DEAR OCCUPANT: An Open Letter to the White House

I was watching the news and thinking of what an incredibly difficult time the White House has had. They walked into a financial crisis of unbelievable proportions. They had the entire Iraq War/Guantanamo Bay/Torture/etc. issue left on their plate as well. And in both cases, I believe that the situation was much worse in reality than they believed it was during the campaign. They discover that much of the legal work of the previous administration's Justice Department looks like it came from first year law students homework papers. Causing the new Justice Department to drop several very important criminal cases.

They have dealt with constant right wing attacks and more media attention than any President other than Bush 43. (Don't forget to call block Rep. Cantor & the rest of the Republicans. Because you obviously haven't spent enough time and energy coming to a middle ground with the Right. Then don't forget answering to the Left when you take time to talk to the Right and come away empty handed.)

Take time to initiate legislation on Health Care, Energy and put together a budget. Don't forget those damned press dinners that you're supposed to be funny at...without stepping on anybody's sensibilities.

Add in North Korea, Iran, Flu, Flood and a few other miscellaneous disasters and you have a very tired and worn administration.

And we're ONLY six months into the Obama administration!!!! (And you're surprised they haven't been perfect? Let's be greatful for what HAS been accomplished!)

There is lots of room to disagree with the President on any number of issues, but it is important to realize that they have accomplished a great deal with a staff that is only half confirmed and the other half appointed by Bush 43. It is also important that they realize that we support them in general even when we disagree on specifics.

Please feel free to copy this letter and e-mail to the White House to show your support for their efforts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Occupant:

I don't know who you are. You may be a steward with one too many events today. You may be a Secret Service agent tired of the steady stream of visitors. You may be a First Lady who wants to walk around her back yard garden without a press commentary on her fashion sense! Maybe you're a line cook who's tired of the many events the White House seems to host. You could be a tired assistant to the Press Secretary who secretly dreams that the next time a reporter asks a question concerning the President's smoking habits you look at them and say, "Are you high????" You could be the gardener who's sick of people trampling your lawn. Maybe you are one of the many White House children who would really like an extra hour with their mommy or daddy. Maybe you're the Mommy or Daddy wanting that extra hour with your child! You could be anyone.

You are an occupant of the White House. A White House, whose head of household is undertaking a historic revision of our society at a time of great peril to our nation. (No wonder you're under constant attack.) But more important than the current head of household historic nature, is the fact that you are the physical representation of our great nation. We as a nation embody great diversity in color, religion and philosophy. And you are part of the public face of America.

Thank you for your service. And always remember, we will disagree often with your current head of household. We will voice our opinion with certainty and understanding that even if we disagree with his actions, he has the best interests of our country at heart. And always remember that we recognize both his effort and your service.

Keep this note. Pull it out as needed to remind yourself why you do this...because it's important! Pass this along to some other White House occupant in need of a smile. (Rumor has it that this message is best received when crumbled in a ball and thrown at the head of the recipient!)

Sincerely,

A grateful American

ALLAH AKBAR

It's midnight in America as I write this. It's 9:30 in the morning in Tehran. The world waits in desperate hope that the streets of Tehran do not run with the blood of it's people before the sun sets. The rooftops have echoed all night with the sounds of the people shouting "Allah Akbar" or "God is Great". This was the cry of the 1979 Revolution in Iran. A warning to the secular ruler of Iran that God is greater than even the leaders of the country. And now it is a cry of warning to the religious leadership to remember the same warning. God is greater than even the religious leaders of the nation.

For the past week, we have watched the events in Iran unfold. We have heard stories of beatings, riots, marches and protest. We have read the words of the people on Twitter and somehow have suddenly found ourselves bonded to the people of Iran. But there is little we can do in practical terms.

We stare at the photos that have surfaced on the web. The women who stand defiant before the police in their hajib imploring the police to remember that they are all Iranians. The old men who march silently in protest of an election they feel was stolen. The young ones who fight back when the police try to make them disperse.

We hear stories of teens who hunt the Basij (a volunteer militia who has violently attacked the reformers) and kill them in the street.

On Friday, the Supreme Leader of Iran declared the election to be valid. He ordered the people to stop protesting in the streets. He has declared that future marches will be met with violence. The next march is scheduled for today at 6:30 AM our time. A bloodbath seems inevitable.

And we in the West wait in outraged silence. Because there is nothing else we can do. We will not commit troops to protect the citizens. Our cries of outrage are presented to the people as "interference" and the supporters of Ahmadineja (who are numerous) believe it Our words do nothing more than incite them to increase their support of the religious leadership of Iran. Because they still remember that in 1953, the United States overthrew thier government and they have not forgiven us for our meddling.

It is a unique point in the relationship between our countries. Half a world separates us. Language and religion define our differences. We think of them as "the Evil Empire" and they still see us as the "Great Satan". But perhaps we as Americans have finally seen enough to realize that there is there is much that joins us together in the name of humanity.

I do not know what will happen at today's march...but we must never again forget that not every Iraqi or every Muslim is evil. They are humans like us, with beliefs and familys, fears and hopes. Let us pray tonight that God in whatever form he takes remembers the people of Iran.

ALLAH AKBAR!

Poker & Pay-Go: An "All In" Bet

I’m a degenerate! At least, that’s what they tell me.

Why am I a degenerate? I’m a degenerate because I like to play games. Not just any games…but one particular game. A game that is as American as apple pie and cowboys. I’m a poker player. I’m one of an estimated 15 million Americans who regularly play poker online.

People who don’t play will tell you that poker is game of luck played in smoke-filled rooms by old men who curse as they lose their life savings on the turn of a bad card. People who don’t play will tell you tales of children who steal their parent’s credit card to run up enormous charges that cost them the family home. People who don’t play will tell you that it’s a sin to gamble because soldiers threw dice during the Crucifixion. (And any poker player will tell you that it’s one thing to figure odds on making a flush….but only crazy people bet dice!)

But the people I play with on line will tell you other stories. They will tell you how they work in remote locations and online poker is how they relax in the middle of nowhere. They will tell you that they are disabled vets from Iraq & Afghanistan and this is a sport they can still play like a man. They will tell you they live on a fixed income and the lower stakes tables available online (some as low as $0.01/$0.05) are affordable where a live casino is not. They will tell you they are college math majors who buy their books off of their winnings. They will tell you that if I am a degenerate for playing poker….there’s currently 35,980 fellow degenerates online with me on my favorite site as I type this!

There is a difference between games of chance and games of skill. When you walk into a casino you have many opportunities to try your luck. Slot machines, roulette, craps tables and even Blackjack are games that are played against the house. These house games have certain rules that can affect the outcome of the wager. Like the dealer stands on 17 in Blackjack or the slot machine is designed to pay out a certain percentage of the time. Poker is unique in that it is played against other players…not the house. You can win with a bad hand by betting large amounts at a player you know is too scared to call you. You can control your destiny on a poker table with a few good “reads” on your fellow players and rudimentary math knowledge. Because that’s what poker is all about…math and people. As the saying goes, “Play the people, not the cards!”

But in 2006, George Bush signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) which the government insists prohibits my rights to play a game online that all participants entered willingly into.

The UIGEA was attached to the Safe Ports Act to satisfy the conservative religious base of the GOP. Its’ passage was justified because prohibition of internet gambling would keep minors from playing, prevent problem gamblers from gambling and poker sites could not be used to launder terrorist money! (Seriously that’s what it’s supposed to do!)

So let’s examine these claims of the benefits of prohibition. (Remember prohibition has such a wonderful track record of success in America.) Even with the passage of UIGEA, the U.S. still represents the largest percentage of Internet poker players world wide. And since the UIGEA offers no enforcement on mandatory age limits or limits players with gambling addictions, its’ usefulness is highly questionable. Its’ success relies on keeping people from participating. (Good luck with that!) Even Department of Justice attorneys will admit that the law they are trying to enforce is so poorly written that it creates more problems than it solves. For instance, while it differentiates between games of “skill” and games of “chance”, it doesn’t define either term. The lack of definition leaves poker in a legal limbo. But the religious right wants to make sure that I (and millions of Americans like myself) follow their personal religious beliefs in lockstep! And they don’t believe in Poker!

Now the only real issue that should be of concern to Americans as a whole (as opposed to issues of concern to those of us who actually play poker) is the aspect of money laundering for terrorists. This was actually what got the UIGEA passed originally. What politician up for re-election wants to vote against a law that keeps terrorists from getting funding? It never matters during a heated election that the law was a bad law, what matters is you are on the record as supporting Muslim terrorists if you vote against UIGEA. But again, success depends upon people not playing poker online….and millions do every day! (Sadly, the poker sites themselves can easily monitor games for discrepancies that would indicate money laundering, but UIGEA doesn’t require them to do that.)


During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Holder was asked if he would enforce the UIGEA. His reply was that he would because it was the law of the land. And last week, the Justice Department seized an estimated $34-36 million dollars in online poker payouts.

Now I’m not complaining about that. It was to be expected. A court battle will help clear up the issue. Poker sites have replaced the money in the accounts of the recipients and alternate ways to distribute winnings will be made available. But this does bring to light one very important aspect of online poker that could have an impact on ALL Americans. That $36 million dollars was only one week of payouts. It is estimated that over $16 billion dollars is held in the accounts of online poker sites. That’s a lot of money being taxed overseas and not here at home. In fact, it is estimated that over $3 billion dollars a year in tax revenues could be gained by legalizing online poker. (And that’s a conservative estimate!) With our country running record deficits, it only seems prudent to make use of this additional source of federal and state revenue.

Currently there is legislation pending in the House that would establish clear guidelines for internet poker. The Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2267) would:

“establish a federal regulatory and enforcement framework under which Internet gambling operators could obtain licenses authorizing them to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S., on the condition that they maintain effective protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud, and enforce prohibitions or restrictions on types of gambling prohibited by states, and Indian Tribes.”

Basically, this proposed law would not only provide protection to internet gamblers, it would also tax and regulate the industry providing much needed revenue for the Obama administrations many new programs. With the current push to “pay as you go” on all new programs, legalizing poker could be a definite win/win for all concerned.

So even if you are not a poker player, pick your favorite proposed program requiring funding. Then call your Congressman and tell them that you want your favorite program funded with poker money. All they need to do is to support H.R. 2267!

WITHOUT SIN

On Sunday, May 31, 2009 at 10:00 AM, a man (allegedly from Merriam, KS) walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita Kansas. He shot and killed an usher; turned and walked out, threatening two other people as he was leaving.

It is a sad story. It is even sadder when you realize that many “Christians” are rejoicing in the death of this usher who was shot in God’s house. The usher was Dr. George Tiller. He ran an abortion clinic in Wichita and was one of the few providers of “late-term” abortions in this country.

Comments on one conservative website include these:

A-hole vs a-hole, no humans involved. Maggot doc done for and maggot killer headed to prison forever...a 2-fer.
dusty @ 3:01 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

We have removed consequences for thought and action from the equation, from not keeping score at kids sporting events to people being able to make racist comments and still be recommended to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, there will be more "culling of the herd".
Craig Knapp @ 3:00 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

Oh well! A little more life will go on without his life.
toby hill @ 2:59 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

For too long we Christians have been held down by the godless liberals! We need to arise and establish Jesus Christ as the leader of this country. Catholics, Jews and Muslims must convert or leave!
Christians Fight Back @ 2:42 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

Why is everyone upset over one more "late term abortion"? He lived 64 more years than his victims!
Fred @ 2:42 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

Thank God I hope Tiller rots in hell
Tom Mahlum @ 2:41 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

HEY, WAIT TIL THEY GET YOU TO THE EMBALMING ROOM, YOU NEED TO BURN IN HELL... THE FELLOW THAT KILLED YOU IS A HERO
TILLER DEAD, I AM SO HAPPY @ 5:47 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

THANK GOD, BABIES CAN LIVE NOW BECAUSE TILLER TILLER THE BABY KILLER IS DEAD, HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL ALONG WITH YOUR STUPID FAMILY!!!
BABIES CAN LIVE @ 5:43 PM CDT, May 31, 2009

This is what the most vocal Christians are saying! And I simply can’t (or won’t allow myself) to believe that this is what most Christians think about violent attacks in the name of Jesus. But all too often, Christians (like Muslims) refuse to call out their own for terrorist acts that reflect poorly on their real beliefs. And that is what the murder of Dr. Tiller is….domestic terrorism. You do not have to agree with his profession, you can question his morals, but the act of his murder is a separate issue from his occupation and should be addressed as such.

Many years ago, when I still attended a fundamentalist church, I was taught that God viewed all sin equally. Man might think one “sin” ranked as more evil than another, but God sees all sin as wrong….without degree!

As I thought about the doctor’s death, I remembered a story I had read many years ago. About another sinner who “deserved death” and the response given by the “man” asked to comment on her sin!

John Chapter 8
1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I wonder, what would Jesus think of Dr. Tiller and his murderer? Would he be proud of the comments of his followers? Would he rejoice in the actions done in his name today? If Jesus really does someday return in the “blink of an eye”, what do you want him to read on your last blog? Or are you so “without sin” that you’re not really worried?

Now is the time for all Christians regardless of your positon on abortion, to raise your voice in protest to those who would kill others in YOUR name!

It's Raining....

It's raining today. I've heard a lot of complaints about the weather. It's ruined our weekend at the lake, it's too cold to use the pool, I wanted to grill outdoors today, so forth and so on.

We have reached a point in our culture, where today is the "SUMMER KICKOFF" weekend and not the day of remembrance it should be. Today is the day that we should all take time to remember those that have given their life in the service of their country. Four thousand, nine hundred and sixty two so far in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are those who have blogged today about the innocent who die in war. The so-called "collateral damage" that accompanies any war. And make no mistake...those deaths are not to be minimalized. Every Iraqi child killed during the "liberation" of Iraq had someone who mourned their loss as bitterly as the mother of any soldier. A great deal of time could be spent in discussing whether those deaths were justified. BUT NOT TODAY!

Today is the day when we as a nation should honor the memory of our fallen sons and daughters. Whether we agreed with their mission, today is a day that we collectively take responsibility for thier blood. We as a people elected the officials that set the missions and authorize the funds. We as a people offered the lives of our children up as a testament to our collective ideals. And they go! And they die! And (for better or worse) they change the world on our behalf. For that service and sacrifice on this day we honor their memory.

Today we do not debate the merits of the job they do at our behest, but honor the blood they shed at our request. Because even when the mission itself is questionable or not well thought out....American Armed Services are on the ground doing thier job! We owe them respect for that.

It's a somber and gloomy day. It's raining...and perhaps that is appropriate. Even the heavens should weep for the loss of our soldiers.

And after we have reflected upon the blood that we have spilled, perhaps we as a nation will remember how precious that blood is. Tomorrow we will think about the loss before we commit the troops. Perhaps we will be certain that the loss is justified by the mission. Perhaps we will remember that war is a reality and not a B-movie! The extras don't get up after the filming and have coffee. In the real world we bury our children in war!

God Speed to our fallen countrymen! Our prayers go to your families. And thank you!

NOTRE DAME: An American Experience

On Sunday, President Obama gave the Commencement Address to approximately 3,000 graduates at Notre Dame and was given an honorary law degree. It was controversial because the President has supported a women’s right to choose. It was controversial because Catholic Universities have been asked not to bestow honors on pro-choice speakers, yet Notre Dame has given many past presidents an honorary degree. Their decision to give the President that honor has cost them an estimated $13 million dollars in alumni funding. Many students wore cards on the top of their graduation caps that showed a cross with two baby foot prints to the on looking cameras. Approximately 30 students skipped the ceremony to participate in a prayer vigil during the ceremony.

The ceremony had the potential of being a political nightmare for the President and a disastrous memory for graduates and their parents. Instead it was a beautiful reminder of what is best about our country!

What happened? Thirty-seven protestors outside were arrested for trespassing. The President of the University spoke on why he felt it important to listen to opposing views. He also gave strong voice to the fact that Catholics strongly oppose Obama’s stance on stem cell research and abortion. President Obama’s speech was interrupted three times by protesters yelling from inside the stadium. Each time they were shouted down by students. No graduates walked out in protest. And a graduating class was urged to “find a way to live together as one human family”.

During his speech, President Obama looked at one of the great questions of modern political discourse:

“The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?”

And that was the beauty of last Sunday afternoon…an honest discussion was held on abortion without either side “demonizing” the other. Yes, there was protest! But that is part of being an American. Yes, there were people attempting to disrupt the ceremony…but they left quietly after their moment of civil disobedience. (And as someone who once disrupted a Chancellor’s inauguration…who am I to complain about that?) There were students who chose to boycott the ceremony, but that was their right as an American. (And while I do not agree with their viewpoint, I respect their integrity.) The students who wore the cross on their caps silently & respectfully stood up to one of the most popular Presidents of modern times. It became a unique opportunity to put into action the principals that they had spent the last four years learning at this Jesuit institution.

And in the face of this opposition, President Obama spoke of the importance of avoiding “caricature” when debating policy in America. He did not duck the issue but talked of finding common ground that we can agree on. Instead of laying claim to a battleground of differences, he asked us to consider issues with “Open hearts, open minds, fair words.”

He correctly assessed that we will never all agree on the abortion debate. But what we CAN agree on is the idea that we can actively work to decrease abortions. We must not make Doctors who are pro-life to perform abortions to keep their jobs. We must help to make adoption easier and to provide health care to expectant mothers who choose to keep their child. Common ground found through “fair words”. If only we could do the same all the time with the issues that divide us as Americans.

It was a great AMERICAN day filled with voices of opposition raised not in anger but in hope of making tomorrow a better day. Fifty years from now those graduating seniors will remember fondly last Sunday. It gave me hope and made me proud to be an American!

STICKS & STONES

Next week the Republican National Committee will be holding a special meeting. By "special", I mean that it took 16 RNC members from 16 different states and a little used procedual rule to override the objection to this meeting by Committee Chairman Steele.

The reason for this auspicious meeting? To vote on three resolutions for the party.

Resolution 1: To urge Republican lawmakers to reject earmarks. (A noteworthy purpose...are you listening Sen. Bond?)

Resolution 2: To commend Republican legislators for opposing "bailouts and reckless spending bills". (Wording that denounced Republicans Spectre, Snowe & Collins was dropped after Arlen Spectre joined the Democratic Party.)

But the main reason for calling the meeting is Resolution 3: Which "renames" the Democratic Party as the DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST PARTY.

You have to marvel at the arrogance of any group of grown men (and a few women) coming together to vote on changing the name of a rival organization. (Most people older than Junior High do not have to have a group vote to resort to name calling.) This is somewhat like Exxon-Mobile voting to refer to Greenpeace as "THE TREEHUGGERS". Or Planned Parenthood voting to refer to NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE as "NATIONAL RIGHT OF BREEDERS TO LIFE".

IT'S SILLY! STICKS & STONES!

The ever-shrinking GOP needs to realize that Americans want them to offer solutions to real problems. Formal voting for name-calling isn't going to advance their cause.

Be watching next week when Eric Cantor threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue if Obama doesn't resign from office immediately!

TOLD YOU SO!!!

Towards the end of Pres. Bush's first term there was much discussion concerning Presidential Powers. Many liberals were terrified that as a nation, we were ceding too much authority to the President. The Patriot Act and FISA were debated non-stop. Those of us on the left who argued that too many civil liberties were being encroached upon in the name of "security" were laughed at. We were stupid they said, at that time, to worry about such things. After all; if you weren't doing anything wrong, you had nothing to worry about. America had been attacked and we would stop at nothing to keep Americans safe.

Now many years later, those on the Right are suddenly concerned about these same civil liberties that the Left was warning about. Back then, it was no big deal that the FBI was infiltrating anti-war meetings to spy on the Left. Now it is a VERY BIG deal that the FBI spied on the Tea Parties. On four separate occasions during the Bush administration, legislation was offered to Congress to end term limits for the President. (A very bad idea but nobody had any objections to it.) But now that same bill (which is still stuck in committee) is a plot to make President Obama dictator for life. A report from Homeland Security (requested by the Bush Administration) warns of the dangers of domestic terrorism from Right Wing Extremists. Suddenly, the idea that "Big Brother's" watching you seems Orwellian and has nothing to do with keeping the country safe from terrorist acts but is a way to confiscate our guns.

Back then, I used to say, "Don't give President Bush any authority that you would be uncomfortable with a President Hillary Clinton having!" Now I just chuckle to myself and think, "I told you so!" as I listen to the Right scream about President Obama taking over the government and turning our country into a dictatorship that endangers their Constitutional rights!

And he could you know. Because both Democrats and Republicans gave him the means to do it way back then by voting for the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act lists the following provisions that many Americans feel infringe on civil liberties:

· INFORMATION SHARING: Allows information gained from a criminal investigation to be shared with intelligence agencies and other government departments. Sounds harmless but it allows the government to establish massive data bases on citizens who are not the target of criminal investigations.

· ROVING WIRETAPS: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices. (I.E. Phone, cell phone, e-mail, blackberry, etc.) Many feared that the language of the act was so vague that it would lead to privacy violations on people that came into casual contact with the subject.

· ACCESS TO RECORDS: Allows almost unlimited access to business records in foreign intelligence operations. These records can include credit card records, lists of library books you have checked out, etc.

· "SNEAK & PEEK WARRANTS: These allow a suspect's home or office to be searched by the government without immediate notification. Critics of this provision argue that it is so vague that it could be used for minor crimes as well as major intelligence investigations.

· MATERIAL SUPPORT: This expanded the ban on giving assistance to terrorists to include "expert advice or assistance". The Left has always maintained that this makes "guilt by association" way too easy.

So how does this affect "Joe the Plumber" out in the "Real America"? Let's take a hypothetical example.

Joe likes collecting guns. So Joe goes to a gun show where he purchases a weapon from a dealer. He strikes up a conversation with the dealer, who seems really nice and very well informed on politics. He and the dealer exchange e-mail addresses and the dealer promises to send him some information on any new weapons he receives.

Over the next few months, Joe & the dealer exchange e-mails and phone calls. Joe even purchases a couple more weapons from the dealer. The dealer recommends some books that Joe might enjoy on politics and Survivalism. He also asks Joe for advice on a variety of subjects.

Now, unbeknownst to Joe, the dealer is also the Grand High Poobah for the Grand High Order of White Supremacists! They are secretly plotting to blow up a federal building because they are convinced that President Obama is actually a Kenyan and therefore his taxes are illegal. They are convinced that as "true Americans" it is their duty to keep America from turning Socialist.

The government has discovered this plot and they are now using provisions of the Patriot Act to look into all of the dealer's business and personal contacts. (They can do this because according to the Patriot Act, the President has the power to determine if you are an "enemy combatant", you don't have to be a foreigner to be so labeled.) During this investigation Joe the Plumber's contact with the gun dealer is discovered. And he now comes under investigation.

During a search of his home and computer, they discover a file on his computer that serves as a personal diary where he wonders if the US wouldn't be better off without Obama. He wasn't serious, just a little drunk when he typed it. Never published it or even wanted to show it to anyone. But now he is under suspicion.

E-mails show that he advised the gun dealer when asked specific questions about how to get a plumbing license. A check of credit card records show Joe has made several "payments" to the dealer. Unfortunately the dealer keeps bad books and has no records of originally owning the guns Joe bought. So it gives the appearance of Joe donating money to "the cause". Joe is guilty of offering "material support" (under the new legal definition) to the terrorists.

So Joe is picked up as an enemy combatant and "questioned" about his ties to the Grand High Order of White Supremacists. Now he has none, but they don't believe him. So they decide that he needs "extreme interrogation techniques" to make him reveal what they are certain he must know. (But don't worry....waterboarding isn't really torture!)

Now do I believe this will really happen? Of course not! But if I was as suspicious of President Obama as many on the Right are....I would be seriously rethinking the Patriot Act right now. And I am smart enough to know that in 2012 or 2016 the next President may scare me even more than President Obama scares the Right.

You see how this works. What was once heralded as legislation that would save us all from Muslim terrorists can also be used to persecute YOU for beliefs that differ from the current President. It is essential to our system of checks and balances that we give no President a power that we would not be comfortable with all presidents having.

So my question to Conservatives now is....Do you still support the Patriot Act? (Don't worry, if you're not doing anything wrong they won't bother you!)

I hope you keep in mind the next time you are worrying about how President Obama is going to come and get you....we gave him legal authority to do it. All in the name of keeping America safe!

And just in case you think my hypothetical story is really far fetched, I remind you to research the case of Steve Kurtz.

TORTURE: A PRAGMATIC VIEW

Fox News got it wrong again! On a recent online webcast, Fox anchor Shepard Smith responded to a question regarding whether America should torture detainees for vital information by yelling, “We are America! I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are America! We do not f^*king torture!"

But the truth is that we in America have tortured to obtain information. We have tortured systematically in Afghanistan, Iraq and Quantanamo and it has been approved by the highest levels of government. As a nation, we are bitterly divided on whether torture is justified or not. Approximately half of all Americans believe that there are some situations that justify torture while half believe it is NEVER justified. (Interestingly enough, over 60% of Evangelical Christians believe it is justified…and the more often you attend church services the more likely you are to support torture. While the people least likely to support torture do not attend church at all.)

Conservatives will tell you that America's "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not REALLY torture. "It's not like there is any permanent damage and it's not as bad as what Muslims do to each other anyway." Conservatives tell you that ALL other countries torture. We're no different than they are. Conservatives will tell you that it's ok to torture because IT WORKS!

But the truth is that waterboarding has been called torture by Americans in the past. We have charged, tried, convicted and hung Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American troops. Japanese soldiers whose only crime was to "interrogate" Americans in order to extract information needed to save the lives of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Why is the crime different now than it was then?

And yes, other countries torture. But as my Grandmother used to say, "If everybody else jumped off a bridge, does it make it ok for you to?"

Liberals will tell you that torture lowers our moral standing in the world. It provides recruitment propoganda for terrorists. It endangers our troops in future combat by making it MORE LIKELY that they will be tortured if captured. But these are merely ideological arguments.

If your personal ideology says torture is wrong, none of the arguments from the Right will persuade you that it's ok. If your personal ideology says torture is OK you won't change your mind listening to me. Stop reading, plop down on your couch and put in the second season of "24" or a rerun of HBO's "Oz" or just log onto an internet gay bondage site. You can get your jollies without wasting time on justifying it.

Conservatives are right on only one point. Torture can work. It can get you information that is needed. So if we ignore the ideological reasons for torture, we must examine the pragmatic aspects of torture as a way of obtaining information.

Now I have admitted that torture can work. But just because it works does not mean that it is the BEST way to achieve your goals of obtaining information. There are a lot of problems that are associated with answers received from torture.

For one thing you get a lot of bad answers to go along with the truth. And that leaves you with the problem of which answers are true "threats" and which are made up stories told only to STOP the torture. Eventually you can sift through the lies, but the time and resources to track down all of these stories can be enormous. Remember all the security alerts that were issued almost weekly in 2004. Liberals thought Bush was making things up to keep people scared and voting Republican. Now it looks like the government was reacting to fake confessions from terrorists.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) has been a poster child for waterboarding. The Bush administration has claimed that huge amounts of information came from KSM's "interrogation sessions". But CIA analysts contend that most of it was lies resulting in massive wastes of resources to check out the lies. Said one former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M.,

“90 percent of it was total f^#king bullsh*t.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

Only 10% of the information given by KSM was true and that 10% produced NO actionable intelligence. Does that justify torture? The military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (which oversees the SEAR program that our nation's torture policies were designed from) states, "the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained...A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop,". In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information."

Torture also comes with the problem of what if the person you are torturing for information really doesn't know anything. What if he's innocent? The assumption has to be made that he is resisting interrogation which means he knows something which means you need to keep torturing to get the information that you think he's withholding and that he really doesn't know! It's pointless.

Take the case of Diliwar, a young Afghan who was arrested by the Afghan army for suspicion of being involved in a rocket attack against an American base. The US tortured him for information on his co-conspirators. He never gave them up. He continued to insist he was innocent. Eventually he died of injuries suffered during his interrogation. AFTER his death, it was discovered that he really was just a 120 pound, 22 year old kid who had driven his taxi into the wrong neighborhood. The Afghan military officer who turned him in was later arrested and charged with the actual rocket attack. Dilwar was a patsy! We killed him in an effort to obtain information that he never had.

The problem with torture is that it is never as clean as it is in the movies. The information you recieve is not necessarily good information. In the end, we have to ask ourselves as a nation, Is torture really an effective use of intelligence resources? Even if you have no moral objections, you need to be able to prove that the information that torture produces is worth the cost to our nation's ideals!

AN OPEN LETTER TO RUPERT MURDOCH

Dear Mr. Murdoch:

Last Wednesday Sean Hannity during an interview with Charles Grodin offered to allow himself to be waterboarded for charity. Mr. Grodin immediately asked Mr. Hannity his availablity on Sunday. But unfortunately Mr. Hannity's schedule is apparently very full. On Thursday Keith Olbermann offered to donate $1,0000 for EVERY second that Hannity lasts to a charity that supports military families.

Mr. Hannity is a strong believer that waterboarding is NOT torture. He has said so repeatedly on his show. So obviously, this is not something that should bother him to do. In fact, he should jump at the chance to earn so much money for a worthy cause. (Think of it as elaborate charity baseball dunking with a member of the Spanish Inquisition as the pitcher!)

It is my hope that you will encourage Mr. Hannity to take Mr. Olbermann up on his offer.

Now it is common knowledge that when you fired Mr. Olbermann it cost your company an incredible amount of money to buy out his contract. This is the perfect opportunity for you to retrieve some of the money that you payed him for a good cause as opposed to letting it sit in Mr. Olbermann's bank account drawing interest. (Remember he offered $1,000/second. One minute of Mr. Hannity's time would be $60,000. Think he might be able to make it to two minutes? How long would Mr. Hannity have to last for you to get back ALL of your money...with interest?)

This would also allow YOUR network to be instrumental in PROVING the assertion that waterboarding is really NOT torture. The right wing will hail you as the type of news network that backs up what they say unlike those lousy liberal mainstream networks like MSNBC.

And don't forget the ratings that Sean Hannity will get. Millions of liberals who would normally prefer shooting thier television set to watching Fox news will be tuning in (with popcorn) to watch. You could probably get as much money for ads as the SuperBowl!

So please, Mr. Murdoch; USE YOUR INFLUENCE AS THE OWNER OF FOX NEWS TO PROVE TO ALL THE LIBERALS THAT WATERBOARDING REALLY ISN'T TORTURE. Sean Hannity DESERVES this opportunity!

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen wanting fair & balanced enhanced interrogation techniques!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Messages for Mr. Murdoch regarding this subject can be sent to teverett@newscorp.com.

CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

In December of 2005, New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Phillip Taubman met with several members of Congress to discuss an upcoming story in his paper on Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping Program. Among this group was Congresswoman Nancy Harmon(D) who at the time was urging the NYT to kill the story. This Contitutionally questionable program was vital to our National Security interests she argued.

This week it was alleged that Congresswoman Harmon was caught in a NSA wiretap agreeing to intervene in a crimininal investigation of AIPAC officials. At the other end of the phone was an Isreali agent. Ironic isn't it that the defender of an unconstitutional government eavesdropping program gets caught by a wiretap.

Now, Congresswoman Harmon says, "I support, if necessary, surveillance of people in order to prevent attacks against us. But ... surveillance has to be done consistent with our laws and the Constitution. ... I want to know, by the way, if the wiretaps were legal."

She also stated, "Let's see who else was wiretapped. I mean lots of members of Congress talk to advocacy organizations. My phone is ringing off the hook in my office from worried members who are asking whether I think it could have happened to them. I think this is an abuse of power."

She wanted warrantless wiretaps....be careful what you wish for!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On October 21, 2001 President George Bush signed into law the Patriot Act. A response to 9/11, this statute was passed by wide margins in both the House and Senate. While many Americans on the left feared it sacrificed too many civil liberties, Democrats saw it as political suicide to vote against the bill. Republicans saw it as the ONLY way to save our country from foreign terrorists. There was much rejoicing on Fox News when it passed.

On April 15, 2009 Homeland Security issued a report that has sent the Conservative Right over the edge. It details concerns that during an Obama Presidency right wing extremists could recruit returning military personnel to commit acts of domestic terrorism. To hear the blogosphere tell it, if you are Christian, pro-life, own guns or believe in small government: storm troopers from Obama will arrive at your doorstep to make you disappear into a remote prison where you will be tortured to discover who you are working with.

The sad part of this is that while I don't think President Obama would abuse his power in such a way, legally it COULD happen. The Patriot Act gives the Government the right to detain without habeas corpus ANY suspected terrorists. And the definition of terrorist under the bill includes domestic terrorism. So technically it could happen just the way the Right fears.

All because they got the terrorism protection they wanted....be careful what you wish for!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the Bush Presidency there was a great deal of discussion concerning the powers of the presidency. I used to tell my conservative friends, "Never give President Bush power that you would be hesitant for President Hillary Clinton to also have." Now a great many people on both the Right and the Left are looking at how we have conducted our country's business. And many are not happy with what they see. The Right SHOULD fear the Patriot Act. It gives a President unbelievable power for both protection and for dictatorship. Just because you consider one president to be responsible enough for such power, gives no guarantee that the next will be as responsible.

Democrats need to keep in mind that legislation is like a blade that can cut both ways. As they write new legislation, they need to remember...BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!

TOO BIG FOR HIS BRITCHES

My grandmother was full of sage wisdom. She was always ready to identify any human folly with an old-fashioned saying that usually "hit the nail on the head". I often think of her when I read or hear of the latest rant from GOP Party Spokesman Rush Limbaugh. "Ignore the stupid" I can hear her say whenever I am tempted to express an opinon on some insane comment from Rush. For a long time, I have kept that advice. But finally, Rush has gone a little too far. His recent comments on torture and John McCain were wrong and deserve comment.

On April 17th, Rush was ranting about the release of torture memos from the Bush Administration. He was defending torture as necessary because Rush thinks torture works. To prove his point he took a former Vietnam POW's statements out of context.

Said Limbaugh, "The idea that torture doesn’t work– that’s been put out from John McCain on down– You know, for the longest time McCain said torture doesn’t work then he admitted in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer that he was broken by North Vietnamese. So what are we to think here?"

Now insisting that torture works is pretty twisted. But it takes a really sick mind to try proving your point by taking a war hero's words out of context. Because John McCain does NOT think torture works. Sen. McCain has written about his experiences with torture in his book, "FAITH OF MY FATHERS". Yes, he "broke" and gave them information. It was information that they already had, was outdated or that he made up.

"Eventually, I gave them my ship’s name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant. Pressed for more useful information, I gave the names of the Green Bay Packers’ offensive line, and said they were members of my squadron. When asked to identify future targets, I simply recited the names of a number of North Vietnamese cities that had already been bombed."

I am sure that the Vietnamese found this information extremely usefull! Probably as useful as all of the lies given to interrogators on Guantanamo.

Now we can argue whether torture works or not. We can discuss whether the President should have released the memos or not. What we should not do is to disrespect the service of a veteran and former POW by using his words out of context to "prove" a point the Senator disagrees with. What happened to respect for service?

As I recall, Rush and every other conservative was horrified by the disrespect showed Sen. McCain when it was suggested that being shot down did not necessarily qualify you to be president. That was a MAJOR issue at the time! Now, I may not believe that military service makes you Presidential but I do think it earns you a certain amount of respect for that service. And using the personal story of a POW who disagrees with you is certainly not showing proper respect. So how does Rush justify this? And why does no one on the Right call him out for it?

My grandmother had the perfect explanation. Rush is having so much fun being the "leader" of the party that he's gotten too big for his britches! And someone from his side of the aisle needs to call him on it.

A BOY AND HIS DOG

Dear Senator Kennedy:

I met you once. You were speaking at a fundraiser. You are the only person I have ever heard speak who could make a cement floor vibrate with your voice. As you were leaving I watched you looking at a painting on the wall. It was one of many variations on a theme...JFK, RFK & MLK all in profile. As I watched you looking at it, I was hit with the realization of how difficult it must be to have a life as public as yours. These iconic images that grace the walls of thousands of homes across America are very real and tragic events to you. Faces that inspire us, but personal memories to you!

I have reflected often since that day on the sacrifice of public service. I think about it during every confirmation hearing that more closely resembles sharks in the water than statesmen entrusted with our country.

Truthfully, I think you have made many mistakes in your life. Mistakes both professionally and personally. That pretty much puts you on par with the rest of humanity. But unlike most of us, your life is minutely scrutinized for every mistake and every victory. I can't imagine what that costs you.

I think about you and that painting often when I watch the news coverage of the President. What an incredibly lonely job he has! I don't even want to know what it feels like to have the hopes, safety and best interests of over 300 million Americans scattered across the globe resting squarely on your shoulders....and yours alone. A responsibility magnified by the current economic collapse, two wars and an opposition party that seems more concerned with success of the party even if it is at the expense of the country.

So when I saw the photos of your present to the Obama children I was very touched. I love dogs and have two of my own. I am well aware of the importance of man's best friend to your mental health in difficult times. That's why my favorite photo was the one of a very happy President racing Bo through the halls of the White House.

I think your small, personal act of kindness may be the most magnificent gift you have given this country in your long and illustrious career. Because when times are really tough, when the most difficult decisions must be made....you have given the President a moment of refuge. And that tiny bit of escapism may serve us all for the best some day. Because dogs don't worry about world crisis, they worry about you. And regardless of whether you like or dislike the President, you want him at his best when making decisions.

Because of your kind gift, during that next crisis, for a brief moment, for the length of a 100 foot hallway...he can forget being POTUS and just enjoy being a boy and his dog.

Thank you for that Sen. Kennedy, from all of us!

AN OPEN LETTER TO ASU PRESIDENT CROW

Dear Sir:

I wanted to take a moment of your time to question the reasons for your refusal to grant an honorary degree to Pres. Obama.

While I realize that he has many achievements to come, I also think that his current achievements far outstrip those of past honorees. After all, you have bestowed degrees upon the Canadian Prime Minister, the President of the Navajo Nation and noted humorist Erma Bombeck.

Regardless of the intent, you have caused a great deal of suspicion in the rest of the country. We see this as either racist or sour grapes. Most think it has little to do with the qualifications of the President. Please keep in mind that to many Americans who have never visited Arizona it is best known for the Grand Canyon and as the state that wouldn't celebrate Martin Luther King Day. As a visitor who loves your state, I know it not to be true. But that's based on my personal experiences and not what I have read in the news.

While I personally do not think that race played a part in your decision....others will! And the fact that you did not realize this before you announced your decision is troubling. It makes you, personally; appear to be amazingly blind to public relations. (Which one would think would be an important aspect of your job.)

Perhaps if the accomplishments of the President of the United States are not enough to bestow a degree upon him, you should have selected a different, more qualified speaker.

Regardless of your reasons, you should have realized that this will be a publicity nightmare for the University which you serve and the state in which you live. There will be very good candidates for your school who will choose other schools to attend. There will be vacationers who may prefer visiting somewhere other than the Fairmont Scottsdale this year. I will be curious to see if this alters fund raising figures for your school. I doubt the loss will be significant, but it seems foolhardy in these trying economic times to drive away any business. And your university's seemingly partisan decision must take responsibility for those losses.

All in all, this was a poorly thought out decision on the part of the committee declining to honor the President of the United States. Or it was shortsighted on the part of the committee who selected your commencement speaker. Or it reflected an incredible amount of burecratic incompetence on the part of your staff. Either way it reflects poorly upon you personally, your university and the state of Arizona.

I find it sad that you have chosen a path that leaves you open to charges of racism and political partisanship. On the up side....your graduating students will receive a memorable experience from an eloquent speaker whose' inexperience has led him to the White House in a landslide over one of your state's favorite sons. And since I have heard Sen. McCain speak, I can only say that your students are the real winners here.

THE DOG PEED?

Pittsburg police officers Stephen Mayhle, Paul Sciullo and Eric Kelly are heros. They died in the line of duty responding to a domestic disturbance as they attempted entry of the residence. Officers Timothy McManaway and Brian Jones were injured in the same incident. They were ambushed by Richard Poplaski, 22, who fired on them with an AK-47 while wearing body armor.

The sacrifice of these officers must be remembered by all Americans. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families. Their death is a waste.

This and the New York shooting this weekend will create even more calls for gun control from the left. It will then increase the rhetoric of the right as they respond. A seemingly never ending cycle with no winners for America.

I grew up with guns in the house. I enjoy shooting and have no argument with the rights of Americans to own guns. I do however believe that both sides of this issue need to step back and think about what they hope to accomplish in the end. It is true that if you outlaw guns....the outlaws will still have guns. There are too many guns out there to make them vanish because we wish it to be so.

But with the right to own guns comes with the responsibility of ownership. As a child I was taught gun safety. Rarely do I see the same rigid instructions being handed down from parents to children anymore. Those on the Right who insist that gun ownership is a right need to be willing to look at the issue from a standpoint of civic responsibility.

You have the right to free speech...you can't cry fire in a crowded theatre. You have the right to own guns....but you question the lack of restrictions when a gunman walks into your child's school with an automatic rifle.

The hunter needs to respect the fears of the urban homeowner who worries a stray bullet may come through the walls and injure his child. The liberal needs to understand that guns and the culture of hunting are not evil in and of themselves.

Do we grant conceal-and-carry everywhere in hopes of stopping the next school shooting or are we hindering the operation of law enforcement who automatically considers a civilian with a gun to be a threat? (Is that man with a gun a teacher protecting his/her students or a killer?) If you hesitate in your evaluation...you may die. If you shoot too fast...you kill an innocent person.

Are automatic weapons and armor piercing ammo equally protected by the Constitution? Do we place police officers at an unfair advantage when these items are readily available? Who explains to the officer's child why Daddy's vest didn't work?

These are questions that must be examined before we say yea or nay on any new legislation regarding guns. Knee jerk reactions and heated rhetoric will not move us forward. In fact, the heated rhetoric will only lead to more senseless deaths. Words matter and when we try to inflame others with our words we must accept the outcomes we help create.

How do I know this? It's already happened. The three officers killed in Pittsburg were killed by a gunman who according to friends lived in fear of the government coming to take his guns. He had heard too much about Obama banning guns from the internet and talk radio not to believe it. He made statements to several friends, that when the police came to take his guns away he would excercise his constitutional rights and defend himself. HE DID.

Perhaps the saddest and most ironic part of this miserable story is that the cause of the original domestic disturbance was the dog. Apparently the shooter's mother had called the police to have her son thrown out of the house because his dog had peed on the carpet. And for that...three officers died!

APRIL FOOL'S FROM THE GOP

Yesterday the House GOP celebrated April Fool's Day by releasing their alternative budget for the second time. (The first time had no numbers so it was not very well received.) This time they even included a few numbers to talk about. It sounded pretty good. They promise to reduce taxes, freeze spending, reform entitlements, stop stimulus spending and live happily ever after with less of a deficit than under the Obama budget. Sounds great. So do most April Fool's Day jokes at the beginning. Otherwise, no one would fall for them. But if you really look at what the GOP is saying, you realize that's what this budget is....A BIG APRIL FOOL'S DAY JOKE!

APRIL FOOL'S JOKE 1: The spending freeze proposed is for five years. It does not allow for increases in population, need or disaster. So it's probably a good idea as long as nobody has any babies and boomers postpone retirement for five years. The GOP declined to explain exactly what this would mean in terms of future cuts to programs or the impact on ordinary Americans other than to say that they would be called "Draconian". They do say that the devil is in the details.

APRIL FOOL'S JOKE 2: The GOP offers a flat tax rate of 10% to people making under 50,000 per year and a 25% rate for those making over $100,000 per year. Currently under the Bush tax rate, those making over $100,000 per year pay 35%, so they get a 10% tax cut. Sounds really great unless your single person income is between $50-$100,000 per year. You get left out. This also cuts about $300 Billion dollars per year from government revenues.

APRIL FOOL'S JOKE 3: The GOP plan makes the Bush tax cuts permanent. Which is odd since they have a different rate set up for a flat tax. The setup is that you get to choose which rate you want to pay at. Old Bush tax cuts versus new flat tax rate. Once again, sounds good! The joke is that the deficit projected by the GOP is based on the premise that all tax revenues paid will be at the higher Bush tax rate. So unless you believe that all Americans making over $100,000 will want to pay 10% more in taxes than they have to....add $300 Billion dollars per year to the GOP approved deficit.

APRIL FOOL'S JOKE 4: Medicaid and Medicare will be overseen by private insurance. All I can say is....remember AIG. Do you really want people like that in charge of your healthcare safety net?

APRIL FOOL'S JOKE 5: The GOP budget doesn't include things like disasters and war. One of the reasons that the Obama budget is so high is that he included advance funding for natural disasters each year and the costs of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. While the GOP budget increase the Pentagon's budget, the war is a separate line item expense. That's why each year the Bush administration had to ask for additional war funding. It was never planned for. The Obama budget assumes their will be natural disasters and a continuing war effort and includes funding for these items. The GOP prays for good weather and the belief that Americans would never cut off money to the troops. But add these costs onto the GOP deficit projections.

The GOP knows that this budget has no chance in a Democratic congress, so it was written to play to their base and show how different they are from Democrats. It didn't have to be workable or good for the country. It just had to sound good enough to sell the joke. What they showed us was how foolish they think Americans are. Thanks for the laughs!

NEW DAY FOR THE DOJ?

I've had a lot of issues with the Department of Justice over the last few years. I have disagreed with their handling of many issues. Under Alberto Gonzales, the department began to use social/political criteria when hiring staff. This led to a lot of people who all had similar ideologies but sometimes were a little short on competence. The trial of Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens is a perfect example of what happens when the DOJ is more concerned about your "liberal leanings" than the quality of your legal briefs.

Last year, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was convicted of seven counts of lying on a Senate disclosure form regarding gifts. There are very strict limits on the value of gifts that can be offered to government representatives and their staff. (Recently Presidential Spokesman Gibbs returned several radios to members of the press who had been told he had no radio in his office. The reason they were returned is because he is limited to accepting gifts with a value of under $20!) Sen. Stevens accepted over $250,000.00 in gifts & home repairs from an Alaskan oilman.

His conviction has been under considerable scrutiny due to "prosecutorial misconduct". No one (other than Sen. Stevens and his attorneys) has questioned his guilt. But many, including the presiding judge, have commented on the many prosecutorial missteps that occured during the trial. These problems were so severe that the judge held the government prosecutors in contempt. The Bush DOJ had to replace the entire team in the middle of the trial. After the conviction, defense attorneys immediately filed an appeal based not on his innocence but on prosecutorial procedural issues. (If Stevens had raped a woman, this would be the equivilent of his being released because the police didn't get the proper warrent to obtain DNA. It's an outrage when that happens....and it's an outrage that Stevens gets a pass because the prosecution didn't dot thier i's and cross thier t's. BUT IT IS WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.)

Today, Attorney General Holder has dropped all charges. He based his decision on three factors: 1) Prosecutorial missteps 2) The age of the defendent (84) 3) And the fact that Ted Stevens is no longer serving in the Senate where he could repeat his crimes. Liberals will be offended by this decision, but to me it looks like the first steps toward re-making the DOJ into a non-political part of the government!

REP. ROY BLUNT TAKES TARP MONEY

Rep. Roy Blunt is currently the best bet the Republican Party has to hold onto retiring Sen. Kit Bond’s seat. And if his current voting record is any indication….this is a sad moment for Missouri Republicans. Rep. Blunt is a rather remarkable example of a WAFFLER!

Back in 2008, Rep. Blunt voted for the $700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout. Rep. Blunt was fixing the credit system at that time. Then two months later in 2009, he voted against the stimulus bill along with the rest of his party. This time he was a shining example of standing up against wasteful government spending. This fiscal conservative (who abhors taxation) also voted to tax any bonus given by a company receiving TARP funds at a rate of 90%. He was showing his indignation at taxpayer money being used to pay bonuses for failed performances.

What he probably doesn’t want you to know is that he received $1500 from a U. S. Bancorp PAC in February. U.S. Bancorp has also received TARP funding. So the question that we as voters need to ask is this: How is it morally defensible to tax bonuses at 90% (because the money was paid for by taxpayers) when you take $1500 from a bailed out company for your upcoming campaign?

Now this is wrong! And all politicians and both political parties should either return contributions from bailed out firms or make an equal donation to charity. Politicians from both parties have received contributions from these companies but Rep. Blunt is the only Missouri politician to do so.

Please feel free to call Rep. Blunts’ office at (202) 225-6536 to tell him that you don’t approve of him accepting money from TARP recipients in the future. Ask him to donate the $1500 he received in February to the American Red Cross for flood relief victims. And then think about your next vote for US Senator.

OOOOPS!

"It [the stimulus bill] includes ....$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring....Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, February 24, 2009 in the Republican Response to the Presidential Address

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alaska's Mount Redoubt volcano erupted five times overnight, sending an ash plume more than 9 miles into the air in the volcano's first emissions in nearly 20 years.

Ash from Alaska's volcanos is like a rock fragment with jagged edges and has been used as an industrial abrasive. It can injure skin, eyes and breathing passages. The young, the elderly and people with respiratory problems are especially susceptible to ash-related health problems. Ash can also cause damage engines in planes, cars and other vehicles.

Alaska Airlines on Monday canceled 19 flights in and out of the Anchorage international airport because of the ash."

AP reports, March 23, 2009



We as Americans have to understand that not ALL government spending is either wasteful or bad. What is "pork" in one man's district can save lives in another! (I wonder if Sarah Palin approves of spending tax dollars on Hurricane Monitoring?)

AIG: SPILT MILK

We’ve all been taught that old adage about “crying over spilt milk”. Now when your kid spills milk on the carpet you really don’t have an option about whether you clean it up or not. You’ve got to! And you can’t spend three days deciding whether it’s better to mop up the mess with a paper towel or terrycloth bath towel. The important thing is to get that spill cleaned up as quickly as possible, by any means available before it does lasting damage. And no matter how great a job you do at cleanup, it’s going to leave stains and there’s going to be a sour milk smell for a long time to come. That’s what AIG really is… a great big, expensive mess of spilt milk!

There has been a lot of angry commentary on the bailout and bonuses of AIG. The general consensus is that Pitchforks and boiling oil are none too good for the executives receiving outrageous bonuses for losing company money! Congress is screaming for blood. But most legal experts agree: a poorly written contract that gives more to the employee than the employer is still a binding contract. Blame the idiots who wrote the contract for AIG a year and a half ago. (You might also have the Dept. of Justice check out whether any criminal actions of fraud were involved on the part of those same dumb AIG officials! Just in case.) But bottom line is that those contracts are legally binding no matter how much they smell. The real irony would be if we spent more on legal fees fighting the payment than the payment actually amounted to.

Many are advocating that we let AIG fail. But as we saw with Lehman Brothers, letting a major “too big to fail” company go under, sends massive shock waves through the financial community. And since AIG is THE largest insurer in the world, we would be looking at an unprecedented financial disaster. Why? Because AIG insures 81 million people with life insurance world wide for a grand total of over 1.9 trillion dollars. AIG also insures businesses against loss, movies against injuries to stars, gulf oil platforms against hurricane damage. If it becomes apparent that the parent company is going under, then a “run” on the policies could start. If all 81 million people decided to cash out their policies at once, it would get very expensive! Financial institutions all over the world would be scrambling to find the cash. This would necessitate selling off bonds which would then freeze up the bond markets. Credit markets would follow soon after. Think of it as Financial Armageddon on a global scale! We may not like this scenario, but since we as a nation decided in the 90’s that financial institutions could “self-regulate” and did nothing to stop the growth of AIG…we must live with the milk we spilt! At least until we have time to disassemble the AIG monster carefully without harming the markets.

So we have to clean up the mess. That requires that we understand exactly how we got into this mess to begin with. Many on the left will try to blame Bush for this, but the truth is that the real start of the problem traces back to Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton in 2000.

That’s when President Clinton signed an Omnibus Spending Bill to keep the government running at the end of the fiscal year. That Bill contained the COMMODITIES FUTURES MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2000. This new law de-regulated trading of energy futures and insurance policies. (This same act was also responsible for the ENRON fiasco.)

What this Act did for AIG was to allow them to sell a type of insurance policy known as “credit default swaps”. Much like a fire insurance policy on your house, this let an investor purchase policies to insure bonds against loan defaults. Unlike your home policy, this type of bond insurance was left completely unregulated. Investors could purchase insurance on bonds they didn’t even own. This meant that companies like AIG would write credit insurance many times over on the same bond. Many of these bonds were tied to home mortgages. When the housing market went belly up, AIG was in the position of paying out on these bonds. ALL OF THEM! It’s a little like an insurance company having to pay me and ten other investors because YOUR home burned down. These multiple, unregulated transactions broke the financial back of AIG.

It should be noted that the sponsors for this legislation were: “Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.[2]

The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.” (You should note that this Act is an excellent example of the type of deregulatory advice advocated by John McCain’s chief economic advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm.)

So now that we have the milk spilt all over the floor and are spending huge amounts of money to save AIG, we must determine how to keep this from happening again. The bonuses paid out are annoying, unpatriotic and detestable on many levels; but it’s still milk already spilt. Our focus must be on how to keep this from happening again.

Obviously, we must relearn the mantra of the past, “A business too big to fail is too big”! You really have no right to complain about the mess on the carpet if you give an unsupervised child a gallon of milk to drink from the bottle. You give the child a sippee cup and you watch him with it so he doesn’t destroy the carpet. In a similar manner, the government must be given and must use an oversight authority to keep corporations small enough not to create a systemic risk to our overall economy if they fail. That means Congress needs to start writing new regulations immediately.

This re-regulation has always been a campaign promise of President Obama but timing was not on his side. Two months into an administration is barely enough time to learn your way around the White House, to say nothing of fixing decades of de-regulation. Current proposals include increasing the Federal Reserve’s oversight to include commercial banks, security companies and insurance companies (which are generally regulated by the states). Hedge Funds and securities companies will face stricter disclosure requirements.

Recently, President Obama stated: ““

We now know from painful experience that we can no longer sustain 21st-century markets with 20th-century regulations….Strong financial markets require clear rules of the road, not to hinder financial institutions but to protect consumers and investors and, ultimately, to keep those financial institutions strong.”

Let us hope that our political leaders keep focused on the most important aspect of the AIG mess….fixing it so it never happens again!

SIN TAXES AND PROP BETS

"SIN TAXES" are in for legislators this year! In these times of ballooning deficits, lawmakers are looking at legalizing a variety of activities such as pot and Internet gambling for the expressed purpose of taxing the activities to increase revenue. It's an interesting idea. The truth is that these activities are easily found all over the country. Prohibition hasn't seemed to limit the availability of any of the them. Many people are upset that billions of dollars are spent on these items and none of it comes back to the government as tax revenue.

Recently this discussion came up at a poker table I was sitting at. The start of the conversation was not these specific activities but instead the age-old question of: Do taxes hurt business or do they actually help grow the economy?

The Right will tell you that tax increases diminish the desire of Americans to make a profit because it's "all going to the government." ANY new tax on business will hurt the economy in a recession and will probably drive the business into immediate failure!

The Left counters by pointing out that taxes were higher under Clinton and the economy prospered. Raising taxes lets the government build infrastructure and fund education, all of which increase the ability of the country to make money.

It's a hard argument to either prove of disprove. Finally it was suggested that perhaps we should try an experiment. What a poker player calls a "prop" bet. Prop bets are based on a particular proposition. "I'll bet you $5 that I can eat 25 hotdogs in 10 minutes" is an example of a prop bet. If I'm right and I can eat the hotdogs in the time limit, I win $5. If I'm wrong about my proposition, you win $5.

Prop bets could be applied to economic policy. The Right says taxes kill business and also disapprove of activities such as gambling, porn and drugs. Here's a somewhat tounge-in-cheek proposition that would allow Conservative America to put your money where your mouth is. Legalize these three activities as a test case, tax them heavily and if the Conservative Right is correct; the country should see a huge decline in porn traffic, marijuana usage and internet gambling.

Just think, you'll be able to go to church some Sunday morning and exclaim, "The strip club down the street is closing because of the new taxes!" "The McSmitty Brothers have stopped smoking pot because the sales tax is too high!" It could be a whole new world and you will have the added satisfaction of knowing that your ideas on the dangers of taxation were correct.

On the other hand, if (and I know this is a long shot) taxation doesn't hurt business, then we have a LOT of "Sin Tax" revenues coming in at a time we need to raise all the money we can!

We laughed at this (both conservative and liberal players) for the rest of the night. Then today just for grins I thought I would see if I could determine just how much money this could raise. (Asking people to guess the amount might make a great prop bet for the next game.)

The results were rather astounding.

If marijuana were legalized then it is estimated that $7.7 Billion dollars would be saved by eliminating enforcement, incarceration and prosecution of marijuana crimes. If you taxed the drug at the same rate as cigarettes & alcohol (other Sin Tax items) you would raise $6.2 Billion dollars in revenue for a combined total of revenue and savings of $13.9 Billion dollars

Estimates for the revenue from taxing on-line poker sites is $5.2 Billion dollars.

And an 18% tax on the porn industry would raise $2.4 Billion dollars.

So the final terms of this Economic "Prop Bet" between the Conservative Right and the Liberal Left would make it the largest prop bet of all time! Conservatives would be betting the demise of these unappealing industries against projected revenues of $21.5 Billion dollars in taxes to prove the point: Taxation kills business and hurts the economy.

Seems like this would be a win/win for the country. We're not taxing any business that the Right wouldn't like to see killed anyway. And it could save a lot of time in Congress. There's a lot of arguing over whether taxes help or hurt. This "bet" could end the partisan philisophical arguing and let them get on to something more important...like pragmatic governing!

PORK AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

There has been a lot of talk lately concerning "earmarks" and Congress. "Pork Barrel Spending" is what many Republicans refer to it as! Yet in conversation, most people really aren't very sure of the exact definition of the term "earmark".

For the record, "earmark" refers to money appropriated by a single member of Congress and directed to a specific destination by that member. Often it will benefit a contributor to that politician in some way. For years, the member of Congress did not even have to publicly acknowledge that he/she had requested the money. It was a very secretive process that was very useful in earning good will with high dollar contributors.

That secrecy is what led to our current distaste with the process. Because while the process HAS been abused (frequently by both sides of the political aisle) the truth is that many of those earmarks provide much needed help to state and local governments.

You see "pork" is often in the eye of the beholder. Let's look at a recent example raised by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. In his response to President Obama's recent speech, he labeled as wasteful, money "earmarked" for volcano monitoring.

"Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington,"

Jindal said. It sounds kind of silly. VOLCANO MONITORING! Sort of a geophysical hall monitor funded by wasteful politicians.

But if you live in any of the states that currently have active volcanoes (Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, California and anyone close to Yellowstone National Park) you might think this extra $140 million dollars is money well spent....no matter how it got in the budget! Some have suggested that if the money to monitor volcanoes is cut that we should cut an equal amount from the National Weather Service's Hurricane Prediction budget.

Gov. Jindal didn't complain about one of the wasteful earmarks mentioned recently by Sen. John McCain. Sen. McCain wants to know why $6.6 million dollars has been appropriated for termite research in New Orleans! During these trying economic times, why spend that much money on studying bugs? Gov. Jindal's silence speaks volumes. You see, there are few termites in Arizona, but it is widely speculated that termites in New Orleans contributed to the failure of the levees. So Gov. Jindal for some odd reason doesn't see this as wasteful. Pork is always in the eye of the beholder.

The real problem with earmarks is not necessarily the money...it's the accountability. In the past, there was no way to track what had been added and who it had been added by. And that's all changed now. Democrats have instituted a rule that requires all appropriation earmarks to be made public. This doesn't mean that there will be no future abuse. It doesn't mean that the process does not still need more modification. But we need to remember that all earmarks are not bad. Getting rid of ALL earmarks is a little like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

MONKEYS, WATERMELONS & FREEDOM OF SPEECH

A recent front page cartoon published by the New York Post has much of the liberal world screaming for blood! The cartoon in question showed two police officers who had just shot and killed a monkey. One officer says, "They'll have to get someone else to write the next stimulus bill".

Liberals immediately screamed "racism" and the Post insisted it had nothing to do with Obama. Protests began outside the offices of the Post, eventually they issued a rather wishy-washy apology which only increased the intensity of the protests. Finally a new apology came direct from the top.

In another case, the mayor of a small California town, sent an e-mail with a picture showing the White House lawn filled with watermelons. The caption read, "No Easter Egg Hunt this year". A very predictable uproar began and the mayor has promised to resign because he believes the act has "compromised" his ability to lead effectively.

In both cases, the Right has called the reaction to these images an infringement on Freedom of Speech. "This is America and as Americans we have the right to express ourselves without constraint."

Whether these images are intentionally racist is debateable. The fact that they are perceived as racist by a large segment of the population is not! It is generally considered impolite to intentionally offend people with your speech...but it is still your right to do so. Polite people also hope that if you unintentionally offend people, you can learn from your mistake and not make the same mistake again. But there will always be those people who just don't care.

Rupert Murdoch (Owner of both Fox News & the New York Post) wrote,

"As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community."

The apology from the owner of the Post was unexpected. His analysis of problem was also extremely insightful. Even if you buy the fact that the slur was unintentional (which I don't), the images evoked for many an extremely upsetting storyline. It not only reminded us of the past when the monkey was a symbol for African Americans but it also seemed to suggest assasination of the President.

The cartoons, whether racist or not, are covered under Free Speech. But those on the right need to understand that Freedom of Speech is a two-edged sword. If Al Sharpton doesn't like what he reads in the Post, he too is free to exercise his option of speaking out against what he reads. If he wants to boycott the Post, he is free to do so and to convince as many people as he can to also exercise thier right to free speech.

That's what FREE SPEECH means! That's what makes America so great to live in!

FACES OF ENTITLEMENT

It is a sad reality that we rarely see the face of the average “entitlement” recipient. The media loves to show us the extreme example. After we become bored with the novelty of octuplets, media spends endless hours discussing the cost to the public of octuplets. Two million in medical costs, Mom takes out student loans to live on, food stamps and a home in foreclosure. Nadya Suleman: POSTER CHILD FOR THE EVILS OF ENTITLEMENT! These are your tax dollars at work. Redistribution of wealth at it’s finest.

Yesterday, I saw another side of “entitlements”. I stood in line at the grocery store muttering to myself about how slow the person ahead of me was. He had a case of soup-in-a-cup and the checker was ringing each cup up individually. It was taking forever and I was in a hurry! Then I listened to the conversation he was having with the checker and I realized why. It was the middle of the month and the man only had so much left in food stamps for the month. He worked nights and was raising his kids as a single parent. The soup was an easy and affordable meal that he didn’t need to be home to prepare. He bought as many as he could afford. The rest of his cart contained fresh vegetables, rice, milk and fruit rollups for the kids. No junk food, no soda, none of the items we are told by talk radio that welfare recipients waste OUR tax dollars on. Instead I saw a father working hard to make ends meet during bad economic times.

As a society, we don’t find any gratification in looking at the millions of Americans who survive because they accept food stamps, Medicare or Section 8 Housing. We show no interest in the numbers of people who have left the welfare system because the system worked for them. They accept help during a bad time and then use that help to get back on their feet. But they’re not interesting! Spend time talking about them and watch your news ratings drop.

There are a lot more people like that man on welfare today than there are Nadya Sulemans. They are good people with something to contribute to our society. Many of them will leave the rolls of welfare eventually. Some of these former entitlement recipients may be your friends. I know a woman who in the 70’s was an unmarried mother of two, who took food stamps, Section 8 housing and student loans. Thirty years later she has a degree and is part owner of a small business. Without government assistance she would never be where she is today. She (and all those like her) are the justification for why entitlements are necessary.

So the next time you want to complain about all those worthless people sucking up tax dollars, keep in mind that all you hear about are the losers. Often the system works and that too deserves recognition.

WE ARE THE ONES

Monday, January 19th is Martin Luther King Day. It was conceived as a day of public service to honor the memory of Dr. King. It is a day that we as Americans have been asked to find some way to contribute to our community. And all across the country people will take time out of their day to do "something". Hopefully you will be among them. It doesn't have to be much. Simply baking cookies for your local fire station or picking up other people's trash along the side of the road. Maybe you'll grab an extra bag of flour to drop off at a homeless shelter or church food pantry. But what ever you do, take time to reflect upon the possibilities of the future.

For years we have complained that the "younger generation" doesn't care. They are the product of broken homes, disfunctional schools and an economy that offers little hope of success to the graduate of a public school. We complain that pop culture belittles the importance of education. Video games and entertainment glorify crime and violence. We have called our children a "lost generation" with good reason. Because they were and still are.

Liberals say all we have to do is put money into education to fix the problem. Conservatives tell us that it's the fault of kids with no drive to succeed. And both sides are right. Without the support of families and a quality education, the chance of a child succeeding is slim. Without a drive to succeed and a belief that success is a possibility, the child has NO chance of succeeding. Government can fix the schools, provide housing, food and medical care for the child....but it cannot convince a child that success is more than just a dream. It takes people to do that.

But today we stand a chance to make a difference. All across this country there are children who have watched the election of Barack Obama and now BELIEVE that anything really is possible. You don't have to play ball like Micheal Jordan or play guitar like Slash to succeed. Dreams have grown into possibilities.

On election night, I watched the results at a party. One of the guests was a young man who is from a single parent home. He had worked for the Obama campaign after school. I watched the look in his eye when it was announced that Obama had won. And after Obama had spoke that evening, I caught him alone in another room standing in front of a mirror giving his own "acceptance speech". His view of the world and it's possibilities changed that night. You watch the news and see countless examples of children inspired by an Obama presidency. And this inspiration has given us as adults the chance to reclaim at least part of a lost generation.

But thier inspiration will be shortlived and of little use if we do not try to nurture it. Don't get me wrong. We won't save them all. But the ones we do are worth the effort. Much like fishermen, Americans tend to fall into two categories: Those that focus on the "many that got away" and those that focus on "the catch we landed". It's fun to complain about the ones that got away but practical people who focus on catching fish...get to eat.

And so this year on Martin Luther King Day, take time to reflect on what YOU can do throughout the year to change a generation ripe for that change. Join a mentoring program or Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Get involved in your church's youth group. Do something weird like joining the PTA. Because for the first time in years, our children are open to our help. Some of them believe in new possibilities for thier lives. We need to be there for them. It's not a question of liberal or conservative, Christian or Athiest, Black or white. It's about our future, their future and the future of our nation.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have little; who've been told that they cannot have what they dream; that they cannot be what they imagine. Yes they can."

Barack Obama, Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008