AnotherVoice

Waxahachie, Texas, March 29, 2005 -- Believing what I was raised to hold sacred, that every voice counts, I've bombarded my local paper for years with letters and op-eds (and been active in politics). Yet here in the heart of everyone's favorite "red state," where it's especially important that another voice be heard, no one seemed to be listening. This is my megaphone.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Maybe time to rethink . . .

I've just watched the "fall" of the Canadian government after a vote of "no confidence" that apparently rose from charges of corruption. All those mellow legislators gathered in the room for the vote (the Speaker invited everyone to a reception to follow) which was quickly conducted and the outcome clear within about twenty minutes.

Maybe we got it wrong. Imagine if America could conduct such a vote right now! Perhaps our system of locked-in-place four-year presidential terms only makes it inevitable that there will be abuse of power and cronyism.

Talk about checks and balances!

And when the government falls, EVERYone has to run for office again!

Imagine if our leaders and representatives knew that they could be held to account at any time — would they dare act with such hubris as we have seen lately?

And, at the same time, I should think there might be less "shock and awe" — seesawing from right to left — potential with a new administration if there were always the possibility that leaders might find themselves out of power if they got it really, really wrong. Seems to me a formula for stability, in fact.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

The kindness of strangers

I love this story, in yesterday's Washington Post —
Thousands of low-income Massachusetts residents will receive discounted home heating oil this winter under an agreement signed Tuesday with Venezuela, whose government is a political adversary of the Bush administration.
A subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company will supply oil at 40 percent below market prices. It will be distributed by two nonprofit organizations, Citizens Energy Corp. and the Mass Energy Consumer Alliance.
. . .
The agreement gives President Hugo Chavez's government standing as a provider of heating assistance to poor U.S. residents at a time when U.S. oil companies have been reluctant to do so and Congress has failed to expand aid in response to rising oil prices.
. . .
Chavez has become one of Latin America's most vocal critics of U.S.-style capitalism, which he calls a major cause of poverty.
I've had a soft spot for the guy ever since the Bushies supported a coup against him. (They blew THAT, too!)

There's more; check out a great post by Op-Ed News.com:
Following the vast devastation of Hurricane Katrina Chavez responded more quickly than FEMA, offering to send cheap fuel, humanitarian aid and relief workers to the disaster area. He offered to provide $1 million of free petroleum via the state run Petroleos de Venezuela and its subsidiary CITGO for the relief effort.

According to civil rights leader, Jesse Jackson, Chavez also offered two mobile hospital units, 120 rescue and first aid experts, and 50 tons of food; considerably more than “Brownie” was able to produce.

“We have drinking water, food, and we can provide fuel,” Chavez told reporters.
I need to find out if that happened. Great stuff.

Monday, November 21, 2005

More "irresponsible" comment

From the November 15, 2005 New York Times, this editorial, reprinted here in its entirety:

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.

Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.

Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Rewriting the present - UPDATED

The Republican Congressional leadership, so fond of accusing Democrats of “rewriting history,” pulled off a stunning rewrite of current events last week. After John Murtha submitted a resolution calling for a change of policy in Iraq, Duncan Hunter (R-CA) — asserting authority as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee — substituted in his own “interpretation” of Murtha’s work.

The House leadership then forced a vote in the House — I guess the Republicans would characterize it as “an up or down vote on pullout” — on the substitute resolution. Mr. Hunter’s version said, approximately, “It is the sense of the House that American troops be immediately withdrawn.” Period. End of story.

Not so. Here’s what Murtha's resolution actually said:
The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
Murtha later elaborated; here are excerpts from his web site:
The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
. . .
Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. . . .”
. . .
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
. . .
Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Call me irresponsible . . .

Stealing a tactic from Rove, Cheney & Co. we need to say it loud and clear and often:
NO, THE SENATORS DID NOT HAVE THE SAME INTELLIGENCE AS THE ADMINISTRATION! NO, WHAT THEY HAD WAS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION CHOSE TO GIVE THEM, AND THAT WAS NOT ALL THERE WAS!
It is documented by every major news organization and in every responsible newscast, not to mention throughout the internet:
THE SENATORS DID NOT HAVE THE SAME INTELLIGENCE AS THE ADMINISTRATION! NO, WHAT THEY HAD WAS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION CHOSE TO GIVE THEM, AND THAT WAS NOT ALL THERE WAS!
Missing in action: Caveats, doubts, warnings, skepticism and flat-out contradictions. Call them inconvenient . . .

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Unintended Consequences

The riots in Paris, the subway terrorists in London, the train bombings in Spain, the murder of Theo van Gogh in Holland and, this week, the arrest of an Amsterdam man who wished to blow up an El Al airliner — these have one glaring common denominator.

The perpetrators are all immigrants — or their children — in the respective countries, part of an underclass that originated in the desire of the host country to increase its supply of cheap labor. It was never anyone's intention that these immigrant workers should learn the language and assimilate into the host country's culture and way of life, so that didn't happen. Instead, ghettos grew and too many immigrants withdrew into them. And as the jobs left and the immigrants stayed and became even more separated from the greater society, there was anger and ample time for its expression.

Think about it.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

That'll teach 'em!

Thanks to the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal for this great website, and thanks to firstamendmentcenter.org, to which CSICOP steered me, for this wonderful bit of news:

Kansas can't use science groups' materials in education standards
By The Associated Press
10.31.05

TOPEKA, Kan. — Two national groups say the state can’t use their copyrighted material in proposed science standards that critics contend promote creationism.

The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association called the proposed standards misleading and objected to language — sought by intelligent-design advocates — suggesting some evolutionary theory isn’t solid.

“To say that evolution is sort of on the ropes is unfair to the students of Kansas,” said Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the teachers’ association.

. . .

It was not immediately clear whether the 107-page proposed standards use direct language from any of the groups’ copyrighted material. If the revised standards are adopted, state officials would have to review them for copyright violations.

And, from Wikinews:
This is likely to further delay the ratification of the final vote on the Kansas Science Educational Standards as they will have to be rewritten either to not violate any copyright restrictions or modify their account of evolution and outlook on science. According to University of Kansas professor Steve Case, rewriting the standards will be very difficult, as "there is copyrighted material on every page" of the current document.


Torture

You've heard all the reasons why our military — or any other American entity, for that matter — should not engage in torture: It's a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it's a violation of one treaty or another, it's not productive (and may even generate false alarms), "we shouldn't do it because then They can do it to our people," or even, in the case of the present Administration, "we don't include what we are doing in our definition of torture."

Too complicated, too arguable. It should be just this simple: It's not us. It's not who we are. It's not who we want to be. It's not how we want to be known.

But how to get around that hypothetical posited in almost every argument: "What if we are about to be hit with an awful terrorist act and have a guy in our possession who we know can tell us how to stop it?"

Y'know what? I suspect that if such an attack is truly imminent someone, somehow, will do something to elicit the information even if it means being punished, ultimately, for breaking the law. And maybe that person will even be honored instead of punished.

In the meantime, unless and until such dreadful circumstances arise, our government should not be engaging in ANY form of torture — as defined by the world, not by Bush & Co.

That's just not who we are.

Weather prediction?

Most trusted name in news has left CNN . . .

I am really, really disappointed in CNN's decision to let Aaron Brown go -- he is one of the few newscasters in whom I have absolute confidence. And a sane voice in these times of turmoil. Apparently the decision-makers at CNN are expecting quite an upsurge in the need for dramatic hurricane coverage, since they have elevated the charming but WASP-y Anderson Cooper to Brown's slot. Actually, 'tis said all this was done in order to give Wolf Blitzer more exposure.

More exposure?! He's already everywhere, and a little Blitzer goes a very, very long way.

Here's what I wrote CNN:
Wrong decision. I no longer have much reason to watch CNN -- after all, enough Wolf Blitzer is enough, already. Or are you planning to change the name of the network to WBN? "The most trusted name in news" for me included Aaron Brown. I like Cooper, but he is no Aaron Brown. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
I hope they hear from lots of folks and rue the day; better still, I would love to see Brown move to, say, MSNBC and replace, say, Rita . . .

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Justice Alito? Take a deep breath

According to this article in the LA Times, there may be more to Judge Alito than meets the eye — anyone's eye.
The Casey case is Alito's only major opinion in an abortion case during his 15 years as an appellate judge. In two other cases, he joined his colleagues in decisions that struck down state efforts to limit abortion.
Perhaps too early to panic.

Hit Counter
Web Counters