Monday, April 27, 2009

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.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

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!

Sunday, April 19, 2009

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.

Monday, April 13, 2009

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!

Sunday, April 12, 2009

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.

Monday, April 6, 2009

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!

Thursday, April 2, 2009

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!

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

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!