Truespeak

At what point does determination become obsession? When is that line between perseverance and pure bull-headedness crossed? Wherever that line is, we are about to go charging across it.

Like a horse with blinders on, our current administration is hell-bent on maintaining the date for Iraqi elections. However, it may prove to be a little difficult if they don't have anyone to man the polling places.

Three militant groups warned Iraqis against voting in Jan. 30 elections, saying Thursday that people participating in the "dirty farce" risked attack. All 700 employees of the electoral commission in Mosul reportedly resigned after being threatened.

All other things aside, we clearly aren't able to provide the necessary security to quell the Iraqi's fears. Of course our government tries to portray this as a desperate insurgency willing to try anything to disrupt the march of freedom, but day-by-day it looks increasingly clearer that the shoe of desperation is on the other foot; ours. As if we needed any proof of our desperation to regain control of the situation, we need to look no further than the hurried training and deployment of our guard and reserve units. Just today, my local guard unit deployed two months early in an effort to beef up security for the upcoming elections. After a mere two months of training, the unit was given a five day leave to come home for Christmas and upon their return to training yesterday, they were informed that they would deploy this morning at 6:00 AM. Happy Holidays, boys.

The article goes on to say that insurgents are claiming that democracy and the Muslim faith can not co-exist.

The radical Ansar al-Sunnah Army and two other insurgent groups issued a statement Thursday warning that democracy was un-Islamic. Democracy could lead to passing un-Islamic laws, such as permitting homosexual marriage, if the majority or people agreed to it, the statement said.

"Democracy is a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit," the statement said. "This concept is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God — Muslims' doctrine."

Ansar al-Sunnah earlier posted a manifesto on its Web site saying democracy amounts to idolizing human beings. Thursday's joint statement reiterated the threat that "anyone who accepts to take part in this dirty farce will not be safe."

This, of course, is not a new revelation. This has been discussed since the beginning of the invasion. There are certain principles to democracy that do not align with the Islamic faith. By installing a democratically elected government in a Muslim country, we may be forcing the Iraqis to choose between their faith and their government. If that is indeed the case, what legitimacy will the elected officials have? Furthermore, what will be the basis for their decisions? Will it be the good of the country, the equality of all Iraqis, or the teachings of their faith? And finally, will we accept and support a democratically elected Iraqi government if it grounds itself in the teachings of the Islamic faith and denies the rights of some of its citizens based on gender, religion, or ancestry?

All of these questions have yet to be addressed and here we are a mere month from the magic day without enough troops to secure the nation and, apparently, enough personel to man the polling stations. What an embarassment this has become.

Sidenote: With today's deployment, Mrs. kissfan and I are seeing former students and colleagues being sent into harm's way. Our thoughts are with them and their families and we both hope to see them returned safe and sound whatever the outcome in Iraq ultimately is to be.

A few days ago, the Associated Press ran an article that I found to be disturbing, but very telling. It seems as though some of our nation's college students are reluctant to learn anything new out of fear that it may contradict their "core values."

Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, students are invoking academic freedom, contending that biased professors violate their right to classes free from indoctrination.

In many ways, the trend echoes past campus conflicts — but turns them around. Once, it was liberal activists citing the importance of "diversity" in pressing their agendas for curriculum change. Now, conservatives have adopted much of the same language in calling for greater openness to their viewpoints.

Similarly, academic freedom guidelines have traditionally been cited to protect left-leaning students from punishment for disagreeing with teachers about such issues as U.S. neutrality before World War II and involvement in Vietnam. Now, those same guidelines are being invoked by conservative students who support the war in Iraq.

To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught.

(emphasis mine)

In other words, "Don't challenge my beliefs as a conservative. Don't offer me a differing viewpoint, because I don't want to hear it." In even simpler terms, "Don't make me think. Just allow me to be a sheep."

This is part of the problem in today's political world. Many people have become so closed-minded that they refuse to listen to any opposing viewpoint. If it doesn't come from Rush, Coulter, or Faux News, then it must be tainted by a liberal bias and is therefore unreliable. Even our colleges and universities are being brought into question.

So how do we solve this problem? As Dr. Teresa Whitehurst, a clinical psychologist, explains, some would say that you just have to be careful that you don't get "too much education" because it could lead to liberalism.

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to a conversation I overheard at a Starbucks in Nashville last winter. It was a cold and rainy night as I worked away at my laptop, but the comforting aroma of cappuccino kept me going. My comfort was interrupted, however, by two young men who sat down in upholstered chairs near my table. One was talking, the other listening, in what appeared to be an informal college orientation.

"The only trouble with David Lipscomb (a conservative Christian college nearby) is that old man Lipscomb apparently didn't like football. So we don't have a football team, but we have a great faculty."

"But you do have to be careful about one thing," he said more quietly, coming closer and speaking in hushed tones, "My professor-I have this great professor-told me that you have to be careful not to get too much education, because you could lose your foundation, your core values."

The neophyte nodded solemnly, his eyebrows raised with worry.

"If you get a bachelors," the seasoned student reassured, "you'll probably be okay. But my professor said that when you get a master's, and definitely if you go beyond that, you can lose your values. He said that college students have to be watchful because if you get too much education, you could turn LIBERAL. He's seen it happen to a lot of good Christians."

Both young men looked around again to make sure no-one was listening (unfortunately my hearing is excellent, even when I wish it weren't), and shuddered visibly. They shook their heads at the terrifying fate that could befall them.

You see, to some people liberalism and education are one in the same. This is, of course, categorically false. Education does not equal liberalism, it equals information. When you are educated, you are informed. And when you are informed, you have the capability to make your own decisions. This is what the conservatives fear the most: an educated country.

As long as the majority of Americans are willing to be led around like sheep, the conservatives will be happy. An informed population is their worst enemy. An informed population is curious and curious people tend to seek the truth. The truth is not something the current administration is terribly fond of. But from the AP article, it appears as if there is a rising tide of Americans that don't want to be informed. They simply aren't curious enough to seek the truth. They are content to live in their sheltered world of misinformation and right-slanted views and the rest of the world, the informed part, can just go to hell.

So much for challenging ourselves to be better people. So much for challenging ourselves to be critical thinkers. So much for challenging ourselves to be the leaders of tomorrow. We're content to be the followers of today. We are content to strive for mediocrity.

Pity the world if the conservatives get their way.

With all of the harsh words spoken between the two political parties, it can be difficult to look past the hurt feelings and come together as one during this holiday season. I, for one, was shocked to find out that we as liberals "hate Christmas." Imagine my surprise when I found out that Christmas was "under attack" from the left. To be honest, I feel ashamed. So in the spirit of Christmas, I'd like to offer a musical olive branch to the conservatives, wingnuts, and religio-crazies out there. So like a long-distance dedication, I would like to offer this song by Pat Godwin as a token of my apologies. Enjoy!

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

Let’s put Christ back in Christmas
Right back where he belongs
Let’s put Christ back in Christmas
And back in your favorite Christmas songs

Frosty the Snowman was Jesus Christ’s best friend
He stood there melting by the cross until the very end
You better not shout, you better not cry
You better not pout I’m telling you why
Jesus Christ is coming again

Let’s put Christ back in Christmas
Right back where he belongs
Let’s put Christ back in Christmas
And back in your favorite Christmas songs

Jesus the long-haired savior
Had a very shiny glow
And if you ever saw it
You would call it a halo

Let’s put Christ back in Christmas
Right back where he belongs
Let’s put Christ back in Christmas
And back in your favorite
And back in your favorite
And back in your favorite Christmas songs

Jingle Bells, Go to Hell
If you do not pray

Sidenote:Because of the holidays and the kissfan's anniversary, Truespeak will be taking a short break. I'll see you back here on Wednesday, December 29. So spend some time with your families, relax, and enjoy yourselves because 2005 is just around the corner and we need to start preparing for the midterm elections in 2006. Until then, Happy Holidays!

How are we supposed to be able to secure an entire country when we can't even secure our own military bases?

A suicide bomber is believed to be behind Tuesday's attack that killed 22 people at a U.S. mess hall in Iraq, Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said Wednesday in Washington.

Initial reports speculated that it may have been a rocket attack, but Task Force Olympia spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Hastings said Wednesday "the cause is unknown." FBI forensic experts were flown to the scene of the blast at Camp Marez outside Mosul.

The investigation is continuing.

I don't know what else to say. We keep hearing from the administration that we are making progress, but we keep seeing things like this that indicate things are getting worse. What a complete mess.

"They tortured me from morning until the morning of the next day, and when I fell down from the severe torture I fell on the barbed wires, and then they dragged me from my feet and I was wounded and, and they punched me on my stomach."

"He described that such abuses included strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings, and unauthorized interrogations."

Four days after entering the Mosul detention facility, Abdul Kareem was found dead in his cell. The medic who examined him found multiple wounds, a laceration on his head surrounded by internal bleeding, bruising on his abdomen and a clear fluid in his right ear. Although the body was sent to Baghdad for autopsy, the battalion and group command canceled the procedure.

These are just a few excerpts from articles suggesting that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay may have gone all the way up to the White House. According to one article the abuses were authorized under an executive order.

Repeated references in an internal FBI email suggest that the president issued a special order to permit some of the more objectionable torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib and other US-run prison facilities around Iraq. The email was among a new batch of FBI documents revealed by civil rights advocates on Monday. Other documents describe the initiation of investigations into alleged incidents of torture and rape at detention facilities in Iraq.
[...]
An Executive Order is a presidential edict -- sometimes public, sometimes secretive -- instituting special laws or instructions that override or complement existing legislation. The White House has officially neither admitted nor denied that the president has issued an Executive Order pertaining to interrogation techniques.

The specific methods mentioned in the email as having been approved by the unnamed Executive Order and witnessed by FBI agents include sleep deprivation, placing hoods over prisoners’ heads, the use of loud music for sensory overload, stripping detainees naked, forcing captives to stand in so-called "stress positions," and the employment of work dogs. One of the more horrifying tools of intimidation, Army canines were used at the prison to terrorize inmates, as depicted in photos taken inside Abu Ghraib.

From another article:

The White House was responding to newly released FBI e-mails that reported some military interrogators, posing as FBI agents to avoid being held accountable, used torture techniques. One told of an interrogation at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in which a detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights.

The e-mails also described detainees at Guantanamo being shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor. They were kept in that position for 18 to 24 hours at a time and most had urinated or defecated on themselves.

On one occasion, an FBI agent reported having seen a detainee left in an unventilated, non-air conditioned room at temperatures probably well over 100 degrees. "The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night," the agent noted.

The memos covered a two-year period that ended in August, well after a scandal erupted in April about abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

And this from the ACLU:

The new documents also contain extensive details about an array of other abuse investigations. These include:

• An apparent attempt by a soldier in Baghdad to force a detainee to hold a gun to create the appearance of a justifiable homicide.
  
• Two mock executions of Iraqi juveniles by Army personnel (documents obtained by the ACLU two weeks ago showed that U.S. Marines had also conducted a mock execution of juvenile detainees).
  
• Allegations of a competition among Army dog handlers at Abu Ghraib prison to see who could make Iraqi detainees urinate themselves the fastest.
  
• The use of death threats during interrogations. Command failures in providing appropriate training to military interrogators in Baghdad detention facilities.

(You can view all of the ACLU's documents pertaining to abuse here.)

We were told that the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were an isolated incident commited by a handful of rogue soldiers. This was a lie. Unfortunately, I've lost track of just exactly how many lies we, the American people, have been told by this administration. Yet nobody has been held accountable. When is the buck going to stop? When will someone in the press ball-up enough to ask the questions and start an investigation?

We have been lied to from the beginning of this debacle known as the War in Iraq. We were told that Saddam possessed WMD. We were told that we would be greeted as liberators. We were told that we had enough troops on the ground to do the job. We were told that the capture of Saddam would break the insurgency. We were told that the insurgency consisted of a handful of former Saddam loyalists. We were told that the retaking of Fallujah would break the back of the insurgents. We were told... We were told... We were told... We were told...

How many more lies will we tolerate? How many more deaths will we put up with? How many more families will be destroyed before someone decides that they have had enough. Who fucking cares if this is a "war president?" He is lying to us! We owe it to our country and to our soldiers to find out the truth!

Everyday that this war goes unchecked is another day that we are being lied to. It's another day that a soldier is putting his or her life on the line for a lie. Presidents have been impeached for lies that didn't lead to anyone's death, so why are we allowing this president to get away this? For every day that goes by, for every soldier that dies, for every Iraqi civilian killed, we deserve an answer. When are we going to get them?

Does anybody remember the television show Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K)? It involved really bad sci-fi movies and a viewer and his two robots who made sarcastic remarks about the films. Quite amusing, indeed. Well, I thought it might be fun if we applied the same principle to our daily news. I like to call it Political Science Theater 3000 or PST3K. Welcome to episode one.

"THE PRESIDENT HOLDS A PRESS CONFERENCE"

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, and happy holidays to you all.

Yea, yea, Happy Holidays prick!

I thought I'd come and answer some of your questions.

Because you're always so forthcoming with information.

Before I do so, I've got a statement I'd like to make.

I'm sure you do.

We're nearing the end of a year where -- of substantial progress at home and here -- and abroad. In 2004, the United States grew in prosperity, enhanced our security and served the cause of freedom and peace. Our duties continue in the new year; I'm optimistic about achieving results.

As opposed to achieving something else?

America's economy is on solid footing, growth is strong and the nation's entrepreneurs have generated more than 2 million jobs in this year alone.

So what if they're not in this country, right?

There's more we must do to keep this economy flexible, innovative and competitive in the world. In a time of change we must reform systems that were created to meet the needs of another era. Soon I will appoint a citizens panel to recommend ways we can transform the outdated tax code.

So my rich friends can continue to screw the country out of taxes.

I'll work with the new Congress to make health care more accessible and affordable,

To everyone except the ones who need it most.

to reform the legal system, to raise standards of achievement in public schools -- especially our high schools

Yea! Screw the middle schools. Little fuckers are annoying anyway!

-- and to fix the Social Security system for our children and our grandchildren.

You heard him folks, he said the fix was in on Social Security.

Early in the year, I will also submit a budget that fits the times. We will provide every tool and resource for our military, we'll protect the homeland and we'll meet other priorities of the government. My budget will maintain strict discipline and the spending of tax dollars, and keep our commitment to cutting the deficit in half over five years.

All of these goals require the energy and dedication of members of both political parties.

You know, both parties: Republicans and Conservatives.

Working in a spirit of bipartisanship, we will build the foundation of a stronger, more prosperous country. We'll meet our obligations to future generations as we do so.

Our duties to future generations include a sustained effort to protect our country against new dangers.

Like gay marriage and cures for diseases.

Last week, I signed legislation that continues the essential reorganization of our government by improving the nation's intelligence operations.

I know of one type of intelligence that isn't going to be improved. His!

Because we acted, our vast intelligence enterprise will be more unified, coordinated and effective than ever before. And the American people will be more secure as a result.

Just as soon as they move to Canada.

Our country is also safer because of the historic changes that have come around the world in places like Afghanistan.

You see, now that we've bombed the shit out of them, they're just really pissed off at us. I'm sure they won't retalliate or anything.

This year brought the first presidential election in the 5,000 year history of that country. And the government of President Hamid Karzai is a steadfast ally in the war on terror. President Karzai and the Afghan people can be certain of America's continued friendship and America's support as they build a secure and hopeful democracy.

As long as they continue to kiss our asses and do what we want them to.

In Iraq, a people that endured decades of oppression are also preparing to choose their own leaders.

We've had Diebold programming their voting machines for at least six months now.

Next month, Iraqis will go to the polls and express their will in free elections.

I thought they were already expressing their "free will" by bombing the shit out of us whenever they feel like it.

Preparations are underway for an energetic campaign, and the participation is wide and varied. More than 80 parties and coalitions have been formed, and more than 7,000 candidates have registered for the elections.

However, there's a good chance they could all be dead by election day.

When Iraqis vote on January the 30th, they will elect 275 members to a transitional national assembly, as well as local legislatures throughout the country.

And they will have absolutely no authority whatsoever.

The new national assembly will be responsible for drafting a constitution for a free Iraq. By next October, the constitution will be submitted to the people for ratification. If it is approved, then, by December, the voters of Iraq will elect a fully democratic constitutional government.

Assuming it meets our our specifications, that is.

My point is, the elections in January are just the beginning of a process, and it's important for the American people to understand that.

So just how many beginnings does this process have, asshole? You've been telling us this for twenty-one months now. Is there ver going to be an end to this process?

As the Iraqi people take these important steps on the path to democracy, the enemies of freedom know exactly what is at stake. They know that a democratic Iraq will be a decisive blow to their ambitions, because free people will never choose to live in tyranny.

Except for the tyranny we're forcing them to live in right now. But that's beside the point.

And so the terrorists will attempt to delay the elections, to intimidate people in their country, to disrupt the democratic process in any way they can.

In other words: We're screwed!

No one can predict every turn in the months ahead, and I certainly don't expect the process to be trouble-free.

Like I said: SCREWED!

Yet, I am confident of the result,

Yea we know, Diebold.

I'm confident the terrorists will fail, the elections will go forward, and Iraq will be a democracy that reflects the values and traditions of its people.

Or at least the ones we haven't already slaughtered.

America and our coalition have a strategy in place to aid the rise of a stable democracy in Iraq.

Uh, we've seen your strategy, George. It's been the same since the beginning. It's called "Whack-a-Mole." You might want to rethink it.

To help the Iraqi government provide security during the election period, we will increase U.S. troop strength.

Uh, that's spelled D-R-A-F-T for those of you playing along at home.

Coalition forces will continue hunting the terrorists and the insurgents.

Or at least we'll keep killing someone. Who knows, maybe it will be an insurgent, maybe not. We're really just guessing anyway.

We will continue training Iraqi security forces so the Iraqi people can eventually take responsibility for their own security.

And eventually kick our asses out.

We have a vital interest in the success of a free Iraq. You see, free societies do not export terror.

No, they just export their jobs to other countries that pay $.50/hr and aren't required to pay federal taxes.

Free governments respect the aspirations of their citizens and serve their hopes for a better life. Free nations are peaceful nations.

Except for us, of course.

And free nations in the heart of the Middle East will show what is possible to others who want to live in a free society.

In Iraq and elsewhere we've asked a great deal of the men and women of our Armed Forces.

No kidding, I hear Rumsfeld's had to have his signature machine refurbished twice already.

Especially during this holiday season, those on duty far from home will be in our thoughts and our prayers. Our people in uniform and our military families are making many sacrifices for our country.

That's more than you've ever done, jackass!

They have the gratitude of our whole country.

Blah, blah, blah!

THE END

No post tonight. Instead, check out Ickabod's Rightside Down. After a short break, he's back on track.

The list keeps getting longer.

As George W. Bush continues to stand by his embattled Secretary of Defense, the rest of his party is getting the hellout of Dodge. It all started with the armor question. Now for those of us who have been following the "internets," this really wasn't anything new. But for the American "sheeple," this was shocking. Maybe if Rumsfeld had answered the question a little more diplomatically, he could have defused the situation. But delicacy has never been Rumsfeld's strong suit. In fact, his snarky response only added fuel to the fire.

Soon thereafter we began to hear the calls for Rummy's head. At first it was mostly from the left, but it gained traction on the weekend talk shows and we were soon hearing that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has no confidence in poor old Rummy. Most people thought "so what?" We all know that McCain can be somewhat of a maverick. But when others like Sen. Chuck Hagel (R - NE) and Sen. Norm Coleman (R- MN) started to join him, it began to look serious. Just recently we've seen the addition of Trent Lott (R-MS) and Susan Collins (R-ME) to that list. So how many more are yet to come?

This all begs the question: how long before Bush is forced to abandon ship? Or has he earned enough "political capitol" to ride this one out? You see, this puts our dear Georgie-boy in a rather awkward position between that proverbial rock and hard place. On the one hand he could stick with Don but he risks alienating even more of his party. This could hurt his chances of passing any future defense spending packages. On the other hand though, if he bails out on Donny, he's admiting that there may have been some mistakes made along the way in Iraq and he has stated repeatedly that if given the chance he would do it all again. Besides, admitting mistakes is not one of Shrub's strong points.

So where do we go? Obviously I'd like to see Rumsfeld kicked to the curb, but I shudder at who we would get to replace him. Wolfowitz? Perle? Any number of neocons could step in and continue on in the Rumsfeld tradition without interruption. So replacing him may not be the answer. In truth, I expect Bush to stick by his man and give the metaphoric finger to those dissenters in his party and the Dems in general. But don't get too down about this. It could easily work to our advantage.

The longer Bush sticks with his failed policy and policymakers, the more ammunition the Democrats will have in 2006. We just have to be sure that we start firing early enough. Now would be a good time to start. We can begin by referring to those dissenters as if they were part of our party. We can include them when we say things like "we disagree with the Secretary of Defense." We shouldn't hesitate to point out that conservatives are starting to agree with us. If we act now, we can use Donald Rumsfeld as our wedge. He's got poor approval ratings, he's abrasive, and he's stubborn; but best of all, he's Bush's boy. They come as a matched set.

So how do we frame this issue? Well, to use a familiar approach:

"You're either with us or your for Rumsfeld's failed policies in Iraq."

Shocking as it may be, a planned test of our missile defense system has failed yet again.

An interceptor missile failed to launch early Wednesday in what was to have been the first full flight test of the U.S. national missile defense system in nearly two years.

The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including various weather problems and a malfunction on a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested.

A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched as scheduled from Kodiak, Alaska, at 12:45 a.m. EST, in the first launch of a target missile from Kodiak in support of a full flight test of the system.

However, the agency said the ground-based interceptor "experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launched" from the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean 16 minutes after the target missile left Alaska.

An announcement said the interceptor experienced an automatic shutdown "due to an unknown anomaly."

This just kills me. We are spending billions of dollars on a fantasy space-movie plan to protect us from the "bad guys." According to the article, we've been successful five out of eight times. Let's put that in perspective, shall we?

Five out of eight is approximately 63%. If my students score 63% on an exam, it's an "F." So missile defense is currently scoring an "F."

If I ran a company and I had an employee who called in sick every day the weather didn't meet his fancy, I'd fire him. Furthermore, if he spent three out of every eight hours on the job sitting in the emplyees lounge doing nothing, he'd be fired. If he screwed up three out of every eight projects he was working on, he'd be fired. Get my drift?

Now some would say that a 63% rate of success is pretty good. A baseball player would be thrilled if he could hit .625. Basketball players would be ecstatic with a 63% shooting percentage. But we're talking about apples and oranges here. With missile defense we're saying that 63% of the time we know when a missile is going to be launched under cooperative weather conditions from a known location, we are successful. So if someone like Kim Jong Il would be so kind as to launch a nuclear attack on us on a clear sunny day with an acceptable period of notification, we could expect to stop 63% of the missiles. Hopefully those other 27% will fail to detonate. If they don't, well we're sorry about that.

Maybe, instead of spending billions on a game of nuclear roulette, we should be investing our money in diplomatic efforts to curb the production of said missiles. But no, we continue to throw money down the drain on something that continuously presents a security risk. As we've heard so many times, we have to be right 100% of the time while the terrorists only have to be right once. Well so far we're only capable of being right 63% of the time. It's time to abandon this money-pit of a fantasy and actually focus on the problems at hand. If we are able to control the proliferation and development of weapons, there is no need for something like missile defense.

(Unfortunately, Haliburton and Lockheed-Martin won't make any money off of non-proliferation talks so this isn't too likely to happen.)

Did I miss something? All of a sudden the Democratic Party is acting like they've got a pair.

Complaining that Republicans have failed to oversee how billions of dollars of taxpayer money is being spent, Senate Democrats said Monday that they would begin holding oversight hearings of their own, even though they are in the minority and have no subpoena power to compel the testimony of government officials.

"The Congressional watchdog remains fast asleep, and we intend to wake it up," Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, who is chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, said at a news briefing.

Mr. Dorgan was joined, via videoconference, by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Democratic leader, who has repeatedly said that he would "rather dance than fight" with Republicans. Mr. Reid said that the hearings, to be run by the policy committee, would be "set up as fairly as possible," with Democrats offering Republicans a chance to participate and call witnesses.

"We're going to try to be as fair as they have not been to us," Mr. Reid said. Mr. Dorgan added, "And if the Republicans decide to hold their own oversight hearings, there will be no need for this project."

Now I realize that these aren't exactly serious threats, but it's a start. It's better than laying down and letting the Republicans walk all over us like we've been doing since 9/11 for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. It's better than quietly taking the daily screwings that we've been receiving for the last four years. Sure, things may not change a whole lot, but at least we're making some noise. At least people will know that we don't approve of all the lies and secrecy. Hell, we might even get a reputation for standing up to authority.

A few weeks ago I was pretty tough on Senator Reid. I made some rather disparaging remarks about his "rather dance than fight" attitude. After reading this today, I have to say I'm at least encouraged. This doesn't mean that anything's going to happen, after all, politicians are famous for saying they will do something and then avoiding it like the plague. But at least we're making an attempt to control the issues. Now we have to follow through on this promise. We have to complain loud and we have to complain often. It can't be whining, we have to have facts and proof on our side. It's going to be difficult and it's going to take time, but it can be done. We've got to start somewhere and this is as good as anyplace else.

If this kind of assertiveness keeps up, we just might regain some control in this country.

Has it been a year already? My how time flies!

One year ago today, Saddam Hussein was found hiding in a "spider hole" outside of his hometown of Tikrit. Oh how we celebrated. The media practically creamed themselves over the video of Saddam's medical exam. I remember waking up that morning to find a wild-eyed Tom Brokaw babbling about how things were going to be very different now that Saddam was in custody. This was going to be the United States' defining moment in the war. Now the Iraqi people could breathe easy. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld even went so far as to make this prediction:

"He was found with a sizable amount of money," [Rumsfeld] said. "And one of the things that the Saddam Hussein family and his clique of intimates were doing is they were providing money to people to go out and engage in acts against the coalition and the Iraqi people, so that's ended."

Well, 838 US deaths later and here we are. The country is still in chaos, the Iraqis are still unable to provide their own security, and the insurgency has actually stepped-up it's attacks. Our soldiers have been dying at an average of 2.35 per day since Saddam was found in that hole. The death rate prior to his capture: 1.70 per day. Things sure are different.

Actually, there's been a whole list of things that were supposed to make a difference. There was:

1. The fall of Baghdad - 1174 dead soldiers ago, (1.92 per day)
   
2. The deaths of Uday and Qusay - 1060 dead soldiers ago, (2.08 per day)
   
3. The capture of Saddam - 838 dead soldiers ago, (2.35 per day)
   
4. The transfer of power - 445 dead soldiers ago, (2.64 per day)

As you can see, the death rate has been steadily climbing with each new difference making event. I can't wait for elections, because that will truly change everything.

According to my local paper, eleven Illinois school districts must stop after-school tutoring sessions because (you guessed it) the districts are underperforming. (Sorry, I can't find a link)

The U.S. Department of Education told the Illinois State Board of Education in a letter that the Chicago Public Schools, seven suburban districts and schools in Galesburg, Springfield and the Metro East city of Madison must discontinue their tutoring programs because the districts failed to meet academic standards."

Call me crazy, but if the districts are failing shouldn't they increase their after-school tutoring program? That would make sense to me. However, the No Child Left Behind act says differently. According to NCLB:

...school districts that fail to meet federal academic standards two years in a row can't use money provided by the law on district-run tutoring programs. (emphasis mine)

Now this makes sense. According to the article:

By next month, the districts must have alternative private tutoring programs in place or pay for district tutoring programs on their own." (emphasis mine)

Under NCLB, the federal money used for after-school tutoring must now be used to pay private companies to do the job of trained teachers. Yet another way the Bush administration is funneling money to private businesses and further depleting the resources of the schools that need it most.

Continuing in my series, I give you this letter from James, the brother of Jesus. The letters of James are addressed to Christians in general and not to any particular church. The letters are mainly concerned with the practical side of the Christian faith, consisting of the principles for every day conduct. They discuss true religion, faith and wisdom.

James 2:1-13:

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. ²Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. ³If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," ⁴have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
⁵Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? ⁶But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? ⁷Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
⁸If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. ⁹But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. ¹⁰For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. ¹¹For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
¹²Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives you freedom, ¹³because judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement!

Which of our two major political parties chooses mercy over judgement? It's certainly not the conservatives. So when the religious right shoves their faith in your face, remember that we are the party that Jesus would have chosen. It is our values that are most closely aligned with his teachings.

I think Howard Dean has been reading Truespeak.

Remarks made by Governor Howard Dean on the Future of the Democratic Party. Given at The George Washington University on December 8, 2004.

Thank you for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be here.

Let me tell you what my plan for this Party is:

We're going to win in Mississippi
...and Alabama
...and Idaho
...and South Carolina.

Four years ago, the President won 49 percent of the vote. The Republican Party treated it like it was a mandate, and we let them get away with it.

Fifty one percent is not a mandate either. And this time we're not going to let them get away with it.

Our challenge today is not to re-hash what has happened, but to look forward, to make the Democratic Party a 50-state party again, and, most importantly, to win.

To win the White House and a majority in Congress, yes. But also to do the real work that will make these victories possible -- to put Democratic ideas and Democratic candidates in every office -- whether it be Secretary of State, supervisor of elections, county commissioner or school board member.

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.

The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.

There are some practical elements to the destination.

The destination of the Democratic Party requires that it be financially viable, able to raise money not only from big donors but small contributors, not only through dinners and telephone solicitations and direct mail, but also through the Internet and person-to-person outreach.

The destination of the Democratic Party means making it a party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans. Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community. The tools that were pioneered in my campaign -- like blogs, and meetups, and streaming video -- are just a start. We must use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with the state parties, and to influence media coverage.

The most practical destination is winning elective office. And we must do that at every level of government. The way we will rebuild the Democratic Party is not from consultants down, but from the ground up.

We have some successes to build on. We raised more money than the RNC, and we did so by attracting thousands of new small donors. This is the first time in my memory that the DNC is not coming out of a national campaign in debt. We trained tens of thousands of new activists. We put together the most sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation our Party has ever had. We registered millions of new voters, including a record number of minority and young voters. And we saw those new voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Now we need to build on our successes while transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots organization that can win in 50 states.

I have seen all the doomsday predictions that the Democratic Party could shrink to become a regional Party. A Party of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest.

We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.

As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats.

Since we started Dean for America last March, we raised over $5 million, mostly from small donors. That money was given to 748 candidates in 46 states and at every level of government.

We helped a Democratic governor get elected in Montana and a Democratic mayor get elected in Salt Lake County, Utah.

We helped Lori Saldana in San Diego. Lori, a Latina grassroots environmental organizer was outspent in both the primary and the general, won a seat on the state assembly.
We also helped Anita Kelly become the first African-American woman elected to her circuit court in Montgomery Alabama.

Fifteen of the candidates who we helped win last month never ran for elective office before.

And in Texas, a little known candidate who had been written off completely ran the first competitive race against Tom Delay in over a decade.

There are no red states or blue states, just American states. And if we can compete at all levels and in the most conservative parts of the country, we can win ... at any level and anywhere.

People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Alabama, and Utah if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we believe.

There is another destination beyond strong finances, outreach, and campaigns.

That destination is a better, stronger, smarter, safer, healthier America.

An America where we don't turn our back on our own people.

That's the America we can only build with conviction.

When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.

On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are.

What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?

Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."

Yet here we are still making the same mistakes.

Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left -- and that's for us to lurch to the right.

What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom.

They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.

They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.

They want wealth rewarded over work.

And they are willing to use any means to get there.

In going from record surpluses to record deficits, the Republican Party has relinquished the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

And now they're talking about borrowing another $2 trillion to take benefits away from our Senior Citizens.

In going from record job creation to record job loss, they have abandoned the mantle of economic responsibility.

In cutting health care, education, and community policing programs... and in failing to invest in America's inner cities, or distressed rural communities... they certainly have no desire to even claim the mantle of social responsibility.

In their refusal to embrace real electoral reform or conduct the business in government in the light of day, they are hardly the model of civic responsibility.

In their willingness to change the rules so that their indicted leaders can stay in power, they have even given up any claim on personal responsibility.

And in starting an international conflict based on misleading information, I believe they have abdicated America's moral responsibility, as well.

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

And we believe every person in America should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens.

We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools. I have nothing against private schools, parochial schools and home schooling. Parents with the means and inclination should choose whatever they believe is best for their children. But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education.

We believe that if you put in a lifetime of work, you have earned a retirement of dignity -- not one that is put at risk by your government or unethical business practices.

The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. I did it every year as Governor. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.

We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power everyday. And it most certainly must be heard on Election Day. Democracies around the world look to us as a model. How can we be worthy of their aspirations when we have done enough to guarantee accurate elections for our own citizens.

We believe in a strong and secure America... And we believe we will be stronger by having a moral foreign policy.

We need to embrace real political reform -- because only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long.

The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.

We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes.

We have to set the agenda.

We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.

Reform is the hallmark of a strong Democratic Party.

Those who stand in the way of reform cannot be the focus of our attention for only four months out of every four years.

Reform is a daily battle.

And we must pursue those reforms with conviction -- every day, at all levels, in 50 states.

A little while back, at a fundraiser, a woman came up to me. She identified herself as an evangelical Christian from Texas. I asked her what you are all wondering -- why was she supporting me. She said there were two reasons. The first was that she had a child who had poly-cystic kidney disease, and what that illness made it impossible for their family to get health care.

The second thing she said was, "The other reason we're with you is because evangelical Christians are people of deep conviction, and you're a person of deep conviction. I may not agree with you on everything, but what we want more than anything else from our government is that when something happens to our family or something happens to our country -- it's that the people in office have deep conviction."

We are what we believe. And the American people know it.

And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years...

Election by election...

State by state...

Precinct by precinct...

Door by door...

Vote by vote...

We're going to lift our Party up...

And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it.

Sounds good to me!

Before statutory law the buyer of a product had no guarantee of the product's quality. Hence the latin term caveat emptor, which means let the buyer beware. I only wish that our nation had headed that advice on November 2. Now we are stuck with what we voted for. Let's take a look at what we're getting for our votes.

Hit by rising health care and energy costs, employers announced more than 100,000 job cuts in November, capping the first three-month stretch above that level since early 2002. Link

And...

The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration's portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper. Link

And...

In 2003, U.S. performance in mathematics literacy and problem solving was lower than the average performance for most OECD countries. The United States also performed below the OECD average on each mathematics literacy subscale representing a specific content area (space and shape, change and relationships, quantity, and uncertainty). This is somewhat different from the PISA 2000 results, when reading literacy was the major subject area, which showed the United States performing at the OECD average. Link

And...

The dollar slid to new lows earlier in the day as investors, tiring of tough talk on exchange rates by European officials, dismissed new warnings from euro zone finance ministers about the dangers of the rising euro. Link

And all of this from just one day's news cycle. Thanks George. Thanks red America. I hope you're satisfied with what you got for your vote because we're stuck with him now.

Today's post can be found here.

Of late, the term liberal has become synonymous amoral. We on the left have been cast as valueless heathens worthy only of scorn and ridicule. To listen to the media, we are a gasping, dying breed clinging desperately to the ghost of a once great party. Never mind that our candidate received 56 million votes in the presidential last election. In today's journalistic society, you're only as credible as the outcome of the last election cycle. It's what I like to call the American Idol syndrome. Give us a contest so we can hurry up and mock the losers.

Well I, for one, refuse to play this game. I am proud to be a liberal. Despite the negative connotations; despite the amoralistic image; I am proud. I'm proud because I know that when I am faced with trouble, I will make the just decision. As a liberal I will always choose charity over greed, I will choose tolerance over bigotry, and I will choose humility over pride. My liberal values compel me to err on the side of compassion and mercy when faced with anger and hatred. And because of my liberal morals, I will always choose what is best for my country, my family, and my faith over personal gain.

These are the values I learned from my parents as a child and these are the values that I hope to pass on to my own children because these are the values of a liberal. While the media and the rest skewer my party for its lack of morals, I stand proud knowing that I too have strong values. I simply choose not to shove them in the face of my opponent.

The blogosphere has been on fire this week over CBS' and NBC's refusal to air an advertisement for the United Church of Christ in which they are promoting their open-door policy to people of all walks of life. The network's reasoning for refusing to run the ad appears to center around the inclusion of a gay couple being denied entry into a church. According to CBS, the ad is too controversial because it "implies acceptance of gay and lesbian couples -- among other minority constituencies..." Now, if I'm reading this correctly, CBS is saying that acceptance of minorities is a bad thing. Funny, I thought this country was built on acceptance. What about "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; send these, the homeless tempest-tossed, to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door?" Sure sounds pretty accepting to me.

CBS went on to say "the fact that the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] Networks." Silly me, I didn't realize that George W. Bush's personal beliefs were a determining factor in CBS' broadcast policies. I guess you can call me naive.

In their response to the networks' rejection, the UCC makes a pretty solid case for themselves.

"We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line," says the Rev. Robert Chase, director of the UCC's communication ministry.

CBS and NBC's refusal to air the ad "recalls the censorship of the 1950s and 1960s, when television station WLBT in Jackson, Miss., refused to show people of color on TV," says Ron Buford, coordinator for the United Church of Christ identity campaign. Buford, of African-American heritage, says, "In the 1960s, the issue was the mixing of the races. Today, the issue appears to be sexual orientation. In both cases, it's about exclusion."

I couldn't agree more.

This situation raises so many questions that it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, I think it brings into question the notion of a liberal media. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a liberal media would want to run ads promoting the acceptance of gays and minorities? Wouldn't a liberal media want to run ads critical of George W. Bush's policies? Of course I've never bought into the whole liberal media theory, but I would think that this would poke a major hole in it.

Secondly, why is it that networks like NBC have no problem promoting shows such as Will & Grace, which features openly gay characters, but finds this ad "too controversial?" I guess it's because the homosexuals on Will & Grace are funny while the reality of homosexual relationships is not. Sort of reminds me of the black-face minstrel shows of the 1800s. It was okay to ridicule and laugh at African-Americans and their stereotypes, but in reality they were just viewed as second class citizens.

Really, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised by the networks', especially CBS', refusal to run this ad. Remember the controversy over MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad that was to run during the Super Bowl? In both instances, CBS claimed that it "does not run issue ads." However, I could swear that I've seen anti-smoking and anti-drug ads on CBS. Maybe what they really meant to say is that they don't run issue ads that George W. Bush doesn't believe in. I guess the joke about CBS standing for the Conservative Broadcasting System isn't really that much of a joke. So what does that mean for NBC? Possibly the Neo-Con Broadcasting System?

Seems so long ago that I was led to believe that the media was on our side. Stupid history books!

As I attempt to prove that Jesus was indeed the first liberal, I will quote from the book of Matthew 6:5-8.

⁵And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reard in full. ⁶But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. ⁷And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. ⁸Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

This is a common theme throughout the teachings of Jesus. He's saying those who flaunt their faith do so for their own gain. Those who are humble in their faith are the ones who will be rewarded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it looks as though it's the conservatives who are flaunting these days. They are the ones trumpeting their faith so as "to be seen by men." It's almost as if they feel insecure about themselves.

So what does this say about us blue-staters that aren't shouting our faith from every rooftop? Could it be that we are actually more Christ-like than the ones who claim to be so devout?