Why are YOU allowing our children to be TORTURED? YES, YOU!

I disagree with a lot- nearly everything- that the Bush administration and the Republican Party have done lately, but I try to remain civil, and not overreach. But no longer. We need to impeach or recall and then PROSECUTE each and every member of the President's staff and the Republicans in the US House and Senate. All but McCain and the small group of retired military personnel working with him. Why? The torture of our young men and women.

If you are one of those who still say you believe these war criminals are right about ANYTHING, let me ask you for one second to be honest to yourself. Do you think that any country which knows we use torture- or "extreme measures" or whatever euphemism is currently in vogue- will not do the same to our sons and daughters? If the new rule is that the leader of each nation that has agreed to the Geneva Conventions can decide for himself what is allowed they will do so, and they CERTAINLY might allow even more than we do. OUR CHILDREN WILL BE TORTURED. IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF WHEN.

Giving torture new names doesn't change a thing. "Water boarding" is tossed around like it is some sort of summer sport. Actually there are several ways to "water board". The crudest is to force a person to "bob for apples" without the apples, and while tied up. The person is held under the water until all bubbling stops, showing the person is out of air but not yet inhaling water. The most common is to simply tie someone down on their back and poor water over their face so that it covers their mouth and runs into their nose. For a few second a person has all the sensations of drowning. The most psychologically cruel is the towel method. Since this is the least dangerous, I want you to try it. Right now. Follow these directions:

Fill your bathtub about half way with cold water. Lie down in it on your back,
fully clothed or completely naked. Both are used so that the person is
alternately more helpless and more embarrassed. Take a soaking wet towel and lay
it over your face. Now PRETEND your hands are tied behind your back. You will
notice that if you breathe out VERY slowly the towel will move away from your
mouth or nose and you will be able to inhale, again very slowly. You might, with
practice, be able to do this for 15 or 20 minutes or more. But it is tiring and
soon you will breathe a little too rapidly or hard, and the towel will cling to
your face. You then CANNOT get another breath, no matter how hard you try. In
fact the harder you try the less chance you have to get air. Lying there in your
cold, wet clothes, straining for air, getting only water in your nose you will
eventually pass out. You can then be revived (hopefully- several detainees have
died during interrogations) and the process started over.

NOW IMAGINE THIS HAPPENING TO YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER, and then remember that it was OUR PRESIDENT and NEARLY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO PUT YOUR CHILD IN THAT SITUATION!

Bush has declared this an acceptable questioning technique for our children who might be captured by some other country which complies with the Geneva Convention. You also have to ask: "If they admit THIS what else might they be doing?" and "What about those countries that DON'T agree to the Geneva Conventions?" According to Bush if you do not lose limbs or have organ failure, it’s OK. Of course he breaks even THIS rule, because "water boarding" is known to cause brain damage. But since we know our President may not HAVE a brain, or at least a fully functioning one, he might not see brain damage as any sort of deterrent.

YES I AM BEING "HARSH". BUT THE FACT IS THE REPUBLICANS- BY PARTY LINE VOTE- HAVE JUST CONDEMNED ALL OUR YOUNG SOLDIERS TO HORRIBLE AND CRUEL TORTURE.

Anyone who knows me at all knows I LOVED serving in the military; it is the single thing in my life -other than Tabitha and our children and grandchildren- I am proudest of and hold dearest to my heart. When God asks me to account for my life I will start out with: "I served my nation honorably!" Remembering those I served with, and seeing the men and women serving proudly and bravely today, STILL brings tears to my eyes.

But now when I see a young person in uniform my tears have a different cause- I see them screaming silently, straining for air, bodies racked with pain and brain cells dying, in some secret prison and I know WE sent them there.

GOD FORGIVE US. I know I can't.

Re-defining "Illegal"

It would be a great disservice to us all should those wishing to redefine the word "illegal" succeed. Yes, I am talking about offering "amnesty" to certain illegal immigrants. I want to be clear- I firmly believe that we are a nation of immigrants and we owe all that we are to being the children and grandchildren or those people who wanted to make a better life, and were willing to cross an ocean, often alone, penniless and with only the clothes on their backs in order to make a new life in America. We are descended from the best, the brightest, the boldest and the visionaries, and we need to keep welcoming immigrants who truly seek a better life. But they MUST be legal immigrants.

Now perhaps the laws are inadequate, broken, or simply wrong. Let's change them. But they are what they are and we allow them to be broken at our peril. What other laws should we deem OK to break so long as businesses make money from them? That IS what we are talking about, make no mistake. Many businesses- big and small- make a lot of money exploiting illegal immigrant labor. And thee businesses are big donors to certain politicians- by coincidence mainly those who want to keep allowing illegal immigrants to work. George W. Bush has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from just a handful of businesses that will have to pay millions of dollars more in wages should they lose the illegal immigrant workforce. Boiled down to its basic question, the debate REALLY is: "How much money do you have to donate to the President's campaign in order to be allowed to ignore a federal law with impunity?"

Once we start in this direction- allowing the law to be broken or rewritten to suit the financial interests of political backers- WHERE DO WE STOP? This is a precedent we DO NOT want to set. Illegal IS illegal- period. Maybe this is similar to Prohibition- maybe the law is simply wrong and we need to revisit the entire issue. But no one suggested granting Al Capone amnesty for bootlegging.

Yes, let's debate overhauling the immigration laws. Yes, let's certainly keep our doors open for legal immigrants. But let us not walk down the path of rewarding ANYONE who breaks our laws to be rewarded . Whether it be an immigrant, a CEO or a politician.

The Bush Lunacy, err "Legacy"

Once we are all able to step back and "total up" the accomplishments of the Bush Administration, we will find - none. Of course many things happened, and we reacted time and again, but what can we put down as an "accomplishment" for the 2 terms of George W. Bush? Of course there WAS the Mission in Iraq which was labeled as "Accomplished" on that aircraft carrier back in 2003. We turned the nation's largest budget surplus into the largest budget deficit ever for ANY nation in all of recorded history. For the first time EVER we started a war- attacked a country that HAD NOT attacked us first. In a world which is rapidly and widely moving towards providing healthcare for all citizens WE have held the line, even though our life expectancy and infant mortality rank as nearly THE VERY WORST among "first-world" countries. And while gay and Lesbian people are being granted legal equality - including marriage rights- in a large AND rapidly growing number of countries we have passed laws ensuring that they cannot even obtain medical insurance for their children. (This last one COULD be seen as an accomplishment, but as the mid-term elections near President Bush has again brought out the issue of a Constitutional Amendment - hoping to ensure that the US will be the first nation since Nazi Germany to enshrine a caste system into its most sacred documents. The problem is that no one expects this to pass the long amendment process.) This last point brings up the fact that he HAS been very good at convincing people to vote in ways we might NEVER have expected even 10 years ago. How DO you convince millions of people to pass tax breaks for people who make more in a year than they will IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIMES and fund those giveaways by eliminating funding for their OWN children's schools, vocational programs and medical care? It takes SOME SORT of talent to convince a person who will never even know someone who might have to actually pay an estate tax that it is an unfair burden to the children of multi-millionaires to have the money left to them by their parents taxed even knowing that this will mean that their own children will lose any opportunity to get a college scholarship.

I am very, very serious. I ask ANYONE reading this who still supports "W" to explain to me "WHY". Please try to give a rational, factual answer. Be honest. As I sit here thinking I am utterly convinced that this has been THE WORST 6 years in American history- financially, internationally- BY ANY MEASURE. I see not a single bright spot in the Bush presidency. Fewer jobs created than any recent president. Constant corruption. Loss of civil liberties WITHOUT any real progress in the "war on terror". Total mismanagement of Iraq. Broken treaties.

Again- PLEASE show me if I have missed something. Give me ANY branch to cling to before I am swept away in a flood of misery- mishandled by an incompetent, unqualified political lackey appointed to appease a rich corporate backer.

One simple word that could FIX American political discourse

There are MANY things wrong with American political discourse- and these break down into 3 areas: the politicians say ONLY what they think people want to hear, the media may ask questions but NEVER demands answers (with the exception of FOX news, which is given questions AND answers from Administration talking points), and the people (we cannot be called "voters" with such poor election-day turnout) only hear things which reinforce whatever they already believe. It is thus no surprise- AND NO SECRET- that TRUTH has for decades had no place in politics. There have been many articles written decrying the loss of "truth" in politics, many promises made and broken, and NOTHING has changed. I OFFER A SIMPLE, IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE PLAN FOR MAKING TRUTH ONCE AGAIN (or for the first time?) CENTRAL TO AMERICAN POLITICS-

Teach everyone- the media, the politicians and the people (who then MAY be voters) the meaning- AND USE OF- the word "LIAR"!

It IS that simple. The media starts telling the people when someone is LYING, and after a short period of adjustment, during which most politicians probably will not speak at all, the politicians will have to start telling the truth. It will take some people time to understand that the truth doesn't ALWAYS support their preconceptions, but for MOST eventually they will adjust and start making decisions based on facts. For nearly all this will result in a strong urge to VOTE!

LET'S TRY SOME EXAMPLES:

Dick DeVos runs a TV ad in which he talks about a company that declined to move its jobs out of state. He then says that while he was running a business, he also considered moving jobs out of state, but decided not to.

At this point in the commercial there should be a large hand with a huge rubber stamp paste the word "LIAR!" across his face while a sound effect of a loud razzing sound "ptttthhhhh!" is heard, followed by the course of the Cranberries' hit Liar:

"Liar, liar, liar You know you're a liar, Liar..."

Of course the truth is that Dick DeVos didn't just "move out of the state," instead, he moved out of the country. From 1993-1998, DeVos invested $100 million in China. Then in 2003, Amway continued its expansion outside Michigan, adding another $120 million in China investments AND MOVING AT LEAST 1,080 jobs from Michigan to China.

Now that the lie was removed people could see the fact left behind- the company that was offered a tax break to move to another state BUT DID NOT GO. Hmm, so the tax situation in Michigan DID NOT send this company running- AND OFFERING A TAX BREAK ELSEWHERE DID NOT INDUCE THAT COMPANY TO RELOCATE. In fact, it was Governor Jennifer Granholm and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation that assisted the company, Trenton Forging. The Granholm Administration and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) provided investments in job training programs that helped create and retain that company's MICHIGAN jobs!

Another example. President Bush gives a "major policy speech" and once the various LIES are excised we end up with a truthful speech which reads, in total, "And may God Bless the United States". This is at least something we all should agree on.

OK, that last was a joke. Kind of. But my point is valid- if we just pointed out even the OBVIOUS lies we could all make better decisions. I watched a debate on CNN a few weeks ago on the issue of "Gay Marriage". The "con" position was supported at one point by citing several studies which "proved" gay families were "bad" for the children raised in them. The opponent stated that "there is one such study, constantly referenced but completely discredited, but many others have shown the exact opposite." Polite, and an interesting debate. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THE "STUDY" REFERRED TO HAS BEEN COMPLETELY AND REPEATEDLY SHOWN TO BE FALSE- MEANINGLESS AND MISMANAGED. Both debaters, the moderator and the commentator knew this, and yet instead of saying simply the conclusion was false, they acted like it was simply in error. And since this keeps happening millions of people have heard "something" and think this is a matter which is still open to interpretation. WHY NOT CLEARLY AND FORCEABLY state that the one and only study that found children of gay parents to be "troubled" was conducted by a disbarred and discredited psychologist who used improper questions and methods and then drew unsupportable conclusions in a study so filled with inaccuracies that NO ONE has been able to duplicate it and no one would publish it until the author himself PAID for its publication in a "psychiatric" journal that prints ANYTHING for $3.00 a page.

Maybe if people had FACTS, and were told when they were being LIED to, they could begin to make better decisions. We can start simply by noting that it is not impolite to call a liar a liar. What is "rude" is allowing someone to be lied to and doing nothing about it. From now on you have MY PROMISE that I will not allow a LIE to stand unchallenged. No matter WHO the liar is.

YOU BE THE JUDGE, err Politician ?!?!?

This is a real case. The names have been left out to protect... me.

A 14 year-old boy, with a functioning level of perhaps an 8 year-old, is "caught" by his step-mother "putting a q-tip into the vagina" of his 9 month-old step-sister. She demands that the father call the police, and under pressure from his new wife, father waives the child's right to an attorney. The child admits he did what the step-mother said, and without counsel is waived into adult court and convicted- as an adult -of 1st degree CSC (Criminal Sexual Conduct). What should his sentence be, judge?

The republican-controlled Michigan Legislature has said that THEY know what the sentence MUST be. They have passed a bill making this offense punishable by a MANDATORY 25-year minimum sentence. The child MIGHT be eligable for his first parole hearing around his 40th birthday.

Now some other facts that came out AFTER the conviction.

The child, WITH THE IQ OF AN 8 YEAR-OLD, had a habit of trying to imitate and help his step-mother, who at best resented his being in the family with her own child and her new husband, and at times HATED his mental slowness. The child explained to his therapist- AFTER CONVICTION- he often saw "mommy clean the baby" in the same way and only wanted to help. Being as this was the first time anyone listened to the child, the counselor wanted the case reheard. Under Michigan law that could only happen if the Prosecutor and Judge agreed to set aside the entire case and start again. The judge agreed, and even asked an attorney (guess who) to provide the legal counsel the child had never received; the prosecutor did not. The child, now a young adult, will have to register as a sex offender for life, but luckily for him the new mandatory sentence HAD NOT YET gone into effect. It should by next week. Anyway, given ALL the facts, What should his sentence be NOW, judge?

The legislature says that none of this matters. The legislature says that the ONLY possible sentence for 1st Degree CSC is a 25 year minimum. No discretion to judges. No discretion at all.

I say... Well, I hope you know what I say. Cow Manure, Horse Pucky. But this is what you get when your only issues are "I am so very tough on crime" and "at least Gay people can't get married."

The Big 4: 2nd Amendment; Reproductive Freedom; Marriage Equality & the Death Penalty

The Second Amendment. I only mention this here because it is certainly one of the "big" issues we all face today, but I have made my position clear on many occasions, here in this blog ("From the Gun Safe of the Well-Armed Sheep", 20 April 2006) and on my website. I do support a short waiting period to buy a handgun (say 2 days) because of the growing number of cases where domestic violence ends up with someone being shot. It is simply too easy for someone in a rage to buy a gun and shoot his or her spouse or even their entire family- something which would be much harder with any other weapon. If even one life is saved it is worth the very small inconvenience. I also have no problem with laws that keep guns away from violent offenders. Other than these safety issues the Constitution is clear: the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Reproductive Freedom. First off I disagree with both of the labels people toss about when discussing abortion- "pro-life" and "pro-choice". We are ALL pro-life. In fact, since many people who call themselves "pro-life" are supporters of the death penalty, and many people who are "pro-choice" are against it, I find the whole issue of labels too simplistic. Likewise "pro-choice". Everyone is "pro-choice"- the debate is only as to WHO gets to choose. I also think that we can all agree that we should all do what we can to make abortion unnecessary, and that even so there are some circumstances where it will still be necessary. I have thought about this more than any other single issue since becoming a mother and grandmother, and I remain convinced that the proper person to make the choice is the woman who is facing the decision. She, along with her family, partner, clergy, Doctor or whomever she trusts- MUST be allowed self-determination free of the veto of any politician in Lansing or Washington. So my position is clear- I fully support a woman's right to choose and will put my efforts into providing services and education which will make the choice of having an abortion TRULY the last - and least chosen- alternative. Quite simply we should refrain from making choices for others and focus on offering them BETTER options to choose from.
And I cannot leave this discussion without expressing my utter CONTEMPT for anyone who takes a position in which they would force a woman to have a child against her wishes, justifying their action by referencing their belief in the sanctity of life, while also supporting the death penalty and war. I will discuss the death penalty later but now that we know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq WAS NOT involved in the 9/11 attacks and that Saddam Hussein did not support either Al Qaeda OR the Taliban we must accept that under international law (which we helped develop) we were not justified in attacking Iraq. In fact doing so was completely prohibited, amounting to a "war of aggression", and, since innocent civilians have died, "crimes against humanity". On May 4, 2002, the Bush administration formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute (which established the International Criminal Court (ICC)). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies. It has, however, stalled international efforts to charge President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and others with "war crimes". see also http://www.iacenter.org/Iraq/iraq_wct-rc.htm

Marriage Equality. ("Same-sex Marriage"). Our country was founded on the separation of church and state. Contrary to what some believe, we are NOT a "Christian Nation" and the founding fathers were not what we would call "Christians". Thomas Jefferson had a habit of "editing" bibles, removing such things as "miracles" being attributed to Jesus . In a letter to James Smith, Jefferson says: "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs" (Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).
When asked, Benjamin Franklin said: "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies" . [Benjamin Franklin, in Toward The Mystery]
And the word "Equality" is both simple and profound. It is simple in definition and profound in effect. To put it in simplest terms- either we are ALL equal, or none of us are. My position is likewise simple- "Marriage" is a term best suited for religion- and as church should not meddle in state so state should not control the church. Each religion should follow its own beliefs. The LEGAL rights and responsibilities, however, are the realm of the state. No one should be denied basic human rights (the "pursuit of happiness", freedom of association) based on ANYONE else's religious beliefs. I therefore support "civil unions" for both same-sex and opposite sex couples which carry the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage. I also support the ABSOLUTE right of each religion to its own position in this matter. This does NOT "open the door" for polygamy or other "marriage-like" states. It is a basic tool of law that one should craft a law to meet the narrowest possible solution which actually corrects the given injustice. My position meets that goal- every adult should be able to form a life bond with one other adult. A simple, clear- AMERICAN- rule.

The Death Penalty. I am against the Death Penalty, for 1 main reason. We have executed innocent people, and when we do WE ALL BECOME MURDERERS. While there may be debate as to how many innocent people have been executed, since 1973 more than 115 people have been sentenced to death only to be found innocent later and released from death row. This should give us a clue. In Congress, US Senator Russ Feingold has introduced S. 122, the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act, and S. 132, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, while a national blue ribbon commission reviews the fairness of the administration of the death penalty. Because of problems in its application, the US Supreme Court has twice ruled capital punishment unconstitutional, and twice reversed itself. Clearly "mistakes" have been- and will continue to be, made. There is no real necessity for the death penalty- we are just as safe with the offender in maximum security serving life without parole as we are with him executed, and there is no definitive and reliable evidence that capital punishment has any deterrent effect. Neither does it save money- although this is the most despicable argument that pro-capital punishment people make. The cost of an execution, given the years on death row, necessary appeals and other associated costs is MUCH MORE than the cost of keeping someone in prison for life.
I would also like you to think about the fact that very few countries still have the death penalty- mainly the US and some countries in the Middle East and eastern Europe and east Asia- nearly all of which we have routinely labeled "Human Rights Violators" or a part of some "Axis of Evil". And nearly all of those few countries do not execute children or the mentally handicapped, although- for instance- Governor Bush of Florida and Governor Bush of Texas (now President Bush) have both allowed the execution of people with very low IQ's and of very young age at the time of their offenses. Is this the company we want to be associated with? Is it any wonder that the majority of the world sees us as bloodthirsty and dangerous?
Assume with me that if we worked together we could make absolutely sure that "no parole" meant "no parole". With the "protection of society" assured, can you truly justify the mistaken murder of EVEN ONE innocent person in the name of vengeance? Remember that the Sixth Commandment, "Thou SHALT NOT kill", does not have a footnote nor an exception. Hebrews 10:30 and Romans 12:18-21 come directly from the mouth of God:

18 If it is possible, as much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men.
19 Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord."
20 Therefore If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I sure can't improve on that!

A Decider by any other name is.....

Its hard NOT to compare the political tactics of the present administration with the 1930's NSDAP. Replace the manufactured crises in Poland with Iraq. Replace scapegoating Jews, Communists and homosexuals with Muslims, communists and homosexuals. The NSDAP took over the "congress" and "supreme court" because of the real crises of the economy, passed an enabling act allowing the administration to ignore civil liberties in a time of crises, and then manufactured a crises in Poland. The Bush Administration used the very real crises of 9/11 to get "war powers" and then manufactured a crises in Iraq. Blame everything on the Jews/Muslims, fear the Communists and give the "average man" someone to look down upon (homosexuals) and praise your own morality. Make sure anyone who speaks out is "with them", and count on your hand-picked court to say its all OK. As long as you can keep soldiers under fire no one will speak out too much as the one thing we ALL have in common is that we support, respect and love our soldiers, sailors, pilots and marines.

I keep trying not to think this way, but then I hear of "Homeland Security" having its own domestic police force and illegal searches, seizures and wiretaps. Then there are secret "detention camps" being built by Haliburton in the US, "black hole" CIA prisons in Europe, claims of torture and even death among prisoners. Add the administration's claim to be able to ignore any law deemed a hindrance to Executive power (so-called "signing statements"), secret courts, indeterminate "detention" without counsel, charges or outside contact and I can't help but see a similarity. I recently started worrying again when I found out what a "Unitary Executive" REALLY means. Even with all this, though, I kept reminding myself the comparison between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler is ridiculous, although Cheney and Goebbels is a lot closer, and Rumsfeld/Goering has quite a bit going for it. Just about when I got it all put out of my head I heard W. Bush give himself a new title. He was telling about his view of the job each member of his administration is responsible for. In his usual colloquial manner, where everyone has a nickname (often ending in -y or -ie) I heard him say that he is The Decider.

A little homework for you. Look up "Fuhrer".

Sabotaging the "War on Drugs"

Our "Drug War" policy HAS FAILED. We need to accept that and develop new ideas. This is an area where - like Iraq- we simply CANNOT FAIL. There are 3 big domestic issues we must succeed at for our children's sake- education for the jobs of the future, conserving our natural and financial resources so they have something to build on, and protecting them from the excesses of drug abuse that has destroyed so many lives.

More on this later, but I want to say that in my decades of working with troubled families in the legal system NOTHING has ever been so immediately and totally destructive as Methamphetemine. I have seen families go from the "American Dream" to living in a burned-out house or broken down car, unemployed, dirty and hungry, the children without medical or dental care and missing school- ALL WITHIN A MATTER OF MONTHS. This is a problem we must fix; we CANNOT continue following the failed policies of the past.

Mexico recently tried a new approach, which was immediately mischaracterized and demonized by forces in the United States with vested interests in keeping the status quo. The Mexican proposal DID NOT "LEGALIZE" DRUGS. What the Mexican legislature passed- WITH WIDESPREAD SUPPORT AMONG MEXICAN CITIZENS AND THE SUPPORT OF MEXICAN PRESIDENT FOX- was a law which decriminalized possession or use of small amounts of illegal drugs by adults within their own homes. Penalties for drug traffickers would be strengthened. The money spent on hunting, prosecuting and jailing people who used drugs in small amounts their own homes would be earmarked for use capturing drug "kingpins"- the manufacturers, smugglers and dealers- and for drug abuse prevention education and treatment.

This is an idea worth debate. Treat drug abusers as a medical problem and stop drug dealers more effectively. Use more money to treat addicts and to educate children BEFORE they use. However this- if it worked- would show once and for all what so many have said- prohibition is part of the problem, not the solution. So many people have vested interests in the status quo that any new idea cannot even be discussed. Thus, under pressure from the US after a quick campaign of misleading statements and outright LIES about the Mexican legislation, President Fox has reversed his position and will not sign the law.

I am not sure the proposal WAS a good one. I AM sure that what we are doing is failing. I AM sure that we need new ideas, an open discussion, and NOT campaigns of lies and deception. I AM sure that we need more treatment and education. I AM open for ideas- unlike, apparently, the people who presently represent us. What do YOU think?

"Our Anthem": Translating the Star Spangled Banner

My first question is: "They JUST NOW translated the Star Spangled Banner" into Spanish! I actually cannot believe that. But for the sake of argument, let's consider the ramifications.
First there is the whole issue of translating important documents. Mistakes can occur and cause major problems. When the Christian Bible was translated from its original into Latin, the "sins" of Sodom and Gomorrah changed from being bad hosts (not properly welcoming travelers is a cardinal sin across the middle east) to being sexually "deviant". Generations of homosexuals have been beaten, imprisoned and tortured due to a faulty translation. Likewise Mary, mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph was originally described as "young" - NOT a virgin. Then when King James got HIS hands on it... Well, enough said. We must be careful translating important documents.
I CAN understand why some people are opposed to translating the Star Spangled Banner into any other language, ESPECIALLY Spanish. First, it sets a bad precedent. Next some do-gooder liberal will translate the Bill of Rights into Spanish and when all those Mexicans find out they have RIGHTS, well, we'll ALL be in trouble. And then OTHER things might be translated into Spanish. For instance, the Bible. If English is good enough for God its good enough for immigrants. And if someone translated the ORIGINAL books of the Bible, so that immigrants knew what the authors really wanted to say while we all only have a medieval king's version of God's word's translated from a translation of a translation- WE SIMPLY CANNOT ALLOW A "TRANSLATION GAP" in favor of immigrants. They need to learn the same flawed translations WE use.
Secondly translating the Star Spangled Banner into other languages may give a little too much away. The US has a bad reputation worldwide right now because we are seen as violent and warmongers. Once it becomes common knowledge that our national anthem is about war - and that the only other war themed national anthem was that sung by the Germans as they marched to conquer the world in WWII- our problem can only get worse.
SERIOUSLY, I am grateful to anyone who sincerely tries to honor our nation, our traditions and our history. If singing "Our Anthem" in Spanish makes Hispanic immigrants feel the same sense of pride in America that I feel when I sing "the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave" this can only be a good thing. Yes, they should learn it in English. But until they can, lets ALL sing together regardless of language.

Replacing the Single Business tax by doubling the sales tax- No, Really. Ask Dick DeVos!

A new report by Fair Economy shows that multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, INCLUDING THE DeVOS FAMILY and the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell's soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world's largest retailer. (report)

The report reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.

These same people are also behind the move to repeal Michigan's Single Business Tax (SBT). This tax, like the estate tax, ONLY AFFECTS THE HIGHEST INCOME BRACKET. To even qualify to be considered for the SBT a business needs to make over $100,0000.00 in a given year. Like the estate tax this only affects a very small percentage of Michigan residents. What WILL affect us all is the repercussions of these tax breaks for the wealthy. Nationally the loss of the Estate tax will result in even more cuts in programs NECESSARY for average people- drug & medical benefits, roads, fire & safety. Within Michigan the Republican Senate has a plan to make up for the loss of the SBT- DOUBLING the sales tax (or at least raising it to 10%). This would spread the cost among all of us while once again saving the very rich, who often purchase everything they own through tax-sheltered corporations and foundations. Like the Bush tax giveaways, these will benefit ONLY the super rich and everyone else will pay the cost.

Not all rich sign on to this. George Soros, a billionaire, has donated his own money to stop these unfair proposals. "The estate tax should be regarded as just paying back to the country for all the wonderful things it's made possible for the people who have that wealth," said Bill Gates Sr. in an audio statement played at a press conference relating to the report. "I don't think there's any great societal goal being served by inherited wealth. And certainly there's no sensible argument that I can think of for insisting on being able to pass the last penny of $100 million on to your three kids" said Elizabeth Letzler, an investment manager from New York who will be subject to the estate tax, "The current estate tax structure should permit any wealthy household to pass on a legacy of financial security, education and family heirlooms to the next generations." She challenged the families showcased in the report: "Do something spectacular during your life-time investing in the social welfare and well-being of the children and grandchildren at the bottom of the pyramid." Her daughter Stephanie, also in attendance, said, "If keeping the estate tax means a step closer to a debt-free treasury, a step closer to improved health care, Social Security, education, and every other program that makes me proud to be an American, show me where to sign the check." Paul Newman, actor and founder of Newman's Own food company, agreed in a separate statement: "For those of us lucky enough to be born in this country and to have flourished here, the estate tax is a reasonable and appropriate way to return something to the common good. I'm proud to be among those supporting preservation of this tax, which is one of the fairest taxes we have." There ARE still good, patriotic, WEALTHY Americans, but not in the GOP, apparently.

Lastly, let's dispose of the myths used to support these proposals: 1. MICHIGAN DOES NOT HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS TAX. There is no such thing. THE SBT is the Single Busines Tax, a simplified tax structure that replaces the myriad of confusing business taxes that used to exist. This was done at the request of businesses, who said they wanted to simplify the rules but it now looks like they wanted to have only 1 tax so it would be easier to remove ALL taxation from businesses. Without the SBT businesses will pay NO STATE TAX AT ALL. 2. There have been NO- zero- family farms sold due to the SBT. No business lost whatsoever has ever been proven. 3. Michigan ranks far down in the bottom half of states when ranked by tax burden on business.

The SBT is used only to make sure that large companies with major profits do not use tax loopholes to pay absolutely no tax. It sets an alternative- minimum (and minimal) tax that cannot be avoided through accounting trickery. Ask around ---- see if ANYONE you know is unfairly affected by this tax. And while you are at it, ask if ANYONE you know will EVER be affected by the Estate Tax. Being as I doubt any multimillionaire will read this blog, I will confidently predict that no one reading this will have ANY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of anyone who will be paying estate tax. And if you are- Congratulations to you. The American Dream sure paid off for one of your ancestors- are you really claiming you have no moral need to help make it real for everyone else?

There are leaks, and then there are LEAKS.

So SOMEONE in the White House leaked Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak. In doing so a covert agent (Plame), WHO WORKED IN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND SPECIALIZED IN IRANIAN POLITICS was rendered ineffective, the cover company she worked for was made useless and anyone else working for that company was labeled as a potential CIA agent. We suffered a MAJOR intelligence disaster in a crucial area (Iranian nuclear development) and YEARS LATER we do not know who leaked.
Someone leaked that the CIA is setting up "gulag"-type black-hole prisons in eastern Europe using old Soviet-era facilities. No loss to our legitimate intelligence operations was caused, in fact it can only HELP in the long run to curtail illegal and improper operations before they cause major problems. Within WEEKS a CIA agent, Ms. McCarthy, who just happens to be one of the few Bush critics still in management positions, is singled out as the leaker, fired weeks before retirement, and threatened with prosecution. This in spite of the fact that her job did not present her with any opportunity to learn about the prisons and that the article about the prisons referenced "several" sources, none of which correspond to Ms. McCarthy. She has CATEGORICALLY denied the accusations. EVEN WORSE THE AUTHOR OF THE article A PULITZER PRIZE WINNING JOURNALIST, IS ALSO THREATENED WITH PROSECUTION! Now you must remember that the CIA prisons have been common knowledge and widely-publicized in Europe for months. http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-151357-16&type=News

Does ANYONE believe this? No matter HOW right-wing you might be DOES THIS NOT STINK? The leak which harms us immensely in a very current way is covered up; the writing of an "whistle-blower" article about an already known and very improper administration program is attacked full force and a scapegoat immediately obtained.
It is clear that the REAL purpose here is to further intimidate ANYONE who might disagree with the Bush Administration's actions. This is a watershed moment, folks: Anyone who even TRIES to justify this action is making it clear that they have NO boundaries left at all, they have completely surrendered their morals, judgment and reasoning powers into the hands of Big Brother. Any member of the GOP who does not stand up and scream with rage about what the Bush Administration has done in their name is, at this point, no different than the millions of Germans who stood quietly by as the NSDAP took unconditional control of their government. To them I ask: "If THIS does not make you see the truth, WHAT WILL? Is there ANYTHING that will wake you up? Is there ANYTHING you will not allow? At long last, do you have no shame?"

And Now some words from Our President, Dick Cheney:

1. "[I] would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." —March 1989 Senate Confirmation Hearing for Secretary of Defense
Truth: Stating that he had "other priorities", Dick Cheney did everything he could to avoid serving, including applying for five deferments. It worked. He never served any time in the military.

2. "[Iraq is] the geographic base for the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." —September 14, 2003, Meet the Press
Truth: The September 21, 2001, Presidents Daily Briefing (PDB), which Dick Cheney received, said there was no link between the Iraqi government and the 9/11 attacks, a finding confirmed by every major investigation of the attacks since.

3. "I continue to believe—I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. . . . I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." —January 22, 2004, NPR's Morning Edition
Truth: The same PDB said there was no Iraqi link to al-Qaeda, a finding also confirmed by every major investigation since.

4. "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." —March 16, 2003, NEC's Meet the Press
Truth: The U.S. military personnel who entered Iraq have not been greeted as liberators. Instead, they have been the victims of an increasingly bloody insurgency that has already killed more than 2,300 U.S. soldiers and wounded an additional 17,000.

5. "I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture. And we don't." —December 18, 2005, ABC News Nightline
Truth: Retired U.S. Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's chief of staff, told CNN on November 20, 2005, "There's no question in my mind that we did [torture]. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it. There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated—in the vice president of the United States' office. His implementer in this case was Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department."

6. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." —September 21, 2003, NEC's Meet the Press
Truth: During his tenure as vice president, Dick Cheney has been receiving deferred compensation from Halliburton and holds company stock options valued at nearly $8 million. Although the Cheneys have assigned future profits from their stock options to charity, the deferred compensation creates a potential conflict of interest because if the company goes bankrupt, it will be unable to pay.

7. "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." (Of his time as Halliburton CEO.) —July 30, 2000, This Week, ABC News
Truth: The Washington Post reported on June 23, 2001: "According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Dick Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company."

8. "I don't have anything to do with the contracting process, and I wouldn't know how to manipulate the process if I wanted to." —Fox News Radio, January 2004
Truth: On June 14, 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported that the vice president's office helped overrule an army lawyer's blocking of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton in March 2003. Regarding a $1.9 billion contract in 2002, The New York Times wrote on July 14, 2004: "The Pentagon sought and received the assents of senior Bush administration officials, including the vice president's chief of staff, before hiring the Halliburton Company to develop secret plans for restoring Iraq's oil facilities."

9. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." (Of his opponent, Senator John Edwards.) —October 5, 2004, Vice-Presidential Debates
Truth: As video footage and photographs that played endlessly in the days following the debate showed, Dick Cheney had met Edwards at least three times prior—at a prayer breakfast in 2001, at Elizabeth Dole's swearing-in ceremony in 2003, and backstage at Meet the Press—and, the odds are, many other times that weren't caught on camera.

10. "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." —June 20, 2005, Larry King Live
Truth: In the months that have followed, the insurgency in Iraq has flared to bloodier, more violent heights.

11. "No. I never said that." —June 17, 2004, CNBC (About whether he ever said that it was "pretty well confirmed" that a meeting took place between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence.)
Truth: On Meet the Press, December 9, 2001, Dick Cheney told Tim Russert, "It's been pretty well confirmed that [Mohamed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April."

12. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." —April 30, 2001, Annual Meeting of the Associated Press
Truth: On the heels of the large bulk of scientific research, government scientists used the results of a three-year study to show that a conservation program sponsored by the White House could accomplish both a decrease in dependency on fossil fuels and a reduction in pollution.

13. "The amount of land affected by oil production [in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] would be two thousand acres, less than one-fifth the size of Dulles International Airport." —April 30, 2001, Annual Meeting of the Associated Press
Truth: Drilling for oil isn't a surgical activity that damages only the land upon which drilling takes place. Dick Cheney ignores the fact that most of the damage comes from creating the miles of roads and pipelines that will run through the protected lands to serve the drilling. The vice president is also being deceptive when he implies that all of the drilling will take place in one concentrated spot. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey predicts the ANWR drilling is "expected to occur as several accumulations rather than a single large accumulation."

14. "I can tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." (In response to Senator Joseph Lieberman's comment "I'm pleased to see, Dick, that you're better off than you were eight years ago.") —October 5, 2000, Vice-Presidential Debate
Truth: As Jane Mayer's February 16, 2004, piece in The New Yorker details: "In fact, despite having spent years championing the private sector and disparaging big government, Dick Cheney devoted himself at Halliburton to securing government funds. In the five years before Dick Cheney joined Halliburton, the company received a hundred million dollars in government credit guarantees. During Dick Cheney's tenure, this amount jumped to $1.5 billion."

15. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." —August 26, 2002, Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention
Truth: Despite years of searching since the invasion Dick Cheney advocated, no weapons of mass destruction have ever been found in Iraq.

A Bad Law is Much Worse than NO Law

There are simply WAY TOO MANY laws. Period. Once a Legislature starts meeting "full time" (meaning getting paid for the whole year even if only 4 or 5 months of work gets done) there are bound to be too many laws. Each incumbent needs to show their name on a bill to get re-elected. (In Academia it is called "publish or perish.) In addition you have corporate and big money sponsors who expect a return on their investment, so there need to be laws protecting or exempting them, as necessary. Then there is the need to be "tougher on crime" than everyone else. Add to this an ongoing and ever increasing need for money and you get laws, laws and more laws.

All laws should have sunset provisions. Thus it would no longer be necessary to remember that the last Sunday each June is Log Cabin day (MCL 435.241 reads: "Log cabin day. Sec.1. The last Sunday in June of each year shall be known as 'log cabin day'. History: 1989, Act 60, Imd. Eff. June 16, 1989").
Likewise women could cut their hair without their husband's permission. (more laws) Barring that we should at least stop passing BAD laws.

There are several really bad laws we need to repeal. Laws which restrict a Judge's discretion in sentencing are really bad- that is what APPEALS are for- bad rulings by judges. Much of our law regarding drug use needs to be updated, and the laws on CSC (Criminal sexual Conduct)- once a model for the nation- has ballooned grotesquely. Right now I would like to address Michigan's Drivers Responsibility Law.

The following is from a presentation by the Honorable William C. Buhl, Van Buren County Circuit Court Judge. (Reprinted by permission.) It is quite detailed so I add a link to the full text below.

In 2003 the Legislature, in addition to passing PA 152 increasing fees for operators licenses from $13 to $25 along with all other licensing and registration fees, added PA 165 (Attachment B), promoting it as a highway safety measure. It was just a coincidence that it came along while the State of Michigan was in a fiscal crisis, and existing fees went up.
PA 165 imposed monetary sanctions upon posting of certain convictions, and/or upon the accumulation of 7 or more points in 2 years. After October 1, 2003, a yearly check is made to ascertain if a driver has 7 or more points. $100 is assessed each year plus $50 for each additional point, for each year the point total is over 7.
Specified offenses also carry assessments for 2 years in the following amounts:

$1,000 a year for 2 years for:
1. All OWI/UBAL crimes, or any drinking-driving or driving with controlled substance causing death or serious bodily injury.
2. Fail to stop and identify after P.I. or P.D. accident.
3. Manslaughter or negligent homicide with vehicle.
4. Felonious driving.
5. Fleeing and eluding cases.
6. Auto theft.
7. Due care cases causing construction worker injury or death.
8. DWLS/revoked causing serious injury or death.
9. All the above when operating ORV or snowmobiles.
10. Allowing anyone to drive when OWI/suspended causing injury/death.

$500 a year for 2 years for:
1. Driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
2. Minor zero tolerance alcohol driving cases.
3. Reckless driving.
4. Child endangerment.
5. DWLS/revoked or denied.
6. Driving CMV while disqualified.

$150 a year for 2 years for:
1. Driving unlicensed or not valid or without proper endorsement
2. No insurance or no proof of insurance.
3. Driving with expired license.

In 2004 PA 52 (Attachment B) made the following changes:
1. No proof of insurance was raised to $200 a year.
2. Proof of insurance shown to the court for the time period when the ticket was issued avoids the assessment.

When the Michigan Legislature enacted 2003 Public Act 165 it must have been clueless, or, in an effort to generate funds at all costs, heartless towards the residents of the state. Public Act 165 of 2003 (MCL 257.732a), known as the Driver Responsibility Fee, has so many negative ramifications that only a heartless legislature would knowingly foist this tax on the people.
This fee is an added layer of cost assessed on top of all other fines, costs, fees, and assessments accompanying findings of responsibility and guilt for traffic offenses. It is in addition to increased insurance rates that accompany drunk driving convictions, speeding tickets and the like.
To be sure, this legislation will generate some additional revenues. Those who can afford it will pay to keep their driving privilege. Well off drunk drivers will pony up the $2,000 fee and stay on the road legally, as will the many careless drivers who accumulate 7 or more points within 2 years. New Jersey, Texas and New York have all raked in large sums from this type of legislation.
So what's the down side of this money machine? Plenty.
First and foremost, these programs guarantee the creation of a large pool of uninsured, unlicensed drivers. Over time this will have a disastrous effect on many people. An excellent article was written by William L. Cataldo for the State Bar of Michigan publication The General Practitioner shortly after Act 165 was passed, entitled A New Class of Criminal. He recognized what all of us familiar with the criminal justice system immediately perceived the economically challenged citizen will pay a dear price.
Many offenses are economically based. For example, a violation of MCL 500.3101 and 500.3103, requiring insurance on motor vehicles, is punishable by a fine of at least $200 to $500 or up to 1 year in jail or both. So not having money to buy insurance is punished by a large minimum fine. Now, getting a conviction for not having insurance also requires a $1,000 driver reinstatement fee. Should the person chance to drive to work in spite of his suspension for non-payment of the fee, that driver can be arrested and convicted of driving while suspended. That will carry another $1,000 fee. In Michigan, even though driving while suspended or revoked is defined as a misdemeanor with possible jail, jail sentences have become rare. In reality we have decriminalized this offense, because chronic jail overcrowding all over Michigan makes this non-violent offense low priority. Seeing persons with 6, 7 or 8 convictions not get any jail for the latest arrest is not uncommon. So the law in unenforced. However, that person with 7 driving while suspended convictions will need to pay the State of Michigan $7,000 if a license is ever returned, plus a reinstatement fee! Taking away the privilege does not remove the driver from behind the wheel and keep that driver off the road.
These fees will hopelessly bury many of the economically challenged. One legislator actually wrote a letter to a daily publication stating that the Driver Responsibility Fee legislation was a public safety measure! It isn't about public safety, its about money.
Hopelessness is a dangerous condition. But being suspended and driving carries many more risks of serious incarceration than it once did. Being unlucky is the key. Although just driving while suspended won't get you locked up, bad luck will. For example, if a person causes death or serious impairment of a body function while driving while suspended, they commit felonies carrying up to 15 and 5 years in prison respectively. Those who knowingly permit a person to operate their vehicle, and that person causes death or serious impairment of a body function commits a 5 and 2 year felony, respectively.
The same economic hard times that caused the enactment of this tax will cause the damage to the poor driver. And as time goes on, we will all pay dearly when more and more people have no hope, no license and no insurance.
When the original act passed and inadvertently included a fee for those who had insurance but forgot to carry proof of insurance, it caused a public outcry, and the legislature quickly amended the law, removing the fee from that section, but increasing the fee on another violation. Too bad they didn't revisit the whole concept. The longer it remains on the books, the harder the fix.

(READ Judge Buhl's entire presentation)

Abortion

I thought of several cute and catchy titles for this entry and then decided this isn't a cute and catchy type of issue. One of the reasons we cannot settle this is because of people using catchy little phrases instead of facing up to reality. "Pro-Life", "Pro-Choice", "Reproductive Freedom", "Baby Killers"- NONE OF THESE TRULY DESCRIBE ANYTHING ABOUT ABORTION!

We are all- unless we are a serial killer- PRO-LIFE. In fact, since Liberals are usually against the death penalty and wars-of-choice, while many Conservatives vie to see who can execute the broadest range of people (the cutting edge now being "how young can you go", the "how slow [mentally challenged] can you go" race having been won by Texas) and who can come up with the most creative reason for starting a war, Liberals should claim the label Pro-Life. Well, there is that sticky assisted suicide issue. Perhaps only Buddhist monks should earn the title Pro-Life.

Likewise all of us are Pro-Choice. The disagreement is simply as to "Whose choice?". For example, if some woman in Bangor Township, Michigan, finds she is pregnant Liberals would say that after consulting her family, partner, clergy, Doctor or whomever may be appropiate, the choice is hers. Conservatives say that after consulting themselves, the choice belongs to some politician in Lansing or Washington. Liberals support their position saying that no one knows the facts surrounding the pregnancy and the woman's life better than she does; Conservatives say that no one knows the will of God better than they do.

It should be clear from above that I firmly believe that the right to decide resides with the pregnant woman. And I do believe that. Of course I do not have to LIKE it. Just as I am against unnecessary wars and capital punishment (more on this some other day)- I am firmly against abortion. However, like wars, abortion is sometimes necessary. Our goal should NOT be controlling a woman's choices- our goal MUST be to give her BETTER choices.

It is SO VERY WRONG that so many Conservatives seem to quit caring about a child as soon as it starts breathing on its own. Health care, education, even food and shelter are given less value that tax breaks for the wealthy and giant corporations. (And you KNOW you will read more on THIS topic!) Very few women "use abortion as birth control", usually the planned birth control has failed and the woman now faces either a child conceived from rape or incest, one with some terrible heredity disease, or one SHE KNOWS will suffer from lack of food, shelter and medical care. The infant mortality rate- and life expectancy- in the United States clearly shows the negative effect that a lack of universal health care and public support of food and shelter continues to have. Since the United States ranks 36th- behind every other major modern country we MUST be failing in this area.

On the other hand many Liberals want to ensure a woman has a right to choose abortion, but they fight offering her other choices. We need a "no fault" system of adoption, where the parent making the already difficult decision to have a child and then let it be adopted does not face an adversarial process. In Michigan, for instance, if a woman has had her parental rights to one child terminated by a court then that becomes a specific prima facie reason to terminate her rights to any children she might have in the future! There should be a clear, safe and repercussion-free system in place to allow women to make this choice without fear of future problems. Likewise NO AMERICAN should ever have to choose abortion because they cannot feed, clothe or shelter a child. No American should choose abortion because they cannot afford pre- peri- or post-natal care. No American should choose abortion because they know the child will never have a chance at a good future- a decent job, college or a trade. This is where our effort should go.

No, we SHOULD NOT make a woman's choice for her- We SHOULD offer her better choices!

jessie

From the Gun Safe of the Well Armed Sheep

Back to one of my favorite subjects: Gun Control. I do not know why so many people cannot agree on this issue. Several things are SO obvious. First- Yes we do have a right to have guns. Second- No, it IS NOT an absolute right- NO rights are absolute. Even though the Constitution says we have the right to "Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" we CAN be jailed or imprisoned.
OK, Third- Taking guns away WILL NOT stop violence. Even inmates in prisons can make their own guns. One inmate became rich making guns from tubing and ammunition from ball bearings and scraped off match heads. And there are ALWAYS knives. HOWEVER, Fourth- Some restrictions are reasonable. A waiting period, as almost all domestic murders are done while in a rage. Planned murders are seldom shootings. Background checks for violence or insanity (or membership in a terrorist group, but as the Bush administration has classed the Society of Friends (the Quakers) as worth watching, this could be a dangerous issue) ARE a good idea. And no one needs machine guns except for shooting up a McDonald's or a schoolyard. If you cannot hit a deer, or a robber, with 5 or 6 shots we'd all be better off if you stopped shooting.
And I LIKE guns. So does Tab. We each have a Concealed Weapons License. Tab would rather leave the house naked than without her favorite revolver (a tiny .22 ankle gun). I have a matched set of military M1911s with molded Pachymar grips which I want to be buried with me. We have several other handguns and long guns as well. But we keep them in a gun safe and have gun safes mounted in our cars. We take gun safety VERY seriously.
One of the few things Republicans have right IS the gun issue- for the most part. Some Republicans are so beholden to NRA money that they have lost all reason, though. The NRA, which I supported for most of my life, has lately gone bonkers. The final straw for me was the rally in Littleton, Colorado (where Columbine High School is ) right after the massacre there and against the parents' pleas for a mourning period. Charlton Heston found a parent who wanted the NRA there and he was paraded out in a really despicable manner. I have found the Michigan Coalition of Gun Owners (MCGRO) to be a much more sensible organization. I strongly suggest you consider joining (or like me, simply supporting) it. Of course some extremists saw Columbine as proof everyone, even children, should be armed at all times. Several right-wingers stated that gun laws created "pools of disarmed victims at U.S. public schools". Personally I think the idea of a dozen or so students and teachers "shooting it out" with Harris and Klebold is the most idiotic idea I have ever heard.
One change in the law I do support concerns the "concealed" nature of the carry laws. The goal of carrying is to be safe, not to shoot someone. Concealed weapons are almost a trap for muggers. ALWAYS the better solution is deterrence. Rather than hiding your weapon until the attacker gives you a chance to draw it- at which point you had better shoot before he/she attacks, takes it or pulls their own weapon, we should carry OPENLY, hoping to discourage attacks in the first place.

This is all so easy- I do not know why so many people have simply "dug into" their positions and refuse to really discuss this issue. Some issues are like that, and I will discuss them all- abortion (legal but rare); same-sex marriage (civil unions for all, let Churches handle marriage); capital punishment (it DOESN'T deter anyone, but maybe if someone started an unnecessary war and killed thousands...). Read on, read on.

jessie

NEWS FLASH-Proposed Law Would Authorize Execution of Sex Offenders Immediately Upon Being Accused [a Well-Armed Sheep Parody]

NEWS FLASH Lansing, Michigan July 3, 2007- In response to Democratic lawmakers proposing that sex offenders be assumed guilty as soon as they are accused, Republican lawmakers once again broached the subject of capital punishment. "There is no way that Democrats are as hard on crime as we are" said the Republican Leader, Senator N. Z. Stormtrooper. "They would have you think that life without parole at hard labor is a sufficient punishment. I say to them: WIMPS!"

A second bill would lower the age at which the death penalty applied: "We think that as soon as the offender's umbilical cord is cut he or she should face the same penalty as anyone else who commits a serious crime" Senator Stormtrooper said. "Unless, of course, the person WANTS to die." This is a softer version of his earlier proposal, which would make a person eligable for the death penalty anytime after conception. This bill died in committee when exceptions forbidding the death penalty to be used as a form of abortion and exempting any sitting or past Vice President who might shoot someone ended up running into several hundreds of pages.

The Witless Wisdom of W. Bush

"I've been to war [sic]. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2006

"I strongly believe what we're doing is the right thing. If I didn't believe it—I'm going to repeat what I said before—I'd pull the troops out, nor if I believed we could win, I would pull the troops out."—Charlotte, N.C., April 6, 2006

"If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate."—Washington D.C., March 21, 2006

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."—Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006

"And so I'm for medical liability at the federal level."—Discussing his support of medical liability reform, Washington, D.C., March 10, 2006

"After the bombing, most Iraqis saw what the perpetuators of this attack were trying to do."—(On the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Iraq) March 13, 2006, Washington, D.C.

"I think it's really important for this great state of baseball to reach out to people of all walks of life to make sure that the sport is inclusive. The best way to do it is to convince little kids how to—the beauty of playing baseball."—Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 2006

"And I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."—Defending a plan to allow a company from the United Arab Emirates to manage ports in the United States, Feb. 21, 2006

"One of the interesting initiatives we've taken in Washington, D.C., is we've got these vampire-busting devices. A vampire is a—a cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone."—Denver, CO. Aug. 14, 2001

"Well, it's an unimaginable honor to be the president during the Fourth of July of this country. It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I--it's--I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values."-- July 2, 2001

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."-- June 14, 2001

"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce."--Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically."—- Washington, D.C., March 29, 2001

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001

"Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to—I can't remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that." U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 22, 2001 issue

"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."—Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."—- New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001

"They misunderestimated me."—Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."—Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."-Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"The great thing about America is everybody should vote."-Austin, Texas, Dec. 8, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--Reuters, May 5, 2000
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"I understand small business growth. I was one."-New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."-Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."—Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."— Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."—Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000

"The senator [McCain] has got to understand if he's going to have—he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."—- Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000

"We ought to make the pie higher."—South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."—Debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

"It's your money. You paid for it."—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"It's not the governor's role to decide who goes to heaven. I believe that God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush." -- George W. Bush, in the Houston Chronicle.

"There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this [web] site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." -- George Jr., discussing a web site that parodies him

"I'm a uniter not a divider. That means when it comes time to sew up your chest cavity, we use stitches as opposed to opening it up." -- Bush, on David Letterman, March 2, 2000. (the audience booed)

"I didn't -- I swear I didn't -- get into politics to feather my nest or feather my friends' nests." -- Bush Jr., in the Houston Chronicle


More wisdom from our President:

There are none so blind as they that will not see.

William J. Clinton looked into the cameras, and with all the sincerity he could muster, said: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinky." (January 1998) He was lying. He lied because he had been having an adulterous affair with Ms. Lewinsky and was embarrassed by being exposed. The affair was not a criminal act in itself, Ms. Lewinsky being a consenting adult. However President Clinton had been lying to his wife and friends about the affair, and lied to the American people to cover that up. The Republicanns in congress tried to impeach him for this. In fact, with bombs and missiles starting to rain down on Baghdad, the House began its historic debate - the first for 130 years - on whether to impeach the president. Being a Democratic "war president" meant only- at least to the Republicans in Congress- that there was one more reason to attach the Commander in Chief. Luckily the American people had better sense.

"Let me just say something about leaks in Washington," George W. Bush told reporters in September 2003. "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch, there's just too many leaks. I want -- and if there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Later, Bush looked into the cameras, and with his most sincere look (the one without the usual smirk), said: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." (September 30, 2003) Both times he was lying. He lied because he was trying to conceal the fact his administration had leaked misleading classified information in an attempt to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson, who, with his wife, a covert CIA agent, had been sent to Africa to determine if Iraq had tried to buy Uranium to make nuclear weapons, as the White House had claimed. They found Iraq had not, so information about the trip and Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was leaked by top administration officials to selected friendly press. Of course Bush had signed an Order allowing him to declassify such information but he had not followed his own rules, and by leaking Plame's cover he endangered many hundreds of other agents and operations. The Republicans in congress refuse to even consider impeaching him for this. Just about 5 years after trying to impeach Bill Clinton the same Republican Congress has decided that being a "war president"- even if he started an unnecessary war and conducted it poorly- means the Commander in Chief has complete carte blanch and full immunity.

I have actually figured out why some Republicans still cannot admit what the entire Bush Administration has done is enough to impeach them all. It is because of what they did to Bill Clinton. They MUST keep their heads buried in the sand because given how they attacked Clinton for ONE lie regarding a private matter, it is obvious that- at least as concerns Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld- impeachment alone is no where near a sufficient penalty. We are talking treason, war crimes, intentionaly starting a war of aggression based on lies, which killed thousands of US service personnel and many, many tens of thousands of innocent civilians. We DO NOT HAVE a penalty for the crimes they have committed. (Yes, the death penalty does apply in times of war, but THOUSANDS of deaths?)

Of course Republicans cannot "see" the truth. Its a form of hysterical blindness, I suppose. Of course the neo-cons are still lost in their monomania, and the extreme, fanatic "Christians" ( I apologize to real Christians) are so blinded by their hatred of gay families that nothing else matters. But as regards the majority of everyday Republicans- good, intelligent, upstanding, ORDINARY, the only explanation is a psychotic break of some kind.

"Hysterical Blindness" is a well-documented reaction when someone sees something so terrible that their minds simply cannot acknowledge seeing it, so the brain shuts off all future visual stimuli to protect itself. Here Republicans CANNOT admit even to themselves that they supported someone who has done the things Bush has done, so they refuse to see what he has done. This is an extreme form of a common reaction. Many times after an election where one candidate wins and then shows total incompentence, EVERYONE will say "I didn't vote for him" even though obviously SOMEONE did. But many people convince even themselves that THEY did not. Given that the Bush administration is scores of times worse (I honestly believe I do not overstate the problem when I say that the Bush Administration will be remembered as the most criminal, most destructive to American Freedoms and Values, the most harmful to our World Standing, Economics, Environment and our great, great, great grandchildren's future, in American history) the reaction is as many times as strong.

The good news is that hysterical blindness is nearly always temporary- as the brain processes what happened, and the mind copes, the sight comes back. First in flashes, then fully. We can see this happening with many Republicans. The risk is that if we push them too hard- faster than their minds can process the truth- we risk driving them into some permanant break with reality. So do not push your Republican friends- lead them by the hand gently, guide them as you would a blind person,, and soon we will all be seeing the truth together.

And if you still cannot find even one slim ray of light--- Remember: Oh yeah, gay people can't get married! Its all been worth it.

jessie

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed sheep.

Many people who DO NOT know me personally and only read my books or editorials have a firm belief that I am just another "bleeding heart commie pinko" or whatever the right's PC phrase is these days. (Actually with the Right it should be called "Politically Incorrect") This blog is my attempt at correcting that perception.

Somewhat. The "bleeding-heart" IS probably correct. And I am not sure what "pinko" means. Kinda commie? A little gay? I dunno. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Anyway, please check out my website, http://www.votejessie.org. Consider voting for me this November if you live in Michigan's 80th District. If not, I would still appreciate your support of any kind. Feedback, ideas, resources, things I've overlooked.

So, starting next post I will give you MY take on the day's news, politics, social events and the people making headlines. I am willing to PROMISE you will not agree with me on everything, and in fact will probably strongly DISAGREE on occasions. But I am ALSO willing to bet I provide a viewpoint that is unique in being eclectic.

Please read on- and THEN dare to call me a "Pinko". jessie