Not Going To Happen

Last week Paul Krugman wrote about how our new president needs to hold the former Bush administration accountable for their various illegal activities. On Monday night, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC sang a similar tune. In fact, many pundits have called on President Obama to be the voice of the American people by sending a message that this kind of crap will not be tolerated.

Folks, get a grip. It's not going to happen. Already, our new president is talking about "looking forward". And who can blame him?

While the mainstream media has made it appear that the Bushies were constitutional renegades and that the Congress was in the dark much of the time, information has slowly leaked out that the room wasn't as dark as it seemed. Many key congressional leaders -- on both sides of the aisle -- knew about a lot of this muck LONG before we did and did nothing to stop it.

That is precisely why nothing is going to happen. If Congress were to haul Bush, Cheney and their compartriots before various committees, it would expose many of the very same people conducting the so-called "investigation". So, a lot of our Congressional leaders will talk tough, but in the end, it will be just that -- talk.

It will be left to the historians to judge if Bush et. al. were criminals or not.

What Would It Take?

On Thursday, several hundred people descended on the Washington State Capitol in Olympia for a rally and testimony before a state senate panel to plead with our elected representatives to pass a resolution calling for an investigation and possible impeachment of [p]Resident George W. Bush. In an article in the Olympian the today, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (Dem) said, "The resolutions are not likely to leave the Senate." Not only is Brown and many of her Democratic colleagues purposely dragging their feet, but Gov. Gregoire, Sen. Murray and Rep. Inslee have openly lobbied the Washington Senate to scuttle the resolution altogether.

Am I surprised? In a word, no.

Despite the predictions made by some in the press and a good many of my Democratic Party-leaning friends, the message that voters declared in the 2006 election -- that they are sick of the War in Iraq and the criminal Bush administration -- doesn't seem to be moving the Democratic Party majority into any type of definitive and positive action. Instead of working to bring US troops home and to hold the Bush administration accountable for their dastard actions, the Dems keep mouthing platitudes about bipartisanship and not desiring to sidetrack work on more important issues.

What could be more important than a US President who refuses to honor his oath of office and has consistently betrayed the U.S. Constitution?

This is the kind of question we need to put to our Congressional delegations. What would it take for each of them to feel impeachment proceedings against any president was warranted? I'm not asking for nebulous answers either. I want to know specifically what types of actions each believes would be so injurious to our nation that taking this drastic step was a foregone necessity.

And I submit that each of us should ask this question again and again until we receive substantive answers.

Hang Over

It should shock no one to learn that Saddam Hussein is dead. While there seems to be a lot of jubilation in various parts of the US, a great many Iraqis greeted the news with a shrug of the shoulders. It doesn't mean a lot to them, except maybe even more gratuitous violence.

As I watched CNN, a lot of the talking heads seemed puzzled as to why the former Iraqi dictator was executed tonight. Several pointed out that the crime he was found guilty of -- the executions of about 140 men and boys as a reprisal against an assassination attempt -- paled in comparison to the slaughter of at least 100,000 Kurds. Why didn't they execute him AFTER he was found guilty of this horrendous crime?

I have a theory: The US (i.e., Dubya, Cheney, et. al.) didn't want THAT trial to go forward because it might have proven embarrassing to the US administration. As I hope many of you will recall, the US government was aware of the Kurdish slaughter and voiced little outrage at the time. In fact, this slaughter took place during that period when Saddam was looked on as a friend of US interests (he was at war with the "hated" Iran). I have even read some reports that the US had some complicity in this act of atrocity.

You can be certain that the Hussein defense team would have dredged up these facts and you can be just as certain that Team Bush wanted to avoid this kind of spectacle at all costs.

So, they decided to "kill two birds" at once. Hussein is dead and now the case of the Kurdish massacre most likely is too.

Sex, Lies & Videotapes

When Bill Clinton twisted in the wind trying to mangle the English language and the definition of the words "is" and "sex", the ardent Right jumped on him like there was no tomorrow. Though Clinton ensnared himself in a web of half-truths and outright lies concerning his interaction's with a specific intern, he seem incapable of facing the truth.

So one would think the ardent Right would be pouncing with claws extended over the latest escapades of Misters Bush & Cheney. As I'm sure you're well aware, videotapes have surfaced recently which clearly show that the mighty Shrub was fully informed of the possible breach of levees in New Orleans PRIOR to Hurricane Katrina's landfall. These tapes easily contradict his statement, made 4 days AFTER landfall, that no one in his administration had any inkling that said levees might be in trouble.

Not wishing to be outdone, the mad hunter Dick Cheney has steadfastly stated that he played no role whatsoever in the outing of Valerie Plame. However, email correspondence released by the White House show the exact opposite -- that Cheney was involved in this process for nearly one year!

Yet, while Clinton was verbally flogged by the ardent Right, they seem more than willing to look the other way when it comes to Bush & Cheney.

As the Church Lady would say, How c-o-n-v-e-n-i-e-n-t!

Humanity's Inconsistent Nature

It amazes me how inconsistent we humans are. We argue vociferously for a stated point of view. If the names or particulars are altered ever so slightly, then we argue the exact opposite point of view. If someones dares to note our arguments are inconsistent, we fail to see it or staunchly argue that no inconsistency exists at all!

It doesn't matter which political, religious or philosophical perspective we hail from. We're all guilty of it!! I've watched many of my progressive brethren argue regarding the rights of free speech and assembly when some entity tries to deny us said rights. YET, many of these same people will argue against these same rights when applied to Neo-Nazis and other racist hate groups.

I've been involved with left wing political groups who decry the practice of gerrymandering congressional districts to skew the vote toward one of the two mainstream parties or the other. YET, I've watched in dismay as these same groups use sleight-of-hand tactics in the seating of delegates at our own political conventions in order to skew the vote one way or the other.

Over the past few weeks, we've witnessed two examples of the inconsistent nature of the human perspective. The first involves the Danish cartoons insulting the prophet of Islam and the second concerns the Cheney shooting.

While most people DO agree that the cartoons, in question, are divisive and insulting, many conservatives defend their publication under the guise of freedom of speech. YET, if an Arab- based publication featured a cartoon of Jesus masturbating or suggested Jesus was gay, these very same people would chuck the "free speech" argument out the nearest window and would assail said cartoons as a frontal attack on Christianity and all things Western.

Many bloggers and pundits who are strong supporters of the Bush administration are up in arms regarding the criticism by the media, "liberals" and many members of the public over the Cheney hunting accident.

I've read many an opinion that a) the accident was a private matter and it's really nobody's business but the principles involved and b) that Cheney had no responsibility for reporting the matter to the media.

YET, a majority of these very same people were part of the feeding frenzy regarding the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. In that particular case, they argued the exact opposite. They screamed that it was NOT a private affair and that the media and public had a right to know all the intimate details.

In the case of then-President Clinton, the affair involved two consenting adults. No one was injured nor required any medical attention. The incident[s] could best be described as a marital indescretion.

If a vice president shooting and injuring a friend is a private matter, then a president cheating on his wife is a private matter too. If some people feel that Cheney had no responsibility to inform the press of his misdeed, then they can't fault Clinton for not publicly admitting he cheated on his wife.

It's all about consistency.

Cheney Shoots Himself in the Foot

Both the mainstream media and the blogosphere are alive with banter regarding Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend this past weekend. Cheney defenders seek to trivialize the whole affair. Cheney detractors are launching missives from all directions.

Whatever your opinion on the situation, Dick Cheney and his staff have proven to be their own worst enemies. By not coming forward immediately with news of the situation, they have opened the Veep to a veil of suspicion. Matters are made worse by the very fact that much of what Mr. Cheney has done in the past few years has been shrouded in secrecy too.

Remove Cheney's name from the whole affair and there would still be an air of suspicion. Anytime someone is not forthcoming with the true facts of any given situation, the natural response is to wonder why someone is not being open about the matter. It immediately seems as if they're trying to hide something.

It's like the child that accidentally breaks mom's favorite vase. If the child immediately reports the incident to mom, there's usually less recrimination other than a stern lecture on being more careful next time. However, if nothing is said and mom later discovers the broken vase herself, then not only is the child in trouble for breaking the antique BUT also for not being straightforward about it.

And this is the same kind of situation Cheney finds himself in today. By not coming forward in a timely manner, he has opened himself up to all sorts of speculation. Was he drunk at the time which would make him criminally negligent? Were there other facts that caused the Veep to hold back on the truth for nearly 24 hours?

We'll probably never know. What we do know is that the whole situation was mostly likely a tragic accident and the media hailstorm Cheney and the nation is enduring is his own damn fault!

Religion & the Concept of Exclusion

We increasingly find ourselves in an "us against them" world. While the Bush cabal uses this concept in an attempt to manipulate the American public to give their blessings on an ever-growing list of nefarious purposes, we would be shamely wrong to lay the burden of this mentaility at their feet. Neither Bush, Cheney nor Rove invented the "us vs them" scenario.

The Islamic fundamentalists who are warring against most things American utilize the very same rhetoric. And, if you look at almost any armed conflict throughout the eons of history, the "us vs them" theme is played out over and over again.

From whence does it come? Is it simply part and parcel of the human condition?

I'm sure there are many theories out there, but, for me, the impetus for this concept is borne of religion. While the Jews/Christians seem to hold a copyright on the term "the Chosen People", almost every religion sees their adherents in the same light (there are some exceptions like the Quakers or Unitarian Universalists). It should go without saying that, if their are CHOSEN people, then there are also UNchosen people.

(From a fundamentalist Christian perspective, this drive toward exclusivity has manifested itself both in the "war on terror" and the attempt to cast down the separation of church and state doctrine.)

In order to join the exclusive clique of true believers, one must purchase the moral cookbook and explicitly follow the recipe. If you decide to add a pinch here when it calls for a dash there, then you're informed that your souffle will fall and you can't even get a stinking refund!!

If, however, you're a good little boy or girl and you follow the recipe to a T, you're given the secret password to allow you into the celestial country club. Because you made it in, it's natural to look down on those who -- because of ignorance, apathy or willfulness -- didn't work as hard as you to follow the instructions.

You and your mates become the chosen people. Anyone not in the fold becomes a leper. By choosing to exclude all others, YOU have created your own enemies. If you look at what's going on in the world today, this explanation goes a long way toward defining the reason for the large amount of animus afoot.

This ongoing problem of willfull exclusion is one of the reasons I patently reject religion. Rather than bringing people together, it is a mechanism used to separate. Instead of being a methodology to create harmony, it is used to bring discord.

There is another way. Taoists (and others who completely eschew labels) view all of creation as being of one fabric. There is no genuine us or them, only we. There are no recipes to follow or, put another way, there are as many recipes as there are beings.

You can believe in Tao or reject it completely. You can try to live your life in harmony with Tao or ignore it. You can try to move close to it or run away from it. You can call it whatever you want.

In the end, none of these things matter. Tao just is and ALL of us are part of it.

We are ALL members of the same circle.

I Beg Your Pardon...

I've got a great idea for a hit country song. The chorus goes something like "I beg your pardon...there's an impostor in the Rose Garden".

You see -- and I know this is going to sound very unpatriotic -- I simply cannot accept the smirking grin that occupies the White House. Every time I see his face or hear his voice, it pushes me into a mad fervor. Knowing this, I avoid his countenance at all costs.

I realize some might say I'm behaving like a sore loser. My guy didn't win and so I'm throwing a tantrum. Well, I've got something to say to those people -- I've NEVER voted for the presidential victor. Not once. In 1980, I voted for John Anderson. In every race since, I've voted for a 3rd party candidate or (one year) I simply refused to vote in the presidential race.

So, this isn't about MY candidate not winning. No, my frustration is that the person occupying the White House didn't win either!

It's been very well documented that W did not win Florida in 2000 -- It was handed to him by Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court. Al Gore carried that state and should have been declared the winner. The ONLY reason the 2004 presidential race appeared as close as it did was because W got to play the role of the incumbent. But, as indicated above, he shouldn't have been the incumbent!

What's more, I don't think he won the electoral college vote in 2004 as well. I realize the "official" Ohio recount indicated that W indeed carried the state, but the official recount left over 100,000 votes still not tallied. Add to this the fact that there are strong charges of voting irregularities -- all conveniently favoring W -- in North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and who knows where else and the christened result is very much in doubt.

From my humble perspective, W has twice been crowned the victor and he didn't earn it either time. In essence, our nation is being lorded over by an imposter -- the man who would be king.

Please don't misunderstand. I believe in America. I believe in our ideals. I AM a bit perplexed with the 59 million of my brethren who it appears voted for W, but I'm willing to cut them some slack. I simply don't believe in the man and his minions who have stolen the reigns of government. It's like I'm a passenger on a hijacked airplane. I don't begrudge the airline; it's the hijackers I'm fearful of.

In the final analysis, though, I guess I AM a little upset with my fellow citizens -- more than I ever realized. It's bad enough to have this imposter as our so-called leader, but it's even worse that more people aren't up in arms. Americans can easily become indignant when they hear of voting irregularities in the Ukraine, but they seem to shrug their shoulders when it happens right under their noses.

If this kind of apathy continues or increases, then we will know that W truly did win. In the end, that's what W, Cheney and Rove REALLY want -- A docile electorate that feels so impotent that they will allow an armed robbery to occur right in front of their eyes and not even possess the gumption to try to stop it or call out for help.

I refuse to play that role. How about you?