No Wonder Dubya Doesn't Read the Newspaper

We've all heard the [p]Resident's comments that he doesn't tend to read newspapers. It's becoming very obvious why -- They write down what he says and then expose it when he does the opposite. Regarding the question of the legality of NSA domestic wiretaps, James Ridgeway reports in The Village Voice,

...the New York Times revealed Sunday that when Bush couldn't get top level clearance for the wiretaps from deputy attorney general James Comey, two aides -- Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzalez, then White House counsel and now attorney general -- went to George Washington University Hospital here, in a circuitous effort to get Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was recovering from gallbladder surgery, to sign off on it

Moreover, the AP reports that Bush, in Buffalo in 2004, was asked about a remark he made at an appearance in support of the Patriot Act, the president said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap," Bush said, "a wiretap requires a court order." He added, according to the AP: "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Hmm. I guess if I had the propensity to twist words on a whim, I wouldn't read newspapers either.

A Very Quiet About-Face

One of Dubya's most oft used phrases is "Stay the Course". Anytime someone suggests bringing the troops home or ending offensive engagements, Mr. Bush sternly scolds, "Stay the course. Stay the course." Now, according to the Guardian Unlimited, our Commander-in-Thief has decided NOT to stay the course in one specific area -- Rebuilding Iraq.

The Bush administration has scaled back its ambitions to rebuild Iraq from the devastation wrought by war and dictatorship and does not intend to seek new funds for reconstruction, it emerged yesterday.

In a decision that will be seen as a retreat from a promise by President George Bush to give Iraq the best infrastructure in the region, administration officials say they will not seek reconstruction funds when the budget request is presented to Congress next month, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

So folks, there we have it. The country that we have willfully blown up and continue to blow up will soon have to rebuild itself. It is now painfully obvious that, what Bush stated in February 2003 in a speech at the Washington D.C. Hilton, is not the same as "Stay the course."

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war.

Obviously "sustained" means something different to this man. For most people, sustained means "ongoing, maintain or prolong" (e.g., the Marshall Plan) -- Staying the course. But for Bush, these words only apply to aggression.

I was vocally against this "war" even before it began and I remain appalled at our nation's continued use of unmitigated military force on the small nation of Iraq. We have a MORAL and ETHICAL responsibility to clean up and rebuild the destruction we've wrought. To do otherwise is beyond shameful!!

What a Pompous Ass!

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker is hard to categorize. There are times I feel she is dead on target and other times I think she borders on lunacy. Her current diatribe on the blogosphere falls into the latter category. In her most recent column, she unwittingly admits to having a class bias.

In her essay, "For civilization's sake, let's ignore the worst of blogs", she makes a few salient points like don't believe everything written on a blog.

Of course, that is plain commonsense. No one should accept anything carte blanche, whatever the source. While this is very true for blogs, it's just as true for the mainstream media.

But one part of her column exposes her as a classist (fill in the word you prefer most here).

I mean no disrespect to the many brilliant people out there --— professors, lawyers, doctors, philosophers, scientists and journalists who also happen to blog. Again, they know who they are. But we should beware and resist the rest of the ego-gratifying rabble who contribute only snark, sass and destruction.

First, she seems to be saying that only professional people should blog. If you have an advanced degree in a scholarly field, then blog away. However, if you only possess a B.A., high school diploma or less, then, by her strict criteria, you have no business expressing yourself in public.

How incredibly pompous can you get? Intelligence is not merely measured by the amount of college degrees a person possesses. I know of many people, with rudimentary formal education, who are great social commentators and offer keen insights on the world around us.

I'm not expressing this opinion as a defense mechanism. If I didn't hold a college degree, some might say that I feel attacked and must defend my honor. Quite the contrary. I've earned two bachelors and a masters degree. Yet, I understand that possessing these 3 pieces of paper doesn't necessarily make me any smarter than the next person.

The other obvious problem with Parker's formulation is that, just because a person is a "scholar", this certainly doesn't mean that they aren't consumed with ego-gratifying purposes. How we each comport ourselves is part and parcel of our unique personalities; it has nothing to do with our level of educational and educational achievements.

Psychologist Weighs In on Bush’s Pathology

I recently ran across an eye-opening interview in the Cascadian Journal of Forensic Science & Pathology. In this article, world-renowned forensic psychologist Dr. Herbert Cary explains his findings regarding a study of the pathology of President Bush. Below is an excerpt from the interview. (Note: I have yet to find a copy of the article on line.)

Interviewer: Dr. Cary, you’ve spent the past 5 years studying the behaviors of President George W. Bush. What conclusions have you reached?

Cary: The president exhibits an intersection of pathologies, a mix of several definitive classifications. However, since the president has steadfastly refused to sit down to talk with me, I am unable to say, with any degree of certainty, the root causes of these pathologies.

Interviewer: If you haven’t spoken with the president, how can you sit here today and discuss his alleged pathologies at all?

Cary: As a public figure, much of the president’s behavior has been captured both in the print media and on film. In addition, I have been able to interview many members of his family and several of his closest friends and associates. While, in a clinical sense, this falls short of the threshold needed to make a precise diagnosis, I believe I have gathered enough information to offer a general understanding of what drives the man.

Interviewer: In last month’s edition of this Journal, you wrote that the president has a pathology that is congruent with that of a serial killer. Would you explain?

Cary: The classic definition of a serial killer is someone who, on multiple occasions, is responsible for the murder of people previously unknown to the killer.

Interviewer: I must interrupt for a moment. As far as I know, George W. Bush has killed no one. How can you begin to lump him in with serial killers like Ted Bundy and the Zodiac killer?

Cary: While it is true that Mr. Bush may have killed no one by his own hand, he is personally responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Afghans & Iraqis, not to mention U.S. servicemen. And like several other serial killers I’ve studied over the past thirty years, his drive to have these people killed is classified as mission-oriented. He believes the killings are justified because their deaths will benefit society.

Interviewer: You said that Mr. Bush has an “intersection of pathologies”. What do you mean by that?

Cary: Most people responsible for the murder of five or more individuals are classified in one of three ways: serial killer, mass murderer or spree killer. In general, these are distinct classifications that define the motives and methods of the responsible individual. While there have been times that a killer might fall under two of these classifications, Mr. Bush is the first individual who meets some of the criteria of all three.

Interviewer: How so?

Cary: The sheer number of murdered victims lends itself well to defining the acts as mass murder. And, like a spree killer, the murders have occurred in different places and at different times. The very fact that, it could be argued, Mr. Bush meets some or all of the definitions of these three classification has motivated me to determine that we should now add a fourth classification to the list.

I have named this fourth classification dubyaholism. We can then refer to Bush as a dubyaholic.

Interviewer: What are the distinguishing characteristics of a dubyaholic?

Cary: A dubyaholic believes that God has ordered him/her to hasten the arrival of Armageddon by committing ritualistic murders across the globe. Because the individual believes he/she is receiving instructions from a higher authority, the person should not be constrained by earthly things like ethics, treaties, conventions, laws and constitutions.

This person will not actually perform any of the murders her/himself, but will possess the power to order others to do it. They will portray these acts of murder as being a mechanism to protect national security and national honor. And, anyone who disagrees with them will be labeled either as unpatriotic or an enemy sympathizer.

Interviewer: An individual such as that would be classified as insane, wouldn’t they?

Cary: Most definitely.

German Media -- Iran Next in Line

United Press International has reported that several articles in the German media are indicating the Bush Administration "is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year." This comes on the heels of similar reports by the Turkish media.

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted "NATO intelligence sources" who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This "all options are open" line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.

But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."

The American public (that's you and me) have got to rise up before this war-hungry lunatic and his merry men start World War III. If Dubya has his way, he might actually usher in Armageddon -- which might be his ultimate plan anyway.

A Most Silly Holiday

Time is a human construct. It's a tool we use to help differentiate between various sequences, cycles and segments of reality. Were there no clocks nor calendars, the universe would keep right on ticking, not missing a beat.

For this reason alone, I have never been a fan of New Year's Eve. It celebrates nothing specific. It doesn't come at the end/beginning of a season. It has nary a thing to do with moon phases. There is nothing significant about the transition from December 31 to January 1. It's just an arbitrary dot on the map of human-created time.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who gather in Times Square (or wherever), waiting anxiously for the ball to drop or the clock to count down. When it does, they whoop, yell, cry, kiss, hug, set off fireworks and, a good many people, use it as an excuse to get drunk. And for what? One day becomes the next day.

Whoopie.

Putting Words in Your [Virtual] Mouth

One aspect of the internet that a lot of people never think about is that it creates a virtual paper trail of our thoughts, ideas and opinions. Every time a person posts an entry in a blog, makes a comment on a blog or website, or even sends an email, our words are captured and stored away for later referencing, sometimes by not very scrupulous people.

It’s bad enough that we may write something somewhere that we later regret, but, due to the ability by some commenting services (Haloscan comes to mind), the ability now exists for the authors of blog sites to edit the comments left on their blog. In other words, it is now possible for ethically-challenged people to have the ability to put “words in your mouth” that will be recorded for perpetuity.

Let’s say you visit a blog and, through the comments section, you get into a fiery political debate. If the blog host is an unscrupulous person and they use Haloscan (I’m sure there are many other such services as well), they could easily discredit you by editing a comment to read, “I love Hitler. He handled the Jews just right” and they could block YOU from making any changes.

Of course, this comment will be picked up by weblogs.com, technorati and lots of other services too. Regardless of the fact you never wrote these words, they will forever be attached to your name. You may receive angry emails denouncing “your” statement. Who knows? You might lose your current job or not be selected for a future job because someone found “your” statement on the internet.

The worse part of all this is how do you prove that your words were reedited without your consent? It’s like trying to prove a voting tally is incorrect where there is no paper trail. You can post all manner of statements all over the net disavowing the statement, but the statement itself will still be there.

I have no problem whatsoever with blog hosts having the ability to delete comments they feel are inappropriate. However, I have a serious problem with blog hosts who have the ability to “put words in my mouth”.

You can rest assured your words are safe on The Rambling Taoist. I have consciously chosen not to use Blogspot’s “Moderate Comments” feature and I almost never delete anyone’s comments either.

You alone are responsible for your own words here.

Whew! I'm Out of the Dog's House

Most people base opinions on some manner of a factual basis. While it's certainly true that we all are guilty of picking and choosing which facts we choose to utilize, it's still typical that SOME manner of fact is involved. This cannot be said for the blog, Where's Your Brain?.

As I've discussed here before, facts seem to irritate that blog's author to know end. Not only does it irritate her, but she has a penchant for removing fact-based comments from her posts.

Yesterday she slipped up somewhat by allowing me to post a comment. (She forgot that I had moved from Oregon to Washington and this meant she needed to change the IP address to be blocked.) In her entry of December 22, "A Merry Christmas -- Spy vs Spy", one paragraph states,

I have to admit I do a little of my own spying - like checking if people leaving hate comments on my blog are really that same person as someone else. I haven't had hate comments for many months - not since I exposed this jerk from Portland. He was coming in with the exact same IP address as others (with similar hate styles) yet claimed it wasn't him. So I banned his IP and BINGO - suddenly about 3 identities no longer posted.

Here was my response

You wrote: "I have to admit I do a little of my own spying - like checking if people leaving hate comments on my blog are really that same person as someone else. I haven't had hate comments for many months - not since I exposed this jerk from Portland. He was coming in with the exact same IP address as others (with similar hate styles) yet claimed it wasn't him. So I banned his IP and BINGO - suddenly about 3 identities no longer posted."

So, how many of us "jerks" have you banned? I know that I'm on your doggie "no no" list. However, since the person you refer to in this entry hails from Portland and until last month I hailed from SALEM, it's obvious you're talking about someone other than yours truly.

BTW, there is, of course, one OTHER explanation why 3 so-called identities quit posting. Since you have elected to screen comments left here, you could have just as easily deleted particular comments from different people so it would APPEAR that it all originated from the same source. Sort of like the Bush cabal.

Next came her rebuttal (which she edited and then reposted after my subsequent response to try to weasel out of an obvious lie):

Just you Trey. Portland? Well that's where you told everone on your site or comments or somewhere in that region - until you moved. Just another lie from Trey I guess.

No - the IP addresses matched exactly of all your identities. You posted your slams early in the am sometimes and the system log file showed when you entered and left - and you were the only one that left the comments.

This whining liberal scum tried to hard to slam me he even started a blog with a similiar name as mine - now closed because no one except 1 or 2 of his no-brain socialist wimps visited it.

You continue to lie - a common trait of socialist liberals - you just prove every point I ever post. Ah.. now to put your new IP on the ban list...

I then posted a follow up comment which explained that I have never lived in Portland nor have I ever claimed to live in Portland. Even further, whether or not I had made this claim was wholly immaterial because my IP header, which she "claims" was the basis for the block, would have indicated what city I was actually in.

Then I challenged any interested party to perform a Google Search using the search terms of "Trey Smith Oregon" to see if they could find any indications whatsoever that a) I had ever claimed to live in Portland or b) I had ever lived in Portland.

Since both JustaDog and I KNOW that such a search would have yielded no such information, she did the only thing a person not interested in factual information could do. She deleted the comment and banned my current IP address from future comments.

Consequently, we now know that the campaign of lies and distortions, in this particular instance, is not originating from the "socialist liberal", but from the "patriotic" conservative.

George Bush must be proud!

Little Security, Lots of Abuse

Over at the Uncommon Thought Journal, there is a superb essay on the spate of constitutional abuses perpetrated by the Bush Administration. Far from being an isolated incident here and there, the article aptly illustrates that the cabal has forged an eerie pattern, one that should alarm liberals and conservatives alike.

Below are some brief snippets. I strongly urge you to go to "U.S. Constitutional Abuses" to read the entire article. It offers keen insights and great analysis.

There are three critical "intelligence" events that have occurred undermining civil liberties and Constitutional protections: Bush's authorization of warrantless wire taps on U.S. citizens, the FBI's use of National Security Letters to avoid warrants, and the Pentagon collecting data on U.S. citizens and "dissident" groups. While these are three different agencies, the intent is clear and should be stated boldly. We are defined as enemies of the state...

All of these various activities are at the instigation of the Bush Administration. Everything is lumped under "national security" and the "war on terrorism." They show not respect for U.S. laws or the Constitution, and no respect for international laws and agreements. From a policy of preemptive war, to the use of nuclear weapons, to the Geneva Convention, to international bans on torture, the Bush cabal feels that they need to operate with total "freedom" and secrecy to "protect us." Well, I am not feeling "protected," I am feeling abused...

Some may be willing to trade freedom, and the protections from the abuses of government, for "safety." However, it is clear from every report, that such activities are not making us safer. The Bush "Plan America" is leaving us looking much more like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, than the "land of the free, home of the brave" United States. The oft repeated refrain from the White House in legitimating the ongoing war in Iraq is: "We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here." But what is now clear, is that "we" - the citizens of the United States - are "them" - potential terrorists.

Financial Advice from the Doggie Bag

One of my favorite fanatically conservative blogs is Where's Your Brain?. It's filled with rants against anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the blog's creator. Reading that blog generally leads any cogent person to ask, Where's Your Heart?

But, over the past 2 days, the annonymous author (who only identifies herself as JustaDog) has shown she does have a heart, albiet an extremely small one. She has chosen to offer her sage financial advice to help those buried under credit card debt.

Here's her formula:

1. Run up a credit card debt (not including a mortgage or car purchase) of about $80,000.
2. Locate a friend who will give you a job that pays $10,000 net per month.
3. Work at the job for 6 months and use your $60,000 in net wages to reduce your credit card debt by 75%.
4. Quit the job and use money from somewhere else (?) to pay off the balance.

Gosh! It sounds so darn easy. Before we know it, Justadog will be running fabulous infomercials on late night TV.

What Justadog has unwittingly admitted to is the formula that has made many a transnational corporation rich -- a subsidy. While she had the financial freedom to throw her wages into her egregious debt, SOMEBODY else was paying for all the necessities of life. Yes, either a spouse, partner, parent, child or rich pal was covering her rent/mortgage, utilities, food, insurance, clothing, travel (she's said on her blog that she loves to travel) and medical expenses.

Unfortunately, most consumers don't have this kind of luxury. Most consumers in debt must not only pay off said debt BUT also concurrently pay for the necessities of life. This is why it's difficult for people in the working and middle classes -- obviously Justadog is in neither of these classes -- to dig out from under debt.

This situation offers a quintessential example of how a rich person fails to understand the obvious head start they enjoy over the average person. Those who lick the silver spoon fail to comprehend what it's like for those without eating untensils. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, it's hard to pull one's self up by the bootstraps if said person has no boots.

Nothing Says "Merry Christmas" Like Spam

What with many of my cohorts off spending time with their families and many of the news services and/or email lists I subscribe to taking a needed break, I sort of thought the volume of mail hitting my in box would lessen greatly during the holiday season. WRONG! It seems the spammers of the world don't take vacations.

Over the past week, the overall volume of mail has only lessened slightly, but the percentage of spam has increased greatly. I shouldn't be surprised. According to The Register,

MX Logic, an antispam vendor, now estimates that 75 per cent of all email is spam, while in same article Postini Inc. jacks that number up to 88 per cent of all email. Think about that: only about 1 in 10 emails is legitimate.

Oh, wonderful.

Oops! Sorry 'Bout That

As a continuation from my previous entry, I'm going to offer but a few examples of human-caused unintentional consequences. Often, these consequences come about innocently...at least at the outset.

The European Rabbit is not native to the Australian continent. According to Wikipedia,

Rabbits were originally introduced to Australia by the First Fleet in 1788, but the current major infestation appears to be the result of 24 wild rabbits released by Thomas Austin on his property "Barwon Downs" (near Winchelsea, Victoria) in 1859 for hunting purposes. Many other farms released their rabbits into the wild after Austin.

Here we have a classic example of unintended consequences. A landowner decides he'd like to hunt rabbit. So, without giving any regard to the effects on the ecosystem, he sets in a motion a chain of events still ravaging Australia today.

Within ten years of the 1859 introduction, the original 24 rabbits had multiplied so much that 2 million a year could be shot or trapped without having any noticeable effect on the population size. Rabbits reached the New South Wales border in 1870. The Premier of New South Wales, Sir Henry Parkes offered a £25,000 reward to anyone who could come up with a solution to the rabbit infestation.

The effect on the ecology of Australia was devastating. One eighth of all mammalian species in Australia are now extinct (rabbits are the most significant known factor), and the loss of plant species is unknown even at this time.

English ivy makes for lovely ground cover. It's a very popular plant amongst gardeners in North America. Unfortunately, english ivy is not native to this continent. The United States National Arboretum cautions

In the Pacific Northwest, English ivy invades the forest floors. Its evergreen leaves smother other native forest plants by denying them light.

Like english ivy, asian carp is another invasive species that has caused great harm in the U.S. Some of the carp were released into U.S. waters by our own government and others escaped from aquaculture facilities.

All four of the Asian carps that are established in the United States spread quickly after introduction, became very abundant, and hurt native fishes either by damaging habitats or by consuming vast amounts of food. Common and grass carps destroy habitat and reduce water quality for native fishes by uprooting or consuming aquatic vegetation.

Bighead and silver carps are large filter-feeders that compete with larval fishes, paddlefish, bigmouth buffalo, and freshwater mollusks (clams). In addition, boaters have been injured by silver carp because they commonly jump out of the water and into or over boats in response to outboard motors. Black carp, which consume almost exclusively mussels and snails, may further threaten our already imperiled native freshwater mussels should they become established.

Dioxin is one of the world's most toxic family of chemicals. As explained by ActionPA,

Dioxin is a general term that describes a group of hundreds of chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment. The most toxic compound is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD. The toxicity of other dioxins and chemicals like PCBs that act like dioxin are measured in relation to TCDD. Dioxin is formed as an unintentional by-product of many industrial processes involving chlorine such as waste incineration, chemical and pesticide manufacturing and pulp and paper bleaching. Dioxin was the primary toxic component of Agent Orange, was found at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY and was the basis for evacuations at Times Beach, MO and Seveso, Italy.

Dioxin is formed by burning chlorine-based chemical compounds with hydrocarbons. The major source of dioxin in the environment comes from waste-burning incinerators of various sorts and also from backyard burn-barrels. Dioxin pollution is also affiliated with paper mills which use chlorine bleaching in their process and with the production of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) plastics and with the production of certain chlorinated chemicals (like many pesticides).

As indicated above, no one set out to create dioxin. As scientists and inventors set out to develop new materials and processes to further the lot of society, they created material and processes that begat not only increased production but increased hazards. By the time the hazards were uncovered, the economics of the new materials and processes had become entrenched and now, despite the fact the hazards have been clearly identified, it is very difficult to convince the economic powerbrokers to move away from the very things producing the identified hazards.

To satisfy the thirst of millions of residents plus meet the needs of the agricultural sector, the Oglalla Aquifer is being drawn down at non-sustainable rates. As reported last year by the Environmental News Service

There are some areas on the High Plains where water is being withdrawn from the Oglala aquifer at rates greater than the aquifer is being replenished. In these areas, the aquifer will not be able to sustain withdrawals at current rates in future decades, new research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has determined.

Underlying portions of eight states, including Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas, the massive High Plains aquifer, also called the Oglala aquifer, spans 173,000 square miles and provides irrigation and drinking water for one of the major agricultural regions in the world.

But USGS scientists have found a six percent decrease in the volume of water stored in the aquifer from the time groundwater pumping began in the 1940s to the year 2000.

Even Small Pebbles Can Yield Big Ripples

From the perspective of many Taoists, one of the worst legacies of the Christian belief system is the idea of humankind's separation from nature. When the Old Testament urged the “chosen people” to hold dominion over the earth, this directive initiated human actions set toward raping and pillaging the planet. Even today, as scientists sound the clarion call, corporate giants continue to pollute and destroy the womb of creation and sustenance like there's no tomorrow -- One day we will find that this is a self-fulfilling prophesy!

It is the Christian concept of dualism (i.e., being separated from anyone or anything else) that has led us down this road toward ecological and, hence, societal catastrophe. Dualism has spawned the hegemonic truth of individual and/or national isolationism. It's as if far too many Christians do not understand the simple lesson Lao Tzu learned eons ago – Far from being separate, everything that makes up our universe inextricably is connected.

Once we genuinely recognize this connection, then we come intuitively to understand that every action causes a ripple effect that is felt in some degree throughout the cosmos.

This is not true because I believe it. It is also not true because some ancient Taoist sage wrote it down. No, it’s true because we can see this truth at work every day in nature and, incidentally, in the conduct of human interaction.

The natural world is always changing and reacting as a result of everything that goes on. If one locale receives more rain than usual for an extended period of time, it sets in motion a chain of occurrences.

Certain species flourish, while others suffer mightily and some may face extinction. Some species may migrate to a different locale altogether. Rivers carve out new channels. The overall climate may become altered. All these changes and far more occur as a reaction to the excess amount of precipitation.

In this same vein, human beings – who are part of this connected cosmos we call reality – impact the world by the decisions and actions we take. Because none of us has the vision nor wisdom to understand the totality of our reality, every act that we undertake spurs a chain of events we typically refuse to acknowledge. In common parlance, this is referred to as the law of unintended consequences.

While it is certainly true that it would be next to impossible to completely rid our world of these unintended consequences, we could greatly reduce the propensity for such by simply acknowledging the connection between ourselves and everything else. If I acknowledge that my decisions will impact my brethren AND future generations, then I will be more careful and cautious.

In my next entry, I’ll provide some examples of how some well-intentioned, but short-sighted, decisions and/or policies have led to some rather nasty unintended consequences.

Domestic Spying on a Military Mom

According to the mighty shrub and his cabal, we should honor soldiers like the son of Robin Vaughn. These brave souls are fighting to save the world from terrorists! But, while her son should be honored, it doesn't seem as if the Bushites believe that private citizen Robin Vaughn should be honored as well.

According to the Alternative Press Review, the military is monitoring a military support group Vaughn set up on the internet. Not only are they monitoring it, but they have threatened the families of military personnel who post to the site. So much for freedom of speech!

Letter From A Military "Mom": Domestic Spying & Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
Written by: Robin Vaughan

I am sending this letter to you in hope of finding a source to hear my concerns. It is something that has bothered me since the occurrence, and I know it is not something that should have happened, and I worry for my family's safety as I step out to speak about this.

During my son's deployment to Iraq, February 2004-February 2005: I created a small group website on MSN, for families and friends of our soldiers'’ deployed unit. It was a membership only site, and we were a tight group of mostly "Moms", from all over the United States, just trying to make it through each day. The support and help we gave one another is a singular experience of grace, I will never forget.

During the first few months of our site, the Army decided to call every single family on the site, informing them, that the site was not to be used by any of the families. The Department of Defense called families in the middle of the night to notify them to not use the web site. Most of the families were near tears, thinking they were getting "THE" call telling them their child or loved one had been killed or injured.

The information received via the phone call was to inform the families that the base did not condone the site, nor [did] the Army, and that it was not to be used; the gist was, families were not allowed to use the site, or they could get into "trouble". Some members reported their soldier calling from Iraq, telling them to be careful about using the site as the Army was monitoring it.

As Web Mistress of the site, I needed to respond and qualify this information, as well as to educate this commanding officer as to the rights and liberties of a private web site; which I did. I was told I would have to let a commanding officer on the site to monitor the messages; I did allow this, but I also informed the officer that this was a courtesy, as there is no such law, or right of the military to monitor, shut down or exclude our web site.

I believe we received this order, and treatment for a couple of reasons.

Occasionally we would voice our concerns publicly over what our government was failing to do to help our soldiers, or we would share or argue political opinion as well. The second reason may be: the armed services all have a group of their own family type support (FRG); as we were not local to the base our soldiers deployed from, the site was a means to provide that support, as best as we could.

The support group at our base, tried to force the site to be given over to them, which I refused. At this time I was told, I might want to be careful, as the government was monitoring the site as well. Soldiers in our unit, while in Iraq, were telling their parents to stay off of the site, or to be very careful of what they wrote. This came from a rear detachment officer in charge, and members on the site.

I reminded the Army I am a private citizen, not on base, with a private site making no claims to have any affiliation with any branch of service, but clearly stating we were families and friends of our unit in support of one another. We were treated to power by intimidation. It isn't hard to make that work, when you have someone's child in a war zone.

We were a group of 77 families from all over the country, at the time of the call. Every single family was phoned and told not to use the site; and I believe some 150 other families were phoned as well, as it was an official order from a commanding officer.

I have waited to speak of this situation until my son was home safe and sound, and also after his transfer to another base. Yes, I was afraid of repercussions that could have harmed him, one way or another. I called my local senator's office, 4 months ago, following up every 10 days to 2 weeks, and still have no answers or support.

I admit I am not comfortable writing this, as required to, as I am still concerned for my son and the other soldiers and families involved on the site. We didn't endanger them by means of displaying their photos with their names, giving up information about their location and actions. We were very careful to not breach Intel protocol, learning Ops protocol, as well as respecting and complying with it. We simply were at times, vocal about our displeasure with our president and government for how our military was being treated, or how the presidential election was being handled.

There are literally hundreds of military family, private support groups on the Internet. I truly believe we were singled out because of my refusal to hand the site over to the local F.R.G., as well as [my] outspoken political beliefs.

It's simply amazing that my son and others risk their lives for "”Freedom" in Iraq, when his own mother's civil liberties are threatened, and families are intimidated into silence, by the very same Army he is serving. I am hoping after reading this you may direct me as to where I can at least have this concern heard. Basically, are the following common practice, and legal?

**The Armed services can order families from communicating in a private forum?
**The Armed services can threaten private citizensÂ’ first amendment rights?

I want to make sure this is not happening to other service member's families. We live in a hell everyday during the deployment of our loved ones; we don't need the added bullying or stripping away our means of helping one another.

Any idea or direction you can point me in would be greatly appreciated. Also, this problem can be corroborated by other families if need be.

Why did it take so long for me to step forward?

Originally I contacted my Senators office, with no reply for six months, and have also spoken with the A.C.L.U; (with little hope of action due to the length of time that has passed) but until now was not willing to come forward in a public way. It took until September for my son to be safely stationed at another base, and other family's service members to either be out of the service all together, or be transferred as well.

We were afraid for their safety, our own, our relationships with them and their future in the service, all of these things could have been affected, and we couldn'’t chance one more problem or pressure being added to the already heavy load the families and soldiers live with. The intimidation worked. Is this just something silly I should let go?

It doesn't seems trivial to me, but I am learning unless it happens to someone personally, no one seems to care.

Thank you, for your time

Robin Vaughan

Big Brother's New Best Friend

For decades, Republican candidates campaigned on the theme that they were the public's best protector against Democratic efforts to expand government. Often, conservatives would warn that liberals were pursuing policies to expand the role of Big Brother. As Tom DeWeese, of the conservative think-tank The American Policy Center, puts it:

Republican principles advocate limited government intrusion into the lives of the American people. Republican candidates campaign on the ideas of restraining Big Brother. Republicans have been given a majority in the U.S. Congress because the American people want some control over the massive power of the federal government.

So, would someone explain to me why the size of the federal government has mushroomed under the Bush Administration AND Big Brother's reach seems to be getting deeper and deeper?

The only explanation that I can discern is that conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to Big Brother at all. In fact, they love Big Brother provided that government is intruding on American life, not safeguarding the public from corporate might.

Discussion of Impeachment Coming from Different Corners

Many in the conservative blogosphere would have one think that calls for the possible impeachment of the mighty shrub are nothing more than a liberal-lead crusade. However, I've looked around and some of the publications that are now discussing the dreaded "I" word represent varying perspectives on the political spectrum. Here's a sampling*:

From the Macon Daily
For the past five years, many of us have been asking what happened to the sane Republicans, to the conservatives who believe in the rule of law, smaller government, fiscal responsibility?

In their zeal at having finally obtained absolute power--the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and arguably, the Judiciary--many seemed to throw the traditional tenets of American conservatism out the window.

It seems that their love affair with George W. Bush might just be ending.

From Military.com
Our forefathers created a system of government built on checks and balances that they envisioned would protect a free people from abuses of their privacy, their property and their liberty at the hands of anyone, especially anyone in public office.

They never intended for an imperial presidency to rise above the legislative and judicial branches of government, for they had their fill of kings and emperors who ruled with absolute power in the Old World. They knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

They wanted none of this, and wrote a Constitution and Bill of Rights to enshrine the protections they knew were needed to keep Americans free and democracy healthy.
They crafted a system of government rooted in the principle that citizens have rights and presidents violate those rights at their own peril.

From the Falls Church (VA) News-Press
The nation is at one of its most precarious junctures ever at this very time.

If it fails to call the president to account for his admission of a widespread disregard for the rule of law, involving in principle and fact the most invasive violation of the public’s civil liberties possible by any government, then a critical moment will have passed. A precedent will be set that will forevermore forfeit the public’s right to privacy, to live free of Big Brother.

If Congress and the American people are so weak kneed in this case that they will not bring this outlaw president to justice by impeachment, it will have failed to protect the most basic of the nation’s freedoms, and no one of us will ever again be confident that we’re not being spied upon, and subject to the whims of whomever may be looking or listening in.

In other words, there is no choice but to impeach President Bush.

From the Denver Post
Who needs the Patriot Act? Not President Run Amok.

The president has now admitted to secretly authorizing what amounts to an end-run around the law that is meant, specifically and determinedly, to keep intelligence agencies from snooping on Americans at home.

In asking the super-secret National Security Agency to monitor - without any court oversight whatsoever - the international phone calls and e-mails of hundreds of Americans, President Bush has gone far beyond what even the Patriot Act allows. So why make a fuss over the Senate's refusal to extend it? Even if lawmakers passed it, Bush would ignore it.

From Barron's Magazine
Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.

Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

*Please note that the three newspapers quoted are in RED states. Neither Barron's nor Military.com could be accused of being members of the liberal media.

Parrish on the Ultimate Act of Courage

Geov Parrish wrote an excellent article, "Heroism With a Difference", in last week's Seattle Weekly. He discusses the plight of the four members of the Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT) who were taken hostage in late November.

Here's an excerpt:

"America's right-wing echo chamber has been having a field day with the CPT kidnappings -- —sneering, implicitly or directly, that the peace activists had it coming and were, at best, foolhardy idiots for wandering into a situation where they had no business to be. But they had every business being there. In the blizzard of kidnappings and both criminal and war-related violence plaguing Iraq, the lives of four Westerners are of no great consequence; but even with the massive scale of Iraq's violence, people die one at a time, and lives are saved that way, too. In the three years it has been in Iraq, CPT has saved countless lives through its work.

For citizens of a country like Canada, Britain, or the U.S. to renounce their comfortable lives and willingly walk unarmed into such a setting, fully knowing that by their very citizenship they are prime targets for deadly violence, takes more courage than is ever demonstrated by most soldiers, who usually are cocooned on their bases, surrounded by all the weaponry and protection in the world. Such a commitment takes not recklessness or foolhardiness but a deep and abiding belief in the sanctity of all life and a willingness to work to save the lives of others, even as one's own life is endangered.

These are exactly the traits that we celebrate soldiers for -- the willingness to risk everything for a higher ideal and, ultimately, peace. It's a sad commentary on our martial society that when people take such risks but kill (and kill innocents) for the sake of peace, they're considered heroes. When a few lonely, brave souls work toward the same objectives without the use of force, they are widely ignored, derided, and considered fools."

While I certainly agree that a soldier can perform heroic acts, such acts take on a greater significance when performed by someone who willfully chooses to disdain violence.

The natural human response to pain and threat -- as witnessed in children on any playground -- is to respond in kind. Somebody calls you a name and so you call them two names in return. Somebody pushes you in the back and you retaliate by pushing AND punching them twice as hard.

Pacifists choose, through intestinal fortitude, to not return a tit for a tat. To live in such a manner requires great insight, strength AND courage. As noted in my previous entry, this is the way Jesus, Gandhi, King and many others chose to live their lives.

Such people should be saluted, not denigrated. They represent the conscience of humanity.

Peace on Earth...Today

Two of the enduring themes throughout the traditional Christmas season are 1) Peace on Earth and 2) Goodwill toward all. It'’s truly unfortunate that, as we look around the world today, human society seems to be in short supply of both. To be certain, neither aim is completely missing, but, owing to an overall analysis, we all are falling miserably short of the desired targets.

The most surprising aspect of our failure is that success is within our own power. It's not that we CAN'T live peaceably and respectfully, but that we choose not to. We, as individuals and as nations, have chosen to wage war and to treat others in negative and destructive ways.

For example, today each of us could decide that there will be no war, now or in the future. If called upon to fight by our political leaders, we can simply refuse. Really, if a bunch of leaders throughout the world decided to have a war and no one signed up to fight it, the war would never take place.

I know that many people will argue that there are bad people in the world (i.e., criminals, sexual predators, terrorists) and that to refuse to wage war would then open up the planet to domination by such people.

My response is that there'’s a chasm of difference between aggressively waging war and defending one's family or country against the aggression of others. Malcolm X made this point as does Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching. It'’s one thing to defend one'’s self to defuse an attack (redirecting the force of the attacker to neutralize him) and quite another to escalate the violence into an ongoing conflict.

So, one could accurately support genuine defense as a method for dealing with physical aggression. In time, as more and more aggressors found that their own violent power was turned back onto itself, aggression itself would die away and we would be that much closer to the ideal of peace on earth.

Of course, there is a second method for dealing with aggression, one chosen by Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. When each was attacked by the people of their day, each chose to turn the other cheek. Each chose an act of ultimate bravery --– looking injury and death square in the face and consciously choosing not to strike back.

These three figures (and countless others) intuitively understood that aggression cannot defeat a peaceful spirit. A person's freedom can be withheld. Their name can be vilified. They can be mocked and spit upon. Their bodies can be desecrated and destroyed. But none of these things is stronger than the spirit of love, goodwill and peace.

Today we each have a choice to make. It'’s a personal choice wholly independent of anyone or anything else. We can decide that we will be brokers of peace. Yes, we can each decide that in OUR individual worlds there WILL be peace on earth and goodwill toward all.

Kringle, Jesus Announce Cancellation of Christmas '05

North Pole (UPI) -- In an extraordinary move today, Kris Kringle and Jesus of Nazareth held a joint news conference in which they announced the cancellation of this year's "holiday" season. Both expressed a bit of sadness, but they felt humanity had left them no other choice.

"This is SUPPOSED to be the season of goodwill and peace," the Jewish carpenter remarked, "but, it's hard to see much of that going around with all the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq." He added that recent efforts by the U.S. Congress to reduce benefits to the poor and the passage of several state initiatives to ban gay marriage certainly violated the substance of goodwill.

For his part, the jolly elf said he'd taken a cue from current US President George Bush. "A lot of the children throughout the world have been extra good this year," noted Kringle, "but, their leaders have not." Since Mr. Bush has instituted the "you're either with us or against us" policy, Kringle said he felt that he had to judge society based on overall policies, not individual merit.

Both of these important leaders said they hoped things would turn around in 2006, but neither was willing to hold his breath. "The way the world is going," Jesus lamented, "we may end up scrapping the Christmas season altogether."

Asked what each planned to do this week instead of the usual, both were at a loss for words. Jesus said he'd probably go home and spend some time with his dog. Kringle and his wife plan to go to Antarctica for a little R & R.

Political Labels: An Exercise in Subjectivity

Over at the Abercrombie View, the blog's host is trying to generate a discussion on what people believe are the differences between conservatives and liberals. Mr. Abercrombie, a staunch conservative Christian, draws the following distinction:

"I believe that a lot of people misunderstand the labels of “liberal” or “conservative.”...My understanding of a conservative is one who is cautious about change. Not that he or she is opposed to change, but cautious. Perhaps the old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” could be the motto of a conservative...Conversely, my view of a liberal is one who is not cautious about change. That person may want to change things just to be changing things. In many ways change is good, but to just want to change to be changing can, in my estimation, be dangerous." (Go here to read the entirety of his essay.)

Well, I can certainly tell you that I don't agree with his definitions at all. Here is a portion of my response to him in the comments section.

"My defintions are as follows: Conservatives seem to favor laws and policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many and the planet. In the conservative world view, everything boils down to the profit motive. If a particular law or policy maximizes short-term profits (even at the expense of long-term profits), conservatives favor it.

To the right of conservatives are the fundamentalists. They favor everything the conservatives do BUT they try to couch all laws and policies into religious terms. If any person doesn't happen to believe precisely as they do, then such people become person non grata.

Liberals accept the same base system that the conservatives do, but want to have the edges smoothed a bit. They support a broader picture which takes both short and long-term profits into account, plus they favor some remedial efforts to be made for the poor and the planet. Liberals tend to not back wholesale changes because many secretly hope they will one day join the top 10% and they will then profit from conservative efforts.

To the left of the liberals (my vantage point) are the humanists, Greens, Socialists and anarchists. We think the whole system stinks and should be thrown out. Most folks in this category do not favor a system that creates inequalities and destruction of our environment as a matter of course. In general, we favor community rights over individual rights, long-term stewardship over short-term profits, and the genuine respect for diversity over laws and policies that breed bigotry and mistrust."

Quite a bit of difference, don't you think?

How do YOU define the terms conservative and liberal? Please visit the Ambercrombie View and make your perspective known.