Scott of the Anti-Architect

Scott McClellan has finally published his tell-all book, “What Happened”. The reaction from the White House was, predictably, well-organized and “on message”. If you’ve been watching any of the coverage since McClellan’s first appearance on the Today Show, you know that the White House was both “puzzled” and “sad”. And, apparently, aliens have taken over Scott McClellan’s body because, almost to a person, they all said, “This is not the Scott I knew.” I’ve got news for them. It’s not the Scott we knew, either.

I do want to thank McClellan for, once and for for all, publicly revealing what we all knew, but which the White House refused to acknowledge that they knew, and that is that Karl Rove, “The Architect”, was heavily involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name to the press, for the sole purpose of discrediting her husband, who truthfully reported that the “famous sixteen words” had no basis in fact. One of the motivations for McClellan leaving the White House was the way in which he was used by them to perpetuate a falsehood. President Bush had plainly told everyone that anyone in his administration who leaked classified information would no longer be a part of his administration. [Check out the Sept 29, 2003 Press Briefing. It's notable for two things: 1) The amount of misinformation regarding the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, including the reluctance to admit that she was, in fact, covert; and 2) the announcement of the president signing the "Do Not Call" bill. If you'll recall, this was the legislation begged for by most Americans (except the telemarketing industry, of course), but it was ruled by a federal judge that the FCC did not have the legal authority to enforce it. Congress remedied that by passing legislation granting them that authority in one day! Congress can move fast when they want to.] And yet when it became apparent that Karl Rove was definitely “involved”, the White House argument for keeping him on seemed to revolve around the idea that no one could prove he was lying about hearing her name from Tim Russert, so he must not have done anything wrong. And when it became known that Vice President Cheney was also involved, it was more and more obvious that McClellan was being sent out there every day to lie to the press. Even Cheney reportedly expressed disapproval over the fact that his guy, Scooter Libby, was being left out to hang while Rove walked away totally free of even charges being filed against him, when they all knew that he lied. They knew because they told him to. McClellan says he wanted to believe in his friend, George Bush, and that’s why he refused to see what was happening. But with these revelations, maybe they can finally nail Karl Rove, and put the Architect behind bars once and for all. Preferably, a maximum security, federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Rove deserves no less.

But this what happens when we allow a president to require loyalty to himself above loyalty to the Constitution and to the Nation. Everyone who works for the government, at any level, in any capacity, must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, including the president of the United States. To require that all administration employees (whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayers, let us not forget) put loyalty to the president above loyalty to their oaths of office is not only reprehensible, it is impeachable. Of course, try proving that. All the circumstantial evidence in the world (including the way the White house rips apart the integrity of anyone saying anything that is against the official White House version of the truth) will not convince some people that the man is a habitual liar. And a bad one at that. He seems to keep forgetting about the existence of easily portable video and audio recording systems.

But what I want to know is, what about Richard Armitage? Why is he still roaming around free? Richard Armitage, it turns out was the first administration official to tell Bob Novak that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Supposedly, Armitage was not a part of the Cheney-Libby-Rove side of the government, so it is not generally believed he did it on orders from Cheney (like Libby anfd Rove did). He told prosecutors that his revelation that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA was “inadvertent” and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald decided not to prosecute him. This was, again supposedly, because Armitage didn’t know that her status was covert. (But I’m sure Rove and Libby did.) Still, intentional or not, Armitage revealed something he was not supposed to do, and I find the reasons for his remaining free unacceptable. In the end, he tried to excuse himself by claiming that he is “a notorious gossip.” Now, if this is true, I have one question: Why was Richard Armitage ever given a security clearance in the first place, if he was “a notorious gossip”? Gossips are, with good reason, often deemed a “security risk”. It makes no difference how dedicated Richard Armitage is to Republican politics, he has no business being around classified information if he can’t keep his mouth shut. And if they want to argue that he would know enough not to reveal anything to foreigners, I would say: How do you know he wasn’t overheard by a foreigner? And why is it okay that he would keep secrets from foreigners but still reveal classified information to Americans? This whole thing still stinks.

Why Hillary Should Not Continue to Run

As a New Yorker and constituent of Sen Clinton, I will accept, on her word, that even though she has once before specifically mentioned an “assassination” as a reason for staying in the race, that she was referencing the event in terms of the time frame alone, and not the horrific outcome (both for the Kennedys and for the nation, as Nixon went to win easily.) I do believe, also, that her “non-apology-apology” illuminated a dark side to her character that she would have preferred stayed hidden. As Gwen Ifill pointed out, the Clintons are wordsmiths (better than me), and even if she hadn’t planned ahead of time to say those exact words, the basis for those comments must have been lingering under the surface somewhere. That she would specifically mention the “assassination”, rather than simply the year, is quite telling. But that alone is not why she should drop out of the race now (or “suspend” it), and her reasons as stated in the NY Daily news column are wholly inadequate when measured against the facts.

In the first place, the entire nomination process in both 1968 and 1992 was vastly different than it is today. It is, in every aspect, an “apples and oranges” comparison. It should surprise no one that there have been years when the nomination wasn’t clinched until June (and Bill Clinton was the all-but-certain nominee well before June; he just officially went over the top then), because this is the first time the first primaries were held in January! If not for her insistence on staying in the race despite the impossibility of winning, this race would have been over long before this. Her argument along this line reminds of the global warming naysayers. Very few people disagree that we are experiencing climate change (of which global warming is one aspect), but the ones who do point to their own disagreement, rather than independent research, as evidence that “the issue isn’t decided yet.”

She says that she thinks she can still win “on the merits”. What, Senator, are those “merits” to which you refer? Your husband’s presidency? And your campaign has been marred by an ugliness that makes many of us progressives cringe when we think that it’s the Democratic Party’s nomination you want, not the Republican Party’s.

She says “the need for real leadership has never been greater - and I believe I can provide that leadership.” Well, many of us feel that Sen Obama can also provide that leadership. But having the ability to “provide leadership” is not enough, unless you are an authoritarian follower who believes in the follwing the person in charge no matter what. To me, that sounds like you are trying to appeal to the people who normally vote Republican. Leadership skills alone won’t help if you do not also provide a clear vision for people to follow. I believe that most Americans do not want to be led, they want to follow.

She goes on to say “I am not unaware of the challenges or the odds of my securing the nomination…”. By that I assume you mean that you understand that it is mathematically impossible for you to secure enough pledge delegates, and that your only chance to secure the nomination rests with Superdelegates ignoring the will of the people and voting for you. Are you aware, Senator, just how “un-Democratic” the entire purpose of process of Superdelegate voting is? I wouldn’t hang my hat on that option if I were you. It only supports the idea that you are the choice of elitists and not the people who signed up to vote as Democrats.

Continuing - “but this race remains extraordinarily close, and hundreds of thousands of people in upcoming primaries are still waiting to vote.” Again, more disingenuous nonsense. yes, the vote is close, but you are losing. And the people who haven’t voted yet (and who, in most years, would have been casting a vote in an already-decided contest), already unxderstand that their vote will not help you get enough delegates to win the nomination. You do understand, Senator, that it is delegatet count, not popular vote count, that determines the nomination?

“I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.” We might accept that, Senator, if you sounded like you were running against Sen McCain. But you are not. Sen Obama is, but you are still trying to tear Sen Obama down in the eyes of Democratic voters. How will that “unite” the party?

“I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter - and too many people still come up to me at my events, grip my arm and urge me not to walk away before this contest is over.” That’s sweet, Senator, but it reminds of of a Monty Python sketch, “The Upper Class Twit of the Year”. One valiant contestant was having difficulty jumping over the three-inch row of matchbox cars but he kept trying. The announcer said of him, “He doesn’t know when he’s beaten. He doesn’t know when he’s winning, either. he has no sort of sensory apparatus whatsoever.” When you’re in a can’t-win-honestly situation like yours, the only reason to stay in is to make the other guy’s victory less enjoyable.

“More than 17 million Americans have voted for me in this race - the most in presidential primary history.” I believe you are counting the Florida votes (which you are not supposed to, by your own agreement) and the Michigan votes (which is completely dishonest as there were no other names for people to cast a vote for; that argument reminds me of Saddam Hussein’s “elections” in which the choices were “Saddam” or “Not Saddam”. You think you should count those votes?)

“I am running for all those women in their 90s who’ve told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House.” Okay, you’re running for the sake of about one percent of the population.

“I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week - despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over - because I’m standing up for them. I’m standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.” You won large victories in those states because of ignorant voters, Senators. You got the votes of hte people who still think that Sen Obama is a Muslim. (He’s not, but so what if he was? Either you are free to practice any religion you want to in this country or you are not. Anyone who thinks that no one should be allowed to be a Muslim is not a “real American”.) And how proud are you to get the votes of those people who would never have voted for Sen Obama just because he’s black? Besides, neither you nor Sen Obama is going to win West Virginia or Kentucky in the general election.

As I go through your explanations, Sen Clinton, I do not find any compelling arguments for you to stay in the race. Your best course of action right now, short iof suspending your campaign, is to campaign against Sen McCain, like any other Democrat would, and not against Sen Obama. Otherwise, anything you do that could harm Sen Obama’s chances in the general election would negate any reason you come up with to keep this thing going.

What Is It Going To Take, John Hall?

I’ve told you every time I’ve met you, Congressman John Hall (D, NY-19), that I wanted you and the Democrats to put an end to the war in Iraq and to hold President Bush and Vice President Cheney accountable for their many, many, many, many (and very many more) violations both of law, and of their constitutional oaths to “faithfully execute the office” they were each about to enter. Neither of these men has done anything “faithfully” since they took office. I thought you understood that! You looked me in the eye and agreed with me that they were awful in their disregard for the law. And you dared to foist upon me your lame excuse, when we met again this past Saturday, about why our troops are still in Iraq and Bush and Cheney are still running around free. You actually tried to tell me that it was our fault, the voters, that you “couldn’t” do anything about Bush and Cheney, because we didn’t send enough of you Democrats to Congress. Well, John, that is bull-fucking-shit, and you know it! You helped the party leadership do everything they could to put off doing anything about holding these two law-breakers accountable because Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to use Republican corruption as a goddamn campaign issue to win greater control of Congress in the 2008 elections. The 2008 elections! Two goddamn years away! To put it another way, John, in case it hasn’t already been pointed out to you, she is putting the interests of her party, your party, ahead of the interests of her country, your country, my country, our country. Just like the goddamn Republicans have been doing since they got into power. Are you actually going to try to convince me that the interests of the Democratic National Committee are more important than the interests of the United States of America? That must be why impeachment was “off the table” from the day after the 2006 elections, when I and many other people sent you to Congress to stop the war in Iraq and to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their actions. If you will recall, I also warned you that if we didn’t get these two criminals out of office, we were going to end up in a war with Iran. Remember me now? I was the one wearing the “Question Authority” t-shirt. You remarked on it and I told you it was why I was there that day.

Did you hear the news, John? Our military commanders in the Persian Gulf are being asked to come up battle plans for attacking Iran. It seems they’ve decided to deem what the Iranians are doing in this illegal war next to their country as “increasingly hostile”. Defense Secretary Gates has said that the Iranians are killing Americans. So-called Iraqi Prime minister Mailiki is going to Iran to confront them and, according to what we are being told, tell them to stop interfering. “If that doesn’t produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.” Or else what, John? What do you think the “or else” might be? I told you it could come to this. Move to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney (Cheney first) NOW! Before it’s too late! Every day that you delay is one more day closer to an unnecessary military confrontation with Iran. How many more people will die because you and the Democrats failed to act in time? Do you expect for even one second that Bush thinks he needs the approval of Congress to attack Iran? You wouldn’t, because you’re too smart to think that. So why do you keep allowing him the chance to do it? Because he “says” he won’t? Does he have a track record of keeping his promises in this regard? What are you waiting for?

In January 1983, I raised my right hand and took an oath, not unlike the one you took in January 2007 (almost 24 years to the day after I took mine). We both swore that we would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Bush and Cheney have clearly proven themselves to be “domestic enemies” of the Constitution, and it is your sworn duty to protect it against not only the likes of them, but them in particular. Well, John, I still feel bound by my oath, which is why I’m writing this. Do you still feel bound by yours?

And This Is Because…?

Well, I didn’t think I would find an example so quickly about the dangers I mentioned in my previous post about Eisenhower. [He warned us about the military-induistrial complex, but not for the right reasons.] We are now using the military as a “make jobs” program to boost our economy, but we are doing it under the guide of “protecting our national security interests.” It’s a lie. The US Navy has decided that it wants to re-establish the Fourth Fleet. (I didn’t know they just “dissolved” them; I thought they just parked the ships some place.) The new fleet will be led by a nuclear aircraft carrier to be used “in support of conter-terrorism efforts.” And from which part of the world do they expect the next threat of terrorism to come? Is it the Middle East, where the Fifth Fleet already patrols? No. Is it off the coast of Asia, where the Seventh Fleet patrols? No. The next threat must be coming from, wait for it, Venezuela! The Fourth Fleet will patrol “the waters of the Caribbean and Latin America.” But they wanted to make sure we knew that this move “will send a message to the entire region, not just Venezuela. The focus will probably be on security.” Folks, it is not the security of our nation that these ships will be protecting, it is the financial interests of the corporations that have invested in that region that these ships are being sent to protect.

To understand why our government would lie to us (yet again) and tell us that the next threat to our national security will come from Venezuela, oops, I meant to say, the South American region, you have to understand that it is not our nation’s interests that they are concerned with, it’s the investment of the many huge corporations that is at risk. It is not because of drug dealers and the endless “War on Drugs”. Really, there are better and far less expensive solutions than military intervention, but if we don’t use our military, the economy could collapse. [I highly recommend sitting down some day and going through Greg Palast's great site, for some real education about what our country is doing, and has done before, in South America. He knows, he was part of it at one time.] Many nations in South America are much poorer than us, and they often need financial help to solve their problems. Luckily for them, as nation states and not regular folks, there is an organization established by the world community to make loans to such countries to help them get back on their feet. It is called The World Bank. One of the tactics that the World Bank likes to use is to tell the country borrowing the money that they have to privatize their public utilities. Do they always do that? Let’s see what The World Bank says:

Q: Does the Bank always make developing countries privatize their industries and assets?

A: No, our advice is shaped by the needs and circumstances of each country. In some cases, state-owned industries are propped up with public funds that could be better used to improve health care, hire new teachers or build roads. Each country is different, and therefore we assess a country according to its own circumstances and tailor our advice to best implement the policies the country has laid out for economic and social development.

Not always, but sometimes they do, and lately they’ve been doing it a lot. (As you learn more about what they do, it will become clearer why such a disgusting person as Paul Wolfowitz was picked to head the World Bank, for a while.) But they don’t simply make the countries privatize their assets, they make them sell them to foreign investors. They are not allowed to buy them, nor are they permitted to let local citizens, who may be wealthy businessmen already, buy the assets. So whatever the country had that was worth selling, the money is going outside the country, and it doesn’t count as payback for the loan. They still have to come up with the money, but now they have nothing to sell to get it, because the World Bank made them give it away to foreigners.

In a nutshell, that’s what the World Bank was doing to some of the South American countries. Now, believe it or not, Venezuela is sitting on HUGE oil reserves, estimated to be five times the size of the ones in Saudi Arabia. The problem is that it is not the light, sweet crude like they have in the ME, that’s much easier to purify and refine. It’s the really heavy crude, and it isn’t economically feasible to drill for it unless you are going to get at least $50 per barrel for it. Have you heard what the price of oil is lately? Now it is economically feasible to go get that oil, beause you can still make a profit on it. And Hugo Chavez’s country is getting a lot of money for it. So much money, in fact, that he has gone around and helped get his South American neighbors out of the debt of the World Bank’s crushing loans. This is not making the World Bank happy. Banks of any kind don’t like it when you pay back your loans early, because they make less money in interest from it if you do. (That’s precisely why they only want about 2% of your credit card balance each month as a minumum payment, so you’ll end up paying more in finance charges.) In fact, Chavez is using his nation’s new found wealth to make the entire continent less dependent on the United States and its corporations. And this does not sit well with the greedy corporations of America. They want Chavez out of power.

Hence, the Fourth Fleet.

Eisenhower Was Right But For The Wrong Reasons

In his farewell address of 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned of a build-up of the “military-industrial comlpex.” He was right in that we be concerned about it, but the reasons we should have heeded his warning were not the ones he stated in his address. Eisenhower was concerned that so much of our annual budget would be devoted to the military-industrial complex, it might gain so much power that it could threaten the peace around the world. He also warned that it might one day dominate the scientific and academic world, to the point where government contracts replaced intellectual curiosity. Stranger still, he also feared that scientists might try to take over the world.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

You have to remember, it was the Fifties. Once the mysterious world of Radiation became common knowledge, the public tended to mistrust scientists. But after Kennedy pointed them toward the moon and said, “Look, something shiny,” they became heroes to the public. Even the ones that used to work for the Nazis. It turns out that the evils the military-industrial complex produced were unforeseen by Ike. “The United States finds itself in the anomalous position of being unable to pay for its own elevated living standards or its wasteful, overly large military establishment.”

In a great column on AlterNet, author Chalmers Johnson warns that, among other things, we have placed our economic trust in “Military Keynesianism”, described as “the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.” Also, we are spending “insane amounts of money” on defense projects that have no relation to national defense. But at the same time, we are keeping the tax burden on the richest among us at “strikingly low levels.” (Remember, before Bush, no civilization in the history of mankind lowered taxes during a time of war.) And finally, with our “devotion to militarism”, we are neglecting the other things that the money could have been spent on. Our infrastructure is crumbling; our education system is producing “graduates” that don’t know the first thing about the rest of the world; we fail to provide health care to our citizens while remaining one of the biggest polluters in the world (not the biggest, but more than our “fair share”) and “[m]ost important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.”

All of this points toward an economic disaster unlike any other we have faced in our history. The constant borrowing to supoprt the military-industrial complex cannot be sustained. The customer base will eventually dry up, as everyone is either killed or too weary to fight. Eventually, they will need to be turned toward something else, something that produces something useful. At one point, we had more than 30,000 nuclear warheads in our stockpile (none of which were actually used in combat). They were not only a deterrent to our political enemies, they were also a jobs program for the federal government, designed to keep the economy moving. Between 1946 and 1969, our nation spent one trillion dollars on our defense budgets. In 2008 alone, we will spend more than one trillion dollars. And what will be left of that money when the year is over, besides broken minds, bodies, and lives?

But one phrase in Mr. Johnson’s great article caught my eye, and it makes me wonder.

Its government no longer even attempts to reduce the ruinous expenses of maintaining huge standing armies, replacing the equipment that seven years of wars have destroyed or worn out, or preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries. Instead, the Bush administration puts off these costs for future generations to pay or repudiate.

Wait a minute. Did I read that right? What was that about outer space?

Its government no longer even attempts to reduce the ruinous expenses of…preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries.

Is he saying that we have, for some time now, been “preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries”? Can I ask why? I mean, what has given them the idea that there are “unknown adversaries” that we may have to fight in “outer space”? And if they have solid reason to believe that such an “unknown adversary” really does exist out there, and that it may have intentions to attack us, then why have they stopped spending money to prepare for “a war in outer space”?

What’s going on here? There is a popular TV show about aliens who have attacked our planet and continue to do so (called Stargate SG-1), and they have built up an entire, virtually believable storyline and history abut how we got to this place (provided you are ready to accept the idea that we are not alone in the universe, and that humanoid creatures from other planets may possibly have visited us long ago.) Forget about the other details for now (other than that it is a great show, and I want to thank an old friend from my college days, Leo Henny, for turning me on to it. Thanks, Leo.) What I have noticed about the show (and its excellent sequel, Stargate Atlantis) is the level of cooperation between the producers of the show and the United States Air Force (my personal favorite branch, thank you.) You see, if the DoD does not like the way they or its members are portrayed, they will not allow the producers of the movie (or show) to use military uniforms that would pass for authentic, nor the use of its actual flag, emblem, rank insignia, military decorations, and other designs in the actors’ costumes and the set designs unless they really, really, really liked the show. That level of cooperation could not be done on a casual basis, and would require at least one officer assigned to it full time. (They might decide to improvise and change the script, and the Air Force wouldn’t want them to imply that they would act in an improper way to a “situation”, so a liason would have to be available at a moment’s notice.)

This show is so well done and the stories so good, that you might swear you were following an actual Air Force team of off-world explorers. They even had the real Chief of Staff of the US Air Force appear in an episode as himself. As much as I love the idea that they were able to go to such lengths to make it look authentic, I have to wonder why? (I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a really bad movie involving military personnel that had such inauthentic “uniforms” that I had to assume it was a tongue-in-cheek movie. This show looks like the real thing.) They even had a show (and a follow-up) about a Hollywood show based on their actual exploits which the Air Force allowed to go forward as a source of plausible deniablility should word of the Stargate program leak out. They could just say, “That was just a television show.” (Even though it was very close to factually correct.) But it is just a TV show, isn’t it? I mean , why go to all this trouble just to make a TV show about a fictional team of off-world explorers who have saved the Earth from several alien attacks (without our knowledge) look authentic? Why let the highest ranking officer within the Air Force appear on the show as himself? Is there a reason that authenticity was that important? And might it have something to do with “preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries”?

When the Army Won’t Defend Religious Freedom

Though raised a Christian, Army Specialist Jeremy Hall, while stationed in Iraq, came to have different beliefs about the existence of God. He became an atheist. Little did he realize that while he, along with every other person who serves in our military forces, took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, some who took that oath did not take it to mean they had to support not having any religion at all. Specialist Hall had to be transferred out of Iraq due to threats he received because of his atheism. Even at his new assignment, Fort Riley, Kansas, the threats and intimidation continued. What I want to know is, how could so many people be ignorant about what religious freedom means?

When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

I’m sorry to have to say this about a United States military officer, but Maj Welborn doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. He’s wrong about the constitution, and he’s wrong about the founding fathers. The constitution guarantees us that the government cannot interfere with the free exercise of our religious beliefs. If those beliefs happen to include the belief that there is no God, then it is your constitutional right to have and practice those beliefs. Anyone who tells you that you have to believe in God (especially that you have to believe that Jesus was the son of God) is infringing on your right to freely practice your religious beliefs the same as if they started telling you that you had to worship Ra. And as for the founding fathers, it is well-known that they were Deists, not Christians, and that the United States was founded as a secular nation. They most certainly did not want for this country to become a Christian nation. Some of them didn’t really want any organized religion at all, leaving people to worship the God of their choice in their own ways.

Even after Specialist Hall was transferred stateside, the harrassment continued. An NCO approached him and “without provocation, threatened to ‘bust him in the mouth.’ Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.” Where is our military finding these people? Where were these people educated about the constitution, our founding fathers, and religious freedom? Do they honestly believe that “the free exercise of religion” means that you must pick a religion and exercise it? Why doesn’t it also mean the freedom to not choose any religion at all, or to adhere to a belief system that involves no reliance on deities (such as Humanism)? Are these beliefs not protected under the First Amendment? If not, why not? The whole point of saying that the government could make no law respecting an establishment of religion was that no one was supposed to be telling you what to think about God. By telling a soldier that his belief that there is no God is not protected by the constitution is to completely misunderstand what religious freedom and our nation’s founding were all about. Ours was the first nation in modern times to not have an official religion. Up until that point, in every other country, the official religion was that of the head of state, whoever he or she was. If you did not worship according to that religion, there were often consequences (sometimes deadly). Our founding fathers said that this was wrong, and that all people should be free to worship as they see fit, and that includes the right to not worship any deity at all.

You have just as much right to be an atheist in this country as you do to be a Christian.

Congress Critter On My Corner

Today, as part of his ongoing “Congress On Your Corner” program, my US Representative, John Hall (D, NY-19), was at our local post office to listen to constituent views and help people who need the help of their Congressman. I was willing to wait until he had helped all of the people who actually needed their congressman’s help, but one of the people helping him out insisted that I get in line to speak to him. So I did. And I have to say I was thoroughly dissatisfied with his responses.

I reminded him that when I met him two years ago, I told him that the two most important things to me were ending the war in Iraq, and holding the president and vice president accountable for their many violations of the constitution. And while I appreciate all that he has done, I was disappointed that he and his fellow Democrats have failed to do those two things. His reply, to both of these issues, was, essentially, that the Democrats didn’t have enough votes. That’s a weak excuse. I told him that that didn’t mean they couldn’t try, but they acquiesced on virtually everything when it came to the war. He corrected me and pointed out that the president had, at one point, wanted money for nuclear weapons development (bunker buster bombs?) and that they had managed to strip that out of the bill completely. It is no longer being considered. While that’s all well and good, that hardly required courage. It was a no-brainer (which would seem to explain why the president thought it was a good idea - he is an acerebralist, and has no brain), and a lot of people in Congress would be out looking for work next year if they did pass it. He also started going into a spiel about all the things they have done, and they are good things, and some of them even benefitted our local area. But that’s not the point. On the two most important issues, the two issues that are the primary reasons why the people threw the Republicans out of power and installed the Democrats, they were missing in action. Not only do Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid still allow votes to come to the floor that contain any funding at all for the war in Iraq, but they have both decided not to bother with impeaching the president or vice president at all. It is this very Do-Nothing-And-Hope-He-Doesn’t-Start-Another-War style of Constitutional Accountability that has failed the American people.

Congressman Hall’s excuse that they didn’t have the votes is just a way of shifting blame for their inaction away from themselves and onto the American people - we didn’t send enough of them to DC, so they couldn’t do anything. Well, Mr. Hall, I call bullshit on you. I might be able to accept that if the Democrats tried harder, but they refused to. The Democrats should have introduced bills every week to end the war and impeach the president and vice president. They should have forced every Republican in Congress to stand up and say why they think it’s okay for a president to issue signing statements along with the bills he signs into law that say he won’t obey the law he just signed; why it’s okay to constantly lie to the American people about the threats we face just so he can have his own way; why it’s okay to continue to wage a war at enormous cost to us in blood and treasure that was started on false pretenses, and has no justification for continuing to be waged today; and why the interests of corporations should supercede the interests of the people. But they wouldn’t. Because they didn’t have enough votes to override a certain presidential veto. So they didn’t try.

This is not what I would call “supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States.” I would, in fact, consider what the Democrats have been doing to be “aiding and abetting those who would harm it.” I am very dissatisfied with the job the Democrats have done and said as much. I told Mr. Hall that unless he gets the nomination of another party, such as the Working For Families Party, I would not vote for him. And, Mr. Hall? I mean that.

The Police Should Not Use Deadly Force For Imaginary Reasons

The acquittal of three New York City police officers in the execution of Sean Bell (he was shot fifty times, with one officer firing thirty-one times) raises some very serious questions for me. In this case, as in many similar previous cases (around the country, not just in New York City), the justification allowed by the police rests entirely on what they imagined was happening, not what actually was happening. Though the details of this case don’t matter, it turns out that the police had reason to believe that someone at the party had a gun. Does that justify mortally firing at someone, repeatedly, even though they did not see any gun? The problem rests on equating two different kinds of beliefs: those you arrive at through deductive reasoning, and those you arrive at through inductive reasoning. One is usually based on actual facts, the other is usually based on one’s imagination. (See explanation here.)

Deductive reasoning starts with the more general and works toward the more specific to reach a conclusion. Inductive reasoning works the other way around. From the website linked above:

Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a “top-down” approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data — a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.

Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a “bottom up” approach (please note that it’s “bottom up” and not “bottoms up” which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he’s trying to close for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.

Note: I did not add the “bottoms up” joke.

Another way to look at it is Deductive Reasoning is a form of reasoning by which each conclusion follows from the previous one; an argument is built by conclusions that progress towards a final statement. And Inductive Reasoning is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is reached based on a pattern present in numerous observations.

So which is happening when a police officer decides that he is justified in using deadly force against a suspect. (And note that I say the word “suspect”, not “criminal”. Furthermore, in all of these hypothetical cases, I am talking about a situation where a police officer responds to a call and sees whatever it is he sees. We’re not talking about tracking down known, escaped convicts. We’re talking about police officers encountering people they’ve never met before and killing them.) If his reasoning is Deductive, then he has observed an actual danger; but if his reasoning is Inductive, then he is extrapolating the danger from visual clues similar to situations in which the police officer turned out to be in danger. In one case, there is a real danger that actually exists. In the other, the police officer has imagined that he is in danger because it looks like it, not because the danger actually exists.

Yet in both situations, the police officer is permitted to say, “I thought my life was in danger,” and it will be considered a “justifiable homicide”. I do agree that there are times when deadly force is absolutely necessary by police officers, and while I find it distasteful, I do not object when the public safety demands it. But when it is quite clear that the only danger was in the police officer’s mind, then how can the use of deadly force, sometimes overwhelming deadly force, be considered “justifiable”? Are we suggesting that a police officer is allowed to try someone, convict him, sentence him to death, and carry out the execution, all based on what was going on entirely within his own mind? Because that is what has happened when the police gun down an unarmed person, one who might have been reaching for some ID, instead of a gun that never materialized. And what if the crime for which you might be a suspect is not one that carries the death penalty? Are the police supposed to still be allowed to kill you for it?

I talked in a previous post about when deadly force is justified, and I feel it applies to the police as well. Deadly force is justified as long as the threat to life or limb is present. Once the threat to life or limb is eliminated, the justification for deadly force evaporates with it. But the threat must be real, not entirely imaginary, as it was in the case of Sean Bell. He had no gun, and he was not an actual danger to the police. Why then, were they allowed to kill him in cold blood? Because they were afraid? Afraid of something that wasn’t happening? What’s next? Do we allow a cop to say, “He looked like he was thinking of harming me,” and get away with killing someone? Because, I’ve got to tell you, I think that is precisely what happens in cases like this. And once a person is shot dead by the police, he can never give his side of the story. We are left with the word of the person who killed him that it was the dead man’s intent to do harm.

And this is allowed.

The Supremes Blow It Again

The Supreme Court recently ruled that execution by lethal injection does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”. (Side note, would it not have been “unusual” the first time it was done and, to the uninitiated, a tad “cruel”, too?). Oddly enough, while they felt that Kentucky’s Strap-Right-Up-Get-Yer-Three-Shot-Monte Lethal Injection system of capital punishment was constitutional, “a majority could not agree on the proper standard with which to judge execution practices.” But whatever that standard was, they felt Kentucky had met it.

Before continuing, I’ll cut to the chase and state up front that I oppose the use of capital punishment for reasons on which I shall elaborate later. And, yes, I do agree that the Constitution’s specific mention of terms such as “capital offense” clearly and undeniably proves (yes, “proves”) that the Framers found no problem with the use of capital punishment per se. So, no, it is not, in and of itself, unconstitutional. I shall stipulate all of that up front, so there is no need to rehash any of it. Capital punishment is, in and of itself, constitutional. (There, I said it and I’m mad.)

What I feel is unconstitutional is the way in which the sentence has been administered, and upon whom, throughout our justice system. Let’s face facts, white people out there (and you know who you are), if a black man and a white man are convicted of the same capital offense, the black man is statistically far more likely to get the death penalty than the white man, even if all the circumstances and justifications for it are the same in both cases. You know it because it is a fact. In what way, then, is this administration of capital punishment “equal treatment under the law”?

For those who don’t know, when lethal injection is used to terminate someone’s life as punishment for committing a crime, they give the condemned an injection to erase any pain he may feel from what is about to happen (which I’ll skip). Trust me when I say that you would not want to feel what’s about to happen. The thing is, it sometimes doesn’t deaden the pain and/or senses enough, or even at all in some cases, and the condemned not only knows what’s going on, he feels it. Every excruciating moment of it. It turns out that rather than being a humane way to execute someone, it becomes a horror for anyone who experiences it, and probably even witnesses it.

I’m truly sorry to have gone all through that, even omitting what I did, but it all begs the question: What if it happens a lot, even though it isn’t supposed to at all? How many prisoners have to be executed in such a horrible way before the Supremes will decide that maybe it is just a little too cruel? And it’s not like they can predict when this will happen, so it all becomes a game of chance and a case of having to take the executioner’s word that he didn’t mean to screw it up so badly. Sure, and we’re supposed to believe that every single time? Suppose the guy who has to carry out the execution has a particular hatred for the kind of people who committed the crime for which this condemned person was convicted? (I say it that way because, believe it or not, sometimes the guy is innocent. Please visit and learn more about The Innocence Project.) What if decides that he’ll “accidentally” botch this one? If he plays it cool and can keep his mouth shut, he could get away with it, and people will just say that this was one of those regretable times that the execution went badly. But it won’t stop them from doing it again, will it? Unlikely. From the article, “Just hours after yesterday’s decision was announced, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) lifted the hold he had placed on capital punishment.”

And why do we continue to execute people for committing crimes in this country? It’s not like the fact that we keep doing it is stopping more people from committing those same kinds of crimes. Capital offenses continue to be committed. The purpose of there being laws prohibiting things is to deter people from doing them. Some are more serious than others, of course, and require stronger deterrents. If you knew that, at most, it would cost you a $100 fine to punch someone in the face, and no risk of jail time ever for doing so, don’t you think you might start saving up your money for some “payback nights”? So clearly you want the punishment for punching people in the face to be more severe, if not the first time, then for repeat offenses. Even multiplying the previous fines by ten. That would put a stop to that nonsense. But when monetary fines alone will not deter someone, you have to start talking serious stuff. Incarceration? Not yet. First we might decide to make them spend some time doing something useful and good for the community, like picking up trash along the highway for a few weekends, talking to high school seniors about why it’s stupid to do whatever you did because it not only cost you a lot of money but you had to go around doing what you’re doing which is telling kids to not be like you, or driving some elderly folks across state lines to a casino. Okay, they probably wouldn’t let them do that last one, but you get the idea. If that doesn’t work, a trip to the Big House is in order, right?

Maybe not the real big one, but a prison none-the-less. Okay, I could go on-and-on with this, as if I were getting paid by the word, which I am not. I’m not getting paid by the word, am I? I am? Wow. That’s great. Paid by the word, eh? Wow. Wow. Never thought I’d land a sweet, sweet, any number of “sweets” I feel like here, deal like that. No sir ree. Does “ree” count as a word? It does? Sweet. Wow. Okay, I’m pretty sure I’m digressing here. My apologies. Eventually you get to the level of crime that is so heinous and reprehensible that people actually consider putting the person to death. That’s got to be pretty serious. But I ask you, what does it ultimately prove? That we, as a society, are better than those blood-thirsty murderers out there? I don’t understand how it does that. Someone will have to explain that one to me.

I would say that, hands down, the single biggest argument I hear from people who enjoy having the death penalty used (yes, that’s an odd way to characterize them, but it is totally accurate) fo these horrendous crimes (the level of horror varying from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction) is that they don’t want their tax money to be spent keeping this guy behind bars for the rest of his life. Well, guess what? You people are fools!

Virtually every convicted person sentenced to death is entitled to an automatic appeals process that, in the end, usually costs the taxpayers about $2,000,000 (maybe more since I last heard that figure.) Yet they say it costs about $50,000 per year to house a prisoner (figures from the same year). Well, that two million bucks would pay for forty years behind bars, and most prisoners do not survive forty years behind bars. So, if you sentence him to death, it will cost you more money!

You see, the guy gets his two million dollars worth of appeals just because he’s been sentenced to death. Let’s say the appeals process is relatively fast (for a capital case), and it takes another five years to get resolved one way or the other. (Yes, it usually takes longer, but that just strengthens my point.) Not only are the taxpayers already out two million bucks, they’re also out the quarter million more spent keeping him locked up for those five years. If he loses and is executed right away, it will have cost the taxpeyers $450,000 per year to house that one inmate. If he manages to get his sentence commuted and lives another twenty years in jail (being generous), it will have cost the taxpayers a total of $3,250,000 to house him for 25 years. An average of $130,000 per year. Still pretty pricey for something you could get much cheaper. And if he hits the jackpot and wins his freedom (rare), the taxpayers are out more than two million bucks, and, quite possibly in this one case, the guy who really did it is out running around free. And if they finally catch his ass, the taxpayers will be out another two million-plus bucks once he’s convicted and sentenced to death. Sorry, but if it’s money you’re concerned about, the last thing you want to do is sentence someone to death.

Remember, these are automatic appeals we’re talking about. These are appeals that the convicted might not necessarily be entitled to if he weren’t given a death sentence. He might not get all those appeals if he were sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. And he would still probably not live forty years in jail, and the taxpayers will have paid less money, and gotten what they truly needed (forget what they wanted - bloody revenge): a dangerous person removed from society and locked away where he can’t hurt decent people any more.

Some people favor the death penalty because they feel that if you take someone’s life, then yours should be taken in return. Okay, but what about the guy who has to take the life of the guy who took someone else’s life? Does he have to die then, too? Why not? Are there times when it’s okay to take someone’s life? Turns out there is, but this isn’t one of them.

It is acceptable to use deadly force to protect your life or the lives of those for whose safety you are reponsible, or to protect all of you from serious physical harm. Beyond that, you are reaching for excuses to kill people. Once the person trying to kill or harm you (or your protectees) is no longer a danger to you, the right to use deadly fiorce ceases. You can’t kill someone for screaming at you, because screaming at you won’t put your life in mortal danger. You can’t kill someone who is down on the ground, badly wounded, and not in danger of going anywhere or hurting anyone, no matter what he did to you two seconds before. You have no reason to. Why should it be okay? If your first attempt at deadly force was unsuccessful in that it did not kill him, that does not justify a secnd attempt to “finish the job”. The level of violence you are permitted to commit in defense of yourself or your protectees is that which is sufficient to remove the active threat. Once the threat of danger is gone, the justification for using deadly force evaporates.

So, once you have the criminal safely locked away, how is he a continued threat to anyone? Prisons have standards and rules and procedures to ensure that the risk to the people guarding the prisoners is minimized. Minimized, but not eliminated. Though I have no statistics to back this belief up, my guess is that the vast majority os incidents where dangerous criminals somehow broke loose and caused further mayhem happened because someone did not properly follow procedures. This always seems evident once the “post-incident review” is completed. So, I think we can agree that an incarcerated prisoner is not expected to be hurting anyone. Why, then, would it still be necessary to use deadly force against this guy? He’s locked up, most likely chained up, watched day and night, his movements are controlled, so how is a danger to anyone? He’s not any more, is it? If he ever gets out, that’s a different story, but we’re not talking about anyone who gets out or “might get out, we’re talking about an incarcerated person, waiting on Death Row. How is he doing anything that warrants taking his life any more?

Then there’s the religious aspect of it. I should point out to those who don’t know me that I am atheist. I do not believe that God exists. That’s a subject for another time. Suffice to say that I realize the vast majority of you do. And, statistically, most of you practice some form of Judeo-Christian worship. That’s nice. While I profess no expertise on the subject, I thought that God wants everyone to be nice to one another. I thought that The Golden Rule, the one Rule which should be applied above all others was, in one form or another, “Treat Other People The Way You Would Want Them To Treat You.” And an absolutely fine moral code it is. It happens to be the one I use, too. I hope it doesn’t surprise you that an atheist could live by The Golden Rule just like a Christian. The main difference is, I don’t live a life in fear of going to Hell for any length of time. But I do have a conscience, and it does bother me when I do bad things. And I feel bad when I treat people in ways I wouldn’t want to be treated. So I try my best not to do it. I hate losing sleep, but I hate the awful feeling of guilt I have even more. So I try to be nice to people. But I’m not perfect. I certainly don’t go arpund killing people, because I would not want someone to come around killing me. You can apply this analogy to most of the terrible things one could do to another.

But isn’t God the only one who is supposed to decide who lives and who dies? Are we supposed to believe that judges and juries are divinely inspired to render sentences and the verdicts they do? I sure hope not, because that sounds dangerously close to violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (More than ten thousand weeks on the Best Seller List.) What right can we as mere mortals claim to play God and decide that another human’s life should be ended? And, it has to be asked, which God are we trying to please here? Sorry, but trying to apply some kind of religious justification for using capital punishment ends up running into constitutional issues, if religious reasons are why capital punishment is being applied. So that can’t work.

At this point, we are left with nothing but Revenge. Some think of it as Justice, some call it Retribution, some call it Just Desserts. To me, at this point you just want the satisfaction of seeing another human being die. I mean, the guy is safely secure and can’t do it again. You can’t say he’s dangerous when you’re going to be wheeling him, strapped down nice and tightly. Immobile. At this point, it is you who are killing a defenseless person. To wish this to continue at this point cannot be explained as anything but Revenge. And Revenge is not Justice. Justice is impartial. Justice is blind. Justice is sober and unemotional. Justice is Fair.

Someone supposedly said (in another language), “What you do to the least of you, you do to me.” There is no moral justification for ending the life of someone is who is not trying to hurt anyone any more. When you consider that Justice may be all those things but it is sometimes imperfect, then how can you correct the horrible mistake of executing the wrong person for a crime? What kind of message does this send to everyone else? Don’t kill someone, or we’ll kill someone else? I don’t think that has much deterrent value, now does it? I mean, other than deterring me from wanting to live in such a country. And how would you feel if you were the one about to be wrongly executed? Would you still believe in America at that point? Could you still believe that you, for the next short while at least, live in “the greatest nation on Earth” if you were about to be put to death for something you did not do? And would you have any right to condemn another nation for the fact or manner in which it executes people? I hardly think so.

The use of capital punishment must end if we are to continue to grow as a species. There is no future for us if we continue to justify putting each other to death. “Treat Other People The Way You Would Want Them To Treat You.” Capital punishment violates The Golden Rule.

How The Clintons Have Framed The Race

Here in Washington, D.C., the home office of political self-promotion…prevailing Conventional Wisdom has now moved beyond popular consensus over the suddenly “inevitable” presidential nomination of New York senator and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton to pretentious speculation about her choice of a vice presidential running mate (either Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland or former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Jones).

We’ll get to when that was written a little later. My point is that there was a time when Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton was hands-down going to be the first woman nominated from a major political party to be President of the United States of America. Now, to hear her campaign talk about it, they are arguing that you should still pick her as the nominee because Senator Obama hasn’t knocked her out yet! What the f^&%? She was supposed to be the “inevitable” candidate, and now she’s squeaking by in Pennsylvania with, as I write this, a single-digit victory (possibly a bare two-digit victory, it’s not final yet). Most political pundits agreed seven weeks ago that she needed to win with two-thirds of the remaining states if she wanted to win eneough pledged delegates to win the nomination. Single-digits doesn’t cut it. This is nothing but pure bullshit spin, designed to convince the superdelegates to ignore the will of the people and give her all of their votes to put her over the top.

But what they fail to point out is that, as of this moment, she is still losing the primary race for her party’s nomination. She is not winning by the large margin an “inevitable” candidate would be expected to win by. She is losing, and yet she still thinks that she should be her party’s nominee? By what insane reasoning does she come to this conclusion?

Notice how the Clintons have re-framed the entire race. Before, she was the candidate to beat, the “inevitable” one. Now, they are arguing that even though she is losing, she hasn’t been knocked out yet. So you should still go with her. She’s losing, but she hasn’t lost yet. And somehow this means that she can be a winner? I don’t get it.

To further complicate matters, they keep bringing up comparisons between her victories in the primaries, against other Democratic opponents, with most of the races being decided by Democrats (though I can’t understand for the life of me the purpose of Open Primaries - if you want to help decide one party’s nominee, then join the fucking party!), to how well she would do in a general election against the Republican nominee. That is a pure Apples & Oranges comparison. There is no rationale available that could extract any meaning between how people choosing one party’s nominee would vote in the general election if the other nominee won. Besides, Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama received more votes than many of the republicans, as far as I can recall. So it sounds like either one would win against Senator McCain. So why keep fighting, Senator Clinton? You are going to lose. Why prolong the “inevitable”?

Oh, and that quote above? It was from a column written by Mark Shields, and published Saturday, October 6, 2007. How insightful. (snort)

Young Voters Shun Third parties - More Politics As Usual

According to a story by the AP’s John Riley (via Raw Story), young voters today are shunning third parties in favor of the traditional two major political parties. One 21-year-old interviewed considered himself “among those who see third-party candidates as spoilers, a view that, coupled with a renewed excitement for major party candidates, is draining key support from third parties in 2008.” And since third-party condidates often get their support from young voters, this year the pickings from the two major parties seemed too good to pass up.

Koch said another reason support for third-party candidates is waning is the dynamics of this year’s presidential race. Strong support for the Democratic candidates, especially Obama, has energized young and first-time voters to turn out in primaries and caucuses.

In addition, there are no particularly strong third-party candidates who have distinguished themselves from the major party candidates this year, Koch said. The possible candidacies of Ralph Nader, former Republican congressman Bob Barr of Georgia and former Democratic congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia have the potential to grab some support from young voters, he said, but probably will not.

As a result of this, the next generation of young voters will help perpetuate the main problem with our two-party system of politics - the two major political parties, and the winner-take-all system of electoral politics that favors it. If you read your US Constitution carefully, you will find that nowhere does it mention political parties. Nor does it specify that there be two and only two “leaders” in each House. By all rights, Sen Bernie Sanders (Soc-VT) should be considered the Socialist Party Leader in the US Senate. It’s the Senate Rules that prevent him from claiming that title. (Note: He is the only Socialist Party member in Congress, but that would still make him the leader.) And the reason it is that way is because the two major parties want it that way. They have convinced Americans that in life, there are always only two choices - us or them. One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. You are not to be given a third choice, which might take a little bit from this guy’s idea and combine it with a little bit if that guy’s idea. You either accept one side’s view whole-heartedly or the other guy’s view. This is no way to govern.

Oh, I understand why they do it. They want to be able to predict and control the outcome as much as possible. The party in power wants to make sure that anything put to the floor for a vote (and as the “majority Party”, they decide which bills come up for a vote and the rules under which they will be “debated” (meaning how many amendments will “be in order” and how much time will be allowed for each vote, and whether or not something will be offered up as a unanimous consent agreement, in which no votes are recorded), will come out the way they want it to. And because “winning” is more important than “governing”, they will disregard the will and the best interests of the People in favor of maintaining their hold on power. And the more we keep sending the same ones back to Congress, the more they keep doing it.

It’s funny, polls will often show that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied withe job that Congress is doing, yet Congressmen get re-elected well over 95% of the time. People hate what Conogress is doing, but seem to hold their own representation blameless. Why is that? Because their Senator or Representative got money to pave the roads? Big deal! They deliberately put off doing that for several years for the express purpose of having somethign tangible and concrete (no pun intended) for the voters to see when re-election time comes around. They don’t do it because it needs to be done and probably should have been done years ago. They do it because it will make you vote for them. Two or six years later, they’ll find some other responsibility that they neglected and pour money into that, again, not because it’s the right thing to do and should have been done long before, but because it will get you to vote for them. Again and again. We hate the way Washington works, but we keep sending back the same people who are doing it. Why? because we are always being told that they are the only two choices we have. If we don’t vote for the Democrat, we must vote for the Republican. Tell me, honestly. Aren’t you just the least bit tired of always having to choose between the lesser of two evils?

There are other choices, People. Go out and look for who’s filed to run for Congress. Find out what makes them different from the two major parties. If they think the problem is the two major parties, then that’s your candidate. Because if this person is okay with the way the Democrats and Republicans have been running Congress, then this person doesn’t understand the problem. To change the way Congress works, you have to change the people who get sent there.

Hello world!

Pardon our appearance.  I’m in the process of transferring stuff from my current blog, Pick Wayne’s Brain over on Blogspot.com. But do check back in from time to time. If I put anything new up on the other blog, I’ll post it here. And, eventually, the vast majority of Jane’s and my posts will get transferred here, for easier reference. Yes, even the song parodies.

Meanwhile, thanks for checking in, and if you’ve never heard of me before, please go visit my other site. Take care.