Wide Awake In Hoserland

Republicans, Toddlers, and Temper Tantrums

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:20:00 -0500

There comes a point in the development of a child where they learn the seemingly magical word, "no." And anyone who is a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling or even casual observer probably knows that once that toddler is on message, getting him/her off it is damn near impossible.

It seems that the Republican Party, particularly those in Congress, and toddlers have a lot in common these days.

Don't believe me? Here are a few examples:

• January 2009 - The economy is in freefall in large part due to the ineffectiveness of the Bush Administration. Days after President Obama takes the oath of office, the House passes an $820 billion economic stimulus bill. The number of Republican votes: ZERO

• July 2009 - The debate moves to health care reform and the GOP raises the flag of fiscal conservatism. Mind you it wasn't a concern of theirs when the Bush administration rang up the then biggest deficit in history, but that was then, this is now. Perhaps their flag was at the dry cleaners.

• August 2009 - The health care battle rages on while Congress is on summer recess. GOP plants infiltrate town meetings to rile up the populace. Intellectual powerhouse and GOP darling, Sarah Palin, coins the phrase, "death panel" and scares the hell out of senior citizens. With such vociferous opposition, one might think that the Grand Old Party would be forthcoming with brilliant counter-proposals.

Hmmm . . . what's that word I'm looking for . . . oh yes, NO.

Now as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee debates a major bill to reduce the emission of green house gasses, the Republican'ts are at it again. In fact, not only are they saying no, they're boycotting the discussion in order to block the committee from having a quorum. Committee rules being such that two members of the minority party must be present to constitute a quorum. Their reason? They want an EPA analysis of the bill. This would seem reasonable and prudent if the EPA wasn't scheduled to appear before the committee next Tuesday for the express purpose of answering their questions.

It seems that no matter what the topic, the Republican Party is bound and determined to be obstructionist, while offering no alternative. In truth, it's the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Perhaps they should consider throwing themselves on the floor, kicking and holding their breath until they're blue in the face. Couldn't hurt.

Putting The Hurt On Health Care

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:18:00 -0400

The health care debate is in full swing and there are a lot of loud voices in the mix, especially from the right. What fascinates me about the town meetings going on across the country, is that the folks who are losing their minds over the cost of the yet to be unveiled plan, are pretty much the same demographic who supported without question the historic deficits wracked up by the Bush Administration. These same people who are tremendously concerned that our government might take us down the road to socialism, ironically had absolutely no problem when the previous administration took us on an extended tour of fascism.

OK -- I got it. It's o.k. to emulate Nazi's, but Communists not so much.

Of equal wonder to me is the fact that many opponents of a public health care option fail to realise that there is a long history of this type of program in the United States specifically, Medicare and the Veterans Administration. Many members of the opposition participate in these programs. While the VA may not always be the model of efficiency, I've yet to meet a veteran with the benefit who wants to give it up. Interestingly enough, those in the demographic that seem to be in greatest opposition to reform are those who most benefit from the current systems we have in place.

If a public option is such a socialist idea, perhaps they'd support revoking all publicly supported health care. Ask one and see what they say.

We have Medicare and the VA because we recognize that we have a moral obligation to our citizens, particularly those who have so honourably served their country. The bottom line here is that far too many of our fellow citizens do not have health care. They need a fair and affordable option and giving them one has the long term potential to reduce both catastrophic illness and catastrophic health care costs. The ability to have a regular medical checkup means that disease can be caught early. Catching disease early leads to lower costs through less invasive and expensive treatments. So why wouldn't a good fiscal conservative want something like that?

Hmmm . . . Could it be that higher health care costs lead to higher profits?

It's just a working theory.

Radical Islam? How About Radical Christianity?

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:19:00 -0400

Too often in this country, I hear the far right decry the threat to the United States that is "radical Islam." The murder of Dr. George Tiller proves quite concretely that the threat is not merely from radical Islam but also from radical Christianity.

It's a view that I've held for a long time.

This post isn't about the legality or morality of abortion. At the moment abortion is legal in the United States of America. The first amendment protects the right of organizations such as Operation Rescue and even the Army Of God to speak against the practise. It is legal for them to voice their opinion, lobby for the prohibition of abortion and, yes, even picket clinics that perform abortions. Under the Constitution they are afforded a great number of rights. The Constitution does not, however, afford them the right to murder those with whom they disagree.

Under any circumstances.

To be frank, I have had enough of the Christian right trying to set the social agenda of the United States of America. I am tired of their opposition to abortion while at the same time generally finding no moral objection to capital punishment. I am sick of their endless pontificating against gay rights and gay marriage. I am disgusted by their vitriolic rhetoric and their mouthpieces such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I am mystified by how frequently their voices of moral authority such as Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker and Ted Haggarty manage to be caught in the very behaviour that they claim to be least moral.

Mostly, I am horrified that they claim to love and follow the word of Jesus while typically basing their positions on the old Testament.

You would think that the murder of a man in a house of worship would cause the leadership of the anti-abortion movement to take a step back. You'd be wrong. Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue had this to say, "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions." And he's the moderate. Take a look at the Army of God website: http://www.armyofgod.com/deadAbortionists.html

Let me be clear. I am pro-choice, but I am not particularly a fan of abortion as birth control. I would prefer that people make good birth control choices. I am a fan of adoption. But, I draw the line at violence. It's time for those who oppose this form of radicalism to speak out, particularly those who are Christians of the non-radical variety.

Perhaps it's also time to turn the spotlight on the radicalism that is festering within the borders of the United States.

If Mr. Cheney Wants To Be In The Spotlight . . .

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:44:00 -0400

Lately it seems that it's impossible to turn on the news without hearing former Vice President Dick Cheney lamenting the mistakes of the Obama Administration. He's accused the administration of "raising the risk of attack," called the releasing of memos related to sanctioned torture, disturbing," and even took issue with the fact that the President shook hands with Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. It seems that Mr. Cheney is not content to simply ride off into the sunset and reap the financial benefits that he undoubtedly accrued from raiding the Treasury over the past eight years.

Exactly how many government contracts did Halliburton obtain?

Yes, it seems that our cranky ex-Vice-President wants to remain on the center stage as the defender of torture, imprisonment without basic legal rights and an isolationist. And I hope he does. Because every time, Mr. Cheney opens his mouth, he reminds us of the stark differences between his approaches and those of the current administration. He underscores that his politics are those of "security at all costs and human rights be damned." He brings to the forefront debate about what the United States really stands for.

Bravo, Sir. Bravo.

It is good and necessary to have these discussions. It is important to examine our founding principles and cultural values and it is equally important to examine our mistakes. I am grateful to Mr. Cheney for helping to keep these issues in the spotlight. He has reminded us that our fundamental concern as a nation is not just the economic woes of the moment, but rather, examining whether we have lived up to what and who we say we are as a nation.

Go forth examiners!

I encourage and advocate for investigation into things such as allegations of torture, the existence of secret prisons, suppression of legal representation for prisoners, and the legality of domestic wiretapping practices. I applaud the release of memos relating to these practices over the past eight years and frankly, would equally support the release of historical practises in this area. I desire accountability for violations of the law whether it be domestic or the Geneva Conventions. And I hope for one other thing . . .

I hope that when all is said and done, Mr. Cheney considers a colonoscopy the least thorough examination he has ever had.

Right Wingers Teabag Across America

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:25:00 -0400

It's tax day in American and in an effort to invoke images of the Boston tea party, protesters led by right wing commentators and complete with stages, sound systems and in one case, Ted Nugent, spontaneously gathered to protest "excessive taxation," bailouts and recent stimulus spending.

There are just a few small problems with the scenario.

First Problem: The protests lack authenticity.

While it is certainly valid to protest the size of the stimulus, or the fact that there have been corporate bailouts, it would ring more authentic had these same folks been protesting when President Bush did the same thing in September of 2008. Where was the outrage when former Goldman Sachs CEO and then current Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, directed billions of dollars to his former company? Where was the outrage when the cash was shelled out without oversight?

Perhaps they were teabagging in private that day.

Second Problem: The stimulus seems to be working.

Contrary to what teabaggers might have you believe, there are some positive signs in the economy. We're not completely out of the woods yet, but there are some good indicators. These include: profitable quarters at two key banks (Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo); stabilization of the dow which after dropping at the change of administrations is back around January 20th levels, in fact it's been trending back up; and the fact that several stimulus projects are not only done, but under budget and ahead of schedule.

What's a teabagger to do?

Third Problem: Most of the protesters will actually benefit from the President's tax policies.

That's right. As promised in the campaign, President Obama, has announced $120,000,000 in tax cuts, $2,500 in breaks for college and an $8,000 cut for first time home buyers. Hmmmm . . . I don't remember that last one when I bought my first house two years ago.

Sadly, some decided to augment their public teabagging activities with signs that proclaimed things such as: "Hang 'Em High," "Obama = Hitler," "We Are A Christian Nation," "Hey Big Brother Show Us Your Birth Certificate," "Stand Idly By While Some Kenyan Tries To Destroy America . . . Homey Don't Play Dat," and my personal favourite, "The American Tax Payers Are The Jews For Obama's Ovens."

It's tax day in America and, in every sense of the phrase, the right wing is revolting.

Note To George W. Bush: Game Over Dude

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:23:00 -0500

It's just seven days into the Obama administration and apparently George W. Bush doesn't realise that he's no longer President of the United States.

You may recall that in May of 2008, former Bush adviser Karl Rove was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify on the firing of U.S. attorneys as well as, the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. Mr. Rove's response was to decline, asserting that he was exempt under executive privilege. On July 30, 2008, a US Congressional panel voted 20-14 to hold Rove in contempt of Congress.

Arrest, try, convict, right?

Not so fast. While Congress can hold someone in contempt, it's up to the Attorney General to go forward with the prosecution. As you might imagine, the Bush Justice Department declined. And so Rove went on to become another tool in the Fox News tool box.

Fast forward to 2009.

On January 26, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, again issued a subpoena requiring that Mr. Rove testify before his committee. Sounds like a slam dunk, right? Well not according to Rove, who is now asserting that executive privilege applies even though Mr. Bush has left office. It's a ridiculous claim when one considers that the Supreme Court has rendered opinions on the matter before. Most notable is that of Chief Justice Burger who stated that "executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns."

So how exactly does Mr. Rove testifying on the firing of U.S. Attorneys constitute a national security concern?

Answer, it doesn't. But then the rule of law was never a strong suit of President Bush who can count among his executive privilege gems:

• preventing the disclosure of details about Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meetings with energy executives.

• stopping the release of document to Congress relating to Pat Tillman's friendly fire shooting death.

• preventing the investigation of whether the the firing of U.S. Attorneys was politically motivated.

Hmmmm . . .

Now executive privilege has a place in government. To be fair, lots of Presidents have used it before, including George Washington. A President needs to be able to receive the unfettered counsel of his or her advisers. But the Supreme Court has been clear that when claimed, its use should be narrow in scope. In other words, it should be the exception rather than the rule. And there's one other thing . . . No President has ever tried to use it after they were out of office. Perhaps no one told W. that his game is over.

Repeat after me. Arrest, try, convict, repeat. Arrest, try, convict, repeat.

Our Long National Nightmare Is Over, Now OUR Work Begins

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:00:00 -0500

I'm 41, I'm the first wave of Gen X, and you bet your ass I'm pissed.

With these words I inaugurated Wide Awake In Hoserland in June of 2006. I knew back then that the United States were in a mess, but I'm not sure that I realised how much damage was still to be done. It'll likely take a decade if not a generation to undo that damage. How history will judge George W. Bush remains to be seen. Whatever the judgment let the record of the time show that these were not our best days.

We can do better. We must do better.

I'm 44 now and today I stood in a room with over 1,000 people who cheered, cried and expressed hope for a new direction. It was a moment that I will never forget, and I suspect that this is true for many of us around the country if not the world. It's as though a large weight was lifted from our collective shoulders. The sense of history was palpable.

Now the work begins.

That first Hoserland post addressed many ills of our time; rising energy prices, human rights violations, accounts of treasonous activities, and the disintegration of constitutionally afforded rights. Some of these things President Obama can address. He can close Guantanamo Bay and ensure that the detainees receive fair trials with legal representation. He can issue executive orders against using practises that are classified as torture by the Geneva Conventions as interrogation techniques. He can attempt to make peace with our enemies. He can prohibit spying on fellow citizens without a court issued warrant.

But President Obama is not Superman or Jesus.

Our economic woes, energy dependence and degrading environment are not something that one man can address. Neither are the issues of gender based pay inequality, civil rights for the LGBT community, a strained health care system, or an eroding manufacturing base. This work we must all do. And believe me, it's going to take all of us.

Now more than ever, it is critical that we stay engaged.

• Write your congressional leaders as key issue come before Congress. Let them know where you stand.

• Do not let the environment of politics as usual continue.

• Engage in service based activities in your local community.

• Live a less wasteful life.

• Share.

I'm 44, I'm the first wave of Gen X, and you bet your ass, I'm hopeful.

There are times in history when we are given a unique opportunity. This feels like one of them. It's our opportunity.

So what are we going to do with it, America?

The Three Ring Circus That Is The 111th U.S. Senate

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:21:00 -0500

It's a show that would make P.T. Barnum proud.

The 111th Congress officially started on Saturday, January 3 and the three ring circus has landed squarely on Capital Hill. Currently, the United States Senate appears to occupy the center ring. As we prepare to engage in one of the hallmarks of our democracy, the orderly transition of power, in an historical year no less, three senate seats remain unfilled.

In ring number one: Minnesota.

The Minnesota seat remains unsettled due to a razor close election that, after a labourious recount, appears to have resolved in favour of Democrat, Al Franken. But, because a lawsuit is pending by the possibly outgoing Senator, Norm Coleman, the Republican Minnesota governor will not certify the election. Fair enough, the lawsuit revolves around making sure that all votes are counted. Not exactly the way you want to start a new Congress, but if the last eight years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything it's that every vote counts. Right, Florida?

In ring number two: Illinois.

The vacant Illinois seat can be summed up as a giant pissing match between Senate leaders and the the indicted Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich. Mr. Blagojevich is currently under indictment for allegedly trying to sell the seat, but he is reticent to resign his office and the Illinois legislature has been snail snot slow about convening impeachment proceedings. End result, the governor made an appointment in the form of Roland Burris. By all accounts, Mr. Burris has been an honourable public servant and uninvolved in the scandal that Mr. Blagojevich finds himself in. The Senate, however, refuses to seat, Mr. Burris on the grounds that the Illinois Secretary of State has not certified the appointment. The Secretary refuses to do so and thus we have the first Congressional quagmire of the year. The thing is, the Secretary of State doesn't legally have the right to refuse to certify the appointment and Mr. Blagojevich, while clearly ethically challenged, is still the sitting governor. In other words, like it or not, he still legally has the right to make the appointment. So, denying Mr. Burris his seat appears to not only be wrong, but it also appears to be illegal. Seat the man and get about the business of the people.

And in the center ring . . . New York!

As ridiculous as the Minnesota and Illinois disputes are, it's my own state that appears ready to take the prize for Senatorial idiocy. Why? Because Governor David Patterson is apparently incapable of making a decision. When Senator Hillary Clinton was tapped to be Secretary of State in the Obama administration, Paterson announced that he would take his time in making a decision. It appeared to be a prudent approach given the high profile nature of the seat. As we wound into the holiday season, rumours started to spread that Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President Kennedy would be appointed. While moderately controversial, and discussed for about a week, the governor remained relatively mum on the subject. Christmas came and went. So did Hanukkah. And then New Year's Eve. And still there was no appointment. There still isn't. Why? No one appears to know. I don't know what the issue is, but I do know this. The game has started and New York deserves to have full representation. There's no recount issue here, no indictment or scandal of any kind. So let me put it plainly. Governor Paterson, get off your ass and make the call.

Not exactly an auspicious start to the 111th.

Cheney Confesses (And No Waterboarding Was Necessary)

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:50:00 -0500

Waterboarding: the practise of restraining a prisoner and either dunking him/her or pouring water over him/her to simulate the experience of drowning.

Although the Bush Administration has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that any prisoners in the "war on terror" have been tortured, the past few years have uncovered a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise. No matter that the opinion of a cadre of college law professors, international bodies and military experts, believe it to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus a war crime, the administration won't budge.

Unfortunately, their assertion that waterboarding is not torture rings as true as Bill Clinton's claim that fellatio isn't sex.

The arrogance appears to have reached a new level when Vice President Dick Cheney acknowledged playing a central role in authorizing the technique. Said Cheney to ABC news, "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared."

Here's where it gets interesting.

While Mr. Cheney may not consider waterboarding to be torture, he appears not to know the history of his own country. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out this very act on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Mr. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. During the Vietnam war, a U.S. soldier was court marshaled for using the technique as was a soldier in the Spanish-American war. That's right, over 100 years ago the United States considered the practise to be torture.

So here's the rub. If historically the United States has punished it's own soldiers for using the technique and prosecuted a foreign fighter who used it for war crimes, it would seem that the U.S. has been definitive about whether or not waterboarding is torture. And since the answer is in the affirmative and others have been punished for using it, logically, we can conclude that by facilitating it, Mr. Cheney has authorized torture. Since torture constitutes a war crime, there is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

Mr. Cheney must be prosecuted as a war criminal. And with him, anyone else who was involved.

In The Era Of Hope, Some Things Don't Change

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:23:00 -0500

The last eight years, at least from our leaders, have demonstrated the worst aspects of human behaviour. And to be sure, they've brought the United States to the brink of disaster on just about every front imaginable. To me, the current economic meltdown and the election of Barack Obama, seemed to indicate that people are finally looking for something different. And a lot of them are.

But not everyone, apparently.

The end of Thanksgiving ushers in the start of the (insert your holiday of choice or make one up here) season. You remember, that time of peace on earth and good will towards men? Unfortunately, the season also comes with an ugly underbelly as the focus for many seems to lock squarely on the acquisition of "things."

Yes, the quotes are meant to convey my disgust. Did it work?

Today is what is affectionately referred to in the retail world as "Black Friday." The term is meant to signify a shopping day where the registers ring so loudly that the balance sheet is solidly in the black. But it also has an ominous ring to it and nothing makes the point better than what happened today. This morning a temporary Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death as he attempted to unlock the doors of the store in Valley Stream, New York. It occurred at the ungodly hour of 5:00 a.m. when you would think that a person might be safe. Instead it seems that a two thousand people had lined up like pigs at the trough to gorge themselves on the latest bargains, or perhaps the slim hope of scoring a Nintendo Wii. When the man and his fellow workers began to open the door, the crowd surged forward, breaking the doors in the process. It took several minutes for help to get to him, but not before he was trampled reportedly by hundreds of shoppers.

What's the price of a man's life? Today it's apparently $100 of Chinese made crap.

Unfortunately, this is not the only report of consumerism gone lethal. At a Toys 'R' Us store in Palm Desert, California, two individuals were killed in a shooting. These tragedies are the outcome of a country that is too focused on material goods, a country that has mortgaged it's future and sold it's soul to foreign powers in the name of convenience and the saving of a dollar. Welcome to Ronald Reagan's America and George W. Bush's new world order.

I wonder how many others have to die at the alter of greed?

A Pretty Good Day, But Not For All

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:54:00 -0500

Without a doubt, the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is an historic moment for the United States of America. It's a day that many of us have long envisioned and one that hopefully will help to heal the deep racial wounds that slavery, segregation and hard fought civil rights battles have inflicted on our national psyche. It is a day when I am particularly proud to be an American, because on this day, we inched a little closer to reaching that noble ideal that "all men are created equal."

But as historical as this day is, we should not and cannot believe that the work is done.

For on the day that we elected the first African American President in U.S. history, we also witnessed the rights of other non-majority populations being suppressed. 3 states, California, Florida and Arizona had ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage. All three passed, with the closest margin being 4%. Arkansas, by a 14% margin, passed a measure that prohibits gay couples from adopting children. On the national level, at no time in the history of the United States, has the constitution been amended to take away or suppress civil rights. The initiatives now passed in these four states do just that. And we as a people are lesser for it.

So celebrate this remarkable time in our history. Let your spirits be lifted by the hope and the promise of true change. But remember, that the work is not done. Remember that there are those among us with reason not to celebrate today. For they have been told that they are somehow less worthy of the full blessings of citizenship.

And that diminishes all of us.

On The Eve Of An Election

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:37:00 -0500

It's a simple question, America. Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

If you are one of those still out there considering pulling the lever for the McCain-Palin ticket, or Republicans running for Congress, take a good hard look at their record. This is what 8 years of a republican presidency and 6 years of a republican controlled Congress have yielded.

On January 1, 2001 - The price of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.22/gallon.

Within the last 6 months we saw gas top $4.00 a gallon. How did that impact your or your family's budget? What about the cost to heat your home?

In 2000, the federal government had a budget surplus of $236,200,000,000.

As of September 9, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the United States would run a deficit of $407,000,000,000. How do you think that will impact our ability to create jobs?

On January 1, 2001 - The US unemployment rate was 3.7%

In September 2008 it was 6.1% and is expected to increase to 6.3% when the Labor Department releases it's jobs report in 4 days. Meanwhile, layoffs are up significantly in all sectors of the economy and are expected to continue. Some economists feel that the unemployment rate will reach 8% by the end of the year. How safe is your job or that of someone you care about?

On December 31, 2000, the annual trade deficit was $436,103,000,000

As of December 31, 2007 it stood at $794,484,000,000. What more needs to be said about it?

Still not convinced? Here's some additional data to chew on:

• The U.S. housing foreclosure rate is the highest it's been in 50 years.

• On January 2, 2001 the Dow Jones average stood at 10,646. Today it stands at 9,319. Don't think this is meaningful? Research the last time a President left office with the Dow lower than when he started.

And if this doesn't convince you, ask yourself one final question: When was the last time you saw the United States government fork over $700,000,000,000 to bailout corporate America.

The correct answer is never.

Chew on that tomorrow, when you're waiting in line thinking about casting your vote for the Republican party.

On Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Anti-Americanism

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:55:00 -0400

Anti-Americanism

We've heard this phrase thrown around a lot lately, particularly after the last debate. John McCain was the first to hint at it when he suggested that Barack Obama's response to the oft mentioned, "Joe The Plumber" smacked of Socialism. Next up was Sarah Palin who on October 16 said at a rally, "We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation." Finally, there was Minnesota Representative and stepford wife in waiting, Michelle Bachmann who when asked by Hardball Host, Chris Matthews if Barack Obama has anti-American views, replied, "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views."

Press Pause

Definition of Anti-Americanism: an opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States.

Resume Play

The message here is that Barack Obama and those who support him, which by the way is likely to be a winning majority, are somehow less than full Americans because why? More people are engaging in the political process because they want America to fail? I take time to write about important topics because I hate America? And how about Barack Obama? He advocates for greater access to health care, ending war in Iraq, providing additional support for efforts in Afghanistan, tax breaks for people making under $250,000 year, for greater regulation and safeguards in the banking industry, and greater personal responsibility, because he's against American values?

Hello right wing idiots, these ARE American values!

I have had about as much as I can take of the Republican right wing and their radical Christian counterparts. I am as sick of them as I am of radical Islam. I am tired of people like Michelle Bachmann who wave the flag while supporting policies and programs that disenfranchise people and try to take away their rights. I've had my fill of them throwing labels like anti-American or socialist on people who disagree with them. And their hypocrisy has me to the point of vomiting. They've made a mess of America and we're left with wild budget deficits, runaway energy prices, an economy in near ruin and terrible standing in the international community.

It's as though they've left a burning bag of dog crap on the doorstep and gotten us to step in it. I'll help clean up their mess, but I'll be damned if I'm going to take their abuse while I do it.

So enough is enough. John McCain. You helped to create this mess and you did it for the second time. You know damn well that you advocated in the 1980s on behalf of Charles Keating and twenty years later you've learned nothing from the experience. Net result? The financial industry is a disaster. Sarah Palin, you can talk about anti-American parts of the country all you want, but your husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a separatist organization. You spoke at their convention and congratulated them on their work. How dare you imply that we are anything less than pro-American? Michelle Bachmann you were quoted as saying, "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." Be assured that they are going to start by focusing the white hot spotlight on you. And you better get used to the phrase, "Michelle Bachmann, one term member of Congress."

To quote an old Seinfeld episode, "It's go time." If you are as tired as I am at having your patriotism questioned by our elected officials, it's time to act. Call them, e-mail them, write about them to your friends, support their opponents and by all means vote against them.

Enough is enough. The gloves are off.

Note To John McCain: Put Up Or Shut Up

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:55:00 -0400

John McCain, a man I once admired, has made some moves in recent months that have ranged from unconventional to seemingly downright daffy. There was the Sarah Palin VP pick, the recent financial crisis surprise campaign suspension and of course, who can forget that heartwarming hug with the president?

As the campaign winds down, and he finds his polling numbers circling the drain, he is making claims that would make a certain Looney Tunes duck seem well balanced.

In what clearly seems to be a last ditch attempt to avert the oncoming train wreck that November 4th seems poised to bring, the McCain/Palin campaign has taken to calling Barack Obama's policies, get this . . . Socialist. Now I can understand why Republicans who generally espouse limited government, deregulated markets and a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy have felt uneasy about democratic administrations. Certainly Franklin Roosevelt's new deal was a significant expansion of the government into just about every corner of America. Lyndon Johnson's great society is another noteworthy example of perhaps a well intended overreach. In fact up until Bill Clinton, I'll even concede the claim that Democrats have generally brought larger government. But in 2008? Is that really where McCain wants to go?

It begs an important question: Does he actually know what socialism is?

Now all evidence suggests that Sarah Palin has no idea what's going on, but Senator McCain has been part of the government for over twenty years. Did he somehow miss what's been going on in his own party as the economy turned to dust? Did he not notice the financing that JP Morgan Chase received in order to purchase Bear Stearns? Did he miss the giant cash infusion that AIG received and then immediately began to squander? What about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Was he napping when they were put under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)? And what about when after the United States government authorized the largest corporate bailout in history, the Treasury Department decided to buy equity in the banks? What was he doing then, daydreaming? No! He was right there every step of the way.

And he has the audacity to call Barack Obama a socialist? Who in the hell does he think he's fooling?

John McCain has once again shown that he will do or say whatever he thinks he needs to in order to win. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that it isn't working. Whether it be Joe Sixpack, Joe Plumber or Joe Mama, we're tired of lies and misdirection. So here's my advice to Mr. McCain: If you believe that you have plans and policies that will pull our country out of this mess, then talk about them. Give us the details, show us how it will work and what we can expect the outcome to be. Tell us how it's going to address the numerous challenges that your party has in large part created and convince us through your ideas, that we can trust the Republican brand.

But if you can't do that, then shut the hell up. And tell Sarah Palin to shut the hell up too. Because I, and many like me, are tired of your negativity, of your "style" over substance, and of hearing that we're not "real Americans."

If this is the best that you can offer me when my country is in the worst shape it's been in during my 43 years, then you are not only NOT the right person for the job, you are not honourable enough to hold the office.

Maverick Politics Just The Same Old Song And Dance

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:56:00 -0400

Sarah Palin is a maverick. She's from Alaska and that's as far away from Washington politics as one is likely to get. They do things differently than those D.C. insiders. She, and John McCain, of course, will bring a new era of reform to the federal government. That's what Sarah Palin tells us. Of course it could be that Sarah Palin is just a lying sack of crap.

No wait, that's not quite right. A lying sack of crap can at least fertilize your garden.

In a story that has been virtually buried in the news cycle, the Alaskan ethics panel reported that, "Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda." The personal agenda is of course, the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, who had the authority to fire Palin's ex-Brother In Law, Trooper, Mike Wooten, something that the Palin's were trying to make happen.

The history of how the story unfolded is in itself interesting. Before being a national candidate, the governor agreed to fully cooperate with the investigation. Then, on September 16, the McCain-Palin campaign proclaimed the investigation "tainted" and said that they would no longer cooperate. Subpoenas were issued, including to Todd Palin, alleged to be a central figure in the matter, and the campaign quickly announced that they would be ignored.

More recently there was a reversal, and Mr. Palin did indeed testify. In due time the report was issued with the conclusion that Governor and Mr. Palin did in fact commit ethical breaches. Naturally they don't agree and their lawyers said, ""Sen. French and Sen. Green may have abused their government power by using public money to pursue a personal vendetta against the Governor, and then agreeing to pursue the PSEA attack against an administration that would not cave in to outrageous union demands." Interesting then that, Republican State Representative, John Coghill, a who once criticized the handling of the investigation, concluded that was "well-done professionally." Ultimately, the bipartisan Legislative Council, which commissioned the investigation adopted the 263-page public report unanimously.

So much for maverick politics.

There's A Reason It's Called "Trickle Down" Economics

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:56:00 -0400

George Bush got it right.

Well, not the current version, but the original when in 1980, he referred to Ronald Reagan's economic policies as Voodoo Economics. You see, Mr. Reagan believed that if you removed regulations from businesses and amassed incredible amounts of wealth in the upper echelon of society, the upper echelon would in turn redistribute the wealth into the economy. It became known as "trickle down" economics. The name should have told us everything.

What Mr. Reagan was too stupid or too senile to realise, is that often the upper echelon accumulates wealth because it's greedy.

So, merrily America rolled through the 1980's deregulating industries. The results were felt in the banking, airline and communications industries as companies snapped up smaller rivals and got larger and larger. The Big 8 accounting firms, in place for most of the twentieth century, gave way to the Big 6, then the Big 5 and finally after the implosion of Arthur Anderson, the Big 4 of today. The trend happened in other industries as well.

Where are you Theodore Roosevelt?

How quickly a party can go off the rails in as little as one hundred years. No longer the party of that great trust-buster, Theodore Roosevelt (the maverick that John McCain wishes he were), Republican economic policies have replaced the concept of monopoly with that of oligopoly.

Oligopoly (def.) - a market situation in which each of a few producers affects but does not control the market.

Sound familiar? Like maybe a few investment banks that make shaky investments and then take the stock market down with them? Or how about two mortgage lenders that hold over 60% of the market. You know them, that fun loving couple, Fanny and Freddie.

So here were are on September 29, 2007 and Congress has failed to bail out the oligopical greedy and as a result the DOW plunged 777 points. Should they have done so? To be honest, I'm not sure. Perhaps America needs the pain of a major recession. Perhaps we need to understand the pain that our grandparents felt. Perhaps it's time to summon the ghost of Theodore Roosevelt and begin to bust trusts again.

What I do know for certain is that the results of Republican deregulation are these:

• Less independent media
• Fewer firms with greater ability to negatively impact the economy
• Higher barriers to innovation

Whether or not Congress ultimately bails out corporate greed is perhaps irrelevant. Because unless the root causes of the current crisis are addressed, it will eventually happen again. One only need to look at the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980's to see that history is indeed repeating itself.

Morning in America has ended folks and Reagan's failed economic theory is to blame. The critical question is this: Are we as citizens willing to let the pigs run amok any longer?

The Bud Brothers Present, Sarah Palin: A Life In Song

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:34:00 -0400

Those who know me well, know that I am a musician and filmmaker. Today's blog is a video of a new song that I wrote about that esteemed Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. It's recorded by one of my musical groups, The Bud Brothers.

Enjoy it and be sure to pass it on to your friends!

Fear, Spin and Lies: The Fuel Of The Republican Crap Machine

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:43:00 -0400

Anyone who watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions must be stunned by the difference in tone. With the exception of John McCain, who actually acknowledged that many of the troubles of the past eight years fall squarely on the shoulders of his party, the convention was bitter, snarky, deceitful and meant to induce fear. With the shape the United States is in, I guess the tried and true is all they have to go with.

Before I continue, hats off to John McCain for speaking against the grain of his party! You are an honourable man.

However, your party, at least in its current incarnation, is not honourable. Sarah Palin talked much about alternative energy, so let's take a moment and explore the fuel of the Republican Crap Machine.

Fear

As if all of the rhetoric about "radical Islamic fascists" hasn't been enough, they reached a new pinnacle in bad taste with their 9/11 Tribute film. Showing images of Osama bin Ladin firing weapons, the Iran hostages and the World Trade Center crumbling, this was no tribute. This was an attempt to fan the flames of religious fear. It was crass, it was manipulative and it was exploitative of the many who died on that day. How dare they!

Spin

The Republican convention talked a good deal about reforming Washington, how "insiders" would be shaking in their boots at the prospect of reformer Sarah Palin coming down from Alaska to clean up town. What they conveniently forgot to mention was that they have held Congress for ten of the last twelve years, and the Presidency for the last eight. Their convention championed the ideas and themes of the last eight years, while they professed that their candidates would enact a culture of change. How exactly will that work?

Lies

Heard at the convention (and found on the RNC webpage) . . .

Rudy Guiliani: A few years later — a few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He spent most of his time as a celebrity senator: no leadership, no legislation to really speak of.

Sarah Palin: But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

The core fuel of the modern day Republican party is full out blatant lies. Maybe their base doesn't check the facts, but I assure you, I do. Their most egregious lies cluster around their allegations that Senator Obama hasn't done anything in Congress. What they fail to mention is that any bill in Congress needs to be supported by their members and signed into law by their President. So here's the record:

Senator Obama has sponsored 136 bills.

He has co-sponsored 653 bills.

Hardly a case of not doing anything. Now let's look at what some of those bills were:

S. 2590 : Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to ensure transparency in government spending.

S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

S.692 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.

S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

S.114 : A bill to authorize resources for a grant program for local educational agencies to create innovation districts.

S.116 : A bill to authorize resources to provide students with opportunities for summer learning through summer learning grants.

S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

S.737 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in order to measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the States.

S.823 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to facilitating the development of microbicides for preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and for other purposes.

S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans.

S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil.

S.1222 : A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes.

S.1271 : A bill to provide for a comprehensive national research effort on the physical and mental health and other readjustment needs of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and their families.

S.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States.

S.1790 : A bill to make grants to carry out activities to prevent the incidence of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among teens in racial or ethnic minority or immigrant communities, and for other purposes.

Conclusion: Sarah Palin, Rudy Guiliani, Lindsay Graham can say whatever they want about Mr. Obama's record and they can make sarcastic statements about community organizers, but that doesn't mean that they're right or being honest. The truth is the truth and it's available for anyone to check up on. Senator Obama's legislative efforts have been focused on helping returning military personnel, education, health and the environment.

Can the Republicans say the same?

Conservative Republicans And Their Abstinence Only Logic

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:06:00 -0400

For years the Republicans have touted the virtue of abstinence only education. In fact, programs that promote it received a fair amount of funding during the Bush presidency. Current nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, was a big proponent of it in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Never mind that studies, including one authorized by Congress have shown a zero percent effectiveness in decreasing teenage sexual activity. Conservative Republicans continue to bang the drum loudly for it.

Which makes the news that Bristol Palin, the seventeen year old daughter of Sarah Palin, is pregnant, particularly interesting.

Now let me be clear, as far as I'm concerned, the media needs to leave Ms. Palin alone. As she prepares for the birth of her child, she has enough to deal with, let alone the fact that her family is now in the national spotlight. She didn't ask for this attention and she doesn't deserve it. But, what her case does underscore is the need for the very education that her mother would deny young adults.

The question is: Why?

The answer is simple. Morality. The proponents of abstinence only sexual education base their argument on religious values rather than scientific data. They argue that comprehensive sex ed encourages promiscuity, promotes HIV and increases teen pregnancy.
Perhaps they should ask themselves, then, why Bristol is pregnant.

In the end, it is really about power. The power of fundamentalists to impose their religious views on the masses. These are the people who are the first to support the "war on terror" because of the need to defeat "radical Islam." What they fail to realise is that they are mirror images of each other. Sure, fundamentalists in the U.S. don't look as scary. They look like us, they speak our language and sometimes, they even sound reasonable. But deep down the message is the same: Our policies are formed by our understanding of the word and will of God. And if you don't share our beliefs, you don't understand the word and will of God.

The difference between John Hagee and Mullah Omar is smaller than most people think.

Many will say that dragging Bristol Palin into the national debate is wrong. Barack Obama himself said that families should be off limit, especially the children of candidates. He is right in the sense that Ms. Palin's pregnancy and the choices she makes regarding it are her own. But the issue that it calls to light and the choices that her mother made around the formulation of her own policies and values are not.

So leave Bristol Palin out of the discussion, but please do have a discussion about what type of sex ed your child should receive in school. And please explore deeply not only where your candidates stand on their positions, but also why.

Sarah Palin. Really, John McCain? Really???

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:11:00 -0400

When I first heard reports on CNN about the mysterious flight from Alaska and speculation that governor Sarah Palin might be John McCain's pick for Vice President, my thought was, "clever decoy." After all, with the mountain of criticism he and his party have thrown Barack Obama's way for being too inexperienced to be President, there was no way he'd choose someone with a mere 18 months of gubernatorial experience. Right?

Wrong!

It seems that Senator McCain decided to give the dice one big assed roll to see if America was paying attention. No doubt his intentions were to a) shore up his reputation for being a maverick, b) try to woo perceived disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters, c) add someone with better conservative credentials than he himself possesses, d) add a reform minded Washington outsider to the ticket and e) try to capture some of the young energy that the Obama campaign is generating.

Years from now it is likely that this will be viewed as one of the biggest misreads in the history of presidential campaigns.

There's being a maverick and there's coming across as reckless. Senator McCain appears to have crossed that line. As countless others have already pointed out, the man is 72 years old with a checkered health history. By selecting someone with such limited political experience, he's put the "heartbeat away from the Presidency" argument in play. Curious judgment call.

But stranger still is his apparent belief that the Palin pick will somehow engage Hillary Clinton supporters. Governor Palin is an anti-abortion, pro-NRA, anti-gay rights type of Republican. In other words, the "Anti-Clinton." Does he really think that Hillary supporters will vote against their best interests simply because Governor Palin shares the same genitalia? Not exactly the strongest analysis of the data!
The best thing that can be said for the pick is that it will energize the aspects of the Republican party that feel disenfranchised by the selection of Mr. McCain as the nominee. But whether that will be enough to get them out to the voting booths in November, remains to be seen.

Perhaps the most troubling thing about the pick is that it does not seem as though Ms. Palin was well vetted. Republican Alaskan leaders have been in the spotlight a lot lately for a slew of ethics improprieties and indictments. Right or not, the media will focus their attention on Alaska every time the Ted Stevens or Don Young indictments go the next step. Is that really where the McCain campaign wants the national spotlight? True, the governor does not seem tied up in those particular scandals, but there are rumblings that she may have used her authority to get a former brother in law fired. Two days ago that might have been an issue for the local media. The bloodhounds will be out now.

Perhaps Governor Palin is a great up and coming Republican. Perhaps she will even be their presidential nominee one day. But putting her on the national ticket now seems like a move of style over substance. Of course the Republicans will try to package it as bold and historic. If you're the first party to have a woman on the ticket, that's historic. If you're the first party to have a woman almost win (or win) your nomination, that's historic. If Ronald Reagan had put a woman on the ticket in 1980, that would have been historic. But if you put a woman on the ticket after the opposing party has done both of these things, and then don't even choose the most qualified woman your party has, you run the risk of looking both cynical and stupid. Congratulations, John McCain, you just hit the daily double.

And history will view it as the last desperate act of a party doing anything it can to hold power.

Take Your Hands Off The Lever And Slowly Back Away From The Economy

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:41:00 -0400

With a scant 175 days left in the Bush presidency, you would think that there wasn't much left for him to destroy. How wrong you would be!

Today, the White House has forecast a budget deficit for 2009 of $482 billion dollars. To provide some perspective, each trillion dollars is equal to 1,000 millionaires. Do the math and you'll quickly discover that we're not exactly talking chump change here. This figure does not include the 80 billion dollars that supports the war effort. If the forecast is correct, it would shatter the previous record of $413 billion, which was also set by the Bush Administration in 2004.

While, esteemed Republicans like Phil Gramm write the state of the economy to pessimism, the real data suggests something much uglier.

The job market is -438,000 jobs this year.

Gas prices while not at a record, are nevertheless well over $4.00 a gallon.

The Federal Reserve has identified lowering inflation as a key objective.

The housing foreclosure rate according to research firm, RealtyTrac, is up 121% from last year.

And then there's Wall Street. A look into the year ahead seems pretty grim and don't be surprised when unemployment creeps up significantly, new college hires decrease, interest rates rise to combat inflation, the housing foreclosure rate increases to 150% and gas stays right where it is.

The best advice that I can give to either presidential candidate is to get their economic team together. Not in 2009, but now. And here's a hint, you may want to put Robert Rubin, arguably our best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton, on it. There is not a minute to spare.

As for Mr. Bush, I have just one simple thought.

Take Your Hands Off The Lever And Slowly Back Away From The Economy.

New FISA Bill Misses The Point

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:52:00 -0400

I don't envy the Senate or Barack Obama on this one. Technology has changed a lot in the thirty years since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was first passed and, with it, the world. The amendments to FISA, passed by both the Senate and the House of Repesentatives, are an attempt to acknowledge these changes and to give security agencies both tools and guidelines with which to work. On the balance it seems an honest effort and one that the President is willing to sign into law.

As debate rages over whether the updated FISA is actually a good deal for the American people, two areas seem to be generating the most discussion:

That the law provides retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that gave private information to the government, without a warrant.
That Barack Obama by voting for the revised bill, seems to have reversed some previously held positions.

Yes, as the McCain campaign charges, Senator Obama does seem to have compromised his position on this, and that’s a shame. It takes a little of the luster off his candidacy. However, considering that Senator McCain didn't bother to vote at all on the bill, it seems to me that they might reconsider the wisdom of putting the issue under the spotlight. So, while worth noting when assessing the candidates in the upcoming election, their vote (or lack of) is an ancillary issue.

As for the telecommunications companies, it could be argued that in the shadow of 911, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. While we might hope (and have every right to expect) that they would take a stand against giving over our private records to the government without the benefit of a warrant, in the context of the time, I understand why they did. Yes, it should be an issue for the courts to decide, but it too is ancillary to the real issue, which is this.

The Bush Administration, after 911, knowingly and willfully broke existing law and violated the Fourth Amendment rights of numerous Americans.

So rather than spend our efforts trying to hold the telecommunications companies accountable, we should be petitioning, cajoling and berating our elected congressional officials to hold the president and the Executive Branch accountable.

Until that happens, all of the FISA amendments in the world aren't going to matter.

Jeffersonian Ideals Trump Scalian Cynicism

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:43:00 -0400

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, effectively dumping the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay and other off shore sites into an unchecked legal black hole. The law gave the government sweeping powers including; determining whether interrogation methods violated international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the ability to present hearsay evidence (not legal in U.S. Courts), and the imposition of death sentences. And just to keep things interesting, it did not require that detainees be granted legal counsel or have the right to challenge their detentions in Federal Court. A veritable slam-dunk if you were on the government side of the case.

Today the Supreme Court took a peek at the U.S. Constitution and set things right. Well 5/9ths of them anyway.

Of course, right wing commentators and their well educated listeners railed against the ruling and offered insightful comments such as this by one of Rush Limbaugh's ditto-heads, "I'm absolutely sick of the liberals and the leftists raping our country of all our rights and giving it to foreigners," but that was to be expected. Yep, liberals and leftists are running amok in America raping the Constitution and stripping us of our rights. Oh wait, it's the President and his administration that are doing that.

What amazes me is how little faith the President, Rush, today's ditto head and others of their ilk seem to have in the foundations of the country they claim so much to love. From their lamenting, you would think that terrorists are regularly set free to roam the streets of our towns, raping, pillaging and salting the earth as they leave. The record in fact is quite different. The four individuals charged with the 1993 World Trade Center bombings were convicted and received life sentences. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, in 1995 was convicted of seditious conspiracy for encouraging attacks against U.S. civilian targets and received a life sentence. Terry Nichols, a convicted accomplice in the Oklahoma City bombing received a life sentence, and Timothy McVeigh the convicted bomber was put to death. Each of these defendants enjoyed the rights afforded by the Constitution and it would be hard to argue that the defendants did not have to account for their crimes.

What the Court did today was ensure the basic legal protections that all of the detractors of this decision enjoy.

It was the right decision and it is a decision that subscribes to our higher ideals. It is a decision that ensures the United States of America stands for something. It is a decision that honors the freedoms for which so many Americans have sacrificed their lives. Perhaps Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion said it best, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."

Unfortunately this view is not shared by all. Justice Antonin Scalia in a dissenting opinion declared that the decision, "warps our Constitution," and that our, "nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

How sad that, like that angry ditto head, Justice Scalia too has so little faith in the Constitution he interprets and the founding principles upon which the nation he serves were built.

If It Looks Like A Cult And Acts Like A Cult

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:48:00 -0400

White House spokesperson, Dana Perino, characterised herself and
the White House as "puzzled" by excerpts just released from former spokesperson Scott McLellan's new book. The question is, why? While this blog has often noted and commented on the alternate reality that seems to envelope 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the allegations in Mr. McLellan's book do not appear to be particularly shocking. It's just that he had the bad taste to confirm them while Mr. Bush happens to still be in office.

Let's see here . . . the president doesn't possess a curious mind . . . check . . . Cheney and Rumsfeld are bad . . . uh-huh . . . Hurricane Katrina was a huge disaster . . . o.k. . . and the administration lied about the Valerie Plame affair. Yep, that pretty much covers most of the highlights.

These topics have been well ruminated on by progressive news sites, written about in blogs such as this one, and mildly covered by the mainstream media. Some of the issues have even been the subject of Congressional hearings and investigations. In other words, they are not exactly unknown to a large portion of the American populace or the greater world for that matter. What should puzzle Ms. Perino is not that Scott McLellan finally fessed up, but that it's taken him so long.

The problem is that everything in the White House is self-referential. If they say something is true, then it is and everyone believes it. In this context, truth isn't so much about what is true as it is a tenet of faith, like creationism and the effectiveness of abstinence only sex education. Those in the Bush administration defend this truth vigorously and wash it down with the Kool-Aid, which makes it infinitely easier to swallow.

It's all part of being in the cult.

Thankfully, as is the way with many cults, once out of their clutches, a former member's ability to grasp reality appears to return. And when that day comes for the currently puzzled Dana Perino, we'll look forward to reading her book.

Birds Of A Feather Flock To Beijing

jfracchia@frontiernet.net (John Fracchia) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:53:00 -0400

The "People's Republic" of China has a lot riding on the 2008 Olympics. Many in the media have characterised it as China's coming out party, their opportunity to establish themselves as an elite presence in the modern 21st century world.

But China has a problem. They're not.

While they may have economic prosperity, largely due to the inability of the citizenry of the United States to stop gorging themselves on cheap and dangerous Chinese made products, their modernity seems to end their. If one takes a deeper look at the Chinese government we find a body that looks remarkably similar to that of the Mao era. A communist government still exists, freedom of religion and expression remain suppressed, and arrests for dissent are firmly in place. Hardly an enlighted 21st century nation.

So freaked out is the Chinese government about the games that they have been kicking it old school. Websites critical to the government have been banned and dissent in occupied Tibet have been met with violence and arrest. In China's moment to show that they've evolved beyond the heavy handed, jack booted tactics beloved in the Mao and of course, by the former Soviet Union, they've blown it. In fact, their human rights record seems to be as bad as ever.

With that in mind, several European world leaders have decided to publicly express their displeasure by boycotting the open ceremonies of the games. For a country that is extremely concerned about their image, this is a huge slap in the face. And it's likely to be damn effective. The United States as one of the largest consumer of Chinese made goods, though no longer that the standard bearer for human rights, has an opportunity to send a very strong message.

And in typical Bush Administration fashion, they're about to blow it.

National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, on morning talk shows indicated that President Bush will attend the games stating that boycotting them would be, "http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/13/us.olympics.ap/index.html">"a cop out". He believes that quiet diplomacy is what the situation requires. Right, because that's been working so well. What the situation requires is loud and active diplomacy. A diplomacy that says, enough is enough. Human rights matter, fair trade matters, religious freedom matters and until you, China, recognise it, we're going to call you on it every step of the way and in every venue.

By attending the opening ceremonies, President Bush simply validates for China that their behaviour is acceptable. Given Mr. Bush's horrendous track record, perhaps it is.