A Word From A Fellow (Conservative) American: A Trace of Truth

note: The following was written by a guest author and submitted to B&U. Views and beliefs expressed in this piece are not necessarily those of the management and staff of Balanced and Unbiased, I just thought it might be nice to bring in some different opinions once and a while.

Today, November 14, 2006, truth my have been found. President Bush's denouncing of Iran and their psychotic president may have a base. Traces of plutonium and enriched uranium have been found. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that the Iranian nuclear power program is nearing completion. The traces of possible nuclear weapons material were detected by the I.A.E.A. They also have acknowledged that Iran refuses to cooperate with the U.N. John Bolton said that these two new discoveries "both demonstrate the urgency for the Security Council to act on Iran."

This probably won't have an affect on the international community just like the preceding evidence brought to light. America is not really taking a hard stand on Iran, the U.N. will be the ones to do anything about it, but even blatant disregard for its resolutions and orders won't rouse them into action. What needs to be done is sanctions on Iran, and if they don't cooperate, more sanctions. The next step would be, say a 48 hour deadline to let inspectors search the country for nukes. If they don't cooperate with that, bomb them.

This could turn into a failure for the west if nothing is done. Bush is on the right track, but now the terrorists and democrats have scared him into losing his balls. He is content to let the U.N. girls deal with it. What the world needs is a U.S. led NATO coalition to invade and pacify the country, then on to North Korea.

Alex B.

Liberty Throws Off Its Shackles

Finally, last Tuesday, a majority of Americans told George Bush and his party what they could do with their lies and right wing, partisan politics. The Democrats have swept the House, and have a majority in the Senate. I think the White House still doesn't know what happened.

Let me talk first about Don Rumsfeld. For all the talk about not wanting to inject a political decision into the final days of the election, wanting to show the troops that decisions aren't made about them based on politics, and it's just time for a new direction, Rumsfeld resigned because he had to. Had Republicans hung on to even one house of Congress, Bush would've never let him leave, seeing as how he's kept him on through everything else. But now that Democrats will have a lot more authority in Washington, it makes everybody involved on W's side look less weak if they do things on their own terms, because it would've only been a matter of time before Democrats kicked Donald out. I think American soldiers should be as pissed off as the rest of us, because the whole reason they're stuck in Iraq is a string of political decisions made by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld. Bush was right about one thing, though, it is time for a change, and it has been for quite some time. I just think it's sad that changes weren't made until W realized that the game was up.

Enough with that now. For the first time in years, America will be on it's way to progress. We've got lots to do before the '08 elections. I hope that one of the first will be a raise in the minimum wage. Of course, we can hope that opportunities will come up to remove some recently added executive powers and privileges, and all sorts of improvements that the people could only dream of a few weeks ago.

You may have noticed that even though Democrats are the victors, there are no snubs of the Republicans, and there is a distinct atmosphere of cooperation and bipartisanship. This is very different from recent years, when Republicans were in power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those the days when the extremist part of the party advanced it's own agenda, and prevented pretty much anything else for leaving the Congress? Weren't those the days when Congress made almost no notable accomplishments domestically, and allowed our president to lead us into nightmare in Iraq?

I say, it's about time somebody tried to find some middle ground. Democrats will try to work in a bipartisan manner, but the appropriate people will be held accountablefor the last 6 years. And if some republican wing nut should try to block us, he can't do a thing. I'm really hopeful for America when I look ahead now, because for once Congress has people in charge who care about you and me.

God bless America.

Why Does Everybody Hate John Kerry?

Maybe you've heard, maybe you haven't, but John Kerry has once again made headlines for something he probably regrets now. While speaking in California, he cracked a joke which (although he definitely didn't mean it to) seemed to imply that the men and women of our armed forces are stupid. That's not the end, he was reluctant to apoligize, and didn't do so for 24 hours. Now it's headline news and the only spot of bad news for Democrats coming into the election. Of course, I'd like to kick John Kerry right now, along with all the reporters who won't stop talking about his lapse of judgement. But cut him some slack! Almost any other Democrat could've said the same thing and it wouldn't have gotten this kind of attention. So today I'll be examing why everybody seems to hate John Kerry.

While I'm frustrated, let me say that John Kerry doesn't hate our troops. He served honorably in the Vietnam war, no matter what republicans say, and he supports service men and women just as much as you and I. What I don't understand is why republicans can't let the 2004 election go. The most common rebuttal for my criticisms of the president or even republicans in general is something about how at least we're better off than we would be with a flip-flopping injury faker. What does that have to do with anything? Your side won, and has failed to accomplish anything, so you continue to call the opponent in an election two years ago names that have absolutely no bearing on anything now that the election has been decided. I think it should be noted here that another common talking point among my conservative peers is how Clinton had no morals, so George Bush is good. Again, that's completely irrelevant, just let it go.

Having shown that I support John Kerry as much as the next democratic senator, I do have to admit that his public image is very succeptible to spin from the republicans. With this reality in consideration, I have a plan. What if Kerry switched his party affiliation to independent. He'd still get elected as long as he wants in his state what with his incumbancy and everybody knowing his name, and nothing he does or says could be used by the republicans against the democrats, because Kerry wouldn't be a democrat. He would still be a democrat in all but name, free to vote the party line, support causes, and he can take enough shots and jabs at the white house to drive them nuts. But Bush and Rush Limbaugh can't spin it and misconstrue it to mean that democrats hate our troops, not to mention America in general (not that they won't try for a while).

The good news though, is that I heard a guy on the news this morning saying that this has hardly affected Democrats as we close in on election day. I guess I'm done for now. Just remember that this election isn't about John Kerry (no matter how many republicans are trying to relive 2004), it's about George W. Bush's complete mismanagement of America and the War on Terror, and his refusal to change anything for the better.

Only in the South...

I like New Orleans, it's probably one of the oldest European founded cities in the country, and if anybody who's been there is to be believed (I never been farther south than Kansas City) it's got it's own, great culture. But it's also got a logistical problem: Mother Nature intended for most of New Orleans to be under a considerable amount of water (as I understand it, the only part above sea level is the "crescent" along the river that the French originally built). I feel that, while a bad thing, Katrina did give us the best opportunity we'll ever see for letting nature put the ocean back where it belongs.

Most logical people realize that land which is under sea level and within spitting distance of the ocean isn't worth the risk. Somewhere along the line, somebody who wasn't logical built a couple levees and a city where a city had not business being. People moved in, and every few years I'd see a documentary on how a big storm could wipe out New Orleans. Nobody cared though. Katrina changed all of that, and took the decision out of our hands. Now it's time to recognize that the hard part (getting out of New Orleans) has been done for us, and we just need to tie up the loose ends and we'll be rid of our (up until recently) death defying, sub sea level experiment.

All of this doesn't mean that I hate the people of New Orleans. If my house was flattened by a tornado, I'd hole up in the basement until it was over, then I'd camp out in my back yard and rebuild on the old foundation. If my house was somehow flooded (not likely since I live on a hill) I'd sit in the attic, with a boat ready to go if it was bad enough. My point is, I can understand why people want to go back to their homes in New Orleans, because I'd feel the same way. But I don't live in New Orleans, I live in Iowa on land that is quite a distance from any significant water (the great lakes are probably the closest) and quite a bit above sea level. I'll probably still have dry land even when the ice caps melt in a few years. The same can't be said for the crescent city.

There's also a considerable environmental reason to let New Orleans die in peace. Since the Mississippi River existed, it has carried silt to the delta in Louisiana to replace the land carried out to sea by various natural occurrences. When man came along and changed that rule, the wetlands along the Louisiana coast just began to slowly disappear, and the raging ocean could get a lot closer to centers of population. Even after Katrina (I think, but definitely before) the state of Louisiana was shrinking at an alarming rate. Let the river work it's magic (and God knows there's plenty of dirt in the Mississippi) and the buffer zone of wetlands will come back and do its job.

We have an opportunity here. Even if you just move the city a couple of miles inland, stop building a city on a lakebed that's only dry as long as conditions are ideal and the levee holds. People weren't meant to defy nature, and we're already getting away with more than we should.

The Real Test Begins

Finally, Israel and Hezbollah have (mostly) stopped fighting each other in southern Lebanon. This in itself is a breakthrough, but the hardest part is just beginning. It will take the international community's continual involvement and evenhandedness to make this work. Evenhandedness includes not openly declaring that this was a major victory for Israel (it wasn't, if anything, Hezbollah proved once again that it has what it takes to survive in a slug-fest with Israel). Yes, George Bush, I'm talking to you. Israel and the various terrorist organizations it is continually trying to crush are like little boys fighting on the playground: if you want them to stop, you don't tell them that one was right and that he won the fight, that will just make the "wrong" "loser" keep going until he's victorious and in the right. It should be remembered here that Hezbollah thinks they are doing God's work too (and many Lebanese who've just seen their neighborhoods flattened feel that Hezbollah is the only thing standing between them and the armies of the West).

O.K., now that we've established that George Bush is an idiot, we'll continue on to the substance of this here piece. As history has so clearly shown, when left to their own devices, Muslims and Israelis have a tendency to kill each other. The obvious solution here is to not leave them to their own devices. Enter the U.N. international peacekeeping force. There were already observers in southern Lebanon before and during this whole fiasco, but they were unarmed (what were they thinking!?). When you're trying to keep two armed groups from shooting at each other, you need to have more guns than both of groups combined in between them. The one language everybody understands in the middle east is guns. They don't care so much for rules in our sense of the word, the only rule that seems to be constant throughout the region is that the man with the bigger gun has the right of way.

This peacekeeping force has to be armed, and it has to be international. Americans are equivalent to Israelis as far as Hezbollah and the Lebanese are concerned (and they're not too far off the mark). Americans should probably be a part of it, but in a diluted manner. Arabs aren't as angry at Italians, French, or Indians as they are at America. I think it would a very good idea to include some Egyptians and/or Jordanians too, just to keep up the charade of neutrality. These non-Americans are also a lot less likely to look the other way when Israelis push the line, but shoot any armed Arab they see. Stupid and inhuman as Bush has implied they are, Arabs can tell when they're getting the short end of the stick, seeing as that's what they've gotten since the rise of western Europe.

Maybe just as important as the peacekeepers, international public awareness and pressure is going to be needed to keep this whole thing rolling. Politicians are just dogs that do whatever they think the majority of people want them to do, after a bit, they'll just stop trying to do anything in southern Lebanon. We must keep asking "Is the ceasefire still being enforced?" "Are the peacekeepers being fair or are they just continuing Israel's war for them?" "Is a more permanent solution being negotiated?" Politicians don't like questions like this, because then they have to work, and keep going with their project. And the more time you stay with something, the more chance you'll do something that will cost you votes. That's the risk one takes when he/she put his/her name on the ballot. Live with it, and do some good while you're at it.

So, keep interested in Lebanon. Don't just move on when something else steals the spotlight, that's what you're expected to do, and you don't want to be some kind of pawn. Who knows, maybe this will be the start of a more stable middle east.

The Big One

As far as I can tell, this latest terrorism bust was the real thing, and the perpetrators had the means to carry it out. This is a change from the other mostly fabricated busts we've had to endure this year. The Dept. of Homeland Security is patting itself on the back, and I'm sure the White House is full of old guys high-fiving each other. Oh, wait, Bush is on vacation in Crawford, so that's where the high-fives are. But before you all go voting republican this fall because they stopped a big terrorist attack, you should remember that all of the credit should go to British authorities. Brits figured out what was happening, and the Brits put a stop to it. Just reminding everybody.

I won't go into very much detail about the actual plot and stuff, because news this big has a habit of being beaten to death by any and all media. It contained the usual creativity necessary in plots with any chance of succeeding, although it does seem to be inspired by a 15 year old Al Qaida plan, and, surprise, the would be bombers were Muslims. Since you know all of that, I'm going to look at the bigger picture.

I read a book a little less than a month ago now, The Arabs, by David Lamb. It is about 20 years old now, and you should keep that in mind when reading it, but it's a great insight on Arab culture and the role the Islamic religion plays in every day life. I'd encourage everybody to read it. With the basic ideas from this book, and a fairly quick analysis of current events, one can piece together the root of our problem with terrorists.

Our problem is not a religion the promotes war. Islam encourages peace and tolerance just as much as Christianity or Judaism. It's the extremists who seem to have found some sympathy in recent years that commit these acts of terror. Other religions have these extremists, too. We've stepped on one too many feet though, and more and more people are fed up enough with us to lend a sympathetic ear to religious terrorist groups. A few simple things (for instance, not backing Israel without question) would take away a lot of moderate supporters that terrorists enjoy.

Another thing I find disturbing is that these people just arrested in the U.K. were all born and raised in the U.K. This is just the latest in a string of events in Europe that seem to point to widespread ethnic unrest within the Arab immigrant community. There were riots in France (not the labor riots, but the ones before that which were more racial in nature), the July 7 attacks in London last year, and now this, are just the most high profile events I can think of off the top of my head. All of these attacks involved Muslims who lived in western countries. Maybe it's just because we don't have as many muslim immigrants as Europe, but the U.S. doesn't have those kinds of problems. I haven't heard one case of Muslims or arabs in born and raised in America plotting to commit an act of terrorism against us.

What needs to be done in Europe is to integrate Muslims into society, not just let them do their own thing in their own part of the city while you pretend they don't exist. Integration would inevitably bring about representation in the government, which would help when dealing with muslim governments, since you've got your own Muslims helping you make policy decisions. When they feel like it's their country too, not just the native British or French's, immigrants won't be so quick to jump on the anti-western bandwagon (but they could still very easily do so if policy changes aren't made so that we don't seem to completely disregard arabs and Muslims).

There you have it. Ignorance breeds mistrust, and pretty soon you're killing Iraqi civilians and smuggling liquid explosives onto planes. Make an effort to understand other people and where they're coming from, and a lot of problems will take care of themselves.

The Oil Stops Flowing

America's largest oil field (Prudhoe Bay in Alaska) has closed while Beyond Petroleum (here on referred to as BP) scrambles to repair corroded pipes in a 22 mile stretch of the pipeline that delivers oil to America. Analysts everywhere are in a frenzy telling people that gas prices are going to skyrocket and there's been talk (from the government no less) of opening the strategic reserves (a supply of oil the government keeps squirreled away in case of emergency). I'm here to fight the flow and convince everybody that this isn't the end of the world. Furthermore, there is no need even for mild panic.

Ever since I can remember, oil (and therefore gas) prices have risen steadily. The main reason for this is not instability in the middle east, or hurricanes in the gulf, or any of the other excuses oil companies throw out. Oil prices are raised because raising the price doesn't affect demand, as it would for any other commodity. Because demand isn't affected, supplies are a little tighter, which raises prices (it's a circle). Americans with their oil are like addicts with their drugs, we don't like to pay more for it, but we can't just not buy it. The idea that America pissing off the government of an oil producer causes some kind of drop in supply (which is implied when the price goes up) is a load of crap. They may hate us, but the money we pay the mid east for it's oil is what runs those countries. Plus, we've been rubbing shoulders with the mid east since before I was born. You may also remember gas prices spiking after Katrina, supposedly because refineries were damaged. Well prices went back down after a day or so. That's a pretty quick repair job for a big refinery if you ask me.

Because of some recent news events that are much bigger than an oil crunch, this headline has kind of been drowned out, but you can bet that somewhere, crooked oil companies (the only kind) will try to raise prices, citing this pipeline shutdown. I've taken the liberty of checking my facts, and Prudhoe Bay accounts for only 8% of our oil. Not a very big slice of the pie, and if Americans were conservation minded (which they aren't, sadly) they could easily cut consumption for a couple months to compensate. Since that's unlikely, we'll probably just import that extra 8% in the meantime. Before you all head out the door with torches and pitchforks asking for directions to the nearest Saudi embassy, let me share a little known fact: the country we import the most oil from is Canada (18% of imports), with Mexico in second (15%), and Saudi Arabia and Nigeria tied for third (12%). In total, 49% of our imported oil comes from countries in the Americas. Don't believe me?

There will be no large drop in supply, let alone some kind of crisis. If you wanted to go one step farther and see oil prices drop, you could start limiting your use, and encouraging others to do the same (you'll need those skills when the oils runs out and stops flowing for good in a few years). The real tragedy in this is for BP, whose profits are expected to grow 2% less than they did last year because of this fiasco, and isn't that horrible? Actually, the state of Alaska is losing a few million dollars every day that the pipeline is down (I'm guessing this is in lost taxes mostly).

So there you have it, no need to panic.

Raising the Bottom Line

Right now, the federal minimum wage is set at $5.15/hour. It hasn't been raised for something like a decade, although a few states (but not mine), have taken the liberty of raising it themselves. Republicans in congress have blocked a couple attempts by Democrats in just the last few months to raise the minimum wage to $7 something/hour. I don't know why, maybe they just don't care about all the people living below the poverty level. In a move that shows who Republicans really care about, they recently tried to abolish the estate tax, and in that bill also included a raise in the minimum wage to $7.20/hour. Needless to say, most Democrats who want the wage increased voted against this bill (and I support them). This was an underhanded move to try to get rid of the whole minimum wage issue and at the same time fulfill a promise they've made to the rich quite often. Once again, the well being of America was one of the last things on Republicans' minds.

I have a job that pays $5.15/hour. I could do with a raise. I also have a lot of friends who make more than $5.15/hour, but less than $7.20. We'd all get a raise if the minimum wage were raised, as it should be. This is by no means the most important issue at stake in this election, but I'd say it's in the top 10.

I find it interesting how a congress that has been led by Republicans for the last 10 years has raised it's own pay quite a bit since they last gave the poorer part of America a break. And now, any small bone thrown to poor people has to be compensated for with a giant tax break for millionaires. Not really the priorities I'd have if I were elected by any district in the U.S., because I don't know of any districts where millionaires outnumber minimum wage earners (let alone in those proportions).

Let's now debunk the main myth that's used to justify not raising the minimum wage: It hurts businesses and therefore, it hurts the economy and America. If you're living below the poverty line (which you are if you make $5.15/hour), you're not spending much. If you had a little more money, you'd spend more of it, therefore helping the economy. And a good economy is good for business. I see no problem.

We now have a couple of very good reasons to raise the minimum wage, and none not to, so let's do it. Besides, if the money's really not there, why does congress need a pay raise every couple of years?

A Lasting Peace

When I last weighed in on Israel's version of neighborhood diplomacy, we were one week into a fairly limited offensive into Gaza. In that post I was very supportive of Israel's actions, but I've taken a considerable turn now.

I cannot sit back and condone the endless bombing that is killing more civilian children than Hezbollah fighters. An air strike last week killed four U.N. observers in southern Lebanon, an incident that I don't think was completely intentional, but they had to have been aiming closer to that outpost than they should've been (it should be noted in that bombing that the commander of the U.N. observers called the Israelis many times with their exact coordinates so that Israeli jets could avoid killing them). Even after turning southern Lebanon and half of Beirut into a big crater, rockets still rain down on Israeli cities. Therein lies the truth: Israel hasn't really accomplished anything.

I will take this opportunity to say that, while casualties resulting from these rockets are very unfortunate, they pale in comparison to civilian casualties of Israeli airstrikes, and they can't be used to justify these killings.

I don't like Hezbollah, and in the unlikelihood that anything good comes out of this ordeal, it will be the disarming (and maybe destruction) of Hezbollah. While I admire their trying to do a thorough job, Israel has done as much as they can militarily without carpet bombing all of Lebanon. Before it becomes blazingly obvious that guerrillas have bested the Israelis again, Israel needs to stop all military action and finish things with negotiations. That way, when Hezbollah renews attacks on Israeli forces and civilians (and you can bet they will), Hezbollah will be the bad guy, not Israel.

Hezbollah has a lot of respect in the Arab world because they are the only group that's beaten Israel in an armed conflict, the other Lebanon war (what many equate as Israel's version of the Vietnam War). Hezbollah used guerilla tactics, and faced with an enemy that they couldn't really fight and mounting casualties, Israel left Lebanon in shame. A repeat of history will be very bad for Israel's standing in the world. The only thing holding back the Arab hordes is the image that Israel is invincible. Take that away and you've got nothing.

Now that I've elaborated on why this war has gone far enough, I'm going to take on the Bush administration. Yes, I'm still talking about Israel-Lebanon. In a move that doesn't surprise me, Bush claims to want peace, but an immediate cease-fire is bad because it won't last. Well, duh! The point of a cease-fire is to stop the fighting for a couple weeks so that the two sides can negotiate a peace that will last. Anybody with half a brain could tell you that a cease-fire is never intended to be permanent. W's not so hidden motive here is to let Israel finish the job (fairly messy work, politically), while appearing to broker a non-violent solution. Well, the first half of the plan's working, but the charade's pretty bad.

A lasting peace isn't all that hard to come by, and even Condi could handle it. You negotiate one of those evil ceasefires, make it last for 1 week to start with. Then you have negotiations between Israel and Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, possibly Iran, and you'll have to include the Lebanese government in there somewhere. We wouldn't just throw these arch enemies in a room somewhere and tell them to work out their differences nonviolently. There would be a large, mutlinational delegation (possibly from the U.N.) including the U.S.A., Egypt, Russia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.K., at the bare minimum. Of course, no solution will be present after one week, but because they have made progress, the parties will agree to extend the ceasefire another two weeks. After a few months, a ceasefire that wasn't meant to last has followed a logical series of events and led to an agreement that will.

The only snarl I see to a peaceful solution (besides Bush's unwillingness to find one), is that Hezbollah and probably Hamas are never going to take part in negotiations that will have to end in their destruction if any progress is to be made. That's the problem with negotiating with terrorist groups, they're only interested in fighting. Take that away, and they don't know what to do with themselves or how to get to heaven. But there's a solution to even that. Hamas and Hezbollah are already political parties in Palestine and Lebanon, if they completely disarm and focus solely on running for office, they would be one of the first political parties in the mid-east that isn't connected to a militia. And they could still advance their cause if in fact they do reflect the will of the people. You can bet that that's something Bush and Israel won't go for, but they'll have to. Would they rather some other armed political party took control of everything (like Hamas has done in Palestine and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon)? Or would it be better to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah in their neutered forms?

What we're dealing with now is a serious problem, and one of the best chances in a while to fix the bigger problem. Right now everybody is the loser, from Lebanon to Hezbollah, to Israel. It goes back to what we teach preschoolers: Don't fight, share, and we all win.

The Truth About Liberalism: #6 Gay Rights

I know it's been a while, but I'm back to fight the lies about what most liberals believe, in #6 we'll be examining the expansive issue of gay rights, while focusing on one major area.

Homosexuals have been around for quite some time, seeing as they are alluded to in the old testament of the Bible. Probably since they've existed, they've been persecuted by the mainly heterosexual population, with small breaks here and there in places that were and are extremely tolerant. It's a fact that society becomes gradually more liberal/progressive/tolerant as time goes by, with some lapses. The substantial part of my audience that is conservative doesn't need to panic now, because this change is very gradual. The founding fathers were debating the morality of slavery almost 100 years before it was abolished by Lincoln, and women (part of society since the origin of humanity) just got the right to vote a little more than 100 years ago (I don't know the exact date, but it was in New Zealand), but still can't vote in some countries.

This new wave of tolerance that is slow to be embraced is the idea of allowing gay couples to marry and having the government recognize the union (an unthinkable idea not very long ago). Believing as I and most liberals do that all people are equal, have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that what they do on their own time is their own business (this idea was reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling that struck down sodomy laws a while back), I see no reason that two people of the same sex can't commit to each other and have it recognized by society if that's what they want. The fact that many lawmakers see the need to amend the Constitution of the United States to discriminate against a group of people is very troubling to me. The root of conservatives' action is, as usual, fear. Fear of change, the unknown, you name it. By their very definition, conservatives don't like change.

However, the idea that if we recognize the existence of homosexuality, suddenly it will run rampant in society is a load of crap. People, there is no threat to the "traditional family" here. The vast majority of people will still marry someone of the opposite sex and the birth rate will not be affected, the only new thing will be a part of the population allowed to live their lives like they want to and not be second class citizens (which most people who are openly non-heterosexual are right now).

Some (probably many) conservatives would have you believe that being gay is a choice that perverted and morally loose people consciously make. That would've been like saying during the civil rights movement that black people choose to be black and therefore shouldn't have rights. That doesn't make sense, and the idea the one chooses one's sexuality doesn't either, because nobody (with very few exceptions) would choose to be a second class citizen.

Hopefully, more Americans will realize that homosexuality is just another of the many traits that differ from person to person and make us human, like skin color, religion, size, language, the list differences embraced by society goes on and on. It troubles me, therefore, that numerous states have taken it upon themselves to ban gay marriage, although one or two actually recognize these marriages. If you discriminate on this basis, what's next? A repeal of the Persons With Disabilities Act? Latinos having to give up their seat to a white person?

A person is a person is a person, and they all have the same rights.

No, Alex, this doesn't make me gay.

The Moral Police

These last few weeks have been big victories for Republicans and their base (that small group of neo-conservative crazies who are given credit every time a Republican wins an election). Bush, in a move I'll admit I didn't think he had the balls to do, used his first veto. Yes, folks, after more than six years in office, President Bush vetoed something. It wasn't something that needed to be vetoed, like ridiculous spending bills, but a bill that would allow federal funding for stem cell research. People with alzhiemers, parkinsons, diabetes, etc., don't deserve to have a cure if it angers Georgie's "base" I guess...

When Bush vetoed this bill, his explanation was that it was taking America in a moral direction that he didn't want it to go. This bill was, of course, perfectly legal and constitutional (not to mention a good thing). I have a message for Mr. Bush: This is not a theocracy. The beauty of America is that I can have one set of morals, and you can have what you think is right, and our opinions can be completely different, but as long as we don't impose our beliefs on each other, we're both right because it's a free country. Ayotollahs and the Pope single handedly make moral decisions for large groups of people. The (barely) elected leader of a secular country, I repeat, does not have a good reason to impede science on "moral" grounds. Even a lot of people who voted for Bush, I'm sure, supported this bill.

We all know about how the Church had astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus locked up because they claimed that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Now we all look back on that consolidation of power and say "What the hell were those idiots thinking?" And that's exactly what's happening now: Consolidating power and in the process impeding science, while also energizing the base. It's the story of the Bush regime.

In related news, congress approved a bill that would make it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion without notifying her parents. This is a bill you can count on Bush signing. While I'm not opposed to the idea of the bill, I am opposed to the reason it was passed. Republicans refused an add on to the bill that would exempt people who didn't tell the girl's parents where they were taking their daughter and why if the girls parents were abusive. So now well meaning grandparents can be punished under this bill even if the girls parents would've beaten her within an inch of her life if they were notified of the situation. Take into account that Republicans also blocked an increase in funds for sex education in this session, and the abstinence only education they do approve of (since when was telling teenagers not to do something "because we say so" effective?), and it starts to seem like maybe Republicans really don't care about the problem of teen pregnancy.

I don't know about you, but when a problem in our society comes up on the floor of congress, I expect to see a solution achieved, or at least attempted. What I see is a bunch of monkeys pandering to the few with the loudest voices.

Ah, Republican morals for everyone, science swinging from a tree by it's neck, and teenage mothers. That's the American spirit.

No Place for Russia

Those of you who pay attention to the news will know that the G-8 is meeting now (the 15th-17th), and some of you may even know what the G-8 is.

The origins of the G-8 can be traced back to the oil crisis of the '70s, and the global recession that followed. In 1975, France arranged a meeting of six of the words industrialized democracies (France, U.S.A., West Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K.). The next year, Canada was invited to join by the U.S., and the group became known as the Group of 7. The European Union has also attended meetings at the invitation of the U.K. since 1977. There were few changes until after the Cold War, when Russia met with the member nations after the main summit in 1994. In 1997 they started to participate more fully in the activities, and the name was officially changed to the Group of 8 at the request of U.S. Pres. Clinton. Russia never did participate in the meeting of the financial heads of the group, because they aren't a major economic power, and this meeting is called the G-7. That brings us up to date, with the G-8 meeting every year to discuss issues of importance to the world.

I think the G-7 was a good thing, but that Russia has no place in an organization of economically advanced democracies. This is because Russia has neither a powerful economy nor a democratic government. They were more democratic 12 years ago when they started attending meetings than they are today. It's only a matter of time before Putin stops bothering to stage elections, and assumes the powers of a dictator. I also heard the argument on a talk show that there are lots of countries with bigger economies than Russia, and if Russia is a full fledged member, you can't justify leaving these other countries out.

The group does meet with additional countries (Mexico, China, India, Brazil, and S. Africa) after the main meeting. Some of these countries (by some, I mean China) aren't democracies, but without checking the numbers, I can confidently say that most, if not all, have bigger economies than Russia.

I propose swapping India for Russia. Really, India has more people than any of the other member nations, has a real democracy, is a major military power, and has a booming economy that is fast becoming one of the biggest in the world. The other up side is that India's been attacked by Muslim terrorists, so they must be good guys. The inclusion of India would end the monopoly that mainly Caucasian, western countries have on the G-8, lending a little more credibility to the organization.

But of course, nobody will put in a motion to swap India for Russia any time soon. Russia is the source of Iran's nuclear equipment, the AK-47s that our Islamic friends love, and the closest thing to a western democracy that hasn't had a jihad declared on it yet. So it follows that they are the only country with any control over Iran, and because we think we can control Russia, we think they're our best chance of controlling Iran. That would work great, if we had any control over Russia. As it is, we don't, and pandering to them is pointless.

Now, if we could turn India into a staunch ally of the west, we'd have a little more leverage over Iran, and the whole middle east. That leverage would be in the form of two pro western, nuclear states, one at each end of the mid-east (Israel and India). As it is, India's potential influence is being wasted on it's constant feud with Pakistan (which is probably another reason holding us back, Pakistan has turned into a helper in the WoT).

I guess I don't see why nobody's trying real hard to make friends with India, when such a friendship could do the whole world a lot of good, but we're still trying very hard to be nice to the Russians, who are just throwing everything back in our face. If we're going to keep Russian in the G-8, then the G-8 needs to be a lot bigger. Don't want a G-25? Fine, the door's that way, Mr. Putin, call us again when you've got an economy and a democracy.

Terrorists Everywhere

Am I the only one who's noticed that lately, the government's busting a lot more terrorist plots against the U.S. and publicly talking about all the details? I thought that we were at war, and couldn't let the terrorists find out how we gathered information. At least, that's what we were told when we wanted an independent investigation into 9/11. And why media sources are abused when they talk about government programs like wiretapping.

Nonetheless, it is an election year, and republicans have to have something positive to show for their disastrous War on Terror. This last "plot" that was broken up involved terrorists in Lebanon exchanging emails about how they might blow up some tunnels in NYC. Of course, none of them had any training or the means to carry this out (they were also still half way around the world). The farthest they had gotten was printing off maps of the tunnels, the kind you can probably get all over the internet. I'm not saying we should've just ignored these guys, but federal agents are talking about this like we just narrowly avoided another 9/11. Please, how many millions of young Muslim/Arab men print of maps of American cities and talk about blowing something up? Now, how many of them have any hope of ever carrying these dreams out? Maybe a couple.

My theory that we're just arresting anybody who's put down on paper some kind of half baked plan to blow up something big in America is furthered by the fact that in the last few months, three "big" plots against targets in North America have been busted (that one in Canada is the most legitimate in my opinion, the Sears tower and the NYC tunnels are pretty iffy as far as legitimacy goes). I ask you, if wasn't an election year (with bad conditions for republicans), how many of these groups of America haters would've just been roughed up a little bit by local authorities at the request of the CIA and then turned loose without any mention in any papers? Probably most, if not all, of them.

Personally, I'm outraged at this. You should be too, because this is the exact same thing the republicans did after 9/11 when they wanted America to go along with their screwed up ways. They're creating an atmosphere of fear. They want you to think that you're at risk from a terror attack wherever you go, so that you'll just defer to authority (the government). Remember the color code of threats? After 9/11, they'd keep raising it to orange for a few weeks, usually every couple of months, and telling people to look out for random things. It's called "Fear Mongering." The documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has a section all about it that's very enlightening (I encourage everybody who hasn't seen it to do so). I also remember, in my English class, Mr. Hanson explaining the idea well while we were reading Animal Farm (but you had to be there for that one).

Now I've helped to lift the smokescreen, we can see the real fruits of republican rule. Sectarian violence in Iraq, massacres by Americans in Iraq, rape and murder in Iraq by Americans, fourth of July fireworks over Korea, and tax cuts for the rich in America. For all his efforts, George W isn't even winning his war on terror. It's all a sham.

Supreme Court: President Must Follow Rules

Yes, you heard me right. The Supreme Court said in a ruling a coulpe of days ago that President Bush must follow laws passed by Congress, and the world. This came in the form of a ruling saying that prisoners of Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Geneva Conventions (get out!), and that he has to have congressional approval on whatever he does with them. This means that the days of "Well I'm the president, I'll do whatever the hell I want," are over. Now, he's obligated to follow the same rules as any elected official. That is, he has to follow the rules.

Republicans are trying to downplay this defeat (and that's what it is for them) by saying that the Court didn't put a stop to any of George's treatment/conditions of prisoners, but just that they have to get Congress to pass a law o.k.-ing military tribunals. Those Republicans would to well to review the part about the Geneva Conventions applying to these prisoners. That means the White House has been wrong this whole time (about four years) when they said that these prisoners didn't have any such rights. It also means they can't torture these prisoners any more and try to justify it. Wasn't this a great finale for Torture Awareness Month?

What this ruling really does is it sets a standard: The President is not above the law, and he can't just make up his own rules. When you think of it that way, this is a crushing blow to Bush's whole philosophy on how to govern. Now, laws passed by Congress can no longer be ignored. Take for example, Sen. John McCain's bill that bans torture of prisoners in U.S. custody: When he realized he couldn't stop it, Bush just let it get passed, then proceeded to say that he didn't feel obligated to follow it. Maybe now that he's been brought down from his throne, his obligations are a little clearer now, like that obligation the constitution gives him in Article II, Section 3- "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's not the part of the Constitution the Court cited in this ruling, but I think you'll see that rule practiced a little bit more. This was a no brainer for the Supreme Court.

Yet, three justices still voted in the Presidents favor, and a fourth (Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee), couldn't vote because he'd already ruled in favor of the president in this case while on a lower court. In his dissenting statement, Justice Clarence Thomas said that we should all just "get behind the president", and that he was disgusted that his colleagues were impeding the war effort. Can you say "lackey"? This is exactly what we needed in this time of war.

Will They Never Learn?

Residents of the Gaza Strip have had quite the week, if half of the news reports are to be believed (which they are). Two excerpts that I remember from yesterday and today's evening news from reporters in Gaza:
"You can see the F-16's flying very low, and the sonic booms are deafening. The Israelis say that they're going to cover the whole strip with sonic booms through the night until they get their soldier back,"
"The Apache helicopters just left, and I'm going to ask my camera man to pan over to the PLO's interior ministry building, and you can see the smoke coming off of it."

Of course, the Israelis have also destroyed Gaza's only power plant, leaving 75% of the strip without power (the quickest it can be rebuilt is one year), blown up the bridges that connect the north to the south, and flown fighters over the Syrian president's house. This is just in the last few days.

In my opinion, the Palestinians should've quit antagonizing Israel last year after the Gaza pullout, when they were ahead. Now, Israel's just going to come back, and they won't leave this time. You just don't mess with Jews. Back in the late 40's, with no military help from any other nations (and little diplomatic help), the Jewish settlers of Palestine formed their own militia and fought off the invading armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Arabs of Palestine, earning themselves the country of Israel. Now, the U.S. has given the Jews one of the best militaries in the world, and they like to use it.

You might've noticed that I have very little sympathy for the people of Palestine. I'm sorry that they're kept awake all night, have no electricity, and find themselves staring down the barrel of Israeli artillery wherever they look, but I'm also sorry that they're too stubborn to cooperate with someone who doesn't worship Allah, and that they elect terrorists to lead them towards a solution (I'm not a hypocrite here because I didn't vote for W). What can they really expect if they're going to take jabs at Israel whenever they can? I'm surprised the people of Gaza had this much time without a real visit from the Jewish military. Usually, the two sides can't go 2 weeks without renewing the fighting.

Unless Palestinians seriously change their attitude towards Israel (never going to happen), they're going to be seeing a lot more Israeli guns pointed at them, I think. Of course, this is a situation that just keeps making itself worse: Palestinians hate Israel, so Israel bombs them, so Palestinians hate Israel...Jews have been kicked around since time immemorial, and they're still here, Arabs would do well to consider this before they pick a fight that will end in their extinction. For some reason, though, death doesn't mean as much to Muslims in that area of the world, what with insurgents in Iraq and these suicidal Palestinians.

Supposedly, Egypt has moderated a deal with Hamas to give the kidnapped soldier (the reason this all started), but Israel says they haven't heard about any deal. I think that's a lie, and they just want to have a little more fun. I say go ahead, so far nobody's died, and every Hamas member in Gaza and the West Bank is either hiding or in jail already. Nothing but good so far has come of this.

The Truth About Liberalism: #5 Torture

As many of you may have noticed, I've joined a blogroll that is supporting Torture Awareness Month (the month of June). If you've ever followed my link to that sight, you'll know why this is an important cause. Being on this blogroll has also brought a temporary spike in the number of hits I get from places that aren't Charles City and Minnesota. To be a member of Blogs Against Torture, I have to link to the sight and do a bit on torture during the month of June. I figured this would be a good opportunity for another installment in my The Truth About Liberalism series.

Any liberal or progressive worth his (or her) salt is against torture. It's inhumane, and has been illegal for many years now. In a few wars (Vietnam is what springs to my mind first), the idea that torture is wrong has been what separated us from our enemies and made us the good guys. This was because we didn't torture our prisoners, and we called out the people who did torture theirs. It's always easier to make friends when you're the good guy. The Bush administration has made us the bad guy, though. In the words of Dick C. (our other president), we've gone to "The Dark Side." Now, what credibility do we have if we say that terrorists are a threat to the world because they take hostages and torture them, when we're in fact arresting many people every day and putting them in prisons where they have a good chance of being tortured? Some people will say "But they would do the same or worse if they managed to get one of us." That still doesn't make it right. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you have to sink to the enemy's level to win, you didn't win.

Does this mean I (and progressives everywhere) am "soft on terror"? Of course not, terrorists torture people. I'm totally against torture, anarchy, theocracy, you name a terrorist ideal and I'm probably against it. One shouldn't find any of these things in America or being practiced by our forces abroad.

Besides the moral reasons, there are practical reasons not to torture your prisoners.

Reason #1: it makes people hate you. Imagine you've got a normal Arab guy who doesn't like to see Americans exercising their influence in his part of the world, but he also doesn't like the fact that insurgents are killing way more Iraqis than Americans. Then he hears that Americans are torturing and humiliating the guys in their prisons. This Arab decides he has a moral duty to save his fellow Arabs, so he buys an AK and goes to Iraq to join the jihad.

Reason #2: you can't believe anything somebody says during torture. If you were in excruciating pain, and you know you're captors wanted to know the location of a stash of weapons, you'd give them a generic description of an empty warehouse and tell them it was in a seedy part of town. You actually have no idea where the weapons are, and you've told them that, but they didn't believe you.

In short, torture is bad. The U.S. will be paying for it's actions in the middle east for a long time anyway, why make it worse? I encourage you all to read this fact sheet about U.S. torture practices if you haven't already. Terrorists torture, what does that make us?

Whaling

While reading a story about the first good thing George has done for the environment since he took office (that national monument in Hawaii), I followed a link to another story that took away my good mood pretty quickly.

Apparently there's an organization that most countries are a member of (the IWC, I think) that regulates whaling, and in more recent years has mostly just been a platform for certain countries to try and reinstate commercial whaling. The big pro-whaling nations would be Japan, Iceland, and Norway. This is the first year that the pro whalers are expected to have enough votes to reinstate commercial whaling. Of course, being banned hasn't stopped the big three. A loophole allows countries to kill whales for "research." Japan, therefore, does an awful lot of research, harvesting hundreds of mink whales each year, and last year they took 10 endangered fin whales (their quota this year will be 20 or 30). Still, most of the meat from these whales ends up in gourmet restaurants in Japan. I don't see how all this killing is needed for research, many American institutions are constantly learning new things about whales without killing a single one. Iceland exploits the same loophole as Japan, although not quite as extensively, and Norway openly defies this ban, not even trying to cover up it's commercial whaling expeditions.

This just makes me so frustrated, because I'd thought the world had matured to the point where we didn't need to keep killing endangered animals just because they're worth a lot of money, or an outdated cultural tradition. Americans used to have lots of destructive cultural traditions, slavery and Indian hunting among them. Over time, though, we saw that we really shouldn't be doing these things. The fact that there are three small countries that want to keep killing endangered animals (which, I'll point out, would've been hunted off the face of the earth by these three if the rest of us hadn't stopped them) is very selfish and cause for great concern.

This is an ideal situation to put good old American bullying to use. While George is still on this trip that's made him environmentally friendly, he tells Japan (and those Norskies) that under no circumstances are they going to resume whale hunts. And if they don't back down, we bring in the navy. If I was a whaling captain, being buzzed by an American fighter would be enough to make me turn around. If it's not... well, accidents happen when you run weapons checks.

I encourage you all to make a ruckus so that the American government does something to stop this. I myself will be emailing the president about it, the address is president@whitehouse.gov.

Big Setback in the War on Terror

Not really, some people would just like you to think so.

Today, a rebel group with connections to the Islamic court overthrew the warlords governing Somalia. Yes these would be the same warlords responsible for the whole "Blackhawk Down" fiasco, and the same warlords whom everybody but the White House claims have support from the U.S. This support seems to be based on the idea of "We don't care how bad you govern or how many of your own citizens you randomly kill, as long as you keep killing those Islamic wakos." All of this is on top of a provisional government based in Balad (a city a little ways north of Mogadishu), which is technically the real government, and it's not made up of warlords. If Bush really wanted to stabilize the region (which would be the best route to keep terrorists out), wouldn't he support this government intended to do just that, instead of one made up of the warlords who started the civil war 14 years ago?

But any of that's better than a country ruled by Islamic extremists, right? Well, the place hasn't been ruled by Islamic extremists in the recent past, but I'm sure this pack of warlords would give anybody a run for their money. As for the provisional government that might as well not exist, I'm sure it beats extremists hands down. This point is nullified, though, because this new group of victors aren't extremists as far as I can tell. They have connections with Islamic courts (courts that enforce the rules of Islam). I don't know how extreme these courts are, but the few news reports I've read on the issue say that Somalians are a secular people who aren't likely to allow Islamic law to be put in place.

And these guys might not end up running the country. Now, the new set of rebels takes the warlords' place at the negotiating table with the provisional government. Certain people are just getting ahead of themselves when they call this the new government of Somalia.

What I still can't get my head around is how supporting warlords who committed acts of terror against their own people (routinely) is going to help the war on terror. What it does help is the war on Islamic terror. But wait! I thought this wasn't a war against Islam, that the anti-U.S. clerics are just saying that to make trouble! Then you can understand why nobody will admit to taking this tactic to win the war on "terror." If Somalia had large oil reserves, we'd have just as much justification to invade them as we did Iraq, if not more. Saddam Hussein didn't have a government based on Islam, but he was in the right region of the world where most Americans just assume everything is Islamic. One could argue that we're a terrorist state because we supported this carbon copy of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A group of rebels with ties to Islam wrestling control of a country out of the hands of murderous warlords is not a setback in the war on terror. Rather, it's a setback in George Bush's war on Islam.

The Truth About Liberalism: #4 Guns

A lot of people with otherwise no political knowledge seem to "know" that Democrats are all pansies and will take away everybody's' guns. I even saw an add in our local paper last fall saying that John Kerry had voted for a bill that would ban all pump action shotguns. If that were true, it would anger many people who like to hunt, because they probably use a pump action shotgun and aren't doing any harm. I was pretty sure this add wasn't true, though. So, reading the fine print in the add, I saw that they were talking about bill s.123 (I don't remember the real #). One quick google search later, I discovered this bill was in fact, an assault weapons ban, which made illegal pump action shotguns with certain human hunting additions. The name that I still remember being banned was the "Streetsweeper" shotgun. Not a lot of game hides out on a street, and anyways, it's illegal to hunt from a street or road. This leaves us with the conclusion that this gun is meant for combat/killing people use. Try as Dick Cheney might to legalize it, there is not one state where you can buy a license to hunt people. So this add was misleading, taking advantage of the preheld superstition among hillbillies (and some other not so hillbilly people) that Democrats hate guns, and want to take them away.

If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know that I (like all progressives) am a big fan of the constitution, especially the bill of rights. Included in this bill is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We don't pick and choose which parts of the constitution are we'll follow(like Republicans do). However, this is one of the few places I'm aware of where conservatives take a liberal approach to this sentence and liberals take a more conservative approach. Republicans interpret it broadly to mean that anybody can carry whatever kind of gun they want, while Democrats see the need to keep such things as assault weapons out of the hands of the general public. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, assault weapons were muskets, the same guns that people hunted with. Of course there were cannons, but the average person couldn't afford one, a modern equivalent would be the cruise (or maybe even nuclear) missile. The rules for possession of cruise missiles aren't talked about much because nobody's got (or can get) one.

The fact that Democrats feel it wise to keep guns meant for killing people efficiently off of the street is used by their opponents who twist it to mean that Democrats are anti-guns and anti-hunting. The fact that we care about the environment and don't want people shooting everything that moves is also used to strengthen this argument at times. Ironically, I and most Democrats believe that there is nothing wrong with hunting or the guns involved in it. If people want to shoot guns designed to kill people, they can join the army. Or, if they're not willing to take that step and they just like to shoot a big gun, I don't see anything wrong with keeping this assault weapon locked up when it's not being shot at a range. Of course, in that second instance, there would need to be a strict licensing process (I'm not sure if such a system exists or not).

The only major area I've left that Democrats take a beating over is handguns. People will insist that our crime rate is lower than countries with low gun ownership because we carry guns and can protect themselves. This is some flawed logic because there has been no scientific studies to prove that carrying a gun deters criminals, the only studies on this have looked at the rate of crime as it correlates to gun ownership in different countries. Even this logic is flawed, because they're picking and choosing which countries to talk about (like they do with the constitution). Some countries with high gun ownership rates have the highest rates of violent crime in the world. In Iraq, each household is allowed to have an AK47, and look how that stops crime.

I don't carry a handgun, and I've never been mugged. The same thing goes for my whole family. And everybody I know in fact. The fact that there are laws requiring you to be a responsible adult and a law abiding citizen before you can carry a handgun are no reason to bash Democrats. Would you rather felons and gangsters could just legally buy all the guns they wanted?

I'm getting off the topic now (but that stuff really frustrates me). My point is, the constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms, no liberal is interested in denying you a right provided by the constitution.

White House Theatrics

If you don't know much about the FBI searching a Democratic congressman's office last week and the ensuing battle over separation of powers, read this comprehensive msnbc story.

Now that everything's heating up, with even Bush supporters questioning the legality of this raid, the top 3 people in the Justice Department are making threats of resignation if they are ordered to return the stuff they seized during that raid. The biggest fish among them is Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General. I think they've been asses about the whole thing, but if they want to resign, I'm not going to stop them. Remember, this is Alberto "killa" Gonzales, the guy who thinks the stuff practiced at Abu Ghraib was legal, that sending prisoners to other countries and then looking the other way as they're tortured is fine, and that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to prisoners if you don't want them to. If Bush is forced to find a replacement for him with his current approval ratings... well, let's just say that replacement shouldn't be to controversial. The other two I don't know so much about, but if they're on Killa's side they can't be too good.

That said, I'd be surprised if anybody resigned over this. Now for more opinions.

I'm on the side of this debate that thinks the executive branch has, yet again, greatly overstepped it's bounds. I believe that somebody should be able to enforce the laws and investigate possible criminal activity, but having the FBI raid the guy's office and take whatever they want is too much. This practice of having the federal law enforcement raid the office of an opposition politician is usually one reserved for dictators and Vladimir Putin.

An example of how this should've gone can be seen in the investigation into Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. The prosecutor was investigating a crime, so he'd do things like calling Libby and Rove in to testify, possibly issuing subpoenas for some stuff he felt he needed to look at. He didn't have the FBI raid their offices because nobody would've stood for it. His career would've been over, and he'd probably be in jail.

You know, supposedly, the FBI has a video of this Democrat accepting $100k from an informant, and they then found $90k of it in his freezer at home. If I were faced with this proof and I knew I was guilty, I'd fess up, like that Republican in California a couple months ago. The fact that Mr. Jefferson still maintains his innocence makes me suspicious of the whole thing. That said, even though he's a Democrat, I don't have a lot of faith in his progressiveness because he's from the south (Louisiana).

I guess I'm done, have a nice weekend.

Iowa Gubernatorial Candidates

After watching the debate on IPTV today between the three (there might be more, but I haven't heard of them) democratic candidates for governor, I feel I should throw the half ounce or so of political weight I have behind one.

First, I'm going to summarize what I perceived to be the views of the candidates from this debate:

Chet Culver's seems to be emphasizing economic growth and growing industries like ethanol and other alternative fuel production. This would, he says, would help renew Iowa's economy and make us the leader in the nation of renewable/alternative energy. He is also a former teacher, and says that if elected, he'd be the only governor in the country now who's been in the classroom in the last 2 decades. He didn't say when the last time was that he taught, but I think that experience is kind of minimized if he stopped teaching 19 years ago.

Ed Fallon wants to really clean up the government, end handouts to big companies who are just going to leave Iowa, and instead give reasonably to Iowa based businesses and interests. He said, for instance that he supports tax breaks for wind energy to help advance that. He got points with me early on by blasting NAFTA, citing all of the manufacturing jobs that have left Iowa and the U.S., and specifically the closing of the Maytag plant last week (I think that was in Newton). Mr. Fallon also gives the impression of a fun and nice guy to be around. He was the only one I think who joked around, and he seemed to be the biggest supporter of the average person. The only slight drawback is that he said he would repeal legislation banning sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of schools and day care centers if elected governor and given the chance.

Last but not least, Mike Blouin. He has the most political experience of the three, at the state and federal levels, and it shows. He is also a former teacher, and on the economy, cleaning up the government, and developing Iowa's alternative energy resources, his views aren't extremely different from the other two. Blouin's only slight drawback is that he is against abortion, although he says (very strongly I thought) that he will not change the state's abortion laws either way, instead improving access to other means like adoption and birth control. This, he hopes would bring down the number of abortions without changing the laws. I can live with that. He was asked a tough question by Culver just after he explained his views and plans on abortion about why, then, had he introduced a bill into state legislature banning all abortions? That was a tough attack (and by far the most hostile moment of the debate), and I was sure he wouldn't be able to parry it and that his campaign was over, but after taking a second to think, he responded that that was back in the 70's, that Culver had also changed his views on issues over the years. In those years, he said that he'd decided his current plan would be better and more effective. If it comes down to a close race and a tough political fight with Jim Nussle (the republican candidate), Mike Blouin will certainly have what it takes.

I'm not too worried about Iowa if any of these three men are elected governor.

With that said, I support Ed Fallon. Chet Culver seems to be involved a little bit with big interests/companies, and I thought that Mike Blouin had the least clearly defined plan. Fallon is also going to fight for the people, and he was the only one who kept everything positive. Culver and Blouin seemed to be taking little jabs at each other the whole time. He has a clearly defined, good plan for the state, and he will stay away from large companies and sources of money.

If you missed the big debate (which you probably did), IPTV will run it again tomorrow (Sunday) at 6 p.m.

The Truth About Liberalism: #3 Religion

Because my thinking, values, and political ideas are progressive, I take a lot of crap from people who really have nothing else on me. It's worse around election times, but there are die-hards that keep it up all the time. Most of the time I just ignore it, because I get along with these people fine when we're not talking about politics. But if there's one thing that really pisses me off, it's when anybody attacks my Christianity because I'm not in total agreement with the religious right (right as in the direction, not correctness). I'm not the only person who takes this crap. Inevitably, any Democrat, and even Republicans who aren't conservative enough, will be criticized for not being a good Christian when election time rolls around.

And the funny thing is, the religious right is wrong, about almost everything. Liberals are as good or better Christians than those nut jobs. Let me just condense their strong views that Jesus himself would agree with 100% (so they say):
1) God loves everybody, and wants everybody to find salvation, but gays, lesbians, anybody who's not 100% heterosexual shouldn't have anything to do with the church.
2) Killing is bad, God decides when people should die, and we're pro-life, but we believe the death penalty is a great tool with many uses, and we support politicians who think the same way. So really, we're not pro-life, we're anti-women's' rights.
3) God created the world, and charged us as it's stewards, so we should just trash the place.
4) The constitution says religion should have no bearing on the laws, and not everybody is a Christian, but our rules should be the law of the land, no matter what religion you are.
5) Science and school are great, until they start teaching things that don't fit into the Bible's teaching exactly. That's just blasphemy.
6) Despite the first amendment, if you wouldn't write/say it in church, you shouldn't be able to write/say it anywhere in public.
I could go on for days, but I'll just skip to the final rule: If you don't agree 100% with all of the above, you're going to hell.

I don't know about you, but that seems pretty hypocritical, and that's not my idea of what Jesus would do. This is where the progressive ideals of tolerance and open-mindedness prove far more in line with Christian values than any that the religious wrong spouts.

I try to be a good Christian. I make it to church almost every Sunday, I take good care of the environment, I don't harass, assault, etc people, I don't tell racist jokes, and I actually think about stuff instead of just believing the wrong's propaganda.

In conclusion, I'm tolerant (that's a liberal and Christian ideal), and you're entitled to think whatever you want under the constitution and the laws of Christianity.

But keep your theocracy off of my democracy.

Staff Shake-Ups

With the recent resignation of Porter Goss as head of the CIA, I feel that I must write something about the White House's new gameplan. I don't believe for a minute that either of these men resigned without any push from the top. George W. Bush seems to think that a couple new faces in the area might help his party not do so bad in the fall elections. I personally don't see how he thinks this will help him either way, because in recent months, Republicans have been interfering with his plans almost more than Democrats. But his lying press secretary was replaced with a Fox News analyst, and it looks like Porter Goss is going to be replaced with one of the masterminds of the warrant-less wire taps, General Hayden (the other mastermind being W himself). This was his chance to show the country that he's trying to make changes for the better. What the hell is he thinking?

I'm going to go in chronological order, starting with the resignation of Mr. McClellan. The news clip I remember had Bush and McC. on the White House lawn, and Bush told the press that McC. was resigning because his job was high-stress ("You all are hard to deal with") and he needed a break. Well duh! If you're feeding the press what they know to be lies day in and day out, they catch on pretty soon, and then your days of peace are over. Those press people can be vicious when you lie to them and America (Fox isn't included in this group). I don't doubt McC. got pretty stressed out in the four years or so he had the job. Of course, a fellow liberal wondered if he was resigning because his conscience couldn't take it anymore... that option was thrown out pretty quick. I don't even see why this position was the first to be given a new face, except that maybe the big guns thought that Scott McClellan was no longer trusted by the American people (they'd be right on that, partly). A new mouth spewing White House lies isn't going to change anything, especially now that the guy's from Fox.

On to Mr. Goss. The man brought in to clean house, and make the CIA a potent weapon again. Well, he cleaned house alright, anybody who didn't support and believe in the war was fired or resigned in protest. Needless to say, a kind of brain drain ensued, and left the CIA flopping around like a fish out of water, except getting less accomplished. This was a guy that needed to go, and the CIA still needs reform, but the general is the wrong person to do it. New allegations are out this week that the wire tapping was even more out of control than we knew. Is this the kind of person we want in control of any agency?

More importantly, at a time when Sec. Rumsfeld is increasing the reach of the military, should we really have a general in charge of the civilian intelligence gathering agency? I have nothing against regular soldiers, but at the tip top (Rumsfeld), the military has overstepped its boundaries time and again. What will happen when the military has some iffy intel, and somebody asks the CIA to verify it? It would be like going to a doctor for a second opinion on something, and then going to another doctor who is the first guy's best friend. Can you really trust the second opinion?

Immigration

It's time for me to weigh in on the slightly old issue of illegal aliens living and working in this country, most of them from Mexico. I'm for letting most or all of them stay, because they are still human beings, and shipping them back to Mexico only has negative effects all around.

Let me explain: If the economic situation in Mexico was good (it isn't), all of these people wouldn't feel the need to sneak into the U.S. at great personal risk to get a crappy job that few self respecting, American born citizens would take. If you force a lot of these people back to Mexico, you've got millions more people competing for the same amount of poverty level jobs, and the situation worsens. Unless you build a huge fence across the border like the House bill will, you won't keep those people out of America.

With that said, there are some (actually many) things I don't like about illegal immigration. When listening to some expert on t.v. talking about how the economy needs the cheap labor that immigrants provide, it seems like a good idea to just let the system continue in the interest of saving money and the economy. This is not a good thing, because you're keeping the poor poor. Even if they think it's a good paying job, we shouldn't use that to justify paying them a pittance. I'll admit, right now there are sectors of the economy totally dependent on cheap labor. This makes us no better that the companies that use sweatshops in Asia. It will hurt, but we've got to start paying everybody equally. When jobs that would previously be filled by illegals begin to pay a respectable amount, citizens will start to take compete for these jobs, and the whole thing will start to fix itself, because you've got fewer job openings for illegals. Also (I'm hoping), if they're making more money, the integration of these immigrants into American society will be started/sped up, and some barriers (e.g. racism) will be broken down that are holding many Latinos and Hispanics back.

Another thing I don't like is the idea of illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes using tax-payer funded services (roads, schools, you name it). Let me take some of that back, you can't buy much of anything without paying some kind of tax, so they don't pay as much in taxes as citizens. I don't want to keep anybody from driving on a road or going to school, but you should have to contribute just like the rest of America. Of course, I don't know to what extent most illegals make use of public services, so I can't go into depth on that one.

That said, here's a plan that is actually not mine, but a friend who aligns himself with the Republican side of things (although he's pretty liberal for a conservative), which I think is pretty good. I have tweaked it a little bit: All persons who are in the country illegally have a grace period during which they can register somewhere (like the local courthouse) and get themselves on a path to citizenship or legal residency. Once registered, they would have to show a couple times per year that they are working, they would have to keep their noses clean, and they would either not use public services until they were a tax paying citizen (very impractical, inhumane, and racist-I don't like it), or they would pay some taxes and have limited access to these services (better). Within a year or two, Mr./Ms. Illegal Immigrant would become an American.

This, on top of making it easier to come to America legally (or making the public more aware of how easy it is to do it legally if it is already, I don't know), and maybe helping the Mexican economy would pretty much eliminate any immigration problem we have.

Note: On the issue of whether illegals have rights or not, the Declaration of Independence states clearly that all people are given certain inalienable rights by their creator, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights aren't just for people who are white and born in America.

The Truth About Liberalism: #2 Taxes and Money

When most people decide who to vote for, they vote for the person who will look out for them and represent their views. This usually means they will vote for the politician who lets them keep as much of their money as possible. People don't like taxes, so a politician who promises tax cuts seems appealing. In recent years, the Republican party has had a big thing for tax cuts. That would be fine, if we had a record surplus of money and very little debt, but the reality is that we have a record deficit and we're swimming in debt. The poor money managing skills of the ruling republicans in Washington are causing these fiscal shortcomings to balloon. Someday, that money's going to have to be paid, probably extra taxes for the next generation.

Still, most people who love money more than the future (a surprising amount), believe the myth that democrats will just tax them into poverty and waste the money on huge, meaningless programs. This is far from the truth, and we've got worse now. Republicans are spending money they don't have on huge contracts for their friends who aren't rebuilding anything in Iraq, and they're spending it on huge, meaningless programs, for instance the prescription drug plan. When congress voted on it, the cost estimate was less than half of what its predicted cost is now (a conservative estimate you could say). Now, not many people are getting financial help with their meds because the program is a joke with a mountain of paperwork that's going to drain the wallets of Americans for years to come.

This is why, whenever George W. asks congress to make his tax cuts permanent, even enough conservatives balk that it never happens. The vast amounts of money required to run a country with all the services that we enjoy needs to exist, we can't just spend it.

Republicans have shown that they don't know the first thing about financial responsibility, maybe it's time to let somebody who will fight for you, your money, and America's future try. Like a Democrat.

The Truth About Liberalism: #1 What they don't want you to know

This is the first installment in a series-The Truth About Liberalism, in which I plan on dispelling many of the myths that are so often brought up whenever a conservative is trying to incite an anti-liberal riot. Of course, everything in this series is information most conservatives would rather you didn't know because it doesn't portray the better side of the fence as doped up, communist, flip-flopping, gay, pro-terrorist hippies. You could call this part "Liberalism 101" if you wanted.

According to Oxford's Dictionary and Thesaurus, Liberal:(adj) 1)tolerant, respecting individual freedom (in politics), favoring moderate social reform 2) generous 3) (of interpretation) not strict of exact.

The synonyms listed for liberal are: Tolerant, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, unprejudiced 2) generous, open-handed

Another word we sometimes describe ourselves with is progressive. I think the word speaks for itself, having to do with progress, moving forward, and improvement.

The definition of conservative? Conservative: 1) Opposed to change, (of an estimate) purposely low
Synonyms: conventional, traditional, orthodox, cautious, unadventurous, old-fashioned, reactionary (it should be noted that the definition of reactionary is: opposed to progress and reform)

So, as liberals, we believe that individual freedoms (the first amendment, heck, the whole constitution, anybody?) are good, we're open minded, tolerant, willing to change things that don't work so that we can improve. And what's a conservative? Somebody who's old-fashioned and opposed to change. Hmm, in the olden days we had slavery, and a bunch of people didn't want to change that.

Thank God we've got liberals.

That Mailbag Thing #2

Sorry about the prolonged absence, I've been busy. This is also going to be a short entry, because 1) I'm still busy, and 2) You people haven't sent me any material for a mailbag, except those who you see here.

What do you think about this whole Zaccahrias Moussaoui thing? I don't think he should be put to death. -Chris

Well, Chris, I don't think they should kill him either. For one, he wants to die, and for two, I don't support the death penalty or killing at all.

On to what I think. I don't have any evidence or reason to believe this guy's not a terrorist and a guy who dislikes America, but I'd be very surprised if he was in as deep as the government prosecution is portraying him. The courtroom isn't the place for politics, but sadly, this administration needs whatever good publicity it can get, including scapegoats who actually are terrorists. If they can come down hard on Moussaoui, they can make it look like they're doing a lot more to fight terrorism than they actually are. No, Iraq doesn't count as fighting terrorism, because W. attacked for political and personal reasons, and I'm pretty sure that the insurgents had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think you should weigh in on the energy fiasco and alternatives. -anonymous

By energy fiasco, I'm assuming you mean the rising gas and oil prices. In the last few decades, oil has replaced money as the root of evil. I think it's wrong that Americans should have to pay through the nose to drive their cars and heat their homes, but for slightly different reasons than one might assume. This is a shame because we should've been driving hybrid cars or using at least 85% ethanol blends 10 years ago. The technology was and is there. Instead, we can't live without the middle east and the polar ice caps are melting.

There is a somewhat bright side to this, though. Every time gas prices rise, I hope that it will wean America of it's oil addiction, to borrow a term from our dear president. I've been let down by an administration with significant oil interests every time, but there is talk now. In Iowa and Minnesota, ethanol plants are going up left and right, and I've actually seen a couple gas stations with E-85 pumps.

For alternatives, I have high hopes for cheaper, cleaner, American ethanol. Brazil is a great example, taking what they have an abundance of (sugarcane) and fueling their cars with it (sugarcane ethanol, either completely or 80-90% blends I'm not sure). This isn't just a couple models, but every car has this capability, and just about everybody takes advantage of this. Hydrogen hybrids also show great promise. I'd like to see everybody filling up their hydrogen hybrid care with E-85 (or 100, we've got the smartest people in the world after all) fuel in the next 5 years (it's definitely possible), and in the short term, really toughening fuel efficiency standards (like, this year).

If you've got anything for the mailbag, I'm happy to get stuff- redstripddonkey@yahoo.com

Contingency Plan 1025

I meant to get this off a couple of days ago when this news was fresh, but a couple things got in the way. Before you read this, it would be helpful if you read this brief story from the Daily Telegraph.

Now, everybody in Washington has already denied that this is anything more than a way of covering all the bases. It's just a plan that will probably never be implemented. But do you remember that part near the end of the article, about how George W. Bush is hell-bent on leaving a "legacy" to the world. That scares me. Mr. President, you've done enough for the world with your wars, civil rights rollbacks, and your environmental policy. Please just give up, and coast until the mid-term elections (when democrats will retake congress and be able to keep the world safe from you). You've already left quite a legacy.

The other thing I don't get is this: We're trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons (which I support), but we're the only country who has ever used them. Now if it's possible to justify the use of nukes, the situation in WWII is pretty close to justifiable, and we don't seem as hypocritical. If we were to use nuclear weapons on Iran because we don't want Iran to have that capability, what message does that send to the world?

I think Mr./Ms. Anonymous says it best:

Daniel,
I find the notion of the US using nuclear weapons against anyone to be appalling. I believe Mr. Bush is simply moving his target from Iraq to Iran, since the Iraq idea hasn't worked out the way he hoped. I believe he has it in his head to leave some kind of "legacy" to the world, and believe me, he will--that legacy will be one of death, destruction, devastation, and debt. We are already the most hated country in the world, and such a nuclear strike will make it worse. And how will other nuclear-armed nations respond to a unilateral American strike? What will Russia and China do? If our leaders are willing to make this move, then we as citizens had better prepare for retaliatory strikes. Not good, Dan, not good at all. Let's hope cooler minds prevail. God help us. The other thing is, a crisis in Iran would be just the thing to get people's minds off the complete incompetence and corruption within this administration. Who's going to be worried about midterm elections when we're scrambling for our lives? I believe our president is desperate enough to do it, and that's a scary thought. Who's going to stop him?

Have a good evening.

Gangsters Organized Politically

A couple things have happened this week that I've decided to include in the same rant: Rep. Tom Delay surrendering, and the fact that G.W. Bush authorized the Valerie Plame leak was made public. What do these things have in common, you might ask. They both fall under the broad (and quite extensive) category of Conservative Corruption.

I'll go start with Mr. Delay, since he made the news first. We're finally getting rid of a corrupt, powerful, evil, conniving legislator. Of course, I'd rather he was going straight to prison, but his day will come. Meanwhile, he's left a legacy that reflects his values (listed above). What worries me is that he actually won the primary election and decided not to run again on his own. What caused him to do that is a mystery to me, because his past behavior has shown that he doesn't care that everyone knows he's a crook. But what's it matter. VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!

What's more serious is that our president thinks, once again, that the law doesn't apply to him. You may remember, more than a year ago now I think, the name of an undercover CIA agent was leaked and all the sudden, she wasn't so undercover anymore. This in itself was suspicious enough, but what's even fishier is that her husband was a former U.S. ambassador who had been appointed to look into Bush's claims that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Nigeria. Needless to say, he didn't find any evidence of such a purchase. Also needless to say, Bush didn't like this, as it painted W. as a liar. Little did this ambassador know that the administration's revenge would come in the form of compromising his wife's safety. From what we now know, it seems Bush authorized such a leak, and Dick Cheney's lackey carried it out. Of course, W denied any knowledge of it, but now that word's out, he's saying he declassified that information and had it made public for reasons not quite clear to me (something about defending pre-war intel, but it just seems like something the mob would do to shut her husband up).

Does the president have the authority to just go around declassifying the names of covert CIA agents. No. This also seems slightly hypocritical, because, last time I checked, the CIA gathered intelligence that is vital to protecting the U.S. from terrorists. And we all know that your and my safety is at the top of the White House's agenda, they use it to justify just about everything after all.

When you add this stuff to even more corrupt republicans, like Rep. Cunningham who took all those bribes in return for steering big defense contracts toward the right people (after resigning in shame, he pled guilty and was sentenced to quite a few years pretty quick), you start to see a pattern. The GOP is not in fact the party with all the morals, at least not the good ones.

Censure W

As you can probably tell from the title, I support Sen. Feingold's bill to censure Pres. Bush.

Censure. What does it mean? The dictionary says "harsh criticism, rebuke." It's basically congress saying to the president that they really don't like what he's doing, a vote of no confidence if you will. Are there any direct repercussions? No. It's just Congress as a whole speaking their opinion, and no laws are enacted or extra restrictions placed on the President. This would, however, neuter the White House politically. Then maybe executive power and misconduct would be brought back down to safer, Clinton-era levels.

Now, I know that you conservatives are going to try to rip me apart for saying Clinton didn't commit misconduct. Read the sentence again, I said "safer" level of misconduct. Really, how much does it matter what a president does with his personal time as long as it's not illegal (as opposed to ordering illegal wire taps on Americans)? Would you rather have a president who sometimes can't keep it in his pants, or a president whose intentional lies kill 2,500 some Americans and countless others? Think about it and get back to me. I already know which one I prefer.

Back to the issue at hand. What are Sen. Feingold's grounds for this Censure? He thinks (rightly so) that a president who willingly and knowingly disobeys the law should be told by Congress (who's job it is to check the executive power) that he shouldn't be doing that. Instead we're getting closer to a scenario like this:

(with strong southern accent) "Members of Congress, I've come to you today to propose a new bill. This bill, if voted into law, will make it easier to fight the terrorists who plot to kill Americans. What I'm proposing are a few minor changes to our great constitution. Now, usually I'm a big fan of the constitution. But sometimes it can impede" (go through a couple different pronunciations on impede before using the right one) "fighting those terrorists. My plan is, see this part here 'We the people of the United States of America', now that part's good, I like it, it's what America stands for. What we do is, right after that part, we make a little cut right here" (takes scissors and separates top line of constitution from the rest, discarding the rest and keeping only the top) "and now we have the weapons we need to win the war on terror and fight those who hate democracy" (applause)

Will it come to that? Hopefully not.

There's always two sides to every story. Let's hear the president's. He claims that in order to protect America from terrorists (a noble goal) he needs to be able to listen in on Americans' communications without wasting time getting warrants. This power, he says, is given to him in Article II of the constitution. Well, believe it or not, I have a copy of the document in question right here. I'm looking at article two, and I don't see anything about unwarranted searches or surveillance in times of emergency, war, or otherwise. What Art. 2 does say is this "He (the president) shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." The first half of that is what's important. Laws, I think the constitution is the basis of all of those. Let's see what are some laws that he is supposed to execute: amendment IV "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Well,

were these laws executed faithfully? Let's see: unreasonable searches not to take place without warrant issued on probable cause. Did George W. Bush have probable cause to listen in on all these people (keep in mind, if the majority of these people were terrorists, we'd have a problem on our hands)? Nope, he didn't even have a warrant, let alone supported by an oath or affirmation. What he had was a switchboard that showed all the overseas phone calls people were making, a record button, and a pair of headphones.

The law is with Sen. Feingold on this one.