Friday, March 30, 2007

The Machiavellian Mastermind: Who on earth can keep track of the corruption which has absolutely saturated our government? Our tax dollars are being used for partisan political purposes. I don't like it in Republican administrations nor do I like it in Democratic administrations. It doesn't matter who perpetrates it. It is still, ultimately, our money that is used and stolen.

Present day Republicans, though, have taken corruption in government to Olympian heights beyond the stratosphere. Who can keep track of all of the scandals? Karl Rove has probably been behind most if not all of the schemes and illegal actions from election fraud, outing of CIA agent Valerie Pflame, firing of the USA eight to many fund raising Hatch Act illegalities. In my opinion, Karl Rove knew about and sanctioned a plethora of nefarious Congressional and other illicit activities.

Yet, one of the highest perpetrators of this activity goes free, hiding behind executive privilege. If Congress investigates under oath no other Machiavellian mastermind in this horrendously corrupt administration, I pray every day that justice prevails and Rove through Congressional oversight is investigated by Congress and ultimately tried in a court of law for his egregious behaviors. I doubt he will be tried and perhaps he will not even be investigated. The Republicans have, through Bush's reign, in fascist-like fashion, usurped every governmental institution including the Supreme Court which will ultimately determine the outcome of the looming Constitutional crisis as it rules on the use of executive privilege.

I hope the august body of our Supreme Court leaves politics aside and places the rule of law first. I hope it finds that executive privilege does not apply to the particular Congressional investigations of Karl Rove and that it requires Rove's testimony before Congress in transcript and under oath. It is only in this way that the American public will be able to see the truth of what he and others have done. It is only in this way that the people can see if he should be tried in a court of law for the crimes he has allegedly committed against us. Perhaps, in this way, one day this great nation I thought I knew can return to the more honest decent nation I believe it once was.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Jeff Jacoby 3/29/07 editorial: Awww, Jeff what a saccharinely (is there such a word?) sugary -- okay incredibly sweet editorial "Messages to my son" was. How could anyone criticize your sentiments that you want your ten year old son to be kind, and do good?

I couldn't help but wonder though how a person would want that for his son and be philosophically conservative at the same time. Conservative thought, it seems to me, is more of the sink or swim, live or die, rise or fall on your own but don't expect government to help you when you are down variety. I thought it stood for government is not the solution it is the problem. I thought conservatives now want the poor or the sick to rely more on the good will of others or their church (or synagogue) for any help they need. If they can't get it there then do not true conservatives think those are the breaks because life is harsh? These conservatives are often not too kindly especially when it comes to the bigger picture.

You say to your son "Whenever we are startled or inconvenienced by the siren of an ambulance, I offer a prayer that the EMT's will arrive in time to help whoever is in danger." Well, that person on the other end of the siren better have more than a prayer. He better have good health insurance coverage because his fate certainly rises or falls on that. What more of a dirty concept to conservatives than national health care. The outcomes of having cancer, which is an equal opportunity employer, favors the rich who have insurance over those middle class or poor who do not.

Conservatives always SOUND so sweet but in reality crush the poor, do not lend a helping hand and in reality care more about the buck than the person. The conservative response to Katrina is example par excellence of that fact.

Conservatives often are perfectly willing to send other kids into battle to get killed or maimed in useless unnecessary wars based on lies while their own kids are going off to Yale. So when you are telling your son that above all else be decent, kind and honest, explain to him how you square the group you philosophically advocate for with those qualities you urge him to be.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The problem of the Patriot Act: I respectfully disagree with FBI director Robert Mueller who said it's not the Patriot Act that is the problem it is the implementation of the Patriot Act that is the problem.

When one gives government broad sweeping extra constitutional powers one can be sure someone somewhere in the government will abuse that power. For anyone in this country who has been a law abiding citizen who may disagree strongly with a government position to have to worry that someone may be looking in his mail, snooping into ones email, phone conversations or worry about other egregious infringements by government upon their rights we have become like those countries we have fought so hard against. This is a travesty. Worse than a travesty it takes up unnecessary time in our fight in the war against terror.

We need to be very prudent as to whom we investigate and limit our efforts to those people who indeed are nearly a certain risk. Wasting time, effort, manpower and money collecting humongous caches of information on those who clearly are benign entities is ridiculous and does more to make God forbid a terrorist act more likely because it drains the resources we need to use to fight the real threats.

Government becomes the problem when the powers the people bestow upon government are egregiously abridged. The Patriot Act, although I once benignly supported it, seems to have become the problem as those who enforce it can and will, if given the opportunity, most certainly abuse it.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Rovian Revenge: I used to think that Karl Rove was particularly brilliant. That's what everybody seemed to be saying. I viewed the DVD "Bush's Brain" and thought Rove was the sinister genius that everyone suggested he was. How else could George W. Bush, with his intellectual mediocrity and deficit, prevail not only once but twice without the puppet master pulling the strings?

Now I have changed my mind. Rove is, I have concluded, not that bright. In fact there is either a stupidity or smugness which leads to great stupidity that is the reason behind the error of the firing of the USA eight. This time I think Karl Rove has made a doozy. There was no reason on earth for Rove to orchestrate the firing of Republican US Attorneys especially, since there were only eight of them. Doing that changed nothing. Rove did not realize that removing USAs because they were not prosecuting Democrats with enough fervor or Republicans with enough restraint, was ethically problematic if not, indeed, criminal. That was, in fact, stupid.

His most egregious mistake -- a mistake which I think reflects the nature of extreme wing politics -- was that he never gave a damn about the FEELINGS of those eight Republican US attorneys. The colossal mistake was that he never thought that saying people were fired due to incompetence would hurt someone's feelings ESPECIALLY if that rationale was a false one against these eight USA's.

Perhaps Mr. Rove has never been on the other end of a cruel boss or on the other end of something that was said or done to an underling by a superior which was clearly wrong and not fair. It hurts. Not only does it hurt but it infuriates. Not only does it infuriate it makes a person somehow and in some way want to get even. Most times one cannot and one has to simply endure the shame and move on. In this case though, the shame, bad as it was personally that the rationale for firing them was said to be because of "poor performance," that lie was revealed publicly. THAT is what stung and that is what Mr. Rove was too stupid to realize! Now, because it is public, some completely justified revenge is possible and has, in part, already occurred. Rove's callousness and uncaring part of his twisted psyche came back and bit him in the posterior. For once in this sad administration I surely do hope justice ultimately prevails and Rove ends up behind the bars he so richly deserves!

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Bush's Pathology: Response to Paul Slansky's article in HuffingtonPost.com. What a fabulous article "Deep Goat" is. Mr. Slansky is right on the money -- pardon the pun of an apt description for the Bush mafia. Ever since I read the story about Bush getting joy from torturing a frog, I realized there was something so dark and so fetid about him which chilled me thinking that THIS was our president. Underneath it all, underneath all the darkness must live a little boy who feels cerebrally not quite good enough and certainly not quite strong enough, scared and frightened that he is not quite up to the task of doing much of anything let alone assume the highest office in the world. It is sad, really, when one thinks about it. It would be one thing if he suffered his inadequacies alone but to drag us and the rest of the world down with him sometimes seems more than any country should bear although many put him where he is today. Like other tyrants, he did not attain power by himself. It would have certainly been better if George W. Bush suffered in silence and alone rather than inflict his psychopathology on the rest of us. His severely disturbed nature and that of others who helped him along the way has cost us thousands in lives and billions in treasure!

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

A response to Tom Hayden in the Huffington Post: Tom Hayden, with all due respect, the anti-Vietnam movement of the 1960's of which I was a part obviously did not do much. Yes, the US finally finally got out of Vietnam and a dictatorship was eliminated but really the Vietcong did not usher in a paradise. It's only recently that economic reforms have been initiated and the standard of living has risen.

The radical disruption of the 1968 convention was a huge mistake. The Democratic party was really the only friend we had despite Johnson's continuing of the war. I believe Humphrey would have ended it. Moreover, just like Nader did to elect George Bush, the radical movement, as I see it, ensured a never ending succession of right wing politicos. Our politics in hindsight drove the so called "moral majority" to the Republican extreme leaving Democrats with the taint of unpatriotic. It is unfortunate. When one thinks of the damage that has been inflicted by the Republican presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, and most especially the most extreme of right wing extremists George W. Bush we have reaped the opposite of what, I believe, we intended to sow. We did not have the majority of the American public's tactical support.

I hope it is not too late and that someday I experience the joys of Rooseveltesque leadership that brings creativity, academic excellence and humanitarian ideals to the presidency. I believe the radicalism of the 60's brought on to itself the worst of all possible worlds George W. Bush for not one term but two!
Anniversary Regrets: How well I remember shock and awe. It was the only time in my life in which I was aware of politics that I look back on myself with disgust. I am truly ashamed. Because the Iraq war was within close proximity of 9/11 I was intoxicated with rage at an Arab world that could perpetrate such a disgusting heinous act on the country I loved killing so many innocents. Not only was I enraged I believed what this administration said. I fell for their line because I thought they were telling the truth about all they uttered indicting Iraq as a monumental danger. I believed what they said because I was a civilian removed from the centers of power and those who know what I thought were the secrets of the world. I thought Bush and his minions knew things that I did not know and that he would not lead this nation into folly squandering lives and billions gambling the security of the world. I argued, often vociferously, in support much to the great consternation of many of my friends.

I ultimately turned adamantly against this war for so many different reasons seeing this president's utter lack of understanding of the historical context of Iraq and Middle East foreign policy. My friends still do not let me forget what my view was at that time. Unlike the president though, I have no problem apologizing. I apologize for my country's utter lack of understanding of historical context and its present leadership's incredible capacity and without conscience deliberately lie in order to perpetrate this utterly inhuman war to advance a delusional neocon agenda. George Bush and those with him have sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind of this absolutely reckless foreign policy blunder. I guess some would say we get what we deserve as someone had to support Mr. Bush and his cronies. Thankfully, I can say without shame, in both elections I did not.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

I sent this to Tomm Hartmann on Air America who was discussing the Second Amendment.

Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment: Tom Hartmann of Air America was discussing the etiology of the Second Amendment. He often, to support his opinion, delivers a historical rant about what the Founding Fathers thought in relation to current affairs some 300 years later. Sometimes, I think that his historical analyses as it involves contemporary events are ridiculous. He attempts to make a case for present day policies by historically reviewing the revolutionary war and post revolutionary war period. That can be futile. What "the founders had in mind," especially with respect to the Second Amendment, can often not, it seems to me, be determined and if it can be determined by various writings of our founders, to attempt to apply it to contemporary times is inane. The Second Amendment, of course states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What the Second Amendment meant to those who came out of the Enlightenment is different, I think, from what the Second Amendment means today. Our revolutionary fathers were about curtailing the power of the king. The king's standing army was a threat against people who had no guns. I think that is one general fair assessment of why they included the Second Amendment. They wanted the people to have the right to have guns to prevent a tyranny from oppressing any person in each state or that each state should have the right to defend itself from an invasion. The people in each individual state would be able to have guns just in case the government got out of hand or if another country invaded. The founders, I think, wanted the people on par with the government as well as each state to be able to defend itself individually and collectively.

American culture and society today certainly has evolved. The ownership of guns now has nothing really to do with the possibility of overthrowing the government. If one bought a gun with the intent of attacking the government especially now with respect to the Patriot Act they would be doing something treasonous and illegal. No one could overthrow this government with a gun or if a country invades it now is the federal government's responsibility to defend the people.

Guns presently are used not for defense against the government or foreign invaders but defense against individual criminals, sport or for collectors. The question is in this culture, forgetting the etiology of the Second Amendment which is, I believe, meaningless, do we need ad infinitum access with little oversight over the sales of guns even machine guns? The founders NEVER imagined our culture as it has metamorphosed today. Is the Second Amendment as the founders have written it even applicable to our current historical and social milieu? THAT is the question, I believe, one should debate. The etiology of our Second Amendment as it existed in the revolutionary period is nearly irrelevant to the question of gun control as it exists in contemporary times.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell: I support Rosie. She is the only reason I watch The View and she is one of only a few who appropriately criticize this administration for the egregious corrupt and criminal acts which have cost lives. Although, I think Rosie O'Donnell perhaps could have phrased her opinion regarding the torture of terrorist suspects in general and KSM in particular better, I do not think that she needs to be held to Supreme Court nominee accountability. Professional news broadcasters themselves are certainly not held to those standards. She does not need to support her point of view with flawless evidence. My goodness, our president doesn't even do that. If he can articulate an intelligent sentence I breathe a sigh of relief.

Rosie is NOT a news broadcaster or an academician. She is another personality on TV with her own opinion protected by, of course, our First Amendment. I certainly hope she was NOT defending that poor excuse for humanity KSM but she has every right to debate the legality of this administration's use of torture to extract evidence which is what I thought she was debating. Personally, I have very mixed emotions about the use of torture. One part of me thinks if it can save our lives who cares about those immoral bastards who would perpetrate a 9/11. On the other hand if it extracts phony confessions or imprisons without trial an innocent person, it could do more harm to us than good.

Whether on The View, Oprah, or Larry King, this question is not only Rosie's right or any other American's right to debate, it is our obligation to debate it as citizens of a great democratic country.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

I am responding to Colleen Roller's March 15, 2007 letter to the editor recording her disdain for The Globe's printing of the picture of two men kissing. Homosexuals have been a part of our species probably for as long as our species has been on the planet and homosexuals will continue to exist for all time. It is a genetic variation within our species. Therefore, I say get used to it. I would rather see two men kissing then shooting, maiming, and killing each other. I suggest Ms. Roller should indeed subscribe to The Boston Globe. It is the best and most professional newspaper to quote her phrase "for those of us living out here."

Monday, March 12, 2007

Dismayed about Deval: I voted for Deval Patrick but I have been very dismayed about Gov. Patrick's performance. I have written before and said I did not like the Cadillac, the drapes, the week long celebration, The Commonwealth paying for his wife's secretary and I ESPECIALLY hated the phone call to and for cronies with whom Gov. Patrick previously worked. Governor Patrick has been in his job only 2 months and he's taking a leave for his wife's depression? I do not understand that. I am sympathetic to depression and the havoc it can play in a family's life.

My father had a wife with severe emotional problems -- and I mean severe -- one daughter who died two weeks after birth, and his next daughter had polio. Ultimately my mother ended up a quadriplegic from a misdiagnosed benign spinal tumor and then a stroke, spent 20 years in a wheelchair, lots of time in home care and then in hospitals. My father took sole care of her for 7 years before she had surgery. He worked very hard, incurred huge medical expenses and took care of my mother, the house upkeep, cooking and even me in high school and he didn't take ONE not ONE day off from work. He went in every day without fail. If I, after two months of work, said I had to take care of my spouse because of depression how long would I have lasted at that job? About a minute and a half. I am always suspicious of a new hire when all of a sudden an excuse for an absence is given.

I wonder who is Gov. Patrick kidding? I am thinking Gov. Patrick cannot take the heat of the kitchen and that the job is not what he thought it would be. I am thinking he is in over his head and can't get out. In fairness I liked his handling of the illegals although it's dropped from the news and they are still in absentia. Gov. Patrick, I think, is simply not strong enough and cannot take the onslaught. What did he think that job would be like?

I hope I am wrong because I love having a liberal in a position of great power especially too now that a Supreme Court vacancy, because of Judge Sossman's death, has occurred but he must show that he can assume those responsibilities he signed on for irrespective of familial problems.

What did he think that job was all about? It should not be about accumulating as many perks as one can, it should not be about talking to companies to get them a favorable monetary result and, in my opinion, it really should not be about taking time off for his wife's depression as much as I am sympathetic to her and the family's plight. The Commonwealth has a lot of plights and we elected, and I voted for, Gov. Patrick to take care of them!

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Letter to Patrick Fitzgerald: Patrick Fitzgerald, you have restored my faith in the system. The system works. I have become so cynical because of many events and things committed by this administration especially with respect to its policy in Iraq which initially I supported. I have been so dismayed at the huge number of illegalities committed whether by the former Congress or by the Executive branch. I was about to give up on expecting any semblance of justice.

You have provided me with hope and have conducted a simply SUPERB prosecution of Mr. Libby and I commend you enthusiastically and thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people. The people once again have prevailed. I continue to hope this will be the first in a long line of holding these egregious betrayers of the public trust to task for the horrific sins they have committed.

You are an admirable and honorable man. I thank you for your Herculean efforts and thank you for the restorative powers of faith in our system you have precipitated!
Pausing to think about Patrick: First it was the week long multi-million dollar inaugural, then it was the Cadillac top of the line limo, then it was the refurbishing of furniture,then it was state payment to Patrick's wife, then it was the powerless response on behalf of the homosexual community who supported Gov. Patrick, now the worst has happened. Perhaps Gov. Patrick is turning into a Republican! Did Governor Patrick place a phone call to former secretary Rubin now of Citicorp on behalf of a company ACC which owns Ameriquest whose board Gov Patrick was on to intercede NOT on behalf of the Commonwealth but on behalf of Ameriquest who is seeking capital from Citigorp? Gov. Patrick interceded on behalf of a company with another company to funnel cash to a company he was connected with? It has vague reminders of Republicans and Halliburton, et al. raping the taxpayer. This time it was corporation to corporation with nothing gained by the Commonwealth but it is still the same quid pro quo and somebody's pockets ultimately get lined. I was incredulous after reading the Globe story. I am getting sorrier and sorrier every day I read something pathetic Gov. Patrick has done which does NOT include the welfare of the ordinary citizen! Isn't Gov. Patrick savvy enough to know his every movement, his every phone call, his every action is scrutinized. Perhaps, next time he will think very carefully before he acts while he is an elected official of the Commonwealth. Perhaps, next time I will think more carefully about my vote!
Libby the Liar Part 2: It is great that the jury is being so scrupulous about examining every count in the Libby case. If that guy gets off though then I give up. If that is the case then our judicial system is intrinsically and impossibly flawed. This is an OJ Simpsonesque case and if the verdict does not hit -- no smash -- a juror in the face and that treasonous criminal gets off it will be yet another travesty of justice. Frankly, if I were on the jury it would have taken me about 3 minutes and 20 seconds to arrive at a guilty verdict. It is now 10 days. It's hard to believe it would take that long to convict him. Time will tell if yet another fiasco ensues and Bush, et al get away, as they continuously have, with perjury, treason and crimes against humanity.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Letter to Brian William Blog re: trip to Iraq: Brian, I wish you the best and am sure that both the technological and US military expertise that NBC has access to offers you some comfort as you undertake your dangerous journey to bring us your report. I personally, although a supporter of the war initially, have been completely astounded as to the political hack job that has been Iraq. Our so called Commander in Chief has been anything but. He has sacrificed our precious young blood, our treasure, our position in the world, regional Middle East security for a NeoCon fantasy cajoling the public into believing that WMD's would be found. Hussein is dead, now what? I would venture a guess that our Commander has not read ONE book about Iraq. What has he done to us? I shake my head in disbelief. I ask that you bring us the uncensored facts about just what is occurring as we yet again, I believe, proceed into folly. This era is not WWII. This country can no longer bomb itself into security. We bomb ourselves into more insecurity. This is a new kind of war if indeed it is a war. It is a world-wide defensive action that requires a diplomatic savvy, understanding of the region as well as a technological and computer expertise. This Commander in Chief has not the vaguest idea about any of that. We need a new day and new leadership if we can ever hope to end this nightmarish quagmire. I hope and pray you and our country remain safe.

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Disastrous Disasters -- Responsibility of the federal Government: It's de ja vu all over again. The President exiting his helicopter, greeted by his political allies fawning over him and thanking him for what exactly? This is a prayerful country blah blah blah blah. All that we hear is platitudes. Guess what? Prayer is not going to rebuild a poor person's house even though they THINK it will. If God is so benevolent and kind, perhaps he could have redirected that tornado especially around a school. Maybe he just could have redirected that bus in Georgia so that the driver NOT go down the wrong lane. Or maybe the south is having so many disasters because it voted for George Bush and is regressive and inhumane on every social issue in this country! If God is all powerful then ... Why does no one ask THOSE questions? I say to our president YOU show me the money.

It's all well and good for the president to ask the citizens of this country to contribute yet again to another disaster. We have been called upon to contribute ad infinitum and we have answered the call. I can't help but feel, though, here we are the richest country on the face of the earth wasting billions in Iraq, billions lost and billions expended and more going to be expended. All that money! How many disasters could this Federal government have contributed to IF we had all that money back? Katrina, tornados, floods and so many other natural disasters our country has suffered during the Bush years could have been paid for entirely. Moreover, global warming, the probable cause of so much catastrophic weather could be reversed. I resent the American people being asked yet again to contribute. We DO contribute through our tax dollars. Too bad those tax dollars are not used to HELP our own people but are used to perpetrate one of the most destructive and costly wars in our country's history!!