurricane Katrina. As a fact in point, this is the main topic of discussion in my post today. Towards the end, however, I also want to briefly address the death of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Let's begin with the tragedy unfolding on the Gulf Coast, shall we?

The Aftermath of Katrina

Previously this week, I was so intensely concerned about the disaster in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi that I made a plea that anyone who can do anything to help the needy should do so. That plea still stands. The mayor of New Orleans has said that in his city alone, we should expect thousands of casualties to be documented before this nightmare finally ends. In Mississippi, there are already 161 documented deaths and God only knows how Alabama is doing. An entire region and culture have been forced by Hurricane Katrina to undertake a diaspora. Between those who choose not to return home and those who have perished, the Gulf Coast region will never be the same. The lively, fun-loving people of that land will rebuild and their culture will remain but Katrina has forever scarred them. We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to do everything we can to help these besieged people rebuild their lives and ensure that such a catastrophe never again threatens their way of life. So let it be written so let it be done. But what of those whose job it is to protect this nation from threats such as Katrina? Where were they when it was time to shore up the levees? Where were they before the floodwaters rose? Let's see if we can identify those who let the Gulf Coast down.

Who Didn't Prevent The Diaspora?

First of all, I want to remind everyone that no one can prevent a hurricane or other natural phenomenon. It is not proper or even sane to blame Katrina on any one person. What we can and should do, however, is identify the culprits who left the Gulf Coast open to such utter mass destruction. Obviously, the coastal flats along the shore were virtually undefendable so for that no blame can be laid out but what of New Orleans? Despite its perpetual sinking (about one inch every three years), the constant erosion of land separating it from the sea and the continual shift of the Mississippi River, the work being done to protect New Orleans has been severely hindered in recent years. Why is that? Who is responsible? Read on to find out.

As The President Watched The Sinking City...

It is important to note that no one person is totally to blame for the plight of New Orleans, which without doubt is among the hardest-hit areas of the Gulf Coast. From the beginning of this crisis, virtually every Federal agency whose responsibility it was to help keep safe the city has failed in some fashion or another. However, the chief failure comes from the top. That is where the leadership is and that is where the budget is laid out. Thus, speaking not along political lines but along American ones, President Bush is at least as much to blame for the poor defense of New Orleans as anyone.

The first thing Bush did to fail the people of New Orleans was his refusal to adequately fund the construction and maintenance of the region's levee system. In 1995, due to rain-induced flooding in and around the city, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project or SELA. Between 1995 and 2005, the Army Corps of Engineers spent $430 million building, upgrading and maintaining levees and other structures to protect the city from flooding and storm surges. However, after Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq, funding dropped to a slow trickle. In 2004, local authorities and the Army Corps of Engineers identified a need for about $35 million to adequately complete and maintain the levee system. They received only $5.7 million. Before Katrina, Bush had allocated only $2.9 million for next year. On several occasions, The Times-Picayune quoted the region's Army Corps of Engineers project director, Al Naomi, as saying, "We don't have the money." In effect, Bush said he was fighting the war in Iraq to protect Americans but because of the war, he has failed utterly in that task and over 500,000 Americans are now homeless. Thousands more are now dead.

The second thing Bush did to fail the people of New Orleans was his excruciatingly slow response to the devastation wrought by Katrina. His response was so slow, in fact, that for about 4 days it didn't look like he was doing anything at all. If you look back, his response or lack thereof was an eerie reminder of the slowness with which he responded to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In any case, while hundreds of thousands were suffering and watching their lives float away on churning waters, he was sitting comfortably in the White House and observing their plight from afar. Then, to make matters worse, after he finally came out into the real world, he refused to enter New Orleans until military supply convoys entered the city so that he could pass himself off as a hero. Effectively, he turned the entire operation into a massive public relations fiasco. He placed higher value on his popularity than on the well-being of his citizens and in doing so, he gave us a glimpse of where his true loyalties are. He cares nothing for anyone if his caring does not turn a profit in some way.

Conclusion

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the failures that led to the catastrophic aftermath of Katrina. While no one is to blame for the storm, the Federal government is largely to blame for not adequately defending the city and the President is the chief culprit in this failure. He said we were fighting in Iraq so that Americans wouldn't die needlessly at the hands of our enemies. However, by failing to finish the levee system in Louisiana and failing to install pumping stations to fight flooding, one of the greatest and oldest of southern cities is now suffering the darkest days of its history. What would have cost only millions of dollars to protect will now cost billions of dollars to rebuild. The truth is that while Bush's war was important, so was keeping safe the nation from natural disasters. While it was not possible to protect the entire coast, the President should have at least finished the work that would have protected the communities in and around New Orleans, where most in the region lived. Instead, he left them sinking and turned their plight into a PR event to boost his ratings. That is not leadership but it is a huge slap in the faces of the people of Louisiana who, if you recall, voted for him on two occasions. Truthfully, there is no word that adequately describes how far he has fallen.

On The Death of Chief Justice Rehnquist

Though I never liked Rehnquist and often disagreed with his rulings, I always respected his devotion to the nation and his dedication to duty. He was a truly moderate Justice who believed in following the Constitution and not in making laws through his rulings. In saying that, he did have at least one major break with that philosophy. After the 2000 Elections, when he voted in favor of George W. Bush in the case of Bush vs. Gore, I was very upset that he ruled so in a case that, according to the Constitution, should never have been a matter for the SCOTUS in the first place. For that, I can never forgive him. However, I respect and honor his years of service to the nation. I pray that his successor will, whomever he or she may be, demonstrate the same dedication to this nation that Rehnquist has shown for these many, many years. May he rest in peace eternal.

September 5 Update: Chief Justice John Roberts?

Perhaps the first decent thing Bush has done in a long time happened today when he nominated John Roberts to be Rehnquist's successor. While I do not agree with Roberts in all things, I believe that he is truly moderate in his views after the fashion of most Americans. I also believe that he will be a compassionate Chief Justice that will see that the rights of the American people are protected within the bounds of the Constitution. While there are undoubtedly better candidates, aren't there always? I see him not only as an acceptable candidate but as the likely best that can be expected out of George W. Bush. May God bless Roberts and may his confirmation hearings be swift and thorough.

Unending Prayers For Katrina's Victims

2005-08-31T16:55:00.000-05:00

I've waited, and waited, and waited for better news to crop up in regards to Hurricane Katrina. I never wanted to throw in my hat to pessimism despite my tendency in that direction regarding so many other things. Indeed, it is a very hard thing to give up on hope when it comes to searching for the good in a situation but that is exactly what is happening. I no longer see any way that a good outcome can be had in wake of Katrina. It is clear now, as even President Bush and the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi have admitted, that the worst has happened. Katrina was the worst hurricane in recent history and, possibly, the history of the nation in general. We no longer sit in fear of the worst coming to pass. We now sit and wonder how to overcome the worst. What can we do? What should we do?

Help The Victims

The first and most important thing we can do is, obviously, to give money to charities that are helping the victims in Katrina's wake. I have included a link to a website containing links to various charities and agencies that are involved in helping victims. Make this a priority. It isn't about making a donation to feel you did your part and it isn't about earning brownie points for a tax donation. It's not even about earning brownie points with God. To tell you the truth, it's not even about duty. We should help in any way we can out of simple love of our fellow man above and beyond any other reason. Irregardless to religion, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation or anything else, we should always help one another for that is the American way and it is God's way. Most important of all, it is the right way. Making a donation is the most humble thing we can do to help and it is the first thing we should do.

Pray

After offering whatever financial and material aid we can, the most important thing we can do is offer our prayers for the victims and for a safer future for all Americans. Katrina is evidence that we are grossly under prepared for dealing with natural disasters, much less other crisis that arise to threaten us. We should pray for the well-being of our fellow Americans and accept without argument that some things will be more expensive after this including building supplies, seafood and some agricultural products. Above and beyond these things, we should hold tight to our friends and family because we never know what life has in store for us. Do not let the suffering of Katrina's victims be in vain. There are those who will never again be able to hug and hold their husbands, their wives, their brothers, their sisters, their sons or their daughters. Let this be a wakeup call for those of us who are too busy to slow down and enjoy life. In this way, at least, some good can come from this tragedy. Now, all that can be said has been said. All that can be done needs to be done. I offer my prayers and confidence that the Americans of the gulf coast will not give up. They will rise again from their ruin. They won't go down, not from this. God bless!

A Big Week For Right-Wing Censorship

2005-08-27T09:42:00.000-05:00

Well folks, classes have begun and I find myself being short on time. This keeps me out of the blogosphere more than I like. On the bright side, I still have time to keep up on current events. This means two things. First, it means I will probably only blog on Saturdays from now on. Second, it means that I have a fruit-basket plethora of things to write about today. Let's get started, shall we?

Pat Robertson Controversy

A recent statement by the rightmost of right-wing polito-Christians, Pat Robertson, is sending shockwaves across America and the religious right in particular. For those of you who do not yet know, he suggested this week that the United States assassinate Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez. I wonder what version of the Bible he reads? One thing's for sure: Mine doesn't say anything about promoting assassination.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," he said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator."

To all of those who haven't yet noticed, Robertson isn't a true Christian and hasn't been for a long time. He's a charlatan who has pulled the Jesus cap over the eyes of many Americans. Fortunately, with this statement he has given the fooled and tricked a chance to take their caps off. His willingness to promote murder documents his very un-Christian philosophy in the same way as Bush Jr's dishonesty about the Iraq invasion and Trent Lott's statements in favor of racism proved their charlatan status as Christians. It's interesting to note, however, that many among the tricked and the conned have decided that their caps are staying on no matter what. I mean, they did it for Dubya so what's wrong with doing it for Pat?

It's a sad fact but the most interesting thing to come out of Robertson's controversy has been an abysmal silence from conservatives. Sure, a few conservative blogs have made a point to disagree with Robertson's statement, but the fact is that by-and-large they are not condemning Robertson for this evil suggestion though they are always jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth when someone like Senator Durbin (D-IL) makes a similar sort of statement. Even the right-wing media is failing to truly condemn Robertson. Why the double standards?

Fox News Ruins A Family's Livelihood

Speaking of the right-wing media, did you ever wonder what it would be like for everyone to think you were guilty of a crime you didn't commit? A Fox News contributor decided to give one California family the opportunity to experience just that when he broadcast a picture of their house along with the address of a man thought to be linked to terrorists.

To the reality-based community, there is one obvious problem here: the house and the address don't match. However, the right-wingers in California, like those elsewhere, don't seem to care about pesky things like truth and facts. They figured that anything the conservative media said must be true. It might seem natural, then, that they have embarked on a crusade to ruin the lives of those who live at the house without even verifying that it is truly the residence of a terrorist. These vigilantes now drive past the house day and night, yelling "terrorist" and vandalizing as they go. Perhaps Fox News should give away cars as prizes instead of ruined lives?

Just as in the Robertson situation, American conservatives seem unconcerned that their side of the spectrum has perpetrated something terrible. In fact, there can be no doubt that the vandals now terrorizing an innocent family in California are staunch Bush supporters. For one thing, it's widely thought that most people who can't spell voted for Bush last year. Well, the vandals who spray-painted the house proved their inability to spell. Guys, it's terrorist, not "terrist". The other reason there can be no doubt that the vandals are Bush supporters is the fact that they believed what they were told without questioning that it was true. That is a telltale sign of being a Bush fanatic. Need I say more?

My Travel-Writing Guru Attacks Censorship

I was very happy when I saw that my travel-writing guru, Rick Steves, had written an editorial in USA Today about how silly censorship is getting in America. It's not only silly, though, it's out of control.

In his editorial, Steves described the censorship bug from the travel industry point-of- view. He wrote that censorship has become so invasive that in some parts of the country, travel shows featuring nude statues now come with the disclaimer, "For mature audiences only." He pointed out that our conservative government has even tried to scare stations into submission by raising fines "from $27,500 to a maximum of $500,000 per incident." In closing, he argues that censorship is so out of control that it's hard to be sure how far it will go. "Can I film the Three Graces only from the waist up? And, if I do, is that indecency fine of $500,000 per painting ... or per nipple?," he wrote. Hard to say Rick, hard to say.

Ok, at this point it's only fair to take a quick look at the religious right's arguments in favor of censorship. Generally, they claim that boobs, penises and pubic hair should be hidden from view in order to protect children. They also argue that if we don't hide these things from children, we will become like Europe. Reality, of course, suggests that these arguments have no substance.

First of all, trying to hide these things from children is silly and pretending that sex doesn't exist until they are older is also just plain silly. It's a proven fact that when parents hide information, kids tend to get that information from unsavory sources. That makes matters worse, not better.

As to Europe, European countries have far lower rates of rape and teen pregnancy than the United States. Nude beaches, nude TV shows and admittance by parents that sex exists before 18 obviously haven't damaged European youth. This argument is plain bologna.

In closing, I want to head off a few common counterattacks that advocates of censorship have. First of all, I'm not promoting hardcore porn but I am promoting personal responsibility. It's impossible to remove temptation from every day life and besides, hiding temptations from kids makes the desire for them stronger. That goes for sex just as much as anything else. To combat teen pregnancy and rape, parents should educate their kids instead of "sheltering" them from reality. They should teach them to be careful and to be responsible instead of trying to coerce them into it by hiding reality from them. This isn't a liberal plot to pervert America. It's not about doing what the Europeans are doing. It is about helping kids do the right things by teaching them not to do the wrong ones. Censorship as it is being touted today is merely a method of getting out of this very personal responsibility. It doesn't help anything. It creates more problems and makes existing ones worse.

Recent Poll Results: Should Companies Be Required To Offer Respectable Benefits And Pay To Employees?

Yes (Democrat) 34.6%

Yes (Republican) 3.9%

Yes (Other) 34.6%

No (Democrat) 3.9%

No (Republican) 11.5%

No (Other) 11.5%

Total: Yes 73.1% No 26.9%

On Cindy Sheehan's Plight And My MIA Status

2005-08-20T10:43:00.000-05:00

Believe it or not, I'm back in the blogosphere. I would like to apologize to my friends and readers for going MIA last week. It was a busy week. Many unexpected things happened that kept me from even turning on the computer for the most part. First of all, the electric window (glares) on the passenger-side door of my car went out, leading to a harrowing three day quest to fix it without going broke. Then, I switched my cell phone service to Cingular and this, for various reasons, took up nearly an entire day with sitting on the phone talking to Customer Service. Besides these events, I had a lot of errands to run and that also kept me busy. I apologize and truly wish that things had been otherwise. I had meant to post about Cindy Sheehan last Tuesday but I am only just now able to do so. My information comes from a friend of Sheehan's who has filled me on information that the so-called "liberal media" has been neglecting to publish. My findings suggest that the media isn't liberal and that the right-wing spinners don't even know what they are talking about.

Cindy Sheehan's Plight

At my request, Sheehan's friend, a journalist by the name of Stacy Morgan Taylor, answered a few questions about why Sheehan is upset. She explained that Sheehan's opinions of Bush changed because of the way he treated her when she met with him. In fact, the examples she gave me would be unbelievable with any other recent President but because of Bush's widely known crudeness in public and love of publicity stunts, I have little doubt these accusations are true. Thus, without further adieu, let's examine Bush's inappropriate behavior towards Sheehan.

Sheehan's 5-10 Minutes With Bush

Taylor told me that about 9 weeks after Sheehan's son (Casey) was killed in Iraq, she and about a dozen other families were selected to meet with President Bush. It was supposed to be an opportunity for Bush to mourn with them in their loss and thank the fallen for their sacrifice. In reality, it turned out to be yet another publicity stunt on Bush's part. For one thing, each family was only allotted 5-10 minutes to meet with Bush. That, in and of itself, was disrespectful. What really hurt Sheehan, though, were the things Bush did when he got around to meeting with her. Many of the things he did were alarming and very inappropriate for a mourning session.

First of all, he repeatedly referred to Cindy as "mom" despite the obvious upset this caused her. Even after she became angered and said, "I am not your mom", he still continued to refer to her in that way.

Second, during the meeting with Sheehan, and indeed those with other families, he didn't seem to know the names of the fallen. He repeatedly referred to Casey as "the loved one" instead of by his name.

Third, throughout the entire meeting, Bush stayed in an upbeat and casual manner, almost as if he were going to a party. Considering that he was basically at a funeral, this just not proper etiquette.

Fourth, every time Sheehan tried to tell Bush about Casey's personality and life, Bush changed the subject. In fact, Bush wouldn't even look at pictures of Casey that Sheehan had brought to show him.

Conclusion

As it turns out, though the right-wing spin machine and the so-called "liberal media" don't seem to know or want the public to know, Bush treated Sheehan as a publicity tool, nothing more. He was rude and disrespectful towards her and Casey, not even having the kindness or decency to refer to Casey by his name instead of by rhetorical references. Why wouldn't he look at pictures of Casey or talk about him with Sheehan? In the end, the truth is that Bush used Sheehan and she didn't appreciate it. After the meeting, Sheehan was grateful that the President had met with her at all but as time passed, she came back to the stark reality that he had used her and dishonored her son's memory. What Americans among us wouldn't be angry in her shoes?

My Two Cents

I take issue with two groups in this matter.

First, as in most other cases, the right-wing pundits are simply doing their master's bidding by fanatically protecting Bush. Notice how this duty is soo important to some of them that they have taken time off work to go down to Bush's ranch and protest against Sheehan? They are so fanatically loyal to the guy I refer to more and more as the new Furher that they felt they had to take time out of their lives to stand out in the heat and protest Sheehan's very legitimate anger and grief? These people are monsters.

Second, I take issue with is the so-called "liberal media", which is either rightist in reality or simply too scared of the NeoCons to report the facts any more. Notice how they have bashed Sheehan continuously? I'm beginning to wonder if any of these so-called "news sources" have even bothered to ask Sheehan what happened during her meeting with Bush. Talk about a one-sided story.

In closing, irregardless to what the brainwashed right-wingers think and in spite of the half-story the so-called "liberal media" is allowing the public to have, Sheehan is a grieving mother who has lost her son to war and as such, is entitled to think whatever she likes. Her anger towards Bush is easily justified and almost as easily, so is her anger towards the war. Irregardless to WMD's in Iraq 10 years ago, irregardless to those Clinton once thought were there but later decided were not, Bush knew his evidence in 2003 was weak and trumped it up. Because of that, Sheehan, like the rest of the nation, was taken for a ride and is not happy about it. While the war was necessary, Bush's rudeness and dishonesty were not. In the end, I feel sorry for those who condemn Sheehan. We should pray for her and her son but also for the brainwashed fanatics who support Bush. Like Casey, they are casualties of war. Unlike Casey, who gave his life for his country, they have given up their free will to protect the evil, corrupt creature that soils the White House these days. I do not know what else to say so I will leave it at that.