The price of freedom

Daily attacks by suicide bombers. A call for more troops to maintain security. A U.S. appointed government retains power when elections are delayed because of security concerns. The toll of dead and maimed is rising. The infrastructure is non-existent, insurgents and warlords control large swathes of the country. The U.N. and other aid workers from humanitarian agencies are withdrawn as their workers are systematically targeted and killed.



Sound like Baghdad before it was granted freedom this week? Guess again! It's Afghanistan today, two years after we liberated that country.



Independent News (United Kingdom): Afghanistan: Unraveling of a Nation 'Liberated' by the West

The price of freedom

Daily attacks by suicide bombers. A call for more troops to maintain security. A U.S. appointed government retains power when elections are delayed because of security concerns. The toll of dead and maimed is rising. The infrastructure is non-existent, insurgents and warlords control large swathes of the country. The U.N. and other aid workers from humanitarian agencies are withdrawn as their workers are systematically targeted and killed.



Sound like Baghdad before it was granted freedom this week? Guess again! It's Afghanistan today, two years after we liberated that country.



Independent News (United Kingdom): Afghanistan: Unraveling of a Nation 'Liberated' by the West

Feeling a draft? Never mind that, watch this.

Magicians call it misdirection, and good ones use it to make you believe that they pulled a rabbit out of their hat. It's pretty simple really, you just draw the audience's attention to what you're doing with your left hand so that they don't notice what you're up to with you right hand.



Let's see, this week the Bush administration surprised us by moving up the much anticipated "sovereignty" of Iraq by two days. What did that mean? Was it a courageous step to bring freedom to the long suffering people of Iraq or just a cynical early retreat to avoid some especially bloody attacks that we feared might be coming? What would it mean for U.S. involvement and for the Iraqi people? And what about Saddam?



Lots of very good questions. And what with everyone from Dan Rather to Anderson Cooper on hand in Iraq getting ready to cover the planned turn-over, wall-to-wall coverage direct from the battle field was guaranteed.



With all this attention, though, it's time to watch out for misdirection. What was the right hand doing while we were watching the left hand grant freedom in Iraq?



Could it be the little covered story about the Pentagon's move to force 5,600 former soldiers back to Iraq? That's right, former soldiers, people who recently left the service having completed all of their obligations. And since they have up-to-date skills they will be on their way to Iraq immediately. Of course they'll be returning to a free Iraq, and that will probably make all the difference to them.



What do you suppose will happen tomorrow while we're all preoccupied watching as the left hand gives us Court TV like live court room coverage of the beginning of Saddam Hussein's trial?



Associated Press: Army Recalling Thousands Who Left Service

Feeling a draft? Never mind that, watch this.

Magicians call it misdirection, and good ones use it to make you believe that they pulled a rabbit out of their hat. It's pretty simple really, you just draw the audience's attention to what you're doing with your left hand so that they don't notice what you're up to with you right hand.



Let's see, this week the Bush administration surprised us by moving up the much anticipated "sovereignty" of Iraq by two days. What did that mean? Was it a courageous step to bring freedom to the long suffering people of Iraq or just a cynical early retreat to avoid some especially bloody attacks that we feared might be coming? What would it mean for U.S. involvement and for the Iraqi people? And what about Saddam?



Lots of very good questions. And what with everyone from Dan Rather to Anderson Cooper on hand in Iraq getting ready to cover the planned turn-over, wall-to-wall coverage direct from the battle field was guaranteed.



With all this attention, though, it's time to watch out for misdirection. What was the right hand doing while we were watching the left hand grant freedom in Iraq?



Could it be the little covered story about the Pentagon's move to force 5,600 former soldiers back to Iraq? That's right, former soldiers, people who recently left the service having completed all of their obligations. And since they have up-to-date skills they will be on their way to Iraq immediately. Of course they'll be returning to a free Iraq, and that will probably make all the difference to them.



What do you suppose will happen tomorrow while we're all preoccupied watching as the left hand gives us Court TV like live court room coverage of the beginning of Saddam Hussein's trial?



Associated Press: Army Recalling Thousands Who Left Service

Defending the rights that make us Americans

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."



Don't you wish it had been the President of the United States saying that? Shouldn't it have been the President of the United States saying that? But it wasn't. Instead it was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing for the majority in a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that President George W. Bush's use of presidential powers to fight terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States cannot override civil liberties.

Globe and Mail (Toronto): Top U.S. court undercuts Bush

Defending the rights that make us Americans

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."



Don't you wish it had been the President of the United States saying that? Shouldn't it have been the President of the United States saying that? But it wasn't. Instead it was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing for the majority in a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that President George W. Bush's use of presidential powers to fight terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States cannot override civil liberties.

Globe and Mail (Toronto): Top U.S. court undercuts Bush

Modern day Robber Barons

Under the terms of U.N. Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, money from Iraqi oil sales must be spent in the interests of the Iraqi people. And it must be independently audited. But we only got around to appointing an auditor last April, nearly a year after we seized control of the country. Now its seems the auditor is being stymied by a lack of records while we've been in control. Sounds like we know that at least $12 billion has moved in and out of the fund, but its hard to say how it was used.

Guardian (London):Billions of revenue from oil 'missing'

Modern day Robber Barons

Under the terms of U.N. Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, money from Iraqi oil sales must be spent in the interests of the Iraqi people. And it must be independently audited. But we only got around to appointing an auditor last April, nearly a year after we seized control of the country. Now its seems the auditor is being stymied by a lack of records while we've been in control. Sounds like we know that at least $12 billion has moved in and out of the fund, but its hard to say how it was used.

Guardian (London):Billions of revenue from oil 'missing'

Surprise! Iraq is free now.

In a surprise move reminiscent of the early attack on Saddam's supposed palaces with which he began the war, President Bush has set the Iraqi people free two days early. And what timing! Bush was in Turkey for a NATO meeting where he could high five other leaders and declare mission accomplished two days early. Meanwhile Proconsul Paul Bremer signed the papers in the heavily guarded Green Zone in Baghdad and then sent out a press release. All this rushing about, according to Bremer, was to "seize the political initiative" from anti-coalition militants who have been waging a bloody campaign against U.S. forces.



But of course the point is that today Iraq is free at last. Well, sort of free. It might be kind of hard to tell and there are still a lot of details to be worked out. Not a single U.S. soldier will be leaving and Saddam Hussein will still be held prisoner by the U.S. There will, of course, be elections, but they won't come until sometime in the future. And although they will be free elections, they'll be run by a U.S. appointed election committee that will outlaw any political organization or party affiliated with the insurgents' movement. And then there's also a provision signed into law by the now former Proconsul Bremer that says that U.S. citizens remaining in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law.



Elsewhere today in free Iraq: a British soldier was killed in a bomb attack while militants threatened to behead a captured U.S. Marine, three Turks, and a Pakistani civilian. Al-Jazeera television broadcast a video showing militants holding a man identified as Wassef Ali Hassoun, a U.S. Marine of Lebanese descent. The U.S. military said a soldier by that name has been missing from his unit since 21 June.



At least the anti-coalition militants won't be seizing the political initiative. But, in any case, as of today, that's not our job. Now that Iraq is free, who ya gonna call?



Radio Free Europe (Czech Republic): Coalition Power in Iraq

Surprise! Iraq is free now.

In a surprise move reminiscent of the early attack on Saddam's supposed palaces with which he began the war, President Bush has set the Iraqi people free two days early. And what timing! Bush was in Turkey for a NATO meeting where he could high five other leaders and declare mission accomplished two days early. Meanwhile Proconsul Paul Bremer signed the papers in the heavily guarded Green Zone in Baghdad and then sent out a press release. All this rushing about, according to Bremer, was to "seize the political initiative" from anti-coalition militants who have been waging a bloody campaign against U.S. forces.



But of course the point is that today Iraq is free at last. Well, sort of free. It might be kind of hard to tell and there are still a lot of details to be worked out. Not a single U.S. soldier will be leaving and Saddam Hussein will still be held prisoner by the U.S. There will, of course, be elections, but they won't come until sometime in the future. And although they will be free elections, they'll be run by a U.S. appointed election committee that will outlaw any political organization or party affiliated with the insurgents' movement. And then there's also a provision signed into law by the now former Proconsul Bremer that says that U.S. citizens remaining in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law.



Elsewhere today in free Iraq: a British soldier was killed in a bomb attack while militants threatened to behead a captured U.S. Marine, three Turks, and a Pakistani civilian. Al-Jazeera television broadcast a video showing militants holding a man identified as Wassef Ali Hassoun, a U.S. Marine of Lebanese descent. The U.S. military said a soldier by that name has been missing from his unit since 21 June.



At least the anti-coalition militants won't be seizing the political initiative. But, in any case, as of today, that's not our job. Now that Iraq is free, who ya gonna call?



Radio Free Europe (Czech Republic): Coalition Power in Iraq

Oh no, we don't want to censor the movie. We just want to stop you from telling people where they can see the movie.

A group calling itself "Citizens United" has asked the Federal Election Commission to ban commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11" as political advertising which are subject to restrictions as commercials paid by unregulated money from corporations or unions. "Citizens United stands second-to-none in fighting for free speech," said David Bossie, president of the group, in the press release announcing their call for action to censor advertising for the movie.



Citizen United is an interesting group. They're the ones who invented Willie Horton a few years ago. They ran an anti-Clinton commercial during his interview on CBS' "60-minutes." (Nevermind that Clinton is not running for President, they want you to know that it's all his fault: "So who is responsible for leaving us vulnerable to terrorists? You don't need Clinton's book to know," reads the transcript of the ad.) They are the same folks who scorned the firefighters union when they endorsed John Kerry and are obsessed with the fantasy that Hillary Clinton is planning to storm the Deomcratic convention and may run for President. Oh, and they're also the group that gave us the videotape the "Clinton Chronicles." You might have missed that one but it was a cult hit with right-wing paranoids who believe that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.



David Bossie is quite a character too. Controversy follows him everywhere. In 1992, Bossie used edited tapes of conversations allegedly between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers as part of an advertising and "800" number scheme to smear Clinton. He used material made to look as if it were an "official" mailing from Bush campaign (the Bush people alerted the FEC to the mailings in an effort to stop them). At one time he got into a fistfight in Arkansas with a private detective who claimed Bossie had welshed on a payment for anti-Clinton material. And he faxed to some 30 news organizations an anonymous letter claiming Clinton had an affair with a former law student who committed suicide when she discovered she was pregnant.



New York Times: Movie Ads or Political Ads? Complaint Says Line Is Too Fine

American Politics Journal: David Bossie, Vast Right-Wing Conspirator of the Week

Oh no, we don't want to censor the movie. We just want to stop you from telling people where they can see the movie.

A group calling itself "Citizens United" has asked the Federal Election Commission to ban commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11" as political advertising which are subject to restrictions as commercials paid by unregulated money from corporations or unions. "Citizens United stands second-to-none in fighting for free speech," said David Bossie, president of the group, in the press release announcing their call for action to censor advertising for the movie.



Citizen United is an interesting group. They're the ones who invented Willie Horton a few years ago. They ran an anti-Clinton commercial during his interview on CBS' "60-minutes." (Nevermind that Clinton is not running for President, they want you to know that it's all his fault: "So who is responsible for leaving us vulnerable to terrorists? You don't need Clinton's book to know," reads the transcript of the ad.) They are the same folks who scorned the firefighters union when they endorsed John Kerry and are obsessed with the fantasy that Hillary Clinton is planning to storm the Deomcratic convention and may run for President. Oh, and they're also the group that gave us the videotape the "Clinton Chronicles." You might have missed that one but it was a cult hit with right-wing paranoids who believe that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.



David Bossie is quite a character too. Controversy follows him everywhere. In 1992, Bossie used edited tapes of conversations allegedly between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers as part of an advertising and "800" number scheme to smear Clinton. He used material made to look as if it were an "official" mailing from Bush campaign (the Bush people alerted the FEC to the mailings in an effort to stop them). At one time he got into a fistfight in Arkansas with a private detective who claimed Bossie had welshed on a payment for anti-Clinton material. And he faxed to some 30 news organizations an anonymous letter claiming Clinton had an affair with a former law student who committed suicide when she discovered she was pregnant.



New York Times: Movie Ads or Political Ads? Complaint Says Line Is Too Fine

American Politics Journal: David Bossie, Vast Right-Wing Conspirator of the Week

Will Bush visit Baghdad and declare "Mission Accomplished?"

He wouldn't really. Would he? Although the aircraft carrier thing last year seemed like such a good idea at the time, it hasn't worked out all that well, has it? Still, there was the Thanksgiving turkey deal. It distracted a lot of people and nobody could argue with the macho swagger of it all. So maybe a quick trip to Baghdad ("Here's the key. Sorry if I left a little bit of a mess, but I gotta go.") would be a good idea.



Heaven knows they've got to do something. The polls continue to fall, even the Irish hate us now, and Michael Moore is popping up everywhere like some kind of Whack-a-Mole. A triumphal tour of Baghdad might be just the ticket. Of course a tickertape parade through Baghdad is probably not too practical right now, what with all the smoldering Humveess blocking the way, so maybe a quick dash in-and-out but with plenty of photo ops would do it. At least it would divert attention from the rest of Iraq on that critical date.



Here are two stories from the British media. The first speculates on the Bush visit and the second is a glimpse of what they don't want you to think about as we "turn over sovereignty."



Guardian Unlimited (London): Bush will have nothing to celebrate if he comes here

Guardian Unlimited (London): Fearful Iraq sets out on journey to the unknown

Will Bush visit Baghdad and declare "Mission Accomplished?"

He wouldn't really. Would he? Although the aircraft carrier thing last year seemed like such a good idea at the time, it hasn't worked out all that well, has it? Still, there was the Thanksgiving turkey deal. It distracted a lot of people and nobody could argue with the macho swagger of it all. So maybe a quick trip to Baghdad ("Here's the key. Sorry if I left a little bit of a mess, but I gotta go.") would be a good idea.



Heaven knows they've got to do something. The polls continue to fall, even the Irish hate us now, and Michael Moore is popping up everywhere like some kind of Whack-a-Mole. A triumphal tour of Baghdad might be just the ticket. Of course a tickertape parade through Baghdad is probably not too practical right now, what with all the smoldering Humveess blocking the way, so maybe a quick dash in-and-out but with plenty of photo ops would do it. At least it would divert attention from the rest of Iraq on that critical date.



Here are two stories from the British media. The first speculates on the Bush visit and the second is a glimpse of what they don't want you to think about as we "turn over sovereignty."



Guardian Unlimited (London): Bush will have nothing to celebrate if he comes here

Guardian Unlimited (London): Fearful Iraq sets out on journey to the unknown

That "Liberal Media" again?

Well now that's odd, isn't it? If you only read U.S. media it appears that while Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" may have had a successful opening day, most Americans are responding with a measure of skepticism. But then if you search international media (try the Google News link below), you'll see quite a contrast. Stories like the ones linked below with headlines such as "Crowds flock to see Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," and "Movie theatres fill in Washington to see Fahrenheit 9/11" are common.



The quote of the day, though, really has go to the "fervent Republican whose husband is an elected official," who in the Channel News Asia story admits that she, "bought a ticket for another movie and then came to see this one. I wouldn't give Michael Moore my money." Way to go! No sense in letting pesky little details like honesty and integrity (not to mention the law) stand in the way when you know you're right!



Channel News Asia (Singapore): Crowds flock to see Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'



ABC News Online (Australia): Movie theatres fill in Washington to see Fahrenheit 9/11



Google News: (A great resource. You should bookmark it!)

That "Liberal Media" again?

Well now that's odd, isn't it? If you only read U.S. media it appears that while Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" may have had a successful opening day, most Americans are responding with a measure of skepticism. But then if you search international media (try the Google News link below), you'll see quite a contrast. Stories like the ones linked below with headlines such as "Crowds flock to see Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," and "Movie theatres fill in Washington to see Fahrenheit 9/11" are common.



The quote of the day, though, really has go to the "fervent Republican whose husband is an elected official," who in the Channel News Asia story admits that she, "bought a ticket for another movie and then came to see this one. I wouldn't give Michael Moore my money." Way to go! No sense in letting pesky little details like honesty and integrity (not to mention the law) stand in the way when you know you're right!



Channel News Asia (Singapore): Crowds flock to see Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'



ABC News Online (Australia): Movie theatres fill in Washington to see Fahrenheit 9/11



Google News: (A great resource. You should bookmark it!)

Bush in BVDs!

Forget about WMDs, we've got Karl Rove and crew working busy working on the BVDs. Seems the sleepy President wandered in front of his hotel window in his underwear (who among us hasn't done that), where a pool TV crew picked up the image. Not to worry, the Media Managers swept into action forbidding the use of the footage.

BBC NEWS:Bush filmed in underwear

Bush in BVDs!

Forget about WMDs, we've got Karl Rove and crew working busy working on the BVDs. Seems the sleepy President wandered in front of his hotel window in his underwear (who among us hasn't done that), where a pool TV crew picked up the image. Not to worry, the Media Managers swept into action forbidding the use of the footage.

BBC NEWS:Bush filmed in underwear

Taking a speck out of someone else's eye

"I've always said I think it's very important for someone not to try to take the speck out of someone else's eye when they may have a log in their own."



That's George W. Bush responding to questions about Ron Reagan's eulogy for his father, you remember the one where Reagan said that although his father was a deeply religious man he "never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians - wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage." Frankly, I didn't understand what President Bush meant either, but it did sound like it was meant to be intimidating. If intimidation was the objective, it didn't work our very well. Ron Reagan has made clear his view of Bush and his administration.

The Seattle Times: Ron Reagan accuses Bush of deceiving Americans

Taking a speck out of someone else's eye

"I've always said I think it's very important for someone not to try to take the speck out of someone else's eye when they may have a log in their own."



That's George W. Bush responding to questions about Ron Reagan's eulogy for his father, you remember the one where Reagan said that although his father was a deeply religious man he "never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians - wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage." Frankly, I didn't understand what President Bush meant either, but it did sound like it was meant to be intimidating. If intimidation was the objective, it didn't work our very well. Ron Reagan has made clear his view of Bush and his administration.

The Seattle Times: Ron Reagan accuses Bush of deceiving Americans

Just don't ask?

"Are you tired of the constant stream of America-bashing from the shamelessly liberal news media and left-wing politicians who use every negative news story to launch a political attack against our military and our commander in chief? Then join with the millions of Americans who are uniting to 'Move America Forward' to win the War on Terrorism."



That's from the website (www.moveamericaforward.org) of a group calling themselves "Move America Forward." They've organized a protest to stop theater's showing Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 911" and they're the ones who bullied CBS into canceling the Ronald Reagan biography. Beyond the unintended irony of a pro-censorship organization calling others anti-American, this group has an even darker side. Move America Forward would have you believe that certain questions, were they asked, would pose a grave threat to America ... and they reach the astonishing conclusion those of us who ask those questions must be American-hating terrorists.



And they may be right. It's a very slippery slope. Once you take an objective look back at America's bloody and imperialistic history, you find yourself wanting to ask quite a few questions ... but if you are the kind of Real American who just wants to "Move America Forward" then you understand there isn't time for dangerous questions.



Still, there are some Americans who do not want to move forward, at least not until some important questions are answered ... and that's the true heart of America.



Fahrenheit 911 opens on June 25 in hundreds of theaters across the country. Here's a link to the listings.

Fahrenheit 9/11 - Theaters 6/25/04

Just don't ask?

"Are you tired of the constant stream of America-bashing from the shamelessly liberal news media and left-wing politicians who use every negative news story to launch a political attack against our military and our commander in chief? Then join with the millions of Americans who are uniting to 'Move America Forward' to win the War on Terrorism."



That's from the website (www.moveamericaforward.org) of a group calling themselves "Move America Forward." They've organized a protest to stop theater's showing Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 911" and they're the ones who bullied CBS into canceling the Ronald Reagan biography. Beyond the unintended irony of a pro-censorship organization calling others anti-American, this group has an even darker side. Move America Forward would have you believe that certain questions, were they asked, would pose a grave threat to America ... and they reach the astonishing conclusion those of us who ask those questions must be American-hating terrorists.



And they may be right. It's a very slippery slope. Once you take an objective look back at America's bloody and imperialistic history, you find yourself wanting to ask quite a few questions ... but if you are the kind of Real American who just wants to "Move America Forward" then you understand there isn't time for dangerous questions.



Still, there are some Americans who do not want to move forward, at least not until some important questions are answered ... and that's the true heart of America.



Fahrenheit 911 opens on June 25 in hundreds of theaters across the country. Here's a link to the listings.

Fahrenheit 9/11 - Theaters 6/25/04

Could Cuba be next? It may be a lot easier to get there but it'll be no easier to get home.

Oh they wouldn't do that, right? Don't bet on it. While we've been blowing off Fidel Castro's warnings about U.S. plans to invade his country, George W. Bush has been quitely making plans.



"We believe the people of Cuba should be free from tyranny. We believe the future of Cuba is a future of freedom. It's in our nation's interest that Cuba be free. It's in the neighborhood's interest that Cuba be free. Our strategy is a strategy that encourages the spending of money to help organizations to protect dissidents and to promote human rights. It is a strategy that says we're not waiting for the day of Cuban freedom, we are working for the day of freedom in Cuba."



That's what he said in May as he gleefully accepted a report he'd ordered from the Department of State on how to hasten regime change in Cuba. It's no Plan of Attack, but here's the link to the report:

U.S. Department of State: Report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba

Could Cuba be next? It may be a lot easier to get there but it'll be no easier to get home.

Oh they wouldn't do that, right? Don't bet on it. While we've been blowing off Fidel Castro's warnings about U.S. plans to invade his country, George W. Bush has been quitely making plans.



"We believe the people of Cuba should be free from tyranny. We believe the future of Cuba is a future of freedom. It's in our nation's interest that Cuba be free. It's in the neighborhood's interest that Cuba be free. Our strategy is a strategy that encourages the spending of money to help organizations to protect dissidents and to promote human rights. It is a strategy that says we're not waiting for the day of Cuban freedom, we are working for the day of freedom in Cuba."



That's what he said in May as he gleefully accepted a report he'd ordered from the Department of State on how to hasten regime change in Cuba. It's no Plan of Attack, but here's the link to the report:

U.S. Department of State: Report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba

"Yes, but they were all very bad guys."

The War on Terror must be going well. And we must be safer, right? After all, we've locked up in dog kennels some of the world's most dangerous terrorists — "the worst of a very bad lot," Vice President Dick Cheney has called them. "These are people who would gnaw through hydraulic lines at the back of a C-17 to bring it down," according to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



Except that they are not. It turns out that none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. But still we've imprisoned some 595 human beings (no one can really say how many or who since it's a secret) for 2 1/2 years now. So we must be safer. Aren't we?

New York Times: U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantanamo Detainees

"Yes, but they were all very bad guys."

The War on Terror must be going well. And we must be safer, right? After all, we've locked up in dog kennels some of the world's most dangerous terrorists — "the worst of a very bad lot," Vice President Dick Cheney has called them. "These are people who would gnaw through hydraulic lines at the back of a C-17 to bring it down," according to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



Except that they are not. It turns out that none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. But still we've imprisoned some 595 human beings (no one can really say how many or who since it's a secret) for 2 1/2 years now. So we must be safer. Aren't we?

New York Times: U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantanamo Detainees

Personal Accountability: Bush nominee for Federal Appeals Court practiced law without a license for years

Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush's nominee for the federal appeals court in Washington, has been practicing law in Utah without a license for the past four years, according to Utah state officials. What is more, he failed to renew his law license in Washington for three years while he was a lawyer based in the District. According to Griffith it was a big mistake due to an oversight by his law firm's staff.

Washington Post: Judicial Nominee Practiced Law Without License in Utah

Personal Accountability: Bush nominee for Federal Appeals Court practiced law without a license for years

Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush's nominee for the federal appeals court in Washington, has been practicing law in Utah without a license for the past four years, according to Utah state officials. What is more, he failed to renew his law license in Washington for three years while he was a lawyer based in the District. According to Griffith it was a big mistake due to an oversight by his law firm's staff.

Washington Post: Judicial Nominee Practiced Law Without License in Utah

There's gonna be a revolution...

"When social structures result in such gross disparities and suffering, the Bible writers envision structural solutions, such as periodic land redistribution so that everyone can have access to productive resources and be dignified members of their community," according to the National Assoication of Evangelicals.

Los Angeles Times: Evangelical Leaders Reexamine Principles

There's gonna be a revolution...

"When social structures result in such gross disparities and suffering, the Bible writers envision structural solutions, such as periodic land redistribution so that everyone can have access to productive resources and be dignified members of their community," according to the National Assoication of Evangelicals.

Los Angeles Times: Evangelical Leaders Reexamine Principles

State-run Churches are O.K. with Clarence Thomas

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas thinks it would be just fine for your state to officially sponsor its own church. Incredibly, in the recent decision regarding the pledge of allegiance, Justice Clarence Thomas, while acknowledging that the Constitution inconveniently prohibits Federal involvement in religion, says that individual states are fee to set up their own churches. Honestly, that's what the man said. The URL to the decision is at the bottom of this post, but here's the passage (the emphasis is added) beginning at page 52 of the decision:



"The Establishment Clause provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' As a textual matter, this Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But perhaps more importantly, the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches any further. ... By contrast, the Free Exercise Clause plainly protects individuals against congressional interference with the right to exercise their religion, and the remaining Clauses within the First Amendment expressly disable Congress from 'abridging [particular] freedom[s].' This textual analysis is consistent with the prevailing view that the Constitution left religion to the States. ... History also supports this understanding: At the founding, at least six States had established religions. ... Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision - it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual right."



Just think of the possibilities. My state could amend its constitution to allow County sponsored religions. No, wait, why not city sponsored churches? That way I could finally run my pesky neighbor out of town on religious grounds.



Here's a Los Angeles Times story on some Thomas' other wacky interpretations of our Constitution:

Los Angeles Times: Thomas' Take on the Law Rooted in 18th Century



And if you'd like to read the whole pledge opinion go to www.supremecourtus.gov. The Case is "Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow."

State-run Churches are O.K. with Clarence Thomas

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas thinks it would be just fine for your state to officially sponsor its own church. Incredibly, in the recent decision regarding the pledge of allegiance, Justice Clarence Thomas, while acknowledging that the Constitution inconveniently prohibits Federal involvement in religion, says that individual states are fee to set up their own churches. Honestly, that's what the man said. The URL to the decision is at the bottom of this post, but here's the passage (the emphasis is added) beginning at page 52 of the decision:



"The Establishment Clause provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' As a textual matter, this Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But perhaps more importantly, the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches any further. ... By contrast, the Free Exercise Clause plainly protects individuals against congressional interference with the right to exercise their religion, and the remaining Clauses within the First Amendment expressly disable Congress from 'abridging [particular] freedom[s].' This textual analysis is consistent with the prevailing view that the Constitution left religion to the States. ... History also supports this understanding: At the founding, at least six States had established religions. ... Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision - it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual right."



Just think of the possibilities. My state could amend its constitution to allow County sponsored religions. No, wait, why not city sponsored churches? That way I could finally run my pesky neighbor out of town on religious grounds.



Here's a Los Angeles Times story on some Thomas' other wacky interpretations of our Constitution:

Los Angeles Times: Thomas' Take on the Law Rooted in 18th Century



And if you'd like to read the whole pledge opinion go to www.supremecourtus.gov. The Case is "Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow."

Dick Cheney and Nigerian bribes

Did you ever get one of those e-mails from Nigeria offering to share some large and forgotten windfall? Next time check the signature line. Wouldn't it be a shame if it took a foreign court to do what we ought to do here at home? The London Observer: Cheney in firing line over Nigerian bribery claims

Dick Cheney and Nigerian bribes

Did you ever get one of those e-mails from Nigeria offering to share some large and forgotten windfall? Next time check the signature line. Wouldn't it be a shame if it took a foreign court to do what we ought to do here at home? The London Observer: Cheney in firing line over Nigerian bribery claims

"Don't Worry. Be Happy."

"I'm optimistic about America..." chirps our President in the current round of TV commercials. But there's a real cost to blind optimism. In fact, it turns out that a "Don't Worry, Be Happy" attitude can get you into all kinds of trouble. New York Times Magazine: The Way We Live Now - Against Happiness

"Don't Worry. Be Happy."

"I'm optimistic about America..." chirps our President in the current round of TV commercials. But there's a real cost to blind optimism. In fact, it turns out that a "Don't Worry, Be Happy" attitude can get you into all kinds of trouble. New York Times Magazine: The Way We Live Now - Against Happiness