My Hibernation

*yawn*

Oh. Hello. I guess you might be wondering why I've been neglecting this blog for awhile.

Two Words - Washington Redskins.

As the fiance of a bona fide Redskins fanatic, I have endured 7 straight weekends of "playoff level" professional football. The Washington Redskins won their last 6 games of the season finishing the regular season with a record of 10-6. They had to win each of those games to make the playoffs, a must win "playoff" type situation every week. They won the wild card game in the playoffs, then lost a tough game against the #1 ranked team in the NFC, the Seattle Seahawks, in Seattle. Their final record was 11-7 (10-6, 1-1), an impressive accomplishment for a team that was 6-10 last season.

What this means is that my television, my computer, my spare time and energy have all been devoted to the NFL for nearly two months. I should be getting paid. In fact, Joe Gibbs..... If you're listening..... I think I may have been watching more film than you for the past 7 weeks..... Maybe we should compare notes. I'll have my people call your people.

Anyway, as soon as we can finally take our neglected holiday decorations down and my honey has recovered some from the heartbreak of the Seahawks game, I'll be back on the warpath.

A taste of upcoming topics:

- Continued debate on the NSA wiretapping issue. I'm not letting anyone forget this.

- Presidential picks for 2008

- Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and the Evil Empire.

- Pakistan/ US relations - What's next?

- Poverty in the US - Why it's everyone's problem.

- Christianity in America

- there's hope in dope! A discussion about cannabis reform.

- I'm not prejudiced, but... (racism, classism, and sexism in America)

Hope you'll keep coming back! I promise..... No more breaks until next season. :)

A Righteous War.

OK.... So I recently posted on here that I'm an isolationist.... But I keep reading the news, and of course, I don't like reading mainstream American news, so I read various foreign news sources.

I can't get away from Sudan.

So I started researching just how much money we have spent in Sudan providing humanitarian services and such. I found this great PDF file that itemizes how much and where it all goes.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/pdf/082605_fs48.pdf

I was thinking.... Whenever I hear the administration's (latest) case for war in Iraq - you know... The one about how Saddam's such a horrible dictator who committed genocide and mass murder on his own people.... Yeah, THAT one - When I hear that crap, and I see that the war in Iraq has cost $230,000,000,000 (for those of you who have never seen that many zeros, that $230 BILLION), and I see that we sent less than $800,000,000 (thats $800 MILLION - less than .5% of the amount spent in Iraq).... Well, to me it seems we're paying an awful lot of money to CAUSE a civil war, and not too much on trying to help STOP one.

So I was thinking about my isolationist policy..... I had once said that I probably would not have argued for a pre-emptive strike gainst Hitler in WWII (since, of course, it happened nearly 40 years before I was born, perhaps it was irresponsible to say that), but seeing this horror in Sudan really changes my mind about the need for foreign military intervention. We have got to help those people. Their government is raping and slaughtering them wholesale along ethnic lines. We know this is happening. And yet all we can do is guard the refugee camps? Are you kidding me?

So let me get this straight. We Americans are supposed to believe that our military is bringing freedom to Iraq because of a horrible dictator (a dictator, I might also add, who managed to keep Islamic extremists like the ones who have set up camp there now out of commission - but that's for another post) who committed genocide? OK.... I probably could believe that, if we hadn't spent $230 BILLION on the war we started (for totally different reasons at the time, I might add), and only $800 MILLION on one of the worst humanitarian and violent crises in the world right now.

Not only that, but the type of aid we are providing is wrong. We need to be PROTECTING these people, because it is their own government that is persecuting them. They are starving, yes, but what good is feeding them if they are only going to be beaten half to death, raped, or murdered? If we can justify invading a soverign nation like Iraq to "liberate it's people", then why the hell can't we go to Sudan and "liberate" THOSE people. And maybe we could try doing it RIGHT this time.

So I repeal my previous statemets of isolationist pacifism.... But I think wars should be waged to protect the innocent, not to destroy an enemy.... and I think this seemingly simple concept has escaped the concsience of many Americans. I think if we had gone to Iraq with the original intention of protecting the innocent people of that nation, instead of attempting to invade a nation (that had never threatened to attack the United States) on the grounds that it posed a threat to the US population, there would be alot more support for the war now. But obviously, we will never know the REAL reason we are in Iraq.... I think only Bush and Rove know that.

What I want to know is, why AREN'T we in Sudan?

Just a quick note

Always remember to scroll over the title of a post to see if I've linked to a news story.... The posts seem to make more sense that way. :) Thanks!

Corruption????? Never!

I'd really like to say I didn't see this coming.....

You know, it seems like we'd figure out that if we only have about 30-40% of our registered voters participating, and we have all of this technology, and we've been at this for 250 years or so, and we STILL can't prevent corruption in our electoral system, how in Christ's name are we supposed teach the Iraqis to do it?

I've been saying this for months and months.... International monitors needed to be in place, and there should have been more involvement from the international community to ensure that this government is actually what the Iraqis want. Now, we have large segments of the population crying fraud, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.... Yeah.... I'm sure this will REALLY help the violence there.

The article neglects to say WHO is suspected of rigging the count, but I'll wager money on it they speak english and have a horrible sunburn by now. If only the Bush administration actually WANTED democracy in the region.... Seems to me like they only want democracy as long as the Iraqis elect the "right people". I may be reading too much into this or pointing fingers in the wrong direction, but seriously.... Doesn't it seem like if the suni and shi'ites can aggree that something foul happened, perhaps we should look at ourselves. If those two particular groups are actually capable of aggreeing on something, I think that implies they're either blaming us or the Kurds.

I'm pretty sure the Bush administration will send a "token" elecoral inspector to try and calm things down..... Oh, I should say, to try and shut them up. See.... I KNEW this would happen.... I KNEW the Iraqis would actually believe Bush wanted democracy for them and that they would come out in record numbers to vote in a rigged election intended to put a west-friendly puppet government in power. Now lets see if Bush can use his "rugged charm" and "cowboy wit" to explain to them that they risked their lives voting for nothing, and the parliament they (thought they) elected was not valid. And we'll see if his "folksy appeal" can convince them he had nothing to do with it..... I'll LOVE to see that!

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Ahhhhh yes.... It's time for the White House to start finger pointing. "But we TOLD the Democrats" and "the NYT broke the law leaking the story".... Sit back boys and girls, it's gonna be a long and nasty ride.

I'll address the "arguments" in order.

1) "Congress authorized this when they authorized the invasion of Iraq" - Uh..... no. First of all, the 9th ammendment of the constitution expressly forbids congress from creating any law that contradicts the constitution. That limitation includes an authorization of necessary force or a declaration of war. Secondly, inherent powers are significantly different in war time vs. peace time. Until the congress makes that magical declaration of war, the president's control reaches ONLY to the military, not civilian intelligence agencies. Congress has not yet declared a formal "War on Terror", and therefore, the president's argument that this is "necessary to fight the war on terror" but is justified by congressional approval of the Iraq invasion, is constitutionally bunk in the first place. How easily the administration forgets that "Iraqi Freedom" and the "War on Terror" are two seperate things.... But I'll leave that for another post.

2) "The congressional leaders knew and signed off on this plan" - Hmmmm.... Here's a two pronged piece of work. I'll take the constitutional point first. We're back to the 9th ammendment again..... No matter what the circumstances, the only law that supercedes an ammendment is another ammendment. Plain and simple. The second problem I have with this is that Jay Rockafeller, one of the congressional members who is said to have known about this program, has released documents that outline his objections to this policy. Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham both say that the president never mentioned bypassing FISA. The program was deemed classified, and the administration did not seek approval from the congressional leadership (they will argue they didn't have to). They simply told them of the program, and told them it was classified, tying their hands as to who they could talk to, when and why. The members of congress did not, in fact, sign off on the plan. Jay Rockafeller has his objections IN WRITING in a memo directed to the VP.... I'm not sure if the others have a paper trail.... I sincerely hope so.

3) "The NYT committed a crime in reporting this" - They're not entirely wrong here. The NYT is a public newspaper, and it is supposed to act in the public trust, according to our right to a free press. The Times committed a crime by keeping this secret from the American public for more than a year. They are accomplices in the violation of civil rights of at least hundreds of Americans. Coincidentally, aside from this breach of trust, the NYT is free and clear.... It was illegal for whoever talked to the Times to do so, but not illegal for the Times to print the story. Actually, whoever talked to the times is a patriot fighting against oppression and has my immense respect, but under the imperfect law that exists right now, leaking that info was against the law. Still, thanks, whoever you are, for preserving what makes America great..... Freedom.

Oh WAH WAH WAH!!!! I swear for all the times I'm called a "whiney liberal" by these conservatives, they sure do make an aweful racket when they throw one of their political temper tantrums. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out (and invest in ear plugs, while we're at it!) I can tell you one thing, though..... If King George isn't off his throne (or at least well on his way there) by this time next year, I'm starting the long journey to Canada.

Wiping your ass with the Constitution

There is a new source of major debate in Washington.... On par with flag burning and abortion. The burning and controversial question? Is it OK to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper?

That's right boys and girls.... The shrub has exceeded my expectations yet again, and has truly shown me that I have not, in fact, seen the end of his atrocities and tyrrany. It truly amazes me how right now, Republicans are actually DEFENDING these transgressions as though they are in some way vital to national security. It absolutely blows my mind that I see Congressmen get on CNN and actually say things like "This policy stopped a "terror cell" from blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge 6 months after 9/11!", then come to find out the "terrorist plot to destroy America" was to dismantle the bridge with blowtorches.... Sounds like a real "imminent threat" to me. I mean, seriously.... Are they kidding me? Which brings me to another point.

So they caught these absolutely incompetent criminals, right - And these are people who planned to climb down to the supports of the bridge and literally cut the steel with blowtorches, as though they wouldn't get a reaction from the NYPD and arrested before they could do any damage anyway - and they get locked up in, say.... Gitmo.... (Or actually, I guess they'd be "secret" prisoners, so they'd probably be somewhere in Eastern Europe) and they get interrogated and tortured. Now, I'm sure these guys had so much great information to tell us! Now these are American citizens; stupid and moronic - yes - but Americans, none the less; and Bush ILLEGALLY found out about an idiotic plan that certainly could have and would have been stopped by local authorities; and he locked them up in a CONCENTRATION CAMP and tortured these people, when I'm sure 6 months in a psych ward and 20 years in American prison would have done the trick just fine. Does anyone else have a problem with this part of the equasion?

And of course theres that pesky 4th Ammendment that's showing its ugly head. Yeah, Americans just love it when you fiddle with the Bill of Rights and surpass your executive powers in order to violate their civil liberties. If only there were a way to get around that one. Oh, I know..... Let's call it Executive Discretion during time of war and get all our neo-con friends to back us up! What a great idea! That way, we can still project our illusion of unity, even if we are crapping on the rights of our constituents! Big pat on the back for the Bush White House! Seriously, you guys get a friggin' gold star.

I have a warning for all you mindless republican robots out there. Your support of this corrupt administration and its not only immoral, but ILLEGAL policies will lead you to the same fate as the Nazi party in Germany after WWII. The more you speak out in favor of this cowardly, greedy traitor, the more painfull your consequences will be. You are all war criminals and should be tried for crimes against humanity, imperialism, treason, genocide, torture, conspiracy, and murder. You should be given justice the way you have given justice to others, and may God have mercy on your souls.

I have found the silver lining, though..... 2006 is looking awefully good for liberals.

5 reasons why Hillary SHOULDN'T run in '08

Some of you may be saying "Wha?????? I thought this was a liberal blog"... Well, it is, and that's why I can't get behind Senator Clinton. Here's the list:

1) America DESPERATELY needs a centist party but since we don't have one, it seems like people like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and others wound up in the democratic party. They are the party leadership (unfortunately)... The "big guns" if you will... Leaving the political base (the left wing) of the party out to dry. Clinton would play to the center, as she always does, and she will be unsuccessful because the "moderates" are fickle, and nearly impossible to please. Perhaps its time we *gulp* take a lesson from the republicans and remember our base - it worked for them. (Wow.... I almost gagged when I typed that.... I hope I never have to do it again *shudder*)

2) She's pulling a "Bushie" by refusing to admit her lapse in judgement regarding the war in Iraq. A leader who is unwilling or unable to admit when they are wrong may provide the ILLUSION of strength, but I think we can all refer to our current president for evidence that the illusion is only skin deep.

3) She's Bill Clinton's wife and normally being a former first lady would help the situation. But in this case, I think it would be a liability because her husband was impeached. I don't think he SHOULD have been impeached, but he was, and he was caught in a sex scandal in the process. I like Bill Clinton, and I think he was a great president, but I lost respect for him as a man when he cheated on his wife. She, however, didn't handle her business..... A woman who is incapable of securing her own husband or at least of holding him responsible for his disgusting behavior is not the kind of woman I want as the first female president.

4) She's a woman in a man's town. Now, I know what you're all thinking... "But YOU'RE a woman, Tea!" Yes, I am, and that's why I want to make sure that the first female president is the absolute best of the best. I don't want the first MRS. President to be the butt of water cooler humor and I don't want it to be someone who sells out her own party and neglects her base.

5) She's soft on the issues that matter to me. She supports censorship and greater government involvement in home life. She stands by her pro-war stance. She repeats republican rhetoric almost as well as a republican. There are several women in government who would be both qualified and tough - true to the values that built the democratic party. Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer would both be excellent choices.

I aggree it's high time we had a female president - we're really lagging behind the rest of the world on that front, and as a woman, I'm extremely concerned by that. I only hope that if the democrats decide to nominate a woman, they nominate a liberal..... This centrist nonsense is how we lost power in the first place.

Valerie Plame's Last Day

In case anyone forgot what complete assholes occupy the White House, I thought Ms. Plame's plight deserved a mention. This poor woman gave everything of herself in service to her country. She did her job faithfully and proudly. She deserves to be respected for her patriotism and her bravery. I hope that she and her family can find security and solace in the knowledge that they have support from the public that she so tirelessly defended. We can't afford to forget what this supposedly "moral and patriotic" United States government did to this family. Today was Ms. Plame's last day at the CIA - a lifetime of work down the drain, and countless agents and operations jeapardized..... And for what? So that this corrupt and criminal administration could get away with mass murder? So that they could steal from my social security fund to fight a war that should never have happened? So that "the dick" and "the shrub" could line their pockets with Iraqi oil and reconstruction profits? Excuse me while I vomit.

What is a traitor?

A traitor is defined by Merriam-Webster as follows:

Traitor: 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason

George Bush and his administration are, by definition of their own actions, traitors to the American people. Those spineless "moderates" in congress who defend this administration's failed and dishonest policies on Iraq are also traitors. And I'm not afraid to say it.

I am so incredibly sick of the criticisms from the far right wing that the democratic party is not unified and that they do not have a plan. John Murtha (D-GA) layed out a plan of action more detailed than anything the administration has even PRETENDED to put forward, and the vast majority of congressional democrats have gotten behind that plan of action with enthusiasm and zeal. The chairman of the DNC, Dr. Howard Dean, has been on the talk show circuit saying over and over what the party's stand is on Iraq policy. For all the right's taunting and implication that the democratic party has no plan, it sure seems as though they're deaf to suggestions.... But then, why should they start listening to reason now? They never have before.

There are a few "democrats" who are trying to pad their asses for the long backslide they're planning when they run for president in 2008. Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton.... I'm talking to you idiots. That's right..... You cowardly, spineless sheep are going to play this political game right into forced retirement. You have forgotten about your base, and you're trying to play to a demographic that is soft at best and changes every four years. You will lose.

The republicans have been sculpting a unified message for decades. Their message is wrong, but just LOOK at what they do to members o their own party who disaggree. Having family in conservative politics in South Carolina, I know what Lindsay Graham's (R-SC) poll numbers did when he sided with moderates to quell the filibuster debate, and I don't think I have to remind Senator John McCain (R-AZ) what kind of character assasination has followed him around for the past 5 years. Every time a "democrat" breaks with the pack, the republicans embrace them and hold them up on a pedastel, proclaiming that they now have a "friend" in the democratic party. I say they can have their "friends". We sure as hell don't want 'em.

Joe Lieberman recently said that we should accept that the shrub will be in the White House for at least 3 more years. Last I checked, midterm elections are less than a year away, and democrats lead in nearly every public opinion poll. Most of the American public believes it was LIED to by this administration. According to our afore-stated definition of "Traitor", Bush and his entire administration AND ALL OF HIS SUPPORTERS IN CONGRESS have betrayed the trust of the American people and have been false to their obligation and duty as elected representatives. Their job is to preserve our way of life and protect our nation. The lies that sent this country to war, the money stolen from American taxpayers to wage that war, and the overwhelming evidence that intimidation tactics were used to silence critics of this failed policy, all contitute treason - an entirely impeachable offense.

So Joe, I don't really care if you want to suck the collective cock of this administration, but if the American people know what's right, and I believe that now they're finally starting to get it, they will elect representatives that will push forward the agenda of impeachment. Until this administration is removed from power, everything we do in Iraq is an extension of a corrupt policy. Joe, Hillary, John K. and company - your traitorous behavior will catch up to you in good time. When you lie down with pigs..... well, you get the idea.