Every Day Low Wages

The following courtesy of ReclaimDemocracy.org

"We all pay the price for Wal-Mart. The U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democratic Staff commissioned an interesting report on the indirect economic impacts of Wal-Mart stores. The report says we all pay for the company's notoriously meager paychecks, with taxpayers picking up $420,750 per year for a Wal-Mart store employing 200 people (most new Wal-Marts are larger than that). These estimated costs, which will vary based on the number of employees, include: $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families; $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance; $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families; $100,000 a year for additional Title I education funds; $108,000 per year for children's health insurance costs."

Read the full report here.

Liberation

It appears US soldiers are liberating Iraqis of there dignity.
Read about this here.

Getting Real

I think many of you have the wrong idea about where I stand on the election. I have been very critical of Kerry in the last few posts. I have been flirting with voting for Nader or the Green Party candidate. My vote in Utah is utterly meaningless. I and every other left leaning person in this state have been effectively disenfranchised by the winner take all electoral college system. (I think this is a serious problem in our country by the way. How is it a democracy when a hand full of states decide the election). The more significant effect I can have on the election is by donating money to a candidate's campaign or a PAC. So where have I committed my money? I donated to the Kucinich campaign in the primary. I have donated multiple times to Moveon.org to support their anti-Bush ads, and I have donated to the Kerry campaign. I decidedly have not contributed to the Greens or Nader's independent campaign.

I still think Kerry is wrong on many issues. I think he is making a huge mistake on his position on the war. A new New York Times/CBS News Poll says that 46% of Americans now believe we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Most of these people are bound to be on the left. Kerry's position on the war drives some of them to support Nader who rightly thinks we should get out of Iraq. Can't Kerry even support the idea of leaving Iraq under certain circumstances? Hopefully a meeting with Nader or a discussion with Dennis Kucinich at the Democratic convention will convince him of this.

Polls I have seen show there is a lot of support for a single payer health care plan. Something like 60% of Americans support it. Even the CEO's of America's big three auto makers support a single payer health care plan. Kerry has promised to get Health Care coverage for 97% of Americans. Why not 100% ? Its not like single payer is an unpopular idea. If Kerry were to change on just these two issues, Nader wouldn't be a threat.

Advertise Where You are Weakest

Have any of you seen the new Bush Campaign Ad? It claims among other things, that Kerry voted against Body Armor for our troops. The unadulterated Gall of Bush and his cronies never ceases to amaze me. It was Bush who sent our troops into harms way without the proper equipment, including body armor and the proper armor for Humvees. Go here to see a thorough de-bunking of Bush's ads.

If You Had Your Druthers

Suppose through some magical spell we could guarantee that if Bush wins the 2004 election he and Cheney will be impeached. Knowing this to be the case, if you had your druthers, would you choose this or a Kerry victory in 2004?

We Need a Peace President, Not Another War President

If one issue has motivated the anybody but Bush left, it has been the war in Iraq. But what real difference would a Kerry presidency make on the situation in Iraq? How is Kerry's view significantly different than Bush's? Keep in mind I am not talking about what Kerry would have done differently had he been president before the war. I am talking about what he says he will do now. Howard Zinn makes a compelling case that Kerry's current position on the war can only lead to Mayhem, which is what we will get with Bush. The article appears in its entirety below. Please note the criticisms of Kerry as I think they are spot on.

The following article appears in The Progressive

What Do We Do Now?
by Howard Zinn

It seems very hard for some people--especially those in high places, but also those striving for high places--to grasp a simple truth: The United States does not belong in Iraq. It is not our country. Our presence is causing death, suffering, destruction, and so large sections of the population are rising against us. Our military is then reacting with indiscriminate force, bombing and shooting and rounding up people simply on "suspicion."

Amnesty International, a year after the invasion, reported: "Scores of unarmed people have been killed due to excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces during public demonstrations, at checkpoints, and in house raids. Thousands of people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000], often under harsh conditions, and subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated, and some have died in custody."

The recent battles in Fallujah brought this report from Amnesty International: "Half of at least 600 people who died in the recent fighting between Coalition forces and insurgents in Fallujah are said to have been civilians, many of them women and children."

In light of this, any discussion of "What do we do now?" must start with the understanding that the present U.S. military occupation is morally unacceptable.

The suggestion that we simply withdraw from Iraq is met with laments: "We mustn't cut and run. . . . We must stay the course. . . . Our reputation will be ruined. . . ." That is exactly what we heard when, at the start of the Vietnam escalation, some of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of staying the course was 58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese dead.

"We can't leave a vacuum there." I think it was John Kerry who said that. What arrogance to think that when the United States leaves a place there's nothing there! The same kind of thinking saw the enormous expanse of the American West as "empty territory" waiting for us to occupy it, when hundreds of thousands of Indians lived there already.

The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they bring neither democracy nor security. The long U.S. occupation of the Philippines, following a bloody war in which American troops finally subdued the Filipino independence movement, did not lead to democracy, but rather to a succession of dictatorships, ending with Fernando Marcos.

The long U.S. occupations of Haiti (1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1926) led only to military rule and corruption in both countries.

The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that things will be worse if we leave. There will be chaos, there will be civil war, we are told. In Vietnam, supporters of the war promised a bloodbath if U.S. troops withdrew. That did not happen.

There is a history of dire forecasts for what will happen if we desist from deadly force. If we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, it was said, we would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would follow. We know now, and knew then, that was not true, but to acknowledge that did not fit the government's political agenda. The U.S. had broken the Japanese code and had intercepted the cables from Tokyo to the emissary in Moscow, which made clear that the Japanese were ready to surrender so long as the position of the Emperor was secure.

Truth is, no one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay and the uncertainty of what will follow.

There is a possibility of reducing that uncertainty by replacing a U.S. military presence with an international nonmilitary presence. It is conceivable that the United Nations should arrange, as U.S. forces leave, for a multinational team of peacekeepers and negotiators, including, importantly, people from the Arab countries. Such a group might bring together Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance, which would give all three groups a share in political power.

Simultaneously, the U.N. should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the U.S. and other countries, as well as a corps of engineers to begin the reconstruction of the country.

In a situation that is obviously bad and getting worse, some see the solution in enlarging the military presence. The rightwing columnist David Brooks wrote in mid-April: "I never thought it would be this bad," but he then expressed his joy that President Bush is "acknowledging the need for more troops." This fits the definition of fanaticism: "When you find you're going in the wrong direction, you double your speed."

John Kerry, sadly (for those of us who hoped for a decisive break from the Bush agenda), echoes that fanaticism. If he learned any thing from his experience in Vietnam, he has forgotten it. There, too, repeated failure to win the support of the Vietnamese people led to sending more and more troops into Tennyson's "valley of death."

In a recent piece in The Washington Post, Kerry talks about "success" in military terms. "If our military commanders request more troops we should deploy them." He seems to think that if we "internationalize" our disastrous policy, it becomes less of a disaster. "We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq." Is that what brings security--"boots on the ground"?

Kerry suggests: "We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers." More troops, more troops. And the U.S. must be in charge--that old notion that the world can trust our leadership--despite our long record of moral failure.

To those who worry about what will happen in Iraq after our troops leave, they should consider the effect of having foreign troops: continued, escalating bloodshed, continued insecurity, increased hatred for the United States in the entire Muslim world of over a billion people, and increased hostility everywhere.

The effect of that will be the exact opposite of what our political leaders--of both parties--claim they intend to achieve, a "victory" over terrorism. When you inflame the anger of an entire population, you have enlarged the breeding ground for terrorism.

What of the other long-term effects of continued occupation? I'm thinking of the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers--being forced to kill, maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy, against tyranny.

I'm thinking of the irony that those very things we said our soldiers were dying for--giving their eyes, their limbs for--are being lost at home by this brutal war. Our freedom of speech is diminished, our electoral system corrupted, Congressional and judicial checks on executive power nonexistent.

And the costs of the war--the $400 billion military budget (which Kerry, shockingly, refuses to consider lowering)--make it inevitable that people in this country will suffer from lack of health care, a deteriorating school system, dirtier air and water. Corporate power is unregulated and running wild.

Kerry does not seem to understand that he is giving away his strongest card against Bush--the growing disillusion with the war among the American public. He thinks he is being clever, by saying he will wage the war better than Bush. But by declaring his continued support for the military occupation, he is climbing aboard a sinking ship.

We do not need another war President. We need a peace President. And those of us in this country who feel this way should make our desire known in the strongest of ways to the man who may be our next occupant of the White House.

A Realist's Approach to the 2004 Election

Now here is a hard nosed realists' view about how the progressive left should handle the 2004 election. Let me know what you think.

Human Rights Crisis in the Sudan

We went into Iraq to free the people of a tyrant, right? Our mission was a humanitarian one. That is the latest rationale given by Bush's Hawks. Well then I expect we shall invade Sudan soon. Rape, torture, and one million forced to flee as Sudan's crisis unfolds. Will we move to stop it? That is the question a headline from the Independent asks. If the Bush administration truly has a policy of military intervention against tyrants for humanitarian purposes, then we can expect troops to be sent to the Sudan. This is a much more dire situation than Iraq has ever been in.

"Next comes the Janjaweed, a fearsome Arab militia mounted on camels and horses, and armed with AK-47 rifles and whips. They murder the men and boys of fighting age, gang-rape the women - sometimes in front of their families - and burn the houses. The villagers' cattle are stolen, their modest possessions carted off."

[snip]

"This is where some of the world's worst human rights abuses are occurring and nothing is being done to stop it. This is ethnic cleansing Sudanese-style. A government-sponsored campaign, led by Arab tribesmen against their black African neighbours, has triggered the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time and - with the world's eyes fixed on Iraq - its most forgotten calamity."

[snip]

"Some victims have become pregnant, although researchers admit accurate information is difficult to establish due to the intense local stigma. Some assaults have clear racial overtones. One 18-year-old woman told Human Rights Watch (HRW) that her attacker stuck a knife into her vagina, saying: 'You get this because you are black.'"

So lets see some action Bush. Send in the troops now! I am serious, quit messing around with Iraq.

If You Thought... If You Are...

If you thought Nader elected Bush in 2004 read this.

If you are a progressive read the following incomplete list of Nader's positions on the issues.

• Corporations should not be given equal rights with humans
• Wants electoral reform
• Opposes media concentration
• Wants to make health care universally available
• Opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq
• Wants a crackdown on corporate crime and abuse
• Wants a fair tax where the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share
• Wants fair trade that protects the environment, labor rights and consumer needs
• A family farm-consumer agriculture policy
• Wants to end poverty in the United States
• Wants to expand worker's rights by developing an employee bill of rights
• Education for everyone
• Supports Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians
• Repeal the Patriot Act
• Wants to reform the criminal injustice system
• Wants to end the war on drugs

Kerry fails to support or is weak on virtually every item on this list and says he's "not a redistribution democrat." What should we progressives conclude?

A Slogan for the Major Media

We don't know but we've been told.

Disaster for Democracy on the Horizon

You would think after the harrowing experience of the 2000 election fiasco, the "greatest country in the world" could get its shit together and fix the problems. Not with Bush in office. John Kerry has called this administration the biggest say one thing and do another administration he has ever seen. We have yet another example.

On signing the Help America Vote Act 18 months ago, Mr Bush said: "When problems arise in the administration of elections we have a responsibility to fix them. Every registered voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are honest, that every vote is recorded, and that the rules are consistently applied." I agree with Mr. Bush on this; however, he did not follow through on his words. Its not enough to sign new legislation. Funding must be appropriated to put that legislation into action. The Independent reports "...the Bush White House has consistently proposed less money than promised by the act, so states that have passed their own reform legislation have found themselves crucially short of money for implementation."

The Independent article cited above also summarizes a new report by the US Commission on Civil Rights. The report says, "Many of the problems that the commission previously cautioned should be corrected yet prevail ... Unless the government acts now, many of those previously disenfranchised stand to be excluded again."

If we can't even guarantee voter enfranchisement, then no other issue matters. We simply don't have a democracy. You would think that funding the very basis of our democracy might be more important than tax cuts for the rich. But then you aren't George W. Bush who apparently thinks otherwise.

The Los Angeles Times reports that California's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel voted 8-0 that 15,000 Diebold voting machines should be banned from the Nov. 2 general election this year. With minorities likely to be disenfranchised again and vulnerable voting machines being used in other states, how can we have any confidence in the next election. How can we have confidence that we actually live in a democracy?

Our Nero

As many of you might know, Bob Woodward was interviewed on 60 minutes last night about his new book Plan of Attack.

Here are some damning highlights of what Woodward said.

• Plans for attacking Iraq were made before 9/11 and remained an obsession after
• Bush illegally took $700 million dollars from money congress appropriated for the war in Afghanistan, and used it for preparations to invade Iraq.
• Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was shown war plans marked "Top Secret No Foreign" before Colin Powell was even told of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
• The Saudi's made a secret agreement with Bush to increase production of oil, thus lowering oil prices just before the election to temporarily boost the economy and Bush's election prospects

The vile criminal behaviour of this administration has no end. Bush is clearly the most corrupt and inept president in the history of our nation. Bush is our contemporary emperor Nero. He unquestionably deserves impeachment.

Another Liberal Prediction Comes True

We on the left predicted that invading Iraq would risk nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorists. It now looks like that is well on the way to happening. The San Diego Union Tribune reports:

"Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards."

[snip]

"The IAEA has been unable to investigate, monitor or protect Iraqi nuclear materials since the U.S. invaded the country in March 2003. The United States has refused to allow the IAEA or other U.N. weapons inspectors into the country, claiming that the coalition has taken over responsibility for illict weapons searches."

Way to go Bush. That mushroom cloud you were talking about before the war is one step closer to happening.

Even Tabloids Get It Right Sometimes

This via Kevin Drum from the British Tabloid Daily Mirror.

Mealy-mouthed, Half-assed Kerry

In the LA Times John Kerry is quoted as saying, "This isn't going to be any mealy-mouthed, half-assed, you know, namby-pamby campaign." In so far as that will get Bush out of office, I think its great. However, what I am really interested in is not the campaign. I want to hear Kerry say he is going to give up his mealy-mouthed, half-assed policies and replace them with policies that reflect true progressive values. This means stop dinking around with the tax code in an half-assed attempt to fix the health care crisis in this country. Adopt a "muscular" single payer system.

"I am not a redistribution Democrat," he said. "Fear not. I am not somebody who wants to go back and make the mistakes of the Democratic Party of 20, 25 years ago." Lets see, who was a Democrat 25 years ago. That would be Jimmy Carter. So Kerry doesn't want to make the mistake of caring about human rights over making the next buck on the back of a Chinese sweat shop laborer. "I am not a redistribution Democrat." That's an oxymoron isn't it. Redistribution of wealth has been a central plank of the Democratic party since at least FDR. Kerry sounds like a half-assed Republican to me.

"I am going to put real choices in front of the country," Kerry says. Yeah right. Yale class of '68 or Yale class of '66. Seriously though. It looks like the so-called choice is between a moderate Republican and a right-wing extremist sociopath. I guess thats a choice, but not a very happy one. As I am in a state where I am effectively disenfranchised by our stupid all or nothing electoral college system, I am not going to vote for Kerry. I will vote for the Green Party candidate or Nader. For those of you in swing states, it is still important to get rid of the criminal in the White House even if it is for a Half-assed, mealy-mouthed, so-called Democrat.

A Signal For Slaughter

Bush's Press conference last night was A Scary Performance, and a Signal for Slaughter.

"He reiterated this point later, saying, 'Our commanders on the ground have got the authority necessary to deal with violence, and will--and will in firm fashion.'
Here is the President warning that U.S. troops, who have already killed more than 600 Iraqis in the last week, will have a free hand.
That is a signal for slaughter."

The slaughter won't just be of Iraqi's. It will be of America's sons and daughters as well.

A History Lesson

Check the facts before rushing to war.

" If one human being on trial can only be given a death sentence on the basis of certainty beyond "a reasonable doubt," then surely this criterion should be applied where the lives of thousands are at stake. The decision to go to war in Iraq should have been challenged on two grounds."

[snip]

" A bit of history might have suggested skepticism. It might have been recalled that President James Polk took us into war with Mexico in 1846, and William McKinley took us into war with Spain in 1898, and Congress authorized war in Vietnam in 1964, all based on deceptions."

[snip]

"Another general principle, buttressed by history: Military interventions and occupations do not lead to democracy. I would cite the long occupations of the Philippines, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. Also: the military action in Vietnam on behalf of a corrupt and dictatorial government, and the many covert actions - Iran, Guatemala, Chile - leading to brutal dictatorships.

More conclusions, from both history and our experience in Iraq: that all wars have unintended consequences, usually bad ones; that military occupation is corrupting to the occupied country and also to the occupiers; that the casualties of a military adventure are not just the immediate ones, but continue far beyond. Think of the tens of thousands of suicides of Vietnam veterans, the 160,000 medical casualties of the Persian Gulf War."

50 Tons Of Mustard Gas In a Turkey Farm

I love the title to this excellent post. 50 Tons Of Mustard Gas In a Turkey Farm.

Wal-Mart Loses a Battle, But Why Was It Allowed to Fight?

"Regardless of one's opinion of Wal-Mart, all of us who value democracy should be pleased that citizens rejected the company's blatant attempt to simply buy its way out of an unfavorable decision by local officials. The Inglewood result was the exception to the rule, however. So we might question why we allow any corporation to employ ballot initiatives -- theoretically democracy in its purest form -- as weapons to overturn decisions of our democratically elected representatives."

Read the rest of this important article here. Giving corporations rights that should be reserved for citizens only is a perversion of democracy and the greatest threat to its continued existence.

Insanity

"Religious insanity is very common in the United States," writes Alexis de Tocqueville, "We should not be surprised at this."

Maybe Bush is a Uniter

Maybe Bush really is a uniter and not a divider. He certainly has united the political left against him in America. He has united most of the rest of the world in opposition to his foreign policy. Now it looks like he has united Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.

Signs That Shiites and Sunnis Are Joining to Battle Americans

If you want to unite Shiites and Sunnis, give them the common cause of killing Americans. Piss them off by shutting down their newspapers and blowing up their mosques.

"Sunni, Shia, that doesn't matter anymore," said Sabah Saddam, a 32-year-old government clerk who took the day off to drive one of the supply trucks. "These were artificial distinctions. The people in Falluja are starving. They are Iraqis and they need our help."

But it is not just relief aid that is flowing into the city.

According to several militia members, many Shiite fighters are streaming into Falluja to help Sunni insurgents repel a punishing assault by United States marines. Groups of young men with guns are taking buses from Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad to the outskirts of Falluja, and then slipping past checkpoints to join the action. "It's not easy to get in, but we have our ways," said Ahmed Jumar, a 25-year-old professional soccer player who also belongs to a Shiite militia. "Our different battles have turned into one fight, the fight against the Americans."

Rice Lies to the Commission

Have a look at the discrepencies between Rice's claims to the Commission and the facts, here. I expected an indictment of Ms. Rice for lying under oath and I expect to see her removed from her position as Security Advisor.

Here is one example that seems not just to be a case of unknowingly giving false information, but blatantly lying.

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'"

How to Pacify a City

The stated mission in Fallujah was to pacify the violence in that city. US Bombs Fallujah Mosque; More Than 40 Worshippers Killed: Revolutionary violence engulfs Iraq. Yeah, good fucking idea. Blow up a Mosque and kill a bunch of worshippers. That'll pacify them. Now anti-american violence has broken out all over the country. Good job. Go here to see how the Iraqi's feel about this.

Yet More Evidence Consistent With Richard Clarke's Testimony

"The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century was created by President Bill Clinton in October 1998, with the approval of the congressional leadership. It was a bipartisan commission with a three-year life and a mandate to review threats to national security and opportunities to avoid those threats and to report to the next president of the United States in early 2001. It completed the most comprehensive review of U.S. national security since 1947."

Gary Hart was on that commision and has written an article for Salon.com which asks why the 9/11 commision hasn't asked him and other members of The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century to testify. Hart writes: " The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Sen. Warren Rudman and myself, reported to President George W. Bush and his new administration in January 2001 that terrorists were surely going to attack the United States and that our country was woefully unprepared... In our final report we urged the new Bush administration to create a national homeland security agency to prevent terrorist attacks."

So why did Bush wait until after 9/11 to form the Department of Homeland Security?

Dirty Words, George Carlin, and Paul of Tarsus

George Carlin has always been one of my favorite comedians. His famous routine Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television is a classic and is more relevant than ever because of the FCC hysteria over Janet Jackson's boobie. Bill Maher recently interviewed a woman who worked for NPR in LA. She got fired for saying fuck on a taped segment for a radio show. She was then told she "needs help." Whoever said she needs help, needs help themselves. I never understood why people got so upset about "dirty words" I would say shit on the playground and some of my classmates would cover their mouth with their hand and say, "ooohh, you swore." I just thought it was funny. I would go on to say, "shit, fuck, damn, hell, motherfucker." This was the point at which they would go tell on me. During parent-teacher conference my teacher labeled me "the worst mouth in the fourth grade." There is a great interview with George Carlin about this and other issues over on Salon.com. Here is an excerpt I particularly enjoyed.

We have to remember what most of this springs from is religion. Probably among humans there is a natural and an innate modesty. In northern climates you were forced to cover certain parts of your body because it was cold as a motherfucker. But the church took what may have been a natural modesty about the bedroom, and a natural sort of a shyness, and exploited it into this idea that the body is somehow dirty and evil or at least potentially evil. Well, of course, you can raise a stick and kill somebody. The body is capable of all sorts of nastiness. Two of the most irresistible urges in nature -- "I gotta take a shit!" "I gotta get laid one of these days!" I know it's imperfect and it won't look great in print. But those two things are bodily needs. Sure, shit is nasty and dirty but so are a lot of other things, so is the garbage that comes out of the bottom of a grease trap in the kitchen. But the church has over the centuries has given us guilt, fear and shame about our bodies and the things that they do.

This idea of the body being evil or dirty, in my opinion, comes from the writings of Paul of Tarsus in the Bible. There is an interesting article about this I found due to Joe London. His blog has a similar title to mine, Human Too Human. The article notes how Plato's influence on Paul leads to this sort of body hate.

Paul's dualism, leading to rejection of the human body and its longings, seems to reveal an aversion to the human race. He could find compassion for his own human condition, but he appears to abhor the rest of mankind in its sordid attempt at day-to-day existence. Plato shares this feeling and has Socrates say in Phaedo: "It seems that so long as we are alive, we shall continue closest to knowledge if we avoid as much as we can all contact and association with the body, ... and instead of allowing ourselves to become infected with its nature, purify ourselves from it until [Zeus] gives us deliverance."

Its time to accept that our body is good and that words cannot be inherently evil.

Under God is Dead

Yes its a provocative title. As you might know, the Supreme Court is considering arguments that having "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitional. Anyone who has read my blog will know where I stand on this as I am an Athiest, but I believe that those who are religious should be just as opposed to the "under god" phrase in the pledge as I am. There is an excellent article in the New Republic about this issue from which I am going to quote at length. First consider the way Bush's crony Theodore Olson is arguing in favor of keeping "under God" in the pledge.

The solicitor general stood before the Court to argue against the plain meaning of ordinary words. In the Pledge of Allegiance, the government insisted, the word "God" does not refer to God. It refers to a reference to God. The government's argument, as it was stated in the brief filed by Theodore B. Olson, was made in two parts. The first part was about history, the second part was about society. "The Pledge's reference to 'a Nation under God,'" the solicitor general maintained, "is a statement about the Nation's historical origins, its enduring political philosophy centered on the sovereignty of the individual." The allegedly religious words in the Pledge are actually just "descriptive"--the term kept recurring in the discussion--of the mentality of the people who established the United States. As Olson told the Court, they are one of several "civic and ceremonial acknowledgments of the indisputable historical fact that caused the framers of our Constitution and the signers of the Declaration of Independence to say that they had the right to revolt and start a new country."

This is like Clinton arguing over what the word "is" means. Besides, when you live in a society where God doesn't mean God, God must be dead. That should make a religious person more upset about this than any Athiest might be. And indeed some are. Consider the following.

In his intervention at the Court, Justice Stevens recalled a devastating point from the fascinating brief submitted in support of Newdow by 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, which asserted that "if the briefs of the school district and the United States are to be taken seriously," that is, if the words in the Pledge do not allude to God, "then every day they ask schoolchildren to violate [the] commandment" that "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain." Remember, those are not the Ten Suggestions. It is a very strange creed indeed that asks its votaries not to reflect too much about itself.

Finally, I would like to address an all too common refrain we hear about the "under god" issue. "Come on," they say, "its not really that big of a deal, be a little more thick-skinned about this." Well, if it isn't a big deal to keep it in the pledge, then why should it be a big deal to take it out and be consistent with the constitution.

If God doesn't mean God, then God is dead.

Bush Administration Dragging its Feet Again

The Bush administration is dragging its feet again on producing evidence the 9/11 commission needs. Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers from 9/11 Panel. The Bush administration claims it had a more comprehensive plan for terrorism than Clinton, but won't allow the 9/11 commission to make that judgement for themselves.

More Evidence Clarke is Right

This time from an FBI translator. This from the Independent.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

Post War Plan Ignored by Bush Cabal

Despite what many of us on the left have said, there was a post Iraq war plan. The problem is that Bush's inner circle, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, decided to ignore that plan.

There was plenty of planning for the post-war occupation at senior levels throughout government, says Col. Tom Gross, who was chief planner for Lt. General Jay M. Garner, director of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, and then-chief of staff for Ambassador Paul Bremer, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator.

"There was a plan," said Gross, who is retiring from the military. "The administration chose not to accept it. Their plan was to put [Iraqi exile] Ahmed Chalabi in charge and run with it."

This from a very interesting article by Steven Rosenfeld of TomPaine.com. Everybody on the left and right agrees that if there had been more interagency communication, 9-11 may have been prevented. According to Richard Clarke's now famous testimony, the Bush administration may have exacerbated that problem.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice downgraded the role and reach of Clarke and his staff. Under Rice and unlike the Clinton administration, the anti-terrorism czar said he could no longer aggressively coordinate government agencies and implement the nation's anti-terror policies.

Indeed, according to the article, "The most powerful figures in the Bush administration dispensed with the interagency planning process prior White Houses used to evaluate threats, make decisions to go to war, and plan and carry out those actions."

The Dragon of Unhappiness

The Washington post reports "On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals."

Looks like the dragon of unhappiness flew up Condi's ass.
(Thanks to Terry Pratchett for the lovely turn of phrase.)

In light of of this speach, and evidence from former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, it seems clear the Bush administration didn't take the threat of terrorism as seriously as they should have. They were more concerned with making money whether it be from missle defense system contracts or invading Iraq in order to plunder its oil resources and gouge the American Tax payer with cushy no-bid contracts for Halliburton.