Something sent to my email

I just recieved this by email today. I am posting it exactly how I recieved it. I can not attest to the truth of the message, but I can attest to the impact of it. It is something that we should all think of when we have the chance to help people.

Subject: Two Choices
What would you do?
You make the choice!
Don't look for a punch line; There isn't one!
Read it anyway.
My question to all of you is: Would you have made the same choice?

At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning disabled children,the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: "When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?" The audience was stilled by the query. The father continued. "I believe,that when a child like Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes, in the way other people treat that child."Then he told the following story: Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked,"Do you think they'll let me play?" Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps. Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked if Shay could play, not expecting much. The boy looked around for guidance and said, "We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning." Shay struggled over to the team's bench put on a team shirt with a broad smile and his Father had a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat. At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible 'cause Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball. However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing the other team putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least be able to make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher. The game would now be over, but the pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game. Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the head of the first baseman, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, "Shay, run to first! Run to first!" Never in his life had Shay ever ran that far but made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled. Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second!" Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to second base. By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball, the smallest guy on their team, who had a chance to be the hero for his team for the first time. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions and he too intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home. All were screaming, "Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay" Shay reached third base, the opposing shortstop ran to help him and turned him in the direction of third base, and shouted, "Run to third! Shay, run to third" As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams and those watching were on their feet were screaming, "Shay, run home! Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the "grand slam" and won the game for his team. That day, said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world. Shay didn't make it to another summer and died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his Father so happy and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day! AND, NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it comes to sending messages about life choices, people think twice about sharing. The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our schools and workplaces. If you're thinking about forwarding this message,chances are that you're probably sorting out the people on your address list that aren't the "appropriate" ones to receive this type of message. Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the "natural order of things." So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up that opportunity to brighten the day of those with us the least able, and leave the world a little bit colder in the process? A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them. You now have two choices: 1. Delete 2. Forward May your day, be a Shay Day,sunny today tomorrow & always!

Darfur: A human crisis

You may have heard of this remote region in Sudan in a passing conversation. Or maybe you caught the 5 minutes of coverage that the major media networks gave to it all of last year. You might have even seen an article about it somewhere, although not likely. It seems that the Western Media, along with every major Western Government has decided to simply turn the other way as the worst humanitarian tragedy since the Rwaden Genocide unfolds.

I for one feel ashamed for the fact that until tonight I have taken no action to try and spread the word about this tragedy. I have been so consumed by the many things taking place in this country that I have simply looked the other way the times that I have heard someone speak of the tragedies. I never tried to claim it wasn't happening, or that we shouldn't be there, but I never attempted to change the fact that we aren't either, and that in itself is enough to be ashamed of.

I am not saying that the issue that we have at home right now are of any less consequence, but that should not take away from our conscience and our duty to help those in need.

I, as well as many others in this country, claim to fight for the civil liberties that are so important to us as a people. I ask though how can you claim to be for freedom and civil liberties and then watch as helpless people are slaughtered simply because of their race and beliefs.

I am not naive enough to believe that I will be able to make even a minor impact on the events that are happening in Darfur. However, I do believe in the power of numbers. If you have a conscience, or even a slight respect for life please simply take the time to do three things. The first is to visit www.savedarfur.org. This site can offer a much better insight into the current situation than I can. Then let your friends know about the site, just ask them to take a look at it. Then if you are touched by what you see call your Congressmen and tell them that you feel that the U.S. should take a stand against the genocide which is occurring in Darfur.

The crazy thing is that we don't even have to send troops in order to make a difference, all we have to do is say that we are against the current events and it will at least send a message to the rest of the world that it is time to recognize what is going on and do something about it. Please take the time to do this, it could mean saving thousands of lives.

A Dangerous Time in America

They say that history is bound to repeat itself if we do not learn from it. It would seem to me that we did not learn from the 1950's era of McCarthyism, the Red Scare, and the witch hunts that followed.

I have just finished watching the movie "Good Night, and Good Luck"
and it got me thinking. In addition to be a very good film it is also very historically correct drawing much of it's content from actual footage of McCarthy. When I saw the way that people were being accused of Communism the moment that they attempted to stand up to McCarthy or his methods it made me think of Bush and his tactics. With that in mind let us review what it is I mean.

McCarthy would accuse anyone who questioned him of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer and would subject them to ridicule, the destruction of their careers, and even questioning by his committee on the ties to Communism. The majority of the time the accusations were based on rumors, incorrect intelligence, and straight mis-information or lies.

Let us now leap to the current. Those individual who attempt to stand up to the Bush administration, especially early on in the "War on Terrorism" are labeled either Un-Patriotic, Terrorist, or Terrorist sympathizer. Although lately it has become easier for people to step up to Bush and question his actions even now those that attempt to are simply met with a wall of silence, lies, and secrecy.

I make this comparison only to spur thought before moving on to the real issue at hand. Recently the issue of the Bush administration spying on the American people has gotten a lot of air time, as it should, with the majority of people being against such actions, and a good deal being outraged by them. Prior to this coming out the major questions being asked were in regards to Bush's methods when it came to those who disagreed with him at speeches, appearances, and other events. Prior to that it was his handling of the Iraq war and the lack of, and misinformation given to the American people. Also the same issue regarding the "war on terror." Before that, and currently, was the debate over the Patriot Act and the many rights it stripped away. Laced in between all of this was the debates over torture, the right to privacy, gay marriage rights, abortion rights, the right to die, the supreme court justice nominees, and possibly some I am missing.

Now all of these things have been covered in great detail by the main stream media individually. And everytime a new issue regarding our rights pops up the media is all over it for a week or two and then it seems to disappear. What I am not seeing reported on as much by the main stream media, although it is getting some air time mostly by people who would be considered left wing, is the massive power grab occurring right now in this country and the danger it poses to our way of life.

If you look at each of these issues individually they are all bad enough in of themselves. However when you combine them, when you begin to study the pattern that they leave, they paint a very scary picture. Over the course of the last 5 or 6 years the Bush administration has slowly but consistently increased their control over the government while at the same time taking away key rights of the American people. Many would say that what I will imply later in this post is impossible, that they could not have gotten away with it, but they have. They have used fear to manipulate the American people into allowing them to simply do as they wished. They used the most basic human fear, death. They showered us with threats of terrorism, and WMD's. Every time we started to doubt their actions another "close call" would occur. Every time people began asking questions the terror alert would suddenly rise and people would simply follow their fearless leader whatever was asked. We bought duct tape and plastic to protect against biological warfare. We set aside emergency rations in case we were trapped for days after a terrorist attack. But the worst thing we did was hand away our rights. What follows is a description of what has occurred and how it will soon come to blow up in our face if we do not wake up and start demanding our rights back.

Edward R. Murrow during his long career said two things which I find to be of utmost importance even today.

1) "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility." - From the March 9, 1954, "See It Now" television broadcast on Senator Joe McCarthy.

2) "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. "

In addition to these confirmed quotes in the movie about his life he was also reported has saying, regarding McCarthy, something along the lines of "he did not create the fear, he simply used it."

Now I am sure you can understand why I say that the first two quotes are important in today's atmosphere of mistrust and fear in which our rights our being stripped away. The third is important in that it is precisely what the Bush administration has done as well.

On September 11, 2001 a tradgedy struck on American soil, and subsequently drove our great nation into a state of fear unlike anything we had ever known. Although we had seen terrorist attacks on the news they had always been in far off countries, and although we had has some here none even came close to the intensity of this attack, and none had shown the true vunarabilty of our nation. We had always felt safe, protected against the dangers of the world. No one could attack us, we were the mighty United States, who would dare, and then it happened. And all of the sudden the mighty United States was no safer than anywhere else in the world.

It was then that George W. Bush began on the road that has led us to the dangerous situation that we find ourselves in now. I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories that say that Bush, or any of his cronies, had anything to do with the attack. Bin Ladin committed this atrocity, that much is known fact, but Bush did continue the terror. See the attack in itself was enough to scare us for a while, but Americans are tough, we would have been back to normal in a short time, simply remebering the tragic event and those who lost their lives, but not being scared anymore. We would have gone after those responsible, caught them, brought them to justice, and moved on with our lives. That is one of the great things about our country, we don't give in easily.

But Bush had other plans. He saw an opportunity. He new that the fear that was caused by this attack could be capitalized to ensure not only his own future political gain, but the beginning of a new era in American government, which I will explain soon.

He (when I use the words his, he, Bush, or they I am referring to Bush and his administration, it is simply easier to type these words rather than The Bush Admin everytime.) capitalized on the fear caused by the attacks to set into motion the largest power grab in the history of our country.

The first major action taken after the attack was the declaration of war against Afghanistan, this is one of the few that I actually agree with. Afghanistan was harboring Bin Ladin and every option was exercised prior to attacking. But then things went awry.

Soon after the attack on Afghanistan the Patriot Act was signed into effect and the Department of Homeland Security was formed. This was the first major step in the power grab that would eventually put us in our current situation. This bill was signed by all but one member of Congress and was not challenged in any way. Why? The same reason a lot more would occur in the near future, fear. The bill was passed as a way to combat terrorism to prevent another 9/11. It was not until after it was law that people began to realize the rights that it gave away including Amendments 1, 4, 5, & 6 of the United States Constitution.

The first major use of the powers that I have been able to find was the arrest and subsequent holding of Jose Padilla who was held from 2002 until 2005 without being charged of a crime. I am sure that their were other cases that I cannot remeber and cannot find, but you get the point.

It was shortly after the forming of the DHLS that the "Terror Alert" was started. This, as I am sure you all remember, was a gauge by which we could see what the current state of terror was. It range from green to red with the average for a long time being either yellow or orange. It became obvious soon after it's debut that it would go up anytime people began to relax their fears of terrorism. During this time we would hear reports of FBI and CIA warnings of possible terrorist attacks involving everything from more planes, to bio weapons, to subway bombs, but never anything conclusive, just enough to keep us scared. We also had the anthrax scare, which turned out not to be terrorist at all.

And all this time we were also hearing one other thing, Iraq was a major threat. Of course people listened because they were scared. They believed that the WMD's were real because they were scared. They believed that Saddam was a threat because they were scared, and when Bush decided to attack in March of 2003 they followed because they were scared. Those that opposed were labeled unpatriotic and even supporters of terrorism. Groups like Peace Fresno
were labeled possible terrorist threats and spied on. Protestors were ridiculed by the administration. And worst of all the real threat, Bin Ladin, was forgotten. The official war ended only three weeks after the first shot was fired. In reality as we all know it continues to this day. As revelations came to light that there were no WMD's as U.N. officials urged us to believe before we attacked, the reasons for the war changed, eventually coming back to the one thing that no one would challenge, Saddam was linked to terrorism and was a threat to our national security, this has since be shown to be untrue but the admin. continues to support this claim.

Over the next three years leading to today many things occurred. First the right to investigate individuals library records started to be used. Hundreds, maybe thousands of peoples privacy was invaded and no one said anything because they were afraid, and Bush said that this would stop future attacks.

Then people who questioned his tacticts were question about possible terrorist activities, and no one said anything because they were scared, and Bush said this would prevent attacks.

It also came to light during this time that groups like the ACLU, Green Peace, and others had been spied on. Although their was outrage by some for a while most stayed quite because they were still afraid.

Then it was revealed that people were being tortured by American Troops and not only did people stay quite but many supported it because they were afraid, and Bush said the info could stop attacks.

Then the really crazy stuff started happening. First during the Schiavo case the GOP run congress made an unprecedented move in overturning a Supreme Court Ruling, something not allowed in the Constitution. Then a new Chief Justice and Justice were appointed to the Supreme Court, both opposed by the Democratic party for their far right fews and for fear that they would support Bush over the Constitution, something which is already coming to pass with a case regarding Abortion. Also Alberto Gonzalez was appointed Attorney General, and promptly stated that torture should be allowed, a statement supported by Bush.

When the Democratic Congressman attempted to filibuster the GOP Congress made another unprecedented move and threatened to vote to turn over the filibuster, something that would chang two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

Most recently has been the revelation that Bush condoned spying on the American people by the NSA. Stripping away one more right of the American people. There is a lively discussion on this topic available two places on Jim Leach's AbeLog, the discussion began here http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6133156&postID=113926406659800895
and ended here http://www.blogger.com/comment.gblogID=6133156&postID=113978143596953755 (near the bottom of both)

There are many things I missed I am sure and I apologize, but I was giving only a brief summary. The result however is the important thing.

At this point in time the Executive branch has more power than at any other time in history. We also have a Judicial branch which is little more than a group of pawns for Bush and the Executive Branch. Congress likewise seems to be little more than pawns, although this could change. In addition to this the rights of the American people have been slowly remove and at this point what rights we do have are in question from one day to the next. We still seem to have a suedo version of free speech, as long as we don't upset the administration to much, although that along with most of our other important rights seem to be up for grabs.

What does this mean for us. Well simply put if we don't stand up and let the Administration, Supreme Court, and Congress know that we will not allow them to take away the rights that we hold dear in this country, soon enough we won't have any. The reason that the Constitution had checks and balances was to ensure that no one person or group could become to powerful. By limiting the powers granted to one branch you ensured that all three branches had to work in unison to affect any major changes or actions. The idea being that if one of the branches was not acting in the best interest of the country the others would stop it. We no longer have those checks and balances. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are all controlled by Bush. This is very dangerous as he could quite literally do just about anything he pleases; as long as we do not wake up and do something about it that is.

This brings me to my earlier statement that many would not believe what I am saying possible and that Bush wants a new era of government. Bush is not a classic Conservative. Meaning that were most Conservatives want a small government, Bush wants a large government. He would like to see government controlling every aspect of a persons life it seems. Why? Because he truly believes that he is on a mission from God, one that is very dangerous to our freedoms. He is not alone either, Neo Cons as they have been labeled, are a new group of conservatives best described here.

It is not to late to stand up for our rights however. This can be done only one way. We must speak out about our concerns. We have to let Congress know that we do not want any more of our rights trampled on and that those which have been removed must be given back. Congress is the one area of government that we can change in the near future, and that gives us power. That is the final Check and Balance. Congress holds elections every two years, and that two years is coming up. That ensures that the people always have the option of installing new leadership if the current leadership is unwilling to do the will of the people. We have to remind Congress that they work for US not Bush. Call your Government Reps and tell them that if they will not stand up for your rights then you will elect someone who will. If we are not willing to take this simple step to protect our freedoms then we do not deserve them. Throughout our history people have given their lives in order to protect our freedoms, all we have to do is give five minutes of our time to call or write our representatives. It is easy to say that one phone call will not do anything, but what about a hundred, or a thousand. Call, and then tell your family and friends to call. I guarantee that if the people of this country take action we will keep our freedoms, however if we don't, we won't. Do not mistake this as a call to elect Democrats either, plenty of them have not stood up the Bush administration as well. Whether you plan on electing new Democrats, Republicans, Third Pary Reps, or Independents into office if the current officials don't do their job and work for the People of this country, let them know. You can get you officials number at www.congress.org

Throughout history there have been times when those who believe in freedom and justice have had to stand up and fight for what they believed in. We are blessed in that we do not yet have to fight, but simply put action to our words, let us not wait until it is to late.

More thoughts on the Palestinian issue

Over the last week since the elections in Palestine I have heard many people talking about why we should not be negotiating with the new Hamas led government. I have even heard many who say that we should simply wipe it off the face of the earth with nukes, precision nukes so as to not harm Israel, their words not mine. There reason for being able to so quickly dismiss the immense loss of innocent human life that would come out of such an act, "well if they are willing to elect those people into office they deserve it."

What!? Since when was making what others see as a bad political decision reason for death, if that were the case then over 50% of our population should be killed for re-electing Bush. But the fact is that we support free elections, at least publicly as long as it serves our purpose, but if it doesn't then damnit "let's just get rid of them ragheads" (again their words not mine.) And I am in what is supposed to be a liberal state, California.

Now since my last post it has been brought to my attention that Hamas targeted only civilian organizations and therefore that is why we will not talk to them because they are nothing more than terrorist. Hearing this and not really knowing I researched it, I also researched a claim made by a co-worker that all attacks made by Israel have been in retaliation to terrorist attacks. Now when I heard both of these claims I was weary about the truth behind them, it simply did not seem possible so I have done the research and this is what I have found.

The question of Hamas attacking only civilian targets:

From the information that I have been able to gather this is true. Although it seems as if the organization originally targeted military facilities it seemed to quickly learn that civilian attacks were a stronger tactic and has since moved to almost entirely civilian attacks. Sources used:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1197051.stm
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3256858.stm
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Quick_timeline
Timeline of Hamas attacks
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909108.html
Report on history of Hamas

As for the issue of whether all Israeli attacks are in retaliation:

It would seem that my coworker is right in a way, but not totally. Many of the attacks were what is known as "targeted killings". Attacks on people who the Israeli government feels pose a threat to their security and therefore feels it has the right to kill. These attacks many times in in the death or injury of innocent bystanders.

I was unable to find much on the attacks by Israel honestly, until I typed in "targeted killing" it seemed as if the media was extremely gun shy about saying anything bad about Israel. I could not understand this at first and then I found this video...http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=129&num=17293&printer=1

If you click on the link found on the page listed above it opens a windows media file of a CBS news broadcast that is very indepth into the actions of Israeli troops against Palestinians. Furthermore their are widespread accusations of torture by the Israeli government of innocent Palestinian civilians. My sources are:


http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=129&num=17293&printer=1
Video showing Israeli forces mistreating Palestinian civilians
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7572
Link to article speaking of armed Israelies attacking unarmed Palestinians. Two paragraphs into the article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-22-mideast-glance_x.htm
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#In_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/2005/kiiling7.pdf#search=
Speaks of targeted killings by Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3556809.stm
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,193466,00.html
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_20545.shtml
Speaks of Israeli torture of Palestinian civilians.

Now with all of this disturbing information in mind I pose two questions.

First of all. How is it possible that we condemn Hamas as a terrorist group because of it's attacks on Israeli civilians and yet we do not consider Israel's military a terrorist group for their attacks on and torture of Palestinian civilians? Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone Hamas's attacks and contrarily I condemn them, but that does not make Israel's any more acceptable.

If you really think about it the definition of terrorism as stated in Webster's Dictionary is as follows:

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

And further the definition of terror is:

1 : a state of intense fear2 a : one that inspires fear : Scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : Worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : Brat 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Now using this definition it would seem to me that the U.S. Government, especially the Bush administration, has been using terrorism for the last 4 or 5 years. In order to get us to support the Iraqi war we were constantlyy told about the "danger" of WMD's and Hussein. In order to get us to look the other way as our civil rights were slowly infringed upon we were berated with rising terror alerts and constant threats of terrorist attacks, always with just enough detail to be scary, and not enough to do anything about. In order to get us to forget about the horrors of torture we were told that the information that they obtained could save lives, using every human's natural fear of death against us.

And the bombing of Iraq fits the last part of the definition, "4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands", almost perfectly.

The only difference is that we have the big military might and the economic strength to get people to listen to us. The label "terrorist" is given by the victor or the stronger force. During the revolutionary war I am sure that we were considered terrorist by England, but because we won we were Freedom Fighters. Were else have I heard that term? Oh yeah that's right. It's the term that we used to describe Al Queda and the Taliban when we were supplying them with money, weapons, and training to fight the Russians in Afghanistan before we no longer agreed with his message and then he became a terrorist. Once again I would like to say that I am not condoning terrorism in any way and I do condemn the actions of Hamas, Al Queda, Bin Laden, Israel, and even the U.S. when it comes to attacks against civilians or unnecessary attacks against military forces. I simply think that people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing the first stone.

My second question is much more straight forward and simple. I have continually heard from Bush, Israel, and other world leaders that they will not talk with the Hamas led government in peace negotiations. Their reasoning being that they do not feel that Hamas will be willing to work towards peace and that it is simply going to ask for the imediate destruction of the Israeli State. I am curiouse though, so what? Let me ask you this, forgetting for a moment the previous acts of Hamas, what can it hurt to talk to them. They have come out and said that they would like to continue peace talks. They have said that the world should not be afraid. Would we prefer to end the talks and start the fighting again. The worst that can come from sitting down at the table with them is that they ask for something ridiculous and the peace talks end and the fighting begins. The other choice is ending the talks before finding out if maybe, just maybe, they are seriouse about working with world leaders to find peace and the fighting begins again anyway, just a lot sooner. Sounds to me like the first option is the best.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat

Well have a long break I feel that it is time to bring back the Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat.

First of all the crown. This week I would like to give the civil liberties crown to the Washington State Senate and Governor. Today thee Senate passed a Gay Civil Rights Bill which the Governor is expected to sign. I have expressed my views on this subject many times and therefore I will keep this short. This is a monumental day for Civil Liberties.

The dunce hat this week is obvious. The winner is the Bush administration for authorizing spying on the American people. This has been talked about time and time again in recent weeks so I will simply say that rights of the American people should never be outweighed by anything, ever. No matter how much you try to say that it is for the security of the United States it does not justify taking away the right to privacy and the right to protection under the 4th amendment which protects against illegal search and seizure. At least one good thing has come of this. The American people are finally waking up to the fact that their Civil Liberties are being stripped away. Hopefully the confirmation of Alito, which is almost certain, will not expedite this process.

Giving support for German captives.

I would like to simply give my thoughts of support to the two German engineers who have been taken captive as well as the U.S. reporter who was taken captive a little while ago. Although I have many times expressed my distaste for the war that does not go for the soldiers fighting that war and most certianly does not go for those civilians caught in the cross fire.

I hope that they all return safely to their homes and families.

Bush's true thought's on world democracy.

Well the Bush administration along with Israel (surprise surprise we're following Israel's lead) is refusing to speak or have any relations with the newly elected Palestine.

Are they refusing to do so because the government has attacked Israel, or maybe because they believe that the elections were rigged in some way.

No that would be to sensible. They are doing so because as the Israeli government put it:

"The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if even part of it is an armed terrorist organization calling for the destruction of the state of Israel."

Now if the Hamas run government were truly calling for the destruction of Israel I could understand this to a point. But there are two things to keep in mind.

First of all this government was just elected in a free election by the people of Palestine, so obviously their views agree at least to a large point with the people. Now I can understand if this does not matter to Israel because they have been in a hostile situation with Palestine for some time and never claimed to be for spreading democracy. The U.S. on the other hand, especially the Bush admin., is supposedly all for spreading democracy and will work with any Democratic government attempting to grow. So what, will we only work with those that we agree with and not those that have ideals that are not right in line with ours. Or are we just automatically against any country that does not agree with Israel. I mean in a way there statements about Israel occupying Palestinian territory are true historically, it was not until after WW2 that they were granted the state of Israel and even then it was not the will of the people of the area but instead that of the European and U.S. governments. I mean this does not grant us the right to call them "armed terrorist" (which we did through association with Israel.) , they are an elected government. Are we going to start calling the French government "armed terrorist" when we don't agree with them. Now before you say that they are labeled that because of their attacks on Israelis including women and children should we also call the Israeli government a terrorist group, they to have attacked Palestinian women and children. I remember reading about one incident in which a Palestinian child through a rock at a soldier and so the soldier shot the kid in the head with an assault rifle. I do not justify the acts committed by Hamas, but they are no worse than those committed by Israel.

The second point is this. Israel and the U.S. claim to want peace, as Bush stated,:

"If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace, and we're interested in peace."

A statement that has been reverberated throughout the world and which I agree with, possibly one of the the only things that came out of Bush's mouth that was intelligent, he ought to keep this writer.

Now if the Hamas run Palestinian governments position was that they wanted to simply "destroy Israel" then I would understand not wanting to talk with them because that would be a declaration of war. But they have not said that. What they have said is that they wish to have their land back. Now obviously that is not possible and so they need to reach another agreement, but how can this happen without talking to them. Furthermore they have expressed a strong desire to continue with the peace process, it is only Israel and the U.S. who are holding back. The new government came out and stated openly today that this is what they wished saying:

"Don't be afraid"

and a more specific message by Abbas, whom the Islamic group reached out to be a partner in the new government,

Abbas said he remained committed to peace talks and suggested they be conducted through the Palestine Liberation Organization an umbrella group of Palestinian organizations that he also heads, instead of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. "I am committed to implementing the program on which you elected me a year ago," he said in a televised speech. "It is a program based on negotiations and peaceful settlement with Israel."

So one must wonder what is the reason that the U.S and Israel are unwilling to speak with them. They make it clear that they wish to continue peace talks, so why not do it. Would we prefer to end the cease fire and let the war continue? I hope not. The worst that can come out of continuing the talks with the new government is a return to bloodshed, and it would seem that that would be the only possible outcome of ending the talks so we obviously have nothing to lose.

How much more does Iran have to do

How many more hoops is Bush going to make Iran jump through before he is satisfied that once again he is wrong about a countries nuclear ambitions. Iran has made it clear time and time again that they have no intention of enriching uranium for the purpose of making WMD's and evidence from many nations seem to back this up and yet Bush and his cronies along with his whipping dog Prime Minister Blair seem intent on pushing the issue in what seems to be an attempt to force a confrontation.

When Bush first accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons program they accepted UN investigators and showed proof of the fact that they were using the nuclear program that they had in effect only for energy, not weapons.

The Bush administration was not satisfied and tried to say that they had photos showing otherwise. Those photos were then shown to be of energy plants which was then confirmed by the Russian government who has been working with the Iranian government to put together a nuclear energy program.

This still was not enough and now the Bush admin and Blair are attempting to get the issue pushed into the Security Council. Now keep in mind that the UN nuclear watchdog has already stated that the nuclear programs taking place in Iran are purely for energy, but of course the UN also said that we needed to inspect Iraq further and we saw how right they were then, oh yeah they were right and we are now fighting a senseless war.

Well two things are now happening. First of all the Iranian government has stated that if the issue is in fact taken to the Security council they will begin enriching uranium commercial with or without the UN's permission. This seems to me to be their right. They have taken every step they can to prove their intentions are peaceful, what more do we want.

Second they have agreed along with Russia to have the uranium enriched their to a level used for energy and then shipped to Iran. This would ease fears that they are using it for weapons as it could not at that point be used for weapons grade material. If this does not satisfy Bush it makes it clear that he has no interest in whether or not they are actually making weapons and only in attempting to start a confrontation between us and another Mid Eastern country which possesses a large amount of the worlds oil.

Before we go all gung hoe into this one however it is imperative that we learn our lessons from Iraq. Look at how hard it is going there and then consider that Iran has a much more powerful military and is allied with most of the rest of the Middle East has well as Russia and China. To attack there would set off a powder keg that we are not prepared to handle.

Lets just hope that the American people have gained enough sense since the last fiasco to actually stand up to our leaders and tell them NO WE WILL NOT GO TO WAR WITHOUT CAUSE, AND NO ACCUSATIONS OF WMD'S WITHOUT PROOF IS NOT CAUSE!

A Great Day in Palestine

Today marks a great moment in history as Palestinians voted in their first open and free parliamentarian elections in over a decade. While the victor is not yet known this is a very important day as a it will both shape the future of Palestine and the Middle East, but after this the leadership of Palestine can not be questioned by anyone including our government. Up until this point the Israeli government and our own was fond of bringing up the fact that no elections had been held and that Arafat was a terrorist. After this election the leadership that comes about will not be able to be challenged by foreign governments.

I am not stating good or bad about Arafat in this post so please don't waste your time or mine by telling me how bad he was. My one and only point for this post is to congratulate all Palestinians and to wish them the best of luck in the future.

Assalaamu Alaikum

Alito a shoe in

Well whatever civil rights we had left we can kiss goodbye. Supreme Court nominee Joe Alito has enough supporters in Senate to guarantee his confirmation and the end of the check and balance system.

Alito is a clear pawn for the Bush administration and the conservative party and it is almost certain that he will rule against abortion, homosexual marriage, the right to privacy and many other key issues.

Throughout his career he has been on the far right on issues and does not seem to mind if that is against what the Constitution says.

What scares me most about this move however his not just his personal motives, but the fact that the court is now far right and more dangerously is controlled by people who can be very easily considered Bush cronies.

This is not a new concept as throughout history President's have nominated those that not only are qualified but that they are in some way affiliated with, but those Presidents never attacked the Constitution the way this one has.

Never before has a President so openly gone against the will of our forefathers. Never before have we had to worry about being spied on or tortured or arrested without cause. And never before has a President attempted to blur the line between the Executive and Judicial branches of the government. Bush and the Republican congress are the first to ever attempt to overrule the Supreme Court by way of a Congressional bill.

This is a very dangerous time for civil liberties. A time when those who have been nominated and confirmed by this administration to show that they truly do believe in the justice system and the Constitution or to show that they are nothing more that pawns to the conservative party and the far right Christian base.

I sincerely hope that they prove to be worthy of the great honor which has been bestowed upon them, because this is one mistake that cannot be fixed as easily as ol' brownie.

VICTORY!!!

Well freedom has had another victory. The Senate as voted and the American Patriot Act will not be continued. What a glorious day this is. It shows us that we can still trust our leaders, at least a little bit, with our freedom and we will come out on top.

Thank you to all who contacted your Senators and Congressman and let them know how you feel. And thank you to the Senate who showed once again why we have a two part Congress.

PATRIOT ACT TO BE EXTENDED....WHY?!?!?!

Well despite the obvious lack of checks and balances, and the clear disruption of civil liberties it seems as if the Patriot Act will be extended for another four years amid cries from both sides of the political spectrum to stop such actions.

I know that in the past I have harped on the horrible nature of the Patriot Act, but I think that now is a good time to recap why I say such things.

The Patriot Act signed into power in 2001 following the tragic events of 9/11 give the government far reaching powers to invade the privacy of citizens and further restrict civil liberties without due cause.

The most notable of these things include:

The ability to search financial, travel, phone, and even library records without any cause other than suspicion of terrorist activity.

The ability to tap phone lines without a warrant based on suspicion of terrorist activity. (The 4th Amendment protects against illegal search and seizure.)

The ability to search property without a warrant of even notification of the suspect without cause other than suspicion of terrorist activity. (The 4th Amendment protects against Illegal Search and Seizure.)

The ability to infiltrate and keep records on any group deemed to be a possible terrorist threat without evidence to back up the claim. (already been shown to be used against political groups which disagree with the war and the Bush Administration that have no ties to terrorism such as Peace Fresno, Green Peace, the NAACP, and others. (Breaks privacy act rights, as well as infringes on the right to free speech guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.)

The ability to hold a person indefinitely without charging them based solely on the suspicion of terrorist activity. (The six amendment guarantees a fair and SPEEDY trial, normally limited to holding an individual for a period of 72 hours without charging them of a crime. A good example of the misuse of this would be Jose Padilla, held for 3 years without being charged of a crime.)

The ability to freeze financial assets of an individual based on suspicion of terrorist activity.

Others which can be found within the Patriot Act

In addition to the very clear violations of Constitutional rights the bill is to broad. What is the definition of "terrorist activity". It is not outlined in the bill, so who decides. This gives the government the right to arrest and hold anyone for any reason by simply saying that they are "SUSPECTED" not proven, to be involved in terrorist activity.

Also the ability to infiltrate political groups and keep records on them is absurd. This could easily be used as a way to pressure groups which disagree with a political agenda. This is not to mention the multiple individuals who have complained that their rights have been violated when they spoke out about the government only to have an FBI agent harassing them about what they said.

Are we really becoming a nation that is okay with this kind of thing. That is willing to give up the freedoms that our ancestors fought and bled for, that our relatives and friends are fighting and bleeding for as we speak.

What happened to the nation that stood up in outrage and the idea of any rights being stripped away. We are supposed to be the "Land of the Free" not the "Land of the Scared and oppressed". But that is exactly what we are becoming. We have been so brainwashed by the administration into believing that if we don't give up these rights that we will be attacked by terrorist that we simply look the other way. Well look around you, even with them taking the rights away we have soldiers dyeing every day, terrorist attacks are frequently occurring around the world. Yes you can say that they are not happening here, but it is only a matter of time, no matter how many rights they take away. You can not secure freedom by taking it away, the only way to do it is to vamp up security, secure our borders, and bring our military home were it belongs, and of course quit pissing people off with extreme right wing, redneck crap that comes out of Bush's mouth.

Benjamin Franklin said "The man who gives up freedom for security deserves neither." I would take it one step further and say that he not only deserves neither, but he has neither.

Think about it, the thing that Bush and Cheney are contently saying that the terrorist hate is our freedom, so if we take that away ourselves aren't we giving them what they want? I guess that's one way to beat them, but I'm not to big on the "if you can't beat em' join em'" theory in this case, kinda defeats the purpose.

Thankfully I am not alone on this one, a group of Congressman from both sides of the political spectrum had this to say,:

"We still can, and must, make sure that our laws give law enforcement agents the tools they need while providing safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."

And Feingold, one of the six, went further stating,:

"I will do everything I can, including a filibuster," to block passage, said the Wisconsin Democrat, the lone senator to vote against the original legislation passed in 2001.

Of course this did not keep the traditional GOP Bush army from being supporting it and looking for political gain out of it, once again trying to make anybody who votes against the destruction of our rights look unpatriotic:

"We should unite in a bipartisan way to support the Patriot Act, to stand up for freedom, and against terror," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Ah yes, let us all unite as a free country to get rid of our freedoms.

If you think this statement and this bill is as absurd as I do I urge you to contact you Congressman NOW, DON"T WAIT! If you do it might be to late. You can contact them HERE.

!!CIVIL LIBERTIES ALERT!!

ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Congress has passed another bill that will lower the rights of the America people to protect themselves in the court of law.

One of the fundamental rights of the citizens of this great country is to find refuge in the courts when they have in one way or another been hurt by others. Whether it be physically, emotionally, or finacially. One way that we can do this is to sue in the court of law in the event that we feel that we have been the victims of unjust.

This right is very close to being taken away. Already we have had caps put on the amounts of damages that can be handed down by the courts in medical malpractice cases. And now they are going to penalize attorneys who attempt to help those who have been the victims of unjust if it is deemed by some unseen person that it is a frivolous lawsuit.

First of all who decides that it is frivolous. Is it really frivolous if the person who is suing feels that it is necessary. And if in fact it is a "frivolous" lawsuit the person will not win and the lawyer will not be paid anything. This alone is the only check and balance system needed for this.

Secondly by pensalizing those who file frivolous lawsuits you also keep those who would file a legitimate lawsuit from doing so because of the fear of retribution.

This is not only clearly in violation of the states right to make laws regarding this situations of this nature, but it is a clear attempt by the Bush administration and the conservative congress to lower the ability of Citizens to have any kind of justice if it in any way hurts corporate America. Come on now we wouldn't want to hurt those nice large corporate profits in order to help regular americans now would we. This just makes me sick, and if it makes you sick to call your representatives and tell them what you feel and let them know that if you don't like what they are doing you will vote them out. That includes this idiotic bill.

I have come to a conclusion lately that one of the only thing that current politicians care about is reelection, and if we are going to get them to actually stand up for our rights we have to threaten the ability for them to get reelected, so call NOW!

Libby likely to face charges, Rove may be safe for now.

Tomorrow the hammer will drop and Patrick Fitzgerald will be forced to make a decision as to who, if anyone, will be charged with a crime in the outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame. The deadline for the two year investigation is Friday October 28, 2005, tomorrow. If no one is charged by that time, no one will be.

All indications at this time seem to point to charges being leveled against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of Staff, Lewis Libby. Charges to be raised could range from giving false information to outing a covert operative, and everything in between. Although the investigation has been very tight lipped sources near to it say that Bush's top adviser and chief of Staff, Karl Rove, may dodge the bullet this time, although he would not be out of the woods yet as the investigation into his participation in this crime would continue.

It is obvious that a crime has been committed here, and it is obvious that whoever committed those crimes deserves to be punished. The question I pose to you is do you really believe that anyone within the White House will have to face responsibility and secondly do you thing that if Rove or Libby are charged with the crime that Bush will live up to his word and fire them? Please feel free to leave you answers to these questions as well as any insights you may have regarding the case on this post.

I'm back and Miers is Gone.

Well I am making my return to blogging after a short break, and what a perfect time. Harriet Miers, Bush's most recent political hack to be nominated for a major governmental position, has withdrawn her name.

This comes as little surprise to me after seeing the recent attacks that she has been under by members of her own party. It is one thing for the opposite political party attack a nominee for the Supreme Court. It is another thing entirely for members of the your own political party to attack you for your stances as well has your judicial history. (well you lack of it anyway.)

This sent a clear cut message that she was not going to nominated and that she would be torn down in the process. She was set up to be the sacrificial lamb to the liberal, and she ended up being so to the Conservatives.

See the liberals saw that although she was obviously not a good choice for the Supreme Court due to her lack of experience and her extreme views on issues such as Abortion they also saw that not enough was known about these things to make a judgment as well as that they would not have to condemn her because she was going to be by her own. They chose their battles, and it was a wise chose.

Conservatives on the other hand saw that she was not going to be far enough to the right to ensure a vote against things such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. Hot topic issue that have been promised to be taken up in the Supreme Court to the right wing Christian base that got Bush elected.

What Bush does now will make a large difference in his popularity amongst those who elected him such as Dobson and Pat Robertson. He let them down by nominating someone who, while she has shown some disapproval for abortion, has also shown that she would not defiantly vote to outlaw it and has not made her position on Gay Marriage clear at all. In order to when their support back he would have to nominate a hard right candidate, something that would be extremely detrimental to the rights of American Citizens. I hope that Bush makes one of the first wise decisions of his term, but unfortunately I doubt that is what will happen. I guess now we just wait and see.

The Circus Begins!!!

Saddam Hussein's trial begins tomorrow and many believe that it will be adjourned just as quickly.

Regardless of how long it is delayed it will not be a trial but a dog and pony show in which Saddam Hussein will be given a "fair trial" which is obviously nothing more than a formality. While it is obvious that Saddam is guilty and should be punished for him many crimes against humanity it seems to me that if you are going to go through the works of pretending to give him a fair trial then you should give him just that.

Of course there is only one way to do that, have the trial somewhere other than Iraq and don't make the judges Iraqis who have been hand selected by the Bush administration which is openly for the downfall of Saddam Hussein.(not that I can blame them on that one.)

The simple fact is that the Bush Administration cannot allow that for one primary reason. By having Saddam tried by a court completely controlled by them and in a country were the only media that gets out is that which is okayed by the Bush Admin. they can make sure that Saddam doesn't say anything nasty about the U.S. You know, how we put him in power, or the fact that we supplied him with arms. Or the fact that we supplied him with chemical agents that he then used on his own people. Or the fact that during the first Gulf War we were guilty of using Chemical and Biological weapons has well (Gulf War syndrome ring a bell). We can't let these things get out now can we. I am all for frying his sick sadistic ass, but at least let the truth be heard.

Miers already showing signs of danger

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Meirs is already showing signs of being a very dangerous pick for the Supreme Court. Recent revelations show that she is firmly set against abortion and would most likely set the stage for the outlawing of abortion.

As I have stated many times before this is absolutely absurd and unconstitutional. The right for a women to choose is protected by the Constitution of the Unites States and should under no circumstances be infringed upon.

It is of course no surprise to me that the Personal Attorney for a man who is very outspoken in his disapproval of abortion would be against it. This is exactly why she was nominated and it is a mockery of the Judicial system. The sole reason she was nominated was because George W. knew that he could count on her to vote how he wanted her to. So much for impartial judges.

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat of the Week

The Crown this week is awarded to the State Of Oregon for their attempt to protect the rights of their citizens and the right of the State to make decisions regarding medical practices.

The right of a patient to take their own life in a dignified manner is exactly that, a right. It is a decision to be made by the patient and their family, not legislatures in Washington. No matter how much you may disagree with someone's decision in the end it is not you body and therefore not you choice.

Their decision to end, or not end, their life does not effect anyone else in any way and therefore is a personal decision and is protected under the Constitution. The same way as a women as the right to choose so does a terminally ill patient. I know that there will be those who try to use the argument that if that is the case should we not try to stop anyone who attempts to commit suicide.

That is an absurd argument simply because you are dealing with two separate issues here. In the case of someone who is depressed or for some reason feeling as if they have no reason to live and they feel the need to take their own life society has a responsibility to get that person the help they need to cope with their issues, and this is what we do, we don't arrest them we simply help them cope and get them past their urge to kill themselves. In this case the person is mentally unstable, even if just for the moment, and is not making a sound decision.

In the case of a terminally ill patient the person knows that they are going to die in a short period anyway and most likely are going to have to endure a slow, painful death. If they feel that they would like the death to be in a painless, dignified manner and would like to keep their families from having to endure seeing them slowly die and mounting medical bills then they have the right to do so. In order for someone to take part in the "right to die" they must be of sound mind and make the decision on their own. They cannot simply say one day, screw it I don't want to live. There must be evidence that they are terminally ill and of sound mind.

The Duncehat this week goes to good old President George W. "let's deceive the American people one more time" Bush. Yet again he has attempted to shove lies down our throat with his staged conversation with American soldiers in Iraq.

This is actually not as bad as many of the things that he has done and he gets the prize not only for this but for his long litany of deceit. Lets recap what he has done:

-Post 9/11 he declares that he will do whatever is necessary to capture those who are responsible and then simply lets Osama bin Ladin slip off the radar after having him surrounded at Torah Bora.

-Using 9/11 as a reason Bush signs into law the Patriot Act which strips Americans of rights provided in the U.S. Constitution including Amendments 1, 4, and 6.

-Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein using a wide array of reasons none of which have proven to be true, the most popular and most used of which was the notorious WMD's that have yet to be found.

-In his rush to war Bush not only lied to the American people about the reason for the war but he destroyed our relationship with many allies who he turned his back on when he attacked Iraq against U.N. wishes and without any solid reason for war.

-He continues to push for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay marriage.

-He continues to push for a Constitutional Amendment against Abortion.

-He continues to attempt to blur the line between religion and government.

-He continues to attempt to weaken the judicial branch of the Unites States of America

I could go on all night but I think I will keep it at that. Bush is a disgrace to the Office of the President of the United States. Local talk show host Pamela Furr has challenged my respect for the Office on more than one occasion, the simple truth is I respect the office, but I cannot respect the man holding the office.

Appearing on the Mike Wilson Show.

This coming Wednesday I will be on the Mike Wilson Show on Hot Talk 970 WMAY, along with other bloggers from the Springfield area around 5 pm. I am really looking forward to this and I hope that everyone can tune in. I will post a follow up to this regarding what happens.

Scripted Conversation with Troops: Not Surprised Here.

Last Saturday Bush had what was supposed to be just a simple conversation with troops on the ground in Iraq. It turns out that that is not quite the truth. The truth is that is was a group of hand picked soldiers, five of whom were officers, who were coached on what to do and say.

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan' denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

When I first read this article by the Associated Press I was both outraged and surprised that Bush would lie to the American people and use U.S. Soldiers to further his cause, then it struck me, what am I surprised about.

Bush has a long history of hand picking those at his so called "town hall" meetings and has exploited anyone he needs to, including the victims of 9/11, killed soldiers, and the families of soldiers to further his war in Iraq, so whats the surprise.

I recall one story, from back in my original blogging days when I blogged at americanpatriotlegion.blogspot.com (I can't get into that account now for some reason) in which three law abiding citizens were forcefully removed from a Bush ass kissing sess...oh I'm sorry I meant to say town hall meeting because they had a bumper sticker on their car that was anti-Iraq war. I guess we shouldn't be surprised anymore when we hear more lies and deciet coming from the Bush Administration.