Houston Democrats: General Archives

September 13, 2006

HCDP Volunteer Letter to the Editor Published in Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4182154.html
Irony in Bush's word games

PRESIDENT Bush's speechwriters are masters of duplicity. He was right when he said in his Monday night speech that Americans didn't choose the war in Iraq. But Bush and the neocons certainly did choose it, as deliberately as any other war in world history was chosen.

It's an irony beyond belief that Bush would play word games on the anniversary of our most emotionally wrenching national disaster.

Americans deserve better.

MURIEL STUBBS Houston

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 31, 2006

Keith Olbermann Video

Keith Olbermann's commentary on Rumsfeld's recent remarks last night serve to remind us what we're fighting for.

View the video below the fold:

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

Aug. 30, 2006 | 8:34 p.m. ET
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 23, 2006

Out with the old (logo), in with the new

The new HCDP logo contest ends tonight. Final submissions are due no later than midnight.

Read the rules here.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 07:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 08, 2006

Smile...say "crony"

Porter Goss, John Negroponte, and "Bucky" Bush were in the same fraternity. Imagine that.

Posted by Jon Boyd at 09:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 09, 2006

Happy Birthday HoustonDemocrats.com!!!!!

Thanks to everyone who's helped make our first year a great success!

Image courtesy of DFH ESC Member Abner Brown, Jr.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

March 08, 2006

Get well Ann Richards!

From the Austin American Statesman

Former Gov. Ann Richards diagnosed with cancer
AUSTIN — Former Texas Gov. Ann Richards says she has cancer of the esophagus.

The 72-year-old Democrat will undergo treatment at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

An aide says Richards went in for tests Monday and got the results yesterday.

Spokesman Bill Maddox says Richards is waiting to learn from officials at M.D. Anderson as to when she can check in.

Maddox also says the former governor is, quote: "facing this challenge."

Richards was the 45th Texas governor, serving from 1991 to 1995.

Ms. Richards was a great governor, followed by two losers. Here's to wishing her a complete and speedy recovery.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 15, 2006

Molly Ivins on Dick Cheney's Hunting Accident

Dick Cheney goes hunting
Accident or not, Cheney's responsible
By Molly Ivins

02.14.06 - AUSTIN, Texas - Of course the jokes are flying all over Texas -
what's the fine for shooting a lawyer? - and so forth.
Dick-Cheney-shooting-Harry-Whittington is fraught, as they say, with irony.
It's not as though the ground in Texas is littered with liberal Republicans.
I think the vice president winged the only one we've got.

Not that I accuse Harry Whittington of being an actual liberal - only by
Texas Republican standards, and that sets the bar about the height of a
matchbook. Nevertheless, Whittington is seriously civilized, particularly on
the issues of crime, punishment and prisons. He served on both the Texas
Board of Corrections and on the bonding authority that builds prisons. As he
has often said, prisons do not curb crime, they are hothouses for crime:
"Prisons are to crime what greenhouses are to plants."

In the day, whenever there was an especially bad case of
new-ignoramus-in-the-legislature - a "lock 'em all up and throw away the
key" type - the senior members used to send the prison-happy, tuff-on-crime
neophyte to see Harry Whittington, a Republican after all, for a little
basic education on the cost of prisons.
When Whittington was the chairman of Texas Public Finance Authority, he had
a devastating set of numbers on the demand for more, more, more prison beds.
As Whittington was wont to point out, the only thing prisons are good for is
segregating violent people from the rest of society, and most of them belong
in psychiatric hospitals to begin with. The severity of sentences has no
effect on crime.

Texas still keeps the nonviolent, the retarded, senior citizens, etc. locked
up for ridiculous periods - all at taxpayer expense. If we could ever get to
where we spend as much per pupil on education as we do per prisoner, this
state would take off like a rocket. In 2003, we spend nearly $15,000 per
prisoner, while average per-pupil spending was just over $8,000.

I am not trying to make a big deal out of a simple hunting accident for
partisan purposes - just thought it was a good chance to pay tribute to old
Harry, a thoroughly decent man. However, I was offended by the
never-our-fault White House spin team. Cheney adviser Mary Matalin said of
her boss, "He was not careless or incautious (and did not) violate any of
the (rules). He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do." Of course he
did, Ms. Matalin, he shot Harry Whittington.

Which brings us to one of the many paradoxes of the Bush administration,
which claims to be creating "the responsibility society." It's hard to think
of a crowd less likely to take responsibility for anything they have done or
not done than this bunch. They're certainly good at preaching responsibility
to others - and blaming other people for everything that goes wrong on their
watch.

Of course the Cheney shooting was an accident.

But is it an accident if your home and your life are destroyed by the flood
following a hurricane? Especially if the flood was caused by failed levees,
a government responsibility?
Is it an accident if you are born with a clubfoot and your parents are too
poor to pay for the operation to fix it? Is there any societal
responsibility in such a case?

Is it an accident when your manufacturing job gets shipped overseas and all
you can find to replace it is a low- wage job at the big-box store with no
health insurance, and your kid breaks his leg, and you can't pay the bill,
so you have to declare bankruptcy under a new law that leaves you broke for
good, with no chance of ever getting out of debt? Or was all of that caused
by deliberate government policy?

Cheney is much given to lecturing us about taking responsibility. When and
where does societal responsibility come in?

Cheney has a curious, shifting history on issues of blame and
responsibility. He was vice chair of the congressional committee that spent
11 months investigating the Iran-Contra affair and author of its minority
report. As John W. Dean highlights in a recent essay, the 500-page majority
report concluded the entire affair "was characterized by pervasive
dishonesty and inordinate secrecy." But Cheney's report said the Reagan
administration's repeated breaking of the law were "mistakes ... were just
that - mistakes in judgment and nothing more."

Those of you who saw Cheney's interview with Jim Lehrer last week may recall
the passage on Darfur that ended with this:

Lehrer: "It's still happening. There are now 2 million people homeless."

Cheney: "Still happening, correct."

Lehrer: "Hundreds of thousands of people have died, and - so you're
satisfied the U.S. is doing everything it can do?"

Cheney: "I am satisfied we're doing everything we can do."

His head still tilts over more to the right when he lies.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20358

Posted by Lyn Wall at 05:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 25, 2005

The Great Christmas Truce

Thanks to David Van Os for this example of the true spirit of the season

On December 25, 1914, in a sector of the Western Front, opposing British and German soldiers on the front lines spontaneously engaged in the Great Christmas Truce of 1914. The guns ceased firing, the troops came out of the trenches and socialized happily with each other, and they even formed up into teams and played friendly soccer matches on the torn-up ground between the trenches. They did it through spontaneous grassroots action, without the permission of commanding officers. Humanity simply took charge. The higher-ups were furious. The next day when they were ordered to resume firing, these troops simply shot over each other's heads. On both sides the top brass transferred everybody out of that sector.
Let us hope that by this time next year the American people will have done what those soldiers did on 12-25-14 in shutting down their leaders' stupid bloody war, but this time the leaders will be the ones transferred out.

David Van Os
Democratic Candidate
For Texas Attorney General 2006
www.vanosfortexasag.com

Posted by Lyn Wall at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 14, 2005

Troll Impersonating Houston Chronicle Reader Representative

Recently, we have received several caustic comments from a reader calling himself James, using an email address from the Houston Chronicle. Today I received the following note, from the real James, after responding to one of the comments.

I’m glad you e-mailed. I’m James T. Campbell, Readers’ Representative for the Houston Chronicle. I received an e-mail yesterday alerting me that someone has been posting comments using James and this email address. Please post that it is not me sending comments to your blog.
Regards,

James T. Campbell, Readers' Representative

Thank you Mr. Campbell for clearing this up. I have deleted all comments from this imposter.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack

November 11, 2005

Who is Your Choice For Texan of the Year?

What a long, strange trip it's been. The Texas Bloggers have banded together to ask our readers to nominate a Texan for our very own blogger version of the mainstream media's favorite attention grabber, the "Person of the Year" issue! Join us by nominating a Texan that has made the most
impact this year, be it good or bad, evil or embarassing. We're all accepting
nominations from you through November 23 and we'll post your Texan of the Year
by December 1st. Email your nominations to: Texanoftheyear@gmail.com

Your favorite political blog is participating (Left and Right!). Each blog will write their own post about the person so on December 1st you'll have lots of different opinions but they'll all come from the same source, you..the smartest people in Texas.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 08, 2005

Apologies to Readers Who Have Tried to Comment

Over the last few days, the plugin that is supposed to reduce spam has been on a little power trip. It has been rejecting comments for no apparent reason, so I am going turned it off. My only other option is to moderate all comments, which I will try to do.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately, it will be because I have been away from my email and will get to it as soon as possible. I apologize in advance for the delay.

When I get a chance, I will attempt to reconfigure the plugin so that comment moderation is again unnecessary.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 22, 2005

Next week could be the worst one yet

... for the Republican party. How could that be, you ask?

Let's count a few of the ways:

* possible indictments in the investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald into the leak of Valerie Plame's name.

* planned anti-war protests across the country when the US casualty rate reaches 2000.

* more developments, confusion and angst regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

* daily updates on the scandals of Tom DeLay and Bill Frist.

* and the worst. poll numbers. ever.

When you see your GOP friends, neighbors and associates next week -- the ones who still identify themselves as such; they're the ones who haven't scraped the 'W' stickers off their SUV yet -- try not to burst out laughing in their faces.

It's hard work, I know.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 07, 2005

More Trouble For Rove?

A Kerr County resident has filed a complaint

urging an investigation into whether Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush, violated Texas state law by illegally registering as a voter in Kerr County, despite never residing there

Read the complaint here. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has more.

This is exactly the type of voter fraud that Republicans are so worried about. Silly me, I thought we should be working to prevent legitimate voters from being disenfranchised, but maybe they have a point.

Last month, Elizabeth Reyes was fired for speaking to reporters about this Rove's elibility to vote in Kerr county based on owning rental property in that county. From Law.com:

...Three days after The Washington Post quoted Reyes in a Sept. 3 article about White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, the 30-year-old attorney found herself out of a job...
...after Rove called Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, Reyes was terminated...

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 23, 2005

Those Who Harbor Terrorists

The GW Bush doctrine of preventive war provides all the reasons that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela need to attack, invade, and occupy Virginia. (Note: I specify the "GW Bush doctrine" to distinguish it from the prior GHW Bush doctrine that it would be insane to get bogged down in a military occupation of Iraq).

For, although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has denounced the Reverand Pat Robertson's call for the political murder of Hugo Chavez at least as vociferously as the Taliban government denounced the attacks of 9/11, it's pretty clear to me that the United States would not be willing to turn Robertson over to Venezuelan authorities.

But, you may be thinking, Pat Robertson has only made a terroristic threat against the sovereign government of Venezuela by advocating the murder of Hugo Chavez--he didn't actually carry out those threats. Here's the evidence Colin Powell would start off with:

Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson caused heartburn in Washington and consternation in Latin America on Tuesday in calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war," Robertson said during Monday evening's broadcast of "The 700 Club," his Christian news-talk television show. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

But why should Venezuela sit around and wait to respond after the terrorists have struck? That would be madness. Any sane application of President Bush's doctrine of preventive wars against states that harbor potential terrorists would thoroughly justify Venezuela attacking Virginia.

I mean, shoot, for all we know, Robertson could be harboring weapons of mass destruction right now. You can be damn sure he's not gonna allow any UN weapons inspectors onto his 700 Club compound. And just because there's no evidence that Robertson has an active WMD program, doesn't mean you can prove he hasn't got them. Her certainly has a history both of consorting with brutal dictators (such as Liberia's Charles Taylor) and of threatening to bring massive destruction on his neighbors with secret weapons--like that time he tried to pray a hurricane into destroying Massachusetts.

Robertson represents a truly unique and dangerous threat to world peace. If Venezuela's allies will not stand by her in this darkest hour, she has every right still to go it alone and secure its democracy from this threat.

Someone please prove me wrong in this. I personally don't have a lot of regard for Mr Chavez--he's a screwloose egomaniac tanking his country's economy in the guise of social reform. He actively undermines his own country's democratic traditions while playing economic footsie with the Saudis. Hmmm, why does this all sound so familiar?

Still, like him or not, Chavez is a duly elected president of a sovereign country. When you issue threats against his life, you've got to be breaking some law. At the very least, Chavez would be fully justified in dispatching his armed forces to take this religious extremist, terror-mongering, dictator-coddling bandit out of the picture. Mr Bush provided the precedent for this in 2003. And now freedom's on the march.

Posted by Bucky at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 17, 2005

Free Speech at the Tracy Gee

Last November, a friend suggested I join a weekly Current Events discussion group at the Tracy Gee Community Center. She described a group of well informed, extremely intelligent people who had valuable insights on issues. She described most people in the group as liberal, with one outspoken Republican but she assured me there was a wide variety of viewpoints. She turned out to be right. I loved participating in the group from the very first meeting I attended. Unfortunately, my work schedule this summer prevented me from attending and I'm looking forward to rejoining the group tomorrow.

Last week emails started to fly. Something had happened, but it wasn't clear what. I knew that the group had voted to devote a meeting to research Karen had done surrounding the anomalies of 9/11 and that the session had been well received. Not everyone bought into the the theories she presented, but we had never all agreed on anything so that didn't seem unusual. Apparently someone was unhappy with the meeting. So much so that it turned into fodder for today's Rick Casey column in the Houston Chronicle.

I'm really looking forward to tomorrow's meeting and, as usual, I will exercise my right to free speech.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 14, 2005

Democrats Have Moral Authority to Speak for American Families

Framing expert Dr. Jeffery Feldman has a very interesting analysis of Cindy Sheehan's accomplishments at his Frame Shop website. He feels that her valiant quest has forced the media and the public to see the issue of the Iraq War through a frame of "family" rather than a frame of "terrorism." In so doing, continues Feldman, Sheehan has made it possible for the Democratic Party to reclaim "the moral authority to speak for the American family." Democrats really are the ones who stand for keeping families together, and this fact resonates not only in Iraq War issues, but also in many state and local issues facing us right now.

Dr. Feldman contrasts the moral authority of the Democrats on family issues to the cynical manipulation of them by Republicans. Although he begins with the example of Sheehan's family perspective on war, Feldman's conclusions touch on the battle that we will be fighting here in Texas against HJR6. Read Feldman's words below, paying special attention to paragraph 4:

The implications of this shift from 'terrorism' to 'family' in the country's thinking about Iraq are profound. Not only does this shift forewarn a political tidal wave soon to break on the President's foreign policy, but also of a much deeper, tectonic shift in the strategy beneath all the recent gains in the Republican party.

The great success of Cindy Sheehan's protest, therefore, is no less than the moral authority for the Democratic Party to speak for the American family.

In other words, there are now two very clear claims on the American family at the heart of politics, and the claim by the anti-War Democrats has so much momentum that it has already forced every single Republican candidate running for office to rethink their strategies for the next few years.

At the heart of the Republican claim to speak for the family is a very narrow idea of marriage, and a reactionary nervousness about 'the culture' as a cause for social problems in America. For the Republicans, the key to translating this claim into political gains has been a broad scale effort to use state legislators to strip homosexuals of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship.

In Feldman's words, the Democratic Party is rebuilding its "moral authority to speak for the American family." The Democratic Party stands for keeping families together, whether they be families with military members or families with gay members, or both. The Republican Party tears families apart with lies for political gain, lies that whip up fears about nonexistent threats, including lies about nonexistent threats to marriage.

Again, quoting Feldman, the Republicans are translating these fears into political gain with their "broad scale effort to use state legislators to strip homosexuals of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship." Thus, we can say that HJR6 is the Texas Republicans' cynical attempt to strip same sex couples of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship.

Or better yet, HJR6 is the Texas Republicans' cynical attempt to strip some of our friends and family members of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship.

Democrats stand for keeping families together, anchored on our nation's foundation of equal rights: we stand for FAMILY, FAIRNESS, and FREEDOM. In contrast, Republicans stand for tearing families apart and denying equal rights: they stand for LIES, FEAR, and BIGOTRY.

The Democratic Party can rightfully claim to be the party of true family values, and the first ingredient of "family" is the right to choose one's partner for a loving, committed relationship. Other upcoming state and local issues will reinforce that Democrats stand for protecting families and keeping them prosperous and safe: school finance, fair taxes, health care, and cleaning up pollution, to name a few.

Posted by at 07:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 08, 2005

A Tale of Two Crawfords

Contrast this: Beside a Crawford, Texas, road that leads to the summer home of George W. Bush, the mother of a fallen soldier camps out in an attempt to persuade the President to meet with her face-to-face. Meanwhile, the "vacationing-est"-President-ever heads over to a neighboring ranch to enjoy some succulent barbecue and stroke the egos of the Republican Party's fattest fat-cat fundraisers: the Pioneers ($100,000), the Rangers ($200,000), and the Super Rangers ($300,000). The Washington Post quotes a GOP insider who says that the Crawford afternoon shindig should rake in an easy $2,000,000.

In addition to its colorful description of how Bush rakes it in, the WaPo article goes on to detail how the pork-generating Tom DeLay ladles it out in his home district. For now, though, the main action is in Crawford, where the media watches over the pricey barbecues and the courageous camp-outs. For more about the courageous part, see a recent recap in The New York Times, and watch an interview with Cindy Sheehan on CNN.

Posted by at 02:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 07, 2005

Hiroshima Anniversary: the Aftermath

This 60th Anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima has brought out a lot of important, and sometimes rancorous, debates. As an educator, I value these things. One the one hand you have those who think Truman was right to end the war with the two existing atomic bombs we had in our arsenal (a third was still in production with an uncertain "ready" date). On the other hand there are those who denounce this mass killing of civilians as a war crime.

The truth is somewhere in between these two extremes. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were categorically not war crimes--both cities were rife with legitimate military and war-production targets. But the destruction of those two cities isn't really what ended the war. The Japanese surrendered primarily to avoid being occupied by Russia, which in a matter of days had obliterated Japan's principal mainland forces in Manchuria.

This debate has gone back and forth among Americans, and the world at large throughout this dark anniversary weekend. The arguments are getting familiar. Opponents of Truman's decision point out that Japan was seeking peace through a couple of different channels. Proponents of the bombing point out that Japan had been doing so for months, but that the war council leading Japan was still dominated by "diehards" who rejected the critical American demand of demilitarizing Japan.

One side points to claims by Secretary of State James Byrnes that part of the reason we bombed Japan was to show a willingness to use this weapon to the Russians. The other side reminds us that the fatalities in Tokyo from one night's conventional bombing raid exceeded the deaths total of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; and that all three attacks combined killed far fewer people than the Japanese themselves killed in their reprisals against Nanking in 1937.

In all this discussion I am encouraged by two things. First, I think the repetition of this debate each year is great for our country. I think in general I'm seeing more accurate information being passed around to support both sides. You don't hear bombing proponents make the exaggerated claim that the bombing saved "a million American lives" had we needed to invade Japan. I hear from opponents of the bombing far more reliance on historical fact--the political realities of Japan, the partisan and diplomatic calculations of Truman and Byrnes, the economic motivation of using weapons on which millions of dollars had been spent.

The debate, it seems, gets smarter and smarter each year. American citizens care about these matters and they seek to learn more about this vital subject each time we go through this annual ritual. We are citizens of a republic charged by history, for better or worse, with leading the world toward peace and stability. This is exactly the kind of debate our citizens need to have. Altho I'm closer in viewpoint with those who support Truman's decision, I think we have to credit his harsher critics with doing the most to keep this necessary controversy alive and bothersome. Challenging the status quo isn't easy, but it's usually the most patriotic of acts.

Losing sight of human morality is so easy to do in war time. The destruction of Dresden because it was a center of refugee activity, as discussed this summer in an bonechilling article in the Wilson Quarterly, offers a clear example of how immorality can creep oh so quietly into the decision making of war leaders. Morality in war, after all, must often be measured purely by numbers. It is right to send 10,000 to their deaths that 20,000 may survive later. Truman used those brutal mathmatics in 1945 and matters are no different today.

Of course, we do not need sixty year old examples to remind us of how our human values can be twisted and debased in the pursuit of national security. Digital cameras and the bravest of whistle blowers from Abu Ghraib to Gitmo Bay remind us we too are capable of atrocities. So I welcome this Hiroshima debate each year. I hope we never resolve it. I think it keeps us a little more honest; I think it reminds our darker halves of the lines we should not cross.

Mostly I hope that it is a debate in which we never have the chance to update our arguments with more recent examples of moral gray areas. In that, I probably hope for too much. But it is still a hope for a better world that moves us to argue and to care.

Posted by Bucky at 04:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 03, 2005

Two New Bloggers For Your Reading Pleasure

This week we welcome the addition of two new bloggers.

Bucky Rea, a writer for Democratic Underground is a social studies teacher, a single parent, a life long Democrat, and a life long Houstonian. He posted his "Thanks to Paul Hackett" last night.

Hale Stewart, our new economics expert is an attorney and former bond trader and well known author at Daily Kos.

Welcome Hale and Bucky!

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 02, 2005

Two Ways to Access the HCDP Web Site

The Harris County Democratic Party web site can now be reached at hcdp.com as well as hcdp.org.
(Updated 4:11pm 8/2/05)

Posted by Lyn Wall at 01:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 01, 2005

Bolton to Receive Recess Appointment

MSNBC is reporting that the White House will circumvent the will of the Senate by giving John Bolton a recess appointment as UN Ambassador today.

Bolton's nomination has not come up for a vote in the Senate because requested documents regarding his activities have been withheld by the State Department and White House.

Update: It's a done deal. Pelosi's statement from The Stakeholder:

"The President's decision to circumvent the Senate and use a recess appointment naming John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is a mistake. "John Bolton's record provides no evidence of the kind of diplomatic skill, temperament and judgment that ought to be prerequisites for this critical position. There are serious unanswered questions about whether Mr. Bolton improperly used sensitive intelligence information for political purposes, which contributed to the lack of support he had in the Senate.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 28, 2005

Perjury or an Honest Mistake Under Oath - You Be the Judge

According to the AP & CBS News:

John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, mistakenly told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday.
Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003 as part of a joint investigation with the Central Intelligence Agency into prewar Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger, State Department spokesman Noel Clay said.

I'm sure it's just an innocent mistake. I know I can't remember the last time I testified in an official investigation, how about you?

Memory lapses are a common problem with Republican nominees. Just a few days ago, the Washington Post reported that John Roberts is having trouble remembering being on the Federalist Society Steering committee.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

One Tough Grandma's Son Faces One Tough Grilling

In case you weren't lucky enough to catch yesterday's White House Press Briefing, Crooks and Liars has links to the video, transcript and several reports on the first appearance of a White House Press Corps spine in years.

Washington Post's Dana Milbank quantifies it for us:

The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an "ongoing" investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts.

The MSM seems to have finally noticed that Scotty McLellan and the White House have been stonewalling us on the issue of Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame outing.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 04, 2005

No Human Fire Hydrant Here: Wa Po Runs Favorable Portrait Of Howard Dean

As Terry McAuliffe prepared to hand over the reins of DNC power to Howard Dean, he famously remarked, "Howard, you're about to become a human fire hydrant." In the July 3, 2005, edition of the paper, Washington Post reporter Sally Jenkins chronicles Dean's pathway to this seemingly thankless job. The title of the story, "Return of the Angry Man," appears to foreshadow another lemming-like recital of the flaws of the new DNC chair. However, Ms. Jenkins cannot seem to hide her admiration for a politician who models himself upon "Give'Em Hell Harry" Truman and actually speaks his mind.

Although she does mention the Scream and other perceived faux pas, Ms. Jenkins does not dwell on this or other favorite Dean caricatures so beloved by most of the Mainstream Media. Her story is long (17 pages when printed out) and thoughtful; it covers the standard biographical material, but it also details Dean's personal frugality and public fiscal responsibility, his no-nonsense approach to solving problems, and his grounding in real family values. What a contrast to the present occupant of the White House ... and what a pleasant surprise to find a story like this on a 4th of July weekend!

Washington Post Story on Howard Dean

Posted by at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 02, 2005

Matt Cooper's Notes Are Said to Name Plame Leaker

According to MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, speaking on the McLaughlin Group last night said:

..."And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."...

If true, this would be no surprise. If he's convicted for perjury, do you think we should offer him therapy for nullifying a major CIA asset in the War on Terror?

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 01, 2005

I've overheard this conversation before

From Prairie Weather:

You're kidding, is that true?
Sure it's true.

But what proof do you have?

What does it matter! It's what everyone believes.

So it's not really true.

Okay, Maybe not. But it works.

Not very honorable.

"Honorable"? What the hell! Some naive concept? I tell you, it works. People believe it. It's not about honorable for God's sake.

But you can't run a democracy this way, it just isn't...

Democracy? You've got to be out of your mind. That is not what this is about. It's about winning.

Well, about half of us in America are trying to preserve democracy, to find out what's true and not just how many lies people are willing to believe.

Go ahead. That way you lose.

Read this. Listen to this.

Posted by Guest Blogger PDiddie at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 30, 2005

Eminent Domain Comes Home to Justice Souter

Ah, sweet justice. However, Supreme Court Justice David Souter most certainly has a different view on the matter. According to the Concord Monitor, he is facing a challenge, as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the use of eminent domain. It seems that one man has a "better" use for the land on which Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse stands.

Logan Darrow Clements in a faxed letter to Weare city officials states:

A recent Supreme Court decision. . . . clears the way for this land to be taken. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments have the authority to seize private property and bulldoze homes if the projects generate increased tax revenue and jobs that benefit the area. Apparently, the justices who voted in favor of expanding the use of eminent domain weren't thinking about the possibility their own houses could fall subject to their ruling.

Charles Meany, the code enforcement officer for Weare, said he takes the matter seriously as has the police department. Several officers in police cruisers are posted just outside Souter's home as a precaution. Lieutenant Mark Bodanza says, "It was a precaution, just being protective."

Logan Clements aptly named his proposed hotel the "Lost Liberty Hotel." The hotel would include a dining room named the "Just Desserts Cafe" and a museum to focus on the loss of freedom in America.

Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, a company based in Los Angeles, that fights "abusive" government through a web site and cable show. Clements is planning to move to New Hampshire
Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. Clements plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project. The group promotes limiting government powers.

If the five-member board of selectmen for the city of Weare approves the project, zoning laws would have to be revised and the planning board would also have to approve the proposed hotel.

Souter has not made any comment about Clements' plans for his two-story colonial farmhouse worth about $100,000 (See picture). Souter paid $2,895 in property taxes for the house last year. Clements says his hotel will bring in more revenue for the city and provide new jobs for local residents, a better use of the land than at present.

Charles Meany said:

"In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

Posted by at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 29, 2005

Applications Sought for HCDP Executive Director Position

With Harris County Democratic Party Executive Director moving to Portland, Oregon, HCDP Chair Gerry Birnberg, has announced that the party is accepting applications for the position of Executive Director. The Executive Director is the person who (subject to the direction and supervision of the County Chair) is responsible for the administrative and day-to-day operations of the party and the coordination of its efforts to mobilize its supporters. A formal Job Description, identifying specifically the functions which the Executive Director will be expected to fulfill (either personally or through recruitment and supervision of other qualified individuals) is posted on the Party’s website at www.hcdp.org

The only mandatory requirement for the position is that the applicant must provide evidence of having voted in a Democratic Party primary election in at least two of the last three Primary Elections (unless the applicant resided in a state which did not have partisan party primary elections) and not have voted in a Republican, Green, Libertarian, or other party primary, nor signed a nominating petition for a candidate of any such other party or an independent candidate for office, at any time between 1999 and the present. (It is not necessary that the applicant have voted in a primary election in Harris County or even in the state of Texas, so long as he or she has voted in Democratic Party primaries in some location in the United States, unless he or she resided in a state which does not conduct partisan primary elections).

Substantial involvement in community organizing activities and party functions, active participation in political campaigns and especially filling position(s) of responsibility in same, demonstrated capabilities in fundraising, and basic familiarity and comfort with computer technology (such as databasing, mail-merge word processing, and mass e-mailing) are highly preferred (though not necessarily mandatory) qualifications.

Resumes must be submitted by Monday, August 1, 2005. They may be submitted by e-mail addressed to candidates@hcdp.org or by telecopier to (713) 981-8670 (the office of the County Chair, so that the applicant may maintain confidentiality with regard to the fact that he or she is submitting an application for the position and the contents of the resume) or by hand delivery or mail addressed to Harris County Democratic Party Chair Gerry Birnberg, 2000 Bering Drive, Suite 909, Houston, TX 77057-3746. Alternatively, the applicant may submit a resume to the Harris County Democratic Party Headquarters at 1445 N. Loop W., Suite 110, Houston, TX 77008 by mail or hand delivery (or by telecopier to the Party Headquarters at (713) 802-2082), but the applicant should be advised that confidentiality may not be maintained with regard to resumes submitted to the Party Headquarters. In any case, however, the resume should be sent sufficiently in advance of the deadline so that it is received by August 1, 2005.

If available, resumes may be accompanied by letters of recommendation from no more than four current or former officeholders or candidates with whom the applicant has worked attesting to the applicant’s capabilities in the areas specified above as preferred qualifications.

Inquiries or requests for further information can be directed via e-mail to candidates@hcdp.org or telephonically to Gerry Birnberg at (713) 981-9595.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 25, 2005

Breitweiser Rips Rove A New One - KBH Agrees with Rove

Wednesday night, President Bush's advisor Karl Rove said:

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Kristen Breitweiser, the 9/11 widow who gained prominence by forcing the Administration to support the 9/11 Comission has some questions for Rove at The Huffington Post:

...what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't... more

Meanwhile, from Tapped (6/24):

RICK SANTORUM: ROVE DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME. This afternoon, Tapped called the offices of every Republican senator and asked their press staff the following: “Does Karl Rove speak for Senator X in his recent comments on liberals and September 11?”

Several offices had no comment. Many transferred us into voicemail boxes, and we plan to call them back on Monday if they don’t respond. But we got two offices to react. While Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s staff told us she agrees with Rove’s remarks, Rick Santorum's communications director, Robert Traynham, suggested that the Pennsylvanian had a different reaction. He told me: “Karl Rove speaks for himself. He doesn’t speak for the senator. On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that’s what the senator believes.”

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

And the Winner Is...

The former hard-line mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the new president of Iran. He has often referred to Iran's 1979 revolution and expressed concerns about rapprochement with the United States. He won the runoff Friday in a landslide. This result cannot be good for international relations in the Middle East.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, the former two-term president who had won in the first round of voting last week, but had not attained the percentage necessary to win the presidency. Rafsanjani was the moderate reformist candidate who attempted to garner support from socially moderate and reformist voters. He wanted to continue the reformist policies of President Mohammad Khatami, who had to leave after serving two consecutive terms

However, Rafsanjani was not successful. With 85% of the votes counted, Ahmadinejad is in the lead with 61.8%, to Rafsanjani's 35.7%. In the second round of voting a smaller percentage of voters turned out, only 47% compared to 63% in the first round.

The State Department's response:

[In Washington, a State Department spokeswoman, Joanne Moore, told the Associated Press that the result would not change the U.S. view of Iran.
["With the conclusion of the elections in Iran, we have seen nothing that sways us from our view that Iran is out of step with the rest of the region in the currents of freedom and liberty that have been so apparent in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon," Moore said.]

I can't help but think Bush's recent remarks about Iran's presidential elections being a shambles did anything to help the moderate candidates' fortunes. Bush's sharp and pointed rhetoric cannot possibly help the chances of a moderate candidate who says he would like to promote a more concillatory stance in international relations and those with the United States.

In some ways it seems that Bush may have played the Osama bin Laden role, as in our recent presidential election. I know this may not be an adequate comparison, but both men came out with a statement not long before the presidential election was to take place, potentially swinging some votes.

This time Bush was the "unknown quantity" who spoke harshly about Iran just before the election. The result: the election of a more hard-line fundamentalist leader who espouses the 1979 revolution in which the US was referred to as the "Great Satan."

By criticizing Iran so harshly at a critical time, it now appears that Bush may have driven away support from Rafsanjani, who in the first election had the popular vote, but not a high enough percentage to win the presidency. Then in the second election Ahmadinejad came from behind to quash the moderate candidate.

I know in the past the Bush administration has hinted at regime change in Iran. I certainly hope the president does not choose to move ahead with such a plan. I can't really see how it is possible at the moment, especially when we are already overcommitted to other responsibilities, particularly in neighboring Iraq.

I find the current result especially disappointing when Iran has been modernizing and moving towards greater reform. Now when we must confront a nuclear Iran that likely is developing or has developed nuclear weapons, we must deal with a hard-line fundamentalist leader. Now it appears Iran may be drifting away from greater reform, further complicating West-Iran relations, particularly US-Iran relations. This result is not going to help the volatile situation in the Middle East at all.

What's done is done, and now we must make the best of it, but 2008 cannot come fast enough.

Read the article in the Washington Post.

Posted by at 01:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 24, 2005

Apologies to Charles Soechting

Yesterday, a false rumor was posted to this blog that rightfully caused a stir. Mr. Soechting is not resigning as Texas Democratic Party Chair.

Even though Mr. Soechting assured me it's not necessary, we apologize to Mr. Soechting and anyone else affected by this post.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

A Premature Attack

We all know about those vaunted truthsayers in Washington and how they will always strive to spread the most accurate information they know.

Here's what the non-partisan group FactCheck.org has to say about a new Republican ad:

Pro-Bush group's ad faults Democrats for criticisms they haven't yet made, about a Supreme Court nominee who hasn't been named, to a vacancy that doesn't yet exist.

The following is part of the article from FactCheck.org:

Summary
A pro-Bush group fired the opening salvo - they call it "a warning shot" - in what threatens to become a multi-million dollar advertising and public relations campaign over a possible Bush appointment to the Supreme Court. The ad predicts "Democrats will attack anyone the President nominates," saying that "a Supreme Court nominee deserves real consideration, instead of instant attacks."

But this ad itself is an attack that goes beyond "instant" - it was launched without waiting for Bush to name a replacement for the ailing Justice William Rehnquist, or even for Rehnquist to say publicly whether or not he will retire as he is reported to be considering. And whether or not Democrats will criticize "anyone" Bush names can't be known for sure at this point - it may or may not turn out to be true.

To support its case, the ad cites editorial blurbs from Republican newspapers criticizing Democrats over their treatment of Supreme Court nominees in the past. But the ad fails to note that the blurbs were about the Robert Bork nomination fight that happened nearly 18 years ago.

Analysis

The Republican group Progress for America released the television ad "Get Ready" on June 22. In a news release, the group reports that the ad will run through July 1 as part of a $700,000 effort to "warn opinion leaders in Washington, DC and beyond that some Democrats will soon unleash a fury of dishonest and ugly attacks about any Justice that President Bush nominates to the Supreme Court should a vacancy occur."

The group will air the television ad nationally on CNN and the Fox News Channel. In the Washington, D.C. area, the group plans to air the spot on MSNBC, CNBC, a number of Sunday morning political talk shows like NBC's "Meet the Press," and a local news channel. The group will sponsor banner ads linking to its www.UporDownVote.org site on the websites of several newspapers, including The New York Times and Washington Post, and blogs, including the Drudge Report and Instapundit.

Of course the attack ad leaves out some major points:

• The articles the ad cites are editorials from September and October of 1987 during President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

• While the articles are critical of those who would discredit Robert Bork, a Tribune article stated that the dispute over Bork was not the first "ugly" nomination battle, and that Jimmy Carter's nominee, Abner Mikva, to the DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals "had a hard time with conservatives."

• It has been nearly 18 years since the Bork dispute, who was rejected by a vote of 58 to 42 in the Democratically controlled Senate. Since then Anthony Kennedy (1988), David Souter (1990), Clarence Thomas (1991), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993), and Stephen Breyer (1994) have been approved under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Watch the preemptive attack on Democrats.

I'm really impressed at the lengths that some Republicans will go to tell the "truth," especially managing to find 18-year old editorial articles. It's hard to believe that is the most recent stuff they can come up with.

Posted by at 01:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Senate is Flagging When it Comes to What's Important

Do we really need a Constitutional amendment to make it illegal to burn the American flag? While you or I may not like it, aren't there some more important issues to deal with? I don't quite see how such an amendment is going to help anyone get a better education, a job, adequate health care, a secure retirement, etc. If someone else can make an argument for such a connection, please let me know.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is sponsoring an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban flag burning. Supporters of such an amendment hope that the amendment gets more than half-staff support this time. They believe a larger Republican majority, the attacks of September 11, 2001, and patriotism fueled by the war in Iraq provide the best chance for the amendment to pass.

Senator Hatch says:

The American people want this.

However, the GOP senator might wish to consult with the Associated Press's polling results. The AP's informal survey hints that a flag burning amendment is no more likely to pass now than it has in the past. The AP poll discovered that 35 senators oppose such an amendment, which is one more than the number needed if all 100 senators vote.

Hillary Clinton and two other senators have come out strongly against the proposed amendment.

Clinton said:

As I have said in the past, I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer.

The House has voted overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment by a vote of 286-130.

To pass, the amendment will need the support of two-thirds of the Senate in addition to the support already gained in the House. To be ratified three-fourths (38) of the states must approve the amendment within seven years. Although the House passed the flag burning amendment, and has several times before, it usually gets shut down in the Senate. Of course this time could be different

Critics say that the amendment violates an individual's right to free speech. Supporters suggest that critics are out of touch with the American people.

Representative Randy Cunningham (R-CA):

Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Pass this amendment.

Really?

Is prohibiting the burning of our flag going to make the families affected by the attacks on September 11 come any closer to knowing the full extent of the intelligence failures that occured?

Is protecting our flag going to somehow increase our national security? I certainly would feel safer if the Stars and Stripes were protected from flammable objects.

Is protecting our flag going to provide any protection to the hundreds of thousands of Americans overseas fighting in Iraq? I'm not so sure the soldiers will be happy to find out that this amendment comes before adequate armor and supplies.

Is a flag burning amendment going to prevent any future conflicts?

I believe the answer to each of these questions is an absolutely firm NO. I believe as Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) does:

If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.

The really sad thing is that I bet most of our American flags are made abroad in countries like China. That's what bothers me more than if someone burns a flag. What has happened to the production base of our country? What ever happened to "Made in the USA?" Wal-Mart even used to pride itself on only selling American-made products. Now one is hard pressed to find something at Wal-Mart that isn't made in China, or some other developing country. Our country is in a profound state of neglect.

I believe the GOP is the one who is out of touch.

It's time to take back the government and to focus on the issues that really matter. Sure flag burning may not be "right" or "appropriate," but neither do I believe it is right or appropriate to desecrate the US Constitution by using it for one's own political gain. I cannot fathom the Senator's desire to focus the efforts of the Senate on an issue such as flag burning when our nation is spending billions of taxpayer's money in Iraq (Kerry really was right), where over 1700 Americans have died (in addition to the soldiers from other nations and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis) at a time when Medicare is about to flatline, Social Security is facing insolvency, children are being left behind because the money for public education is being spent in Iraq, etc., etc., etc....

But maybe the GOP is trying to keep the focus on issues other than their (dis)information that led us to war in Iraq, the lack of any coherent and measured plan to get out of Iraq, Bush's plummeting ratings, his poor record on Social Security, the cost of gas, etc., etc., etc....

Shouldn't we be focusing on the nation itself, not just its symbols? I mean what good is a national flag if the nation falls apart?

If Republicans are really dead set on prohibiting the burning of the American flag, would it not be easier to just make the flag out of a material that won't burn? At least that way they could award yet another no-bid contract to Cheney's Good Old Pals (the real GOP) over at Halliburton for a cool billion dollars.

I would like to end with this:

One cannot create respect for any national symbol through legislation. That is only something developed over time through leading by example and action, not merely paying lip service as our brazenly arrogant administration does to our inalienable rights, freedoms, and values protected in our Constitution.

Posted by at 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 22, 2005

Look Who's Being Obstructionist

Last week, President Bush joined conservative congressional leaders in attacking their political opponents as partisan "obstructionists." This argument is patently false. In the high-profile cases when the conservative agenda has been blocked — on Social Security privatization, the nuclear option, John Bolton — President Bush has actually faced bipartisan opposition.

But more importantly, on virtually every major issue of the day — Iraq, terrorism, ethics scandals, detainee abuse, and more — it is conservatives in Washington who are obstructing progress and thwarting the will of the American people.

Instances of GOP Obstruction:

Blocking Investigation into "Fixed" Pre-War Intelligence
Blocking Vital 9/11 Commission Reforms
Blocking the Ethics Committee from Operating
Blocking an Exit Strategy from Iraq
Blocking Progress Towards a 'Culture of Life'
Blocking an Independent Investigation of Detainee Abuse Allegations
Blocking Data on Iraq Progress

June 20, 2005

"Religion, Democracy, and the Common Good"

That was the title of one our workshops this past weekend at Democracy Fest.

And even though I did not attend it (I assembled this post from Mrs. Diddie's copious notes, as well as from my DU friend CitySky's verbal report) I found its topic to be one of the most fascinating of the weekend.

There were four eminent panelists and the summary of their comments, an occasional quote, and my own opinions follow on the flip.

Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, author and scholar and director on the national boards of the Christian Church and the United Churches of Christ, opened the discussion by saying that progressives need people of faith as equal partners. Progressives and liberals, and by extension the Democratic Party, have been cast as secular by the opposition, and specifically the 'secular left' -- a right-wing frame you hear coming out of the mouths of pastors in pulpits these days -- is considered "weak" in comparison to the conservative, fundamentalist conviction of Christian faith. In order to win the battle of phraseology, progressives need to emphasize the aspects of love in their practice of faith as well as in everyday life, and to contrast it with the "theo-fascists' war against love". Brock also noted that some secularists tend to feel isolated from the social aspects inherent in the practice of organized religion (in my own Church of Christ upbringing this was called 'fellowship'). In order to mitigate that sense of isolation, they can seek out an "agency" in order to align their associations with their core values; in short, find others who share their beliefs and hang out with them on a regular basis (just as so many of us did this weekend).

Dr. Davidson Loehr had probably the most interesting bio on the panel: Unitarian Universalist minister, author of the forthcoming America, Fascism, and God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher, former combat photographer in Vietnam, former professional musician. He reminded us again that the left has lost the vocabulary as it relates to nationalism and patriotism, religious conviction, and moral and personal responsibility. His call to action was

Houston Democrats - General