.

Brandon Hein Needs Your Help

2010-07-28T05:06:00.006-04:00

The other day, I wrote an article concerning the rejection by the 9th Circuit Court to hear Brandon Hein's case. As mentioned in the article, this was Brandon's last chance at a rehearing and it appeared that his fate was sealed: 10 more years (at least) in prison. After writing the article, I contacted Brandon's parents, Gene & Janice, to see if there was anything left to be done. I have been following this story for close to a year now and have been in contact with the Hein's sporadically. From what they told me, it is now in the hands of Governor Schwarzenegger and a letter writing campaign is now underway. I ask that anyone who is either familiar with the case, or cares at all about the state of our judicial system, to join me in writing to the governor on behalf of Brandon.

For those who are not familiar with the case; you can go to www.brandonhein.com to get the particulars of the case. You may also ask for a guide to writing the governor by e-mailing to freebh@brandonhein.com. You can let Gene and Francis know that I sent you and you can expect a quick reply. For additional information on Brandon's case, go to the "Archives" section of my blog and click on "2009" and then click on "August". There you will find my original article, written on August 24, 2009, describing the events that took place leading up to this terrible injustice.

If our history has shown us anything, it's that if enough people voice their concern over an issue; our government has no recourse but to pay attention and to act on it. Brandon Hein, now 33, needs our voices to be heard NOW!! Governor Schwarzenegger is leaving office in January of 2011 so the clock is ticking. He has the power to right a terrible wrong but only WE can make it happen. So please, join me in writing to the governor (you do not need to be a resident of California) asking for the
IMMEDIATE commutation of Brandon's sentence, so that he may have a chance at living a productive life. I would say that 15 years is a long enough sentence for someone who did not harm a single person but had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. On behalf of the Hein family, I thank you for your efforts.

Brandon Hein's Appeals Exhausted

2010-07-23T05:53:00.004-04:00

On July 16th, the 9th Circuit Court denied Brandon Hein's final request for a rehearing. This was Brandon's last chance so, after 15 years of passionate pleas and legal jockeying; Brandon is now destined to spend at least 10 more years in prison before he becomes eligible for parole. I can now say, without hesitation, that in all my years of studying and witnessing our judicial system, I have NEVER seen a greater miscarriage of justice.

What has become of our great nation? The fact that our country, the one that has been perceived to be the model for humanity, tolerance, and fairness, can allow such a travesty is terribly disconcerting. While we sit in judgment of the atrocities perpetrated by other nations, a young man in our own country will spend at least 25 years of his life for doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, it's that simple!

When I was first contacted regarding this decision, my first reaction was a physical one. The next was emotional as I hung my head in shame. Having lived through the Vietnam era, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo; I can honestly say that this is the first time that I was ashamed to be an American. While some may view that as hyperbole-I can assure you that it is not.

Recently, the Supreme Court has made some rulings that I found to be contrary to the values instilled in me as a child. The two that immediately jump out are the ones dealing with post-conviction DNA testing and the decision to allow corporations to be granted the same rights as an individual in regard to campaign funding. While, in my estimation, they pale in comparison to the ruling handed down by the 9th Circuit Court; I find them to be quite disturbing nonetheless.

As a liberal, I am forever accused of ignoring both the intent of our founders and the sanctity of the Constitution. Truth be told, while I believe the founders to have been men of incredible courage and forethought; I also believe they were human beings with human flaws. And while I see the Constitution to be the foundation for the greatest nation on earth; I also see it as a document that needs to adjust with our forever changing times. How else does one explain the need for it to be amended 27 times since its initial ratification in 1787?

At the root of Brandon Hein's situation is the Murder-Felony Rule, an abomination that I have addressed in previous articles. I daresay that our founders never intended for our judicial system, at any level, to be granted the power to enact and employ such a hideous and inflexible law. The same can be said for the detention and treatment of a number of the prisoners still being held at Guantanamo Bay. Many of the detainees were deemed to be "non-combatants" and posed no threat to our country years ago (i.e. Ighurs). Yet, they still remain imprisoned. Two of the primary tenets of our judicial system, "due process" and "habeus corpus", have been all but ignored by our government-past and present.

Make no mistake about it; the American flag will still fly proudly from the porch of my home but our feeling of "exceptionalism" may require another look. Brandon Hein now faces the very real possibility of entering prison at the age of 18 and not leaving it until, at least, the age of 43! His fate now rests solely on a commutation of sentence by Governor Arnold Schwarnegger, who leaves office in January of 2011. It's important to note that were it not for Governor Schwarznegger, Brandon would not have a chance at parole at all. The Murder-Felony Rule offers only two options upon conviction: death or life without the possibility of parole.

I urge all of you, as both Americans and human beings, to write to Governor Schwarznegger pleading that this terrible injustice be minimized by commuting Brandon's sentence all together, before leaving office. For information on how to contact the governor and to learn more about Brandon's case, please go to: http://blog.brandonhein.com/

Huge Day in Massachusetts

2010-01-19T10:35:00.003-05:00

Today, all eyes will be on my home state, Massachusetts. The senatorial race between Martha Coakley(D) and Scott Brown(R) has evolved into a referendum of sorts regarding the health care bill as well as the policies of the Obama administration. I am active in many political discussion boards online and the focus of many has been today's election. The problem is that very few people know what either candidate stands for. The conservatives see Brown as nothing more than the much needed vote #41 while the liberals see Coakley as necessary to carry on the goals of the late Ted Kennedy. Over the past month; local television has been inundated with ads from both campaigns and I, for one, will be happy when this is over. Though I believe Coakley has run a "dirty" campaign; I intend to cast my vote for her.

While some will say that I am voting along party lines; I prefer to think I am voting on the important issues aside from health care reform. Coakley has been a strong advocate for regulation of Wall St. while Brown has not. Coakley has been in favor of removing the pre-existing provision in health care while Brown has not. Furthermore, Coakley's record as Attorney General is laudable. As a state representative; Brown has voted in favor of Republican legislation 96% of the time. I have no desire to see the Bush/Cheney policies return and Brown appears to favor that approach. It's difficult to tout yourself as an independent thinker, as Brown does, when you have a voting record like that.

The emergence of the Tea Party will play a major role in today's election as well as the mid-term elections this fall. Their influence and power seems to grow by the day while their intelligence does not. It is no secret that the Tea Party is merely an extension of the FOX network which, in my opinion, provides more false information than accurate information. Their pundits are nothing more than well paid, misinformed celebrities. In a future article, I will spend more time on Beck, Coulter, Hannity et al but for now; my focus will remain on today's election.

Most polls have the election at a dead heat while others whose credibility is suspect, to say the least, have Brown with an almost insurmountable lead. As for myself, I will stay tuned to the local stations as the individual precinct numbers come in. I have never placed much stock in polls and let's not forget the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" faux paus in the late 40s. I think a nice nap will be in order today as I suspect the final tally will not be known until very late this evening or early tomorrow morning. As an aside; it is beginning to snow rather hard here in Central Mass. and I fear a low turnout will not bode well for Martha Coakley. We'll just have to wait and see! GO COAKLEY!!

Partisanship Is Killing Our Country

2009-11-11T12:31:00.003-05:00

Hello everyone-it has been some time since I have written here. I have been pre-occupied with other endeavors but a couple of newsworthy stories have prompted me to do a little venting. The issue at hand is the ever growing problem of partisanship.

As you know; the latest health care bill was passed in the House and is now heading to the Senate for debate and a vote. I confess; I am not terribly optimistic about its passage there. We can thank Sen. Joe Lieberman for that. Lieberman has trouble deciding which party to ally himself with but, in this case, he has jumped on the Republican bandwagon. Sixty votes are needed for the bill to pass and Lieberman’s decision has all but assured that the number will not be reached. Presently, the Senate is comprised of 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 2 Independents. For the bill to have any chance; the two Independent votes are crucial. Lieberman is one of those Independents and has single handedly squashed the hopes of the majority of Americans who favor health care reform and the public option. My only hope is that the voters from Connecticut finally bounce his sorry ass from office in 2010.

To illustrate the omnipresent partisan voting practices in Congress; one need only look at the final tally in the House. Out of the 216 available votes from the GOP-only one voted in favor of the bill. I find it hard to believe that the other 215 voted against it based on its merits. Toeing the party line has become the norm in Congress and I see no end in sight. It’s clear that the motivating factor when voting is to simply oppose the other party. To hell with what the American people want. Anything thought to have been proposed by the Obama administration is assured of a NAY vote from the Republicans. This philosophy does little for the betterment of our nation at a time when it is sorely needed.

To further emphasize the presence of partisanship in Congress; a look at the voting results for Sen. Franken’s (D-MN) amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill will tell us more. Senator Franken’s amendment seemed like a sure bet given its content. To summarize: The amendment prohibited the government from granting contracts to companies that included, in my opinion, an unconstitutional clause in their employee contracts. The clause, neatly cloaked in fine print, prohibits employees from exercising their right to due process granted to us all in the 14th Amendment. “Essentially, due process guarantees that persons have a right to be fairly heard before they can be deprived of life, liberty, or property.” (Rush; The Dictionary of Criminal Justice 5th Edition, 2000)

What caused Sen. Franken to propose this amendment was a case involving a female employee of KBR (Haliburton) who was raped while working in Iraq. Upon returning to the U.S. after the incident; she intended to file criminal charges against the perpetrators and to sue KBR, only to find that her employee contract prohibited her from doing so. Her desire to seek justice through the criminal and civil court was declined based on the aforementioned clause. As if that isn’t repulsive enough; the vote for the amendment proved to be equally nauseating.

During the debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions claimed it was not the purview of the government to decide what can and can’t be included in a private company’s employee contracts. He went on to say that it was not up to the Senate to decide who should benefit from taxpayers dollars. It’s important to note that, only weeks earlier, this moron was calling for the immediate freeze of government aid to ACORN. I can only assume that he forgot about that little diatribe. While ACORN receives, on average, $1.5 million per year from the government; KBR/Haliburton and Blackwater have received over $25 billion in contracts since 2001!!

After the debate and Session’s blustering; the amendment came to a vote. The results: 30 of the 40 GOP senators (75%) voted AGAINST the amendment!! The amendment passed thanks to the 10 Republican senators who voted with their conscience as opposed to their allegiance to the GOP. I found this story to be one of the most disgusting examples of how partisanship is tearing this country apart. I urge everyone who lives in a state where their senator voted against this to cast a vote for ANYONE who opposes them in the next election. If you don’t; consider yourself complicit in denying that poor woman her right to due process and remember-the next time, it may be you!

Is It Any Wonder?

2009-09-02T17:07:00.003-04:00

In the field of criminology, there exist an exhaustingly high number of theories that attempt to explain the reasons for criminal behavior. Among them are: biological, genetic, learned, environmental, and psychological, to name a few. One can find a degree of validity in each but, in my opinion, few provide us with a direct correlation between child abuse and juvenile crime, with the exception of one. Dr. Lonnie Athens, viewed by many as a maverick, devised a unique method to study the criminal mind. His method, coupled with his life experiences, is presented in Richard Rhodes’ book "Why They Kill." For the purpose of this article; I will focus on the effect child abuse has in the creation of juvenile offenders. It should come as no surprise that I gravitated toward, and embraced the theory of a maverick.

A brief history of Lonnie Athens is necessary to help us understand how and why his theory differs from those presented by such respected and well known criminologists as Joseph Wilson, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Unlike the others; Athens was a victim of abuse from his father, a Greek immigrant. According to Rhodes, it is not uncommon for some who are victims to seek explanations. “Hypervigilance is in any case one price children pay for childhood abuse.” (Rhodes, pg. 14) While the majority of criminologists rely on various statistics and other forms of empirical data; Athens chose to take a more hands-on approach. From Rhodes:

"Much later Athens would write scornfully of academic criminologists who present themselves as experts on criminal violence without ever had personal experience of such violence or contact with violent criminals. Their usual rebuttal to his challenge, he noted, was that “one need not actually have heart trouble or some other terrible disease to discover a cure for it.'That was true, he agreed,'but one must at least see, touches, smell, and examine actual diseased hearts if he ever hopes to know anything about them.' Athens had certainly seen, touched, smelled and examined more than enough violence in his tumultuous childhood to know what he was talking about."

I plan to address Athens’ approach in a future article but for the sake of brevity; I will focus on the theory itself. His theory on “Violentization” is composed of 4 stages. The first stage being Brutalization which translated refers to various forms of abuse. The first form, Violent Subjugation, concerns the most common and recognized cases of child abuse. “During this experience, bona fide or would be authority figures from one of the subject’s primary groups uses violence to force her to submit to their authority.” (Athens, L. (1992) The Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals. Pg. 28)

Athens refers to the second form of brutalization as Personal Horrification. This has proven to be equally damaging but is rarely presented to the public by the media. The absence of sensationalism is a likely explanation for its absence. “Here the subject does not himself undergo violent subjugation, but witnesses another person undergoing it.” (Athens, pg. 38) The long term effects of personal horrification are considered to be equally contributory to eventual juvenile crime and beyond. Both forms instill a sense of helplessness in the child.

The third and final form of brutalization is Violent Coaching. This form is far more common than most would think. I was fortunate in the sense that I was never subjected to any of these brutalization practices but witnessed violent coaching on more than one occasion. Once again, I will defer to Dr. Athens to explain this form. “Novices are taught that they should not try to pacify, ignore, or run from their protagonist, but should personally attack them” It is little wonder that the transition from Phase1-Brutalization, to Phase 3-Violent Performances, is both understandable and almost natural. My intention is not to condone this metamorphosis but attempt to explain it. Dr. Athens himself is evidence that not all children follow this path however its influence is indisputable.

I chose to skip Stage 2-Belligerency, for the simple fact that I don’t wish to lengthen this article any more than is necessary (in other words, I don’t want to bore you). My intention is not to minimize the importance of Stages 2 and 4-Virulency, which is why I strongly recommend anyone interested to purchase Dr. Athens’ book. As previously stated, the transition from brutalization to violent performances is understandable and illustrates the need to recognize and address abuse as early as possible. “The subject, now belligerent, awaits only the proper circumstances to test his newly developed resolve to attack people physically with the serious intention of inflicting grave injury upon them.” (Athens, pg. 63) It is reasonable to argue that, at some point, we are all capable of distinguishing right from wrong. It is also reasonable to argue that a juvenile who has been subjected to years of violent subjugation, personal horrification, and violent coaching does not necessarily possess the capability to differentiate between the two. What they perceive to be “normal” can be vastly different from what is socially acceptable behavior.

The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the implications of ignoring the plight of abused children. The longer a child is subjected to any kind of abuse; the greater the cost is to society. My friend Mike Tikkanen writes in his book Invisible Children: “Nationally, four years is the average length of time for sexual abuse of a child within a toxic family before they are removed.” Four years of any form of abuse will inevitably lead to psychological problems that may require therapy. The likelihood that many will turn to crime further adds to the cost, not to mention the danger that will be incurred. Programs and services designed to prevent and address these issues are the first to be slashed by our short-sighted legislators. Perhaps if they took the time to consider the long-term effects and costs that result from their ignorance; they may look elsewhere when confronting budgetary woes.

I strongly recommend that anyone interested or concerned purchase the following books:
1)The Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals by Lonnie H. Athens. Available at Amazon for $20.00
2) Invisible Children by Mike Tikkanen. Available at www.invisiblechildren.org for $16.95

www.invisiblechildren.org

RAGE-Adoloscent Illiteracy

2009-08-27T19:49:00.004-04:00

I received a phone call Monday from a gentleman from Minnesota. Since I have redirected my focus from politics to child abuse and juvenile justice issues; I have been in touch with people from an organization called Invisible Children (www.invisiblechildren.org) and KARA (Kids at Risk Action). Bob, the gentleman from Minnesota, is an active member of these organizations. To say he is passionate about these issues would be a gross understatement. We talked about a number of topics but one issue was particularly important to Bob (not to minimize the others)-literacy. I confess the fact that this is a major contributing factor to juvenile crime had completely escaped me. After our conservation, I decided to look into this further. Suffice it to say: Bob “knows of what he speaks.”

I would like to begin with a quote from the State Superintendent of Wisconsin regarding literacy. (http://dpi.wi.gov/pld/pdf/statesuperadolit-highlights.pdf)

“At its core, literacy is the ability to read and write. While this ability remains the nexus of literacy of adolescents, additional abilities are needed to maximize learning in all content areas. In Wisconsin, we must infuse this core with the ability to invent, design, create, compute, and communicate so that adolescents can make critical judgments, solve real-world problems, and become productive citizens who lead rewarding lives.”

While researching the correlation between illiteracy and delinquency, I came across a paper by Lois S. Mohr-Corrigan entitled "Illiteracy and Juvenile Delinquency." In this paper, a series of studies and interviews were used to help explain, not justify, how illiteracy can lead to frustration and anger in youths. “Aggression is one of many emotions harbored by illiterate adolescents.” Their inability to express themselves leads them to delinquency as a means to release their anger. Michele Kipke, a source cited in the paper, explains how the pressure of being accepted during adolescence can adversely affect an individual throughout the course of their life. “…once shunned as an outcast for not fitting in, those feelings can follow an illiterate person around for the rest of his or her life, affecting every facet with its negativity.” It is here that teachers and other school officials can provide support to those affected. School is often the starting point for future successes and failures.

After studying Criminal Justice in college, my interest in the various theories explaining juvenile behavior prompted me to purchase a number of books concerning the varying theories. One of the books I purchased is entitled "Child and Youth Security Sourcebook." “Effective schools convey the attitude that all children can achieve academically and behave appropriately, while at the same time appreciating individual differences…Students who do not receive the support they need are less likely to behave in socially desirable ways.” Once again, the significance of recognizing and dealing with illiterate students is magnified. I daresay we have failed to do either in an effective manner.

While President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act gave the impression that the government was taking a more active role in improving education; it did little for the illiterate. Encouraging states to elevate their testing standards may have benefited those proficient in reading and writing skills; it exposed those with learning disabilities and the illiterate. This may have proven to be advantageous if the schools were equipped to address these problems but that was simply not the case. In 2002, $24.4 billion was earmarked for the new project. A paltry $1.2 billion was allocated for basic reading programs in 2002 which was a considerable increase from the amazingly low $286 million available in 2001.

Attending to the special needs of illiterate students has long been the purview of school counselors. Perhaps a portion of the aforementioned $24.4 billion should have been diverted to the American School Counselor Association. “Although ASCA recommends a 250 to 1 ratio of students to school counselors (WOW!), the national average is actually 475 (2006-2007) school year.” (http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=460) In the state of Illinois, the ratio is 1172 to 1!! Only 4 states have managed to adhere to the 250 to 1 ratio. Is it any wonder that thousands of illiterate children are allowed to “fall through the cracks”? Research has consistently shown that poor academic achievement contributes to crimes committed by delinquents.

In my conversation on Monday; Bob expressed his frustration concerning the absence of rage regarding illiteracy. His desire for societal rage; rage akin to that prevalent during the civil rights movement, is understandable. My research has opened my eyes to the blatant disregard for thousands of youths. The fact that this apathy has led to the incarceration of so many has certainly infused a rage within me. I would like to close with a quote from Michael S. Brummer, Visiting Fellow at the U.S. Department of Justice.

“The link between academic failure and delinquency is strong…Schools are apparently contributing to the delinquency problem by continuing to provide traditional programming that…leaves many students, after six years of instruction, unable to read accurately, fluently, and effortlessly with comprehension…What brings about the delinquency is not the academic failure per se, but sustained frustration which results from continued failure to achieve selected academic goals.” Derived from Brummer’s book "Retarding America: The Imprisonment of Potential."

www.invisiblechildren.org

Brandon Hein and the Murder-Felony Rule

2009-08-24T18:55:00.002-04:00

While perusing through the latest edition of Newsweek, I came across an op-ed entitled WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME. The piece dealt with the plight of Brandon Hein, a young man who has been in prison for close to 14 years. Young Hein was sentenced in 1995 under the murder-felony rule that is only recognized in 24 states today. Reading this story brought me back to my days of studying Criminal Justice at Colorado Tech University. I recall, at the time, that I felt that the rule was inherently flawed in several ways. The penalty for being found guilty of felony-murder is limited to two options; death or life without the chance of parole. Though his sentence was commuted by Governor Schwarzenegger earlier this year; Brandon will still not be eligible for parole for another decade. A young man, who killed no one, will end up spending at least 24 years behind bars.

For those unfamiliar with Brandon’s story; I will do my best to summarize the events that led to his incarceration. On May 22, 1995, Brandon and a couple of his friends had been drinking and were in search of some marijuana. When they stopped by an acquaintance’s home to purchase the marijuana; a fight broke out between one of Brandon’s friends and one of the boys selling the marijuana. Unfortunately; a knife was introduced into the fight and the death of one of the dealers resulted. This occurred in Agoura Hills, CA; close to the site of the famous O.J. acquittal and the Menendez brothers’ hung jury. It’s also important to note that the youth who was killed was the son of a police officer.

I would like to clarify that I am in no way defending the actions of any of the youths. The problem I have is the American concept of the punishment befitting the crime. In cases where the murder-felony is invoked; the prosecution is at a distinct advantage since intent, a major component in any other murder case does not need to be established. Simply put: Anyone who is in the company of someone who commits a crime where a murder occurs is automatically charged with felony-murder. In this case; the crime was an apparent attempted robbery of an illegal substance. It is little wonder that 26 states do not have this rule. Had the tragedy not happened; I highly doubt the police would have been involved at all. I digress.

From the U.S. Supreme Court case Enmund v. Florida (1982):
“Neither deterrence of capital crimes nor retribution is a sufficient justification for executing petitioner. It is unlikely that the threat of the death penalty will measurably deter one such as petitioner, who does not intend to kill. As to retribution, this depends on the degree of petitioner’s culpability, which must be limited to his participation of the robbery.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/458/782/

I am aware that judicial jargon is often difficult to decipher but let’s concentrate on the final line. “As to retribution, this depends on the degree of petitioner’s culpability, which must be limited to his participation of the robbery.” Aside from the fact that the robbery was of an illegal substance; Brandon’s sole participation was the robbery itself. While many, if not most, Supreme Court decisions are deemed to be precedents-Enmund v. Florida has been completely ignored.

To further highlight the injustice of Brandon’s case, let’s take a look at the sentencing guideline for 1st degree murder and its definition. In California, the sentence for 1st degree murder is 25 years to life. This leaves open the possibility of parole-Brandon’s doesn’t it. 1st degree murder is defined as: “An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated action.” First of all; Brandon’s sentence, even with the Governor’s commutation, is more severe than someone found guilty of premeditated murder. Second; by definition, 1st degree murder is FAR more heinous than anything Brandon did.

I consider the case of Brandon Hein to be both appalling and embarrassing for the entire judicial system. While Americans sit in judgment of Iran, China, and North Korea regarding their inhumane treatment of prisoners and their judicial system in general; an 18 year old young man has been forced to spend the most important years of his life in a maximum security prison. In order to reduce the budget woes of the state; California has announced that they intend to release 40,000 prisoners over the next two years. If Brandon Hein is not among the 40,000 released; the entire California legislature and its judicial system should be ashamed of themselves.

For anyone interested in learning more about Brandon; visit http:// www.brandonhein.com.

The Tragic Story of Dae'von Bailey

2009-08-21T13:22:00.005-04:00

The recent arrest of Marcus Fisher in Las Vegas, the murderer of 6 year old Dae'von Bailey, has brought the failure of the Department of Social Services to the attention of citizens nationwide. Fisher had been pursued and is now being charged with the murder of Dae'von Bailey on July 23rd. This article will address the apathy (fiscally rationalized)prevalent and how easily and often, neglected and abused children are allowed to fall through the cracks. What you will discover is that, all too often, these tragedies could have been avoided simply by people doing their jobs. You will also see how budget cuts in many states have resulted in the deaths of children who are forced to live in similar conditions that Dae'von lived in.

Fisher was arrested on August 19th after evading police since the murder. His arrest was the result of a manhunt that involved members of the LAPD, Las Vegas PD, and the U.S. Marshall's Service. I think it's important to note that this multi-agency task force was created in a matter of days. The irony of this will become clear as the details of young Dae'von's story is unveiled.

"In the months before he died, Dae'von told adults at school that Fisher had punched him in the stomach and had slammed his head into a bathroom sink. He repeated the complaints to social workers who interviewed him and to medical professionals who examined him for injuries. But he was sent back twice to his violent home."

There is definitely enough blame to be placed concerning this horrible story. There are also a number of questions that need to be answered. The question that I have is: Why is it possible for law enforcement agencies to coordinate efforts to apprehend a single person when schools, social service agencies, and the medical community are unable to share information that would have saved the life of a young boy?? Much of the blame for the inefficiency of the DSS can be placed on the fact that these agencies are often the target for budget cuts. California, a state deeply affected by the present economic climate, has proposed to slash $3.3 billion from the system.

"According to research from 2008, 14 children who died under the protection of child welfare agencies in L.A. were neglected because of 'breakdowns in the system in which some agencies knew about potential abuse but failed to share their information with other agencies. In other cases, investigators found that poor decisions by social workers had contributed to their deaths.'"

Though budgetary problems contribute to the allowance of neglect and abuse perpetrated against children; it does little to excuse the death of Dae'von and others. The L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services had received an estimated 12 complaints of abuse concerning Dae'von; many of which were reported by the school. Despite these complaints, the agencies involved were unable to effectively work together to remove Dae'von from an obviously dangerous environment. Yet, after the murder; a multi-agency task force was quickly formed (no problem with coordination there). Is it too much for us ask that people do their jobs?

Information for this article was derived from the following sources:
http://globalcomment.com/2009/the-death-of-daevon-bailey-lessons-not-learned-in-california/
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks&-2009aug08,0,3577922.colum?track=rss
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/dispatch/2009/08/05/budget-cuts-to-social-services-california/

If You Build It; They Will Come

2009-08-15T22:53:00.005-04:00

For the past seven months, I have devoted my writing to the political arena. This is a volatile area under normal circumstances but with the advent of health care reform; the debates have become more heated and frustrating. Liberals and conservatives have both established their positions on the topic and unwavering would be an accurate description of these positions. The problems lie with the distortion of the intent of the bill by the conservatives and the ever-changing promises being made by President Obama. Sarah Palin’s allegation of the existence of “death panels” and Obama’s willingness to deal with the special interest groups he promised to avoid has fueled an already blazing fire.

My original objective when I began blogging was to be somewhat of an advocate for the need of reform in the Juvenile Justice system. Looking through the nearly 50 articles I have written; I became aware that only one of them dealt with the system and its need for reform. The present political landscape coupled with my detraction from my original goal has induced me to redirect my focus. A blatant case of exploitation and corruption was brought to my attention by a fellow blogger and friend. This story, which continues to unfold, has certainly caught my attention and will be the topic of this article.

Two judges in Pennsylvania have pleaded guilty to a litany of charges leveled against them in U.S. Federal Court. These are the result of an investigation prompted by Bob Schwartz, president of the Juvenile Law Center. For those interested in reading more on the investigation; visit www.democracynow.org/2009/2/17/penn_judges_plead_guilty_to_taking. The sordid details of the investigation were reported to the public by Amy Goodman of DEMOCRACY NOW. According to Goodman; Schwartz chose to begin the investigation after receiving a number of complaints regarding the excessive sentencing practices of judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan.

Schwartz’s investigation led him to cases dating back to 2003. The two judges have “pleaded guilty to taking bribes for placing youths in privately owned jails.” It is estimated that the two received a staggering $2.6 million. Along with the bribery charges; they are also charged with wire fraud and income tax fraud (tough to declare bribery revenue). What I find equally, if not more detestable is the allegation that both Ciavarella and Conahan were complicit in facilitating the construction of these detention centers.

During my research, I found an article by John Schwartz of the New York Times on a web site aptly called: PEOPLE YOU’LL SEE IN HELL. http://psyich.com/2009/03/26/update-judge-mark-a-ciavarella-and-judge-michael-t-conahan. In the article, Schwartz details the ease in which these sentencing practices were allowed to go unnoticed. By doing so; he touches on some of the flaws inherent to the entire system: Flaws that I will be addressing in a future article. Due to the seriousness and magnitude of this injustice; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania assigned a Special Master, Senior Judge Arthur E. Grimm, to the case.

"The special master had submitted an 11-page report that there was routine deprivation of children's constitutional rights."

Due to Judge Grimm’s findings, hundreds of juvenile records were ordered expunged by the Supreme Court.

Goodman of DEMOCRCY NOW had the opportunity to interview two of the juveniles sentenced by the judges. Jamie Quinn, a first time offender and 14 years old at the time, was charged with simple assault and harassment. This incident revolved around an argument Ms. Quinn had with a friend that resulted in a “slap.” Despite the fact that no injuries were reported; Jamie was ordered to serve a 4 month sentence at PA Child Care; one of the privately owned detention centers Ciavarella and Conahan received bribes from and assisted in their securing funds to be constructed.

The other victim of this travesty that was interviewed was Kurt Kruger, another first time offender. Kruger was deemed to be a “lookout” for his girlfriend who was shoplifting. According to reports; Kruger had moved out of his home due to problems between Kurt and his father. Because of this, he never received notification that the court had chosen to go forward with the charges. He believed they had decided to ignore this frivolous charge because his girlfriend (the one who actually shoplifted) was never summoned to appear. When Kruger missed his scheduled hearing; an arrest warrant was issued. After his arrest, without the benefit of counsel, he was sentenced to by Ciavarella in a 90 second hearing!

Perhaps the most troubling case (not to minimize the others) involved 15 year old Hillary Transoe. Hillary was charged with harassment for posting a parody of her high school Vice President on her MySpace page. She was sentenced to 3 months in one of the detention centers. Three months for a parody?? Wow-considering some of the things I pulled in high school; Ciavarella or Conahan might have sentenced me to life! These are just a few examples of the injustices perpetrated by these judges between 2003 and 2008. An increasingly large number of civil suits have been filed as a result of these discoveries.

As I mentioned previously; there are a number of constitutional rights that are habitually ignored in our Juvenile Justice system. Given the fact that hundreds of records have been expunged due to the revelations brought to light by this investigation; it is only natural to question how many lives have been irrevocably damaged. As a condition of their guilty plea, Ciavarella and Conahan have agreed to an 87 month sentence in a federal prison. I’m sorry; that’s not good enough for me. I would like to see them spend 87 months for every life they ruined because of their pathological greed.

One of the things I plan to address in a future article will be the change in focus of the juvenile judicial system. The long accepted approach of counseling and rehabilitation has been replaced by a more punitive guideline. While health care reform is dominating the attention of our legislators and society; juvenile justice reform has been all but ignored for decades. Bringing this to the attention of as many people as possible is my new objective. I can only hope that people are more receptive to new ideas and possible solutions to juvenile justice than they have been to health care reform.

Bounced From TODAY.COM

2009-07-29T07:03:00.008-04:00

I was recently banned from posting my articles to a political blog site known as TODAY.COM. The reason, or reasons, for my expulsion remain unclear though I confess I have developed a seemingly obvious theory. What troubles me most is the outright fabrication I was given by the administration as cause for my dismissal. I will attempt to give you the abridged version of what transpired so as not to bore you.

This saga began some weeks ago when a sudden influx of the Christian Right (fundamentalists) began posting their articles in the political forum at TODAY.COM. One article in particular, : Contradictions In the Bible, was the catalyst for the ensuing firestorm. For purposes of clarification; TODAY.COM is structured in a fashion that enables the writers to engage in debates concerning the articles posted. It's important to note that my own feelings regarding religion are not pertinent to this argument. The objection many of us had was with the propagating of religious views in a venue that was dedicated to politics.

One particular writer; one of great passion and well respected, became increasingly agitated as more of these articles began to appear. I can assure you-he was not alone. I should inform you that there is a separate section at TODAY.COM designated for articles pertaining to religion. The aforementioned was very outspoken, as is his way, concerning the presence of these articles as well as their content. A rather heated debate broke out and in one of his replies; the administration censored his comment claiming that courtesy was more important than content. This is an odd perspective in a political blog site. I found it rather ironic to find a blatant infringement of the 1st Amendment perpetrated in said forum. They refused to post his comment and informed him of that via e-mail. He then proceeded to post the e-mail, which was censored, and this resulted in his expulsion. Many of us were of the opinion that we were all being punished since we were now going to be deprived of his unique style and perspectives on both domestic and foreign issues. A couple of writers, myself included, voiced our objection by way of articles and tributes-all to no avail.

On Sunday of this week; I made a personal and, what I thought to be, a respectful plea for his reinstatement.

"I respectfully request that you reconsider your position concerning dsent (Naked Emperor) and allow him back into your political section. His passion and perspectives are sorely missed..."

The reply I received was a nonsensical attempt at rationalizing their decision by citing how he had violated the "Terms and Conditions" of their site. Heil Hitler! Though I confess to expecting nothing less; they included completely false allegations against myself.

"Please know that we've had no problem with your published content but are concerned with your efforts to repeatedly contact us with complaints about other bloggers without merit for the mere fact that their politics are different than your own or because a fellow blogger/friend of yours was dismissed."

Ignoring their grammatical errors and that incredibly long run-on sentence; I have NEVER contacted them to complain about any bloggers' differing views. When I responded to refute these ridiculous assertions; I found myself in the same company as my friend-BANISHED!

"We are sorry that you are not happy blogging in the Today.com network and since you feel the need to keep contacting us repeatedly in this manner we have no recourse but to deactivate your account... Our decision is based on your actions of the past few weeks where you've continually complained about other bloggers and how Today.com works."

Once again; I have never complained about another blogger to them and I have challenged them to back up their bullshit. I do admit to inquiring why one particular author, who just happened to be the central figure in the previously mentioned debate, was consistently being given the "Featured Blog" slot. TODAY.COM is a site where you are paid (if you want to call it that) based on the amount of traffic your article generates. Being given that slot is a definite advantage. The fact that I find her articles to be nothing more than baseless, unsubstantiated rants is irrelevant. I made my inquiry utilizing TWITTER and once I received their horseshit explanation; I let it go. END OF STORY! Apparently; along with being lousy writers, they are a bit reactionary as well.

What I find disturbing is both their unfounded allegations directed at me and their ability to expel anyone who disagrees with their convoluted view of what is acceptable to post. They seem to have no problem allowing racial slurs to be posted on their site. Since their claim that I "repeatedly" contacted them is easily refuted; I am unable to come up with any other explanation. What confuses me is the fact that advertisements pay for their site yet they chose to expel two writers who contributed to their readership. However: what truly bothers me is that I had developed an enjoyable camaraderie with a number of fellow writers, albeit via e-mails and comments to articles, that I am sure to miss.

To close: for good or bad-I will be posting here on a regular basis where there is no fear of censorship. I will definitely miss the interaction available at TODAY.COM but I can live without the hypocrisy. My friend also posts here and you can find him at: http://justisdepartment.blogspot.com. I strongly recommend you visit his site as I have no doubt you will enjoy reading his articles as much as I do.

Pakistan Needs To Make Up Their Mind

2009-07-26T15:33:00.002-04:00

An article recently published in the New York Times has both infuriated and confused me. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/world/asia/22pstan.html?ref=todayspaper. This article deals with complaints made by Pakistani officials concerning our increased presence in Afghanistan. I admit that this entire situation has a personal side to it. One of my best friend’s sons, whom I babysat as an infant, is an officer in the USMC. He is presently deployed in Afghanistan and as a platoon leader; is in the middle of this “increased presence.” I have previously written articles voicing my objection to their president’s, Ali Zardari, method of requesting aid via the Washington Post. Presently, we have pledged $1.5 billion per year for the next 5 years to help stimulate Pakistan’s economy. Considering we have done such a superb job stimulating our own; forgive me if I find a considerable amount of irony in that gesture.

“Pakistani officials have told the Obama administration that the Marines fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan will force militants across the border into Pakistan…”

I have apparently been mistaken in my perception that this was a joint effort. I had assumed that the Taliban posed as great a threat to Pakistan as it does to the U.S. In fact; after my posting about Zardari on a different site; I received the following comment from a Pakistani national. (I wasn’t aware I had such a broad readership.)

Zameer said:
this author from USA has critized upon the opinion written by our elected president of Pakistan in Washington post ; Remember ,Zardari has all the basic rights to write , speak or propagate for Pakistan and people of Pakistan has given him this right ; I am a common man in Pakistan ; i think if president Zardari is demanding more and more support from USA , then he is doing very well ; his Pakistani troops (both civilian and army are being killed by Taliban ; and if Zardari does not stop them , then Mr. author , your throat will also be cut by some Taliban leader one day ; face the facts and do not mix up the things ; When your own secretary of state Hilary Clinton admits and takes the responsibility of creation of alqaeda and Taliban then why you cry over Mr. Zardari if he writes the same truth in Washington post ; please do not bother regarding nuclear arsenals of Pakistan rather bother your own pentagon which was attacked by alqaead in 9/11 despite all security arrangements ; Zardari is not corrupt ; no court has been able to find proofs of his corruption ; correct your record accordingly '; Mr. Zardari is not only leading anti terrorism war for Pakistan’s survival rather yours survival as well;

OK Zameer; you got it. Though I find my friend’s accusations to be absurd; it displays why I am so confused over this sudden change in attitude regarding the pursuit of the Taliban. It’s important to note that Zardari was quoted as saying; “This is our war. It is our wives and children who are being killed.” Wrong again Zardari! Has he forgotten that 3,000 innocent Americans were killed by these people? He has consistently sought our help in fighting these insurgents and now they consider our more concerted effort to be a threat to their security.

“Pakistani officials still consider India their top priority and the Taliban militants a problem that can be negotiated. In the long term, the Taliban in Afghanistan may even remain potential allies for Pakistan…” WHAAAAT?

Yes, the Taliban has long been applauded for their willingness to negotiate. You need only ask the innocent civilians in Afghanistan to find out how willing the Taliban is to reach peaceful resolutions. My confusion is based on the sudden change of heart. It was less than 2 weeks ago that the Pakistani Army confronted the Taliban in the Swat Valley with considerable success.

“Last year, Washington presented evidence to Pakistani leaders that Mr. Haqqani, working with Inter-Services Intelligence, was responsible for the bombing last summer of the Indian Embassy in Kabul that killed 54 people.”

Ah hah-now I’m starting to get it! Haqquani is an Afghan Taliban leader who the U.S. contest is operating under Pakistani protection. So, apparently, as long as the Taliban strikes at India from time to time-they get a pass. Joe Klein writes in Time Magazine:

“In the latest National Interest, Bruce Riedel-who led the Obama Administration’s Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review-suggests that a coup led by Islamist, Taliban-sympathetic elements of the Pakistani army remains a very real possibility. Pakistan has at least 60 nuclear weapons. The chance that al-Qaeda sympathizers might gain access to those weapons is the real issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

From what I can ascertain from all of this is that while our young men and women are risking their lives; Pakistan has redirected their focus from the Taliban back to India. Of course; India has always been Pakistan’s biggest threat. However, to attempt to detract our focus away from our objective is bullshit. To Pakistan I say: If you don’t wish to join us anymore-stay the fuck out of the way. This is our fight and always has been. To even suggest that we change direction is a slap in the face to our soldiers. So step aside Pakistan and let our troops do their job and when we’re done-you can do all the negotiating you want with those murdering pieces of shit. What do you have to say for yourself now Zameer?

With China Looking Elswhere; America Needs Another Sucker

2009-07-23T10:31:00.002-04:00

I have recently purchased a subscription to BUSINESS WEEK for the sole purpose of further educating myself on subjects of finance. I don’t consider myself ignorant regarding the economic climate prevalent today or ignorant to the ways of corporate America. However, when it comes to global and even governmental investments; I often find myself perplexed. There are many on this site whose knowledge far surpasses mine and I’m not the type who is content with “limited knowledge.” I suppose my competitive nature is responsible for that and it is also what drives me to better understand subjects that confuse me. Unlike some; on matters that I don’t feel qualified to comment on-I refrain from doing so. I have learned a great deal from writers on this site regardless of political ideology and I’m grateful for that. OK-enough of my introduction.

In the July 27th issue; an article on China’s investment philosophy provided me with a better understanding of our national debt. Our reliance on China to purchase U.S. Treasury notes has helped our economy remain afloat-barely. This practice now appears to be in serious jeopardy. “Why would we want to keep subsidizing irresponsible U.S. behavior that will inflate the dollar and hurt us?” This question was posed by Wenran Jiang, a political science professor at the University of Alberta. Because of this; there is a growing trend to purchase hard assets (yes-I know what that means) as opposed to purchasing relatively worthless pieces of paper. China presently owns $2.1 trillion worth of “low-yield, inflation sensitive U.S. Treasuries.” Scary!!

While China is yet to call in those markers; they are beginning to take a different course. Just in the last two months, China has either purchased or shown interest in such diverse foreign companies as GM’s Opel in Germany, an appliance manufacturer in New Zealand, as well as oil fields in Iraq. Allow me stray a bit and ask this question: Considering the money and, more importantly, lives we have sacrificed in defense of the Iraqis-shouldn’t they be negotiating a sale with us? Just a thought. According to BUSINESS WEEK, China’s overseas investments last year doubled to a total of $52 billion. This brings their overall foreign investment total to $170 billion which equates to 1/30 of U.S. overseas investments. I’m not even going to attempt the math but that’s a shitload of investing. Next question: What happened to OUR investments?

Recently, I posted an article citing profits reported by such companies as Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase. Though many have explained this with examples of government incest and other “smoke and mirror” explanations; there may be another one. China is considered to be relatively new to the world of mergers and acquisitions so they have sought advice and counsel from outside sources. This is where my confusion comes roaring back. “The mergers-and-acquisitions craze is good news for lawyers, accountants, and investment bankers. JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have both worked on high-profile China bids.” WHAAAAT? Aren’t these the same idiots who were involved in ridiculously speculative investments that have contributed to our financial demise? I can tell you this much: If I’m going to stake someone in a poker tournament-it won’t be someone who just busted going all-in with deuce-seven. (How do you like that analogy?)

From what I can see; should China continue to venture into the world of mergers and acquisitions, we’re going to need someone else willing to gamble on us. Given our current situation; that is not going to be an easy task.

Tailback's Gay Weekend

2009-07-22T14:21:00.002-04:00

My wife and I recently returned home from a brief vacation which included visiting our dear friends. Our friends happen to be a married couple of the same sex. Normally; I would not feel compelled to even mention that but considering the crux of this article deals with the gay community; I felt it was pertinent. I consider Tara and Trish to be two of my closest friends. Though I have only known them for about 3 years; they have become very important to me. My wife has known them for much longer and has worked with Trish in the medical field for over 13 years.

On Friday night; we sat around a campfire surrounded by gays from every walk of life. I confess to having laughed harder and longer than I have in years. It’s important to note that I wasn’t laughing at them but with them. While doing this; I couldn’t help but think that these are the very people that some deem to be threats to our way of life. I also thought of Sal Hepatica’s (nobebop) article that focused on the treatment that gays are still subjected to in the military. How ANYONE could consider this group to be a threat to anything is beyond me. The fact of the matter is that they would prefer to be left alone but righteously seek the same rights accorded to all Americans.

Many of the recent debates in the blogsphere have revolved around government intervention in the private sector and the concern over the Obama administration’s attempt at increasing the control it has over individual’s rights. These concerns are definitely without merit and I have chosen to address the control concerning the gay community. I have no intention of taking a partisan stand on this subject since members of both parties are guilty of this. Of course, running point for this asinine opposition to gay rights is the Christian Right. Given the recent revelations of hypocrisy by a couple of their more outspoken leaders; my advice to them is to shut the hell up for a while. I digress.

While researching, I came across a couple of judicial decisions that speak directly to our right to pursue “liberty” in accordance with the 14th Amendment. In Lochner v. New York (1905) it was deemed that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This decision protected all citizens from any intervention by the state. Though the decision focused on employment issues; the content of the decision is precedent setting by its very verbiage.

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the ruling dealt directly with the Due Process Clause found in the 14th Amendment. “Justice James Clark McReynolds went on to list other rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, including ‘the right of the individual…to marry, establish a home and bring up children…and generally to enjoy these privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Does anyone else notice the absence of the word heterosexual? However; “happiness by free men” does jump out at me. More on these decisions can be found at: http://pewforum.org/gay-marriage/.

As an aside; one of the people I met was the grandson of the infamous Al Capone, Chris Knight. Chris was kind enough to give me a copy of his book SON OF SCARFACE: A MEMOIR BY THE GRANDSON OF AL CAPONE. It’s a story of Chris’ frustrating search for the true identity of his father and the omnipresent roadblocks he confronts in his quest. You can purchase the book from Amazon and I strongly recommend that you do. I have found it to be fascinating and the reader begins to formulate their own theories as each chapter poses more and more questions.

In closing: I would like to say that our country faces far greater threats than the possibility of people of the same sex marrying. To date: 6 states have legalized gay marriage while 30 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Disgusting! I’ll leave you all with one question: Does the fact that Sue and Jill from across town wish to be married affect you in any way? If the answer is no, and it certainly should be; I suggest you follow the advice I gave to the Christian Right.

Time To Wipe That Egg Off Your Face DICK!! Pt.2

2009-07-16T17:17:00.003-04:00

In mid-January of this year; I stood on a hill and watched as George W. Bush rode silently into the sunset-back to his beloved Texas. As I waved goodbye, excitedly, I suddenly noticed something that disturbed me greatly. There was only one horse! “Come back George”, I screamed, “You forgot something.” Unfortunately, he was too far away and couldn’t hear me. He continued to ride, while leaving behind the biggest ass this country has ever seen. While our former president has remained relatively obscure, with the exception of an interview or two; one in which he stated he couldn’t recall ANY mistake he had made (OK George-keep riding)-DICK Cheney has continued to be a very large pain in my ass. With assistance from his daughter; he has consistently blustered about the benefits of such things as torture and the ignoring of the 4th Amendment. All the while; his conservative sheep hang on his every word. Get on the goddamn horse DICK!

In an excellently written article yesterday; my friend guitarman called for all of us to attempt to see both sides of the aisle. With sincere apologies to my buddy; I can’t do that in this particular article. Though I am in complete agreement with him; when it comes to Cheney, my disdain for the man far outweighs my desire to refrain from partisan commentary. However, I will take this opportunity to voice a bipartisan opinion (emphasis on “opinion”) regarding the current circus taking place on the Hill concerning this “secretive” CIA program. Yesterday, my conservative friend scotty starnes( and I do consider him to be a friend) contended that this program was exposed in 2002 in the NY Times. That assertion is refuted in an article in today’s Washington Post: “The program was active in fits and starts, and it was essentially killed in 2004 because it was deemed ineffective, former and current intelligence officials said. It reemerged briefly in 2005 but remained largely dormant until this year.” I am of the opinion (again, opinion) that the Democrats are making “much ado about nothing.” Though I don’t subscribe to the theory that this is a way to detract attention away from Nancy Pelosi; I do believe it is merely another case of political chest thumping. The fact of the matter is that this program has never been considered “fully operational” (whatever that means) and has not produced a single success story. This appears to me to be more of an indictment against the effectiveness of our intelligence community than it does of any deception. Grow up Congress! Our country is going down the toilet and you’re engaging in pissing contests.

OK-back to DICK. I have often fantasized about Cheney extolling the virtues of torture in a small venue filled with former POWs from the Vietnam War. Clearly, my fantasies have been a bit altered from the ones I had in my teens, 20s, and even 30s. (Whoa; a vision of Angie Dickinson just popped into my head-whew!) There have been Cheney disciples who have contended that “waterboarding” is nothing more than pouring water over someone’s head. Anyone who has had the misfortune of witnessing a “waterboarding” session will tell you that it is a hell of a lot more than that. Morons! This point may prove to be a moot one given the very real possibility that a special prosecutor will soon be named to investigate this topic. In an article in NEWSWEEK entitled "INDEPENDENT’S DAY: Obama Doesn’t Want To Look Back, But Attorney General Eric Holder May Probe Bush-Era Torture Anyway": it describes the difficult position Holder finds himself. Torn between his allegiance to Obama (which shouldn’t even be part of the equation) and his pledge to uphold the law’s of the country; Holder has been hesitant to pull the trigger. However; after carefully reviewing all of the CIA tapes available-many claim his decision has been made. Bad news for Bush and the boys! From the NEWSWEEK article: “As he pored over reports and listened to briefings, he became increasingly troubled. There were startling indications that some interrogators had gone far beyond what had been authorized in the legal opinions issued by the Justice Department, which were themselves controversial. (DUH-look out John Yoo) He told one intimate that what he saw ‘turned my stomach’”. Given Holder’s past history as a rather strict judge and one who didn’t hesitate to dole out severe punishments; my guess is that he witnessed a little more than waterboarding.

As I said; the past couple of weeks haven’t been kind to DICK. The Inspector General has determined that the 8 year long wiretapping program was proven to be ineffective at best. Forget the fact that this program pissed all over our rights protected by the 4th Amendment. Cheney, in his infinite wisdom, has insisted that this program was invaluable in the battle against terrorism. Time to pull your pants up DICK-bagged AGAIN! This revelation begs the question: What was the price tag for this useless program? The conservatives have justifiably complained about the excessive spending by the Obama administration. I haven’t heard of any complaints voiced by them regarding this example of excessive spending by the previous administration. This is not to say that Obama’s programs have been productive-they haven’t been but let’s be careful with the hypocrisy. From what I can see: Obama certainly inherited a lousy situation but he has done little to improve it and has, in fact, exacerbated it.

I would be remiss if I didn’t address one more thing my conservative friend commented on yesterday. He had the audacity to compare Cheney’s deceit with that of Joe Biden’s. I have no intention of going to bat for Biden but I do have two questions. 1) Has Biden’s deceit ever resulted in the denial of a state’s right to sovereignty? 2) Has Biden’s deceit ever resulted in the death of over 3,400 Americans? I challenge anyone to refute the notion that DICK played a crucial role in our invasion of Iraq. His “vision” for the Middle East (see Pt.1) along with his role in deceiving all Americans were both major contributors to our entering into a war we had no business being in. There were no WMDs! Iraq posed no threat to the U.S.! No ties between Iraq and al Qaeda have ever been established!

In closing; I confess that my perception of Cheney may be construed as obsessive. The very sight of this vile creature ignites my long forgotten violent tendencies. I am left with the hope that Holder’s investigation comes to fruition and this blight to our history is finally held accountable for his criminal acts. With any luck; he can continue his pontificating from the confines of Leavenworth where he is sure to see the “benefits” of real torture. Don’t even try to deny me this fantasy! Thanks for listening.

Time To Wipe That Egg Off Your Face DICK!! Pt.1

2009-07-15T14:41:00.006-04:00

The past couple of weeks have not been kind to that beloved humanitarian, Dick Cheney. A couple of issues have come to light that have confirmed my belief that he is, and always has been, a cancer to our way of life. There are few, if any, figures in our country’s history that I detest more than Cheney. Much of my disdain for the sociopath began with his role in the Iraq War and his part in running Colin Powell out of town. Though Powell left of his own accord; it was Cheney’s deceitful nature that the General had grown tired of. As Secretary of State and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Powell was undoubtedly the most knowledgeable in regard to military matters. Though originally a proponent of our invasion of Iraq; Powell quickly saw through the charade the Bush administration had employed as a justification for the invasion. As a man of honor; he simply could not be part of an administration that had used faulty intelligence and admitted forgeries as a means to con the American people and Congress. For those who disagree, I have but one question: How many of those pesky WMDs have we found?

Cheney’s secretive and deceitful nature can be traced back to 2001 when he headed an energy task force. Not surprisingly; this task force worked without any oversight and was secretive in its very existence. If ever there was a conflict of interest; this was it! From Howard Fineman’s THE THIRTEEN AMERICAN ARGUMENTS : “Earlier in that year of 2001, in one of the Bush administration’s first official acts, Cheney had convened a task force to study the country’s energy needs, and how to meet them. Its membership and meetings were shrouded in secrecy, but there was no hiding Cheney’s personal agenda, which he had brought with him from his job at the energy company Haliburton…” (I’m not done with Haliburton) While Cheney advocated, and eventually prevailed in his quest to deny the recently held right of individual states to deny the installation of gas, oil, or electrical lines; he purchased a $2.67 million dollar home in Maryland. Cheney’s home had a beautiful and completely unobstructed view of the Chesapeake Bay-no power lines blocking the VP’s view.

Let’s fast forward to 2003. While the White House is already under fire concerning the veracity of the administration’s reasons for entering the war in Iraq; Nobel Prize winning journalist Nicolas Kristof uncovered another case of deceit perpetuated by the Bush/Cheney dynamic duo. The alleged purchase of uranium from Niger by Iraq had been deemed to be bullshit. Worse yet; it was discovered that the documents used as evidence of these purchases had been forged by the CIA. Ooops!! No one expected the ever vigilant and sworn protector of our Constitution to take this lying down. From Scott McClellan’s (Bush’s Press Secretary) book WHAT HAPPENED: INSIDE THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE AND WASHINGTON'S CULTURE OF DECEIT : “The vice president, whose credibility and integrity were specifically being questioned (imagine that), and his office would take a leading role in these efforts, beginning in late May 2003…the vice president’s office quickly learned the identity of Kristof’s unnamed source. It was former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who’d been sent to Niger to investigate the uranium allegation in January 2002. Under the cloak of anonymity, the vice president and trusted aide Scooter Libby began an effort to discredit Wilson with selected journalists.” Apparently, the much ballyhooed “liberal media” was left out of the loop.

Both Fineman and McClellan shed some light on Cheney’s vulgar, pretentious, and arrogant “vision” for the Middle East. (I’m close to vomiting) From Fineman: “He (Bush) drew upon theories that had been offered to him in his earliest briefings, by Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and others. World peace, they advised him, required that Arab and Muslim nations be modernized and democratized. They had to be made, or at least reformed, to understand if not fully accept the Western idea of pluralism and secular democracy.” UNBELIEVABLE!! Many have stated that the Islamic world detested us long before the Bush regime assumed power and of that; I have no doubt. Iran alone has every reason to despise us considering the fact that their coup in 1953 was masterminded by, you guessed it, the CIA. Couple that with our support and the eventual granting asylum to that vile, sadistic piece of shit, The Shah; and I for one, don’t blame them. That being said; this attitude the Bush administration had concerning the entire Middle East did little to change their perception. Given the fact that Bush rarely went to the bathroom without first consulting Karl Rove or Cheney; his adoption of this Middle East approach was a given. From McClellan: “For Bush, removing the ‘grave and gathering danger’ that Iraq supposedly posed was primarily a means for achieving the far more grandiose objective of reshaping the Middle East as a region of peaceful democracies.” Is anyone else feeling ill?

I have dedicated too much time and effort into the history of Cheney’s propensity to be both secretive and full of shit; not to mention his sordid ideology. Because of this, I have chosen to make this into a two part article in the hope that I don’t bore you to tears. So, for those of you who are interested in reading more about the adventures of that great American after he left office; stop by tomorrow. Until then…

Zardari and The Washington Post

2009-07-03T11:33:00.002-04:00

President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan has been using the Washington Post as his forum for requesting aid from the U.S. while, at the same time, engaging in defaming our country. In January of this year, he wrote an op-ed in the Post congratulating President Obama on his victory. The agenda of Zardari became obvious when he went on to encourage the President to influence Congress to pass the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act which called for $1.5 billion in aid to Pakistan annually for 5 years. See: http:// www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012702675.html. Though the bill passed; Zardari’s attacks on the U.S. appear to be hypocritical considering his own record of corruption among other allegations. In the article; he basically blames the U.S. for the present state of Pakistan. He cites our withdrawal from the region in the 80s after the Soviet invasion as the reason for the influx of Islamic extremists such as al Qaeda and the Taliban. Conversely, he goes on to say; “This is our war. It is our children and wives who are dying.”

Yesterday; The Washington Post chose to publish another of Zardari’s unusual pleas for aid. In it, he points to our “debacle in Vietnam” and our propensity to court dictators naming the Shah of Iran and Marcos of the Philippines as examples. http:// www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101793.html?wpisrc=newsletter&upisrc. As stated earlier; Zardari is the last person to be questioning the actions of any government or individual. One would think this approach to be counter-productive yet he knows that the future of Pakistan is a major priority of the Obama administration. “Pakistan has repeatedly been identified as the most critical external problem facing the new administration.” Obviously using this as leverage; he implores the governments in Europe to join the U.S. in providing financial aid as well as equipment and technology to help fight the insurgents.

What infuriates me is that we continue to coddle this less than reputable con artist. I must confess that my anger is exacerbated by the fact that there is some validity to his accusations. That being said; this is a man who has spent close to 11 years in prison for crimes ranging from corruption to murder and conspiracy to commit murder. See: http:// www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/articleY692223.ece. For a man who persistently cites the poverty prevalent in his country; his own financial worth is estimated to be close to $2 billion. Much of his fortune is alleged to have been amassed illegally. He rejected a capital gains tax that would have helped the poor in Pakistan. Though I admit to not putting much stock in Wikipedia; it is reported that Zardari and his wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, embezzled $1.5 billion from the government.

The problem I find is that we are not in a position to allow Pakistan to take on the Taliban alone. Presently; the Taliban has been able to infiltrate deep into Pakistan. Some reports claim that they are only 40 miles outside of Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. Access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal poses a very real threat for the U.S. and its’ allies. Never known for my own diplomatic abilities; I do believe it’s time we tell this thief that if he wants our support; it may be time to cease with his personal attacks on our country. While our granting asylum to the likes of the Shah may be despicable; it’s not for this criminal to criticize us.

Obama's Conundrum

2009-07-01T08:37:00.004-04:00

“I wish I hadn’t said that.” How often have we all thought that? Certainly, some more than others but we’ve all said things that we wished we could have taken back. I would think our President is thinking along those lines as the chaotic climate in Iran continues to escalate. When the election results were announced and the protests began; Obama stated that there were no significant differences between the incumbent and alleged victor President Ahmadinejad and his opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi. The President’s statement, in my opinion, was a safety net of sorts implemented to maintain the possibility of future negotiations with Iran.

In light of the continued violence and statements made by those who are truly in charge, the clerics; that difference appears to become more and more significant. Ayotollah Ahmed Khatami, a senior cleric, declared in a prayer sermon (yeah, a prayer sermon) “that the government should punish leaders of protests, who were supported by the united States and Israel, strongly and with cruelty so it will be a lesson for everyone.” How very holy of him!! www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31564910/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa I confess that I originally thought that the President’s olive branch extension was a wise move considering the previous administration’s position proved to be fruitless. Well, my new position is a simple one: Screw them!!

A recent article in Newsweek entitled Theocracy and Its Discontents by Fareed Zakaria outlines the power structure in Iran and the possibility of its complete collapse. While President Ahmadinejad can promise to be receptive to the West’s new approach (which is bullshit anyway); the fact remains that he does not set foreign policy. Foreign policy is set by those men of God, the Guardian Council and its Supreme Leader, Ayotollah Ali Khamenei. The persistence of the protestors is perceived by many to be a serious blow to the religious regime. These protests are akin to those in 1979 which enabled these hypocritical bastards to assume control. “Although Iran is Shia and most of the Islamic world is Sunni, Khomeni’s rise to power was a shock to every Muslim country, a sign that Islamic fundamentalism was a force to be reckoned with.” Now, the very tactics employed by the late Ayotollah Khomeni are being used to bite his successors right in their holy asses.

The point of this article (I admit to being derailed) is that though Obama may be right when he says he sees little difference; it has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. It has to do with the fact that as long as the present regime, cloaked in religious dogma, has control; there is no chance of any reversal in Iran’s dealings with the U.S. They have long memories and vindictive tendencies. They will never forgive the U.S. for masterminding the coup of 1953 or its unholy alliance with the Shah preceding and following (not our finest hour) his removal from power.

Perhaps the President doesn’t need to retract his statement but clarify it. There is no difference, and there won’t be, until those men of God are removed from power. We have enough to deal with here at home with our own religious zealots who justify violence with religious rhetoric (abortion clinic bombings and murders). In regard to Iran; it may be prudent to step back and wait and see how effective these protests turn out to be.

Big Government, Personal Liberties, and the Far Right

2009-06-30T08:07:00.003-04:00

In these days of omnipresent whining by the far right pundits and blogggers concerning the threat of “big government”; it’s important to remind them of the history of their leaders. Though this may appear to be yet another attack on the Bush administration; that is not the objective. The premise of this article is the propensity of those from the far right to assail any move made by the present administration that they deem to be a threat to their personal liberties. All the while; conveniently forgetting or ignoring legislation that was enacted prior to President Obama and the Democrats gaining control.

In Howard Fineman’s book The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates That Define and Inspire Our Country; he speaks of former President Bush in this fashion:

"From the start, he was a federal-power man. His signature domestic initiative, the 'No Child Left Behind Act' called for the most aggressive expansion of the federal role in 40 years…This proposal, which the Republican controlled Congress enacted in 2001, called not only for setting national test standards, but for a regulatory regime to oversee what had been a state responsibility: elementary and secondary education."

This legislation was advocated by a president who hailed from Texas. One would be hard pressed to find a state that defends its right to sovereignty more than Texas: the possible exception being Vermont.

To further emphasize my point; one need only look at former Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force. While the energy companies complained about states having the right to block their oil and gas lines; they urged the government to nullify the rights accorded to the individual states. “Not surprisingly, the group adopted the companies’ view. It was not surprising in part because both Cheney and Bush agreed with them. Four years later, Congress wrote the measure into law.” Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure some will), but I don’t recall any outrage voiced from the far right concerning this blatant example of government intervention.

The events of 9/11changed the way all Americans felt regarding our previously held belief that we were undeniably safe at home. The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 may have alarmed some but it appeared to have been long forgotten. This opened the door for still more “chest thumping” by our government.

"The events of 9/11 led the President and Congress to erect a vast new edifice of federal bureaucracy in the name of security. The relationship between the FBI and state and municipal police agencies, long a delicate and contentious one, changed fundamentally after 9/11. Successive versions of the Patriot Act gave federal authorities, from the FBI to the NSA, dominion over investigative and arrest powers that once belonged to the locals."

For anyone to even suggest that these powers have not been abused is absurd. It’s as if the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover is in our midst. Again, where was the outrage?

I could cite other examples such as the passage of a bill that gave the president the power to order the individual states’ National Guard into action: a power long held by the states. Of course, this new power was neatly cloaked in a 439 page defense bill. This little maneuver usurped a 200 year old law. But I digress (again). The point of all this is while the far right bitches and moans about “big government” and the threat of socialism; they seem to forget the posturing of the former administration.

I would like to know what difference there is between the present administration’s desire to reform a deeply flawed health care system and the complete takeover of the educational system by its predecessors. What is the difference between the government’s intervention in the auto industry and and enacting laws that enable oil companies to run their lines wherever they please? I anticipate, welcome, and encourage answers to these questions. Perceptions vary as do ideologies and that is what separates us from other countries. Before I close, I feel it is important to note that the book I derived much of my information from was endorsed by that iconic right winger, Newt Gingrich. “In an impressively thought provoking, original approach, Fineman revisits the great defining arguments that will deepen your understanding of America.”

We thought binLaden was hard to catch

2009-05-24T20:20:00.004-04:00

In the latest issue of Newsweek, I read an article that both horrified and bewildered me. The atrocities depicted were as troubling as any I have ever read or heard about. Normally; I oppose any US involvement in other country’s problems unless it directly affects our nation. However, in this case, I applaud former President Bush for his advocating our assistance to help put an end to this reign of terror. The problem is that despite our efforts, as well as those by the United Nations, the atrocities continue.

Joseph Kony has been hunted by the Ugandan government for 23 years. He is the leader of an insurgent organization called the Lord’s Resistance Army. When Idi Amin’s dictatorship ended in 1979; Uganda didn’t exactly transform into a “kinder, gentler nation.” In fact, it opened the door for the creation of new, more ruthless groups trying to gain control of the country. Among them was a group led by now President Museveni. Unlike other groups; Museveni’s guerillas were known for their discipline and refusal to harm innocent civilians. Many Ugandans viewed this group as true liberators and because of this; Museveni was allowed to fight his way to Kampala and assume power.

Once Museveni became president, he essentially declared war on the most viscous groups. At the top of his list was the Lord’s Resistance Army led by Kony. Well known for his pathological cruelty and complete disregard for human life; Kony became the primary focus of the government. “Kony has forced new male recruits to rape their mothers and kill their parents. Former LRA members say the rebels sometimes cook and eat their victims.” To date, the LRA is responsible for the slaughter of an estimated 65,000 civilians.

What troubles and confounds me is the inability to stop this animal. Not only was President Museveni obsessed with Kony; President Bush and the United Nations were as well. In 2006, a mission called Operation Lightning Thunder was devised with the support of the UN and US military intelligence operatives. A group of US trained soldiers were given the task of capturing or killing Kony and his rebels. The mission proved to be another disastrous failure as all of the soldiers were killed, their commander beheaded, and Kony was nowhere to be found.

Over the years; negotiations with the LRA have taken place. Though Kony normally sends David Matsauga, his chief negotiator and fall down drunk; Kony himself has attended these talks on occasion. This begs the question: Why not simply capture him during these talks? When then assistant secretary of state for African affairs asked that very question, Museveni replied “We don’t ambush people. If we’re in the bush and somebody’s back is turned, before we’ll strike, we cough.” Are you kidding me? Not only do they refuse to “ambush” him; they provide food for what Kony claims to be his 5,000 troops. More credible sources estimate the amount to be 800. Is anyone else bewildered by all of this?

The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Kony’s arrest in 2005. The reason for why it took that long escapes me. I assume that would have given the Ugandan government the right to apprehend him and hand him over to the ICC to stand trial for his crimes against humanity. Apparently, my assumption was wrong. While the name binLaden strikes fear in governments throughout the world; Kony remains an enigma. I went through a text from college (2007) which focused on terrorism worldwide and there was not one mention of Kony or the LRA. One critic of Museveni, Norbert Mao, stated “I suspect the incompetent management of the military may be deliberate.” That is a very bold accusation but considering Kony’s ability to evade capture for 23 years; it may very well be a valid one.

All information was derived from the May 25th issue of Newsweek. The article is entitled Hard Target: The Hunt For Africa’s Last Warlord written by Scott Thompson.

Cheney continues to dig a deeper hole

2009-05-10T17:38:00.001-04:00

As if Dick Cheney hasn’t made a big enough ass of himself already by defending the torturous acts allowed during Bush’s tenure; he has decided to amplify his image by siding with Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell. Let me see if I have this correctly: He prefers to ally himself with an obnoxious political pundit who has never proposed an alternative agenda over a retired 4-Star General and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is important to note that Cheney and Powell have been at odds for years.

Limbaugh, once again, chose to play the race card stating that Powell endorsed President Obama purely on the fact that they both happen to be black (I can’t believe anyone takes this moron seriously). This is just another example of the ignorance exemplified by Rash every time he opens that big mouth of his. Powell has admitted to endorsing Obama but he insists he remains a member of the Republican Party. “He has described himself as a Republican and a right of center conservative, though not as right as others would like.” Ahhh-now I get it. By not adhering to Limbaugh’s neo-conservative ideology, he has betrayed the party. How dare Colin Powell strive for bipartisanship to help his country get out of the mess it is in?

Colin Powell was originally a proponent of the war in Iraq but became increasingly disgruntled with the handling of the war and the methods used to curb terrorism. Now what would a 4-Star General know about military affairs? Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were all in agreement over the handling, or mishandling, of “suspected” terrorists. Powell, a soldier in every sense of the word, expressed his objection to these practices and eventually gave up his position of Secretary of State after GW’s first term. This opened the door for another Bush puppet, Condoleezza Rice who, like Cheney, continues to defend the horrid treatment advocated by the Bush administration. I believe her effectiveness was shown when she was stumped by a question asked by a 4th Grader!

In a CBS interview on Face the Nation, Cheney continued to defend said practices and demanded the release of CIA memos that allegedly show the successes attained by implementing torture as a means of interrogation. President Obama, along with his national security adviser retired Marine General James Jones; contend that these tapes prove nothing since no other means of interrogation were ever tried. Cheney went on to say that when Guantanamo Bay closes and these suspected terrorists are brought to US soil, the threat to national security will be drastically heightened. General Jones refuted that assertion as well. Cheney believes that allowing these prisoners rights in a fair trial is a bad precedent. OK!

Dick Cheney received 5 deferments when he became eligible for the draft during the Vietnam War. After flunking out of Yale, he earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Wyoming. If you’re wondering where I’m going with this-here it comes. How does someone with absolutely no military experience become Secretary of Defense; as he did under the elder Bush? And what right does he have to challenge the views of the likes of Colin Powell and Gen. James Jones on issues of national security and military matters? While Limbaugh gets paid a handsome sum to spew his vile diatribes; Cheney appears to do it out of sheer arrogance. His defense of, and apparent alliance with Limbaugh prove to be just one more example of the trouble the GOP is in.

Rehashing the deceit of the Bush regime

2009-05-06T14:10:00.002-04:00

The revelation of deceit perpetrated during the Bush regime is by no means an original concept. However, I have begun reading a book entitled WHAT HAPPENED by Scott McClellan, former Press Secretary for George W. Bush. McClellan has been criticized by both the right and left for choosing to reveal the inner workings of the Bush administration. The left is angry because he failed to speak out against these blatant deceptions earlier and the right simply views him as a turncoat. They contend that he wrote the book based on a lucrative offer by the publisher, Public Affairs, not because of any crisis of conscience. Regardless of his reason; his book soared to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list. Though I have only read a few chapters of WHAT HAPPENED, I find it to be both fascinating and appalling.

The author began as a true believer in George W. Bush and was honored to be a part of something he envisioned as the beginning of a historical change in American politics. Well; he had the historical aspect right. Unfortunately for McClellan, his Camelot-like perception was quickly and painfully crushed. “I believed in George W. Bush’s leadership and agenda for America, and had confidence in his authenticity, integrity, and judgement. But today the high hopes that accompanied the early days of his presidency have fallen back to earth.” It would be difficult to debate Bush’s authenticity but arguing about his integrity and judgement would be too easy.

The crux of McClellan’s opening chapters is the deceit practiced to justify the our entry into the war in Iraq. The role the CIA played in this is both criminal and expected. Bush based his reasoning for waging war on the threat of Iraqi nuclear capabilities and their attempt at furthering those capabilities. This was predicated on the discovery of Iraq’s interest in purchasing uranium, also known as yellowcake, from Niger. The fundamental problem with that is the fact that it never happened and the president and his lemmings were fully aware of that. Adding insult to injury; Mohamed ElBardari, the director general of the United Nations’ nuclear inspection and verification division, claimed that the allegations were anything but credible (nice job CIA) and there was “no evidence or plausible indication” that Iraq was involved in any form of a nuclear build-up. He issued this statement just days before Bush authorized the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I must confess that I consider that operational term to be somewhat ironic at this point.

I have always been of the opinion that Bush was/is either too ignorant or too arrogant to admit when he has mud on his face. Proof of that would be the interview in which he stated that he could not think of a single mistake he made as president. If he had simply called me; I could have helped him with that answer. To further exacerbate this problem was his statement that became known as “the sixteen words” in the inner circle of the White House. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” That’s it GW, blame it on the Brits! This alleged transaction was found in documents that were admittedly forged by the CIA! To encapsulate; Bush sent our young men and women off to fight a war based on a lie that he was fully aware of.

Much of the verification of this deception was credited to, at the time, an unnamed source. That source proved to be former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who had been sent to Africa in January of 2002 to investigate the collusion between Iraq and Niger. Once the source was revealed; Vice President Dick Cheney, who was concerned about his credibility (why would that be in question?), and his shadow Scooter Libby began a campaign of covertly attacking the veracity of Wilson. According to McClellan; Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and McClellan’s predecessor, Ari Fleischer (I can’t imagine those shoes were difficult to fill) joined forces with Cheney and Libby in their attack on Wilson. The author went on to say that Bush himself aided this band of idiots with his handling of the documents pertaining to the yellowcake fiasco. What took place next is one of the most disgusting and diabolical things ever initiated by high ranking members of our government.

As a means of retaliation; the aforementioned group “anonymously” leaked the identity of Wilson’s wife to the press. Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, just happened to be a covert CIA operative. In their pathological zeal to avenge Wilson’s perceived betrayal, they jeopardized the life of a government official and the lives of anyone professionally affiliated with her. These vindictive bastards were responsible for decision and policy making for the most powerful nation in the world. For lack of a better phrase: I find that fact to be very, very scary. More to come…

Would you please shut up?

2009-04-26T09:02:00.000-04:00

I would like to preface this article by stating that I am a fervent believer in the rights accorded to us under the First Amendment. That being said; as is the case with many of the rights given to Americans in the Bill of Rights, misuse and/or misinterpretation are commonplace. Perhaps the two most commonly questioned are the First and Fourth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment was at the forefront of considerable controversy after the terrible events of 9/11. President Bush blatantly ignored and violated the core of the amendment. In this article, I will be focusing on our Freedom of Speech and how my dear friend Rush Limbaugh continues to take advantage of this right in a manner that I feel our forefathers never intended for it to be used. The Rash uses it to attack and insult anyone who doesn’t agree with his pathological ideologies.

A couple of nights ago, my wife and I were watching the news from a Boston television station. Since we live only 40 miles from Boston; it is considered local news. They did a piece on the second-in-command of the Maersk Alabama, who happens to be from a nearby town. This, of course, is the ship that captivated the attention of the entire world not long ago. In the interview, the assistant stated that he had been receiving death threats directed at him and his family from men he presumed were affiliated with the Somali pirates. I will refrain from providing his name so as not to add to any of the attention he is trying to avoid. The interview was conducted impromptu outside his home and his reluctance to discuss the situation was obvious. He did manage to get in a shot at that blowhard Limbaugh. His message to him was: “You’re either with us or against us.”

What prompted his displeasure with Limbaugh was a statement made by him concerning the rescue of Captain Phillips. To paraphrase: Imagine the uproar had it been a Republican president who authorized the killing of “black” teenagers. This is not verbatim but it is close and the message is accurate. I have never been reluctant to voice my opinion of Limbaugh and my incredible dislike I have for the man. I am not about to start now. In a single statement, he managed to include partisanship and race where neither was even remotely applicable.

Hailing from a party whose recent history has exhibited a “shoot first, ask questions later” philosophy; the hypocrisy is clear. The fact that the pirates were black and teenagers doesn’t even factor into the equation. Has he forgotten that Bush and his henchmen never hesitated when sending black, white, brown, red, and yellow teenagers off to fight in a war that was based on lies perpetrated by them? This is a perfect example of using the 1st Amendment as a tool to stir up controversy which is what Limbaugh is all about. The fact that he purports to have 20 million listeners (not necessarily supporters) further amplifies the problem.

I maintain that President Obama made the correct decision when giving his approval to proceed with the rescue mission. I am also growing tired of hearing about this “Code of Conduct” that the pirates are allegedly obligated to honor. One report I read said that “only” seven deaths have been recorded as a result of actions taken by these pirates. I’m sorry but one is too damn many, let alone seven. Perhaps Limbaugh didn’t get a chance to see any of the video where Captain Phillips was seated with an automatic rifle pointed at his back. I applaud the President’s decision, the courage of Captain Phillips, and the skill displayed by the Navy Seals. To the fat one; I will waste my time by asking him to please shut the hell up.

Where have you gone Abbie Hoffman?

2009-04-20T23:27:00.004-04:00

OK, I caved. I should be devoting this time to product research but there are a couple of things I need to get off my chest. Over the last week, the world of political bloggers has focused on two things: 1)The Teabaggers and 2) Gay marriage (infighting in the GOP). I cannot think of two more nonsensical topics as these. I will spend a little time on each and then get back to work.

First, the teabaggers and their ridiculous display of protesting. The problem with this "grassroots" movement is that they lack a specific agenda. Their primary "war cry" is anti-government-now there's an original concept. They all need to get a copy of Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman (which I did) and realize that they're simply rehashing an old and tired reason to assemble, get high, and protest against. I have no doubt that the majority of these "protestors" would not pass the test given to those who seek citizenship. I watched one particular newspot on these hoops where they asked 10 of the protestors what they were protesting against and they got 10 different answers. In my own home; I asked what their major complaint was. The response was that the government was spending too much-OK. I then asked what exactly was the government spending too much money on and what was their propoal? The reponse was: "You just don't get it." Well, that part made sense.

The fact of the matter is that their fearless leader, who has declared war on the government (OOOOH!) , has focused his attention on the tax issues. Well, unless you make $250,000 or more; then it doesn't affect you anyway. I don't know about you, but I had a problem picturing any of these wannbe Chicago 7 members being in this tax bracket. This would be almost comical were it not for the attention this nonsense has garnered. Estimates of the number of protestors range from 200,000 to 400,000. Let's take the high number and break that down-it equates to 8,000 protestors per state. I played football in front of bigger crowds and it's not as if I played for Notre Dame.

The second topic is the recent split in the GOP over their staunch opposition to gay marriages. A few members of the Republican Party have actually stepped up and defied the party line by supporting gay marriage. I hope they have employed competent bodyguards. What bothers me is the notion that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what any couple does with their lives. Unless I'm mistaken; this is the same party that vehemently objected to the President's intervention into the private sector by demanding the resignation of the CEO of General Motors. I, too, objected to this demand. The problem I have is that the GOP objects to government intervention into an arena where the government has actually assisted in their survival. Yet, they have no problem injecting their antiquated ideology into a truly private sector. I am a happily married heterosexual and have been for close to 50 years (the heterosexual part) and I happen to be close friends with a gay married couple. Someone needs to fill me in on who decides which one of the two has the right to happiness. I am fairly well versed on the content of our Constitution and nowhere does it condemn gay marriage .

Perhaps it is time that some people remember that this is, and always has been, a nation of choices . Just as I defend the right of these teabaggers to speak and assemble; I also defend the right of everyone tp pursue happiness. I have two questions that I would like to close with. 1) Where was the outrage when our government lead our young men and women into a war that was based on pure deceit? 2) Have these bible thumping hypocritical bastards looked at the statistics comparing the success ratio of heterosexual marriages vs gay marriages? Ididn't think so. AHHH-now I feel better.

Where have I been?

2009-04-19T03:28:00.002-04:00

For those of you who are wondering where I have been; I have been busy working on getting our online business started. My wife, Eileen, and I have decided to venture into the world of online merchandising. Though we have taken advantage of a consulting company; the hours involved in product research are somewhat overwhelming. Once the company is up and running, I will be able to devote more time to my writing. Thank you for your loyalty and I assure you after April 27th (hopefully), our company will be operational and the brunt of the work will be complete. Until then, I will post if possible but my priority is research at the present time. I am dying to do a piece on these "tea parties" that have been at the forefront of the political blogsphere. Thanks again for your loyalty and patience and look for the opening of DREAMTOOLSTORE.COM. Until then; I hope you are all well and I look forward to getting back to my writing.

Farewell Colonel

2009-04-10T21:13:00.004-04:00

On Wednsday, April 8th, my former hometown of Holyoke, MA lost one of its favorite sons. James "The Colonel" Padden passed away on the very same day he buried his mother. I knew Jimmy for well over 20 years and am proud to have called him a friend. He leaves behind his loving wife Penny and his children. At age 54; we have lost a friend long before his time.

I recall Jimmy calling me some years ago to take a look at his decaying porch to see if there was anything I could do to restore it. After determining that it was salvageable; I gave Jimmy and Penny an estimate for the necessary repairs. The Colonel's initial response was one of skepticism. When I inquired what bothered him, his explanation was that he didn't feel the price was high enough. He wasn't worried that I may be taking shortcuts or using sub-standard materials. His concern was that I was giving him too much of a discount due to our frienship and therefore, I wouldn't be making enough money on the project. How often do you think a tradesman hears that he isn't charging enough? That is the type of person Jimmy was.

Although he was involved in Youth Sports; his true passion was Adult Men's Softball. He was certainly a capable player but his real gift was in coaching the game. I had played baseball from the age of 6 to the collegiate level. After my playing days were over, I chose to begin playing softball. Having faced pitchers who threw the ball upwards of 85 mph; I naturally assumed that the transition would be an easy one. Boy, was I wrong. The Colonel was kind enough to offer his expertise and I quickly accepted (I had grown tired of flying out to left field). I remember Jimmy pointing out the differences between the two well into the early morning hours on more than one occasion. An ample supply of beer was always close at hand. I went on to become a pretty good player for the next 15 years and I always attributed that to Jimmy's kindness and guidance.

I am certainly not the only one who has stories that attest to his kindness and concern for others. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't have a kind thing to say about the Colonel. This brings to mind another facet of Jimmy that I admired. Thinking back to all our conversations over the years; I am unable to recall him saying a single bad thing about anyone. That is simply another example of his character.

In closing, I would like to emphasize how much he will be missed by so many. My heart goes out to Penny and the family and I can assure them that he will not be forgotten. A person as genuine and kind as Jimmy was will always be remembered fondly. Farewell Colonel; you were taken from us far too early but you leave behind a legacy of unparalleled kindness.

Time is running out for Pakistan

2009-04-05T06:51:00.004-04:00

Among the plethora of plans submitted by the Obama administration lies one that has garnered very little attention. It has the potential to have significant effects on a country and to our efforts of putting a stop to al Qaeda’s reign of terror and governmental destabilizing. The plan calls for tripling the amount of monetary aid we have been providing Pakistan from $500 million to $1.5 billion annually. This aid is cloaked under the guise of “nonmilitary” assistance due to the crumbling economy in Pakistan. This plan, not unlike many of the President’s other plans, has one codicil attached to it that refutes the nonmilitary assistance it purports to be.

The administration has made it clear that if the Pakistani government does not increase its efforts to stop the flow of Taliban forces into their country; this aid will be significantly reduced if not eliminated entirely. This is something that the government can ill afford considering they were on the brink of bankruptcy as recently as last fall. Amidst all of this we find a refreshingly pragmatic voice of reason in the person of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Levin has expressed concern over the possible backfiring of this plan should the Pakistanis perceive it as a bribe of sorts.

"It's got to be that we are supporting Pakistan policies because if we appear to be buying something they would otherwise not pursue, it is counterproductive."

Personally, I have trouble seeing how they can perceive it any other way! Do we actually think that they are incapable of seeing directly through this charade, or is it that we know we have them in a corner.

According to Julian Barnes of the LA Times: both Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense Policy, and Gen. David H. Patraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, feel that increased support by the Pakistani military is vital to our effort to stem the tide of further infiltration by extremist forces. The Taliban has already made significant strides in establishing a foothold in many areas of Pakistan. This is an extremely critical time and without additional support; Pakistan is placing itself in an even more precarious position.

This is a situation that Pakistan definitely doesn’t need at this time. The government, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari, is currently under attack from opposing political parties and Zardari has shown that he has no problem imposing martial law to prevent any possibility of being ousted. The magnitudes of the problems facing Pakistan, both internally and in its dealings with the Taliban, are best described by James Traub. Traub is a writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of the book The Freedom Agenda. He has spent over a year in Pakistan and with President Zadari. His depiction of the President provides additional concerns regarding our revised aid plan.

It is important to note that Zardari spent 7 years in prison after Zardari and his wife, then Prime Minister, were accused of embezzling $1.5 billion from the government. The irony in that amount is alarming to me! There were also allegations of murder and attempted murder that led to his imprisonment earlier. To further emphasize the instability of the government; Zardari’s wife, Benazir Bhutto, who had served two terms as Prime Minister, was assassinated by terrorists in December of 2007; shortly after her return from exile. It would appear that unstable would be a very generous description of the Pakistani government.

To further exacerbate their problems; Samina Ahmed, the International Crisis Group’s (ICG) longtime Pakistan analyst, has stated that the Taliban now have gained control of one half of the country and have rendered their security forces useless in these areas. U.S. military commanders have acknowledged that the city of Quetta in one of the larger provinces in Pakistan has become the headquarters of the Taliban.

If things weren’t bad enough; the constant bombing missions by our unmanned Predators (an apt name), which are responsible for countless deaths of innocent civilians are also responsible for driving the Taliban further into Pakistan. The military strategies employed by the U.S. along with Pakistan’s seemingly deliberate ignorance of the threat posed by the extremists have created a virtual time bomb.

Normally, I would be the first one to call for our immediate withdrawal from this border region and leave that joke of a government to its own devices. However, there are some very serious ramifications that may result from these actions. Should the Taliban succeed in gaining control of Pakistan; not only would they be in control of a very strategic part of the world but they would also have access to a large nuclear arsenal presently possessed by the government. Once again; I have more questions than answers, but there is one thing I am certain of. Nuclear weapons in the hands of al Qaeda will only result in further atrocities for the U.S. and its allies. This is a situation we simply cannot walk away from.

Senator Gregg: The good, the bad, and the hypocritical

2009-04-01T19:20:00.001-04:00

Senator Judd Gregg is a dedicated and principled member of the Republican Party; of that I have no doubt. He has been in public office for close to 30 years and is highly respected by fellow members of the GOP. As testimony to his dedication is his incredible voting record: 173 votes missed out of a possible 5,652 (3%) since 1993. Senator McCain, on the other hand, has missed 836 votes (12%) since 1989. McCain’s record is not considered to be a poor one; it merely amplifies the dedication of Sen. Gregg. I confess that I’m not sure how current these statistics are since they were derived from govtrack.us, an organization that is devoted to tracking congressional information. It was not dated but appeared to be somewhat current. Though I don’t question his dedication; I do take issue with other segments of his character.

Among the problems is that Sen. Gregg has a propensity to be hypocritical at times; a trait not uncommon on the Hill. Case in point: Before he chose to withdraw from his appointment as commerce secretary, he stood beside President Obama and stated “This is not a time when we should stand in our ideological corners and shout at each other.” It seems to me that since his change of heart, he has done nothing but shout by taking shots at the President’s budget at every possible opportunity. He contends that it isn’t personal and that he supports the President on other issues such as his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Perry Bacon of The Washington Post points out another clear case of his hypocritical nature. His reaction to the Democrats’ proposing the implementation of a method known as reconciliation in regard to expediting the health care reform issue was rather drastic, to say the least. He declared that it was an “act of violence against the system here in the Senate” and continued his diatribe by saying that they were “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.” WOW-he certainly didn’t hold anything back there. My question is what does he have against the Potomac River? After all; it’s much closer and would save everyone a lot of time and energy. What he seems to forget while perched on his soapbox is that he proposed the very same thing in 2005 to help push through a Republican bill allowing oil drilling in Alaska-in a National Wildlife Refuge!! I’m sure this can be explained as a mere oversight on his part.

Gregg insists that the President’s budget will threaten the future of our children by leaving them with an incredibly large national debt. Apparently, his memory really has failed him. He forgot to mention that he was a staunch supporter of the Bush tax cuts that invariably led to the deficit they left behind. He also neglected to mention the $4 trillion deficit the Reagan/Bush duo left to our children. Kent Conrad, D-ND, who isn’t particularly fond of Gregg, says that his exaggerated projections are in sharp contrast with the Democrats’ projections. Conrad agrees with the President’s assessment of reducing the debt by two thirds over the next 5 years. Conrad asks the question that many of us are dying to hear the answer to-“Where’s your plan?”

Will Lester of the Associated Press reported on March 28th that Gregg has resorted to using the conservative rhetoric now prevalent. “It is the individual American who creates prosperity and good jobs, not the government.” Now that had to have been taken directly from Limbaugh’s playbook. What the hell kind of a statement is that? It is nothing more than a deflection tool to avoid taking any responsibility for this mess we’re in. It is obvious that whenever Sen. Gregg is pressed to provide possible solutions, he simply isn’t capable of coming up with anything substantial. A strong opponent of national health care; his alternative was “ensuring that every American has access to quality health care and choices in health care.” Now isn’t that an original concept? I’m amazed nobody else had thought of that.

Senator Gregg has declared that he will not be seeking re-election in 2010. I think this is a very wise decision. Though revered by the GOP; the man has obviously lost a step or two or ten. Evidence of this is his repeated hypocrisy and failure to provide substantive resolutions to the very real problems we are facing. He has continued to be the most outspoken Republican (in office Rush!), which I equate to shouting when there is no positive input included. His inability to bring anything to the table is further proof that it is time to say goodbye. His cookie cutter answers are akin to those you hear from Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity. It is time to take that ride off into the sunset Senator; while you still maintain a modicum of dignity.

HELP!!

2009-04-01T04:40:00.003-04:00

For all you early risers. It is now 4:30 AM and I am struggling to find a topic for today's article. If you have any topics you would like me to write about, e-mail me at dean_connor@hotmail.com and I will do my best to write an article based on your suggestion. Of course; this policy applies at all times but I am having trouble this morning. Thanks for the help.

Latest poll sends mixed messages

2009-03-31T15:11:00.002-04:00

The results of a recent poll conducted by The Washington Post & ABC News were released yesterday. The results definitely sent some mixed messages while confirming other things as well. The problem I have found with polls is that regardless of the credibility; if you look hard enough you will find another poll with conflicting results. I have been guilty of that in the past. I was given poll results from Rasmussen, a credible source, and refuted them with results from a PEW poll. Since PEW polls have long been considered biased; my argument was a poor one. I digress. My point is that I advise you to view these results with a grain of salt.

Many of these findings indicate a favorable view of President Obama to date. The problem is that the bar wasn’t set very high to begin with. As an example: Though the percentage of Americans who feel we are on the right path to economic recovery has tripled since December of 2008; that rate is only 42%. The percentage of people who felt we were on the right course at the end of Bush’s term was a pitiful 15%. I am fairly confident that my local bartender could have improved on that rate. Another example would be that only 25% of the public blame the present administration for the current economic crisis. This is undoubtedly justified considering the problems in the banking, insurance, and auto industries were firmly established prior to his taking office. While I remain vehemently opposed to some of the President’s tactics; I have never considered him to be responsible for their failures. Approximately 70% of those polled blame excessive consumer spending (credit debt) and the Bush administration’s absence of regulation and oversight as being the main causes of this economic collapse.

The presence of partisanship is glaring in this poll. The percentage of Republicans who feel that the economy is continuing to erode is double that of the Democrats (thank you Sen. Gregg). They are also much quicker to place the blame on President Obama for his lack of action. To be fair; the Republicans were equally critical of the Bush administration for their lack of regulatory measures. There has been a sharp rise in optimism from both Democrats and Independents while the Republican level has remained constant.

President Obama’s approval rating continues to be favorable. Close to 66% feel that he is doing a good job while 60% approve of his handling of the economy. Last fall, an incredible 90% of Americans felt we were nowhere near economic recovery. That figure has dropped to less than 60% which I don’t consider a particularly encouraging rate but it is a drastic improvement. Perhaps the most impressive result for the President is that 64% of Americans still believe in his various plans. However, that number stood at 72% prior to his inauguration. Among Independents and Republicans, the confidence rate has dropped by 13 points regarding his stimulus plan and budget proposal.

While the poll suggests that the public remains somewhat optimistic; it will be interesting to see future results after the President delivers the details of his budget to Congress. Strong resistance is predicted from both parties concerning key elements of the President’s budget. How he fares with Congress will most definitely have a direct effect on the stock market. Evidence of that is the fact that after President Obama described in detail the dire condition of the auto industry; shares in General Motors dropped 25% yesterday. Personally, I am very interested to find out what transpires in Congress and what effect it will have on the market. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the next poll.

For a more concise view of this poll, visit http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_033109.html?wpisrc=newsletter.

Time to back off Mr. President

2009-03-30T15:04:00.002-04:00

In my last article, I expressed my anger and concern regarding Treasury Secretary Geithner’s proposal to assert control over additional financial sectors other than banking. If I was worried about excessive government intervention then; I am incensed now. The actions of the Obama administration over the past two days in regard to the auto industry are further evidence of this new hands-on approach. As stated in the previous article: Our capitalistic system has always been based on the laissez faire premise. Translated; this equates to hands-off. I feel it is necessary to warn you that the material I have read pertaining to these latest maneuvers have raised more questions for me than answers. I fear this article will do the same for you.

According to the New York Times, General Motors’ CEO Rick Wagoner resigned yesterday due to demands placed upon the auto giant by the White House. It appears that in order for G.M. to receive the additional $6 billion needed to stay afloat; certain contingencies must be met. The resignation of Wagoner was one of those contingencies. Chrysler is also being subjected to these borderline extortion tactics. They have been ordered to form a partnership with Fiat, an Italian based corporation, within 30 days or risk falling victim to the wrath of President Obama. Chrysler is also required to reduce their unsecured debts significantly and cut their health care financial obligations. Does anyone else see the paradox here? The government is demanding that a corporation reduce their debt while they are in the process of seeking aid in order to remain solvent. I am very confused, again!

President Obama has stated publicly that in order for these companies to receive additional aid, there must be a “willingness to make some pretty drastic changes.” It would be difficult to find anyone that would disagree with that but I’m not sure they would approve of the President, or his “task force”, being the ones that decide which changes must be made. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were able to demand personnel changes in Congress whenever we feel they haven’t performed up to our standards? Say goodbye to the Senate Banking Committee. Adios to the House Committee on Appropriations. It is important to note that Wagoner’s successor will be Frederick A. Henderson; General Motors’ very own president and chief operating officer. Apparently, he had nothing to do with the failure of G.M. Does anyone else smell a witch hunt?

A related article in the Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama has named Edward B. Montgomery to be director of auto recovery. His primary responsibility will be to provide support for laid-off workers and their families. Unfortunately, Dr. Phil was either unavailable or refused the offer. Considering that Montgomery may very well be strung up on Main St. in Detroit; Dr. Phil made a wise choice. How the hell is Montgomery expected to oversee the recovery process of an industry when he is dealing with people who are no longer a part of that industry? Don’t say I didn’t warn you! I have done a considerable amount of head scratching while researching the events of these last two days.

I could go on and on searching for rational explanations to these moves. The problem is that I continue to come back to the same conclusion. This is all a ploy to satisfy Obama’s desire to control still more facets of our lives. In the case of the auto industry; Obama has basically demanded that Chrysler and General Motors ignore their contractual obligations to the United Auto Workers Union regarding health care. He has given each company 60 days to cut their health care contributions to retirees in half. I certainly hope this is not his idea of health care reform. If in fact it is, all he needs to do is to order an across-the-board cut in corporate contributions to health care. Since he is determined to insinuate himself into arenas that the government has no right being involved in to begin with; this method of cutting health care costs would be rather significant. Though I was originally a proponent of the President and his plans; I am quickly realizing that these plans were also designed to force unprecedented government intervention.

Geithner to make power play before Congress today

2009-03-26T07:31:00.003-04:00

It’s going to be a long day on the Hill as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlines his plan to toss capitalism out the window. For some time, I have heard certain Republicans warn us of the Obama administration’s desire to increase the size and power of the government. Well, as much as I hate to admit it; Geithner’s scheduled proposal today to Congress is certainly evidence of that. Though this is obviously a reactionary response to the current economic crisis; the requests for regulations and mandates have clearly crossed the line. The thought of putting that much power in the hands of a Cabinet member scares the hell out of me.

According to an article in the Washington Post (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29887343), this proposed plan is the most aggressive since The Great Depression. The focal point of Geithner’s argument to Congress (no doubt at the behest of President Obama) is the necessity for the government to assume the responsibility of imposing regulations and mandates on ALL large financial institutions. Bid a fond adieu to our long history of the laissez faire approach to business; the foundation of capitalism.

Although President Obama alluded to the need for additional oversight in other financial sectors other than banking; I never dreamed it would be of this magnitude. Among the proposed mandates is to pay workers based on seniority and eliminating bonuses for what they will deem as short-term gains. Does this include the elimination of commissions on sales as well? How far do they intend to go? This will all be monitored by a specified government agency. Many experts predict that the Federal Reserve will be the likely choice. Don’t they answer to Geithner? This is a man who has yet to fill key positions in the Treasury; among them a Deputy Secretary.

Along with the previously mentioned proposals; Geithner is asking for the right to seize any company that he feels has put itself in danger due to risky investments. Doesn’t the government have enough on its plate in regard to the economy without adding to it by assuming the management of large financial institutions? As part of the plan, the FDIC would take over the management of these corporations. FDIC chairman Sheila C. Blair is a strong proponent of this plan citing the FDIC’s record of salvaging financial collapses. And yet; not one instance was given. Also on board and scheduled to testify today is SEC chairman Mary Schapiro-it seems they all want a piece of the pie.

I have not been asleep for the past few years so I am aware of the state of the economy. However, to completely restructure, or eliminate our capitalistic system seems a bit drastic to me. It seems that Geithner’s power play may be an indication of the lack of faith the Obama administration has in its own plans. I pray that isn’t the case.

Geithner was quoted as saying: “Our plan will give the government the tools to limit the risk-taking at firms that could set off cascading damage.” It seems a little late to close that barn door. Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Netanyahu vies for control of Israel

2009-03-25T09:04:00.002-04:00

Last evening, President Obama primarily addressed economic and budgetary topics in his press conference. I was surprised that more attention was not given to the inevitable problems he will have to confront regarding the new government being formed in Israel. Israel now has the capability of presenting even further problems for an already beleaguered president. Personally, I am entering unchartered waters in regard to the nuances involved in the precarious state that Israel has been in for generations. So feel free to weigh in should I veer off-course.

I was prompted to research this potentially problematic situation by an article in MSNBC News, as I often am. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29862967. The story revolves around the creation of a new government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister-designate and Chairman of the Lukid Party. He was given this task by Israeli President Peres in February of this year. He has wasted little time attempting to unite the various parties in order to gain complete control of the Knesset, the legislative branch of Israel. He has recently struck a deal with the Labor Party which is center-left. This is a significant accomplishment considering the Lukid Party is conservative. The Labor Party has joined the Shas, a conservative religious party, in siding with Netanyahu. As a result, the chairman of the Lukid’s negotiation team stated “Now, 53 members of the Knesset are bound by agreement to support a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu…” as reported by Globes, Israel business news.

Standing between Netanyahu and complete control of the Knesset is the Kadima Party headed by Tzipi Livini. In the past election, the Kadima Party won 28 seats besting the Lukid Party, which won 27. (Still with me?) Many believe that Netanyahu will be able to win over the Kadima Party since it consists of former members of both the Labor and Lukid parties. Should he pull this off, he will have secured 80 seats out of a possible 120 in the Knesset.

Where am I going with all this you ask? An Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu presents several obstacles to Washington’s quest to establish a two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Netanyahu is not an advocate of this two-state system and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman (must be the name) is “fervently anti-Arab.” While the Obama administration vows to work with whatever government is in control; its primary goal would appear to be out of reach. Part of the problem is that Netanyahu has cautiously begun negotiations with Syria. This is where it gets very interesting or very confusing; depending on your knowledge of the history between the two nations.

In the 1967 Six Day War; Israel was able to obtain the Golan Heights which is considered to be very important strategically. As part of the newly proposed negotiations, Syria would like the Golan Heights returned to them. 70% of Israelis vehemently oppose this move. Also as part of the agreement, Syria has insisted that Israel return some of the land it acquired in the war to Palestine as well; namely the West Bank. Hold the phone! Netanyahu has an almost pathological hatred of Iran, as do most Israelis. He feels that concessions previously made have already jeopardized the security of Israel. He cites the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from the Gaza Strip 5 years later as examples. For more on the fascinating story of The Six Day War; I recommend you visit http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/six-day_war.html.

It is impossible to encapsulate the party differences, historical precedents, and omnipresent conflicts in a single article. So I will return to my original point. While we, as Americans, would settle for a modicum of bipartisanship; Netanyahu is seeking complete and unabated control of Israel’s legislative body. Should this transpire; President Obama will be faced with yet another dilemma. Can he continue to negotiate for a two-state solution at the risk of alienating our only ally in the Middle East? Or does he simply acquiesce and allow them to sort it out? Given our history; I’m afraid the former is the route he will choose.

Please come home safely Chris

2009-03-23T07:39:00.004-04:00

I awoke this morning and began my normal routine of putting on a pot of coffee and scanning through the various dailies that I receive via the Internet. However, this morning I didn’t have to look any further than my homepage which consists of links to stories reported by MSNBC News. The story that caught my attention today was the planned change in direction our military is expected to undergo in Afghanistan. My focus there has become very personal for me; something I will elaborate on later in the article. The title of the article I read was entitled Obama wants exit plan strategy and was reported by the Associated Press. Much of the story derives from President Obama’s interview on 60 Minutes last evening which I watched.

In an attempt to summarize to be able to get to the real reason for my article; I will briefly outline the President’s plan. This is a plan he intends to implement over the next 3-5 years. We have already heard of his intention to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. A decision he states to be the hardest one he has been forced to make in his brief term as President. Part of the plan that we are privy to is the heightening of our engagements (such a proper term) with the insurgents and the provision for additional bases deeper into Afghanistan to better equip us to fight the Taliban. Obama’s goals are to prevent the insurgents from overthrowing an already weak central government and providing the Afghan National Security Force with ample training and resources to better defend themselves. Geez-where have we heard that one lately? Obama went on to explain that Afghanistan is a much more difficult environment to fight in than Iraq; clearly overstating the obvious. He referred to the terrain, infrastructure, and education of the people as stumbling blocks in our pursuit of the Taliban. Perhaps a look at the results the former Soviet Union had in Afghanistan would have been a good place to start in understanding the “terrain” and the ” people.”

The parallels are frightening; both from a military standpoint and an ideological one. While our initial reasons for intervention differ, the difficulties are the same. The Soviets first invaded in December of 1979 with the expressed purpose of preventing the Russian backed government from being overthrown by the mujahideen resistance. Our initial purpose was to hunt the Taliban in an effort to prevent further attacks on our country. Contrary to many pundits; I still maintain that this was both justified and necessary. Unfortunately, our results to date are less than encouraging. The Soviet’s goal was to impose their social and economic practices on the Afghan people. It is ignorant to think that while we are pursuing the Taliban; that we are not attempting to impose our democratic ideals on the Afghans as well. Another glaring similarity is the fact that neither of us anticipated the level of resistance we have encountered. Couple that with our lack of training in mountainous combat and you have a lethal combination. Something the Soviets discovered in their 9+ years of futile attempts at accomplishing their mission. For more on the Soviet failure, go to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSABB57/soviet.html.

As I alluded to earlier; Afghanistan and our decision to deploy 17,000 more troops has hit home with me, as it has with thousands of others. I spent some time with a dear friend last week and he informed me that his youngest child had just received his deployment orders to Afghanistan. Though unquestionably a man now; I can’t help but flash back to holding him in my arms while babysitting for my friend and his wife. He is a graduate of Brown University (Ivy League), a former All-American soccer player and distance runner, and an officer in the United States Marine Corps-a patriot in every sense of the word. His grandfather was also a college graduate (Georgetown) and a Marine Corps officer and I can only imagine the pride he would have felt if he were still with us. Though my concern and worries are nowhere near those of his parents; I have still been unable to get him out of my mind. Amidst the persistent mudslinging and the questioning of our presence; we tend to lose sight of what truly matters and that is the safe return of our young men and women. For now, I would like everyone to focus their thoughts and prayers on the men and women who honor their pledge to defend our country. And I assure you Chris; you will be in my prayers every day until you return home safely. Thank you so much for being the person you are and the patriot you are. God bless every one of you.

Format Change

2009-03-21T23:32:00.002-04:00

As you can see; I have changed the format of my site in order for you to be able to read my work without the need for a microscope. For those of you who were unable to see the link to my friend Travis' site, I will repeat it for you. Visit http://newsday.today.com. For those of you interested in reading the opinions of a truly intelligent and inspired writer, I strongly recommend you check out his site. I, too, submit to that site. Though the content is the same; there is a great deal of interaction among the bloggers. http://deanconnorsblog.today.com. Thank you for your interest.

Post Conviction DNA testing

2009-03-21T08:01:00.002-04:00

I have decided to open this article by stating that I have no intention of debating the morality or immorality of the death penalty. Personally, I feel that unless a heinous act was committed against one of my loved ones; I have no right to question its merit. The gist of this piece is the ongoing argument in the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of DNA testing in a case in Alaska. I came across this article in the Washington Post and chose to research both the case and the arguments presented by members of the Supreme Court.

I find the nuances in this case to be somewhat perplexing. The focal point of this case is whether or not DNA testing should be allowed after an individual is convicted of a crime. In this instance, William G. Osborne was convicted of rape and leaving a prostitute to die in 1993. Osborne now contends that DNA testing will exonerate him of the crime. The argument is whether or not he is entitled to access of any past or future results of DNA testing. This is where the circus begins. If you want to see a classic example of partisanship; you need only look to our Supreme Court. In the majority of controversial cases regarding constitutional law, the vote usually comes back 5 to 4. Over the past few years, the deciding vote has been placed in the hands of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. For more on Kennedy and his voting record, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501856html. Not surprisingly, Justice Kennedy has been known to agree with arguments presented by both factions.

Alaska’s Attorney General has stated that a prerequisite for obtaining access to DNA results is that the convicted must swear under the penalty of perjury that he is innocent. As ridiculous as that sounds, it is in accordance with Congress’ own Innocence Protection Act. Naturally, a convicted rapist and murderer would certainly shudder at the thought of perjury charges being brought against him-WOW! To further emphasize this petty legislation is the fact that the convicted is obligated to incur the costs of any additional testing. If that’s the case; what’s the problem? I appreciate Congress looking out for us taxpayers but that is a non-issue here.

What further confuses me (it’s becoming clear that’s not very difficult to do) is a statement made by Defense Attorney Peter J. Nuefeld of the Innocence Project. He claims that the prosecution has conceded that the admittance of DNA results would erase any doubt as to whether Osborne is guilty. Am I missing something? Enter the Supreme Court with their litany of questions and concerns. Justice Paul Stevens opposes the admittance of this evidence parroting former President Bush by saying that this will only “open the floodgates” to frivolous and expensive appeals. Given Texas’ record on the death penalty, where Bush served as governor, this should come as no surprise. According to the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 9 prisoners awaiting execution were exonerated because of DNA testing in 2008 alone. To date, 232 people have been released nationwide due to DNA test results. That figure alone is all the information I would need to cast my vote. Not so fast!

Chief Justice John G. Roberts presented this ridiculous question. If post conviction DNA testing is allowed; should that right be extended to those who confessed to their crimes? UNBELIEVABLE! Of course every confession has been obtained without any coercion (sarcasm); and this is our Chief Justice asking this question. Perhaps the only legitimate question posed was by that of Justice Kennedy to Attorney General Rosenstein. He inquired as to whether Rosenstein would “put aside procedural measures” to prevent imprisoning an innocent person. Rosenstein’s reply was that it was “conceivable.” Justice Kennedy was less than pleased with that answer.

From where I sit; the decision really shouldn’t be that difficult. Taking into account the number of people who have been exonerated coupled with the fact that these tests are not on the state’s dime; where’s the dispute? I have no idea whether Osborne is guilty but that is not the issue. I would like to see every available piece of evidence presented before we sentence someone to die. The technology is there-use it!!

For more on Post Conviction DNA testing; http://www.dna.gov/postconviction

Let us not forget them

2009-03-21T01:15:00.001-04:00

I received this from a friend of mine some time ago. The friend who sent this to me is a veteran of the Viet Nam War and felt that this might improve the climate of my articles-I agree. I have submitted it exactly as I received it so please read it and allow yourself some time to give some thought to our men and women who risk their lives every day for us.

The Sack Lunches

I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read and perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought.

Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation. 'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me.

'Petawawa. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Afghanistan .'

After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached the east, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time.

As I reached for my wallet, I overheard soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to base.
His friend agreed.

I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq ; it's almost like you are doing it for him.'

Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?'

'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class. 'This is yours with thanks.'

After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.

Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Air craft Pilot coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked , I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand, and said, 'I want to shake your hand.'

Quickly unfastening my seatbelt I stood and took the Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.

Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.
When we landed I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!

Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.'

Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of meals. It seemed so little.

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to his country for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

That is Honor, and there are way too many people who no longer understand it.

Thanks Travis

2009-03-20T16:19:00.006-04:00

I would like to thank my friend Travis who took time out of a busy schedule to design my new look. Dashing, isnt it? For more of Travis' skills, visit him @ http://newsday.today.com/. Thanks amigo.

The song remains the same!

2009-03-20T16:15:00.001-04:00

Throughout the week, we have been bombarded with news of the bonuses given to employees of AIG. Though I will certainly address that; there are a few other details that remind us that “change” is nowhere in sight. Today, the deficit soared to $1.8 trillion while the California unemployment rate rose to 10.5%, it’s highest since 1983. One can only imagine what those stats are going to do to the market today. My original optimism is slowly waning. All I see is business as usual. The promise of Congressional oversight and the numerous bailouts and stimulus plans have, so far, accomplished zip. I have preached patience and will continue to do so but there are those in key positions who are performing as if they took a seminar put on by the Bush administration.

I am referring to Treasury Secretary Geithner and Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd of Connecticut. These two misfits have more to answer for than those greedy suits at AIG. Dodd, the highest ranking member of banking oversight community, claims that he had no knowledge of these bonuses. If that is true; then he truly is an idiot. I actually hope that he’s lying so he can blend in with the rest of them instead of being perceived as a moron. Treasury Secretary Geithner, an old Wall Street boy himself, seems to have shown complete indifference to the situation. Since the Fed now owns 80% of AIG, where was its fearless leader while this travesty was unfolding? Thanks in part to these two do-nothings; it is President Obama who now has egg on his face, and justifiably so.

AIG-where do I begin? First and foremost; I question the moral turpitude of any individual associated with AIG who accepted these bonuses because there were those who declined. $165 million to a group of people who are as responsible for our economy’s demise as anyone. The present and past CEOs of the company are now playing the blame game as far as who is responsible for these rendition bonuses. Who gives a damn who is responsible for creating this system-flush it!! While all this is happening, Geithner and Dodd both confess to being concerned about the possible legal implications of refusing to give out these bonuses. Who the hell are they going to sue? The government is the “chief stockholder.” Which brings me to my next question. As “chief stockholder”, shouldn’t we have had a say in the dispensing of these bonuses? Apparently not since no one stepped up to the plate. Oh yeah-I forgot that they were unaware.

As previously stated; Obama is now the one who looks the fool. His only salvation seems to be the House vote to levy a 90% tax on these bonuses. Now if only the Senate would step forward and impose a fine for misappropriation of funds. Though this may sound counter-productive; the way things are going this may be our only way to get any of our money back. I apologize for the tone of this article but I am pissed.

Closing Gitmo: Where's the plan

2009-03-18T19:15:00.003-04:00

Once President Obama signed the bill that honored his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay; we were subjected to the pros and cons, morality and immorality, necessity and lack of necessity, ad nauseum. Blame was passed from administration to agency to individuals like a bottle of whiskey on St. Patrick’s Day. What seems to be lost amidst this finger pointing was the fact that nobody has proposed a definitive plan to close Guantanamo Bay. The conflict is not only restricted to party ideology, but to the promised assistance of our European allies as well. Though the Democrats and Republicans certainly have different views on how the closing should be handled; our friends from Europe have begun to backpedal away from their promises as well.

According to William Blaberson and Steven Erlenger of the New York Times; a delegation of countries called the European Union is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in Washington on Monday. Among the countries attending are Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, and others. Previously encouraged; Secretary of State Clinton must now contend with questions regarding the status of these individuals than originally anticipated. These questions and concerns are legitimate ones and stem from the absence of complete disclosure from the Bush administration. Could it be they have a problem with the word of GW, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? Go figure! Though the Obama administration has taken a much different approach than the Bush administration; that being the admission of unlawful detentions. They still have yet to propose a plan that will put a stop to this blatant violation of human rights.

As reported by CBS News; in 2008, the Bush administration admitted that many prisoners (I refuse to refer to them as detainees) were cleared for release but there was no plan to safely place them anywhere. Many of these prisoners could not return to their homeland for fear of reprisal and mistreatment by their governments. Case in point: 17 Uighurs, a small Chinese Muslim group, were captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As far back as 2001, they were deemed to be no threat to the United States. To phrase it another way; these people were mistakenly captured and have been imprisoned for over 8 years. What puzzles me, rather angers me, is the fact that the Attorney General’s Office in conjunction with the U.S. Marshalls, have the power and the resources to provide a new identity and location for the likes of Sammy “The Bull” Gravano. Gravano, one of the most notorious hit men in the history of Organized Crime was granted this opportunity (he later left the program), but we are unable to afford this same opportunity to the Uighurs.

For the sake of brevity; I will close with my feelings toward the European Union. I respect the concerns of most of these countries but I do have difficulty with the reservations of Germany and France. We are talking about them accepting responsibility for a maximum of 7 human beings. Has Germany forgotten who was responsible for the reconstruction of their country after WWII? France, who we liberated during WWII, have consistently denied even our minute requests ever since. During our “Line in the Sand” conflict with Libya; we requested that our planes be allowed to fly over French airspace-DENIED! If it were up to me, I would have flown over anyway and accidentally dropped a few 3,000 pounders on that ungrateful nation.

While I applaud President Obama’s pledge to close Gitmo; he would have been better served having a definitive plan in place before making this promise. If we are going to accept responsibility for these travesties; then we should also devise a resolution. And if the European Union is willing to offer a helping hand; we should provide them with an answer to any question they have. Regardless, if we have the capability to provide safe havens for admitted killers; we should certainly be able to provide the same for those we have so obviously wronged.

Add Charlie Lynch to America's Most Wanted

2009-03-14T09:57:00.003-04:00

Last evening I witnessed one of the poorest displays of “investigative journalism” that I have ever had the misfortune of watching. After being subjected to a two week long campaign advertising the airing of John Stossel’s show Bailouts and Bull; I was led to believe that he was going to expose the numerous flaws in some of the bailout plans. He devoted approximately five minutes to these plans. The rest of the show was spent reporting on issues that would have made Geraldo proud. However, I was able to extract one story that was worthy of further research. That was the story of Charlie Lynch; a California man who ran a dispensary that provided marijuana for people who required it for medicinal purposes.

On March 29, 2007, his store called the Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers, was raided by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). At the time, no arrests were made and according to reporter Radley Balko; the store reopened on April 7th. The reason being is that California is one of 13 states that allow the sale of marijuana with written approval by a physician stating that marijuana is a necessary part of their treatment. The DEA was not done. They pressured Lynch’s landlord to evict him or risk the forfeiture of his property. The landlord complied with these Gestapo style threats and evicted Charlie Lynch on May 16th. After his eviction; Lynch was later arrested and tried on August 5, 2008. He was found guilty, completely ignoring California law, and was released on $400 thousand bail. At his federal trial, the fact that he was operating under the parameters of California law was deemed inadmissible. What? Also deemed inadmissible was the testimony of his customers who intended to inform the jury of their illnesses and the relief they were given by the marijuana. One of our justice system’s finest hours!

Naturally, Charlie Lynch’s appeal was denied and he remained free on bail until his sentencing. Among the provisions of his bail were ankle bracelet monitoring and restrictions placed on when he could leave his home-they were between 1 and 5 PM. This is all perfectly understandable considering the hardened criminal that Charlie Lynch is. I have read of child molesters who were not subjected to this level of scrutiny. According to Alex Johnson of MSNBC News; Attorney General Eric Holder stated that DEA raids in states where the use of marijuana is permitted for medicinal uses would no longer be allowed. This was a pledge made by President Obama during his campaign. How refreshing it is to see a President fulfill a promise.

The precedent cited by the Supreme Court in upholding the Lynch verdict was the Raich decision in the case of Gonzales, Attorney General et al v. Raich et al. in 2004. According to the Cornell Law University, the decision was based on the Federal Controlled Substance Act which classifies each controlled drug into one of five categories. "Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 substance based on its huge potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or posession of marijuana a criminal offense." For more information, go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/suspect/html/03-1454.ZS.html. The court ruled that this act superseded California’s Compassionate Use Act. Compassion; we’ll have none of that.

Personally, I am not a proponent of the legalization of marijuana (I can feel the daggers from some already). However, to deny a cancer patient relief due to a jurisdictional dispute between federal and state laws is both irresponsible and inhumane. I have read nothing that contradicts the idea that marijuana is effective in the treatment of pain for certain ailments. If there are any; I need someone to explain to me the difference between the use of morphine or oxycontin over the use of marijuana. Don’t worry; I’ll wait.

Families are asking but the military isn't telling.

2009-03-13T07:33:00.003-04:00

The number of alleged sexual abuse cases against women in the military has reached startling and sickening proportions. The questions surrounding the death of Army Pfc. LaVena Johnson and the plight of U.S. Army Spec. Suzanne Swift have aroused the attention of all of America. Key members of Congress along with retired female officers are demanding answers to a number of unanswered questions along with explanations for some of the sobering statistics now brought to light. Rose Aguilar reported that the Miles Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides assistance to victims of military abuse, has cited 518 cases of sexual assault on women in the Middle East since the fall of 2003.

Having studied Criminal Justice in college; I took a couple of courses on forensics. The sad story of LaVena Johnson appears to have so many holes in it that someone with my limited knowledge of investigative protocol can see right through them. David Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times was able to garner information on the lax investigation from the father of LaVena; a veteran of the Army himself. Though understandably biased in its content; some of the accusations and questions posed by Mr. Johnson require further attention. He contends that the scene was staged in order to avoid any investigation into the possibility of rape and murder. Having read his account as well as the answers provided by the Army; my opinion is that the investigation was conducted so poorly that the notion of a cover up graduates from possible to extremely probable.

Zucchino reports that LaVena Johnson killed herself while cradling an M-16 rifle in her lap. This alone begs the question: Why didn’t she simply use a sidearm? Same result with less effort. Mr. Johnson contends that once he received pictures of the crime scene; he noticed both bruises and abrasions which seem to indicate a struggle. There were a number of discrepancies he found and it is important to note that he was forced to file a request under the Freedom of Information Act. The Army refused to provide him with this material. Christopher Grey, spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Council, called the investigation “thorough and closed.” Thorough-are you kidding me? Among the blatant errors in the “investigation” are the absence of a vaginal swab, the absence of a fingernail swab, and the failure to find the bullet. The Army’s explanation for their failure to find the bullet; it must have gone through an open flap in the storage tent where LaVena’s body was found. How convenient. I could fill page upon page noting the inconsistencies of this tragedy but I will close this with one note. In 2005, the Pentagon created an agency entitled the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. It sounds official enough but there is one little twist that requires mentioning. They are not obligated to provide information to any law enforcement agency or the military command. I can’t take much more of this.

Col. Ann Wright (U.S.A. Retired) has publicly accused the military of “stonewalling” the families of the victims. For more on her views, go to http://lavenajohnson.com/category/deaths. Due largely in part to Col. Wright’s protestations and the outrage voiced by Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill), Rose Aguilar reported that Congress mandated the Department of Defense to disclose the number of cases on sexual assault they have on file. In 2005, that number was 2,734 worldwide. A 65% increase from 2003 alone!! Rep. Evans is the ranking Democratic Member of the House Veteran’s Affairs Committee and publicly criticized the Bush administration for their failure to release these findings. What a surprise there.

I have never been a proponent of having women in combat zones. I say that at the risk of being politically incorrect and chauvinistic as well. That being said; I find the numbers to be another example of the government’s continued efforts to keep us in the dark. The families of these victims are entitled to answers; not the nonsense that the military has provided. I have two daughters of my own, 21 and 26. Though neither chose the military as a career path (Thank God); if something would have happened to them, I would have demanded to be told all of the circumstances relevant to their demise. The family of LaVena Johnson deserves this courtesy.

Obama to educators; be good or be gone.

2009-03-12T05:43:00.001-04:00

In a recent speech to the National Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; President Obama held nothing back in his criticism of the public school system in the United States. It seemed only appropriate that this speech was made to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce considering that as of 2006; the dropout rate among Hispanics stood at an incredible 22.1%. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the national average was 9.3%. The dropout rate for Whites stood at 5.8% and 10.7% for Blacks. His criticism was aimed at both the Democratic and the Republican members of Congress.

According to Scott Wilson of the Washington Post; Obama accused Congress of paralyzing progress and being directly responsible for the eroding system. He stated that Democrats had long avoided the rewarding of successful teachers while the Republicans had consistently blocked funding for Early Childhood programs. He called for merit increases for teachers who were deemed responsible for the success of students while calling for the dismissal of those who hadn’t. During his campaign, he walked a tightrope on the issue; afraid of alienating the National Teacher’s Association. Now in office, he shows no sign of being intimidated by the union. Among his proposals was a uniformed national set of academic standards, replacing the power of individual states to determine criteria and curriculum.

With the allocation of $100 billion provided for the public school in the new stimulus package; Obama and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, positioned themselves to have more influence in the development of a more effective public school system. Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahn Emanuel, went on to say: “Our basic premise is that the status quo and political constituencies can no longer proceed on public education reform in this country.” This will undoubtedly provoke the ire of the union as well as many politicians in several states.

President Obama had no problem providing statistics that support his contention that the public school system is simply not working. While addressing the issue of a uniformed standard; he pointed out that under the current system, a 4th grader in Mississippi reads at a pace estimated to be 70 points lower than that of a 4th grader in Wyoming-yet receives the same grade! The article in the Post went on to say that 2,000 high schools in such urban cities as Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia are responsible for over 50% of America’s dropouts. In order to combat this problem, Obama has set aside $5 billion for Early Head Start Programs while at the same time making it feasible for an additional 7 million graduates to attend college as an incentive to complete their high school education.

Among the opponents, and there are several of them, are members of the District of Columbia school district. They have implemented a voucher program that provides for 1,700 low income students to attend private schools by providing them with an annual scholarship of $7.500. Under the President’s plan; this voucher system will be eradicated though he did say that those already in the program will be allowed to continue until they graduate high school. One apparent flaw in this program is the fact that 6,800 students apply for this scholarship while only 1,700 (25%) are granted it. While other states have the same program in place; only D.C. uses federal money to subsidize their program. The District of Columbia invests more money per student than any other area of the country yet still is plagued with low test scores and high dropout rates.

Wendi Weingarten, President of the American Teacher’s Association, claims “as with any public policy, the devil is in the details. And it’s important that teachers’ voices are heard as we implement the President’s vision.” As part of the President’s plan; restrictions in place regarding the number of charter schools would be erased. A test being conducted by the Department of Education is underway to determine if the voucher system and the charter schools are showing significantly better results than the public school system. Members of Congress, including Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) are awaiting these results before they decide which way to vote on the President’s proposals.

While it is clear that the present system is not working; it’s unclear to me what steps are required to improve it. I am afraid that this is another case of the federal government assuming responsibility for something that has long been under the control of the individual states. What type of barometer is going to be used to determine which teachers are reaching their students and which aren’t? My mother-in-law retired from teaching in 1987 and still has former students approach her to tell her what a difference she made in their lives. But let’s be fair: How can you possibly reach students when teaching Algebra. If memory serves me correctly; that was a snoozer no matter who was teaching it. We need to be wary of this increased involvement by the federal government in yet another arena before it is too late.

Urgency-I'll give you urgency!

2009-03-12T05:35:00.002-04:00

In a past article, I pointed out how impressed I was with the way the President carried himself and maintained an air of optimism throughout the majority of his speech. What I neglected to mention was that he may have overemphasized the fear portion a bit. Many analysts commented on the same thing and criticized him for attempting to scare Americans into being more receptive to his plans. I felt that perhaps by focusing too strongly on the urgency; he was looking for a way to justify some of his perceived excessive spending. Well, if anything, he did not focus on the urgency enough.

The Washington Post commented that the President lacked the enthusiasm necessary in some of his previous speeches. Former President Bill Clinton publicly criticized him on that very thing. Some of the President’s detractors pointed out that he focused primarily on economic issues with not enough attention given to foreign affairs. For that, I applaud him. For too many years, Bush cloaked the eroding economy with a barrage of patriotic rhetoric centered on Iraq and Afghanistan sprinkled in with the threat of a nuclear presence in North Korea and Iran. In no way do I mean to trivialize these dangers, however, they were not the greatest dangers facing our country.

It is time to step off my soapbox and provide some sobering numbers to hammer home my point. As reported by MSNBC News; the U.S. Department of Labor and the Commerce Department had the task of delivering these harbingers of doom. I will attempt to encapsulate these statistics into 3 categories: housing, unemployment, and manufacturing. Beginning with housing; new home sales are at an all-time low and home resales are at the lowest they have been in 12 years. The value of homes is quickly dropping far below the amount that was borrowed. The Housing Bill only provides relief for those whose value falls 5% or less. And still he smiled.

Grouping unemployment and manufacturing is simple enough. I will start with the most startling statistic I read. People receiving unemployment benefits, coupled with those who are receiving additional funds due to an extension granted by Congress, is 6.5 million!! The figure at this time last year was 2.8 million which we felt was alarming. And still he smiled. New unemployment claims last week alone totaled 667,000-the worst since 1982. The current rate is an unbelievable 7.6%. And still…all right, all right.

Regarding manufacturing; the Commerce Department reported that big ticket item sales fell for a record 6th straight month. This is also a reflection of the state of the global economy. Consumers have simply cut back on purchases of any size which, of course, leads to increased job cuts. As an example, though not a manufacturer, J P Morgan Chase&Co. has recently announced that it plans on eliminating 12,000 jobs. Economist Zach Paul stated that corporations, regardless of size, have been forced into “working with the minimal work force possible”. Believe me; I have more but for your sake and mine we will concede that the point was made. To be kind, I didn’t touch on the banking industry.

Maya MacGuineas, President of the Bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (quite a title) was quoted as saying: “They’ve painted the worst-case scenario in order to make it as easy as possible to improve on”. There is NO WAY she said that with a straight face. Other detractors point to the excessive spending in the new bills and budget as merely adding to an already ridiculously high deficit. To them I say: I couldn’t care less. To quote the late inspirational football coach George Allen: “The future is now!” Given these numbers, drastic measures are imperative. We must keep in mind that the President inherited these problems and is being as aggressive as possible to resolve them. I respect the man for even running for the presidency considering the state our nation is in. And still he smiled.

Obama's troop withdrawal plan; a classic Catch-22

2009-03-10T08:46:00.002-04:00

During Barack Obama’s presidential campaign; he vowed to have all of our troops in Iraq home within 16 months of his taking office. He has since amended that to 18 months as a concession to his own military commanders. I can live with that. He originally proclaimed that he would begin withdrawing one brigade a month; the equivalent of 3,000 to 5,000 troops. He has amended that as well by deciding to wait until the spring of 2010 before he begins the aggressive withdrawal approach. I am having a little difficulty with that one.

If history has shown us anything in regard to war; the advice of the commanders in the field should be given the most attention. However, in the case of Iraq, these opinions are based on the fact that these commanders do not feel that the Iraqi Security Forces will be up to the task. My response to that: I don’t care! Does anyone honestly believe that our continued presence is going to miraculously change how the Shiites and the Sunnis feel about each other? That is what it all comes down to. The Sunni extremists are supported by al Qaeda and have chosen the town of Mosul as their base from which they launch their offensives. Of course, their offensives are limited to roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and the occasional drive-by shooting.

The violence is not restricted to Mosul as the suicide bombing in Baghdad on Sunday will attest to. A further reminder of the danger our troops face every day. To date, 4,238 Americans have lost their lives-far too many for a war that was started based on either shoddy intelligence or blatant propaganda. Unless I’ve missed something; we still haven’t found those pesky little WMDs that were the foundation for our invasion. We now justify our presence as being the “preventers” of escalated violence between the two factions.

I recall a reporter stating that our withdrawal would open the door to a civil war. What an astute observation. What in the world did he think was taking place for the centuries preceding our intervention? Whether we leave in 18 months or 18 years; nothing is going to change. Putting our young men and women in harm’s way in order to prolong an inevitable conclusion is just wrong. We need to adjust our focus to our troops as opposed to worrying about the future of the Iraqis. If that sounds selfish then so be it. Attempting to broker peace anywhere in the Middle East is akin to trying to take down a redwood with a keyhole saw. It’s just not going to happen. Lt. Col. Tom Cippolla summarized it best by saying, “I think we understand now that it is a fight that doesn’t stop. It’s part of the environment here that will have to be dealt with for a very long time.” Not by us I hope.

I am aware that President Obama is in a difficult spot between appeasing the Democrats who are calling for a quicker aggressive withdrawal, and heeding the advice of his military commanders. Regardless of which path he chooses, he is going to make some enemies. Therein lays the Catch-22. Cippolla believes that the Iraqis will request us to stay longer than the designated deadline and that is what concerns me the most. Prime Minister Maliki assures us that his forces will have the capabilities to manage the situation but they will need additional weapons. Of course they will!

My hope is that President Obama fulfills his promise to the American people and brings our troops home. We are tired of broken promises. He simply cannot cave in to the wishes of our commanders or the Iraqis to continue our presence there. It is bad enough that he plans to leave 50,000 troops there for an additional year as non-combative (doubtful) supporters. Detracting any further from his original withdrawal plan is unacceptable.

Comments or questions: dean_connor@hotmail.com

Hannity and Grace: Sleep Aids

2009-03-10T08:38:00.001-04:00

February 23, 2009

As a lifelong insomniac, my sleep hours are normally from 1:30 to 4:00 AM. I have accepted the fact that this has a definite adverse effect on my daily life Aside from adding to an already sunny disposition; I am sometimes forced to watch, and even more damaging, listen to some of these ridiculous and blatantly partisan think tanks. Last night was certainly no exception. I began by watching Hannity (I don’t believe it either) for 20 minutes or so and, after growing tired of his close minded rhetoric, I graduated to Nancy Grace, or is it Nancy Drew. I really have to start watching cage fighting.

Hannity’s topic du jour was his objection to the closing of Gitmo-not much of a surprise there. He sounded as if he was preparing for a re-enactment of Bastille Day; where the doors fly open and the prisoners are left to their own devices. I think it is time to let Sean know that Gitmo is not located in the continental United States. There lays a beautiful ocean separating ourselves from these savage detainees. Relax Hannity; I wouldn’t want you to wet yourself.

He began by stating that more than 1/2 of Americans share in his paranoia; of course they do Sean. He went on to say that 5 of the world’s most dangerous terrorists are housed at Gitmo and ironically are world class swimmers as well. He went on to quote his usually fabricated statistics by pointing out that only 21 of the alleged 800 terrorists are being held at Gitmo awaiting trial for war crimes. He isn’t even bright enough to realize when he is making a point for the opposing view. Wait, it gets better. His contention is that should Gitmo close (I love this part), these very same terrorists could end up being your neighbors, in part due to their aforementioned swimming prowess. Are you kidding me? He closed in true Hannity fashion by saying that he had no problem with the use of “enhanced interrogation tactics”. This is after he had a guest who formerly worked at Gitmo portraying it as something close to a Club Med destination. I am willing to bet any sum of money that Hannity has no idea what these tactics are. Enough was enough.

A quick click and I am on to Nancy Grace; the modern day Barbara Walters, really. As with Hannity, Grace’s topic was one of national interest. It is her incredibly annoying interview approach that I take issue with. Allow me to give a couple of examples. Her topic was the tragic and mysterious disappearance of Haleigh Cummings. Somehow, Grace was able to provide a live feed with her interviewing the paternal grandmother of Haleigh. This is where she truly began to shine. She inquired as to the state of mind of Haleigh’s father to which the grandmother pointed out she hadn’t spoken to him since he hadn’t left his tent. Nancy quickly came back with: “Explain“. Explain what?-he didn’t leave the tent, I got it.

As Nancy waited for an answer that was certain never to come; she quickly switched gears by making such an astute observation that it prompted me to stand and applaud. “He must be exhausted”. Time to call it quits Barbara. In typical Grace fashion, she latched on to a specific point and clung to it like a pit bull to a leg. Loucakis, a known criminal who is now restricted to an ankle monitor and a curfew, was questioned by the FBI and quickly dismissed as a subject. This wasn’t good enough for Nancy-I wasn’t aware of her extensive training at Quantico. She brought on an expert guest who pointed out how it is possible to “beat” an ankle monitor. Clearly something the FBI didn’t take into consideration. I really have to thank Nancy. After this truly compelling interview; I was able to fall into a deep sleep.

I woke this morning suddenly aware of why Hannity and Grace chose these much sought after time slots. They have been sent here to aid us insomniacs. Thank you Sean. Thank you Nancy. I can’t wait until tonight.

National security and human rights; boundaries are required

2009-03-07T06:40:00.000-05:00

While studying Criminal Justice in college, I recall writing a paper on the restrictions imposed on the law enforcement community by the 4th Amendment. For more on the 4th Amendment, go to www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm. That being said; the allowances given to former President Bush following the horrific events of 9/11, paved the way for him to make a mockery out of the Constitution. There is no doubt that extraordinary measures were called for. However, according to memos released, and soon to be released by Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., unprecedented executive powers were granted.

When one man is given the power to disregard constitutional rights; accountability is no longer an issue. History has shown us that nothing positive results from such practices. Have we already forgotten the Iran-Contra Affair? When Bush and his closest followers chose to take advantage of these powers accorded to them; the 1st and 4th Amendments were ignored under the guise of national security.

According to Tim Ruthen of the L.A. Times, the Office of Legal Counsel which was headed by former Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, gave Bush the power to supersede these amendments. Among the actions this carte blanche approach provided for was the torture and illegal detention of many suspected terrorists. It also included the use of widespread domestic wiretapping without the need for a warrant. Among the original opponents of this were Jack Goldsmith, successor to John Yoo, and surprisingly Bush’s own Attorney General, John Ashcroft. What came as no surprise was the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney (shocker!) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were staunch supporters of this executive tyranny.

Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, has publicly accused Rumsfeld of being responsible for the Pentagon’s policy on torture. Author John Byrne has devoted an entire book to Rumsfeld’s actions and has expressed a desire for a formal prosecution. For more: www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/14. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Judiciary Committee Chairman, has begun a petition calling for the establishment of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission to investigate the alleged abuses during Bush’s tenure. “These abuses may include the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws.” There are many who feel that this is not enough; contending that war crimes were committed. This is a problem that is simply not going to go away.

Along with the other powers mentioned; the President also had the ability to approve treaties with other nations without the consent of Congress. This is an incredible amount of responsibility for a man of superior intelligence and decision making capabilities, never mind one of… Present Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury has stated that many of the allowances granted between 2001 and 2003 “should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose.” He went on to claim that the Department of Justice had conveniently withdrawn some of the more questionable memos. This, coupled with the allegation that nearly 100 tapes depicting torture inflicted on prisoners were destroyed by the C.I.A., has brought human rights issues to the forefront.

I have no doubt that certain provisions outlined in the Patriot Act were responsible for the disclosure of numerous terrorist cells. This undoubtedly resulted in the saving of countless American lives. My problem is with the authority one man was granted without the benefit of some oversight. Let’s remember; this was not Abraham Lincoln in office. Americans have been victims of terrible violations of human rights, such as the Bataan Death March in 1942, the abduction of American citizens in Iran in 1980, and more to the point, the abuse of American POWs during and after the Viet Nam War. We portray the image of defenders of human rights as evidenced by our intervention into such places as Bosnia and Somalia.

My hope is that the fallout from these allegations and investigations do not permanently scar our image. Like all Americans, I was outraged watching the planes crash into the towers and called for immediate retribution. But have we gone too far? Only time will tell and personally, I am fearful of what may be uncovered.

Answer for speculators: Deal with it!!

2009-03-07T06:32:00.000-05:00

February 22, 2009

The debate over the new Housing Bill centers on who should be entitled to relief and who shouldn’t. There are those that are upset because they feel punished by being forced to have their tax dollars used to bail out those facing foreclosures. Since they have abided by the terms of their mortgages, they don’t feel compelled to help out those that couldn’t. I can certainly sympathize with this way of thinking but the fact remains that something must be done about this epidemic. As projected, as many as 6 million Americans are in danger of losing their homes over the next 3 years. The one thing that people do agree upon is that there should be no help given to speculators.

Webster defines speculators as those who “take part in any risky venture on the chance of making huge profits”. That sounds awfully similar to what the banks did with our money. A couple of differences need to be pointed out. Though there is no denying that the banking industry as a whole made some incredibly poor investments; they did so in the hope of hefty returns that would have eventually trickled down to the public. This would have been seen in the form of substantial returns on CDS, IRAs, and basic savings and checking accounts. The results of a bank’s investments are available to anyone interested since they are posted publicly in places such as NASDAQ. Those interested are able to see if they are doing well or poorly. Shareholders and customers expect a decent return on their money when times are good. Due largely to the housing debacle, returns have been anything but decent.

Speculators, on the other hand, often invest based solely on the misfortunes of others. Years ago I worked for a large contractor and one of the other supervisors was able to purchase 10 homes in Houston for a total cost of $100 thousand (I missed that boat). This investment was predicated by the drastic halt in the growth of the city. Foreclosures were commonplace and many of these houses were sold at auctions for ridiculously low prices. When the anticipated comeback of Houston took place, he simply turned around and sold these homes making an exorbitant profit. The question today is whether or not these bottom feeders should be given the same opportunities as someone who lost their job and are now in danger of losing their home.

As far as I am concerned, the answer is an emphatic NO. While the average American struggles to make his payment in the midst of this pitiful economy; these speculators should have to face the same consequences as any other investor who lost money in the market. You don’t see people who are holding shares in a collapsing corporation looking for help. Why should it be any different for these speculators? Bottom line: You gambled and lost-deal with it!

Response to the neo-conservatives

2009-03-05T21:28:00.000-05:00

What follows is my response to a request I received via e-mail to sign a petition calling for the GOP leadership to return to "true conservatism". Though harsh; you do not have the benefit of reading the context of this request. I found it to be an insult to my intelligence and my knowledge of history.

Attention Sender:
Do not EVER, and I mean EVER send me another piece of propaganda filled with neo-conservative drivel. Any group that consistently praises that fat, treasonous, destructive windbag Limbaugh would be wise not to send me any more of their garbage. Your HERO should be deported for some of his recent statements. He loves to portray himself as a patriot. A true patriot is one who defends and works to better his country. Limbaugh does nothing but attempt to tear down anything that does not coincide with his pathological ideologies. The fact that he publicly stated that he hoped the President and his plans failed is testimony to the fact that he does not have his country's best interests in mind. WOW-what a patriot!!

What makes your little campaign even more detestable is the fact that you refer to Ronald Reagan as a hero as well. He was a puppet! Many of his former aides and cabinet members have said as much. He was almost completely unaware of the content of his speeches and he played little to no role in the policy making. Do any of you whackos do your homework? Like the Rash; you ramble on about the dangers posed by Liberals, Democrats, and even Republicans who don't adhere to your pitiful, antiquated ideals. You manage to do all this without a shred of emperical data. Well, here's a little slice for you. At the time when Reagan was first elected; the deficit stood at $955 billion-due largely in part to Carter's desire to be viewed as a worldwide ambassador while neglecting domestic issues (sound familiar?). At the end of the 12 years of Reagan and Bush, the deficit had risen to $4 trillion. GW inherited a $256 billion surplus and turned that into a $1.3 tillion deficit. Nice job Boys!!

One would think that the last three elections (presidential and congressional) would tell you nuts that America has grown tired of your rhetoric along with your results.We actually care about one another; unlike the fat one. He truly has a problem with contradictions from one speech to another. In one, he states that the government is not here to provide for its citizens; that we should all be self-sufficient (a humanitarian as well as a patriot). In his next speech, he states that a true conservative is one who sees the potential in everyone and helps them to achieve their goals. Well, which one is it? God forbid we allocate money for such trivial things as the environment, education, and social issues-areas your HERO is opposed to.

One final note: He warned of the danger of regulation in any industry. Good call Rash-that worked out well for the banking industry. And please don't bother me with that nonsense about allowing them to go under. All that does is eradicate any available credit which translates into no new home sales, no credit cards (great for the economy), and no start-up money for small businesses. Who do you suppose suffers with that scenario? Is that patriotism-I'm confused? Both of my grandfathers fought in the First World War. My father, father-in-law, and six uncles fought in the Second World War. Numerous friends and former co-workers are veterans of the Viet Nam War. So don't you dare wave the flag in my face because I have seen patriots and you and your leader de facto are not them. He constantly refers to his 20 million listeners-I wonder if he is aware of the number who listen for the entertainment value only. Everyone loves a clown!

Sincerely,
Dean Connor
Politically Independent Patriot

Personal Note: Please tell me that some of you have feelings and/or questions regarding this post. Please add them to the "comments".

President Obama's Speech: Optimistic yet realistic

2009-03-05T20:38:00.000-05:00

Feb 25 2009

It is not very often that I find a speech by anyone, let alone a politician, able to captivate my attention the way President Obama’s did last evening. To be honest, I find myself switching to ESPN about 20 minutes into most. Make no mistake; just as I find it unfair how certain members of the GOP, and some of these mindless pundits judge him after only 5 weeks-I am not ready to nominate him for a Nobel Prize yet either. However, at least for one night, he appeared as a man completely in control of himself and the daunting task he is faced with. As I listened, I found myself thinking that just 5 weeks ago we had a man whose IQ is at least 50 points lower than his leading our country. In the words of Bob Dylan: “A simple twist of fate”.

Throughout his speech, he consistently pointed to three areas that concerned him the most: education, health care reform, and energy reliance. These have pretty much been at the forefront of the last 3 administrations. However, President Obama was able to convince me that he was actually going to do something about them. In fact, he already has. As part of the stimulus plan, he has made it possible for 7 million young men and women to attend college. He has also made cuts in other areas in order to avoid the layoff of teachers. The fact that the U.S. has one of the highest dropout rates of all industrialized nations is nothing short of a slap in the face. Because of this; the President plans to increase funding in areas such as Early Childhood Education and more Charter Schools. He will also implement a plan that rewards those teachers that prove to be innovative and produce positive results. That alone is something I think is long overdue.

With regard to health care; he has helped pass legislation which will allow 11 million children to be insured. On Monday, he is creating a panel consisting of health care professionals such as doctors, administrators, and insurance specialists to address the issue of health care reform. He contends that the lack of efficiency is at the root of the problem. I was a bit taken aback when he stated that 1.5 million Americans may lose their homes in the next year due to medical costs. I know from personal experience that if you do not have a solid insurance plan, you can lose everything because of a health problem. In 2003, I suffered a heart attack and my total bills amounted to $140 thousand. Fortunately, I was a member of the Carpenters Union who were able to provide us with an excellent insurance plan. Without it, I would have lost my home.
When President Obama spoke of energy reliance, there was a hint of anger in his tone when he pointed out that China now leads the world in the use of renewable energy. He was equally upset that we were the first country to experiment with solar power and have since been passed by Germany and others in its use. Because of these things; he has pledged to allot $15 billion annually to energy technology.

It would be impossible for me to accurately depict the crisis facing both the banking and auto industries. One of the reasons is the ever-changing relief amounts requested. To emphasize this point, the New York Times reported that on Monday the American International Group (AIG) asked for additional tens of billions on top of the $150 billion previously requested. Citigroup is experiencing the same type of problems as they see their losses continue to mount. As I said; it is pointless to beat this proverbial horse. He is fully aware that his decision to continue granting aid to these institutions is not a popular one, but it is one that must be made in order to restore credit opportunities for Americans. This is an integral part in stimulating the economy. There was talk of nationalizing the banking industry but that has been replaced by a tracking system that will be put in place to enable all Americans to see how their tax dollars are being spent. Accountability will be the primary focus and Vice President Joe Biden will be in charge of the oversight. President Obama jokingly (sort of) commented that “You don’t mess with Joe”.
The auto industry has joined ranks with the banks in asking for additional monies exceeding the already exorbitant amounts already requested. General Motors and Chrysler are asking for an additional $22 billion on top of the $17 billion already promised. The President was quick to point out that this was in no way excusing them for their past performance, but a necessary move in order to help them re-tool and make them viable again. The number of jobs at stake should either of these giants go under is staggering. It is clear that the bailout is simply the lesser of two evils

Throughout the President’s speech, he maintained an optimistic view of the chance of recovery; albeit a slow recovery. The American public has come to appreciate that they are looking at 2 to 3 years before they see significant improvements. The President didn’t hesitate to explain the gravity of the situation; as the aforementioned numbers clearly indicate. Mixed in with battle cries of “We will recover” were reminders that we are on the brink of a total collapse. A collapse that has the potential to cripple the global economy as well. He issued challenges to lawmakers to set aside party differences and work together to focus on the future. Only this will help us crawl out of this seemingly bottomless pit. To his credit, the President refrained from taking shots at the previous administration that allowed these conditions to escalate year after year. Instead, he chose to take the high road and appealed to Americans and their history of resiliency to help in overcoming these incredible obstacles.

Though admittedly inspired; only time will tell if I witnessed a historical speech or merely more political rhetoric. Presently, President Obama has captured the hearts of Americans and is asking them to join him in this fight, and if the polls are any indication, the answer is an emphatic YES!!

Mars vs America's Youth. The winner is...

2009-03-04T13:18:00.000-05:00

The other night I spent a considerable amount of time looking over the breakdown of the individual allocations in the Stimulus Plan. Regardless of your cause or agenda; finding alarming figures is a simple task. In my case; a very hot topic is the Juvenile Justice System. This is a system that has attracted very little attention since its’ conception.

NASA, which according to the U.S. Office of Budget and Management, operated under a budget of $17.1 billion in 2008. I am aware that there are many people who are fascinated by space exploration and the possibility of life forms on Mars. I can assure you that I am not one of them. Unless they strike gold, in which case we could hand it over to the auto industry to grant their request for an additional $14 billion, I could care less what they find up there. The administration apparently doesn’t share in my apathy. NASA was granted an additional billion dollars.

While NASA, whose most significant finding over the past decade has been water on Mars, received their billion dollars; the entire judicial system was given $350 million. Keep in mind, this money is earmarked for every level of the national judicial system. I am having a very hard time digesting the flaws in the prioritizing. Is the discovery of water that much more important than the care and guidance of our troubled youths?
While CEOs on Wall Street are crying over the restrictions imposed on them such as having to give up their private jets and multi-million dollar bonuses; indeed.com reports that Juvenile Probation Officers have had to suffer through a drastic decline in numbers and salaries over the past year. These are people who are in a position to change the lives and futures of America’s troubled youths. This is an incredible responsibility and all too often, they find their caseload unmanageable. According to author Marilyn McShane, the accepted rate has risen to 30 to 1.

America has a system in place which has the ability to contribute to the future of this country; yet has all but ignored it over the years. The need to address this issue is long overdue and I hope this administration will recognize that. Unfortunately, my hopes were seriously deflated when I read that the plan included $650 million more to inform the public that they need to get a converter box for their television. I have been watching ads on this topic ad nauseam for close to a year. $650 million-I am not making this up. To put this in perspective; that amount would have paid for an additional 14,130 Juvenile Probation Officers.

Now this is a stimulus package!

2009-03-02T06:09:00.000-05:00

For those of you who were fortunate enough to watch Charles Gibson's interview Friday evening; my article will simply be a repeat of what you heard. I had planned on watching it and had intended to write an article about the Miami banker even before I had heard he was going to be on television. Since I didn't have the benefit of watching it; I went back to my original plan of researching this story about a banker who has helped restore many people's faith in Americans-mine included. In these tumultuous times; a story such as this is just what many of us need.

As a writer who focuses mainly on the political arena; it is not often that I am able to write about anything as moving as the incredible act of kindness and generousity displayed by Leonard Abess, Jr. Though this is a wonderful story; the sad fact is that it received very little national attention until Friday evening. We, as Americans, are programmed to write and read about stories dealing with conflict, tragedy, and loss. Think how different it would be if the dailies' lead story everday was similar to this one. They happen; they are just not newsworthy.

There is no doubt that there are a number of stories out there about acts of kindness and couragous feats, but you would be hard pressed to find one comparable to the story of Leonard Abess, Jr. and his empoyees and retirees. When he sold the majority of his holdings last November; he did something no one could have possibly foreseen with $60 million worth of the profits. He gave unbelievably generous bonuses to his loyal employees as well as those who had been retired for a nuber of years. One retiree, William Perry, who had worked for the bank for 43 1/2 years told the Miami Heral that he was shocked. Perry had worked his way up from janitor to Vice President during his long tenure.

When Abess completed the merger in November and made a healthy profit for himself; he was very concerned about the state of the 401Ks that his employees had counted on for their retirements. He was aware that due to the debacle on Wall Street, many of his people found their plans worth very little or nothing at all. Mr Abess decided he had to do something for these people who had been so loyal to him over the years and were instrumental in the success of his bank.. By way of an online video, he told his employees that they could expect a substantial bonus soon while making it clear that this was a one time deal and was not to be looked upon as a prelude to their being dismissed. According to the Associated Press; 471 employees and retirees received an average of $127,000 each!

As heartwarming as this story is: the sad part about it is the fact that had Leonard Abess not been mentioned in President Obama's last speech, we may never have heard of this incredible story. He certainly would not have appeared as a guest of Charles Gibson on television. It is stories such as this that we need to hear about; especially in these times. Though I merely write for a small audience, I vow to find at least one story per month that examplifies the good in Americans as opposed to writing about the dismal state we find ourselves in or the incessant Congressional in-fighting that we are subjected to on a daily basis. I would prefer to write about these acts than devoting my energies to the ramblings of such pundits as that windbag Rash (not a typo) Limbaugh, whose sole purpose is to attack anything that doesn't coincide with his pathological ideologies.

Just last week, I was watching the local news when I heard a story that displayed the good in Americans. Though nowhere near the magnitide of Leonard Abess' story; it still warrants repeating. An elderly woman was in line at the Water Dept. pleading for an extension on her shutoff notice. She explained that she was forced to make the decision between paying for her heating oil or her water bill. A gentleman in line overheard the conversation and promptly stepped forward and wrote a check out to cover her outstanding bill. Although the bill was only a little over $120, I found this to be a true act of kindnesss and something I like to think that I would do. Unfortunately, I scanned the newpapers the next day and was unable to find a single mention of it. But there was Rash, front and center, tearing apart the President's stimulus plan. Time for a change is right!