Truespeak

Are We On the Brink of Dystopia?

2007-06-02T11:20:00.000-05:00

If you're a fan of literature like me, you are no doubt familiar with the term dystopia. Simply put, it is the opposite of utopia and it provides the setting for some of the great stories of twentieth century literature - stories such as Orwell's 1984, Huxley's A Brave New World, and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, to name a few. Read by themselves, these novels provide great, if not somewhat disturbing, entertainment. But when gathered together as a whole, novels such as these appear to be frighteningly prescient. Granted, we've all heard the term Orwellian applied to the current administration, but I believethere's more to things than that. On closer examination, I'm left asking the question I've posed in the title - Are we on the brink of dystopia?

In dystopian novels, there is always a cataclysmic event such as a war, an attack, or a natural disaster that sets things in motion. This event causes great despair amongst the citizens forcing them to look to the government for help or protection. Under the guise of leadership, the government convinces the citizenship that they can't go on living as they do. It is dangerous to believe everything they see and hear as it is most likely controlled by the enemy. Anyone espousing such filth must be in league with the opposition. To combat the enemy, the government seizes control of media outlets and begins a propaganda campaign to ensure that all citizens are sufficiently frightened and are willing to rally to whatever cause the government wishes to pursue. To accomplish this, the opposition is painted as purely evil and it is only through the government that society can be protected. A certain amount of freedom and rights will have to be forfeited, but when it comes to protection it seems like a small price to pay so everyone acquiesces. In fact, it's not uncommon, as evidenced in 1984 for the government to spy on its citizens to ensure that the enemy doesn't infiltrate the population. (Sound familiar yet?)

Another aspect of dystopian society is the importance of social class. In Huxley's A Brave New World, society is divided into Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon classes with each capable of further division such as plus and minus (ie. - Alpha Plus, Gamma Minus). Often these social classes are determined at birth and there is little opportunity for ascension to a higher strata. As we see the rich in America continuing to distance themselves from the middle class and more and more Americans sinking into poverty, the privileges social class in our country can not be denied. Basically, if you're born rich you'll stay rich and have all the opportunity you care to pursue. Yet if you're born poor... well, that's another story. (I'm reminded of John Edwards' concept of "Two Americas.")

Dystopian societies flourish by not allowing people to excel. Keeping the citizens sufficiently uneducated, it's easy to convince them that the government is looking out for their best interests. This is one of the main concepts of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451: books cause people to think and to ask questions so the government bans them. When the main character Guy Montag wants to know why books are bad, Captain Beatty explains it by saying:

You can't build a house without nails and wood. If you don't want a house built, hide the nails and wood.

So to keep a dystopian society in tact, the government must put in place a system that will keep individuals from advancing. Some sort of requirement that sounds helpful but is really meant to squash intellectualism. In F451 it's the banning of books because they foment thought and dissention which ultimately leads to unhappiness and unhappiness is what society abhors. So to keep the society happy, books are banned and the public is fed a steady stream of good news through their televisions and ear radios. All the while they are kept at a mediocre level of intelligence and are only taught what the government feels they need to know. (Sort of like NCLB, if you ask me. Not only are children (supposedly) not being left behind, neither are they allowed to get ahead. But that's whole other diary.)

Another feature of a dystopian society is the preoccupation with the sexual habits of the populace. In A Brave New World members of society were encouraged to be promiscuous - to enjoy the pleasures of sex. In 1984 however, sex was discouraged among the citizenry and groups such as the junior anti-sex league were formed to help reinforce this position. In George W. Bush's America, sex has become an area of increasing scrutiny. Abstinence-only education is pushed and same-sex coupling is strongly discouraged. Suddenly what happens in the bedroom between anyone but a man and a woman who are legally married in the eyes of the church and state is of serious importance. Certainly this is not exclusive to this administration, but the focus of the sexual microscope has indeed become more intense.

Many of literature's dystopian societies also feature economic models that are controlled by the government. Privatization is a frequent characteristic of a dystopian economy as much of the wealth is directed to and controlled by corporations with governmental ties. The economic policies are set to ensure that social stratification is kept in tact and that only the wealthiest can enjoy the benefits. (I'll let you all draw your own comparisons to this point.)

Certainly there are many more characteristics of a dystopian society that could be examined such as the push for a single religious focus or the use of technolgy to control the populace, but I think you see my point. I'm not asserting that there is any grand conspiracy underway to purposely create a state of dystopia in America. As I've done before, I'm simply pointing out the similarities between some of the great literary works of our time and modern day society. But I have to ask the question once again: Are we on the brink of dystopia? Could we be unknowingly headed for our own brave new world?

Sidenote - Yes, I'm still around. It's been two months since I last posted and if I have any readers left I'll be amazed. Lately, I've been trying to finish up school plus my grad classes. Both are done now and I'm free for the summer. Hopefully, I'll be able to start posting again.

Income Inequality = Educational Failure

2007-03-25T22:47:00.000-05:00

This is a post I've wanted to write for quite some time, but haven't been able to put into a cohesive form. Up to now it's consisted of a variety of disjointed thoughts and observations. However, after reading teacherken's excellent diary from this morning discussing the Democratic presidential candidates and their respective positions on education (all of teacherken's diaries are excellent by the way), I felt like this was as good a time as any to try and connect these thoughts and ideas. What you are about to read is based on ten-plus years of first-hand observations and some cold, hard data. Basically, the entire diary can be summed up as follows:

We will never solve our education problems until we address the increasing problems of income inequality in America.

For years, the CW has been that money is at the heart of the education problems we face in America. From teacher pay to school funding, there never seems to be enough money to do what we would like to see done. While I agree that funding for public education is woefully inadequate, I believe that the true money problem facing public schools here in America lies in a different area - the families. In short, income inequality is the true culprit in today's schools.

Here in Illinois, we recently received our school report cards for 2006. Based on my experience, the data contained in the report card was not surprising. Economically disadvantaged students consistently perform at a lower level than all other subgroups with the exception of students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency.

Just looking at the state of Illinois' report card (PDF) for now, we see that Economically Disadvantaged (ED) students have a lower graduation rate (76.5) than all but two of the twelve subgroups: Migrant and Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

And by high school, ED students are performing at a rate far below that of most others with only 35.1% meeting or exceeding standards in Reading, 27.5% meting or exceeding in Math, and 23% meeting or exceeding in Science.

Looking at this particular report card, one may notice that when the scores are broken down by race, Africa-Americans scored lower than ED. But according to the US Census Bureau (PDF) nearly one quarter of blacks in America live in poverty. In addition, the numbers aren't much better for Hispanics and are actually worse for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Unfortunately, it's impossible to look at ED numbers and not realize that many of the students that fall under that category are minorities.

Looking at other schools' report cards, I've found similar results when it comes to ED students. In Iowa (PDF) for example, only 60.1% of ED students tested proficient over all at the high school level. In South Dakota, only 49% of high school ED students were proficient in Math and 60% we proficient in Reading. In Arizona (PDF), less than 50% of high school ED students were proficient in Math and just slightly more than 50% are proficient in Reading. Moving on to New Jersey (PDF) we see that only 65.2% of high school ED students tested proficient in Language Arts while a mere 54.1% were proficient in Mathematics. And in North Carolina only 45.1% of ED students passed both parts of their end of year tests.

While reading teacherken's aforementioned diary, the thing that struck me most is that this issue isn't even addressed by most of the candidates. With the exception of John Edwards and, in a roundabout way, Dennis Kucinich, nobody even mentions poverty as an issue. This, to me, is sad. The data clearly shows that poverty is a problem when it comes to education in America but none of the candidates will address it.

Of course the Republican argument is that our kids need to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and "buckle down." That all sounds well and good and probably looks nice on paper, but in reality that's not an option for most. You see, poor families don't have the same options others do. When Mom is sick or has to work or otherwise has an appointment, the family can't afford daycare and the older kids have to stay home to babysit the younger ones thereby missing out on a day's worth of school. When the weather's bad, students from poor families who live too close to school to ride the bus but don't have a working vehicle will stay home rather than brave the weather. Oftentimes, poor families suffer from what's called generational poverty where the family has lived in poverty for years and they don't see the value of an education and their children aren't encouraged to attain an education. So to say that students need to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" really doesn't work because many times the families in poverty don't have the bootstraps to pull themselves up by.

So what can be done? Well, again it comes back to money. For years the CW has been to put more money and funding into schools to fund after school programs, increase per student expenditures, and raise teacher pay to attract better teachers, but to an ED student it really doesn't matter how much money is being spent to educate him or her and it sure as hell doesn't matter how much the teacher's making. In the end, the student is still ED and the family is still in poverty. That's why I believe that to truly address the problems with our public education system we need to honestly address the problem of income inequality. Until we find a way to keep the poor from getting poorer while the rich get richer, we will never be able to truly address the real problem with our public schools.

Bitten On the Ass!

2007-03-18T14:33:00.001-05:00

You know how things sometimes have a way of coming back around and biting you on the ass? Well, the entire Republican party got bitten on the ass big time today on Meet the Press. And who did the biting? Why none other than the people-powered Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania.

Allow me to set the scene...

Midway through today's broadcast, there was a roundtable discussion concerning Iraq that included Sestak, Fmr. Rep. Tom Andrews (D-ME), ~~Robert Novak's long lost twin~~ Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute and PNAC, and Fmr. Rep. Tom DeLay (shouldn't he be in prison by now?). Naturally, Perle and DeLay were bleating endlessly about how withdrawal would only lead to defeat (pretending of course that we haven't already lost) while Sestak and Andrews were arguing for a redeployment as our generals have now acknowledged that there is no longer a military solution to the issue. Relevant quotes from Perle and DeLay include:

MR. PERLE: Well, I think it is certainly true that setting a date certain would alter the leverage. Unfortunately, it would alter it in favor of the terrorists. If they know that we're going to leave on a date certain, they will adjust their strategies to take full advantage of that... What a date certain will do is guarantee the defeat to the United States' effort in Iraq. Guarantee it!

[...]

MR. PERLE: ...(to Andrews) what you're saying is that we should pull out. Setting a date certain only anticipates the pulling out, but it will unleash forces that will be completely uncontrollable. And the consequences of an American pullout will not only be a defeat for the United States and a setback in our effort to combat terror around the world, it will be a catastrophe for the people of Iraq.

[...]

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Delay, you raise an interesting point in an interview--in your political column. You talked about congressmen advocating withdrawal, and you conclude by saying, "Yes, I am questioning their patriotism." Why is that?

FMR. REP. DeLAY: Well, I--it, it is my opinion that when you go to war, we ought to all come together. You can debate going to war, that's a legitimate debate. But once you have our soldiers and our, our young people dying on the battlefield, we should come together, and we shouldn't have what we had yesterday on the Mall of, of, of--in Washington, D.C. When the--those are not, in my mind--my opinion, patriots that are talking about impeaching the commander in chief, that are--that are--work as, as Tom's group works....

MR. RUSSERT: But setting a date for--is setting a date for withdrawal...

FMR. REP. DeLAY: ...every step of the day, undermine--I think it's aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.

And then Sestak sank his teeth in deep.

REP. SESTAK: Tim, I spent 31 years in the service of our nation leading men and women into combat in war. And I always assumed, at least I always hoped, that the men and women back here, the policy makers, day in and day out, were spending hours, weeks, debating about the best use of this national treasure. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it best a few weeks ago when he said, as someone asked him about this debate and what's going on in the House, he said, "Our men and women of our military are educated. They understand the democratic process." I remember when working for President Clinton as director of defense policy, when I didn't agree with you, Tom, but that there was the Buyer Amendment to stop in a year any more funding for our troops in Bosnia. And then there was, in 1999, the effort not to place any more troops not--in Kosovo. While I may have disagreed with you, I respected your office, that that is the constitutional duty of Congress, to take pride for the common defense.

(emphasis mine, obviously)

Buyer amendment? Kosovo? What's he talking about? Well, thank whatever deity you believe in for Thomas. With a little searching I was able to find the following tidbits of information.

In 1997, Rep. Stephen Buyer (R-IN) proposed an amendment to H.R.1119 ("An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to precribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes"). The purpose of Buyer's amendment read as follows:

An amendment to prohibit any funds authorized in the bill to be obligated for the deployment of U.S. ground troops in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, except to support a limited number of U.S. military personnel sufficient to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and noncombat military personnel serving in an advisory capacity to NATO commanders of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

(again, emphasis mine)

The amendment passed on a vote of 278 - 148. Among those voting in favor of it, Tom DeLay and a number of other Republicans still serving in congress. Now I don't know about you, but June 30, 1998, sure sounds like a "date certain" to me. Does it not?

As for the Kosovo remark, it took a little more searching, but I think I've located the relevant legislation. In 1999, H.CON.RES.42 dealt with "the use of United States Armed Forces as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation implementing a Kosovo peace agreement." Among the amendments proposed to the resolution was one by Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-FL) whose purpose was "to limit the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces and not authorize the President to deploy ground forces to Kosovo as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation." The amendment failed by a vote of 178 - 237. However, over 75% of the voting Republicans supported the amendment. Once again, Tom DeLay was among the "Ayes." As were a large number of the other Republicans who are currently decrying Democratic efforts to change the course in Iraq.

So while DeLay, Perle, and the rest of the Bush-apologist Republicans, like to cry cut-and-run and vilify the Democrats for even considering re-deployment or tightening the purse strings, it's just another example in a long list of Republican hypocrisy. More of the "do as I say, not as I do" style of leadership we've come to expect from them.

So to Joe Sestak I say "Thank you!" Thank you for pointing this out." And to Tom DeLay, Richard Perle and the rest of the Bush-apologist saps I say "Ouch! That's gonna' leave a mark."

Obamarama Hits Iowa

2007-03-11T22:39:00.000-05:00

This weekend Barack Obama made five campaign stops in Eastern Iowa - Dubuque, Clinton, Davenport, Muscatine, and Burlington. Although I currently live in Illinois, I grew up in Muscatine. My family still lives there and as luck would have it, Sen. Obama's stop was practically in my in'laws' back yard. It only seemed logical that I would go.

Details

Things started on Monday when it was announced that Sen Obama would be visiting Eastern Iowa. My sister e-mailed me about the event, so I looked it up in the local paper. The event would take place in the gymnasium where my wife went to junior high and they were expecting over 200 people to attend. They were a little off.

According to the online information, the doors were supposed to open at 10:00. To be sure I got a good seat, I wanted to get there early. Well, daylight savings time screwed me up and I didn't get there until 9:20. However, the doors were already open and as it turned out I got a pretty good seat anyway. At this point, there were approximately 200 chairs set up on the gymnasium floor. By 10:45, the bleachers were entirely full as were all of the chairs on the floor and they had begun bringing in more chairs. By 11:00 when the local Democrats were opening the event, the staff had brought in somewhere between 50 and 100 extra chairs and there were at least 100 people standing along the walls. In the end, I would estimate that there were at least 1,500 people in attendance. According to the local papers, this had been happening at the other events, as well. The Telegraph Herald in Dubuque estimated 2,700 people while the Quad City Times claimed 3,700 in Davenport. (No official numbers on the Clinton appearance, but a local discussion forum claims that there were people who had to stand outside and watch through the windows.)

Finally, after an introduction from the local officials, the good Senator entered the room to a standing ovation.

He spoke of progressive issues like energy independence, wage inequality, education reform and funding, and, of course, ending the war in Iraq. This last topic received the most vigorous applause. He spoke for twenty to thirty minutes then took quesstions. He said he was going to take three, he ended up taking five. The topics included what his plans were if he didn't get the nomination, his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, government waste, "Don't ask - Don't tell," and a question concerning the wording of a report that one of his oversight committees approved. He didn't have all the answers (more on this later) but he was open and attentive and never appeared defensive or evasive.

At the end of the event he announced that he would stay right where he was and shake hands, sign autographs, and take pictures for as long as he could. Luckily, I was the last person to get anything signed. He signed my copy of Dreams from My Father just before one of his aides took the Sharpie away from him and said that they needed to hurry up.

Analysis

Living in Illinois, I've been to an Obama campaign event before. I've heard the term "Rock Star" applied to him on many occasions and I have to say - it fits. When he enters the room, the electricity is palpable. He is completely at ease in front of an audience. He doesn't give speeches at these events, he simply talks to everyone in the room. No notes. No teleprompters. No lectern. Just talk. He jokes, he laughs, he's self-deprecating, he's humble. However, he's confident and honest. I never feel like I'm being fed a bullshit answer. For example - I mentioned earlier that he didn't have all of the answers to the questions the audience asked. In particular, the one question about the wording of a particular report. His answer? "I don't know." He honestly said "I don't know." Where most politicians would give a bullshit answer that danced around the question without ever answering it, Obama said "I don't know." He then told the woman who asked the question to give her name and contact information to his aides and he would find out the information for her as soon as he got back to Washington and had a chance to look over the report in question. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that type of honesty refreshing.

In 2004, the Republicans enjoyed saying that America would rather have a beer with George W. Bush than with John Kerry. I guess that's supposed to mean something. I don't want to have a drink with my president. I just want him to be honest and trustworthy. (To say that the current administration has fallen short on the honesty front would be the understatement of the century.) As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have their President Blutarsky. I'm looking for an Atticus Finch, myself. In my honest opinion, Obama is it. He's the real deal. He's honest, intelligent, and respectable. God knows these qualities are severely lacking in our current leadership. I know that there are some people here who aren't sold on Obama. To those of you I say give him a chance. His policies are sound, his attitude is positive, his character is unimpeachable and his honesty is refreshing. If you can make it to a campaign stop, do it.

I hope this is helpful to anyone who may be on the fence about Obama. To close, I've got a few more pictures I'd like to share.

Dear Mr. Bush (An Open Letter)

2007-01-24T22:02:00.000-06:00

Dear Mr. Bush,

Last night, during your annual address to the nation, you asked congress (and, by proxy, you were asking America) to support your new plan for Iraq. You did this by forcefully stating:

...whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.

While that may be true, allow me to remind you what else our elected officials (and, by proxy, America) did not vote for.

They did not vote for incompetence.

They did not vote for mismanagement.

They did not vote for lining the pockets of Halliburton and Bechtel.

They did not vote for Abu Ghraib.

They did not vote for Al Qaqaa to remain unguarded.

They did not vote for babysitting a civil war.

They did not vote for undeterred looting.

They did not vote for botched executions.

They did not vote for militia supported leaders.

They did not vote for leaving billions of dollars unaccounted for.

They did not vote to for lying about forged documents.

They did not vote for disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

They did not vote for death squads.

They did not vote for suicide bombings.

They did not vote for over 3,000 dead American soldiers.

They did not vote for being lied to about the readiness of Iraqi troops.

They did not vote for being told that we're winning in Iraq when it is obviously untrue.

They did not vote for being labeled cowards and unpatriotic when they had enough common sense to recognize that the current approach was not working.

They did not vote for being smeared in the media when they spoke out in opposition of what has obviously become a failed policy.

They did not vote for stretching our military too thin.

They did not vote for ignoring the advice of our military leaders.

They did not vote for abandoning the search for Osama bin Laden.

And today they did not vote for supporting your new plan for more of the same.

But they got all of these things, just the same, didn't they?

So you see Mr. Bush, sometimes things happen. Sometimes you don't always get what you vote for. It's like Mick Jagger once said: "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Mr. Bush, I'm afraid you may just have to resign yourself to the fact that whether they voted for failure or not, they're going to get it due to your incompetence, your mismanagement, and your continued inability to face the reality of the situation.

Sincerely,
kissfan

We Don't Need a Plan! (Redux)

2007-01-13T20:31:00.000-06:00

In today's radio address, George W. Bush tried to once again paint the Democrats as the party of no ideas, saying:

Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.

Forget about the fact that the Democrats have offered up a number of plans for a minute and think about what he is saying. Essentially, it boils down to this: The Democrats need to fix my mistakes or shut-up. I believe Representative Chris Murphy may have best summed up my feelings when he said when he said:

"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together."

But I'm reminded of something I posted nearly two years ago. So join me in the wayback machine as we rewind to April 28, 2005, when I wrote the following:

With Bush's poll numbers sagging like week-old party balloons, we're seeing more and more conservatives going on the offensive to deflect criticism away from Georgieboy's failed policies. This week alone, the Today show has had Tucker Carlson (I don't care if he's employed by the network or not, he's still a conservative hack) and William Kristol on without any liberal opposition to discuss Bush's performance. (Damn liberal media bias!)

What I keep hearing from all of these babbling suits is that "the Democrats don't have a plan." Georgieboy even did some of his own babbling tonight during his "press conference" when he claimed that he was proud to be "of the party of ideas" (implying, of course, that the Democratic Party has none.) According to them, we are clueless and only capable of obstruction.

Well, I have news for them...We don't need a fucking plan!

Let's say I go out for drinks with my favorite local conservative hack. We talk politics and sports and argue and have a good time. At the end of the evening I call myself a cab but my conservative friend decides to drive himself home. I say, "Why don't you split the cab with me? I'll pick you up in the morning and we'll come back to get your car." But my friend, wanting to save himself a few dollars, says "No, I'm alright. I'll see you tomorrow."

On his way home, he sideswipes a parked car and hits a telephone pole. The police arrive and determine he's intoxicated and place him in jail. Now, is it my responsibility to come up with a plan to get him out of trouble? Hell no. He got his sorry ass into this mess, he can get himself out.

Such is the case across today's political landscape. The conservatives are too busy complaining that the Democrats lack a plan to realize that this is their own mess. They got us into this shit, they are now responsible for getting us out it.

Iraq? Republican mess. Social Security? Do you remember Al Gore's lockbox? What was in it? That's right, the Social Security trust-fund. He was going to protect the trust-fund with the budget surplus but Bush decided to blow the surplus on tax cuts thereby making it necessary to borrow against the trust-fund. Once again, it's his fuck-up. He can come up with his own damn plan! John Bolton? Not my party's nominee. Terri Schiavo? My party stayed out of it. The "nuclear option?" Public opinion is opposed to it by 66%. Doesn't sound like my party needs a plan.

The way I see things is this: The Republican party stepped in it big time when they decided they had a mandate. Now they want us to clean the shit off of their shoes for them. I say screw them. This is their mess, they got themselves into it, they can damn-well get themselves out of it. If they hadn't gotten themselves so damn drunk with power, they wouldn't have tried to drive this shit home in the first place. It's not our job to bail their asses out of trouble.

Oh, and one more thing. I've had enough of the Republicans saying "at least my party has a plan." You're right, they do. It's a shitty one. Congratulations. Just because somebody comes up with a plan doesn't mean that we should follow it. A shitty plan is a shitty plan. Following it because you're too damned stupid or lazy to come up with a better one is no way to run a country. Maybe if you weren't such arrogant shitheads you'd have listened to some of our plans before you started implementing your own.

Dammit! Now I'm pissed!

Needless to say, I'm still pissed.

Bush Endorses "Cut & Run"

2007-01-11T19:44:00.000-06:00

In his speech to a fed up nation last night, George W. Bush fully endorsed a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. Yeah, yeah, I know it sounded like he was dragging the nation deeper into this extremely unpopular war, but that's only if you listened to the words he said. However... If you actually paid attention to what he meant, it was quite clear. And it only took one sentence.

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended.

WTF? Is he serious? What about stay the course? What about finish the mission? What about honoring the sacrifices of those... aw screw it! Old GW said we're leaving if shit don't get better. Because that can be the only interpretation of "America's commitment is not open-ended."

In those short six words, Georgieboy essentially said "We will cut and run if we have to." Basically, it looks as though the administration is escalating the war by injecting 20,000 more troops into the situation in a last ditch effort to bring peace and stability to the region. However, they know full well that it isn't going to happen. Why, you ask? Because adding 20,000 more troops puts us at approximately 150,000 to 160,000 troops, the same number of troops we had as late as last year when things were already going to shit. And what of the plans to do house-to-house searches? Well we tried that twice already and it hasn't worked worth a damn either time.

So the way I see it is this: Bush and the other fuckwits are sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq knowing damn-well that it won't help the situation. We've agreed to help the Iraqis achieve their "benchmarks" knowing full well that they won't be able to because of the continuing violence and sectarian strife that we will still be unable to control. Then six or eight months from now when the shit's really hitting the fan, we're going to hear "America's commitment is not open-ended" again and we're going to bug out because the Iraqis didn't uphold their end of the bargain at which point we can push all of the blame onto the Iraqis for not being grateful that we fucked up their country. Now that, to me, sounds like a true "cut and run" strategy.

Bill O'Reilly Is A @#!&ing Idiot!

2007-01-05T21:48:00.000-06:00

(Warning: Naughty words to follow!)

Yeah, yeah, I know... DUH! But I think his latest column takes him to new ~~heights~~ depths of dumbassery... or dumbassedness... or dumbassosity...well, you get the point.

In Bill O'Leilley's latest post, he tries to once again plead his case for liberal media bias. (I'm not going to link to his column because the only place I can find it is on his site and I'm not going to give him the traffic.) I first read about it in the shit-ass rag that passes for my hometown paper. (We're lucky around here because we not only get O'Reilly's column every week, but we also get William Rusher, Morton Kondrake, and some bat-shit-crazy psycho woman from the New Republic.) Anyway, on to the article. As I said: Liberal media bias, blah, blah, blah, you know the rest.

For months, my research staff has attempted to find one television critic writing for a major American newspaper who is a conservative thinker. They could not find one.

WTF? Not one? Hmmmm... Let me think... Conservative thinker... Television critic... (blink!)

Hello!? Apparently Bill and his staff got so wrapped up in their search, they failed to notice the 300 lb. television critic/writer/conservative thinker in the room. I mean double WTF? I mean, COME. ON! Who is a conservative thinker if not Mr. Fallafel himself? Puhleaze!

And the best part of all of this is that on Billyboy's own website, he lists the news outlets around the country that carry his column.

Ketchikan Daily News Ketchikan AK
The Cullman Times Cullman AL
Times Daily Florence AL
Montgomery Advertiser.com Montgomery AL
El Dorado News Times El Dorado AR
Casa Grande Dispatch Casa Grande AZ
The Desert Advocate Cave Creek AZ
Green Valley News Green Valley AZ
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Prescott AZ
Daily Republic Fairfield CA
The Desert Sun Palm Springs CA
Antelope Valley Press Palmdale CA
California Contractor Santa Monica CA
Ventura County Star Ventura CA
Daily News Woodland Hills CA
Siskiyou Daily News Yreka CA
Canon City Daily Record Canon City CO
Longmont Daily Times-Call LONGMONT CO
New Haven Register New Haven CT
Waterbury Republican-American Waterbury CT
Human Events Washington DC
Human Events Online Washington DC
The Washington Times Washington DC
Washington Times Nat'l Weekly Washington DC
Washington Times Online Washington DC
The Daily Breeze Cape Coral FL
South FL. Sun & Sentinel Fort Lauderdale FL
NaplesNews.Com Naples FL
Ocala Star-Banner Ocala FL
Newsmax Magazine West Palm Beach FL
Appen Newspapers Alpharetta GA
The Amarillo Globe-News Augusta GA
The Examiner Augusta GA
Yankton Daily Press Augusta GA
The Brunswick News Brunswick GA
The Columbus Ledger & Enquirer Columbus GA
The Fayette Citizen Fayetteville GA
Gwinnett Daily Post Lawrenceville GA
The Macon Telegraph & News Macon GA
Marietta Daily Journal Marietta GA
Midweek Printing Honolulu HI
Maui News Wailuku HI
Conservative Chronicle Hampton IA
Conservative Chronicle Online Hampton IA
Times-Republican Marshalltown IA
Sioux City Journal Sioux City IA
Daily Freeman-Journal Webster City IA
The Morning News Blackfoot ID
Bloomington Daily Pantagraph Bloomington IL
Sun-Times Chicago IL
Herald and Review Decatur IL
Daily Chronicle DeKalb IL
Herald-News Joliet IL
Macomb Journal Macomb IL
The Times Ottawa IL
Pekin Daily Times Pekin IL
Quincy Herald Whig Quincy IL
The Taylorville Daily Breeze Taylorville IL
Indianapolis Business Journal Indianapolis IN
The News-Sun Kendallville IN
Reporter Lebanon IN
The News Dispatch Michigan City IN
The Petersburg Press-Dispatch Petersburg IN
Daily News Bowling Green KY
Bastrop Daily Enterprise Bastrop LA
Hobbs Daily News-Sun Lake Charles LA
Minden Press-Herald Minden LA
The Daily Iberian New Iberia LA
Boston Herald Boston MA
The Enterprise Brockton MA
Westfield Evening News Westfield MA
Times-News Cumberland MD
The Daily Times Salisbury MD
The Alpena News Alpena MI
The Daily Press Escanaba MI
The Mining Journal Marquette MI
The Macomb Daily Mount Clemons MI
Fairmont Sentinel Fairmont MN
St. Paul Legal Ledger St. Paul MN
Columbia Daily Tribune Columbia MO
The Lebanon Daily Record Lebanon MO
Neosho Daily News Neosho MO
Daily American Republic Poplar Bluff MO
West News Magazine St. Louis MO
Independent News Sullivan MO
The Daily Corinthian Corinth MS
The Newton Record Newton MS
The Vicksburg Post Vicksburg MS
The Livingston Enterprise Livingston MT
The Smokey Mountain Sentinel Hayesville NC
Kernersville News Kernersville NC
The Daily Herald Roanoke Rapids NC
The Minot Daily News Minot ND
Trade West Grand Isle NE
Telegraph North Platte NE
Farm Dayta Omaha NE
York Trade & Transactions York NE
Elko Daily Free Press Elko NV
Liberty Watch Las Vegas NV
Reno Gazette Journal Reno NV
The Recorder Amsterdam NY
The Daily News Batavia NY
Press & Sun-Bulletin Binghamton NY
Jewish World Review Brooklyn NY
The Leader Herald Groversville NY
Post Journal Jamestown NY
Adirondack Enterprise Lake NY
New York Post New York NY
The Daily Star Oneonta NY
Times Newsweekly Ridgewood NY
Democrat and Chronicle Rochester NY
Daily Sentinel Rome NY
Staten Island Advance Staten Island NY
The Bryan Times Bryan OH
The Evening Review East Liverpool OH
Gallipolis Daily Tribune Gallipolis OH
Daily Advocate Greenville OH
Lancaster Eagle-Gazette Lancaster OH
The Times-Leader Martins Ferry OH
Salem News Salem OH
Sandusky Register Sandusky OH
The Herald Star Steubenville OH
The Advertiser Tribune Tiffin OH
Tribune Chronicle Warren OH
The Times Recorder Zanesville OH
News Press Stillwater OK
Ottawa Sun Ottawa ON
Albany Democrat Albany OR
Altoona Mirror Altoona PA
The Progress Clearfield PA
The Express-Times Easton PA
The Record-Argus Greenville PA
Standard-Speaker Hazelton PA
Lancaster New Era Lancaster PA
The Lewiston Sentinel Lewiston PA
Reading Eagle Company Reading PA
The Ridgway Record Ridgway PA
Warren Times-Observer Warren PA
Williamsport Sun - Gazette Williamsport PA
York Daily Record York PA
The Woonsocket Call Woonsocket RI
Aiken Standard Aiken SC
The Index-Journal Greenwood SC
Journal Tribune Seneca SC
The Daily Republic Mitchell SD
The Rapid City Journal Rapid City SD
Kingsport Times-News Kingsport TN
Knoxville Journal Knoxville TN
The Democrat Union Lawrenceburg TN
Citizen Tribune Morristown TN
Daily News Journal Murfreesboro TN
Shelbyville Times-Gazette Shelbyville TN
The Amarillo Globe-Times Amarillo TX
The Facts Clute TX
The Courier Conroe TX
Corpus Christi Caller-Times Corpus Christi TX
Ft. Worth Business Press Ft. Worth TX
West University Examiner Houston TX
Kerrville Daily Times Kerrville TX
Marshall News Messenger Marshall TX
Midland Reporter-Telegram Midland TX
Plainview Daily Herald Plainview TX
Port Arthur News Port Arthur TX
The Post-Dispatch Post TX
Sulphur Springs News-Telegram Sulphur Springs TX
Daily Spectrum St. George UT
Salem Communications Arlington VA
Frontier Publications Vashon WA
Walla Walla Union Bulletin Walla Walla WA
Waukesha County Freeman Beaver Dam WI
The Janesville Gazette Janesville WI
The Lakeland Times Minocqua WI
The Inter-Mountain Elkins WV
Times West Virginian Fairmont WV
Herald Dispatch Huntington WV
Evening Journal Martinsburg WV
The Parkersburg Sentinel Parkersburg WV
Observer Wheeling WV
The Intellengencer Wheeling WV
The Messenger Wheeling WV
Jackson Hole Daily Jackson Hole WY
Laramie Daily Boomerang Laramie WY

That's 181 for those of you playing along at home. The list includes the Washington Times (of course) and the New York Times. Did I miss something? Are those not "major American newspaper[s]?" I believe they are.

Of course Bill tries to clarify his point, because in the very next sentence of his column he says:

Scores of TV writers are registered Democrats—we can't find a single registered Republican.

As if only Republicans can be conservative thinkers. Sorry Bill! But you're just nit-picking on this one. This "I'm an independent" charade of yours is possibly the worst cover-up job in the entertainment world since Elton John got married to prove he wasn't gay. Give it up! Nobody's buying it. (Kind of like your book. You know the one that's #70 on Amazon behind Barack Obama, #2 and #31, and Jimmy Carter, #37.)

Putting The Iraq Numbers In Perspective

2007-01-01T21:07:00.000-06:00

As you no doubt have heard, the US death toll in Iraq has now reached 3,000. In a world where we are inundated by numbers everyday from poll numbers to the stock market to sports scores and test scores, it may be tempting to view this as just another statistic. But to the families of those 3,000 soldiers, it's much more than just another statistic. So in an attempt to put this major debacle into some perspective, I thought it might be worth looking at some of these numbers a little more closely.

I'd like to look at three numbers in particular.

3,000
350,000,000,000
1,383

3,000 is obviously the number of US casualties in Iraq, but let's put that in perspective. 3,000 is:

More than the number of casualties from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001
More than the combined rosters of Major League Baseball, the NBA, the NHL, the WNBA, and the MLS combined
More than the population of Niobrara County in Dick Cheney's home state of Wyoming
The population of Sherman County in George W. Bush's home state of Texas
More than the number of troops deployed to Iraq by 31 different members of the "Coalition of the Willing"

350,000,000,000 is the current cost of the war. Put into perspective, that number is:

Greater than the GDP of the Republic of China and 160 other nations around the world
Greater than the salary of more than 6,000,000 public school teachers
More than the cost for over 47,000,000 children to attend a year of Head Start
More than the cost to insure 212,000,000 children for one year
More than the cost of 17,000,000 four-year scholarships at public universities
More than the cost of 3,000,000 homes

1,383 is the number of days that we have been in Iraq as of January 1, 2007. For a family of four, this equals:

16 birthday parties
Four anniversaries
Four Christmas Days
Four New Year's Eve celebrations

And what do we have to show for all of this?

Just one debacle after another and a tarnished image the world over.

So when Bush addresses the nation later this month to announce his plans for "A New Way Forward," remember what we've accomplished so far. And know that a "surge" in troops is nothing more than more troops doing the same thing they've been doing for the last 1,383 days.

We Are Leaving Children Behind

2006-12-28T22:30:00.000-06:00

As the No Child Left Behind act comes up for renewal in 2007, we are likely to hear a lot of misleading rhetoric concerning its effectiveness. We will be told about rising test scores and across-the-board improvements. But if there's one thing we can all be sure of it is this:

We Are Leaving Children Behind

And it's happening across the board.

As I'm sure you know, my wife and I are both teachers. I teach music to fifth through twelfth graders in a small rural district of about 3,000 and my wife teaches mathematics to high school students in a moderately diverse university town of 20,000 people. Despite our different fields and very different working environments, we are both seeing the effects of high-stakes testing.

My story first:

For those of you that were/are in band, you are probably familiar with state contest. If you weren't a band geek, contest is when the entire band performs for a panel of judges and is evaluated according to a standard rubric. It's the music equivalent of sports playoffs.

Last year, my junior high band was one of only two in our district of fourteen schools that was able to attend contest. The other twelve schools were unable to attend due to test preparation. Luckily, my district treats music classes as part of the curriculum, but the other districts aren't so fortunate. Consequently, students are pulled from their music classes to cram for the exam. Some teachers hadn't seen their students for over two weeks prior to the contest date. And it's not looking any better this year. We've already had a number of schools state that they will be unable to attend this year and the district is on the verge of cancelling the event altogether. Without the recognition that comes from a successful contest showing, districts may be inclined to eliminate the program. As superficial as it sounds, classes that aren't required must produce tangible results like plaques and trophies in order for the school to see the benefits. No contest - no hardware for the trophy case. No hardware - no need for the program. If you were one of those band geeks, you know what that can mean to millions of students all across our country. Thank you NCLB.

Now on to my wife:

As I said, my wife teaches mathematics. To be more specific, she teaches algebra. Last year, her district cut one of the other teachers in the department thereby increasing everyone's class load. She currently has over 160 students in six classes (you can do the math to find out how many that puts in her class each period). This creates multiple problems, not the least of which is paperwork. As you may recall from your own high school days, math involves a lot of daily practice resulting in homework and worksheets. As a student, we were only responsible for completing our own work. But as a teacher, my wife is responsible for grading all 160 of them. Assuming she only gives three assignments a week (which is a low assumption), that still equals almost five hundred papers that she has to grade each week. And this is on top of planning lessons, writing exams, attending meetings and staffings, etc., etc., etc. She also has to prepare each lesson separately for her visually impaired students as well as making sure that her hearing impaired students are getting the necessary information. Oh, and don't forget about all of the accomodations for the two dozen students with IEPs and 504 plans. But because of NCLB, there is a certain amount of information that must be covered prior to the testing date. So basically she is left with two options:

Forget about her family and give up eating and sleeping, or
Modify the way she treats homework

Luckily for me and the kids, she has chosen option two. Homework is optional and the students take a daily quiz for each lesson. This way, she only has to grade two or three problems from each student as opposed to ten or fifteen. Needless to say, this lessens the workload considerably. But it also leads to its own set of issues.

Due to NCLB and its rigid test schedule, there is very little room in the curriculum for things like reteaching. Teachers are forced to choose between quantity and quality. If they choose quality (which would be the ideal choice), they run the risk of not covering enough material to prepare the students for what they will face on the test. However, if they choose quantity (which is what most school districts require) they run the risk of students not understanding the concepts even though they have been covered.

Here's the kicker: Due to the homework choices my wife has been forced to make in order to keep her sanity, some of her students have opted to not do the optional homework. This leaves them unprepared for the quizzes and ultimately the exams, not to mention the NCLB mandated test. And she doesn't have the time in her schedule to go back and reteach. Naturally, this is a choice that the students have made, but the consequences of that choice will be paid by the teacher and the district. So my wife is forced to choose between her sanity and her district's success. True, the district bears some responsibility for the situation because it was budget cuts that created her workload, but it's also due in part to the high-stakes testing required under No Child Left Behind. To call it frustrating would be an understatement.

So there you have it: the true effect of NCLB. So when you here the rhetoric and you see the numbers, don't forget: We Are Leaving Children Behind. By. The. Truckloads.

Call or write your congress members. Our children deserve better.

'Tis the Season

2006-12-19T21:31:00.000-06:00

Check out Jib Jab's latest .

These guys have waaaaay too much time on their hands.

According to Gingrich, Bush Should Be Impeached

2006-12-17T14:29:00.000-06:00

So there I was - ironing my shirt and yelling at the television. It was Meet the Press and this has become standard Sunday morning activity. If I'm not yelling at the guests, it's Russert. Most Sundays it's both. Today it was Newt Gingrich and his batshit crazy views on the Iraq war, homeland security, and his legacy as a politician. Let's just say his self opinion is quite high. But when they got around to Gingrich's past behavior regarding impeachment, I damn-near burnt a hole in my shirt. If I'm not mistaken, he said that George W. Bush should be impeached.

MR. RUSSERT: ...do you regret pressing the impeachment of President Clinton so hard?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.

Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, “Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition.” President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.

So let me get this straight - the impeachment of Bill Clinton was done to send a message. It wasn't just about punishing Clinton for his actions, but to make sure that future presidents would know that they aren't granted immunity simply because they are well liked. In short, it was about checking the power of future office holders.

For six years, George W. Bush has skirted laws and regulations under the guise of security. And how has he gotten away with it? Because his party was more popular. They held the majority and prevented any meaningful investigations. If the Newt Gingrich rationalization was good enough for the Republicans to impeach Clinton, it should certainly apply now. If for no other reason than to check the power of any future president. Would Republicans tolerate a Democrat who circumvented the FISA court? What about one who suspended Habeas Corpus? What about one who supported torture and the violation of the Geneva Conventions? What about one who deliberatley ignored congress through hundreds of signing statements? How about one who paid journalists for favorable coverage. Or what about... Well, you get the idea and I think we all know the answers.

So if I understand Newt Gingrich correctly, and I believe I do, we need to impeach George W. Bush for his past behaviors lest we be forced to endure more egregious behavior in the future. Sounds good to me. Maybe Newt and I can agree on something after all.

*****************************************************

Thanks to everyone who's stuck around for the last several weeks. Over that time I've had two graduate classes end with major projects due, two performances of my students, a major fundraiser to deal with that involved over 400 boxes of citrus fruit, my kids' Christmas programs, and my regular job. Hopefully things have calmed down a bit and I can get back to normal. Like I said, thanks and I hope to be posting more regularly again.

I'm Still Here

2006-11-27T20:12:00.001-06:00

Just really busy. Be back soon!

Happy Thanksgiving

2006-11-22T20:29:00.000-06:00

Best wishes to all for a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.

Iraq

2006-11-19T20:31:00.000-06:00

So let's review...

Bush was for "Stay the Course" before he was against it. Then the Democrats won the election and Rummy was fired. After all, Rummy was an advocate of "stay the course" and the voters had spoken so he had to go. Then Abizaid said that we should maintain our troop levels, which is the same thing Rummy, who was fired, had been saying . But Bush has said repeatedly that he will listen to the Generals on the ground. Yet he also said that the voters had spoken, which was why he had to fire Rummy. So who does he listen to? The generals or the American people? Maybe he should listen to his secret advisor, Henry Kissinger, who said:

Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.
Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors _ including Iran _ if progress is to be made in the region.
"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

For those of us who have been against this war from the beginning, this is a bittersweet vindication of our opposition. We do not take pleasure in our country's failures. We do not relish our country's defeats. As time goes on, it is becoming more and more clear that Iraq is a failure. Even Bill Kristol of PNAC fame has admitted that it's a disaster and that Republicans are going to soon quit supporting it.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is STOP DIGGING! It's time that we stopped digging. Immediately. I realize that we can't just pack our shit up and go home, but it's time that we started drawing up the plans. Regardless of what the Baker/Hamilton study group says, it's time we started getting our asses out of this hole we've dug. Shit, even Kissinger gets it.

Why We Won...

2006-11-12T22:06:00.000-06:00

and why they lost.

Just from today's news cycle:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Shiite prime minister promised Sunday to reshuffle his Cabinet after calling lawmakers disloyal and blaming Sunni Muslims for raging sectarian violence that claimed at least 159 more lives, including 35 men blown apart while waiting to join Iraq's police force.
Among the unusually high number of dead were 50 bodies found behind a regional electrical company in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, and 25 others found scattered throughout the capital. Three U.S. troops were reported killed, as were four British service members.

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

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Baghdad's morgues are full.
With no space to store bodies, some victims of the sectarian slaughter are not being kept for relatives to claim, but photographed, numbered and quickly interred in government cemeteries.
Men fearful of an anonymous burial are tattooing their thighs with names and phone numbers.
In October, a particularly bloody month for Iraqi civilians, about 1,600 bodies were turned in at the Baghdad central morgue, said its director, Dr. Abdul-Razaq al-Obaidi.
The city's network of morgues, built to hold 130 bodies at most, now holds more than 500, he says.
Bodies are sent for burial every three or four days just to make room for the daily intake, sometimes making corpse identification impossible.

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

KABUL, Afghanistan - Insurgent activity in Afghanistan has risen fourfold this year, and militants now launch more than 600 attacks a month, a rising wave of violence that has resulted in 3,700 deaths in 2006, a bleak new report released Sunday found.
In the volatile border area near Pakistan, more than 20 Taliban militants — and possibly as many as 60 — were killed during several days of clashes, officials said Sunday.The new report said insurgents were launching more than 600 attacks a month as of the end of September, up from 300 a month at the end of March this year. The violence has killed more than 3,700 people this year, it said

In short - It's the incompetence, stupid! I just hope we can still do something to clean up their mess.

What's That Smell?

2006-11-07T21:02:00.000-06:00

Could it be victory? We'll soon see.

48 Hours

2006-11-05T20:23:00.000-06:00

In about 48 hours we should have a pretty good idea whether or not the Democrats will control one or both houses of congress. Furthermore, we'll see whether or not we've learned anything over the last two years. As the day approaches, I'm reminded of how I felt two years ago and I'm looking forward to not experiencing that again.

I'll be away on Monday, but I'm working as a poll watcher on Tuesday. So I'm excited about that. I'll be back Tuesday night with hopefully good news. Until then, encourage everyone you know to get out and vote and volunteer if you can.

See you on Tuesday!

The Kerry Kerfluffle

2006-11-01T21:02:00.000-06:00

So we all know what Kerry said, right? Could there be any bigger example as to how desperate the Republicans have become? Instead of facing the Democrats on the issues (you know, Iraq... the deficit... corruption... pedophile congressmen...) they hit them with the fact that Kerry's a bad comedian. Forget about the fact that Iraq's prime minister ordered U.S. checkpoints in Sadr City to be dismantled so that a radical cleric can control the streets with his death squad. Forget about the fact that more than 100 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq last month. Forget about the fact that the United States Central Command says that Iraq is moving towards total chaos. Forget about the fact that... well, you get the picture.

No, the Republicans can't be bothered by all that "reality" stuff. The real problem facing America is that John Kerry can't tell a joke without fucking it up. That's the Republican message right now. That's how desperate they have become. Their new campaign slogan is going to be "Vote for us because we can tell better jokes." Maybe they've forgotten about that little joke Georgieboy played where he pretended to be looking for Iraq's missing WMDs in the Oval Office. Talk about fucking up a joke. I'll bet there are about 2,800 dead soldiers that don't find that too fucking funny right now.

So what should we take away from all of this? Other than the Republicans are desperate, of course. The lesson is this: According to the Bush administration, fucking up a joke about the education of our country's leadership is bad, but telling a joke about a mistake that has led to the death of American soldiers is okay.

Yeah, that's gonna go over real well. Only six more days until we flush these shitheads out of office.

Halloween Cookies: The Story of a Soldier

2006-10-29T16:18:00.000-06:00

My wife enjoys baking cookies. If there's a holiday coming up, she's baking. Such was the case yesterday as my wife was in the kitchen making Halloween cookies. Although, she makes great cookies, the cookies are not the story. It's what Halloween cookies have come to be associated with that I'd like to tell you about.

As my wife stood in the kitchen baking, she was reminded of the last time she made halloween cookies. They were for her brother. She made large, orange-frosted pumpkin-shaped cookies that she packaged up and sent to him. He was serving in Afghanistan at the time. Mrs. kissfan's brother is a soldier in the Army.

He had deployed to Afghanistan in April of 2005. By Halloween, his deployment was only half over. During his year there, he missed his daughter's sixteenth birthday. He missed his son's ninth. He also missed his wife's birthday and their anniversary along with every major and minor holiday between April 2005 and April 2006 when his tour of duty ended.

At the time of his deployment, he had been stationed in Germany. So when his tour ended he returned to Germany to be with his family. Shortly thereafter, he was sent back stateside and reassigned to a unit in Georgia. During the transition, he was able to stop back home and spend some time with his mother in Iowa before reporting to his unit. It was nice to know that he was back home where he was out of harm's way.

So it was somewhat bittersweet as my wife made her Halloween cookies this year because her brother deployed to Iraq this morning for another year long tour. A tour that will once again cause him to miss birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays.

It's a little late to send any Halloween cookies this year, but when he gets there he's going to let us know what his address is. I'm sure he'll be receiving some of my wife's Christmas cookies.

Ahhhhh!

2006-10-24T21:28:00.000-05:00

Looks like I'm going to have to take a little blog-vacation. Everyone at kissfan manor has had the flu this week except for me (I'm next). Add to that the fact that I'm trying to learn a new software program, am still taking classes for my Master's degree, AND the Cardinals are in the World Series and what you find is that I'm deep in the weeds. Therefore, I'm taking the whole week off. I'll see you next week for the run up to the election. Only two weeks to go!

Wise Words

2006-10-18T21:37:00.000-05:00

Another Keith Olbermann K.O.

We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived… as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before — and we have been here before led here — by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

You can read it all and watch it here.

The Game Show Governor's Race

2006-10-16T18:56:00.000-05:00

Remember that great old game show called Let's Make A Deal? It was hosted by Monty Hall and the contestants were often given the choice of exchanging their prizes for what was behind a set of three doors. It was pretty much a crapshoot and the odds were pretty good that whichever door the contestant chose it was going to be less than what he or she had hoped for. Well this is the way I feel when I think about the current Governor's race here in Illinois.

Recent polling shows that the incumbent Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich has a commanding fourteen point lead in this race. Unfortunately, he's corrupt. And I don't mean just a little, I mean a lot. He has been under investigation for his hiring practices almost throughout his tenure and is now being investigated for accepting a $1500 check given to his daughter by a friend whose wife had just been hired by the state despite her inability to pass a required test. (This is just one of the many reasons I voted against him in the primary.) On the other hand, he has done some very good things here in Illinois. For instance, we are #1 in job creation in the midwest. He's also expanded pre-school for children, has made affordable prescription drugs available to all seniors, and has guaranteed affordable health care for every single child in the state. Democratic action at its best. But he's still corrupt.

His opponent is Judy Baar Topinka, the Republican State Treasurer and virtually the only Republican to have survived the George Ryan bribery scandal in the last election. However, she's corrupt too. Over the years, questions have been raised about her fundraising activities including the fact that during her re-election campaign in 2004 she took as much as $600,000 from banking interests that did business with the her office and stand to benefit from future state contracts. She's also on record as a strong supporter of George W. Bush's economic and tax policies plus she has miles of videotape to contend with where she loudly voices her support of her ex boss, George Ryan. Including one incident where she called him a "damn decent guy" and proclaimed that she "loved him dearly."

So what are my options? Well, much like Let's Make A Deal, it looks as though I've got three choices and the odds are pretty good that I'm going to end up disappointed.

Behind door number 1 is Rod Blagojevich - A corrupt Democrat who has done some good things for the state despite being ethically challenged.

Behind door number two is Judy Baar Topinka - A corrupt Republican who supports George W. Bush and has ties to a convicted felon.

Behind door number three is Rich Whitney - The Green party candidate who has no chance of winning and is exactly the person Topinka and the Republicans would like me to vote for.

So... which door should I choose? (tick tock tick tock tick tock...)

As hard as it is, I will be voting for the corrupt Democrat, Rod Blagojevich. Why? Because he is my party's candidate and has the best chance of getting things done with the Democratic state legislature. However, that doesn't mean he should get a free pass. I believe that it is imperative that we as Democrats hold to our principles and insist that Blagojevich clean up his act. And I think that this should be the MO of every Democrat across the country - Support your party, but demand transparency and accountability of your elected officials. How can we possibly distinguish ourselves from the culture of corruption that has infested the Republican party if we are not willing to hold our own party members to the same high standard? It's time that we showed the world that we are indeed the country of higher morals and values by cleaning up American politics, including those within our own party. And after we've seen the Republican party's façade of moral superiority crumble away, it's only fitting that Democrats should lead the way.

So anyway, this November I will be holding my breath and choosing what's behind door number one. Let's hope I'm making the right choice.

It's the Sex and the Death, Stupid

2006-10-11T21:24:00.000-05:00

According to a recent CNN poll, voter interest is very high this year.

Politics is a water-cooler topic, a dinner-table subject, an issue to discuss after Sunday services, and this year the interest of American voters is at its highest level in more than a decade.

That renewed attention could translate into higher voter turnout on Nov. 7, according to an Associated Press-Pew poll.

Seventy percent say they are talking politics with family and friends, and 43 percent are debating the issues at work. Among churchgoers, 28 percent share their political views, a number that rises to 34 percent among the congregations in the South.

I don't think it takes a genius to figure this one out. I believe this has a lot to do with Mark Foley and Iraq. Why? Because people understand these things. They understand sex and they understand death. For a change, the Republicans are suffering under the weight of scandals that the average person can comprehend.

Most people don't understand the ins and outs of campaign finance. Money laundering really isn't something they're willing to spend too much time on. So when Tom DeLay is accused of laundering money through his PACs, most people shrug it off as just another politician playing fast and loose with money. But when Mark Foley is trying to diddle underage boys... that they get. And when we're hearing the daily reports of dead soldiers and dead civilians (possibly as many as 655,000 of them), well they get that, too. These things are easy to understand.

You see, up until now the Republican party has been lucky that their scandals have been too difficult to understand. But these latest ones are simple - A Republican Senator is trying to dork some kids and our sons and daughters are getting killed. And people are tired of it.

If the Democrats do actually gain control of either house of congress, they have the Republicans to thank. Not that the Democrats haven't been pointing these things out for the last six years, but the Right-wing Noise Machine finally appears to have blown a gasket. In the end, it doesn't matter how much lipstick the Republicans try to smear on this pig, we Americans may not understand much of what goes on in our own government, but we understand when creepy old guys are trying to fuck or kill our children.

The Bible and Homosexuality - A History

2006-10-09T23:01:00.000-05:00

For some reason I'm fascinated with the Bible. More specifically, I'm fascinated with the way the Bible is manipulated and twisted to fit the conservative agenda. Oftentimes misquoted and taken out of context, the Bible has become the weapon of choice for conservatives everywhere who wish to push an agenda of bigotry and hatred. To their advantage, most people don't know enough about the Bible to dispute these wild claims nor are most people willing to admit their ignorance. Thus the "Bible-pushers" have won before the battle has even begun.

As for me, I know enough about the Bible to know that I need to look things up. Such was the situation this past Sunday.

When we're in church, my wife and I like to play a little game. Whenever the pastor quotes a passage from the Bible, we look it up. Not to see if he's quoting it correctly mind you (after all, he's reading from his notes), but to see if the quote is being used in the proper context. And what we've found more often than not is that when the quote comes from the New Testament the context it is in tends to have a tinge of liberalism to it. On the other hand, if the quote comes from the Old Testament, it tends to be more conservative. Because, after all, the God of the Old Testament was a vengeful God while Jesus of the New Testament was a tolerant and forgiving God. But that's not what I'm here to discuss. So back to the story...

The message this past Sunday was a rather mundane one. Consequently, my wife and I were afflicted with wandering minds. When our minds wander we tend to thumb through the Bible looking at different passages or looking up different topics. Whatever strikes our fancy. Well for some reason, my wife's fancy was struck by homosexuality. So she turned to the back of her Bible (the New International Version for those of you who wish to play along at home) and found homosexual listed in the concordance. It referred her to 1 Corinthians 6:9 which reads:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

On the way home, she shared with me what she had found. I was stunned. I had always believed that the word homosexual was not in the Bible. So we looked up the passage in my youngest son's New Living Translation Bible and found the following:

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

Again, I was shocked. Could I have missed it all these years? Not to mention, I thought that the relevant verses pertaining to homosexuality (according to the anti-gay crowd) came from Leviticus. I knew I needed to look into this further. Thus began my search for the history of homosexuality and the Bible. What I found is extremely interesting.

For starters, there are twenty-one versions of the Bible written in English. The different versions are often called translations, however I prefer to refer to them as interpretations. You'll understand why later. The different versions are:

21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Amplified Bible
Contemporary English Version
Darby Translation
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
English Standard Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
King James Version
New American Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
New International Version
New International Version - UK
New King James Version
New Life Version
New Living Translation
The Message
Today's New International Version
Worldwide English (New Testament)
Wycliffe New Testament
Young's Literal Translation

While it is often thought that the King James Version is the original English version, the KJV was actually based upon the Wycliffe New Testament of which there were two versions - an "Early" version and a "Late" version that contained a number of fine tunings. So to begin my search, I began with the Wycliffe. Looking at 1 Cor 6:9, I found:

Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men,

According to this, anyone who engages in lechery [an indulgence of sexual desire], not just those who engage in lechery with their own kind, is not going to inherit the Kingdom of God. Sounds a bit extreme, but I guess fair is fair.

So next I moved on to the KJV. The KJV was first published in 1611. There I found this from 1 Cor 6:9:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Effeminate? Is this what is being interpreted as homosexual? To my knowledge effeminate didn't mean gay, it meant having the characteristics of the feminine sex. So I looked it up. It turns out that I was rignt. Effeminate is defined as:

(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.

So to me this would mean that any man who was delicate or soft would not be allowed to inherit the Kingdom of God. Along with the adulterers, of course. And what is this "abusers of themselves with mankind?" A little ambiguous, I would say.

Next came the Darby Translation followed by Young's Literal traslation, both of which made ambiguous reference to fornication and or efiminate, but neither was terribly specific. Young's did refer to sodmites and Darby's referred to abusing oneself with men, but still no reference to specific homosexuality. After all, sodomy can refer to an act between a man and a woman.

By 1899, the verse had changed dramatically with the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. According to this version, 1 Cor 6:9 states:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

Much less ambiguous and notice the lack of any reference to such things as sodomy or abusers of self with men let alone any reference, ambiguous or not, to a homosexual act.

For the next seventy years though, the ambiguity would continue. In 1969, however, things would change. This was the year that the New Life Version was first published. In the NLV, there was different language but no less confusion. From 1 Cor 6:9 we get:

Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God. 10 Also those who steal, or those who always want to get more of everything, or who get drunk, or who say bad things about others, or take things that are not theirs, will have no place in the holy nation of God.

But what is a sex sin? Is it all sex? Is it lechery? We're kind of back to where we started with the Wycliffe - It's not just homosexuals, but everyone.

By 1982, though, things became very specific with the release of the New King James Version where the word homosexual made its first appearance. From 1 Cor 6:9:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites,

What strikes me as odd about the appearance of this word is the timing. 1982, the year of its publication, was one year after the Centers for Disease Control first remarked on a strange group of pneumonia cases in five gay men. Originally known as GRID, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, this fatal disease would eventually become known as AIDS.

Since the publication of the NKJV in 1982, all new versions of the Bible (with the exception of the Amplified Bible, The Message, and the Worldwide English) have contained the word homosexual. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that these new ~~translations~~ interpretaions of the Bible have had a specific target? After all, the word homosexual has been around since the 1890s according to Random House. So why wait this long to use this particular word?

Although anyone with an education knows that AIDS is not exclusive to homosexuals, many still view it as a "gay disease." Are these new interpretations of the Bible merely playing off the fear of AIDS to promote an attitude of hate and bigotry? Who knows?

What I do know is that since the NKJV was first published, the frequency of the usage of homosexual in the Bible has grown. Many Bibles now also include it in 1 Timothy 1:10, which reads:

The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders,[c] liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching

NLT

The original King James version of this verse reads as follows:

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Furthermore, the New Living Translation now contains four instances where the word homosexual is used - 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and those passages from Leviticus that I thought I remembered. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. From Lev 18:22 (NLT):

“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Compare that to the original KJV:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

And also Leviticus 20:13 (NLT):

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

And from the original KJV:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Could the abrupt change in wording be a coincidence? It's timing would lead me to believe that it's not. It would appear to me to be a deliberate attempt to push an agenda of hatred and bigotry toward a very specifc group of individuals based upon an ignorant fear of the unknown and misunderstood. Much like the modern conservative agenda.

"Our Country"

2006-10-06T16:33:00.000-05:00

This new song from John Mellencamp is a not-so-subtle poke at the Bush administration and it's habit of ignoring the things that make a difference in our country. You can listen to it and read the lyrics at JohnMellencamp.com. As usual, John hits the nail on the head in that good old Woody Guthrie way of his. There's much more to it than just what we're hearing in those television commercials. So go listen to the whole thing. Trust me, it's a great song.

We Have A Winner!

2006-10-05T20:06:00.000-05:00

From Harold Ford Jr, the Democratic Nominee for the open TN Senate seat being vacated by Bill Frist, we receive this gem:

"I'm not going to take a lecture on morality from a party that took hush money from a child predator."

This needs to be the standard response from every Democrat whenever they are faced with that morality/values voter bullshit. This is just beautiful. I want it on a bumper sticker!

There Is Hope

2006-10-02T22:26:00.000-05:00

I live in a red county in a blue state. Day after day I am subjected to Bush/Cheney bumper stickers, yard signs supporting the Republican candidates for every imaginable office, and the usual wingnuttery from my local paper's editorial page. In fact, I am one of the very few liberals who even bothers writing letters to the editor. Never mind the fact that I'm one of only two or three people in a ten block radius to have the balls to display yard signs supporting our Democratic candidates.

It was this sense of isolation that I took with me on Saturday last as I set out to the park to take some pictures for an assignment.

I went to the park with the intention of taking pictures of the fountain. It was a beautiful, clear day and I thought the sunlight in the fountain would give me some great photos.

As I stood there snapping pictures, something caught my eye. Through the water of the fountain, I was pretty sure that I could see something hanging in the window of an apartment that overlooked the park. So I stepped around the fountain to get a better look. I'm sure I must have looked like a fool standing there with a bemused grin on my face seemingly staring into the sky, but I just couldn't help myself.

What I saw gave me hope. It made me feel like things have started to turn. It made me feel like our country still has a chance to make things right. I'll let you look at the picture and make your own judgements, but I can tell you this - it sure made me feel good.

The Real Reason Why NCLB Can't Work

2006-09-29T21:21:00.000-05:00

For those two or three of you who actually read this blog, you know that I'm rather passionate about education and the damage that NCLB is causing. I've attmpted many times to put into words what it is about NCLB that is so wrong. But the other day I came across something that I think sums it up in the simplest, clearest terms.

When I arrived at work on Thursday, I checked the school's webpage for the daily announcements like I always do. On this particular day, our principal had posted a link to a video that she thought we should all see. It came from a parenting site and is admittedly a bit corny, but I think it provides the perfect example of why No Child Left Behind is doomed to be a failure. The video is called "Animal Farm" and it can be viewed here.

The basic message is that every child is different and excels in different areas. Requiring all children to be the same will only cause setbacks, resentment, and, often times, failure.

I think it's important that we recognize the damage that is being done to the future of our country under the guise of good intentions. NCLB is up for renewel next year. For the good of our country's future, it needs to be "left behind."

How Journalists Should Be

2006-09-27T22:55:00.000-05:00

Just watch it.

So About That NIE...

2006-09-26T20:56:00.000-05:00

By now, we all know the backstory. NYTimes blah, blah, blah... Playing politics blah, blah, blah... Whatever! Let's just get right to it, because at the end of all this, the song is going to remain the same: Bush Lied.

From the NIE Key Judgments released today, I'd like to focus on three statements. The NIE addresses them in the following order.

First:

Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.

Second:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Third:

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims - all of which jihadists exploit.

Now, if we look at them in reverse order we'll see what they're actually saying.

From the third statement:

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
...underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement:... (2) the Iraq "jihad;"

Translation - The Iraq war is providing more fuel for the movement than we are currently able to diffuse.

From the second statement:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

Translation - The Iraq conflict has become the rallying cause for terrorists around the world.

From the first statement:

Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.

Translation - The number of terrorists is growing.

So let's recap -

The Iraq war is providing more fuel for the movement than we are currently able to diffuse.
The Iraq conflict has become the rallying cause for terrorists around the world.
The number of terrorists is growing.

Put that all together and what do you have? We are less safe today because of our actions in Iraq. And since this report was prepared in April 2006, that means that George W. Bush knew about it when he made his statement from the oval office on the fifth anniversary of September 11 when he stated:

The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

Final conclusion: George W. Bush knowingly lied to the American people from the oval office on the fifth anniversary of the most tragic day in our nation's history.

Case closed.

Don't Mess With the Big Dog

2006-09-24T15:23:00.000-05:00

Bill Clinton on Faux News Sunday. Via Crooks & Liars (video)

CW (Chris Wallace): When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole

WJC (William Jefferson Clinton): Okay…

CW: …May I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20…

WJC: No, let’s talk about…

CW: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business?

WJC: Okay, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context (in) which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right-wing conservative on "The Path to 9/11" falsely claim that it was falsely based on the 911 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough claimed (then) that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said (then) that I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down. And I refused to do it and stayed
six months and had an orderly transfer to the UN. Okay, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk Down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

CW: I understand…

WJC: No wait…no wait…don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer.

CW: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…

WJC: And secondly…

CW: Bin Laden says…

WJC: Bin Laden may have said that…

CW: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the U.S. …

WJC: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord murdering…thousand Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission - none - to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

CW: But Mr. President…

WJC: There was no al Qaeda…

CW: …with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93…

WJC: You asked, you. It (was) you (who) brought it up.

CW: May I ask a general question that you can answer? The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about–and this is what they did say–not what ABC pretended they said…

WJC: Wait, wait…

CW: …They said about you and 43 and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank"…

WJC: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…

CW: …the 9/11 Commission says…

WJC: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke had a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?

CW: Yes, I do.

WJC: You do?

CW: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.

WJC: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H.W. Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said. Read his book and read his factual assertions - not opinions–assertions. He said we took "vigorous action" after the African embassies. We probably nearly got Bin Laden.

CW: [..]

WJC: Now, wait a minute…

CW: …cruise missiles…

WJC: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack/search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got (only) after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do (think we should have done) that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too? All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

CW: Do you think you did enough, sir?

WJC: No, because I didn’t get him.

CW: Right…

WJC: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including
all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for
trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t. I tried. So I tried
and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and
the best guy in the country: Dick Clarke.

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

CW: Now wait a minute, sir…

WJC: [..]

CW: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

WJC: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many
people in the Bush administration you’ve asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked ‘Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?’ I want to know how many you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?’ I want to know…

CW: We asked…

WJC: [..]

CW: Do you ever watch FOX News Sunday, sir?

WJC: I don’t believe you ask them that.

CW: We ask plenty of questions of…

WJC: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth.

CW: About the USS Cole?

WJC: Tell the truth…

CW: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

WJC: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

CW: [laughs]

WJC: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

CW: But, President Clinton…

WJC: [..]

CW: We were going to ask half the [interview time] about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

WJC: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

CW: Sir, that is not true…

WJC: …and Richard Clarke…

CW: That is not true…

WJC: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

CW: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: No, I want to finish this.

CW: All right…

WJC: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…

CW: Did they know in 1996, when he declared war on the U.S.? Did no one know in 1998…

WJC: Absolutely, they did.

CW: …when they bombed the two embassies?

WJC: [..]

CW: Or in 2000, when they hit the Cole?

WJC: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

CW: [Laughs]

WJC: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending Special Forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise. We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. [Not] until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

CW: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: You can.

CW: I always intended to, sir.

WJC: No, you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one-sided question. It always comes from one source. And so…

CW: [..]

WJC: And so…

CW: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what’s
the source? You seem upset…

WJC: I am upset because…

CW: …and all I can say is, I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds, sir. And I wasn’t…

WJC: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked against terror…[since] under Reagan. Only one: Richard Clarke. And all I’d say [to] anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right; anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough, spent the whole time I was president saying ‘Why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden?’ And that was ‘Wag the Dog’ when he tried to kill him. My Republican Secretary of Defense, - and I think I’m the only person since WWII to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposition party - Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

CW: All right…

WJC: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia – the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd.

CW: One of the…

WJC: So if you’re going to do this, for God’s sake, follow the same standards for everybody.

CW: I think we do, sir.

WJC: Be fair.

That's the way it's done. Of course, all the rightwingers will say that Clinton was in "melt-down" or he was "frothing at the mouth" or some other idiotic, half-wit comment. However, I guaran-goddamn-tee you that if this were Bush being interviewed by the New York Times and Bush had acted this way he would be called a man of principal and substance. So as far as I'm concerned, the right wingers can stick it up their ass. Ol' Chrissy Wallace just got his clock cleaned by the Big Dog.

I Didn't Hear Him Say "No"

2006-09-22T20:53:00.000-05:00

From CNN:

President Bush on Friday said he was "taken aback" by a report that a U.S. official threatened the United States would attack Pakistan if it did not help immediately after 9/11.

Bush made the remarks at a White House news conference with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, thanking the U.S. ally for his role in the war on terror.

The Pakistan president has told CBS News that -- immediately following the September 11, 2001, attacks -- the Bush administration threatened to bomb his country "back to the Stone Age" if Pakistan did not help in the U.S. war on terrorism.

For the full account of what Bush said, let's go to the transcript:

Q Mr. President, after 9/11, would the United States have actually attacked Pakistan if President Musharraf had not agreed to cooperate with the war on terrorism? He says that the United States was threatening to bomb his country back into the stone age.

And, President Musharraf, would Pakistan have given up its backing of the Taliban if this threat had not come from Armitage?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First, let me -- she's asking about the Armitage thing. The first I heard of this was when I read it in the newspaper today. You know, I was -- I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words.

All I can tell you is, is that shortly after 9/11, Secretary Colin Powell came in and said, President Musharraf understands the stakes and he wants to join and help route out an enemy that has come and killed 3,000 of our citizens. As a matter of fact, my recollection was that one of the first leaders to step up and say that the stakes have changed, that attack on America that killed 3,000 of the citizens needs to be dealt with firmly, was the President. And if I'm not mistaken, Colin told us that, if not the night of September the 11th, shortly thereafter. I need to make sure I get my facts straight, but it was soon.

I don't know of any conversation that was reported in the newspaper like that. I just don't know about it.

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF: I would like to -- I am launching my book on the 25th, and I am honor-bound to Simon and Schuster not to comment on the book before that day. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: In other words, buy the book, is what he's saying. (Laughter.)

So did I miss something, or did he fail to say "No." To me, this reads like one of Georgieboy's infamous nondenial denials. It sounds like he's saying something meaningful, but really it's just a bunch of nothing. Honestly, I don't know how much more of Bush's foreign policy the world can stand before they finally say "Fuck you," and leave us all on our own.

Going, Going, Gone!

2006-09-19T22:03:00.000-05:00

Glenn Greenwald hits one out of the park. No excerpts could do this justice. You just have to read it for yourself.

Sorry for the lack of posting lately. I'm taking two grad courses and teaching a full load plus it's the height of marching band season so I'm a little busy right now. I'll be back as soon as possible.

Scary

2006-09-14T21:37:00.000-05:00

If you haven't seen this video, you need to. Everyone in America needs to see this video.

If we can't guarantee that our elections are honest and accurate, then we have lost everything that this country was founded upon.

They Deserve Better

2006-09-11T21:03:00.000-05:00

We owe it to the victims of 9/11 to hold our government accountable for their actions. After all, their memories have been used for political gain since the day they perished five years ago. They don't deserve this. They don't deserve to be drug out every time the GOP has a campaign stop or needs a boost in their approval ratings. They don't deserve to be paraded about like a political tool used to scare voters into the voting booth. What they do deserve is a government that will seek out and bring to justice those who were responsible for their deaths.

Instead, their memories have been used to curtail the rights and freedoms of every American. Their memories have been used to invade a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us. And their memories have been used to justify this administrations abuses and violations of our constitution. Simply put, these people deserve better.

World Trade Center

Gordon McCannel Aamoth, Maria Rose Abad, Edelmiro (Ed) Abad, Andrew Anthony Abate, Vincent Abate, Laurence Christopher Abel, William F. Abrahamson, Richard Anthony Aceto, Erica Van Acker, Heinrich B. Ackermann, Paul Andrew Acquaviva, Donald L. Adams, Shannon Lewis Adams, Stephen Adams, Patrick Adams, Ignatius Adanga, Christy A. Addamo, Terence E. Adderley, Sophia B. Addo, Lee Adler, Daniel Thomas Afflitto, Emmanuel Afuakwah, Alok Agarwal, Mukul Agarwala, Joseph Agnello, David Scott Agnes, Joao A. Aguiar Jr., Lt. Brian G. Ahearn, Jeremiah J. Ahern, Joanne Ahladiotis, Shabbir Ahmed, Terrance Andre Aiken, Godwin Ajala, Gertrude M. Alagero, Andrew Alameno, Margaret Ann (Peggy) Jezycki Alario, Gary Albero, Jon L. Albert, Peter Craig Alderman, Jacquelyn Delaine Aldridge, Grace Alegre-Cua, David D. Alger, Ernest Alikakos, Edward L. Allegretto, Eric Allen, Joseph Ryan Allen, Richard Lanard Allen, Richard Dennis Allen, Christopher Edward Allingham, Janet M. Alonso, Anthony Alvarado, Antonio Javier Alvarez, Telmo Alvear, Cesar A. Alviar, Tariq Amanullah, Angelo Amaranto, James Amato, Joseph Amatuccio, Christopher Charles Amoroso, Kazuhiro Anai, Calixto Anaya, Jorge Octavio Santos Anaya, Joseph Peter Anchundia, Kermit Charles Anderson, Yvette Anderson, John Andreacchio, Michael Rourke Andrews, Jean A. Andrucki, Siew-Nya Ang, Joseph Angelini, Jr., Joseph Angelini, Sr., Laura Angilletta, Doreen J. Angrisani, Lorraine D. Antigua, Peter Paul Apollo, Faustino Apostol, Frank Thomas Aquilino, Patrick Michael Aranyos, David Gregory Arce, Michael G. Arczynski, Louis Arena, Adam Arias, Michael J. Armstrong, Jack Charles Aron, Joshua Aron, Richard Avery Aronow, Japhet J. Aryee, Carl Asaro, Michael A. Asciak, Michael Edward Asher, Janice Ashley, Thomas J. Ashton, Manuel O. Asitimbay, Lt. Gregg Arthur Atlas, Gerald Atwood, James Audiffred, Kenneth W. Van Auken, Louis F. Aversano, Jr, Ezra Aviles, Ayodeji Awe, Samuel (Sandy) Ayala, Arlene T. Babakitis, Eustace (Rudy) Bacchus, John James Badagliacca, Jane Ellen Baeszler, Robert J. Baierwalter, Andrew J. Bailey, Brett T. Bailey, Tatyana Bakalinskaya, Michael S. Baksh, Sharon Balkcom, Michael Andrew Bane, Kathy Bantis, Gerard Jean Baptiste, Walter Baran, Gerard A. Barbara, Paul V. Barbaro, James W. Barbella, Ivan Kyrillos Fairbanks Barbosa, Victor Daniel Barbosa, Colleen Ann Barkow, David Michael Barkway, Matthew Barnes, Sheila Patricia Barnes, Evan J. Baron, Renee Barrett-Arjune, Arthur T. Barry, Diane G. Barry, Maurice Vincent Barry, Scott D. Bart, Carlton W. Bartels, Guy Barzvi, Inna Basina, Alysia Basmajian, Kenneth William Basnicki, Lt. Steven J. Bates, Paul James Battaglia, W. David Bauer, Ivhan Luis Carpio Bautista, Marlyn C. Bautista, Jasper Baxter, Michele (Du Berry) Beale, Paul F. Beatini, Jane S. Beatty, Larry I. Beck, Manette Marie Beckles, Carl John Bedigian, Michael Beekman, Maria Behr, Yelena Belilovsky, Nina Patrice Bell, Andrea Della Bella, Debbie S. Bellows, Stephen Elliot Belson, Paul Michael Benedetti, Denise Lenore Benedetto, Bryan Craig Bennett, Oliver Duncan Bennett, Eric L. Bennett, Margaret L. Benson, Dominick J. Berardi, James Patrick Berger, Steven Howard Berger, John P. Bergin, Alvin Bergsohn, Daniel D. Bergstein, Michael J. Berkeley, Donna Bernaerts-Kearns, David W. Bernard, William Bernstein, David M. Berray, David S. Berry, Joseph J. Berry, William Reed Bethke, Timothy D. Betterly, Edward F. Beyea, Paul Michael Beyer, Anil T. Bharvaney, Bella Bhukhan, Shimmy D. Biegeleisen, Peter Alexander Bielfeld, William Biggart, Brian Bilcher, Carl Vincent Bini, Gary Bird, Joshua David Birnbaum, George Bishop, Jeffrey D. Bittner, Balewa Albert Blackman, Christopher Joseph Blackwell, Susan L. Blair, Harry Blanding, Janice L. Blaney, Craig Michael Blass, Rita Blau, Richard M. Blood, Michael A. Boccardi, John Paul Bocchi, Michael L. Bocchino, Susan Mary Bochino, Bruce Douglas (Chappy) Boehm, Mary Katherine Boffa, Nicholas A. Bogdan, Darren C. Bohan, Lawrence Francis Boisseau, Vincent M. Boland, Alan Bondarenko, Andre Bonheur, Colin Arthur Bonnett, Frank Bonomo, Yvonne L. Bonomo, Sean Booker, Sherry Ann Bordeaux, Krystine C. Bordenabe, Martin Boryczewski, Richard E. Bosco, John Howard Boulton, Francisco Bourdier, Thomas H. Bowden, Kimberly S. Bowers, Veronique (Bonnie) Nicole Bowers, Larry Bowman, Shawn Edward Bowman, Kevin L. Bowser, Gary R. Box, Gennady Boyarsky, Pamela Boyce, Michael Boyle, Alfred Braca, Sandra Conaty Brace, Kevin H. Bracken, David Brian Brady, Alexander Braginsky, Nicholas W. Brandemarti, Michelle Renee Bratton, Patrice Braut, Lydia Estelle Bravo, Ronald Michael Breitweiser, Edward A. Brennan, Frank H. Brennan, Michael Emmett Brennan, Peter Brennan, Thomas M. Brennan, Capt. Daniel Brethel, Gary L. Bright, Jonathan Eric Briley, Mark A. Brisman, Paul Gary Bristow, Victoria Alvarez Brito, Mark Francis Broderick, Herman C. Broghammer, Keith Broomfield, Janice J. Brown, Lloyd Brown, Capt. Patrick J. Brown, Bettina Browne, Mark Bruce, Richard Bruehert, Andrew Brunn, Capt. Vincent Brunton, Ronald Paul Bucca, Brandon J. Buchanan, Greg Joseph Buck, Dennis Buckley, Nancy Bueche, Patrick Joseph Buhse, John E. Bulaga, Stephen Bunin, Thomas Daniel Burke, Capt. William F. Burke, Matthew J. Burke, Donald James Burns, Kathleen A. Burns, Keith James Burns, John Patrick Burnside, Irina Buslo, Milton Bustillo, Thomas M. Butler, Patrick Byrne, Timothy G. Byrne, Jesus Cabezas, Lillian Caceres, Brian Joseph Cachia, Steven Cafiero, Richard M. Caggiano, Cecile M. Caguicla, Michael John Cahill, Scott W. Cahill, Thomas J. Cahill, George Cain, Salvatore B. Calabro, Joseph Calandrillo, Philip V. Calcagno, Edward Calderon, Kenneth Marcus Caldwell, Dominick E. Calia, Felix (Bobby) Calixte, Capt. Frank Callahan, Liam Callahan, Luigi Calvi, Roko Camaj, Michael Cammarata, David Otey Campbell, Geoffrey Thomas Campbell, Sandra Patricia Campbell, Jill Marie Campbell, Robert Arthur Campbell, Juan Ortega Campos, Sean Canavan, John A. Candela, Vincent Cangelosi, Stephen J. Cangialosi, Lisa B. Cannava, Brian Cannizzaro, Michael R. Canty, Louis A. Caporicci, Jonathan N. Cappello, James Christopher Cappers, Richard M. Caproni, Jose Cardona, Dennis M Carey, Edward Carlino, Michael Scott Carlo, David G. Carlone, Rosemarie C. Carlson, Mark Stephen Carney, Joyce Ann Carpeneto, Alicia Acevedo Carranza, Jeremy M. Carrington, Michael T. Carroll, Peter Carroll, James J. Carson, James Marcel Cartier, Vivian Casalduc, John F. Casazza, Paul Cascio, Kathleen Hunt Casey, Margarito Casillas, Thomas Anthony Casoria, William Otto Caspar, Alejandro Castano, Arcelia Castillo, Leonard M. Castrianno, Jose Ramon Castro, Richard G. Catarelli, Christopher Sean Caton, Robert J. Caufield, Mary Teresa Caulfield, Judson Cavalier, Michael Joseph Cawley, Jason D. Cayne, Juan Armando Ceballos, Marcia G. Cecil-Carter, Jason Cefalu, Thomas J. Celic, Ana M. Centeno, Joni Cesta, Jeffrey M. Chairnoff, Swarna Chalasani, William Chalcoff, Eli Chalouh, Charles Lawrence (Chip) Chan, Mandy Chang, Mark L. Charette, Gregorio Manuel Chavez, Jayceryll M. de Chavez, Pedro Francisco Checo, Douglas MacMillan Cherry, Stephen Patrick Cherry, Vernon Paul Cherry, Nestor Chevalier, Swede Joseph Chevalier, Alexander H. Chiang, Dorothy J. Chiarchiaro, Luis Alfonso Chimbo, Robert Chin, Wing Wai (Eddie) Ching, Nicholas P. Chiofalo, John Chipura, Peter A. Chirchirillo, Catherine E. Chirls, Kyung (Kaccy) Cho, Abul K. Chowdhury, Mohammed Salahuddin Chowdhury, Kirsten L. Christophe, Pamela Chu, Steven Paul Chucknick, Wai-ching Chung, Christopher Ciafardini, Alex F. Ciccone, Frances Ann Cilente, Elaine Cillo, Edna Cintron, Nestor Andre Cintron, Lt. Robert Dominick Cirri, Juan Pablo Alvarez Cisneros, Gregory Alan Clark, Mannie Leroy Clark, Thomas R. Clark, Eugene Clark, Benjamin Keefe Clark, Christopher Robert Clarke, Donna Clarke, Michael Clarke, Suria R.E. Clarke, Kevin Francis Cleary, James D. Cleere, Geoffrey W. Cloud, Susan M. Clyne, Steven Coakley, Jeffrey Coale, Patricia A. Cody, Daniel Michael Coffey, Jason Matthew Coffey, Florence Cohen, Kevin Sanford Cohen, Anthony Joseph Coladonato, Mark J. Colaio, Stephen J. Colaio, Christopher M. Colasanti, Michel Paris Colbert, Kevin Nathaniel Colbert, Keith Eugene Coleman, Scott Thomas Coleman, Tarel Coleman, Liam Joseph Colhoun, Robert D. Colin, Robert J. Coll, Jean Marie Collin, John Michael Collins, Michael L. Collins, Thomas J. Collins, Joseph Collison, Patricia Malia Colodner, Linda M. Colon, Soledi Colon, Ronald Comer, Jaime Concepcion, Albert Conde, Denease Conley, Susan Clancy Conlon, Margaret Mary Conner, John E. Connolly, Cynthia L. Connolly, James Lee Connor, Jonathan (J.C.) Connors, Kevin P. Connors, Kevin Francis Conroy, Brenda E. Conway, Dennis Michael Cook, Helen D. Cook, John A. Cooper, Joseph J. Coppo, Gerard J. Coppola, Joseph Albert Corbett, Alejandro Cordero, Robert Cordice, Ruben D. Correa, Danny A. Correa-Gutierrez, James Corrigan, Carlos Cortes, Kevin M. Cosgrove, Dolores Marie Costa, Digna Alexandra Rivera Costanza, Charles Gregory Costello, Michael S. Costello, Conrod K.H. Cottoy, Martin Coughlan, Sgt. John Gerard Coughlin, Timothy John Coughlin, James E. Cove, Andre Cox, Frederick John Cox, James Raymond Coyle, Michelle Coyle-Eulau, Anne M. Cramer, Christopher Seton Cramer, Denise Crant, Robert James Crawford, James L. Crawford, Joanne Mary Cregan, Lucia Crifasi, Lt. John Crisci, Daniel Hal Crisman, Dennis A. Cross, Helen Crossin-Kittle, Kevin Raymond Crotty, Thomas G. Crotty, John Crowe, Welles Remy Crowther, Robert L. Cruikshank, Francisco Cruz, John Robert Cruz, Kenneth John Cubas, Richard Joseph Cudina, Neil James Cudmore, Thomas Patrick Cullen, Joan McConnell Cullinan, Joyce Cummings, Brian Thomas Cummins, Nilton Albuquerque Fernao Cunha, Michael Joseph Cunningham, Robert Curatolo, Laurence Curia, Paul Dario Curioli, Beverly Curry, Sgt. Michael Curtin, Gavin Cushny, Caleb Arron Dack, Carlos S. DaCosta, John D'Allara, Vincent D'Amadeo, Thomas A. Damaskinos, Jack L. D'Ambrosi, Jeannine Marie Damiani-Jones, Patrick W. Danahy, Nana Kwuku Danso, Mary D'Antonio, Vincent G. Danz, Dwight Donald Darcy, Elizabeth Ann Darling, Annette Andrea Dataram, Lt. Edward Alexander D'Atri, Michael D. D'Auria, Lawrence Davidson, Michael Allen Davidson, Scott Matthew Davidson, Titus Davidson, Niurka Davila, Clinton Davis, Wayne Terrial Davis, Calvin Dawson, Anthony Richard Dawson, Edward James Day, Emerita (Emy) De La Pena, Melanie Louise De Vere, William T. Dean, Robert J. DeAngelis, Thomas P. Deangelis, Tara Debek, Anna Debin, James V. DeBlase, Paul DeCola, Simon Dedvukaj, Jason Christopher DeFazio, David A. Defeo, Jennifer DeJesus, Monique E. DeJesus, Nereida DeJesus, Donald A. Delapenha, Vito Joseph Deleo, Danielle Delie, Colleen Ann Deloughery, Francis (Frank) Albert DeMartini, Anthony Demas, Martin DeMeo, Francis X. Deming, Carol K. Demitz, Kevin Dennis, Thomas F. Dennis, Jean C. DePalma, Jose Nicolas Depena, Robert J. Deraney, Michael DeRienzo, David Paul Derubbio, Jemal Legesse DeSantis, Christian L. DeSimone, Edward DeSimone, Lt. Andrew Desperito, Michael Jude D'Esposito, Cindy Ann Deuel, Jerry DeVito, Robert P. Devitt, Dennis Lawrence Devlin, Gerard Dewan, Simon Suleman Ali Kassamali Dhanani, Michael L. DiAgostino, Matthew Diaz, Nancy Diaz, Obdulio Ruiz Diaz, Lourdes Galletti Diaz, Michael Diaz-Piedra, Judith Belguese Diaz-Sierra, Patricia F. DiChiaro, Joseph Dermot Dickey, Lawrence Patrick Dickinson, Michael David Diehl, John DiFato, Vincent F. DiFazio, Carl DiFranco, Donald J. DiFranco, Debra Ann DiMartino, Stephen P. Dimino, William J. Dimmling, Christopher Dincuff, Jeffrey M. Dingle, Anthony DiOnisio, George DiPasquale, Joseph DiPilato, Douglas Frank DiStefano, Ramzi A. Doany, John J. Doherty, Melissa C. Doi, Brendan Dolan, Neil Dollard, James Joseph Domanico, Benilda Pascua Domingo, Charles (Carlos) Dominguez, Geronimo (Jerome) Mark Patrick Dominguez, Lt. Kevin W. Donnelly, Jacqueline Donovan, Stephen Dorf, Thomas Dowd, Lt. Kevin Christopher Dowdell, Mary Yolanda Dowling, Raymond M. Downey, Joseph M. Doyle, Frank Joseph Doyle, Randy Drake, Stephen Patrick Driscoll, Mirna A. Duarte, Luke A. Dudek, Christopher Michael Duffy, Gerard Duffy, Michael Joseph Duffy, Thomas W. Duffy, Antoinette Duger, Jackie Sayegh Duggan, Sareve Dukat, Christopher Joseph Dunne, Richard A. Dunstan, Patrick Thomas Dwyer, Joseph Anthony Eacobacci, John Bruce Eagleson, Robert D. Eaton, Dean P. Eberling, Margaret Ruth Echtermann, Paul Robert Eckna, Constantine (Gus) Economos, Dennis Michael Edwards, Michael Hardy Edwards, Lisa Egan, Capt. Martin Egan, Michael Egan, Christine Egan, Samantha Egan, Carole Eggert, Lisa Caren Weinstein Ehrlich, John Ernst (Jack) Eichler, Eric Adam Eisenberg, Daphne F. Elder, Michael J. Elferis, Mark J. Ellis, Valerie Silver Ellis, Albert Alfy William Elmarry, Edgar H. Emery, Doris Suk-Yuen Eng, Christopher S. Epps, Ulf Ramm Ericson, Erwin L. Erker, William J. Erwin, Sarah (Ali) Escarcega, Jose Espinal, Fanny M. Espinoza, Francis Esposito, Lt. Michael Esposito, William Esposito, Brigette Ann Esposito, Ruben Esquilin, Sadie Ette, Barbara G. Etzold, Eric Brian Evans, Robert Edward Evans, Meredith Emily June Ewart, Catherine K. Fagan, Patricia M. Fagan, Keith G. Fairben, William Fallon, William F. Fallon, Anthony J. Fallone, Dolores B. Fanelli, John Joseph Fanning, Kathleen (Kit) Faragher, Capt. Thomas Farino, Nancy Carole Farley, Elizabeth Ann (Betty) Farmer, Douglas Farnum, John W. Farrell, Terrence Patrick Farrell, John G. Farrell, Capt. Joseph Farrelly, Thomas P. Farrelly, Syed Abdul Fatha, Christopher Faughnan, Wendy R. Faulkner, Shannon M. Fava, Bernard D. Favuzza, Robert Fazio, Ronald C. Fazio, William Feehan, Francis J. (Frank) Feely, Garth E. Feeney, Sean B. Fegan, Lee S. Fehling, Peter Feidelberg, Alan D. Feinberg, Rosa Maria Feliciano, Edward T. Fergus, George Ferguson, Henry Fernandez, Judy H. Fernandez, Jose Manuel Contreras Fernandez, Elisa Giselle Ferraina, Anne Marie Sallerin Ferreira, Robert John Ferris, David Francis Ferrugio, Louis V. Fersini, Michael David Ferugio, Bradley James Fetchet, Jennifer Louise Fialko, Kristen Fiedel, Samuel Fields, Michael Bradley Finnegan, Timothy J. Finnerty, Michael Curtis Fiore, Stephen J. Fiorelli, Paul M. Fiori, John Fiorito, Lt. John R. Fischer, Andrew Fisher, Thomas J. Fisher, Bennett Lawson Fisher, John Roger Fisher, Lucy Fishman, Ryan D. Fitzgerald, Thomas Fitzpatrick, Richard P. Fitzsimons, Salvatore A. Fiumefreddo, Christina Donovan Flannery, Eileen Flecha, Andre G. Fletcher, Carl Flickinger, John Joseph Florio, Joseph W. Flounders, David Fodor, Lt. Michael N. Fodor, Steven Mark Fogel, Thomas Foley, David Fontana, Chih Min (Dennis) Foo, Del Rose Forbes-Cheatham, Godwin Forde, Donald A. Foreman, Christopher Hugh Forsythe, Claudia Alicia Martinez Foster, Noel J. Foster, Ana Fosteris, Robert J. Foti, Jeffrey L. Fox, Virginia Fox, Virgin (Lucy) Francis, Pauline Francis, Joan Francis, Gary J. Frank, Morton Frank, Peter Christopher Frank, Richard K. Fraser, Kevin Joseph Frawley, Clyde Frazier, Lillian I. Frederick, Andrew Fredericks, Tamitha Freemen, Brett O. Freiman, Lt. Peter L. Freund, Arlene E. Fried, Alan Wayne Friedlander, Andrew K. Friedman, Gregg J. Froehner, Peter Christian Fry, 36, Clement Fumando, Steven Elliot Furman, Paul James Furmato, Fredric Gabler, Richard S. Gabrielle, James Andrew Gadiel, Pamela Gaff, Ervin Vincent Gailliard, Deanna L. Galante, Grace Galante, Anthony Edward Gallagher, Daniel James Gallagher, John Patrick Gallagher, Cono E. Gallo, Vincenzo Gallucci, Thomas Edward Galvin, Giovanna (Genni) Gambale, Thomas Gambino, Giann F. Gamboa, Peter J. Ganci, Claude Michael Gann, Lt. Charles William Garbarini, Cesar Garcia, David Garcia, Jorge Luis Morron Garcia, Juan Garcia, Marlyn C. Garcia, Christopher Gardner, Douglas B. Gardner, Harvey J. Gardner, Thomas A. Gardner, Jeffrey B. Gardner, William Arthur Gardner, Francesco Garfi, Rocco Gargano, James M. Gartenberg, Matthew David Garvey, Bruce Gary, Palmina Delli Gatti, Boyd A. Gatton, Donald Richard Gavagan, Terence D. Gazzani, Gary Geidel, Paul Hamilton Geier, Julie M. Geis, Peter Gelinas, Steven Paul Geller, Howard G. Gelling, Peter Victor Genco, Steven Gregory Genovese, Alayne F. Gentul, Edward F. Geraghty, Suzanne Geraty, Ralph Gerhardt, Robert J. Gerlich, Denis P. Germain, Marina R. Gertsberg, Susan M. Getzendanner, James Gerard Geyer, Joseph M. Giaccone, Lt. Vincent Francis Giammona, Debra L. Gibbon, James A. Giberson, Craig Neil Gibson, Ronnie Gies, Laura A. Giglio, Andrew Clive Gilbert, Timothy Paul Gilbert, Paul Stuart Gilbey, Paul John Gill, Mark Y. Gilles, Evan H. Gillette, Ronald Gilligan, Sgt. Rodney C. Gillis, Laura Gilly, Lt. John F. Ginley, Jeffrey Giordano, John Giordano, Donna Marie Giordano, Steven A. Giorgetti, Martin Giovinazzo, Kum-Kum Girolamo, Salvatore Gitto, Cynthia Giugliano, Mon Gjonbalaj, Dianne Gladstone, Keith Alexander Glascoe, Thomas I. Glasser, Harry Glenn, Barry H. Glick, 55, Steven Lawrence Glick, John T. Gnazzo, William (Bill) Robert Godshalk, Michael Gogliormella, Brian Fredric Goldberg, Jeffrey Grant Goldflam, Michelle Herman Goldstein, Monica Goldstein, Steven Goldstein, Andrew H. Golkin, Dennis James Gomes, Enrique Antonio Gomez, Jose Bienvenido Gomez, Manuel Gomez, Wilder Gomez, Jenine Gonzalez, Joel Guevara Gonzalez, Rosa J. Gonzalez, Mauricio Gonzalez, Calvin J. Gooding, Harry Goody, Kiran Reddy Gopu, Catherine Carmen Gorayeb, Kerene Gordon, Sebastian Gorki, Thomas E. Gorman, Kieran Gorman, Michael Edward Gould, Yugi Goya, Jon Richard Grabowski, Christopher Michael Grady, Edwin John Graf, David M. Graifman, Gilbert Granados, Elvira Granitto, Winston Arthur Grant, Christopher Stewart Gray, James Michael Gray, Linda Mair Grayling, John Michael Grazioso, Timothy Grazioso, Derrick Arthur Green, Wade Brian Green, Elaine Myra Greenberg, Gayle R. Greene, James Arthur Greenleaf, Eileen Marsha Greenstein, Elizabeth (Lisa) Martin Gregg, Donald H. Gregory, Florence M. Gregory, Denise Gregory, Pedro (David) Grehan, John M. Griffin, Tawanna Griffin, Joan D. Griffith, Warren Grifka, Ramon Grijalvo, Joseph F. Grillo, David Grimner, Kenneth Grouzalis, Joseph Grzelak, Matthew J. Grzymalski, Robert Joseph Gschaar, Liming (Michael) Gu, Jose A. Guadalupe, Yan Zhu (Cindy) Guan, Geoffrey E. Guja, Lt. Joseph Gullickson, Babita Guman, Douglas B. Gurian, Philip T. Guza, Barbara Guzzardo, Peter Gyulavary, Gary Robert Haag, Andrea Lyn Haberman, Barbara M. Habib, Philip Haentzler, Nizam A. Hafiz, Karen Hagerty, Steven Hagis, Mary Lou Hague, David Halderman, Maile Rachel Hale, Richard Hall, Vaswald George Hall, Robert John Halligan, Lt. Vincent Gerard Halloran, James D. Halvorson, Mohammad Salman Hamdani, Felicia Hamilton, Robert Hamilton, Frederic Kim Han, Christopher James Hanley, Sean Hanley, Valerie Joan Hanna, Thomas Hannafin, Kevin James Hannaford, Michael L. Hannan, Dana Hannon, Vassilios G. Haramis, James A. Haran, Jeffrey P. Hardy, Timothy John Hargrave, Daniel Harlin, Frances Haros, Lt. Harvey L. Harrell, Lt. Stephen Gary Harrell, Stewart D. Harris, Aisha Harris, John Patrick Hart, John Clinton Hartz, Emeric J. Harvey, Capt. Thomas Theodore Haskell, Timothy Haskell, Joseph John Hasson, Capt. Terence S. Hatton, Leonard William Hatton, Michael Helmut Haub, Timothy Aaron Haviland, Donald G. Havlish, Anthony Hawkins, Nobuhiro Hayatsu, Philip Hayes, William Ward Haynes, Scott Hazelcorn, Lt. Michael K. Healey, Roberta Bernstein Heber, Charles Francis Xavier Heeran, John Heffernan, Howard Joseph Heller, JoAnn L. Heltibridle, Mark F. Hemschoot, Ronnie Lee Henderson, Janet Hendricks, Brian Hennessey, Michelle Marie Henrique, Joseph P. Henry, William Henry, John Henwood, Robert Allan Hepburn, Mary (Molly) Herencia, Lindsay Coates Herkness, Harvey Robert Hermer, Claribel Hernandez, Norberto Hernandez, Raul Hernandez, Gary Herold, Jeffrey A. Hersch, Thomas Hetzel, Capt. Brian Hickey, Ysidro Hidalgo-Tejada, Lt. Timothy Higgins, Robert D. Higley, Todd Russell Hill, Clara Victorine Hinds, Neal Hinds, Mark D. Hindy, Richard Bruce Van Hine, Katsuyuki Hirai, Heather Malia Ho, Tara Yvette Hobbs, Thomas A. Hobbs, James L. Hobin, Robert Wayne Hobson, DaJuan Hodges, Ronald George Hoerner, Patrick Aloysius Hoey, Stephen G. Hoffman, Marcia Hoffman, Frederick J. Hoffmann, Michele L. Hoffmann, Judith Florence Hofmiller, Thomas Warren Hohlweck, Jonathan R. Hohmann, Joseph Francis Holland, John Holland, Elizabeth Holmes, Thomas P. Holohan, Bradley Hoorn, James P. Hopper, Montgomery McCullough Hord, Michael Horn, Matthew D. Horning, Robert L. Horohoe, Aaron Horwitz, Charles J. Houston, Uhuru G. Houston, George Howard, Steven L. Howell, Michael C. Howell, Jennifer L. Howley, Milagros (Millie) Hromada, Marian Hrycak, Stephen Huczko, Kris R. Hughes, Melissa Harrington Hughes, Thomas F. Hughes, Timothy Robert Hughes, Paul R. Hughes, Robert T. (Bobby) Hughes, Susan Huie, Mychal Lamar Hulse, William C. Hunt, Joseph G. Hunter, Robert Hussa, Capt. Walter Hynes, Thomas E. Hynes, Joseph Anthony Ianelli, Zuhtu Ibis, Jonathan Lee Ielpi, Michael Patrick Iken, Daniel Ilkanayev, Capt. Frederick Ill, Abraham Nethanel Ilowitz, Anthony P. Infante, Louis S. Inghilterra, Christopher N. Ingrassia, Paul Innella, Stephanie V. Irby, Douglas Irgang, Todd A. Isaac, Erik Hans Isbrandtsen, Taizo Ishikawa, Aram Iskenderian, John Iskyan, Kazushige Ito, Aleksandr Valeryerich Ivantsov, Virginia Jablonski, Brooke Alexandra Jackman, Aaron Jacobs, Jason Kyle Jacobs, Michael Grady Jacobs, Ariel Louis Jacobs, Steven A. Jacobson, Ricknauth Jaggernauth, Jake Denis Jagoda, Yudh V.S. Jain, Maria Jakubiak, Gricelda E. James, Ernest James, Mark Jardim, Mohammed Jawara, Francois Jean-Pierre, Maxima Jean-Pierre, Paul E. Jeffers, Joseph Jenkins, Alan K. Jensen, Prem N. Jerath, Farah Jeudy, Hweidar Jian, Eliezer Jimenez, Luis Jimenez, Charles Gregory John, Nicholas John, Scott M. Johnson, LaShawana Johnson, William Johnston, Arthur Joseph Jones, Allison Horstmann Jones, Brian L. Jones, Christopher D. Jones, Donald T. Jones, Donald W. Jones, Linda Jones, Mary S. Jones, Andrew Jordan, Robert Thomas Jordan, Ingeborg Joseph, Karl Henri Joseph, Stephen Joseph, Albert Joseph, Jane Eileen Josiah, Lt. Anthony Jovic, Angel Luis Juarbe, Karen Susan Juday, The Rev. Mychal Judge, Paul W. Jurgens, Thomas Edward Jurgens, Kacinga Kabeya, Shashi Kiran Lakshmikantha Kadaba, Gavkharoy Mukhometovna Kamardinova, Shari Kandell, Howard Lee Kane, Jennifer Lynn Kane, Vincent D. Kane, Joon Koo Kang, Sheldon R. Kanter, Deborah H. Kaplan, Alvin Peter Kappelmann, Charles Karczewski, William A. Karnes, Douglas G. Karpiloff, Charles L. Kasper, Andrew Kates, John Katsimatides, Sgt. Robert Kaulfers, Don Jerome Kauth, Hideya Kawauchi, Edward T. Keane, Richard M. Keane, Lisa Kearney-Griffin, Karol Ann Keasler, Paul Hanlon Keating, Leo Russell Keene, Joseph J. Keller, Peter Rodney Kellerman, Joseph P. Kellett, Frederick H. Kelley, James Joseph Kelly, Joseph A. Kelly, Maurice Patrick Kelly, Richard John Kelly, Thomas Michael Kelly, Thomas Richard Kelly, Thomas W. Kelly, Timothy C. Kelly, William Hill Kelly, Robert C. Kennedy, Thomas J. Kennedy, John Keohane, Lt. Ronald T. Kerwin, Howard L. Kestenbaum, Douglas D. Ketcham, Ruth E. Ketler, Boris Khalif, Sarah Khan, Taimour Firaz Khan, Rajesh Khandelwal, SeiLai Khoo, Michael Kiefer, Satoshi Kikuchihara, Andrew Jay-Hoon Kim, Lawrence Don Kim, Mary Jo Kimelman, Andrew Marshall King, Lucille T. King, Robert King, Lisa M. King-Johnson, Takashi Kinoshita, Chris Michael Kirby, Howard (Barry) Kirschbaum, Glenn Davis Kirwin, Richard J. Klares, Peter A. Klein, Alan D. Kleinberg, Karen J. Klitzman, Ronald Philip Kloepfer, Yevgeny Kniazev, Thomas Patrick Knox, Andrew Knox, Rebecca Lee Koborie, Deborah Kobus, Gary Edward Koecheler, Frank J. Koestner, Ryan Kohart, Vanessa Lynn Kolpak, Irina Kolpakova, Suzanne Kondratenko, Abdoulaye Kone, Bon-seok Koo, Dorota Kopiczko, Scott Kopytko, Bojan Kostic, Danielle Kousoulis, John J. Kren, William Krukowski, Lyudmila Ksido, Shekhar Kumar, Kenneth Kumpel, Frederick Kuo, Patricia Kuras, Nauka Kushitani, Thomas Joseph Kuveikis, Victor Kwarkye, Kui Fai Kwok, Angela R. Kyte, Amarnauth Lachhman, Ganesh Ladkat, James P. Ladley, Daniel M. Van Laere, Joseph A. Lafalce, Jeanette LaFond-Menichino, David LaForge, Michael Patrick LaForte, Alan Lafrance, Juan Lafuente, Neil K. Lai, Vincent A. Laieta, William David Lake, Franco Lalama, Chow Kwan Lam, Stephen LaMantia, Amy Hope Lamonsoff, Robert T. Lane, Brendan M. Lang, Rosanne P. Lang, Vanessa Langer, Mary Lou Langley, Peter J. Langone, Thomas Langone, Michele B. Lanza, Ruth Sheila Lapin, Carol Ann LaPlante, Ingeborg Astrid Desiree Lariby, Robin Larkey, Christopher Randall Larrabee, Hamidou S. Larry, Scott Larsen, John Adam Larson, Gary E. Lasko, Nicholas C. Lassman, Paul Laszczynski, Jeffrey Latouche, Cristina de Laura, Oscar de Laura, Charles Laurencin, Stephen James Lauria, Maria Lavache, Denis F. Lavelle, Jeannine M. LaVerde, Anna A. Laverty, Steven Lawn, Robert A. Lawrence, Nathaniel Lawson, Eugen Lazar, James Patrick Leahy, Lt. Joseph Gerard Leavey, Neil Leavy, Leon Lebor, Kenneth Charles Ledee, Alan J. Lederman, Elena Ledesma, Alexis Leduc, Myung-woo Lee, David S. Lee, Gary H. Lee, Hyun-joon (Paul) Lee, Jong-min Lee, Juanita Lee, Lorraine Lee, Richard Y.C. Lee, Yang Der Lee, Kathryn Blair Lee, Stuart (Soo-Jin) Lee, Linda C. Lee, Stephen Lefkowitz, Adriana Legro, Edward J. Lehman, Eric Andrew Lehrfeld, David Ralph Leistman, David Prudencio LeMagne, Joseph A. Lenihan, John J. Lennon, John Robinson Lenoir, Jorge Luis Leon, Matthew Gerard Leonard, Michael Lepore, Charles Antoine Lesperance, Jeffrey Earle LeVeen, John D. Levi, Alisha Caren Levin, Neil D. Levin, Robert Levine, Robert M. Levine, Shai Levinhar, Adam J. Lewis, Margaret Susan Lewis, Ye Wei Liang, Orasri Liangthanasarn, Daniel F. Libretti, Ralph M. Licciardi, Edward Lichtschein, Steven B. Lillianthal, Carlos R. Lillo, Craig Damian Lilore, Arnold A. Lim, Darya Lin, Wei Rong Lin, Nickie L. Lindo, Thomas V. Linehan, Robert Thomas Linnane, Alan Linton, Diane Theresa Lipari, Kenneth P. Lira, Francisco Alberto Liriano, Lorraine Lisi, Paul Lisson, Vincent Litto, Ming-Hao Liu, Nancy Liz, Harold Lizcano, Martin Lizzul, George A. Llanes, Elizabeth Claire Logler, Catherine Lisa Loguidice, Jerome Robert Lohez, Michael W. Lomax, Laura M. Longing, Salvatore P. Lopes, Daniel Lopez, Luis Lopez, Manuel L. Lopez, George Lopez, Joseph Lostrangio, Chet Louie, Stuart Seid Louis, Joseph Lovero, Michael W. Lowe, Garry Lozier, John Peter Lozowsky, Charles Peter Lucania, Edward (Ted) H. Luckett, Mark G. Ludvigsen, Lee Charles Ludwig, Sean Thomas Lugano, Daniel Lugo, Marie Lukas, William Lum, Michael P. Lunden, Christopher Lunder, Anthony Luparello, Gary Lutnick, Linda Luzzicone, Alexander Lygin, Farrell Peter Lynch, James Francis Lynch, Louise A. Lynch, Michael Lynch, Michael F. Lynch, Richard Dennis Lynch, Robert H. Lynch, Sean Lynch, Michael J. Lyons, Patrick Lyons, Monica Lyons, Robert Francis Mace, Jan Maciejewski, Catherine Fairfax MacRae, Richard B. Madden, Simon Maddison, Noell Maerz, Jeannieann Maffeo, Joseph Maffeo, Jay Robert Magazine, Charles Wilson Magee, Brian Magee, Joseph Maggitti, Ronald E. Magnuson, Daniel L. Maher, Thomas Anthony Mahon, William Mahoney, Joseph Maio, Takashi Makimoto, Abdu Malahi, Debora Maldonado, Myrna T. Maldonado-Agosto, Alfred R. Maler, Gregory James Malone, Edward Francis (Teddy) Maloney, Joseph E. Maloney, Gene E. Maloy, Christian Maltby, Francisco Miguel (Frank) Mancini, Joseph Mangano, Sara Elizabeth Manley, Debra M. Mannetta, Terence J. Manning, Marion Victoria (Vickie) Manning, James Maounis, Joseph Ross Marchbanks, Peter Edward Mardikian, Edward Joseph Mardovich, Lt. Charles Joseph Margiotta, Kenneth Joseph Marino, Lester Vincent Marino, Vita Marino, Kevin D. Marlo, Jose J. Marrero, John Marshall, James Martello, Michael A. Marti, Lt. Peter Martin, William J. Martin, Brian E. Martineau, Betsy Martinez, Edward J. Martinez, Jose Angel Martinez, Robert Gabriel Martinez, Lizie Martinez-Calderon, Lt. Paul Richard Martini, Joseph A. Mascali, Bernard Mascarenhas, Stephen F. Masi, Nicholas G. Massa, Patricia A. Massari, Michael Massaroli, Philip W. Mastrandrea, Rudolph Mastrocinque, Joseph Mathai, Charles William Mathers, William A. Mathesen, Marcello Matricciano, Margaret Elaine Mattic, Robert D. Mattson, Walter Matuza, Charles A. (Chuck) Mauro, Charles J. Mauro, Dorothy Mauro, Nancy T. Mauro, Tyrone May, Keithroy Maynard, Robert J. Mayo, Kathy Nancy Mazza-Delosh, Edward Mazzella, Jennifer Mazzotta, Kaaria Mbaya, James J. McAlary, Brian McAleese, Patricia A. McAneney, Colin Richard McArthur, John McAvoy, Kenneth M. McBrayer, Brendan McCabe, Michael J. McCabe, Thomas McCann, Justin McCarthy, Kevin M. McCarthy, Michael Desmond McCarthy, Robert Garvin McCarthy, Katie Marie McCloskey, Tara McCloud-Gray, Charles Austin McCrann, Tonyell McDay, Matthew T. McDermott, Joseph P. McDonald, Brian G. McDonnell, Michael McDonnell, John F. McDowell, Eamon J. McEneaney, John Thomas McErlean, Daniel F. McGinley, Mark Ryan McGinly, Lt. William E. McGinn, Thomas H. McGinnis, Michael Gregory McGinty, Ann McGovern, Scott Martin McGovern, William J. McGovern, Stacey S. McGowan, Francis Noel McGuinn, Patrick J. McGuire, Thomas M. McHale, Keith McHeffey, Denis J. McHugh, Dennis P. McHugh, Michael Edward McHugh, Ann M. McHugh, Robert G. McIlvaine, Donald James McIntyre, Stephanie McKenna, Barry J. McKeon, Evelyn C. McKinnedy, Darryl Leron McKinney, Robert C. McLaughlin, George Patrick McLaughlin, Gavin McMahon, Robert Dismas McMahon, Edmund M. McNally, Daniel McNeal, Walter Arthur McNeil, Sean Peter McNulty, Christine Sheila McNulty, Robert William McPadden, Terence A. McShane, Timothy Patrick McSweeney, Martin E. McWilliams, Rocco A. Medaglia, Abigail Cales Medina, Ana Iris Medina, Deborah Medwig, William J. Meehan, Damian Meehan, Alok Kumar Mehta, Raymond Meisenheimer, Manuel Emilio Mejia, Eskedar Melaku, Antonio Melendez, Mary Melendez, Yelena Melnichenko, Stuart Todd Meltzer, Diarelia Jovannah Mena, Charles Mendez, Lizette Mendoza, Shevonne Mentis, Steve Mercado, Wesley Mercer, Ralph Joseph Mercurio, Alan H. Merdinger, George C. Merino, Yamel Merino, George Merkouris, Deborah Merrick, Raymond J. Metz, Jill A. Metzler, David Robert Meyer, Nurul Huq Miah, William Edward Micciulli, Martin Paul Michelstein, Luis Clodoaldo Revilla Mier, Peter T. Milano, Gregory Milanowycz, Lukasz T. Milewski, Craig James Miller, Corey Peter Miller, Douglas C. Miller, Henry Miller, Michael Matthew Miller, Phillip D. Miller, Robert C. Miller, Robert Alan Miller, Joel Miller, Benjamin Millman, Charles M. Mills, Ronald Keith Milstein, Robert Minara, William G. Minardi, Louis Joseph Minervino, Thomas Mingione, Wilbert Miraille, Domenick Mircovich, Rajesh A. Mirpuri, Joseph Mistrulli, Susan Miszkowicz, Lt. Paul Thomas Mitchell, Richard Miuccio, Frank V. Moccia, Capt. Louis Joseph Modafferi, Boyie Mohammed, Lt. Dennis Mojica, Manuel Mojica, Manuel Dejesus Molina, Kleber Rolando Molina, Fernando Jimenez Molinar, Carl Molinaro, Justin J. Molisani, Brian Patrick Monaghan, Franklin Monahan, John Gerard Monahan, Kristen Montanaro, Craig D. Montano, Michael Montesi, Cheryl Ann Monyak, Capt. Thomas Moody, Sharon Moore, Krishna Moorthy, Abner Morales, Carlos Morales, Paula Morales, Luis Morales, John Moran, John Christopher Moran, Lindsay S. Morehouse, George Morell, Steven P. Morello, Vincent S. Morello, Arturo Alva Moreno, Yvette Nicole Moreno, Dorothy Morgan, Richard Morgan, Nancy Morgenstern, Sanae Mori, Blanca Morocho, Leonel Morocho, Dennis G. Moroney, Lynne Irene Morris, Seth A. Morris, Stephen Philip Morris, Christopher M. Morrison, Ferdinand V. Morrone, William David Moskal, Manuel Da Mota, Marco Motroni, Iouri A. Mouchinski, Jude J. Moussa, Peter C. Moutos, Damion Mowatt, Christopher Mozzillo, Stephen V. Mulderry, Richard Muldowney, Michael D. Mullan, Dennis Michael Mulligan, Peter James Mulligan, Michael Joseph Mullin, James Donald Munhall, Nancy Muniz, Carlos Mario Munoz, Francisco Munoz, Theresa (Terry) Munson, Robert M. Murach, Cesar Augusto Murillo, Marc A. Murolo, Robert Eddie Murphy, Brian Joseph Murphy, Christopher W. Murphy, Edward C. Murphy, James F. Murphy, James Thomas Murphy, Kevin James Murphy, Patrick Sean Murphy, Lt. Raymond E. Murphy, Charles Murphy, John Joseph Murray, John Joseph Murray, Susan D. Murray, Valerie Victoria Murray, Richard Todd Myhre, Lt. Robert B. Nagel, Takuya Nakamura, Alexander J.R. Napier, Frank Joseph Naples, John Napolitano, Catherine A. Nardella, Mario Nardone, Manika Narula, Narender Nath, Karen S. Navarro, Joseph M. Navas, Francis J. Nazario, Glenroy Neblett, Marcus R. Neblett, Jerome O. Nedd, Laurence Nedell, Luke G. Nee, Pete Negron, Ann Nicole Nelson, David William Nelson, James Nelson, Michele Ann Nelson, Peter Allen Nelson, Oscar Nesbitt, Gerard Terence Nevins, Christopher Newton-Carter, Kapinga Ngalula, Nancy Yuen Ngo, Jody Tepedino Nichilo, Martin Niederer, Alfonse J. Niedermeyer, Frank John Niestadt, Gloria Nieves, Juan Nieves, Troy Edward Nilsen, Paul R. Nimbley, John Ballantine Niven, Katherine (Katie) McGarry Noack, Curtis Terrence Noel, Daniel R. Nolan, Robert Walter Noonan, Daniela R. Notaro, Brian Novotny, Soichi Numata, Brian Felix Nunez, Jose R. Nunez, Jeffrey Nussbaum, James A. Oakley, Dennis O'Berg, James P. O'Brien, Scott J. O'Brien, Timothy Michael O'Brien, Michael O'Brien, Captain Daniel O'Callaghan, Richard J. O'Connor, Dennis J. O'Connor, Diana J. O'Connor, Keith K. O'Connor, Amy O'Doherty, Marni Pont O'Doherty, Douglas Oelschlager, Takashi Ogawa, Albert Ogletree, Philip Paul Ognibene, James Andrew O'Grady, Joseph J. Ogren, Lt. Thomas O'Hagan, Samuel Oitice, Patrick O'Keefe, Capt. William O'Keefe, Gerald Michael Olcott, Gerald O'Leary, Christine Anne Olender, Elsy Carolina Osorio Oliva, Linda Mary Oliva, Edward K. Oliver, Leah E. Oliver, Eric T. Olsen, Jeffrey James Olsen, Maureen L. Olson, Steven John Olson, Matthew Timothy O'Mahoney, Toshihiro Onda, Seamus L. O'Neal, John P. O'Neill, Sean Gordon Corbett O'Neill, Peter J. O'Neill, Michael C. Opperman, Christopher Orgielewicz, Margaret Orloske, Virginia A. Ormiston, Kevin O'Rourke, Juan Romero Orozco, Ronald Orsini, Peter K. Ortale, Emilio (Peter) Ortiz, David Ortiz, Paul Ortiz, Sonia Ortiz, Alexander Ortiz, Pablo Ortiz, Masaru Ose, Robert W. O'Shea, Patrick J. O'Shea, James Robert Ostrowski, Timothy O'Sullivan, Jason Douglas Oswald, Michael Otten, Isidro Ottenwalder, Michael Chung Ou, Todd Joseph Ouida, Jesus Ovalles, Peter J. Owens, Adianes Oyola, Angel M. Pabon, Israel Pabon, Roland Pacheco, Michael Benjamin Packer, Deepa K. Pakkala, Jeffrey Matthew Palazzo, Thomas Anthony Palazzo, Richard (Rico) Palazzolo, Orio Joseph Palmer, Frank A. Palombo, Alan N. Palumbo, Christopher M. Panatier, Dominique Pandolfo, Paul Pansini, John M. Paolillo, Edward J. Papa, Salvatore Papasso, James N. Pappageorge, Vinod K. Parakat, Vijayashanker Paramsothy, Nitin Ramesh Parandkar, Hardai (Casey) Parbhu, James Wendell Parham, Debra (Debbie) Paris, George Paris, Gye-Hyong Park, Philip L. Parker, Michael A. Parkes, Robert Emmett Parks, Hasmukhrai Chuckulal Parmar, Robert Parro, Diane Marie Moore Parsons, Leobardo Lopez Pascual, Michael J. Pascuma, Jerrold H. Paskins, Horace Robert Passananti, Suzanne H. Passaro, Victor Antonio Martinez Pastrana, Manish K. Patel, Avnish Ramanbhai Patel, Dipti Patel, Steven B. Paterson, James Matthew Patrick, Manuel Patrocino, Bernard E. Patterson, Cira Marie Patti, Robert Edward Pattison, James R. Paul, Sharon Cristina Millan Paz, Patrice Paz, Victor Paz-Gutierrez, Stacey L. Peak, Richard Allen Pearlman, Durrell Pearsall, Thomas E. Pedicini, Todd D. Pelino, Michel Adrian Pelletier, Anthony Peluso, Angel Ramon Pena, Richard Al Penny, Salvatore F. Pepe, Carl Allen Peralta, Robert David Peraza, Jon A. Perconti, Alejo Perez, Angel Perez, Angela Susan Perez, Ivan Perez, Nancy E. Perez, Anthony Perez, Joseph John Perroncino, Edward J. Perrotta, Lt. Glenn C. Perry, Emelda Perry, John William Perry, Franklin Allan Pershep, Daniel Pesce, Michael J. Pescherine, Davin Peterson, William Russel Peterson, Mark Petrocelli, Lt. Philip S. Petti, Glen Kerrin Pettit, Dominick Pezzulo, Kaleen E. Pezzuti, Lt. Kevin Pfeifer, Tu-Anh Pham, Lt. Kenneth John Phelan, Michael V. San Phillip, Eugenia Piantieri, Ludwig John Picarro, Matthew Picerno, Joseph O. Pick, Christopher Pickford, Dennis J. Pierce, Joseph A. Della Pietra, Bernard T. Pietronico, Nicholas P. Pietrunti, Theodoros Pigis, Susan Elizabeth Ancona Pinto, Joseph Piskadlo, Christopher Todd Pitman, Josh Michael Piver, Joseph Plumitallo, John M. Pocher, William Howard Pohlmann, Laurence M. Polatsch, Thomas H. Polhemus, Steve Pollicino, Susan M. Pollio, Joshua Poptean, Giovanna Porras, Anthony Portillo, James Edward Potorti, Daphne Pouletsos, Richard Poulos, Stephen E. Poulos, Brandon Jerome Powell, Shawn Edward Powell, Tony Pratt, Gregory M. Preziose, Wanda Ivelisse Prince, Vincent Princiotta, Kevin Prior, Everett Martin (Marty) Proctor, Carrie B. Progen, David Lee Pruim, Richard Prunty, John F. Puckett, Robert D. Pugliese, Edward F. Pullis, Patricia Ann Puma, Hemanth Kumar Puttur, Edward R. Pykon, Christopher Quackenbush, Lars Peter Qualben, Lincoln Quappe, Beth Ann Quigley, Lt. Michael Quilty, Ricardo Quinn, James Francis Quinn, Carol Rabalais, Christopher Peter A. Racaniello, Leonard Ragaglia, Eugene J. Raggio, Laura Marie Ragonese-Snik, Michael Ragusa, Peter F. Raimondi, Harry A. Raines, Ehtesham U. Raja, Valsa Raju, Edward Rall, Lukas (Luke) Rambousek, Julio Fernandez Ramirez, Maria Isabel Ramirez, Harry Ramos, Vishnoo Ramsaroop, Lorenzo Ramzey, A. Todd Rancke, Adam David Rand, Jonathan C. Randall, Srinivasa Shreyas Ranganath, Anne Rose T. Ransom, Faina Rapoport, Robert Arthur Rasmussen, Amenia Rasool, 33, Roger Mark Rasweiler, David Alan James Rathkey, William Ralph Raub, Gerard Rauzi, Alexey Razuvaev, Gregory Reda, Sarah Prothero Redheffer, Michele Reed, Judith A. Reese, Donald J. Regan, Lt. Robert M. Regan, Thomas M. Regan, Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, Howard Reich, Gregg Reidy, Kevin O. Reilly, James Brian Reilly, Timothy E. Reilly, Joseph Reina, Thomas Barnes Reinig, Frank B. Reisman, Joshua Scott Reiss, Karen Renda, John Armand Reo, Richard Rescorla, John Thomas Resta, Sylvia San Pio Resta, Eduvigis (Eddie) Reyes, Bruce A. Reynolds, John Frederick Rhodes, Francis S. Riccardelli, Rudolph N. Riccio, AnnMarie (Davi) Riccoboni, Eileen Mary Rice, David Rice, Kenneth F. Rice, Lt. Vernon Allan Richard, Claude D. Richards, Gregory Richards, Michael Richards, Venesha O. Richards, James C. Riches, Alan Jay Richman, John M. Rigo, Theresa (Ginger) Risco, Rose Mary Riso, Moises N. Rivas, Joseph Rivelli, Isaias Rivera, Linda Rivera, 26, Juan William Rivera, Carmen A. Rivera, David E. Rivers, Joseph R. Riverso, Paul Rizza, John Frank Rizzo, Stephen Louis Roach, Joseph Roberto, Leo A. Roberts, Michael Roberts, Michael Edward Roberts, Donald Walter Robertson, Catherina Robinson, Jeffrey Robinson, Michell Lee Robotham, Donald Robson, Antonio Augusto Tome Rocha, Raymond J. Rocha, Laura Rockefeller, John M. Rodak, Antonio Jose Carrusca Rodrigues, Anthony Rodriguez, Carmen Milagros Rodriguez, Marsha A. Rodriguez, Richard Rodriguez, Gregory E. Rodriguez, David B. Rodriguez-Vargas, Matthew Rogan, Karlie Barbara Rogers, Scott Rohner, Keith Roma, Joseph M. Romagnolo, Elvin Santiago Romero, Efrain Franco Romero, James A. Romito, Sean Rooney, Eric Thomas Ropiteau, Aida Rosario, Angela Rosario, Fitzroy St. Rose, Mark H. Rosen, Linda Rosenbaum, Brooke David Rosenbaum, Sheryl Lynn Rosenbaum, Lloyd D. Rosenberg, Mark Louis Rosenberg, Andrew I. Rosenblum, Joshua M. Rosenblum, Joshua A. Rosenthal, Richard David Rosenthal, Daniel Rossetti, Norman Rossinow, Nicholas P. Rossomando, Michael Craig Rothberg, Donna Marie Rothenberg, Nick Rowe, Timothy A. Roy, Paul G. Ruback, Ronald J. Ruben, Joanne Rubino, David Michael Ruddle, Bart Joseph Ruggiere, Susan Ann Ruggiero, Adam K. Ruhalter, Gilbert Ruiz, Stephen P. Russell, Steven Harris Russin, Lt. Michael Thomas Russo, Wayne Alan Russo, John J. Ryan, Edward Ryan, Jonathan Stephan Ryan, Matthew Lancelot Ryan, Kristin A. Irvine Ryan, Tatiana Ryjova, Christina Sunga Ryook, Thierry Saada, Jason E. Sabbag, Thomas E. Sabella, Scott Saber, Joseph Sacerdote, Mohammad Ali Sadeque, Francis J. Sadocha, Jude Elias Safi, Brock Joel Safronoff, Edward Saiya, John Patrick Salamone, Hernando R. Salas, Juan Salas, Esmerlin Salcedo, John Salvatore Salerno, Richard L. Salinardi, Wayne John Saloman, Nolbert Salomon, Catherine Patricia Salter, Frank Salvaterra, Paul R. Salvio, Samuel R. Salvo, Carlos Samaniego, Rena Sam-Dinnoo, James Kenneth Samuel, Hugo Sanay-Perafiel, Alva Jeffries Sanchez, Jacquelyn P. Sanchez, Erick Sanchez, Eric Sand, Stacey Leigh Sanders, Herman Sandler, James Sands, Ayleen J. Santiago, Kirsten Santiago, Maria Theresa Santillan, Susan G. Santo, Christopher Santora, John Santore, Mario L. Santoro, Rafael Humberto Santos, Rufino Conrado F. (Roy) Santos, Kalyan K. Sarkar, Chapelle Sarker, Paul F. Sarle, Deepika Kumar Sattaluri, Gregory Thomas Saucedo, Susan Sauer, Anthony Savas, Vladimir Savinkin, John Sbarbaro, Robert L. Scandole, Michelle Scarpitta, Dennis Scauso, John A. Schardt, John G. Scharf, Fred Claude Scheffold, Angela Susan Scheinberg, Scott M. Schertzer, Sean Schielke, Steven Francis Schlag, Jon S. Schlissel, Karen Helene Schmidt, Ian Schneider, Thomas G. Schoales, Marisa Di Nardo Schorpp, Frank G. Schott, Gerard P. Schrang, Jeffrey Schreier, John T. Schroeder, Susan Lee Kennedy Schuler, Edward W. Schunk, Mark E. Schurmeier, Clarin Shellie Schwartz, John Schwartz, Mark Schwartz, Adriane Victoria Scibetta, Raphael Scorca, Randolph Scott, Christopher J. Scudder, Arthur Warren Scullin, Michael Seaman, Margaret Seeliger, Carlos Segarra, Anthony Segarra, Jason Sekzer, Matthew Carmen Sellitto, Howard Selwyn, Larry John Senko, Arturo Angelo Sereno, Frankie Serrano, Alena Sesinova, Adele Sessa, Sita Nermalla Sewnarine, Karen Lynn Seymour-Dietrich, Davis (Deeg) Sezna, Thomas Joseph Sgroi, Jayesh Shah, Khalid M. Shahid, Mohammed Shajahan, Gary Shamay, Earl Richard Shanahan, Shiv Shankar, Neil G. Shastri, Kathryn Anne Shatzoff, Barbara A. Shaw, Jeffrey J. Shaw, Robert J. Shay, Daniel James Shea, Joseph Patrick Shea, Linda Sheehan, Hagay Shefi, John Anthony Sherry, Atsushi Shiratori, Thomas Shubert, Mark Shulman, See-Wong Shum, Allan Shwartzstein, Johanna Sigmund, Dianne T. Signer, Gregory Sikorsky, Stephen Gerard Siller, David Silver, Craig A. Silverstein, Nasima H. Simjee, Bruce Edward Simmons, Arthur Simon, Kenneth Alan Simon, Michael John Simon, Paul Joseph Simon, Marianne Simone, Barry Simowitz, Jeff Simpson, Roshan R. (Sean) Singh, Khamladai K. (Khami) Singh, Thomas E. Sinton, Peter A. Siracuse, Muriel F. Siskopoulos, Joseph M. Sisolak, John P. Skala, Francis J. Skidmore, Toyena Corliss Skinner, Paul A. Skrzypek, Christopher Paul Slattery, Vincent R. Slavin, Robert Sliwak, Paul K. Sloan, Stanley S. Smagala, Wendy L. Small, Catherine T. Smith, Daniel Laurence Smith, George Eric Smith, James G. Smith, Joyce Smith, Karl Trumbull Smith, Kevin Smith, Leon Smith, Moira Smith, Rosemary A. Smith, Sandra Fajardo Smith, Jeffrey Randall Smith, Bonnie S. Smithwick, Rochelle Monique Snell, Leonard J. Snyder, Astrid Elizabeth Sohan, Sushil Solanki, Ruben Solares, Naomi Leah Solomon, Daniel W. Song, Michael C. Sorresse, Fabian Soto, Timothy P. Soulas, Gregory T. Spagnoletti, Donald F. Spampinato, Thomas Sparacio, John Anthony Spataro, Robert W. Spear, Maynard S. Spence, George E. Spencer, Robert Andrew Spencer, Mary Rubina Sperando, Frank J. Spinelli, William E. Spitz, Joseph P. Spor, Klaus Johannes Sprockamp, Saranya Srinuan, Michael F. Stabile, Lawrence T. Stack, Capt. Timothy Stackpole, Richard James Stadelberger, Eric A. Stahlman, Gregory M. Stajk, Corina Stan, Alexandru Liviu Stan, Mary D. Stanley, Joyce Stanton, Patricia Stanton, Anthony M. Starita, Jeffrey Stark, Derek James Statkevicus, Craig William Staub, William V. Steckman, Eric Thomas Steen, William R. Steiner, Alexander Robbins Steinman, Andrew Stergiopoulos, Andrew Stern, Martha Jane Stevens, Richard H. Stewart, Michael James Stewart, Sanford M. Stoller, Lonny J. Stone, Jimmy Nevill Storey, Timothy Stout, Thomas S. Strada, James J. Straine, Edward W. Straub, George Strauch, Edward T. Strauss, Steven R. Strauss, Steven F. Strobert, Walwyn W. Stuart, Benjamin Suarez, David S. Suarez, Ramon Suarez, Yoichi Sugiyama, William Christopher Sugra, Daniel Suhr, David Marc Sullins, Lt. Christopher P. Sullivan, Patrick Sullivan, Thomas Sullivan, Hilario Soriano (Larry) Sumaya, James Joseph Suozzo, Colleen Supinski, Robert Sutcliffe, Selina Sutter, Claudia Suzette Sutton, John F. Swaine, Kristine M. Swearson, Brian Edward Sweeney, Kenneth J. Swensen, Thomas F. Swift, Derek O. Sword, Kevin T. Szocik, Gina Sztejnberg, Norbert P. Szurkowski, Harry Taback, Joann Tabeek, Norma C. Taddei, Michael Taddonio, Keiji Takahashi, Keiichiro Takahashi, Phyllis Gail Talbot, Robert R. Talhami, Sean Patrick Tallon, Paul Talty, Maurita Tam, Rachel Tamares, Hector Tamayo, Michael Andrew Tamuccio, Kenichiro Tanaka, Rhondelle Cherie Tankard, Michael Anthony Tanner, Dennis Gerard Taormina, Kenneth Joseph Tarantino, Allan Tarasiewicz, Ronald Tartaro, Darryl Taylor, Donnie Brooks Taylor, Lorisa Ceylon Taylor, Michael M. Taylor, Paul A. Tegtmeier, Yeshavant Moreshwar Tembe, Anthony Tempesta, Dorothy Temple, Stanley L. Temple, David Tengelin, Brian J. Terrenzi, Lisa Marie Terry, Goumatie T. Thackurdeen, Harshad Sham Thatte, Thomas F. Theurkauf, Lesley Anne Thomas, Brian T. Thompson, Clive Thompson, Glenn Thompson, Perry Anthony Thompson, Vanavah Alexi Thompson, Capt. William Harry Thompson, Nigel Bruce Thompson, Eric Raymond Thorpe, Nichola A. Thorpe, Sal Tieri, John Patrick Tierney, Mary Ellen Tiesi, William R. Tieste, Kenneth F. Tietjen, Stephen Edward Tighe, Scott C. Timmes, Michael E. Tinley, Jennifer M. Tino, Robert Frank Tipaldi, John J. Tipping, David Tirado, Hector Luis Tirado, Michelle Titolo, John J. Tobin, Richard J. Todisco, Vladimir Tomasevic, Stephen K. Tompsett, Thomas Tong, Azucena de la Torre, Doris Torres, Luis Eduardo Torres, Amy E. Toyen, Christopher M. Traina, Daniel Patrick Trant, Abdoul Karim Traore, Glenn J. Travers, Walter (Wally) P. Travers, Felicia Traylor-Bass, Lisa L. Trerotola, Karamo Trerra, Michael Trinidad, Francis Joseph Trombino, Gregory J. Trost, William Tselepis, Zhanetta Tsoy, Michael Patrick Tucker, Lance Richard Tumulty, Ching Ping Tung, Simon James Turner, Donald Joseph Tuzio, Robert T. Twomey, Jennifer Tzemis, John G. Ueltzhoeffer, Tyler V. Ugolyn, Michael A. Uliano, Jonathan J. Uman, Anil Shivhari Umarkar, Allen V. Upton, Diane Maria Urban, John Damien Vaccacio, Bradley H. Vadas, William Valcarcel, Mayra Valdes-Rodriguez, Felix Antonio Vale, Ivan Vale, Santos Valentin, Benito Valentin, Manuel Del Valle, Carlton Francis Valvo, Edward Raymond Vanacore, Jon C. Vandevander, Frederick T. Varacchi, Gopalakrishnan Varadhan, David Vargas, Scott C. Vasel, Santos Vasquez, Azael Ismael Vasquez, Arcangel Vazquez, Peter Anthony Vega, Sankara S. Velamuri, Jorge Velazquez, Lawrence Veling, Anthony M. Ventura, David Vera, Loretta A, Vero, Christopher Vialonga, Matthew Gilbert Vianna, Robert A. Vicario, Celeste Torres Victoria, Joanna Vidal, John T. Vigiano, Joseph Vincent Vigiano, Frank J. Vignola, Joseph B. Vilardo, Sergio Villanueva, Chantal Vincelli, Melissa Vincent, Francine A. Virgilio, Lawrence Virgilio, Joseph G. Visciano, Joshua S. Vitale, Maria Percoco Vola, Lynette D. Vosges, Garo H. Voskerijian, Alfred Vukosa, Gregory Wachtler, Gabriela Waisman, Wendy Alice Rosario Wakeford, Courtney Wainsworth Walcott, Victor Wald, Benjamin Walker, Glen J. Wall, Mitchel Scott Wallace, Lt. Robert F. Wallace, Roy Michael Wallace, Peter G. Wallace, Jean Marie Wallendorf, Matthew Blake Wallens, John Wallice, Barbara P. Walsh, James Walsh, Jeffrey Patrick Walz, Ching H. Wang, Weibin Wang, Lt. Michael Warchola, Stephen Gordon Ward, James A. Waring, Brian G. Warner, Derrick Washington, Charles Waters, James Thomas (Muddy) Waters, Capt. Patrick J. Waters, Kenneth Watson, Michael H. Waye, Walter E. Weaver, Todd C. Weaver, Nathaniel Webb, Dinah Webster, Joanne Flora Weil, Michael Weinberg, Steven Weinberg, Scott Jeffrey Weingard, Steven Weinstein, Simon Weiser, David T. Weiss, David M. Weiss, Vincent Michael Wells, Timothy Matthew Welty, Christian Hans Rudolf Wemmers, Ssu-Hui (Vanessa) Wen, Oleh D. Wengerchuk, Peter M. West, Whitfield West, Meredith Lynn Whalen, Eugene Whelan, John S. White, Edward James White, James Patrick White, Kenneth W. White, Leonard Anthony White, Malissa White, Wayne White, Adam S. White, Leanne Marie Whiteside, Mark Whitford, Michael T. Wholey, Mary Lenz Wieman, Jeffrey David Wiener, William J. Wik, Alison Marie Wildman, Lt. Glenn Wilkinson, John C. Willett, Brian Patrick Williams, Crossley Williams, David Williams, Deborah Lynn Williams, Kevin Michael Williams, Louis Calvin Williams, Louie Anthony Williams, Lt. John Williamson, Donna Wilson, William E. Wilson, Cynthia Wilson, David H. Winton, Glenn J. Winuk, Thomas Francis Wise, Alan L. Wisniewski, Frank T. Wisniewski, David Wiswall, Sigrid Charlotte Wiswe, Michael R. Wittenstein, Christopher W. Wodenshek, Martin P. Wohlforth, Katherine S. Wolf, Jenny Seu Kueng Low Wong, Jennifer Y. Wong, Siu Cheung Wong, Yin Ping (Steven) Wong, Yuk Ping Wong, Brent James Woodall, James J. Woods, Patrick Woods, Richard Herron Woodwell, Capt. David Terence Wooley, John Bentley Works, Martin Michael Wortley, Rodney James Wotton, William Wren, John Wright, Neil R. Wright, Sandra Wright, Jupiter Yambem, Suresh Yanamadala, Matthew David Yarnell, Myrna Yaskulka, Shakila Yasmin, Olabisi L. Yee, Edward P. York, Kevin Patrick York, Raymond York, Suzanne Youmans, Jacqueline (Jakki) Young, Barrington L. Young, Elkin Yuen, Joseph Zaccoli, Adel Agayby Zakhary, Arkady Zaltsman, Edwin J. Zambrana, Robert Alan Zampieri, Mark Zangrilli, Ira Zaslow, Kenneth Albert Zelman, Abraham J. Zelmanowitz, Martin Morales Zempoaltecatl, Zhe (Zack) Zeng, Marc Scott Zeplin, Jie Yao Justin Zhao, Ivelin Ziminski, Michael Joseph Zinzi, Charles A. Zion, Julie Lynne Zipper, Salvatore J. Zisa, Prokopios Paul Zois, Joseph J. Zuccala, Andrew Steven Zucker, Igor Zukelman.

American Airlines Flight 11

Crew

Barbara Arestegui, Jeffrey Collman, Sara Low, Karen A. Martin, First Officer Thomas McGuinness, Kathleen Nicosia, John Ogonowski, Betty Ong, Jean Roger, Dianne Snyder, Madeline Sweeney.
Passengers

Anna Williams Allison, David Angell, Lynn Angell, Seima Aoyama, Myra Aronson, Christine Barbuto, Carolyn Beug, Kelly Ann Booms, Carol Bouchard, Neilie Anne Heffernan Casey, Jeffrey Coombs, Tara Creamer, Thelma Cuccinello, Patrick Currivan, Brian Dale, David DiMeglio, Donald Americo DiTullio, Albert Dominguez, Paige Farley-Hackel, Alex Filipov, Carol Flyzik, Paul Friedman, Karleton D.B. Fyfe, Peter Gay, Linda George, Edmund Glazer, Lisa Fenn Gordenstein, Andrew Peter Charles Curry Green, Peter Hashem, Robert Hayes, Edward (Ted) R. Hennessy, John A. Hofer, Cora Hidalgo Holland, Nicholas Humber, Waleed Iskandar, John Charles Jenkins, Charles Edward Jones, Robin Kaplan, Barbara Keating, David P. Kovalcin, Judy Larocque, Natalie Janis Lasden, Daniel John Lee, Daniel C. Lewin, Susan A. MacKay, Christopher D. Mello, Jeff Mladenik, Antonio Jesus Montoya Valdes, Carlos Alberto Montoya, Laura Lee Morabito, Mildred Rose Naiman, Laurie Ann Neira, Renee Newell, Jacqueline J. Norton, Robert Grant Norton, Jane M. Orth, Thomas Pecorelli, Berinthia Berenson Perkins, Sonia Morales Puopolo, David E. Retik, Philip M. Rosenzweig, Richard Ross, Jessica Sachs, Rahma Salie, Heather Lee Smith, Douglas J. Stone, Xavier Suarez, Michael Theodoridis, James Trentini, Mary Trentini, Pendyala Vamsikrishna, Mary Wahlstrom, Kenneth Waldie, John Wenckus, Candace Lee Williams, Christopher Zarba.

American Airlines Flight 77

Crew
Charles Burlingame, David M. Charlebois, Michele Heidenberger, Jennifer Lewis, Kenneth Lewis, Renee A. May.

Passengers
Paul Ambrose, Yeneneh Betru, Mary Jane (MJ) Booth, Bernard Curtis Brown, Suzanne Calley, William Caswell, Sarah Clark, Zandra Cooper, Asia Cottom, James Debeuneure, Rodney Dickens, Eddie Dillard, Charles Droz, Barbara G. Edwards, Charles S. Falkenberg, Zoe Falkenberg, Dana Falkenberg, James Joe Ferguson, Wilson (Bud) Flagg, Darlene Flagg, Richard Gabriel, Ian J. Gray, Stanley Hall, Bryan Jack, Steven D. Jacoby, Ann Judge, Chandler Keller, Yvonne Kennedy, Norma Khan, Karen A. Kincaid, Dong Lee, Dora Menchaca, Christopher Newton, Barbara Olson, Ruben Ornedo, Robert Penniger, Robert R. Ploger, Lisa J. Raines, Todd Reuben, John Sammartino, Diane Simmons, George Simmons, Mari-Rae Sopper, Robert Speisman, Norma Lang Steuerle, Hilda E. Taylor, Leonard Taylor, Sandra Teague, Leslie A. Whittington, John D. Yamnicky, Vicki Yancey, Shuyin Yang, Yuguag Zheng.

United Airlines Flight 175

Crew

Robert Fangman, Michael R. Horrocks, Amy N. Jarret, Amy R. King, Kathryn L. LaBorie, Alfred Gilles Padre Joseph Marchand, Capt. Victor Saracini, Michael C. Tarrou, Alicia Nicole Titus.

Passengers

Alona Avraham, Garnet Edward (Ace) Bailey, Mark Bavis, Graham Andrew Berkeley, Touri Bolourchi, Klaus Bothe, Daniel R. Brandhorst, David Reed Gamboa Brandhorst, John Brett Cahill, Christoffer Carstanjen, John (Jay) J. Corcoran, Dorothy Alma DeAraujo, Ana Gloria Pocasangre de Barrera, Lisa Frost, Ronald Gamboa, Lynn Catherine Goodchild, Peter Morgan Goodrich, Douglas A. Gowell, The Rev. Francis E. Grogan, Carl Max Hammond, Peter Hanson, Sue Kim Hanson, Christine Lee Hanson, Gerald F. Hardacre, Eric Samadikan Hartono, James E. Hayden, Herbert W. Homer, Robert Adrien Jalbert, Ralph Francis Kershaw, Heinrich Kimmig, Brian Kinney, Robert George LeBlanc, Maclovio Lopez, Jr., Marianne MacFarlane, Louis Neil Mariani, Juliana Valentine McCourt, Ruth Magdaline McCourt, Wolfgang Peter Menzel, Shawn M. Nassaney, Marie Pappalardo, Patrick Quigley, Frederick Charles Rimmele, James M. Roux, Jesus Sanchez, Mary Kathleen Shearer, Robert Michael Shearer, Jane Louise Simpkin, Brian D. Sweeney, Timothy Ward, William M. Weems.

United Airlines Flight 93

Crew

Lorraine G. Bay, Sandra W. Bradshaw, Jason Dahl, Wanda Anita Green, Leroy Homer, CeeCee Lyles, Deborah Welsh.

Passengers

Christian Adams, Todd Beamer, Alan Beaven, Mark K. Bingham, Deora Frances Bodley, Marion Britton, Thomas E. Burnett Jr., William Cashman, Georgine Rose Corrigan, Patricia Cushing, Joseph Deluca, Patrick Joseph Driscoll, Edward P. Felt, Jane C. Folger, Colleen Laura Fraser, Andrew Garcia, Jeremy Glick, Lauren Grandcolas, Donald F. Greene, Linda Gronlund, Richard Guadagno, Toshiya Kuge, Hilda Marcin, Nicole Miller, Louis J. Nacke, Donald Arthur Peterson, Jean Hoadley Peterson, Waleska Martinez Rivera, Mark Rothenberg, Christine Snyder, John Talignani, Honor Elizabeth Wainio, Olga Kristin Gould White.

Pentagon

Spc. Craig Amundson, Melissa Rose Barnes, Master Sgt. (Retired) Max Beilke, Kris Romeo Bishundat, Carrie Blagburn, Lt. Col. Canfield D. Boone, Donna Bowen, Allen Boyle, Christopher Lee Burford, Daniel Martin Caballero, Sgt. 1st Class Jose Orlando Calderon-Olmedo, Angelene C. Carter, Sharon Carver, John J. Chada, Rosa Maria (Rosemary) Chapa, Julian Cooper, Lt. Cmdr. Eric Allen Cranford, Ada M. Davis, Capt. Gerald Francis Deconto, Lt. Col. Jerry Don Dickerson, Johnnie Doctor, Capt. Robert Edward Dolan, Cmdr. William Howard Donovan, Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn, Edward Thomas Earhart, Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth, Jamie Lynn Fallon, Amelia V. Fields, Gerald P. Fisher, Matthew Michael Flocco, Sandra N. Foster, Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, Cortz Ghee, Brenda C. Gibson, Ron Golinski, Diane M. Hale-McKinzy, Carolyn B. Halmon, Sheila Hein, Ronald John Hemenway, Maj. Wallace Cole Hogan, Jimmie Ira Holley, Angela Houtz, Brady K. Howell, Peggie Hurt, Lt. Col. Stephen Neil Hyland, Robert J. Hymel, Sgt. Maj. Lacey B. Ivory, Lt. Col. Dennis M. Johnson, Judith Jones, Brenda Kegler, Lt. Michael Scott Lamana, David W. Laychak, Samantha Lightbourn-Allen, Maj. Steve Long, James Lynch, Terence M. Lynch, Nehamon Lyons, Shelley A. Marshall, Teresa Martin, Ada L. Mason, Lt. Col. Dean E. Mattson, Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, Robert J. Maxwell, Molly McKenzie, Patricia E. (Patti) Mickley, Maj. Ronald D. Milam, Gerard (Jerry) P. Moran, Odessa V. Morris, Brian Anthony Moss, Ted Moy, Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Jude Murphy, Khang Nguyen, Michael Allen Noeth, Diana Borrero de Padro, Spc. Chin Sun Pak, Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, Maj. Clifford L. Patterson, Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, Scott Powell, Capt. (Retired) Jack Punches, Joseph John Pycior, Deborah Ramsaur, Rhonda Rasmussen, Marsha Dianah Ratchford, Martha Reszke, Cecelia E. Richard, Edward V. Rowenhorst, Judy Rowlett, Robert E. Russell, William R. Ruth, Charles E. Sabin, Marjorie C. Salamone, Lt. Col. David M. Scales, Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, Janice Scott, Michael L. Selves, Marian Serva, Cmdr. Dan Frederic Shanower, Antoinette Sherman, Don Simmons, Cheryle D. Sincock, Gregg Harold Smallwood, Lt. Col. (Retired) Gary F. Smith, Patricia J. Statz, Edna L. Stephens, Sgt. Maj. Larry Strickland, Maj. Kip P. Taylor, Sandra C. Taylor, Karl W. Teepe, Sgt. Tamara Thurman, Lt. Cmdr. Otis Vincent Tolbert, Willie Q. Troy, Lt. Cmdr. Ronald James Vauk, Lt. Col. Karen Wagner, Meta L. Waller, Staff Sgt. Maudlyn A. White, Sandra L. White, Ernest M. Willcher, Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, Maj. Dwayne Williams, Marvin R. Woods, Kevin Wayne Yokum, Donald McArthur Young, Lisa L. Young, Edmond Young.

Bush: "There was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda"

2006-09-08T22:02:00.001-05:00

In honor of today's Senate Intelligence Report stating that there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, along with Tony Snow's pronouncement that this is "nothing new," I'd like to offer the following from the Washington Post as a reminder of what we were being told.

And from the June 18, 2004 edition of the WaPo:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

I fully expect Tony Snow to step up to the podium next week and announce that "we have always been at war with ~~East Asia~~ Iran."

Setting the Record Straight

2006-09-06T22:41:00.000-05:00

There are a few things in life that really piss me off. Oh alright, there are a lot of things that piss me off, but one of my biggest pet peaves is when people of faith spread false information to make themselves appear persecuted. Such was the case as I read this article from CNN.

Public schools take a lot of criticism, but a growing, loosely organized movement is now moving from harsh words to action -- with parents taking their own children out of public schools and exhorting other families to do the same.

Led mainly by evangelical Christians, the movement depicts public education as hostile to religious faith and claims to be behind a surge in the number of students being schooled at home.

"The courts say no creationism, no prayer in public schools," said Roger Moran, a Winfield, Missouri, businessman and member of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee. "Humanism and evolution can be taught, but everything I believe is disallowed."

emphasis mine

Everything he believes? He's sure about this? Maybe he should find out for sure before he shoots his mouth off accusing people, schools and school teachers in particularly, of being intolerant. But this is the epitome of the conservative base - they are uninformed and willing to believe anything they are told. In fact, this is a subject that I have argued over with my own pastor.

So I feel like it's time to finally set the record straight.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR STUDENTS TO PRAY IN SCHOOL!!!!!

In fact, it would be illegal for schools to prevent them from praying in school. What these people are referring to is the 1962 Supreme Court decision Engel v. Vitale that struck down the practice of State-sponsored prayer in which every school day was begun with the prayer:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

This was usually followed by readings from the Bible along with the singing of "God Bless America" or "The Star Spangled Banner."

What the courts did not do, however, was forbid students from praying in school. This is what is most commonly misunderstood. So in 1995, Dick Riley, Secretary of Education to President Clinton, along with numerous organizations including the ACLU, the American Jewish Committee, the American Muslim Council, and others, composed a document entitled "Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law" which states:

The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools "religion-free zones" or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong. And as to the latter, while there are some difficult issues, much has been settled. It is also unfortunately true that public school officials, due to their busy schedules, may not be as fully aware of this body of law as they could be. As a result, in some school districts some of these rights are not being observed.

The organizations whose names appear below span the ideological, religious and political spectrum. They nevertheless share a commitment both to the freedom of religious practice and to the separation of church and state such freedom requires. In that spirit, we offer this statement of consensus on current law as an aid to parents, educators and students.

[...]

Student Prayers

Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.

Yes, that's right. They have the right to pray in school. And what about creationism? Well, it turns out they can teach that, too.

Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth.

So what we're dealing with here is really nothing more than a Christian Conservative canard to cast themselves as opressed and downtrodden. The way it appears to me is that what the Christian right is really concerned about is that they can't make a large demonstration of their faith. They're allowed to pray, but not in the way that they would like. Silent prayer isn't enough for them. However, if they are truly the Christians they claim to be, they should be familiar with this:

⁵"And 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 reward 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.

From Way Downtown... BANG!

2006-09-05T21:07:00.000-05:00

Keith Olbermann has done it again.

It is to our deep national shame—and ultimately it will be to the President’s deep personal regret—that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies—or even question their effectiveness or execution—to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.

Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 — without ever actually saying so—the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, “a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.”

Make no mistake here—the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the “media.”

The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.

Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:

The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word—“media”—the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al-Qaeda propaganda.

That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.

Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.

We will not drink again.

And the President’s re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.

“In the 1920’s a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews,” President Bush said today, “the world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price.”

Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.

More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek—a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.

It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration’s recent Nazi “kick” is an awful and cynical thing.

And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:

“Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Crooks and Liars has the video.

A New Plan For Iraq

2006-08-31T20:51:00.000-05:00

When George W. Bush ~~spoke~~ erm... ~~gave a speech~~ I mean... babbled today in Salt Lake City, he made the following statement:

We can decide to stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq and other parts of the world, but they will not decide to stop fighting us. General John Abizaid, our top commander in the Middle East region, recently put it this way: "If we leave, they will follow us." And he is right.

So I started thinking, "What if he's right?" And I came to the conclusion that the only way to know is is to put it to the test. So I have come up with a new plan for Iraq. I believe it is one that should be adopted by every Democrat currently in or running for office.

I say we immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan WHERE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TO BEGIN WITH! Then maybe they can finish the job they started, find Osama bin Laden, fight al Qaeda, keep the Taliban from regaining control of the country, test Bush's notion about them following us, AND we'd finally get the hell out of Iraq, all at the same time. And if it turns out that Bush is right and they do follow us, well hell, then it's a win-win situation, isn't it? We'll be out of Iraq and fighting the war against the enemy we should have been fighting all along.

Seems simple enough to me.

What He Said

2006-08-30T22:35:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, you just have to read it for yourself. Tonight, Keith Olbermann hit it out of the park. Watch it here or read it here. This should be required reading for every American. Absolutely brilliant.

An Open Letter To Donald Rumsfeld

2006-08-29T21:26:00.000-05:00

Mr. Rumsfeld,

In your speech to the American Legion's national convention in Salt Lake City, you stated that I, along with approximately two-thirds of the country if you can believe the polls, am suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security. Mr. Rumsfeld, I beg to differ.

As you and many others in this current administration have done, I am going to invoke the memory of September 11, 2001. More importantly, I am going to recall the day of September 14, 2001, when your boss climbed atop the rubble and, while standing on the charred remains of some 2,700 innocent Americans, proclaimed “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

Because on that day, Mr. Rumsfeld, your boss made a promise. A promise to the victims, the survivors and their families, and the rest of America that we would do the right thing. We would not let an attack on our country go unanswered. Not only was America united at that time, but the rest of the world was on our side. And we, the American people, had to have faith that you and the rest of the administration would do the right thing. I know of nobody that was opposed to the action we took in Afghanistan in our efforts to bring the responsible parties to justice.

But then you got off track. You and the rest of this administration took your eye off the ball. You let the man responsible get away. And your boss broke his promise. Not only did he go back on his word, but he used the nation’s faith and goodwill to invade a country that we knew was not involved. We’ve now ravaged a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us. As of this writing, we’ve lost almost as many lives in Iraq as we did at the World Trade Center that day. And all the while, we’ve allowed “the people who knocked these buildings down” to remain free and unpunished.

As for those other attacks that you referred to in your speech today - the ones in Bali, London and Madrid - well, you haven’t been able to stop them either. Maybe if we had completed the mission we originally set out to attain, those attacks wouldn’t have happened. Maybe if we had kept our eye on the ball, those victims would still be alive. But you allowed us to get distracted. One might say that you were confused as to who the enemy was.

Critics of Mr. Bush, and Democrats in particular, are not confused, Mr. Rumsfeld. In fact we are quite clear in our position. We are in support of protecting our country and bringing to justice those responsible for the attacks of that fateful day almost five years ago. We’re not asking for much, just that your boss keep his word.

In truth, I believe that it is you who are confused, Mr. Rumsfeld. You seem to be under the impression that Americans are too stupid to recognize a mistake when they see one. Now we might fall for a lot of things, but after five years of failure and three years of death and destruction, I believe that the majority of us are starting to finally see the light. You have failed Mr. Rumsfeld. You and your boss have not delivered on your word to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice. And no matter how much you impugn our intelligence by calling us immoral or confused, you can not change that fact.

You see, I know what threatens our country, Mr. Rumsfeld. It is you and the rest of this administration that insists we “stay the course” in Iraq while we allow our own country to go unprotected and the perpetrators of that horrific event to walk free. If you had any sense of decency, you would be ashamed by your words and actions. However, I’m sure you’re not.

Another Con of the No Child Left Behind Act

2006-08-23T21:02:00.000-05:00

A little over a month ago, I wrote a post entitled "So Dark the Con of NCLB." It detailed one of the many deceptions propagated by one of the Bush administration's signature programs - the misconception that private schools do a better job of educating our children than do public schools. In the diary I stated that "[t]he deceptions of the GOP are many." Well, now we can add another deception to that list.

From the AP:

Fourth-graders in traditional public schools are doing better in both reading and math than students in charter schools, the government says in a report fueling fresh debate over school choice.

Tuesday's report said fourth-graders in regular public schools scored an average of 5.2 points better in reading than students in charter schools on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress test. Students in traditional schools scored an average of 5.8 points better in math.

Charter school opponents said the findings show that the schools are a failing experiment that drains resources from traditional public schools. Charter school supporters called the report flawed and outdated and said charters improve public education by creating competition.

The Bush administration supports charter schools.

Not only does the Bush administration support charter schools, they proudly made them a part of NCLB.

Expanded Choices for Parents: Enhances options for parents with children in chronically failing schools - and makes these options available immediately in the 2002-03 school year for students in thousands of schools already identified as failing under current law.
Public/Charter School Choice: Once a school is identified as failing, parents will be allowed to transfer their child to a better-performing public or charter school.
Supplemental Services: For the first time, federal Title I funds (approximately $500 to $1,000 per child) can be used to provide supplemental educational services - including tutoring, after school services, and summer school programs - for children in failing schools. Services can be provided by faith- and community-based organizations.
Charter Schools: Expands the charter school initiative, creating more opportunities for parents, educators and interested community leaders to create schools outside the education establishment.

So as with private schools, the Bush administration is wanting to offer us, as parents, the choice of leaving our public schools and going to a charter school, when the average charter school is performing worse than a comparable public school. Now help me out here, people. I'm having a little trouble with the logic on this one. Maybe this is some of that fuzzy math George W. warned us about all those years ago.

But to be fair, it's not all charter schools that are performing poorly. Let's look at the actual report (PDF). According to the executive summary:

Reading

In the first phase of the combined analysis, all charter schools were compared to all public noncharter schools. The average charter school mean was 5.2 points lower than the average public noncharter school mean. After adjusting for multiple student characteristics, the difference in means was 4.2 points. Both differences were statistically significant. The adjusted difference corresponds to an effect size of 0.11 standard deviations. (Typically, about two-thirds of scale scores fall within one standard deviation of the mean.)

In the second phase, charter schools were classified into two categories based on whether or not they were affiliated with a public school district (PSD). Each category was compared separately with public noncharter schools. On average, the mean scores for charter schools affiliated with a PSD were not significantly different from those of public noncharter schools. However, on average, the means of charter schools not affiliated with a PSD were significantly lower than the means for public noncharter schools, both with and without adjustment. The effect size of the adjusted difference was 0.17 standard deviations.

[...]

Mathematics

In the first phase of the combined analysis for mathematics, all charter schools were compared to all public noncharter schools. The average charter school mean was 5.8 points lower than the average public noncharter school mean. After adjusting for student characteristics, the difference in means was 4.7 points. Both differences were statistically significant. The adjusted difference corresponds to an effect size of 0.17 standard deviations.

In the second phase, charter schools were classified into two categories based on whether or not they were affiliated with a PSD. Each category was compared separately with public noncharter schools. On average, the mean scores for charter schools affiliated with a PSD were not significantly different from those for public noncharter schools. However, on average, the means of charter schools not affiliated with a PSD were significantly lower than the means for public noncharter schools, both with and without adjustment. The effect size of the adjusted difference was 0.23 standard deviations.

So yet again, the public schools win out.

But if we can draw one thing from the two studies concerning public schools and their performance relative to private and charter schools, it's this - certified teachers make a difference. One of the restrictions eased for charter schools is the requirement for teachers to be certified. Like many private schools, charter schools are not required to hire certified educators unless they're associated with a PSD.

So for all of the crap and blame that public schools and their teachers take in the media and from our government, it would appear that they're doing as well as any other school out there. Does this mean that there aren't poor schools? Absolutely not. But it does mean that your chances of getting a quality education from a public school are just as good as they would be any place else regardless of what our government would like you to believe.

When Propaganda Meets Reality

2006-08-22T21:20:00.000-05:00

As CNN informed us today, the marines are recalling 2500 troops from inactive duty. According to the article:

The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.

This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war.

But, compare this information to what "officials" told us just a couple of weeks ago. From Reuters:

The U.S. Army, which fell short in recruiting last year, made its 14th straight monthly goal in July and is expected to hit its 2006 target despite the Iraq war making recruiting harder, officials said on Thursday.

Jeff Spara, in charge of Army recruiting policy, denied the Army has been making its recruiting goals by taking lower-quality volunteers who previously might have been rejected, as some experts contend.

"It looks very good right now," Spara said of the active-duty Army reaching its goal of 80,000 new soldiers in fiscal 2006, which ends September 30. It fell about 7,000 recruits short of the same numerical goal in fiscal 2005.

Now I don't know about you, but I find it strange that the military is meeting its recruiting goals yet still finds it necessary to recall troops that are on inactive duty. Those two facts just don't mesh in my book. Clearly, something is not right.

Fortunately, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on. Obviously, the military has set a goal that is too low to accomplish its objectives. It's a little known trick that organizations sometimes use to obtain a positive result - Set the goal low so it's easier to reach. It looks better in the public eye.

When I was a kid, I participated in a summer track & field camp sponsored by the YMCA. It was a week-long event in which we participated in a variety of track & field events ranging from the shot put to the hurdles. At the end of the week, we all took part in five events, only we didn't compete against each other, we merely set goals for ourselves to acheive. If we met all of our goals, we'd be given a medal. I remember one boy, in particular, that set all of his goals ridiculously low. Needless to say, he acheived them easily and got his medal. To the casual observer, he'd made great progress. But in reality, he just wanted to look good to his peers. It's sad to think that this has become the M.O. for our government in a time of war. Like that young boy, our government is more concerned about the PR campaign that they are waging in the media than they are with the war that they are waging overseas. It's shameful. Their propaganda is short shrifting our young men and women overseas. It's a disgrace to our soldiers that our government would rather look good than be honest.

Is He Wired Again?

2006-08-21T21:14:00.000-05:00

As Bob Johnson points out, Bush was off the reservation during his press conference today when he blurted out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However, as I watched the video over at Crooks and Liars, I was struck by something a little less noticeable.

Towards the end of the video clip, Bush says:

Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

But what's interesting is that during the "--" part of the transcript, he looks down to his right and mumbles something under his breath. After listening to it several times with headphones, I've determined that he says:

"you know... that... government..."

And then he goes back to his shouting saying something about government.

So I want to know what do you all think? Go watch the video and tell me - Is he wired? Is he reading? Is he collecting his thought(s)? What's up?

Operation Preaching To The Choir

2006-08-17T22:27:00.000-05:00

Tonight's post can be found over at Alicia's new blog, Operation Preaching To The Choir. It is "a place to talk about reaching out to those liberals and moderates who are, for whatever reasons, staying out of the political process and inviting them to be a part of taking back our country." Because "[w]ithout them, we may not be able to do it."

A Worthy Cause

2006-08-16T23:11:00.000-05:00

My friend Alicia at Last Left Before Hooterville has started a Habitat for Humanity donation site to help rebuild houses in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It's a great cause and you could win an autographed book from Greg Palast. Go read about it here.

Is It Just Me...

2006-08-14T22:11:00.000-05:00

or does this sound a little too familiar?

The next plan would have involved at least five Al-Qaeda operatives, including Yousef, Khan, Shah and two more unknown operatives. Starting on January 21, 1995 and ending on January 22, 1995, they would set the bombs on 11 United States-bound airliners that had stopovers all around East Asia and Southeast Asia. All of the flights had two legs. The bombs would be planted inside life jackets under seats on the first leg, when each bomber would disembark. He would then board one or two more flights and repeat. After all of the bombers planted bombs on all of the flights, each man would then catch flights to Lahore, Pakistan. The men never needed U.S. visas, as they only would have stayed on the planes on their first legs in Asia.

United States airlines had been chosen instead of Asian airlines to maximize the shock toward Americans. The flights targeted were listed under operatives with codenames: "Zyed", "Majbos", "Markoa", "Mirqas" and "Obaid". Obaid, who was really Abdul Hakim Murad, was to hit United flight 80, and then he was to go back to Singapore under another United flight which he would bomb.

Zyed, probably Ramzi Yousef, was to hit Northwest Flight 30, a United Flight going from Taipei to Honolulu, and a United Flight going from Bangkok to Taipei to San Francisco.

The bombs would have been timed before the operatives stepped off the planes. The aircraft would have blown up over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea almost simultaneously. If this plan worked, several thousand would have perished, and air travel would have been shut down worldwide for days, if not weeks. The U.S. government estimated the prospective death toll to be about 4,000 if the plot had been executed.

(Cue theme from The Twilight Zone)

Just My 2¢

2006-08-11T21:51:00.000-05:00

By this point, most everyone has chimed in with their thoughts on last Tuesday's primaries. But tonight, after taking several days to think it through, I'd like to weigh in with my own 2¢. Here goes:

For too many years the Democratic party has been campaigning under the guise of Conservative Lite. We were the Mello Yello to their Mountain Dew - the RC Cola to their Coke. We looked the same, acted the same, and tried to sound the same in an attempt to fool the voter into thinking we were no different than the conservative candidate who was getting all the positive press from the traditional media. And just like the Mello Yellos and the RCs of the world, we were running a rather distant second to the real thing. Why buy the knock-off when you can get the original with no extra effort?

But with Ned Lamont's victory, it appears as though the Democratic party may have exactly what it's longed for - the REAL THING. Not some cheap conservative knock-off hoping to pass as an acceptable substitute, but a living, breathing Democrat who is willing to speak his mind and stand up for the Democratic party. One of the things that I love/hate about the Democrats is the diversity of views within the party. I love the fact that we can all be from the same party and yet not be forced to fall into lock-step with the party elite's opinions. At the same time, I hate that all of that diversity often leads to an erratic, unfocused message making us look like a party in complete disarray. It's frustrating, to say the least.

But I think that we, as a party, may have finally reached a point where we are beginning to coalesce into an organized, issue driven, focused party. Taking into account the Lieberman and McKinney defeats, it looks to me as though the Democratic party is coming together right where they should be - in the center of the left. We are ridding ourselves of the extremes. No more conservative rubber stamps for the Bush administration and no more whackos for the conservatives to parade about as red meat for their base. Is Lamont to the left of Lieberman? He sure as hell is, but who among the Democrats isn't outside of Zell Miller? Is Hank Johnson to the right of Cynthia McKinney? Boy howdy, but that's not hard when McKinney is floating her 9/11 conspiracy theories.

No, although the Republicans would have you believe that the Lamont victory is the death nell for the Democratic party, I believe that this actually makes us stronger. We are finally moving to a comfortable place on the left of the conservatives. Right where we belong.

Damn!

2006-08-10T23:26:00.000-05:00

I was this close [I'm holding my thumb and index finger about a quarter of an inch apart right now] to writing an amazing post on the alleged terror plot foiled by the British, but then I read this post by Hunter over at DailyKos and I realized that he said it far better than I could have. So go read Hunter's post. It's on the money.

Ahhhhhh!

2006-08-07T20:04:00.000-05:00

Tonight we're going to take a little departure from the usual political fare and talk about something else because things like this really piss me off.

Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found.

Whether it's hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found.

Songs depicting men as "sex-driven studs," women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.

Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.

Now if you're old enough to remember, this type of shit has been going on for years. It happened in the fifties with Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis. It happened in the sixties with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. I, for one, can vividly remember the PMRC in the 1980s. (I've never been able to forgive Tipper Gore.) And who could forget the trial involving Judas Priest and subliminal messages. And now today we have this.

To suggest that the content of the music is the influence that pushes these kids over the edge and into sexual activity is absolutely ludicrous. Don't believe me? Try this one on for size - What if the most popular song of the day was about lawn care? Would we have an over-abundance of America's youth begging Mom and Dad for a riding lawn mower? NO! Of course not. Music doesn't influence the kids, the kids choose the music. There is just as much music available today that praises Jesus Christ as there is anything else. So why aren't kids choosing that overwhelmingly? Because sex is more interesting.

Elvis didn't cause kids to have sex - kids liked him because he was sexy and they were interested. Judas Priest didn't influence two young teens to kill themselves - they were drunk, high, and depressed and liked dark music like that of Judas Priest. And music about sex doesn't make kids want to get laid any more than they already do. Kids choose to listen to music with sexual references because they are interested in sex.

If the Rand corp. really wants to find something to blame early sexual behavior on, try starting with the parents. If kids are making the choice to have early sexual encounters, it's most likely because of a lack of parental involvement and discussion about sexual behavior. Need proof? Look at the shit their parents are letting them listen to on their iPods.

I'm not in favor of any governmental censorship. Everyone has a right to express themselves in the way they see fit. (That doesn't mean that there won't be any repercussion for that expression, but that's another story.) However, it is the job of the parent to make sure that their son or daughter understands what is and what is not acceptable. We can't shelter our kids from everything, but we can do our best to make sure that they understand what they see and hear and have the ability to place it in its proper context. And it's alright for a parent to tell their kids "no" once in a while. They won't hate you forever. But to gloss over a topic as potentially dangerous as sex and not discuss it with your own child is negligent. How else are they going to learn? Do you really want Snoop Dogg teaching your kid about the birds and the bees? I sure as hell don't.

Sidenote - Speaking of kids, it's the youngest kissfan's birthday this week, so I'll be away from the computer for the next couple of days. Everyone have a good few days and I'll see you back here later this week.

Gee, Ya' Think?

2006-08-03T22:28:00.000-05:00

Unbelievable

The commander of American forces in the Middle East bluntly warned a Senate committee on Thursday that sectarian violence in Iraq, especially in the capital, Baghdad, had grown so severe that the nation could slide toward civil war.

Could? COULD? How about has? ALREADY! HAS! SLID! TOWARD! CIVIL! WAR!

Un-fucking-believable.

They Just Don't Get It

2006-08-01T21:58:00.000-05:00

Here in Bumblefuck, IL, I get exposed to all kinds of Republican craziness. As an example, my local paper, which prints six days a week with a double issue on Sundays, runs conservative op-ed pieces at a rate of five to two. On Sundays they throw us liberals a bone and print Gene Lyons and Nat Hentoff but the rest of the week it's all conservative, all the time. We get William Rusher, Morton Kondrake, Bill O'Reilly, Diane West... you get the picture.

So it was with this in mind that I opened the paper Monday evening to find a column by Donald Lambro entitled Pro-Iraq Democrats face uncivil war. I could barely contain myself.

The latest evidence of the Democrats' uncivil war was in full view this week when former President Clinton, still the most popular figure in the Democratic Party, told its antiwar forces to cease their attempts to purge Democrats who support the war.

Clinton went to Waterbury, Conn., Monday to campaign for embattled Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is trailing anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary. Clinton campaigns for lots of Democrats, only in this case he was speaking up for a Democrat who is despised by his party's pacifist, anti-war forces because of his support for President Bush's war.

[...]

Leon Panetta, Clinton's White House chief of staff, also took Democrats to task for going after Lieberman.

[...]

"I'm a believer in Edmund Burke's philosophy that people elect you to exercise your conscience independently. They don't elect you to reflect whatever the popular will of the moment is," Panetta said.

"Democrats ought to stand back and ask themselves the most important question: Does Joe Lieberman vote his conscience or is he controlled by one interest group or another? I think the answer is clear. He votes his conscience, and I don't think he ought to be penalized (by Democrats) for that," he said.

It has nothing to do with Lieberman voting his conscience. This is what the pundits and the Democratic leadership doesn't understand. We expect them to vote their conscience, but Democrats like Lieberman are being targeted not for voting their conscience, but for continuing to defy the will of the people who elected them in the first place. For Lieberman to continue backing a policy that his constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to ("Voters disapprove 70 - 25 percent of the way the President is handling the Iraq war and say 63 - 31 percent that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do.") is the equivalent of giving a great big middle finger to the entire state of Connecticut. He is essentially saying "Fuck you. I know better than you." And by doing so, he is no longer serving his constituents, but he is serving his own interest.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that old saying about government being "of the people, by the people, for the people" means that when we elect a person to serve, he or she should reflect our attitudes and opinions. Right? This is why Democrats like Joe Lieberman are being targeted. It's not for voting their conscience, it's for their unwillingness to represent the views and opinions of the people who elected them.

Look! Over There!

2006-07-29T00:47:00.000-05:00

Tonight's post can be found here.

Have a great weekend!

George W. Bush: Political Poison

2006-07-26T21:43:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush has become political poison for his fellow Republicans. Here in Illinois, we have a scandal-plagued Democratic governor, Rod Blagojevich (see here and here), who succeeded a convicted, scandal-plagued Republican governor, George Ryan. One would think that we as Illinoisans would be tired of it and throw the bum out. But you'd be wrong. According to the latest polls from SurveyUSA and Rasmussen, Blago leads his Republican challenger, Judy Baar Topinka, by a margin of 45% to 34%.
From Rasmussen:

After trailing earlier in the campaign season, Illinois Governor Rod
Blagojevich (D) now leads Republican State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka by 11-points in his bid for re-election. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows Blagojevich with 45% of the vote to 34% for Topinka.

The Blagojevich campaign has run an advertising campaign raising the question "What is She Thinking?" about Topinka and touching on issues ranging from the state budget to Iraq. The Blagojevich campaign has also raised complaints about lease payments by Topinka to a developer who is also a contributor. A better job performance in the state may also have something to do with the turnabout.

The governor, too, has had to contend with charges of impropriety, but that's old news and he has more money to spend on campaign ads. Many Republicans in the state concede that he has managed to put Topinka on the defensive lately.

And how has Blago put her on the defensive? By linking her to George W. Bush and the Bush administration's policies. With television ads (like this one) asking "What's she thinking," the Blogojevich campaign has made this election more about the Republican party's platform than about Topinka herself. And guess what folks, Illinois is not impressed.

Now of course, this is a blue state that Kerry won by eleven points in 2004. However, if you check out the county-by-county electoral map, you'll see that Bush took the majority of the state, including almost all of down-state Illinois. But according to SurveyUSA, Topinka only leads by a scant 4 points in that same downstate region.

As I've said many times before, Bush is an albatross and we must hang him around the neck of every Republican currently running for office. If corrupt Blago can do it, so can every other Democrat in the country.

Vacation

2006-07-25T23:07:00.000-05:00

Just got back from a mini-vacation with the rest of the kissfans. I've been out of touch for a few days, so I'll be getting back into the swing of things tomorrow. See you then!

So Dark the Con of NCLB

2006-07-20T20:11:00.000-05:00

The deceptions of the GOP are many. Too many to count, indeed. All anyone can do is try to keep their head above water while making a cursory notation that another deception has been added to the pool. On Wednesday, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings added yet another when she announced a $100 million school voucher program.

The press release reads in part:

Year after year, some schools fail to live up to the important standards that ensure our students get the education they deserve. President Bush and I believe that families in communities where schools fall short deserve choices when it comes to their children's education.

Today, we are one step closer to ensuring that parents can make choices that strengthen their children's future and give them a great start in life, regardless of their resources or the communities they live in. The President's America's Opportunity Scholarships program will help low-income students in under-performing schools transfer to the private school of their choice or sign up for intensive tutoring after school or during the summer.

The insinuation, of course, is that private schools are superior to public schools and will therefore help our children to succeed. This has been considered common wisdom for a number of years based upon a study done in the early 1980s. Unfortunately for the GOP and supporters of the voucher program, it's not true.

In last Saturday's edition of the NewYork Times, it was reported that a study by Spellings' own Department of Education showed that public schools perform as well as or nearly as well as private schools in the key areas of reading and math.

The Education Department reported on Friday that children in public schools generally performed as well or better in reading and mathematics than comparable children in private schools. The exception was in eighth-grade reading, where the private school counterparts fared better.

The report, which compared fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores in 2003 from nearly 7,000 public schools and more than 530 private schools, found that fourth graders attending public school did significantly better in math than comparable fourth graders in private schools. Additionally, it found that students in conservative Christian schools lagged significantly behind their counterparts in public schools on eighth-grade math.

The study, carrying the imprimatur of the National Center for Education Statistics, part of the Education Department, was contracted to the Educational Testing Service and delivered to the department last year.

Quoting from the report's executive summary (PDF):

Results From Grade 4

Reading

In the first set of analyses, all private schools were compared to all public schools. The average private school mean reading score was 14.7 points higher than the average public school mean reading score, corresponding to an effect size of .41 (the ratio of the absolute value of the estimated difference to the standard deviation of the NAEP fourth-grade reading score distribution). After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was near zero and not significant.

[...]

Mathematics

In the first set of analyses, all private schools were again compared to all public schools. The average private school mean mathematics score was 7.8 points higher than the average public school mean mathematics score, corresponding to an effect size of .29. After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was -4.5 and significantly different from zero. (Note that a negative difference implies that the average school mean was higher for public schools.)

[...]

Results From Grade 8

Reading

In the first set of analyses, all private schools were compared to all public schools. The average private school mean reading score was 18.1 points higher than the average public school mean reading score, corresponding to an effect size of .58. After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was 7.3 points and significantly different from zero.

[...]

Mathematics

In the first set of analyses, all private schools were again compared to all public schools. The average private school mean mathematics score was 12.3 points higher than the average public school mean mathematics score, corresponding to an effect size of .38. After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was nearly zero and not significant.

Spellings and others dismissed the significance of this report noting that the report itself listed several caveats and warned that the findings were of "modest utility" (due in part to a small sample size and the researchers inability to control for certain socioeconomic variables)

Unfortunately for Spellings, though, this is not the only study comparing public and private schools. In 2005, Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Theule Lubienski, associate professors from the University of Illinois, published a study in the educational journal Phi Delta Kappan titled A New Look at Public and Private Schools: Student Background and Mathematics Achievement (sorry, no link - if you're interested in reading the article it can be found in Phi Delta Kappan v86 n9 May 2005, p696). The study compared the achievement of mathematics students in grades four and eight while controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). To do this, Lubienski and Lubienski considered a number of SES variables including poverty level, computer access at home, internet access at home, extent to which students' studies are discussed at home, and parents' education level. What they found is that when compared across the board, public school students actually fared better than their private school counterparts when compared within their own SES quartile.

As the figures show, within each SES quartile, the public school mean is actually higher than that of the corresponding private school mean at both grades 4 and 8. Specifically, public school fourth-grade means were 6 to 7 points higher than private school means within each SES quartile, and eighth-grade differences favoring public schools ranged from 1 to 9 points.

So why the misconception that private schools perform better than our public schools? Well, as you can see from the two graphs above, students from the High SES quartile tend to score higher than the others. Private schools are far more likely to consist of students from that High SES category than public schools. In fact, this particular study found that less than 40% of public schools were of high SES while over 80% of private schools were of high SES.

So what does this mean for NCLB? Well, considering that school vouchers - or school choice, as the Republicans like to call it - are a major part of the NCLB act, this renders a large portion of the act moot. What would be the advantage of sending our children to a private school if the research shows that such a change will not increase their level of achievement? Seeing as how such a change will be unable to effect a student's socioeconomic status, there appears to be no evidence that it will produce the promised result. In other words, the promise of NCLB is based upon a myth.

Such is the con of NCLB.

Redux

2006-07-19T21:47:00.000-05:00

In light of today's events, I'd like to repost something I wrote nearly two years ago. Ironically, it still seems relevant.

The debate over stem cell research is heating up as the November election nears. President Bush is standing by his earlier position of $25 million for research and the order that no new stem cell lines can be created. Meanwhile John Kerry has promised to lift the current ban and give scientists more freedom and his running mate, John Edwards, has said that the administration would give $100 million for research and establish ethical guidelines for scientists to follow. To combat the Kerry plan, the President has resorted to using his secret weapon: Laura Bush.

First lady Laura Bush defended her husband's policy on embryonic stem cell research Monday, calling Democratic rival John Kerry's criticism "ridiculous" and accusing proponents of overstating the potential for medical breakthroughs.

"We don't even know that stem cell research will provide cures for anything — much less that it's very close" to yielding major advances, Mrs. Bush said.

First of all, let's talk about this statement. If we had applied this logic - let's not do it because we're not sure it will work - to other things in our nation's history, what would the outcome have been? Would we have a vaccine for polio? Would we have landed a man on the moon? Would Hitler have been defeated? The list could go on and on. Somtimes we have to take a risk if we hope to gain anything.

But let's get to the heart of the Bush administration's opposition to stem cell research. Quoting from the AP article:

Religious groups oppose the scientific work in which culling of stem cells kills the embryos, equating that with abortion, and had urged Bush not to be the first president to fund the research — even with limits.

Religious groups, also known as Bush's base, are the driving force behind his decision. If President Bush were to support this research, he risks angering his largest group of supporters. However, the views of these religious groups is inaccurate as was pointed out by Ron Reagan in his speech at the Democratic Convention.

... no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.

Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should be ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.

But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?

It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings-that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person-a parent, a spouse, a child.

Many people have spoken out on both sides of this issue. Bush and his religious base have called this "junk science," while others have called this a the future of medical research. While the Republicans focus on the fact that it probably won't cure Alzheimer's (which is the popular misconception because of the stance taken by Ron Reagan and its association with the recent death of his father), they neglect to consider that it could cure diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and a number of other devistating illnesses.

In my opinion this is a risk that we can't afford not to take. By pandering to his religious base, President Bush is playing politics with the lives of millions. We've already watched him do this in Iraq with our young men and women and now he's doing it here at home. The President likes to claim that he is decisive and doesn't follow the polls, but what he really means is that he's not going to follow the general polls. He only follows those polls that reflect the opinions of his base no matter what risk it may pose to others.

The more things change...

Aha!

2006-07-18T22:10:00.000-05:00

I spent the whole day painting the bedroom, but I did happen to catch this little tidbit of information.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an internal probe of the warrantless eavesdropping program that monitors Americans' international calls and e-mails when terrorism is suspected.

The department's Office of Professional Responsibility announced earlier this year it could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency intercepts some telephone calls and e-mail without court approval.

At the time, the office said it could not obtain security clearance to examine the classified program.

Well, isn't that interesting? I seem to remember someone else who tried to block an investigation into possibly illegal activities. I wonder how that worked out?

Hypocritter

2006-07-17T21:27:00.000-05:00

As you've no doubt heard by now, George W. Bush said a bad word today.

It wasn't meant to be overheard. Private luncheon conversations among world leaders, picked up by a microphone, provided a rare window into both banter and substance — including President Bush cursing Hezbollah's attacks against
Israel.

Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive) and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Now you may recall that this has happened before.

The Republican presidential candidate George W Bush has said he regrets the fact that people heard him make an insulting comment about a journalist, but he refused to apologise.

Just before a campaign speech in Illinois, Mr Bush said to his running mate Dick Cheney: "There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times."

Mr Bush later said he did not realise that live microphones were going to pick up the remark, but he stopped short of an actual apology.

Honestly, I don't care that he said "shit," or "asshole." Hell, he could have said "fuck" and it wouldn't make any difference to me. God knows I've said much worse. But the media sure had a field day with this latest gaffe. They were like a bunch of little kids who just heard the teacher slip up - "tee hee, he said shit!"

But as usual, the media has completely missed the boat. Instead of spending their day wetting themselves over the fact that Georgieboy said a naughty word, they could have spent it pointing out what a hypocritical bastard he is. For years we've been hearing about how the Republican party is the party of higher morals. (Yeah, I know, it's bullshit but that doesn't stop them from saying it.) They are supposedly the party of good Christian values. In fact, Bush has even claimed that he appeals to "a higher Father." So I wonder what that higher father has to say about words like "shit" and "asshole." From Ephesians 4:29:

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

And from James 3:9-12:

⁹With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. ¹⁰Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. ¹¹Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? ¹²My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

So as I see it, there's no doubt about it. He's going to burn in hell. I'm sure the media will be all over this tomorrow.

That Smell

2006-07-14T23:03:00.000-05:00

(Sniff... sniff) You know how sometimes you can just tell that it's going to rain by the smell of the air? I wonder if the Republicans can smell the storm that's brewing for them?

Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November.

With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.

The election ultimately will be decided in 435 House districts and 33 Senate contests, in which incumbents typically hold the upper hand. But the survey underscored the difficulty Republicans face in trying to persuade a skeptical public to return them to Washington.

Mmmm... just like fresh cut Democracy. I love that smell.

Hey, if you're looking for something fun, try being a George W Bush Speechwriter. It's hours of fun!

(Hopefully, posting will return to a more regular schedule now that my summer classes are over. I handed in my last final project today. Whew! Only six more classes to go!)

Phew! I'm Back

2006-07-11T20:06:00.000-05:00

As we all know, the Republican congess once again voted against raising the federal minimum wage. One of their stock arguments has always been that a raise in the minimum wage will lead to higher consumer prices. To hear them tell the story (and they do ad nauseum) the increase in prices would be so high that it would wipe out any gains made by the wage earner. But like all other Republican noise, this simply is not true.

A recent Op-Ed piece in the Chicago Sun-Times sheds some light on the true effect of a raise in wages.

The "retail living-wage ordinance" currently being considered by the [Chicago] City Council would make large retailers (with stores of at least 90,000 square feet) pay a starting wage of $10 an hour, plus $3 of health benefits. Though the proposal would apply to numerous large retailers in the city, including Target and Costco, it quickly got the attention of Wal-Mart. To put it mildly, the world's largest employer, with plans to open numerous stores in the city, wasn't happy and immediately threatened to suspend the store openings.

[...]

The $13 an hour total compensation cost mandated by the Chicago ordinance is roughly a 20 percent raise over what Wal-Mart claims to pay its employees. A raise of this size could be financed through a combination of Wal-Mart allowing its profit margin (after-tax profits divided by sales) to fall from its current 3.6 percent to 2.9 percent and by raising its prices 0.7 percent -- less than a penny on a $1 pair of socks.

0.7 percent? That's the massive price hikes the Republicans are warning us about? To put things in perspective, the price of $100.00 of groceries bought at one of Wal-Mart's "Supecenters" would cost a whopping $100.70 after the 0.7 percent price increase. That's right - 70¢.

To be honest, the proposed raise in the federal minimum wage would have been an incremental raise of 40% over the next two years - double what the above quoted scenario investigated. However, the numbers clearly show how small of an impact a raise in the minimum wage would actually have on consumer prices.

Still In the Weeds!

2006-07-05T22:50:00.000-05:00

I'll be back. Just as soon as I finish up a couple projects.

Ha Ha!

2006-06-28T22:31:00.000-05:00

This is too damn funny!

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa is hoping to stamp out the sex trade by taxing pimps and prostitutes, then jailing them when they don't pay.

A pimp tax? Are you shitting me? Now I could be wrong, but I've got to believe that pimps aren't exactly filling out their 540EZs as accurately as they should be. And prostitutes? I'd love to see what these people would be writing down for their personal information.

Goldtooth Tony: Alright le'see... Name... Anthony Turillo... Occupation... Pimp...

OR

Bubbles: Name... Tina Jones... Occupation... Whore...

I'm sorry, but I just don't see this happening. What's next? Are they going to start taxing Jimmy for selling dimebags on the corner? Or Trevor for selling meth? Do they think these guys keep records that they can audit? Are they going to go through their receipts? "Now it says here that you sold fifty-two dimebags to a Mr. Smith, but you're only reporting income for forty-eight."

This is just too funny. They want to get rid of the estate tax, and instead they want to start taxing pimps and hos. That's Republican ingenuity at its finest, right there folks.

Swamped!

2006-06-27T23:18:00.000-05:00

Sorry guys. I am in the weeds with school work. I spent all day looking for a funding source for a grant proposal. I don't even know what happened in the world. I feel so out of touch. As soon as I can I'll get back to posting. Hopefully, it will be this week.

Take care and I'll see you soon (I hope).

Podcast

2006-06-22T22:45:00.000-05:00

Click to listen. (Safe for work.)

Fighting Words

2006-06-19T21:09:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean has just what the Doctor ordered for the Democrats - Balls.

Watch the video or read it all here.

DEAN: Republicans are great at sending other peoples' kids to war, but not so good at following up. You know, it's not good enough to just be tough. You've got to be tough and smart. Here we are. North Korea is in the process of firing a missile, a test missile. George Bush has been in office for 5 1/2 years, has done nothing about that.

We've got 200,000 brave troops pinned down in Iraq. You can't trust the president to defend America, not because they don't want to defend America, because they're not smart enough to defend America.

Oooooooo...

Vacation

2006-06-13T17:27:00.000-05:00

Truespeak will be going on hiatus this week. Summer classes have started and I need a week to get my feet under me. I'll see you all next Monday. Take care!

Friday Night Podcasting

2006-06-09T22:53:00.000-05:00

Click to listen.

Quick Question

2006-06-08T22:08:00.000-05:00

Source

Al-Zarqawi's body was taken to a secure location, visually identified by "scars and tattoos consistent with what had been reported and what we knew about him," and by fingerprints, [U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Bill] Caldwell said. "We have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house. It was 100 percent identification."

Aren't tattoos strictly prohibited by the Muslim faith?

Happy Blogiversary To Me!

2006-06-07T22:04:00.000-05:00

Two years today.

Two years and over 10,000 visitors. Thanks to everyone. This is a very therapeutic release for me. I appreciate your friendship.

Reagan's Other Legacy

2006-06-05T22:16:00.000-05:00

On this date in 1981, tragedy struck. For it was on this day that the Centers for Disease Control, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, remarked on a strange group of pneumonia cases in five gay men. Originally known as GRID, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, this fatal disease would eventually become known as AIDS. Now, twenty-five years later, AIDS has infected an estimated 65 million people worldwide, 25 million of which have died. It has become the scourge of many countries around the world killing five people evey minute. In the United States alone, over 500,000 people have died of the AIDs virus - more than ten times the number of Americans killed in Vietnam - with an estimated 40,000 new cases diagnosed each year.

During that first year, 339 cases of AIDS were diagnosed in the United States. Five years later, that number had grown to 19,404 - an increase of almost 6000%. You might think that this would prompt some sort of reaction fom the government, but you would be wrong.

The president at the time was, of course, Ronald Reagan, the ~~great communicator~~ insensitive bastard who once claimed that people were homeless "by choice." During his eight year tenure in the White House, Reagan only used the word AIDS on record one time. It was never mentioned in any of his eight State of the Union addresses, but in a statement to the press in September of 1985. To understand the Reagan administration's true view on the disease, we only need to look at a transcript from an October, 1982, press conference by White Deputy House Press Secretary Larry Speakes.

Les Kinsolving: Larry, does the president have any reaction to the announcement—the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?

Larry Speakes: What’s AIDS?

Kinsolving: Over a third of [the victims] have died. It’s known as “gay plague.” (laughter) No, it is. I mean it’s a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the president is aware of it?

Speakes: I don’t have it. Do you? (laughter)

Kinsolving: No, I don’t.

Speakes: You didn’t answer my question.

Kinsolving: Well, I just wondered, does the president—

Speakes: How do you know? (laughter)

Kinsolving: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?

Speakes: No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester.

Kinsolving: Does the president, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?

Speakes: I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s been any—

Kinsolving: Nobody knows?

Speakes: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.

Kinsolving: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping—

Speakes: I checked thoroughly with [Reagan’s personal physician] Dr. Ruge this morning, and he’s had no—(laughter)—no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.

The sensitivity is underwhelming, to say the least.

For another example of the administration's crass indifference, one only needs to be reminded of this well known story:

At a 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty, Ronald Reagan and his wife were sitting next to French President Francois Mitterand and his wife, Danielle. Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience. In the middle of a series of one-liners Hope quipped, “I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS but she doesn’t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy.” As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterands looked shocked. The Reagans were laughing hysterically.

Certainly, I'm not blaming Ronald Reagan for the spread of the AIDS disease. Nor am blaming him for our continued inability to find a cure. What I will blame him for, however, is contributing to a culture that ridiculed and demeaned those who were suffering. It was through insensitive remarks like those made by his staff, that many here in the United States considered AIDS and homosexuality to be a laughing matter. (I even remember my eighth grade Civics teacher making a joke about AIDS one day during class.) This attitude, no doubt, greatly hindered forward progress toward a public acceptance and understanding of a horrifyingly deadly disease.

Had the Reagan administration not treated AIDS as a laughing matter during those early years, we may have reached our current state of treatment much sooner. I shudder to think of the number of lives that may have been saved if Reagan hadn't thought it was such a fucking joke.

Friday Night Podcasting

2006-06-02T23:15:00.000-05:00

Click here for tonight's podcast.

Whoa... Deja Vu

2006-05-31T23:26:00.000-05:00

Bush today:

"I am troubled by the initial news stories," Bush said in his first public comments about the deaths of about two dozen civilians at Haditha last November. "I'm mindful that there's a thorough investigation going on. If, in fact, laws were broken, there will be punishment."

Now let's see... That sounds familiar. Equivocation... Sounds serious but is really nothing but hot air... Where have I... Oh yeah!

I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

Well, we all know how well that turned out, don't we? Here's to hoping he really means it this time. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

Something New

2006-05-30T23:44:00.000-05:00

Let's see how this goes...

Click here for tonight's post.

But Is It Enough?

2006-05-26T21:08:00.000-05:00

Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware that Georgieboy's approval numbers are in the tank. According to Gallup, this is due in part to his eroding support among liberal and moderate Republicans.

Since the start of his second term, George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped almost 20 percentage points, including declines among key demographic groups. A Gallup analysis shows that Bush has lost the most support over this period from moderate and liberal Republicans, with most of this change coming in the last several months. Conservative Republicans remain solidly behind Bush, although their level of support for him has declined somewhat from the near-universal support they gave him at the start of his second term.

But what does this mean for the upcoming elections? Is it enough to swing the vote in favor of the Democrats? My heart says "yes," but my mind says "not so fast."

One of the problems with polling is that a poll is only as valid as the questions asked and Gallup is only asking about America's approval of George W. Bush. As much as it pleases me to see Georgieboy's ratings in the shitter the way they are, I know that it's not him we need to defeat. He can't run again. What the Democratic party needs to defeat is Republicanism. So the question is this: does the country's discontentedness with George W. Bush translate to ill feelings toward Republicanism?

To answer that question, I try to put myself in a similar situation. For instance, if I were unhappy with my elected Democratic official, would I ever consider voting for a Republican? I would have to answer no because in my mind a bad Democrat is still better than a Republican. Now that may sound horribly partisan, but consider what the parties stand for. If I have a choice between a bad Democrat that will vote with the Democratic party and a tolerable Republican that will vote with the Republican party... I think my choice is obvious.

So how do we swing the vote in our favor? For quite some time now, I've been saying that we can't rely on converted Republicans to vote for us. Instead, we have to get our votes from the Independents and the new voters. Fortunately, it looks as though we may be making some progress. From the same Gallup poll we find that the Independants are clocking in at a measly 23% approval. This tells me that 77% of the registered Independents could be swayed to vote for a Democrat. Assuming, of course, that we have something to offer them, otherwise they're just as likely to stay home.

So over the next four months, we're going to see what the Democratic party is made of. George W. Bush and his inept, incompetent, corrupt Republican cronies have given us plenty of fodder to work with. Now we have to make some hay.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

The Truth About Taxes and Revenue

2006-05-25T22:14:00.000-05:00

For the past twenty-five years, the American conservative movement has been gaining ground. During that time, there have been many lies told in an effort to garner votes. One of the greatest of those lies has been that tax cuts lead to greater government revenues. The premise is that if people pay less taxes, they will have more money to spend thereby creating a more robust economy and this will lead to more revenue for the government by way of increased spending. Some call it "supply side economics." Reagan called it "trickle-down economics." George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." You can call it what you like, the simple fact is, it does not work.

The entire premise is based on a sketch on a napkin that has come to be known as the Laffer Curve. It looks something like this:

As crude as the animation is, it demonstrates the concept. According to Arthur Laffer, the napkin sketcher, there is a specific percentage of taxation that will yield maximum revenue for the government. The problem is that this concept is not based on any actual data. In fact, it's only based on the assumption that taxes are to the right of their optimum level and unfortunately for conservatives, the real numbers don't support their assumption.

The hero of the modern conservative movement is, of course, Ronald Reagan, the tax cutter extraordinaire. According to the Laffer-disciples, it was Reagan's 1981 tax cuts that spawned the booming economy of the eighties. (I remember the eighties very clearly and I know for a fact that my family struggled financially throughout the decade, but that's another story.) But what conservatives don't like to acknowledge is the fact that Reagan's economy didn't take off until he began raising taxes. The tax increases started in 1982, but things really got moving with the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, and continued with the 1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the 1986 Tax Reform Act, and the 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. From 1981 to 1984, the years most affected by the tax cut, tax revenue was $286 billion, $298 billion, $289 billion and $298 billion respectively. On the other hand, from 1985 to 1988, the respective tax revenues were $335 billion, $349 billion, $392 billion, and $401 billion. A significant increase over the previous four years. The only way the Laffer curve could justify this outcome is if the tax rate was already to the left of that optimum point. If that were the case, why cut taxes further?

Now fast-forward to the year 2001. George W. Bush has cut taxes twice since taking office. The first time in 2001 and the second time in 2003. What's happened since then, you ask? In 2001, the tax revenues equaled $994 billion and in 2005 they equaled $927 billion. That's a decline of 6.7%. To make matters worse, in spite of a 6.7% decline in government revenue, the administration has increased discretionary spending by nearly 50% from $649 billion to $967 billion over the same time period. How's that for fiscal conservatism?

The Laffer curve has continuously proven itself to be unreliable, but that hasn't stopped conservatives from lauding its value in an attempt to mislead the public. Lower taxes sounds like a great idea, sure. But when it comes at the expense of the country's well-being, is it really that great?

By the way, irony of all ironies, guess who was present in the meeting the day Arthur Laffer drew the now infamous sketch on that napkin. Old Five-deferment Cheney, himself. This man's like a bad penny. He just keeps turning up everywhere.

Three More Days

2006-05-22T19:13:00.000-05:00

There are three days left in the school year and I have about six days worth of work to get done. Therefore, I'll see you on Wednesday or Thursday. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some work to get done. See you soon.

Meet the New Boss...

2006-05-16T20:51:00.000-05:00

Same as the old boss.

Apparently, new White House press secretary Tony Snow got a few pointers from Scott McLellan. Check out this bullshit:

Q In his news conference with John Howard, was the President giving kind of a back-handed confirmation of the stories that the NSA is compiling telephone --

MR. SNOW: No, he wasn't. If you go back and listen to the answer he gave you, he was talking about foreign-to-domestic calls. The allegations in the USA Today piece, which we'll neither confirm or deny, are of a different nature. So, no, he was not giving a back-handed confirmation.

[.....]

Q The President today denied he'd ever broken the law in terms of wiretaps. He also indicated that anything that was looked into, any calls, had some sort of foreign aspect either to or from. And he has said he's always obeyed the law. Are all of these stories untrue that we've been reading for the last several days that millions of Americans have been wiretapped?

MR. SNOW: Well, let's --

Q Are the phone calls turned over to the government?

MR. SNOW: Okay, let's try to segregate the stories here. What he's said about the terror surveillance program is that these are foreign-to-domestic calls and they were all done within the parameters of the law. He has not commented on the --

Q He, himself, has said he didn't obey that law.

MR. SNOW: No, he didn't. What he said is that he has done everything within the confines of the law. The second thing is, you're mentioning a USA Today story about which this administration has no comment. But I would direct you back to the USA Today story itself, and if you analyze what that story said, what did it say? It said there is no wiretapping of individual calls, there is no personal information that is being relayed. There is no name, there is no address, there is no consequence of the calls, there's no description of who the party on the other end is.

Q Privacy was breached by turning over their phone numbers.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you are jumping to conclusions about a program, the existence of which we will neither confirm, nor deny.

[.....]

Q You might repeat the same thing, but why not declassify this? I mean, the President did talk about the surveillance program a day after The New York Times broke that story. This would seem to affect far more people, and it did sound like the President was confirming that story today. He was answering Terry's question --

MR. SNOW: Well, if you go back -- if you go back and you look through what he said, there was a reference to foreign-to-domestic calls. I am not going to stand up here and presume to declassify any kind of program. That is a decision the President has to make. I can't confirm or deny it. The President was not confirming or denying.

Again, I would take you back to the USA Today story, simply to give you a little context. Look at the poll that appeared the following day. While there was -- part of it said 51 percent of the American people opposed, if you look at when people said, if there is a roster of phone numbers, do you feel comfortable that -- I'm paraphrasing and I apologize -- but something like 64 percent of the polling was not troubled by it. Having said that, I don't want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program -- the alleged program -- the existence of which I can neither confirm nor deny.

Allow me to translate. "We will neither confirm nor deny" is White House speak for "you bet your sweet ass we are." Face it, if they weren't, they'd deny it flat out. Why would they be coy if they didn't have something to hide?

I considered calling this post SSDD. Same Shit, Different Day. It's always the same from this administration. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

That Was Then...

2006-05-15T21:05:00.000-05:00

But this is now.

Bush then:

The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

Bush now:

Tonight I'm calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

Sixteen months ago George W. Bush couldn't be bothered with securing our borders. Yet now it's "a matter of national importance." So I guess you could say he was against it before he was for it. I seem to remember the Republicans having a word for that . Flip... something or other.

So Mr. Bush, now who's swaying with the polls?

We Have A Winner!

2006-05-11T22:48:00.000-05:00

It is my pleasure to announce that Alicia of Last Left Turn Before Hooterville fame has won the Bush in the twenties pool.

From the WSJ:

President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January.

For her winning prediction, Alicia wins... well, actually it was just a pride thing. Mrs. kissfan cut my prize budget. Way to go Alicia!

Can you believe 29%? The sad thing is, I don't think he's hit bottom yet. With today's revelations concerning the NSA monitoring millions of phone calls, I've got a feeling we've only seen the beginning of Bush's long slide in the polls. So who wants to get in on the Bush below 25% poll? I'll stick with my original July prediction.

Year of the Democrat - Day 130

2006-05-10T21:30:00.000-05:00

The country is finally awakening from it's long slumber and it's not happy about what it sees with its newly opened eyes.

A CNN poll released Wednesday may continue the anxiety for the GOP, showing Democrats with a 14-point advantage over Republicans among registered voters asked their preferences in this year's midterm elections.

The poll, conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corp., found that 52 percent of respondents who were registered voters said they were leaning toward voting for a Democrat, while 38 percent said they were leaning toward a Republican.

Ahhhhhh.... Music to my ears.

Oh Please, Oh Please, Oh Please...

2006-05-09T20:48:00.000-05:00

From last night's Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann:

Let‘s call in MSNBC‘s David Shuster.

OLBERMANN: Thanks for your time, David.

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Good to be with you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: What are you gathering on these two main points? Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon? Would it be an indictment?

SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove‘s legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why.

First of all, you don‘t put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation, or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple—a week and a half ago, unless you feel that‘s your only chance of avoiding indictment. So, in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.

Secondly, it‘s now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then, and the lawyers that I‘ve spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.

And then the third issue is one we‘ve talked about before, and that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as Official A. It‘s the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment.

We‘ve looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York, and from when he‘s been U.S. attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation.

Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you‘re dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I‘ve been speaking with, who know this stuff, say, Don‘t bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

OLBERMANN: It‘s like when the president calls you Stretch, you don‘t want that nickname.

In Mr. VandeHei‘s piece in “The Washington Post” described the scope of the Fitzgerald investigation as having really narrowed to whether or not Rove misled the grand jury about his conversation with Matt Cooper. Is it really that narrow? And if it is, does that, in fact, narrow the kinds of potential charges against Rove?

SHUSTER: Well, it‘s narrow as far as what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been telling Karl Rove‘s attorneys. But and so in that case, you could be looking at possible making false statements or perjury or obstruction of justice.

But the big danger for Karl Rove is that prosecutors tend not to give you all of the evidence or information they‘ve collected against you. So if there is some testimony, some memos, some documents, some statements against Karl Rove that he was not aware of in his final appearance before the grand jury, that‘s where the possible problems for him could broaden, and where the investigation could be going as well.

Mr. Shuster, I pray you're not toying with us.

Could it finally be Fitzmas Eve?

BTW - Another poll has been released putting poor old George W. @ 31%. Ouch!

The Democratic Disconnect and How To Bridge the Gap

2006-05-08T20:11:00.000-05:00

After the 2004 election I was puzzled as to why a majority of the voters would vote for the party that would benefit them the least. You know who I'm talking about - the working class, the security moms, the NASCAR dads. These are the people who won't see any benefits from eliminating the estate tax, but they're all for it because it sounds like a tax cut. Why can't the Democrats reach these people? What is the hold that the Republicans have over these voters? Well, I think I've finally figured it out and I'm here to tell you it's a lot simpler than you might think.

The problem lies in the fact that the Democratic party is giving the American voter too much credit. Our elected officials treat them with too much respect. I know that sounds condescending, but stick with me on this. I think it will make sense in the end.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average family has two children and makes about $44,389 per year. Between work, children, and family, it stands to reason that a lot of Americans don't have time to follow all the ins-and-outs of their elected officials. If you've got kids, you know what I'm talking about - homework, school plays, Little League, swim lessons, etc. etc. etc. So most Americans tend to get their news from what they hear on the radio on the way to and from work and what they can catch on the nightly news between the answers to "How was your day?" and "What's for dinner?" They have to rely on the traditional media's Reader's Digest version of the goings on in our country. So after they've sifted through the stories about Tom and Katie, Brad and Angelina, and the parade of missing white girls, it's no real mystery why most of America is less than informed. For instance, how much do you suppose they know about the recent scandal involving Cunningham, Foggo, poker, the Watergate Hotel, and hookers? Judging by what I've seen in the traditional media, I'd say none. But the Democrats don't get it. They act as though everyone is privy to the same information they are. If you need proof, check out this exchange between House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Tim Russert from yesterday's Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Friday, this was the scene in the Oval Office when President Bush suddenly announced the resignation of Porter Goss as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Your reaction?

REP. PELOSI: The intelligence community is in disarray right now. The American people, in order to be protected, must have the best possible intelligence. We want the president and the Congress to have that. The—this administration has not managed the intelligence community well. We have questions that have arisen about the effectiveness of the new direct—Office of the—of National Intelligence that was formed. We have a CIA that is demoralized. We have a fierce competition between the Department of Defense in a power struggle with the entire rest of the intelligence community. We have to do better, it’s very important to the American people. We need competent leadership, we need objective collection, analysis and dissemination of information, and we need this to be done in a very, very non-partisan way.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Mr. Goss left voluntarily?

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why, why was he relieved?

REP. PELOSI: Well, depending on the story, he’s been on his way out for at least one month because of the struggle between him and Mr. Negroponte. But I think that this dismissal was triggered by what has been happening on the scandal front for the Republicans with the third in command, who was hired by Mr. Goss to, to be involved in these card games and whatever else it was.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence to base that judgment?

REP. PELOSI: Just a strong political instinct and the timing of it all.

MR. RUSSERT: That Porter Goss is caught up in...

REP. PELOSI: No, no, not—he isn’t. But the CIA and person that he appointed, who was a questionable appointee to begin with, is caught up in that, and it’s a reflection on his leadership and his management.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have no evidence of that?

REP. PELOSI: I have no thought that Mr. Goss is caught up in any of this, no. I know him, I, I haven’t any thought that he would be caught up in it. But it’s all a reflection on the president of the United States, and they were going to take that off the table as soon as possible.

WTF? I'm not sure I even understand what the hell she's saying. She's assuming that anyone watching knows the whole story. But the majority of people don't. Yeah, yeah, I know, most people probably don't watch MTP either, but this problem isn't confined just to Sunday morning gab fests. It's pervasive. Check out almost any statements made by our party's leadership. It's like a puzzle or something.

A long time ago I saw an episode of Mad About You where Paul was trying to register Jamie for classes. He was so confused that he ended up saying "Talk to me like I'm four." This is how the Republicans have managed to ensnare the security moms and the NASCAR dads - they talk to them like they're four! They don't assume that they know what's going on. In fact, Republicans assume that Americans don't have a clue about what's happening and they lay out the issue in the simplest, most self serving terms and they use the most inflammatory language possible. Republicans spoon feed the American voter only the information they want them to know. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats could learn a lesson from them. Instead of the cloak-and-dagger insinuations, Pelosi's answer could have been much more effective had it gone like this:

MR. RUSSERT: Friday, this was the scene in the Oval Office when President Bush suddenly announced the resignation of Porter Goss as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Your reaction?

REP. PELOSI: The intelligence community is a wreck right now, Tim. America deserves better. What we need is competent leadership, who will make sure that our intelligence agencies are doing whatever they can to keep us safe and, quite frankly, the Bush administration has failed to provide that.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Mr. Goss left voluntarily?

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why, why was he relieved?

REP. PELOSI: He was relieved because one of his top officials is being investigated for taking part in lobbyist sponsored poker games at the Watergate hotel where they were allegedly supplied with hookers.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence to base that judgment?

REP. PELOSI: There's an investigation isn't there?

MR. RUSSERT: That Porter Goss is caught up in...

REP. PELOSI: Tim, maybe Porter Goss is involved and maybe he isn't, but people from his agency are being investigated and he's suddenly resigned. To me, that looks suspicious.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have no evidence of that?

REP. PELOSI: Here's what I know, the CIA director has resigned and one of his top officials is being investigated for his involvement with corrupt lobbyists that may have provided him with hookers. We'll have to see how the investigation plays out before we know how deep this goes and who all is involved. But with the recent revelations about the Republicans party's involvement in scandals I wouldn't be surprised if this goes all the way to the top.

Short, simple, and to the point. It assumes that the average viewer doesn't know what's going on and it gives them the high points in terms they can understand. Everyone understands gambling and hookers and while they might enjoy it for themselves, it's not something they want to hear about their elected officials.

For too many years now, the Democratic party has been giving America more credit than it deserves. If they want to bridge the gap and connect with the apathetic voter, the first step is to get America to understand what the hell they're talking about. Plain language for plain people. As a teacher, I've learned that you can't assume anything about what people know. You have to start with the simplest facts and then you can work up from there. The Democrats need to simplify if they really want to bridge that gap.

BTW - Georgieboy's now below the freezing point. He's at 31% and falling.

Here We Go Again

2006-05-04T20:27:00.000-05:00

It's like déjà vu all over again. From the Christian Science Monitor (via Daily Kos):

GOP leaders are gearing up to bring a number of issues on the Christian conservative agenda to the floor of the House and Senate in the next few weeks, including gay marriage, broadcast decency, the 10 Commandments Act, a cloning ban, and laws protecting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Every election cycle, the GOP drags out their faith in an attempt to draw in the Evangelical voter. Despite their rampant unethical behavior, they preach values and decency and they drive their wedge issues all in hopes of garnering the Christian vote. They promise the moon, but as we've seen so many times, they don't deliver. You'd think the Evangelicals would get tired of being used and lied to, but like a battered spouse they come back time after time in support of their abuser.

So as a reminder to those Evangelicals, I would like to offer this partial list of what the Republican party has given us over the last five-plus years.

And how many of these things are benefiting the Evangelicals? How many of these things are in agreement with the teachings of Jesus? Not a single one. It's time the Evangelicals opened their eyes to see that the Republican party is using them the same way they've been using prostitutes at the Watergate hotel. They get what they want and then they move on. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals, much like the prostitutes, wake up sticky, battered and confused. It must be an awful feeling to know that you're not respected the morning after.

I hope the Evangelicals are starting to see through the lies and deceit because I hate to see anyone get used like that. It's so demeaning.

So Now We Know

2006-05-01T21:48:00.000-05:00

From David Shuster on tonight's edition of Hardball:

INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL.

So much for the "she wasn't even undercover" bullshit. Lying fuckers, each and every one of them.

Busy Week

2006-04-28T23:06:00.000-05:00

It's been one of those weeks for me. The semester is winding down and I've got a number of items due. I spent the last week reading case studies concerning the use of instructional technology and trying to determine the best solutions to them. Yes, I know it sounds glamorous, but I assure you it's not the picnic it appears to be.

Anyway, I came across something today while I was searching for something else and I thought it was worth sharing. It's a passage from the Bible and it comes from Proverbs 6:16-19 which says:

¹⁶ There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:

¹⁷ haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,

¹⁸ a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,

¹⁹ a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

I'll leave you to interpret that as you may.

Have a great weekend!

How Low Can He Go?

2006-04-24T18:42:00.000-05:00

Poor, poor Georgieboy. His approval rating is beginning to resemble the weather forcast for Illinois in December. He's currently at 32% and falling.

President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to a personal low, with only a third of Americans saying they approve of the way he is handling his job, a national poll released Monday said.

In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.

That's a significant drop from the way Americans perceived the president a year ago. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll carried out April 29-May 1, 2005, Americans were split on their assessments of Bush's performance, with 48 percent saying they approved and 49 percent saying they disapproved.

CNN's poll has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points for most questions.

It was one of four conducted within the past 10 days that have yielded similar results: a Pew Center poll carried out April 7-16 gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating; a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll carried out last Tuesday and Wednesday gave him a 33 percent approval rating; and an American Research Group poll carried out Tuesday through Friday gave him a 34 percent approval rating.

How long before he breaks through into the twenties? Anybody care to make a prediction? I say July. What say you?

An Admission

2006-04-21T21:38:00.000-05:00

It was reported today that a CIA officer was fired for leaking information to Dana Priest of the Washington Post concerning secret US prisons overseas. Allegedly, the officer failed a polygraph test and has admitted to "unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence including operational information."

I don't have any comments on the case, but I do believe that this is a blatant admission of the existence of said secret prisons and, indirectly, the torture that was alleged to have taken place at these sites. It shames me to think that my country has stooped so low. As the saying goes, a fish rots from the head down. I blame our Republican leadership. Come November, they must be replaced.

Albatross!

2006-04-20T21:07:00.000-05:00

Man with hat:
Do you get wafers with it?

Albatross Woman:
Of course you don't have fucking wafers with it, you #*@%! It's a fucking albatross, I mean...

How bad had it gotten for Georgieboy? Check out the latest poll numbers from (of all places) Fox "News."

President Bush’s job approval rating slipped this week and stands at a new low of 33 percent approve, down from 36 percent two weeks ago and 39 percent in mid-March. A year ago this time, 47 percent approved and two years ago 50 percent approved (April 2004).

Approval among Republicans is below 70 percent for the first time of Bush’s presidency. Two-thirds (66 percent) approve of Bush’s job performance today, down almost 20 percentage points from this time last year when 84 percent of Republicans approved. Among Democrats, 11 percent approve today, while 14 percent approved last April.

"It seems clear that many Republicans, while they may still like and support George Bush, are growing uneasy with what may happen to their candidates — and the policies they support — in the November elections," comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman.

33%!? From Fox!? Holy shit! That's got to be like 25% from any real nonpartisan group. And what's worse? Even Rumsfeld is polling higher than Bush! Rumsfeld, for fuck's sake! He's polling at 35%. Honestly, how bad do you have to be doing to be polling BELOW Donald Rumsfeld? Unbelieveable.

And if you don't think people are taking notice of how poorly ol' Georgieboy is doing, you should see the latest political ads here in Illinois. Our incumbent Democratic Governor, Rod Blagojevich (D) has rolled out some new ads concerning his opponent, Republican Judy Baar Topinka. They run in two short segments, usually with another commercial in between. In the first one, Topinka is shown alongside Bush and Rove and the voice over calls her George Bush and Karl Rove's handpicked candidate. It goes on to quote her praising Bush and ends with the phrase "What was she thinking?" The second ad quotes Topinka endorsing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and calling a raise in the minimum wage a "give away." It too ends with the phrase "What was she thinking."

Bush has become an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. They're running away from him in droves. Topinka's staff has even publicly stated that they don't want to be seen with Bush. The year of the Democrat marches on!

What He Said

2006-04-19T21:07:00.000-05:00

From the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Presidential historian, Sean Wilentz, offers his assessment of the tenure of George W. Bush. In short: WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER. Needless to say, I couldn't agree more.

Much as Bush still enjoys support from those who believe he can do no wrong, he now suffers opposition from liberals who believe he can do no right. Many of these liberals are in the awkward position of having supported Bush in the past, while offering little coherent as an alternative to Bush's policies now. Yet it is difficult to see how this will benefit Bush's reputation in history.

The president came to office calling himself "a uniter, not a divider" and promising to soften the acrimonious tone in Washington. He has had two enormous opportunities to fulfill those pledges: first, in the noisy aftermath of his controversial election in 2000, and, even more, after the attacks of September 11th, when the nation pulled behind him as it has supported no other president in living memory. Yet under both sets of historically unprecedented circumstances, Bush has chosen to act in ways that have left the country less united and more divided, less conciliatory and more acrimonious -- much like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover before him. And, like those three predecessors, Bush has done so in the service of a rigid ideology that permits no deviation and refuses to adjust to changing realities. Buchanan failed the test of Southern secession, Johnson failed in the face of Reconstruction, and Hoover failed in the face of the Great Depression. Bush has failed to confront his own failures in both domestic and international affairs, above all in his ill-conceived responses to radical Islamic terrorism. Having confused steely resolve with what Ralph Waldo Emerson called "a foolish consistency . . . adored by little statesmen," Bush has become entangled in tragedies of his own making, compounding those visited upon the country by outside forces.

Read the whole thing. It's worth your time.

Down, Down, Down

2006-04-18T21:39:00.000-05:00

The latest SurveyUSA Poll shows just how bad things have gotten for poor old Georgieboy. Eighteen months after his "mandate" and he can only manage a positive net approval rating in four states - Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Even his home state of Texas gives him a -6% net approval rating (46-51). Nevada, a state that went for Bush in 2004, now gives old George a -31% net approval (34-65). And what of those swing states Florida and Ohio? Florida is at -24% and Ohio is at -29%. In fact, of the thirty-one states won by Bush in the 2004 election, twenty-seven now give him an approval rating below 50%. Cough...Cough...Buyer's Remorse!..Cough...Cough!

November, 2006, is looking better and better. I've been saying it all year, this is the year of the Democrat.

Harbinger?

2006-04-17T18:54:00.000-05:00

Twenty-eight months after his indictment and seven months after his trial began, former Illinois Governor, George H. Ryan (R), has been found guilty on 18 counts of racketeering, mail fraud, false statements and tax violations. Also found guilty was Ryan's close friend and lobbyist, Lawrence Warner. Warner was found guilty on 12 counts of racketeering, mail fraud, extortion, money laundering and evading cash-reporting requirements. It was a long, drawn-out trial but according to Assistant U.S. Atty. Patrick Collins, it had to be that way.

This is a good sign. Not because a Republican was found guilty, but because it shows that corruption in government will not be tolerated. As the Abramoff scandal grinds on at what appears to be a snail's pace, I think it's important to keep the Ryan trial and Collins' comments in mind. These are complicated crimes where there is no smoking gun, persay. Patience is important.

Whether it involves Democrats or Republicans, corruption needs to be rooted out and stopped. When our elected officials are putting their special interest groups ahead of the good of the nation, America loses. Today, the state of Illinois won. Hopefully this will be a harbinger of good things to come.

WWJD? An Easter Story for Democrats

2006-04-09T22:17:00.000-05:00

Have you ever really asked yourself, "What would Jesus do?" Well I think I've found the answer. Coincidentally, it has to do with the story of Easter. And if you didn't think Jesus was a liberal before, you will when you're done with this.

Today's Bible lesson, Brothers and Sisters, comes from the book of Matthew, chapter 21. It tells the story of Jesus as he entered the city of Jerusalem.

¹As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, ²saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. ³If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

⁴This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
⁵"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'"

⁶The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. ⁷They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. ⁸A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. ⁹The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
"Hosanna to the Son of David!"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Hosanna in the highest!"

¹⁰When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?"

¹¹The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

This took place on the Sunday before the crucifixion and the branches they are referring to are palm branches. Thus the reason for what is now known as Palm Sunday.

At this point in the story, it is important to understand that all of Jerusalem, including the temple, was under the control of Rome. In Jesus' time, the temple was surrounded by three courts. The outermost court was the court of the Gentiles and was open to any non-Jew who wished to worship. During the Passover, there were many sacrifices made at the temple but in order for the sacrifices to meet the requirements, they had to be purchased from the Roman temple vendors. In addition, visitors to the temple were required to pay the temple tax in the accepted Jewish currency, Consequently, there were Roman money changers in the temple as well.

So, back to the story...

¹²Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. ¹³"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

Now you may be saying, "So what?" And I can't say that I blame you. I thought the same thing when I first read this passage. But last week, my wife's Sunday school class covered this exact Bible passage in a discussion about expectations. Each lesson in their series begins with a number of questions put forth for debate. This week, the first question of this lesson was as follows:

Naturally, the majority of the people in her class indicated that a good Christian would exhibit all of these characteristics. However, according to the David C. Cook Bible-n-Life series of books, none of these are characteristics of good Christians as is exemplified by the Bible verse from the book of Matthew. In fact, the Bible verse shows that Jesus didn't respect those in power because he believed that what they were doing was unethical. And to counteract this he rebelled. He dissented. He stood up in the face of what he thought was unjust. In short, Jesus was a activist.

If this doesn't fly in the face of the Republican party's McCarthyistic agenattitude, I don't know what does. I find it ironic that the party who claims to be the party of morals, ethics, and all things Christian, would have denounced Jesus as unpatriotic. He would have been barred from attending a GOP event; he would have been smeared in the media for his dissenting views; and he would have been labeled as a member of the far left and associated with the likes of Michael Moore. Hell, if he really was married as some have claimed, his wife may have been outed by a member of Cheney's cabinet. I think it's safe to say, Jesus would not have been a friend of the White House.

So the next time you're confronted with the question "What would Jesus do?" You can rest assured, he would have dissented against an unjust authority. Maybe the religious right is on to something. Maybe we all need to be a little more like Jesus, after all.

Squirming Scotty

2006-04-07T21:23:00.000-05:00

As I watched Scott McClellan's press conference today, I was reminded of the old Abbot & Costello "Who's on First" routine. If only it were as funny as the original. I know it's long, but it's worth it just to see Scotty squirm.

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Deb, go ahead.

Q Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.

But let me point out a couple of facts, step back from this legal proceeding. The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation's security. Now, the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified -- portions of it were declassified. We made sure that we did not -- that we continued to protect sensitive sources and methods within the National Intelligence Estimate.

But let's go back to the time period that you're talking about, because I think it's important for the public to know or recall that time period.

There was a lot of debate going on about the pre-war intelligence that was used in the lead up to the decision to go into Iraq and remove a brutal tyrant from his position of power. There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. That was flat-out false. The National Intelligence Estimate was a document that was provided to members of Congress. It is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. And because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that's exactly what we did.

Q I understand the reason why you thought it needed to be declassified, because of the debate at the time. The question was, when was it declassified. And you were asked that day, when -- the question was, "When was it actually declassified?" And you said, "It was officially declassified today."

If it had been officially declassified on July 18, 2003, then 10 days before, when the information was given out, it was still classified at the time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're going back to an assertion that is made in a filing related to an ongoing legal proceeding when you talk about the second part of your question. There is no way for me to separate that question and talk about this issue without discussing an ongoing legal proceeding. And I can't do that. We have a policy that's been established, and I'm obligated to adhere to that policy.

Q But answer the question, it's a factual question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but you can't separate that question from the legal proceeding --

Q Was it declassified that day --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- because of one of the assertions that was made in the filing.

Well, you can go back and look at comments that were made at that time. That was when it was --

Q Those were your comments.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that was when it was publicly released at the time. I haven't looked back at exactly what was said at that time.

Q Well, let's be really clear about this. It says right here on July 18th, "When was it actually declassified?" Mr. McClellan, answer, "It was officially declassified today." Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking me to get into the timing. I'm not backing away from anything that was said previously -- that's when the document was released, so that's when it officially --

Q They don't say "released." They say "declassify."

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, Jim. Let me tell you. That's when it was officially released. So I think that's what I was referring to at the time. I'd have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I'm not changing anything that was said previously, so let me make that clear.

Q But if you were --

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, secondly, the question you're going to, again, relates to the timing of when certain information was declassified --

Q I'm not going to that question --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but there's no way you can separate that question out from the ongoing legal proceeding --

Q Scott, you are very careful with your words here. I think if you wanted to say "released," you would have said "released." You said, "declassified."

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q Well, what does that tell --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's when the information was released publicly.

Q Scott, did you not know --

MR. McCLELLAN: But there was --

Q That's not what --

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, for the National Intelligence Estimate, Jim, it did go through a declassification process; you are correct. And the information was carefully looked at by the intelligence community before the portions of the National Intelligence Estimate were made available to the public --

Q But, Scott, you said, "declassified." If it's declassified on that day, it wasn't declassified before. And you're saying you're sticking to -- you're not taking back anything you said before, and what you said that day is it was officially declassified.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd be glad to take a look at exactly what I said, and I'll do that.

Q You didn't say -- I mean, we've got that here --

MR. McCLELLAN: I can't do that here in this room right now, but I'll be glad to take a look at it --

Q Then why are you saying you're not backing up from anything if you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what I'm saying is that -- I think what I was referring to is the fact that that was when it was made available to the public. So all that information is officially declassified at that point.

Q Then why are you saying you won't back off anything you said before if, in fact, we have transcripts here where you say that's when it was officially declassified? Are you still saying that's when it was officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's when it was made available to the public. So it's officially --

Q When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- so it's officially declassified at that point. I think we're talking past each other a little bit. I'll have to go back and look at the specific transcript -- and I'll be glad to do that -- and we can talk about it further later.

Q Okay. When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of the timing of when information may have been declassified, that gets into a question relating to the legal proceeding in a filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald earlier this week.

Q What were you referring to on July 18th, then? Was that the official release, or official declassification?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I'll have to check. I'll have to go back and look. But my sense is, and my recollection is -- while we're sitting here talking about it is -- I was referring to the fact that was when it was officially declassified for the public.

Q Scott --

Q Can I just -- one more here. In terms of releasing information and leaks, you know the President has been highly critical of people who leak --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- not just classified material. He has said in the fall of 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Now, whether the argument from the administration is he declassified this, so it wasn't classified information -- I know you're not going the get to the legal issues here -- but he has criticized people who leak, not just classified information. And there were clearly leaks coming out of this White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: What was the context of my comments -- about leaking of classified information, I believe.

Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.

Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let's make clear what the distinction is.

Q He said, "displeasure with leaks," not just classified leaks, though, Scott.

Q Scott, can I follow on that for a second. Because in December of 2003, to follow on this, he says, "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is." Now, is there a question -- we're not talking about legality here -- while he's saying that, according to the court filing -- which I know you can't get into the specifics of -- but as he's saying it, he certainly is aware who would have allowed the information to be disseminated. So, at best, isn't the statement "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is" -- at best, isn't that just inconsistent, if not misleading?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. That's referring to the leaking of classified information.

Q Only the leaking of classified information. He doesn't --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in the context of what that question was responding to --

Q So what about if it's a political? And if it's in political -- if there's a political purpose to it, then it's fine?

MR. McCLELLAN: If it's in the public interest, it's another matter. And the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified because it was in the public interest to provide portions of that National Intelligence Estimate to the American people. As I said, there were people that were out there making irresponsible accusations that intelligence was manipulated or that intelligence was misused. There has been no evidence to back that up whatsoever. And if you look at the National Intelligence Estimate, Jim -- you weren't here at the time, but some others in this room were -- it shows the collective judgment of the intelligence community.

And then you go back and look at the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, and they said there is no evidence of political pressure on the intelligence analysts. You go back and look at the Butler report. The Butler report said that there was no evidence of deliberate distortion. You go back and look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report, they say they did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.

So this was part of the debate that was going on at that time in the public. And so it was in the public interest that information be declassified.

Q I understand that. My only question is --

MR. McCLELLAN: And this information, too -- and another distinction. This was pre-war intelligence we're talking about. So it was historical context that was being provided, not information that could compromise our nation's security.

Q My only question is looking ahead, when he then says, "I want to know who the leaker" was -- doesn't he know, since he authorized the disclosure of the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, go back and look at the filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald, because Mr. Fitzgerald talks about that very issue in his filing and contradicts what you're suggesting.

Q I'm not suggesting -- this has nothing to do with Valerie Plame, nothing to do with it.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's what the question was about.

Q My question is, though, at the same time -- at the same time he's -- even if there's nothing to do with Plame, there is some disclosure about NIE information.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's draw the distinction here, again. There is an important distinction that people need to make when they are looking back at this issue. I just laid out what that distinction is. You're talking about information that was declassified and provided to the American people because it was in the public interest that they have that information so they could see what the facts were. And the facts were that this was the collective judgment of the intelligence community.

Now, the intelligence was wrong, and that's why we put in place a bipartisan commission, independent commission to go and look at the intelligence, and they made recommendations about how we could improve our intelligence-gathering. And we have implemented many reforms to make sure we get the best possible intelligence.

Q Scott, I've got a couple of things here. First, did you have any personal knowledge on July 18th -- when you answered the question that started off this round of questions -- did you have any personal knowledge of discussions between the President and the Vice President about declassifying portions of the NIE?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question that gets into talking about an ongoing legal proceeding, and I just can't do that because the policy of this White House is that we are not going to comment on it while it's ongoing. So I'm adhering to that policy, and I would hope that you could appreciate that.

Q You've at times at this podium told us that you had had assurances from people and that's caused you a lot of trouble, from this podium. Are you saying that that statement was true at the time that you knew it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of -- which statement are you referring to?

Q That on July 18th it was officially declassified.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, that question was asked at the beginning and I think what I was referring to is this is when it's now being made available to the public, so it's officially declassified at that point.

Q That's not what you said, though, we know that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll have to take a look at it. No, I think that's what I was referring to.

Q There is a distinction, though --

MR. McCLELLAN: Deb, hold on. I'll be glad to take a look at it, and we can talk about it. I'm around all day.

Q We're trying to give you an opportunity here, and --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't gone back and looked at every single word that was said at the time. But, again, based on what Deb just said, my recollection is that I was referring to the fact that, yes, it's officially declassified today.

Q All right, let's talk about the politics of this.

MR. McCLELLAN: But that doesn't get into the issue of when everything was declassified.

Q The purpose of releasing portions of this clearly had a political implication for the administration. There is a debate going on, and you wanted to counter that debate. And, yet, you're criticizing Democrats, saying that they are engaging in crass politics for saying that they're -- that this was leaking. How do you not see that there was a --

MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated. That's a very good question. Let's talk about the distinction. There is a difference between leaking classified information that could compromise sources and methods, which could be harmful to our nation's security. The terrorist surveillance program is a prime example. There was an unauthorized disclosure of this vital program that is helping to prevent attacks and save American lives. This is a program that is aimed at intercepting international communications involving known al Qaeda members or suspected al Qaeda affiliates. And it is vital to our nation's interest.

General Hayden, the number-two man in our intelligence community, said its disclosure is harmful to our nation's security. So there is a clear distinction here. Democrats refuse to recognize that distinction. That is engaging in crass politics.

On the issue of the National Intelligence Estimate, that is something that was in the public interest that it be disclosed because there is a lot of debate going on. And we will vigorously set the record straight when people are putting out misinformation or trying to suggest things that simply are not true.

Helen, go ahead.

Q Did the President know that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA agent before Novak revealed it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this goes to -- go back and look at previous comments, but this goes to an ongoing legal proceeding, and I would encourage you --

Q Did he know? It's a simple question.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I would encourage you to go and look at the filing that was made just the other night, because Mr. Fitzgerald touches on that subject in the filing.

Q You mean the President did not know?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I can't get into discussing an ongoing legal proceeding, and that's a question relating to the ongoing legal proceeding.

Q I think it's a very simple, important question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Matt, did you have something?

Q Yes, your refusal to comment on this on the grounds of it being an ongoing legal proceeding --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me -- let me -- hang on, hang on --

Q -- that leads to the conclusion that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on.

Q All right.

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. Let me just say why and remind people why. There is an ongoing legal proceeding underway that is headed toward trial. We want to see a fair trial. We want to see due process. We don't want to do anything that could compromise this ongoing legal proceeding or compromise or jeopardize the trial. And that has been our policy with other matters, as well. And so this has been a policy that has been well established for a long time.

Now, to your question.

Q This inevitably leads to the conclusion that you are not disputing the allegation that the President was involved in the leaking -- or authorized the leaking of classified information. Are you satisfied with that? And is that really in the interests of the American people?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not getting into confirming or denying things, because I'm not commenting at all on matters relating to an ongoing legal proceeding.

Q Scott, just a --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me come back to you. Elaine, go ahead.

Q Scott, let me ask you about the issue of credibility. Isn't the fact that you're up here having to vigorously defend and make the distinction between what some people see as leaking and what you are saying, from what I understand, is the sharing of information to provide historical context -- isn't that illustrative of the fact that the President's credibility has been damaged by it?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Democrats have a credibility problem when they try to suggest that we were manipulating intelligence, or that this is about something other than what I just said. That's crass politics. And they're the ones who have an issue when it comes to what you bring up.

Go ahead.

Q I want to see if I can sort out what you described earlier as sort of "talking past" each other earlier. There's a process for declassification, and the President has declassification authority.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Q When the President determines that classified information can be made public without jeopardizing sources and methods, that it's an appropriate thing to do, is that -- can that supplant the declassification process? Is that, in effect, an immediate act? Is it de facto declassified by that determination --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President can declassify information if he chooses.

Q So if a declassification --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's inherent in our Constitution. He is the head of the executive branch.

Q Is it possible, then, for a declassification process to be underway, or perhaps not yet even started, but perhaps in the middle of it, the President can say, this is declassified and -- or this is something that is worthy of the American people seeing, and they can happen on separate tracks?

MR. McCLELLAN: I want to be careful here, because that is touching on something that is brought up in the legal proceedings. So --

Q Well, it's a question more about administrative policy and how the White House would handle it.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- but the President is authorized to declassify information as he chooses.

Q Right, so just one other question, if I can. You've already taken a couple of shots at Democrats, but the Minority Leader this morning has gone to the Senate floor and demanded a whole series of questions to be answered. At one point, he says that only the President can answer the question as to whether or not the buck stops in the Oval Office or the leaks start, and has suggested that what he is now seeing -- Harry Reid, the Minority Leader -- in his opinion, it speaks to a pattern of misleading America by the Bush White House. It raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with Congress and the American people.

This does seem to be yet another example of the Democrat's ability to criticize the President for not coming clean on all of this. How would --

MR. McCLELLAN: That is exactly --

Q Hold on.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, go ahead.

Q How would you explain to the nation the President's assertion that anybody who leaks information would be prosecuted, when they are now -- the Democrats now see that the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: Leaking classified information.

Q Right.

MR. McCLELLAN: There's a distinction here. That is the kind of crass politics that I am referring to. Democrat leaders, like the one you brought up, are refusing to acknowledge an important distinction here. First of all, the national intelligence information was declassified information that was provided to the American people.

Now the other issue I brought up was the issue of the terrorist surveillance program. You bet the President has spoken out about its unauthorized disclosure, because what its disclosure has done is shown al Qaeda, our enemy, the play book. This is an enemy that watches us very closely. This is an enemy that adapts and adjusts when they learn information about our tactics. And it's important -- it's important, as we carry out this war on terrorism, that we don't do anything that could compromise our nation's security.

The terrorist surveillance program has been a vital tool that has helped to save American lives. And it's one tool, in an overall arsenal of tools, that we are using to take the fight to the enemy and stop attacks from happening on American soil.

Q But I just want to make sure I understand. In effect, your answer to the Harry Reid criticism is that the President has the authority to declassify. Therefore, the discussion of leak is inappropriate.

MR. McCLELLAN: My response to what he said is that that's just crass politics, because he is not acknowledging an important distinction. And the distinction is that, one, the information that he was referring to was declassified. And the other information he's trying to twist and put into that is a separate matter. These are two separate issues.

Go ahead.

Q Two questions. One, as far as U.S.-India --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me stay on this topic, and I'll come back. Go ahead.

Q You all talk about the court filing -- you've said that. But you seem to want to convey the idea that if what happened in the court filing happened, then it's okay, because it wasn't classified at the time --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not conveying any ideas about the court filing. What I'm talking about is the facts, at the time, and trying to put in context for people in this room and people that are listening, the time period and what was going on during that time period. But the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified in part because there was a lot of debate going on, and there was a lot of misinformation out there. It was important for the American people to have that information.

Q You seem to be trying to come up with a definition of the word "leak", which is that if it's not classified, and it's not endangering national security by revealing it, then therefore it's not a leak. Is that a --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest, and leaking classified information that involves sensitive national intelligence regarding our security.

Go ahead, Martha.

Q Can I just go back to this original statement that the President said about, "I constantly express my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information" -- leaving the impression he doesn't like any leaks. Can you give us an idea how the President feels about leaking information, since if this information --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we have to draw distinctions here, and what specifically you're referring to. I mean, if people are going out there talking about a potential policy decision-making process that is still in development and that the President hasn't come to a decision on, then that's not helpful information, and of course we'd look down on something like that.

Q But otherwise, if it's helpful to you and it's declassified, leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, if it's in the public interest.

Q Leaks are okay?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that the issue here is the National Intelligence Estimate --

Q No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about leaks.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the declassifying of the National Intelligence Estimate.

Q I'm talking about a statement the President made in the fall of 2003.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to try to draw a broad conclusion, or make a broad statement. If you've got specific instances you want to refer to --

Q No, you seem to be saying it's bad to leak classified information that will hurt the country --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give you a specific instance --

Q -- but it's not bad to leak declassified.

MR. McCLELLAN: A specific instance is the leaking of classified information that could harm sources and methods, or put them at risk, or harm our nation's security. One is the terrorist surveillance program.

Q Understood, but that's not the issue here.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure it is part of the issue, because that's --

Q It's part of the issue, but not the part of the issue I'm trying to get to.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that's exactly what the President is referring to when he's talking about leaking of classified information. That's exactly the kind of information he's talking about.

Q I know he is, but what I'm saying is the President expressed displeasure about leaks, not just classified leaks, but displeasure --

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure, he's talked about that in the past.

Q So he has displeasure about leaks, even of declassified material?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, you have to look at what specific instance are you talking about.

Q Well, you won't talk about the specific instance we want to talk about --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just gave you an example.

Q -- so, in general --

MR. McCLELLAN: I just gave you an example.

Q -- if you leak something, he has no problems as long as it's not classified?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what I said, Martha. What I said is what I said, and you ought to listen to what I said, not try to put words in my mouth.

Q No, I'm not.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think you can go back -- if you've got a specific instance of a leak, bring it up.

Q Did he have a specific instance when he said his displeasure about leaks?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he was being asked about classified information being disclosed.

Q "I constantly express my displeasure with leaks, particularly classified leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: That was in the context of people leaking classified information. But, sure, this is a town -- I mean, this is a town where that happens a lot. And a lot of those are not helpful things to have happen. But you're asking me to make a broad statement, and I'm not going to do that.

Q Scott, what was the President's reaction to this story?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q What was the President's reaction to this story? What has he said?

MR. McCLELLAN: "This story"?

Q The story, as it's published.

MR. McCLELLAN: "The story as it's published"? Which story as it's published?

Q You sound like Donald Rumsfeld. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: "This story" -- I'm just asking you to specify what the story is.

Q I'm talking about the filing --

MR. McCLELLAN: The filing by Mr. Fitzgerald, okay.

Q -- I'm talking about what we found out --

MR. McCLELLAN: The filing by Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't get into talking with you relating to an ongoing legal proceeding.

Q I'm not asking you to. I'm asking, did the President say anything about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can't get into talking about an ongoing legal proceeding. That relates to an ongoing legal proceeding. I just can't do that.

Q Slightly different topic, but you, yourself, said they're linked, when the Attorney General said yesterday that the President might have authority to do wireless wiretapping --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me come back to it. I'll come back to it.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Anyone else on this subject? Kelly.

Q Is there a bit of an appearance problem for this White House when the President speaks so strongly against leaking? When the Counsel's Office orders ethics classes? And then today you're talking about effectively good leaks and bad leaks, that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're trying to lump a lot of things in there, and I don't think I would do that, in terms of ethics classes. I mean, those are ongoing throughout the time period we're here in this administration. So let's not lump things together.

Q But there were some that were ordered specifically --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's not lump those things together.

Q There were some that were ordered specifically --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're lumping things.

Q I'm lumping only because the timing of the last public lumping was --

Q Lumper. (Laughter.)

Q -- in the fallout of (inaudible), as you may remember, that was made public. So the President is very vocal about leaking at a time when now it appears that he sees some value in releasing some --

MR. McCLELLAN: We are a nation at war. And the leaking of classified information, particularly during a time of war, is much more harmful and much more dangerous. You bet the President is going to continue to speak out about leaking classified information. It is wrong and it can have serious consequences. And what he has said about the leaking of classified information stands. He is very firm in his belief that leaking classified information, particularly information that could be harmful to our nation's security, is a serious matter and it is dangerous, and when people do it they put our nation at risk, they put lives at risk, they put sources and methods at risk.

This is a different kind of war that we are engaged in, against a deadly and dangerous enemy, an enemy that is lethal, an enemy that is sophisticated. And that is what the President often refers to when he talks about the leaking of classified information, and how serious that is.

I'll come back to you. Go ahead, Les. Are we on a different subject? Goyal is first.

Q Related.

MR. McCLELLAN: Related?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q Kind of getting back to where we started. Is information declassified when the President says it is, or when the process is done --

MR. McCLELLAN: He can authorize the declassification of information.

Q And at that moment does it become declassified, or --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's authorized declassification. He has that authority to do that.

Q At that moment. He says, today, I want this declassified -- at that moment it's declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying that he has or hasn't -- if there's any specific example -- but he has that authority, yes.

Q Immediately, immediate effect?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. He has that authority, yes.

Q Scott, one related.

MR. McCLELLAN: One related. You all on the front row have had multiple questions.

Q I've got one related.

Q I've got one --

MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're encouraging others to do this.

Q There's lumpers up there. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad to stay here all day. This is an important subject, and I'm glad to make the distinctions.

Q I want to make sure we've got our terms right, that's all. It seems to me, from what I'm hearing, in terms of the way you're explaining this, classified information is leaked; declassified information is provided.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, declosing [sic] declassified information, like we did with the National Intelligence information, that was provided to you all. That was provided to the public through you all, through your colleagues.

Q Okay, but when Judy Miller gets it, it's being provided? Or is it being leaked, because then it's declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, see, that's something that I cannot and you cannot separate from an ongoing legal proceeding. So I can't get into responding to that specific question, because how can you separate it from the legal proceeding and the filing that Mr. Fitzgerald made. I just can't do that.

Q One more, because you --

MR. McCLELLAN: See what you encouraged?

Q Well, because this has been invited by your discussion of need to educate the American public in the throes of what you say was a lot of unfair information --

MR. McCLELLAN: To provide facts.

Q To provide facts.

MR. McCLELLAN: And Congress had those facts.

Q There have been --

MR. McCLELLAN: Way back when they made the decision to authorize the President's use of force if necessary.

Q What do you say to critics who argue that the President's decision to disclose this information, to effectively declassify it, in the context of that debate, to provide facts was, in fact -- or at least in their argument -- a political use of intelligence information?

MR. McCLELLAN: It was in the public interest that this information be provided, because there is a debate going on in the public about the use of intelligence leading up to the decision to go into Iraq. This is regarding pre-war intelligence. And there was a lot of misinformation being put out. There were accusations being leveled against the President and against this White House and this administration that intelligence was misused or manipulated.

The fact of the matter is that the intelligence was based on what is laid out in the National Intelligence Estimate, which is the collective judgment of our intelligence community. The fact is that people have looked into how the intelligence was used, and they have seen, as I pointed out, no evidence of such manipulation or misuse.

It must be hard for Scotty to face the press when he knows the ship is sinking.

The Other Shoe

2006-04-06T21:01:00.000-05:00

Remember this?

Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.

I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.

Today, the other shoe dropped.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Cheney's top aide to launch a counterattack of leaks against administration critics on Iraq by feeding intelligence information to reporters, according to court papers citing the aide's testimony in the CIA leak case.

In a court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stopped short of accusing Cheney of authorizing his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the CIA identity of Valerie Plame.

But the prosecutor, detailing the evidence he has gathered, raised the possibility that the vice president was trying to use Plame's CIA employment to discredit her husband, administration critic Joseph Wilson. Cheney, according to an indictment against Libby, knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as early as June 12, 2003, more than a month before that fact turned up in a column by Robert Novak.

Fitzgerald quoted Libby as saying he was authorized to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Fitzgerald said Libby told him it "was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the president's authorization that it be disclosed."

The process was so secretive that other Cabinet-level officials did not know about it, according to the court papers, which point to Bush and Cheney as setting in motion a leak campaign to the press that ended in Plame's blown cover.

So now we know. It was all a big show. Bush knew all along and he put politics above integrity. Shameful. Truly shameful.

If this were any other administration I'd say this would be unthinkable, but with this group it's just par for the course. The question now is: Will the Republicans put their party above the country and defend him or will they develop a sense of decency and hold him accountable? Let's just say I'm not going to hold my breath.

No Shit?

2006-04-05T20:55:00.000-05:00

Who would have thunk it?

Link

President Bush's tax cuts for investment income have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000, according to a report Wednesday.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of President Bush's two previous tax cuts.

The Times analyzed IRS figures for 2003, the latest year available and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

According to the study, taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million reduced their investment tax bill by an average of about $500,000 in 2003, and their total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each.

The newspaper's tax cut analysis showed that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers.

That damned Al Gore. Turns out he was right after all.

Almost half of all the tax cut benefits, as I said under Governor Bush's plan, go to the wealthiest 1%.
- Al Gore, October 3, 2000

Six years later and George W. Bush is still getting his ass kicked from that first debate.

Sunday Morning Talk Shows

2006-04-03T19:32:00.000-05:00

Talk about opposites. Check out these transcripts of the right way and the wrong way to give an interview.

The right way: Sen. Russ Feingold on Fox News Sunday - Straight forward, decisive, concise

The wrong way: Sen. John McCain on Meet the Press - Flip-flopping, mealy-mouthed, uncertain

Remember when the Republicans held the upper hand? Oh, how times have changed.

Out For Lunch, Back Soon

2006-03-27T21:59:00.000-06:00

I have a major research paper due this week, so I will most likely be back next Monday. Have a good week, everybody!

Because Dead People Don't Care

2006-03-23T20:11:00.000-06:00

In a desperate attempt to explain Bush's plummeting poll numbers, the White House has dusted off one of the Republican party's old stand-bys: liberal media bias. Georgieboy hinted at it on Tuesday during the press conference and then they brought it out full-force yesterday in West Virginia.

Q I have a comment, first of all, and then just a real quick question. I want to let you know that every service at our church you are, by name, lifted up in prayer, and you and your staff and all of our leaders. And we believe in you. We are behind you. And we cannot thank you enough for what you've done to shape our country. (Applause.)

This is my husband, who has returned from a 13-month tour in Tikrit.

BUSH: Oh, yes. Thank you. Welcome back. (Applause.)

Q His job while serving was as a broadcast journalist. And he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on. And I ask you this from the bottom of my heart, for a solution to this, because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good. They just want to focus -- (applause) --

BUSH: Okay, hold on a second.

Q They just want to focus on another car bomb, or they just want to focus on some more bloodshed, or they just want to focus on how they don't agree with you and what you're doing, when they don't even probably know how you're doing what you're doing anyway. But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on FOX, to get it on headline news, to get it on the local news? Because you can send it to the news people -- and I'm sorry, I'm rambling -- like I have --

BUSH: So was I, though, for an hour. (Laughter.)

Q -- can you use this, and it will just end up in a drawer, because it's good, it portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.

First of all, that's not true. Just today, I couldn't avoid seeing coverage of the rescue of the three peace activists. I would think that would be considered good news, right? Of course if the media were a little gun shy when it came to covering good news, I guess it might be understood after the whole Jessica Lynch fiasco, but I digress.

The truth is, we don't see much about the reconstruction in Iraq. We don't see much about the new schools and the new hospitals. We don't see much about the "medical things" that are happening in Iraq. As the woman said, we tend to focus on the car bombs and the bloodshed. But there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of that.

DEAD PEOPLE DON'T CARE!

There is nothing more tragic than the loss of a human life due to a senseless act of violence. Whether the death is caused by a car bomb, or an ambush, or a military operation gone bad, death is always tragic. And once you're dead, you really don't give a shit what happens. Dead kids don't go to school. Dead people don't need hospitals. Dead people don't give a rat's ass how well the reconstruction is going. Dead people don't give a flying fuck what kind of good "medical things" are happening. Dead people don't give a shit which ethnic group is in charge. They don't care about a constitution. They don't vote. They don't need clean water or electrical power. They don't care if Saddam is no longer in power. They don't need new roads, secure airports, a green zone, sanctioned militias, or freedom. The simple fact is this - until we can stop Iraqis from dying senseless deaths, it doesn't matter how many good things are happening because dead people don't care.

I for one would love to see some good news coming from Iraq. I'd like to hear that things are wrapping up and our troops are coming home. But when there are 50, 60, 70 Iraqis dying each day from violence that didn't exist before we invaded, there is very little "good stuff" that's going to make a damned bit of difference. When we've spent $200 billion on a war that was going to pay for itself, there's very little good news that's going to mean jack shit. When we've lost 2300 soldiers in a war where we were going to be greeted as liberators, there's very little positive progress that makes any fucking difference. Until we end this disaster and bring our troops home; until Iraqis are no longer subjected to the senseless violence that we have wrought, I don't give a shit what good things are happening in Iraq and I seriously doubt the dead people do either.

So if the media focuses on the latest car bomb or bloodshed it's because everything else is bullshit when you compare it to senseless death and destruction. Maybe instead of focusing on the fact that the media is showing the negatives, the Bush administration should focus on itself and fix the fucking problem. Quit your damned whining about the "liberal media" and do something about it. Because dead people don't care how fucking noble the mission is. They don't care if freedom is on the march. And they sure as shit don't care that George W. Bush has a plan for victory. Dead is dead and death is tragic.