R.I.P.
The report just came on Fox News.
This is very sad no matter which side of the divide you fell on. Life is precious, family is important and I'm sure the family is in considerable agony right now.
I pray that God is with them and Terry in their hour of need.
Here's part of the story from the Washington Post:
Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose condition ignited a protracted legal struggle, died today at a Florida hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed under a court order.
Representatives of both sides in a dispute over her fate confirmed the death shortly before 10 a.m. EST.
Bobby Schindler, left, brother of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo and his sister Suzanne, right, leave the Woodside Hospice where Schiavo is being cared for, in Pinellas Park, Fla. (Rick Fowler - Reuters)
The death of Schiavo, 41, ended the court battle that had pitted her husband, who wanted to take her off artificial life support, against her parents and siblings, who sought to keep her alive at all costs. But the death appeared unlikely to quell the broader controversy fueled by the Schiavo case, one that set right-to-life, antiabortion and conservative religious groups -- with backing from President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress -- against advocates of a "right to die" when the brain no longer functions.
Schiavo's death, at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla., came 15 years after she suffered cardiac arrest, experienced a loss of oxygen to the brain and slipped into a coma as a result of an eating disorder. She later emerged from the coma, but she never regained consciousness and remained in what doctors said was a "persistent vegetative state."
Heard at Blogtalkradio.com/whiskeyrebellion every Tuesday Night at 8:00 PM Eastern, Call In At (646) 915-8862 Intellectual Honesty is a Greater Virtue Than Party Loyalty
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Wolfowitz gets EU blessing
If you've been reading this blog for some time you may have noticed that the tenor regarding international news, especially in China or Iran, can be a bit alarmist. It's true, I look at the worst possible outcomes and like a Fox News writer I examine them in the extreme to generate interest. In the end I'm just trying to point out where things might be headed if the powers that be take a sharp turn in the wrong direction. Nobody wants war whether it be China, Iran, Russia, the EU or the US. Is it possible, of course it is. Is it desirable, good God no; only a madman would desire full-scale if there's a way it can be averted. And that of course brings me to Paul Wolfowitz. I think his acceptance as the possible World Bank head by the European Union is a positive and visible sign that despite the rhetoric and mass protests, the leaders throughout Europe recognize the power of the US with respect to the global economic-military environment and want very much to employ a reasonable degree of civility between our sister nations. When you add this plus their quasi-commitment to keeping up the arms embargo against China, I believe it's all a matter of the EU trying its best to reconcile its own self-interest while paying deference to the US. Here's the story from ITV.com:
European leaders have given the green light for controversial US nominee Paul Wolfowitz to take over as head of the World Bank.
Wolfowitz, the US deputy secretary of defence and one of the main architects of the Iraq war, stressed his commitment to fighting world poverty, promising to consult Europe and ensure it had a proper say in the bank's management.
The executive European Commission said it was happy with the commitments that Wolfowitz had given EU officials and said it expected EU governors to back him.
Commissioner Olli Rehn "was satisfied with everything he heard from Mr Wolfowitz concerning free trade and also on poverty reduction and development policy", a spokeswoman said.
Wolfowitz, more widely associated with the unilateral use of US military power than with development policy, said he knew his neo-conservative image worried some in Europe.
"I understand that I'm to put it mildly a controversial figure," he said. "But as people get to know me better, they will understand that I really do believe deeply in the mission of the bank."
European leaders have given the green light for controversial US nominee Paul Wolfowitz to take over as head of the World Bank.
Wolfowitz, the US deputy secretary of defence and one of the main architects of the Iraq war, stressed his commitment to fighting world poverty, promising to consult Europe and ensure it had a proper say in the bank's management.
The executive European Commission said it was happy with the commitments that Wolfowitz had given EU officials and said it expected EU governors to back him.
Commissioner Olli Rehn "was satisfied with everything he heard from Mr Wolfowitz concerning free trade and also on poverty reduction and development policy", a spokeswoman said.
Wolfowitz, more widely associated with the unilateral use of US military power than with development policy, said he knew his neo-conservative image worried some in Europe.
"I understand that I'm to put it mildly a controversial figure," he said. "But as people get to know me better, they will understand that I really do believe deeply in the mission of the bank."
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Security entourage holds clues in hunt for bin Laden
The Pakistani's think they're on to UBL's trail. One would hope so. Every day that the world's most wanted terrorist eludes capture is another day that embarasses the Bush administration. Aside from it being the right thing to do, given what's happening in both the social/religious realm and his failure as yet to pass social security reform (private accounts) the man needs a big victory right now. This from ABC News International:
PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN After three years of poking around caves, raiding compounds, and getting the slip from motorbike mullahs, the intelligence communities chasing Osama bin Laden finally seem to know what they're on the lookout for.
To find the world's most wanted man, Pakistani forces are trying to spot signs of his elaborate security entourage. Lt. Gen. Safdar Hussain, Pakistan's top commander in the tribal region near the Afghan border, says Mr. bin Laden is guarded by some 50 men, divided into concentric circles of security.
Despite President Pervez Musharraf's recent statement that bin Laden's trail had gone cold, the hunt goes on.
"I am desperately looking for the signature of his security; because it is then I can declare victory…. Finding the signature means either I will get hold of him or I will kill him," General Hussain told the Monitor in an interview at his headquarters in Peshawar.
Last month, the US launched advertisements on Pakistani TV and radio highlighting rewards for information leading to the arrest of any of 14 suspects, starting with Bin Laden. If top Al Qaeda leaders are along the Pakistani-Afghan border, they are believed to be at a place where they can go to tribal areas in both countries.
Captured militants and intelligence gathered through members of breakaway factions indicate that several layers of security surround bin Laden at all times.
"There is a ring of very close guards, there is an outer guard, and then there is an inner guard, and also various circles. Everybody has a code to enter from the outer circle to the inner circle, then another to move from the inner circle to meeting him," says Hussain.
At night, the rings of security are indicated by flashlight signals.
When bin Laden's group moves, says Hussain, they go in caravans and dress in women's clothing to avoid detection by satellite.
"Now I have also given orders that when every vehicle is checked, the women are asked to say something so that you can make out whether it is a male voice or a female voice," he says.
Last year, thousands of military and paramilitary troops battled Al Qaeda militants and tribal supporters in south Waziristan. The 48 military operations resulted in more than 500 deaths, including 304 foreign and local militants and around 200 troops.
Pakistani forces captured 620 militants as well. The number of foreign militants - mostly Uzbek, Chechen, and Tajiks - in Waziristan is now estimated at between 80 and 100, a steep decline from the 600- to 700-person estimate of last year.
"In these 48 operations which were in the length and breadth of the whole South Waziristan agency, the possibility of this fellow [bin Laden] being in one of the target areas cannot be ruled out," says Hussain. "But I have nothing of this indication [of his security entourage] in my area."
PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN After three years of poking around caves, raiding compounds, and getting the slip from motorbike mullahs, the intelligence communities chasing Osama bin Laden finally seem to know what they're on the lookout for.
To find the world's most wanted man, Pakistani forces are trying to spot signs of his elaborate security entourage. Lt. Gen. Safdar Hussain, Pakistan's top commander in the tribal region near the Afghan border, says Mr. bin Laden is guarded by some 50 men, divided into concentric circles of security.
Despite President Pervez Musharraf's recent statement that bin Laden's trail had gone cold, the hunt goes on.
"I am desperately looking for the signature of his security; because it is then I can declare victory…. Finding the signature means either I will get hold of him or I will kill him," General Hussain told the Monitor in an interview at his headquarters in Peshawar.
Last month, the US launched advertisements on Pakistani TV and radio highlighting rewards for information leading to the arrest of any of 14 suspects, starting with Bin Laden. If top Al Qaeda leaders are along the Pakistani-Afghan border, they are believed to be at a place where they can go to tribal areas in both countries.
Captured militants and intelligence gathered through members of breakaway factions indicate that several layers of security surround bin Laden at all times.
"There is a ring of very close guards, there is an outer guard, and then there is an inner guard, and also various circles. Everybody has a code to enter from the outer circle to the inner circle, then another to move from the inner circle to meeting him," says Hussain.
At night, the rings of security are indicated by flashlight signals.
When bin Laden's group moves, says Hussain, they go in caravans and dress in women's clothing to avoid detection by satellite.
"Now I have also given orders that when every vehicle is checked, the women are asked to say something so that you can make out whether it is a male voice or a female voice," he says.
Last year, thousands of military and paramilitary troops battled Al Qaeda militants and tribal supporters in south Waziristan. The 48 military operations resulted in more than 500 deaths, including 304 foreign and local militants and around 200 troops.
Pakistani forces captured 620 militants as well. The number of foreign militants - mostly Uzbek, Chechen, and Tajiks - in Waziristan is now estimated at between 80 and 100, a steep decline from the 600- to 700-person estimate of last year.
"In these 48 operations which were in the length and breadth of the whole South Waziristan agency, the possibility of this fellow [bin Laden] being in one of the target areas cannot be ruled out," says Hussain. "But I have nothing of this indication [of his security entourage] in my area."
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Stories on Schiavo Protestor Miss One Point: He's a Registered Sex Offender
I don't know what is more offensive, parents whom are getting their children arrested while protesting against Terry Schiavo's imminent death or that one of the parents is a registered sex offender. For the record, any parent whom is protesting in Pinellas Park, FL, that purposely sends their child to give Terry water and subsequently gets said child arrested should have their parental rights terminated. A child does not have the capacity to decide whether or not they want to suffer the consequences of civil disobedience. It's fine for the adults but the fact that they are manipulating their children and putting them in danger crosses the line into child abuse.
Here's the story from Editor and Publisher online:
NEW YORK As protests outside the hospice housing Terri Schiavo in her final days mounted last week, numerous newspaper reports, many based on an Associated Press account, mentioned or quoted 10-year-old Joshua Heldreth and/or his father, Scott Heldreth. Josh was one of several youngsters arrested for crossing police lines in Pinellas Park, Fla., in an effort to take water to Schiavo.
None of the stories revealed that Scott Heldreth, a religious activist and anti-abortion crusader, is a registered sex offender in Florida-- until The Charlotte Observer mentioned it on Sunday.
A widely published AP story on Sunday by Allen G. Breen had painted a warmer picture of the Heldreths, noting that it was young Josh who insisted that his father take him to the protests from their home in North Carolina, not the other way around. “God’s with me,” Josh said.
The article continued: “Scott Heldreth, a veteran of the Operation Rescue and Operation Save America campaigns against abortion, didn't intend to join this fight, until his son asked to be brought to Pinellas Park. ‘My wife and I, we felt like if God really put it on his heart, we should come down, to allow him to live out what God had put on his heart,’ says Heldreth, a carpenter.”
The story said some of the children at the protest carried signs accusing Terry Schiavo’s husband of murdering her and urging that he be sent to jail.
The Charlotte Observer story, however, revealed that Heldreth had pleaded guilty to sexual battery, was in jail for parts of 1992 and 1993, according to court records, and served time on probation.
“The former Naperville, Fla., resident remains listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's sex offender registry,” the Observer reported, “but he's not registered on North Carolina's; the N.C. equivalent applies to offenders convicted on or after Jan. 1, 1996.”
According to the story, Heldreth claimed that his religious beliefs came to him while in jail. Before then, he said, "I basically agreed with everyone trying to kill Terri Schiavo." Then, he said, he accepted Christ and turned his life around.
Heldreth declined to discuss the specifics of the incident that led to his jail time. Online research shows that Heldreth was arrested after an incident at Ohio University and charged with two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping.
Here's the story from Editor and Publisher online:
NEW YORK As protests outside the hospice housing Terri Schiavo in her final days mounted last week, numerous newspaper reports, many based on an Associated Press account, mentioned or quoted 10-year-old Joshua Heldreth and/or his father, Scott Heldreth. Josh was one of several youngsters arrested for crossing police lines in Pinellas Park, Fla., in an effort to take water to Schiavo.
None of the stories revealed that Scott Heldreth, a religious activist and anti-abortion crusader, is a registered sex offender in Florida-- until The Charlotte Observer mentioned it on Sunday.
A widely published AP story on Sunday by Allen G. Breen had painted a warmer picture of the Heldreths, noting that it was young Josh who insisted that his father take him to the protests from their home in North Carolina, not the other way around. “God’s with me,” Josh said.
The article continued: “Scott Heldreth, a veteran of the Operation Rescue and Operation Save America campaigns against abortion, didn't intend to join this fight, until his son asked to be brought to Pinellas Park. ‘My wife and I, we felt like if God really put it on his heart, we should come down, to allow him to live out what God had put on his heart,’ says Heldreth, a carpenter.”
The story said some of the children at the protest carried signs accusing Terry Schiavo’s husband of murdering her and urging that he be sent to jail.
The Charlotte Observer story, however, revealed that Heldreth had pleaded guilty to sexual battery, was in jail for parts of 1992 and 1993, according to court records, and served time on probation.
“The former Naperville, Fla., resident remains listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's sex offender registry,” the Observer reported, “but he's not registered on North Carolina's; the N.C. equivalent applies to offenders convicted on or after Jan. 1, 1996.”
According to the story, Heldreth claimed that his religious beliefs came to him while in jail. Before then, he said, "I basically agreed with everyone trying to kill Terri Schiavo." Then, he said, he accepted Christ and turned his life around.
Heldreth declined to discuss the specifics of the incident that led to his jail time. Online research shows that Heldreth was arrested after an incident at Ohio University and charged with two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping.
Monday, March 28, 2005
The Devil In Mr. DeLay
My political philosophy is made up of a healthy dose of equal parts cynicism and pragmatism. I expect politicians to lie, cheat and steal up to a point. There isn't a member of Congress whom is beyond scrutiny so I tend not get into these picayune arguments over which politician is more corrupt than the others. I believe much of what sets people off about a particular politician goes back to his or her own personal preferences and ideology. In an argument over which was the better president, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush you'll hardly find a debate devoid of emotion and centered entirely on the facts and on their individual records.
There are limits however to how much a pragmatist like myself can stand. I chafe at even the appearance of royalty or tyranny in American politics and when any person in our government goes well over the line, I believe he or she has to lose their job. This of course brings me to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
To be truthful, I kept hearing in the background about Tom DeLay's ethical violations and I didn't really pay too much attention. I figured if he's guilty of anything really bad eventually he'll get his comeuppance and life will go on. However, I like a good car wreck as much as anyone so when I see so many people staring at this mess on the side of the side political highway I cannot help but take a peek. What I have learned about Mr. DeLay smacks of somebody who has been so removed from real life that he’s obviously gone insane and is in desperate need of therapy.
First off, in a truly rare and dubious achievement, Rep. DeLay has earned four formal ethics violations, which is considerable since the committee has chastised only five Members of Congress in the last six years. While Congress may be fraternal in the sense that they protect their own, you know this man must have gone beyond pale to have scored four FORMAL ethics violation.
Tom DeLay owes much of his success to the energy industry. Much of what is plaguing Mr. DeLay now is a direct result of cronyism. For example, "DeLay’s rise in politics was fueled by Enron. The rogue company hosted the first fundraiser for his leadership PAC, raising $280,000 for him at the event. And DeLay fought hard for the company’s agenda of regulatory relief. Not only did Enron reward Delay with $32,700 over his years in Congress (making him its #8 top beneficiary overall), it gave two of his top aides a $750,000 consulting contract to do a “grassroots” campaign for the deregulation of energy markets, and paid his wife Christine $40,000 for a no-show job.
In 1998, DeLay sponsored a far-reaching energy deregulation bill, earning him a letter from Enron CEO Ken Lay lauding him “for his vision.” The Fort Worth Star Telegram wrote that “DeLay and a cadre of close political advisers operated at the center of an Enron-backed crusade for energy deregulation in the late 1990s.” That particular bill died but DeLay’s service to Enron continued even into the months after the company scandal broke open, when he pushed the House to pass a retroactive tax break that would have delivered $254 million to the failing company. Unlike most members of Congress, DeLay did not return his Enron campaign contributions after the company’s collapse; nor did he donate them to help assist its many devastated ex-employees and pensioners." (Credit pcactionfund.org)
It only gets worse from here folks. "In 2003, as the House was down-to-the-wire on the vote over the GOP's Medicare prescription drug legislation, DeLay offered to endorse Rep. Nick Smith’s (R-MI) son in his bid for a congressional seat in exchange for his support for the bill. The incident was made public when Smith, who was about to retire, wrote a newspaper column charging that Republican leaders had offered him “bribes” in the form of campaign help for his son.
In October 2004, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct admonished DeLay, saying he had gone too far: ''The promise of political support for a relative of a member goes beyond the boundaries of maintaining party discipline, and should not be used as the basis of a bargain for members to achieve their respective goals.” (House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; The New York Times, 10/1/04)"
People reading this may argue that any Democrat with their hands on the levers of government could be and probably have been guilty of similar chicanery. Maybe, but DeLay has been cited as having nearly subverted democracy in the name of partisan politics and legislative totalitarianism. "DeLay has taken radical steps, at the expense of democracy, to centralize power in the House. He has used the arcane rules process to prevent legislation from getting a full hearing. Often the House leadership will make drastic revisions to a bill late in the evening. Although in such circumstances House rules require 48 hours to go by before the House takes action, in many cases the rules declare these bills to be “emergency” measures, eliminating this requirement. Sometimes bills are considered with as little as 30 minutes notice. According to American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner, “On several measures, members literally did not know what they were voting for.” Under DeLay’s leadership, there has been a huge increase in the number of bills that come up for consideration with rules prohibiting House members from offering amendments during floor debate. DeLay has also worked to exclude Democrats from conference committees, whose job it is to reconcile differing versions of House- and Senate-approved bill. While new issues are not supposed to be added in conference committee, according to Kuttner, under DeLay major provisions, such as the Medicare bill, have been added without any prior debate or Congressional Review. (Source: Robert Kuttner, "America as a One-Party State," The American Prospect, February 1, 2004)"
There's more and it continues to get more awful with each story I read. Here we have a man who is jumping on the Terry Schiavo "let her live" bandwagon while he was part of the decision to remove life support from his own father. While hypocritical as that is, it isn't nearly as disingenuous has comparing the "assault" on Terry Schiavo's life to his own battle with charges of ethical violations. "One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said.
Mr. DeLay complained that "the other side" had figured out how "to defeat the conservative movement," by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged "the whole syndicate" was "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in." (Credit politick.info)
Yes Mr. DeLay, your ethical violations and prosecution there of are just like a woman being starved to death after allegedly being in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. A statement like this is beyond political, it's heinous to the point of making him and Texas Republicans far and wide look repugnant.
American Justice is blind and sometimes slow but eventually the mighty fall and we cannibalize our own. Mr. DeLay's days of usurping power for himself are numbered as I'm sure his carcass will be dragged from the halls of Congress in due course. To leave him in power is to admit that Congress is no longer in the business of representing Americans.
There are limits however to how much a pragmatist like myself can stand. I chafe at even the appearance of royalty or tyranny in American politics and when any person in our government goes well over the line, I believe he or she has to lose their job. This of course brings me to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
To be truthful, I kept hearing in the background about Tom DeLay's ethical violations and I didn't really pay too much attention. I figured if he's guilty of anything really bad eventually he'll get his comeuppance and life will go on. However, I like a good car wreck as much as anyone so when I see so many people staring at this mess on the side of the side political highway I cannot help but take a peek. What I have learned about Mr. DeLay smacks of somebody who has been so removed from real life that he’s obviously gone insane and is in desperate need of therapy.
First off, in a truly rare and dubious achievement, Rep. DeLay has earned four formal ethics violations, which is considerable since the committee has chastised only five Members of Congress in the last six years. While Congress may be fraternal in the sense that they protect their own, you know this man must have gone beyond pale to have scored four FORMAL ethics violation.
Tom DeLay owes much of his success to the energy industry. Much of what is plaguing Mr. DeLay now is a direct result of cronyism. For example, "DeLay’s rise in politics was fueled by Enron. The rogue company hosted the first fundraiser for his leadership PAC, raising $280,000 for him at the event. And DeLay fought hard for the company’s agenda of regulatory relief. Not only did Enron reward Delay with $32,700 over his years in Congress (making him its #8 top beneficiary overall), it gave two of his top aides a $750,000 consulting contract to do a “grassroots” campaign for the deregulation of energy markets, and paid his wife Christine $40,000 for a no-show job.
In 1998, DeLay sponsored a far-reaching energy deregulation bill, earning him a letter from Enron CEO Ken Lay lauding him “for his vision.” The Fort Worth Star Telegram wrote that “DeLay and a cadre of close political advisers operated at the center of an Enron-backed crusade for energy deregulation in the late 1990s.” That particular bill died but DeLay’s service to Enron continued even into the months after the company scandal broke open, when he pushed the House to pass a retroactive tax break that would have delivered $254 million to the failing company. Unlike most members of Congress, DeLay did not return his Enron campaign contributions after the company’s collapse; nor did he donate them to help assist its many devastated ex-employees and pensioners." (Credit pcactionfund.org)
It only gets worse from here folks. "In 2003, as the House was down-to-the-wire on the vote over the GOP's Medicare prescription drug legislation, DeLay offered to endorse Rep. Nick Smith’s (R-MI) son in his bid for a congressional seat in exchange for his support for the bill. The incident was made public when Smith, who was about to retire, wrote a newspaper column charging that Republican leaders had offered him “bribes” in the form of campaign help for his son.
In October 2004, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct admonished DeLay, saying he had gone too far: ''The promise of political support for a relative of a member goes beyond the boundaries of maintaining party discipline, and should not be used as the basis of a bargain for members to achieve their respective goals.” (House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; The New York Times, 10/1/04)"
People reading this may argue that any Democrat with their hands on the levers of government could be and probably have been guilty of similar chicanery. Maybe, but DeLay has been cited as having nearly subverted democracy in the name of partisan politics and legislative totalitarianism. "DeLay has taken radical steps, at the expense of democracy, to centralize power in the House. He has used the arcane rules process to prevent legislation from getting a full hearing. Often the House leadership will make drastic revisions to a bill late in the evening. Although in such circumstances House rules require 48 hours to go by before the House takes action, in many cases the rules declare these bills to be “emergency” measures, eliminating this requirement. Sometimes bills are considered with as little as 30 minutes notice. According to American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner, “On several measures, members literally did not know what they were voting for.” Under DeLay’s leadership, there has been a huge increase in the number of bills that come up for consideration with rules prohibiting House members from offering amendments during floor debate. DeLay has also worked to exclude Democrats from conference committees, whose job it is to reconcile differing versions of House- and Senate-approved bill. While new issues are not supposed to be added in conference committee, according to Kuttner, under DeLay major provisions, such as the Medicare bill, have been added without any prior debate or Congressional Review. (Source: Robert Kuttner, "America as a One-Party State," The American Prospect, February 1, 2004)"
There's more and it continues to get more awful with each story I read. Here we have a man who is jumping on the Terry Schiavo "let her live" bandwagon while he was part of the decision to remove life support from his own father. While hypocritical as that is, it isn't nearly as disingenuous has comparing the "assault" on Terry Schiavo's life to his own battle with charges of ethical violations. "One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said.
Mr. DeLay complained that "the other side" had figured out how "to defeat the conservative movement," by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged "the whole syndicate" was "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in." (Credit politick.info)
Yes Mr. DeLay, your ethical violations and prosecution there of are just like a woman being starved to death after allegedly being in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. A statement like this is beyond political, it's heinous to the point of making him and Texas Republicans far and wide look repugnant.
American Justice is blind and sometimes slow but eventually the mighty fall and we cannibalize our own. Mr. DeLay's days of usurping power for himself are numbered as I'm sure his carcass will be dragged from the halls of Congress in due course. To leave him in power is to admit that Congress is no longer in the business of representing Americans.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
More Deatails on the Near Showdown: Terry Schiavo
Apparently this all happened Thursday morning as was reported about 20 hours ago. Such a strange and sad situation.
This from Mercurynews.com:
MIAMI - Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo wasn't to be removed from her hospice, Florida law enforcement agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, sources said Friday.
Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at the Woodside Hospice, that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.
For a brief period, local police, who have officers around the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called a showdown.
In the end, the state agents and the Department of Children and Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.
``We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in,'' said a source with the local police.
``The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene,'' said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. ``When the sheriff's department, and our department, told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off.''
The incident, known only to a few, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in state law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.
Participants in the high-stakes test of wills said they believed that the standoff could ultimately have led to a constitutional crisis -- and a confrontation between dueling law enforcement officers.
``There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink,'' said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning's activities.
``It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police,'' the official said.
State officials Friday vigorously denied the notion that any ``showdown'' occurred.
The Department of Children and Families ``directed no such action,'' said agency official Zoraya Suarez.
Said Bush press officer Jacob DiPietre: ``There was no showdown. We were ready to go. We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place, and we were following the process. The judge had an order, and we were following the order.''
Tim Caddell, an information officer for the city of Pinellas Park, declined to discuss the event.
The developments that set Thursday morning's events in motion began the previous afternoon, when the governor and agency chief Lucy Hadi held an impromptu news conference to announce that they were considering sheltering Schiavo under the state's adult-protection law.
Alerted by the Bush administration that Schiavo might be on her way to their facility, officials at Morton Plant Hospital went to court Wednesday, asking Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, who ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube last week, what to do.
``It's an extraordinary situation,'' said Beth Hardy, a hospital representative. ``I don't think any of us has seen anything like it. Ever.''
Greer signed an order Wednesday afternoon forbidding the department from ``taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her'' from the hospice. He directed ``each and every and singular sheriff of the state of Florida'' to enforce his order.
But Thursday, at 8:15 a.m., Department of Children and Families attorneys appealed Greer's order to judges at the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
That created the window of time to seize Schiavo. When the agency filed its appeal, it effectively froze the judge's Wednesday order. It took nearly three hours before the judge found out and canceled the automatic stay, shortly before 11 a.m.
According to sources, the Department of Children and Families intended to take Schiavo to Morton Plant Hospital, where her feeding tube had been reinserted in 2003. But hospice officials were aware that the hospital was unlikely to perform surgery to reinsert the tube without an order from Greer.
People knew that taking Schiavo ``did not equate with immediate reinsertion of the feeding tube,'' a source said. ``Hospital officials were working with their legal counsel, and their advisers, trying to figure out which order superseded which, and what action they should take.''
Hardy, the hospital official, said she did not believe the hospital was made aware Thursday morning that the agency and state police planned to bring Schiavo in.
George Felos, the attorney for Schiavo's husband, Michael, said he did not think department officials knew of the window of opportunity they had created until well after they had filed their appeal.
``Frankly, I don't believe when they filed their notice of appeal they realized that that gave them an automatic stay,'' Felos said. ``When we filed our motion to vacate the automatic stay . . . they realized they had a short window of opportunity, and they wanted to extend that as long as they could.
``I believe that as soon as DCF knew they had an opportunity, they were mobilizing to take advantage of it, without a doubt.''
This from Mercurynews.com:
MIAMI - Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo wasn't to be removed from her hospice, Florida law enforcement agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, sources said Friday.
Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at the Woodside Hospice, that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.
For a brief period, local police, who have officers around the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called a showdown.
In the end, the state agents and the Department of Children and Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.
``We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in,'' said a source with the local police.
``The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene,'' said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. ``When the sheriff's department, and our department, told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off.''
The incident, known only to a few, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in state law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.
Participants in the high-stakes test of wills said they believed that the standoff could ultimately have led to a constitutional crisis -- and a confrontation between dueling law enforcement officers.
``There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink,'' said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning's activities.
``It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police,'' the official said.
State officials Friday vigorously denied the notion that any ``showdown'' occurred.
The Department of Children and Families ``directed no such action,'' said agency official Zoraya Suarez.
Said Bush press officer Jacob DiPietre: ``There was no showdown. We were ready to go. We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place, and we were following the process. The judge had an order, and we were following the order.''
Tim Caddell, an information officer for the city of Pinellas Park, declined to discuss the event.
The developments that set Thursday morning's events in motion began the previous afternoon, when the governor and agency chief Lucy Hadi held an impromptu news conference to announce that they were considering sheltering Schiavo under the state's adult-protection law.
Alerted by the Bush administration that Schiavo might be on her way to their facility, officials at Morton Plant Hospital went to court Wednesday, asking Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, who ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube last week, what to do.
``It's an extraordinary situation,'' said Beth Hardy, a hospital representative. ``I don't think any of us has seen anything like it. Ever.''
Greer signed an order Wednesday afternoon forbidding the department from ``taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her'' from the hospice. He directed ``each and every and singular sheriff of the state of Florida'' to enforce his order.
But Thursday, at 8:15 a.m., Department of Children and Families attorneys appealed Greer's order to judges at the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
That created the window of time to seize Schiavo. When the agency filed its appeal, it effectively froze the judge's Wednesday order. It took nearly three hours before the judge found out and canceled the automatic stay, shortly before 11 a.m.
According to sources, the Department of Children and Families intended to take Schiavo to Morton Plant Hospital, where her feeding tube had been reinserted in 2003. But hospice officials were aware that the hospital was unlikely to perform surgery to reinsert the tube without an order from Greer.
People knew that taking Schiavo ``did not equate with immediate reinsertion of the feeding tube,'' a source said. ``Hospital officials were working with their legal counsel, and their advisers, trying to figure out which order superseded which, and what action they should take.''
Hardy, the hospital official, said she did not believe the hospital was made aware Thursday morning that the agency and state police planned to bring Schiavo in.
George Felos, the attorney for Schiavo's husband, Michael, said he did not think department officials knew of the window of opportunity they had created until well after they had filed their appeal.
``Frankly, I don't believe when they filed their notice of appeal they realized that that gave them an automatic stay,'' Felos said. ``When we filed our motion to vacate the automatic stay . . . they realized they had a short window of opportunity, and they wanted to extend that as long as they could.
``I believe that as soon as DCF knew they had an opportunity, they were mobilizing to take advantage of it, without a doubt.''
Jeb Bush Sends State Agents to Rescue Terry Schiavo
The story was in the Miami Herald but I found it through Moxiegrrrl.com. While she and I have vastly different views on the world, on this issue we appear to see eye to eye. We both agree that Jeb Bush and probably the GOP at large has gotten out of control on this issue and have mostly likely shot themselves in the foot for 2006. The link to her post and the subsequent story is in the title of this post but here's a quick blurb from the Miami Herald:
Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned...
''It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police,'' the official said. ``It it was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think.''
Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned...
''It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police,'' the official said. ``It it was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think.''
Friday, March 25, 2005
No More Annas
{Every weekend I will be featuring a post by a member of the Caregiver Credit campaign. This one was written by Theresa Funicello, author of Tyranny of Kindness}
“Anna,” a Wisconsin resident whose son Angel was diagnosed with a terminal illness, asked for and was refused flextime by her boss. As Angel’s need for her increased, she took too many days off and was eventually fired. While on unemployment, she sought government disability benefits for him, but was told his condition did not fit the definition of “a long-term disability” because he was dying. Before long, Anna ended up on welfare, as we now know it. Because she was “employable” she was assigned to an unpaid workfare job. For a while, she regularly showed up at her workfare site for the stipulated 25 hours a week.
In the final weeks, after Angel fell into what was referred to as an “unresponsive” state, Anna
remained at his bedside full time, missing her workfare assignment. Consequently,
she was cut off welfare, her sole source of income.
Mothers and other caregivers replicate Anna’s story to greater or lesser degrees countless times across the country. Giving care to a healthy or ailing child, an aging parent, a dying friend, or an incapacitated spouse is work that demands time and too often, financial deprivation.
Government provides some protection for everything from unemployment, retirement, disability, old age and even for dips in farm prices. Caregivers, however, work without a safety net. Loving someone does not make it less difficult for the giver of care or less valuable to the cared-for and society itself. At the very least, whenever a person in need remains at home and non-institutionalized (nursing home, foster care, hospital, etc.) society profits in human and economic terms.
Over 90% of all home caregivers are women, largely mothers. Whereas more than half of all mothers tend to be in paid jobs, those with family incomes below the median tend more often to remain in the home full time. Could it be that they have more value in the home than out? Not according to our system of national accounts that fails to value them at all. After all, how much can one’s labor be worth when it usually counts as zero?
Nearly four times as many married women work part-time for pay as married men. Two times as many women as men are paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Among men on minimum wage, the majority are teenagers. Among women, adults make up 3/4ths – mostly, mothers.
In fact, caregiving is not free. Nor should it make the giver poor. Currently, a partially refundable $1,000 per child tax credit ameliorates the cost of raising children in or outside the home. Social Agenda proposes first converting it to a Caregiver Credit to include care of adults as well as children and to focus on the giver of care; second making it fully refundable so it covers all who exit the job market to give care as well as those buying alternative care and third; increasing the value of it to make a real dent in the cost of giving care. The start-up cost of a fully refundable Caregiver Credit would be about $10 to $15 billion, depending on usage (most income programs are underutilized). It is far less costly than the alternative: institutionalization. It would entail less bureaucracy, be more transparent, and begin to set mothers and other caregivers on a course toward economic parity.
Not long after her son’s death, Anna was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Anna’s doctors said stress was a factor in her rapid deterioration. She died homeless. When her son first had become “unresponsive”, she was asked why she “failed to comply” with workfare rules, thereby causing her case to be closed. She had answered, “Because when I touch his face, he smiles.”
The author is the Executive Director of Social Agenda, Inc., a think tank and advocacy group that is leading the Caregiver Credit Campaign to convert the Child Tax Credit to a fully refundable Caregiver Credit.
“Anna,” a Wisconsin resident whose son Angel was diagnosed with a terminal illness, asked for and was refused flextime by her boss. As Angel’s need for her increased, she took too many days off and was eventually fired. While on unemployment, she sought government disability benefits for him, but was told his condition did not fit the definition of “a long-term disability” because he was dying. Before long, Anna ended up on welfare, as we now know it. Because she was “employable” she was assigned to an unpaid workfare job. For a while, she regularly showed up at her workfare site for the stipulated 25 hours a week.
In the final weeks, after Angel fell into what was referred to as an “unresponsive” state, Anna
remained at his bedside full time, missing her workfare assignment. Consequently,
she was cut off welfare, her sole source of income.
Mothers and other caregivers replicate Anna’s story to greater or lesser degrees countless times across the country. Giving care to a healthy or ailing child, an aging parent, a dying friend, or an incapacitated spouse is work that demands time and too often, financial deprivation.
Government provides some protection for everything from unemployment, retirement, disability, old age and even for dips in farm prices. Caregivers, however, work without a safety net. Loving someone does not make it less difficult for the giver of care or less valuable to the cared-for and society itself. At the very least, whenever a person in need remains at home and non-institutionalized (nursing home, foster care, hospital, etc.) society profits in human and economic terms.
Over 90% of all home caregivers are women, largely mothers. Whereas more than half of all mothers tend to be in paid jobs, those with family incomes below the median tend more often to remain in the home full time. Could it be that they have more value in the home than out? Not according to our system of national accounts that fails to value them at all. After all, how much can one’s labor be worth when it usually counts as zero?
Nearly four times as many married women work part-time for pay as married men. Two times as many women as men are paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Among men on minimum wage, the majority are teenagers. Among women, adults make up 3/4ths – mostly, mothers.
In fact, caregiving is not free. Nor should it make the giver poor. Currently, a partially refundable $1,000 per child tax credit ameliorates the cost of raising children in or outside the home. Social Agenda proposes first converting it to a Caregiver Credit to include care of adults as well as children and to focus on the giver of care; second making it fully refundable so it covers all who exit the job market to give care as well as those buying alternative care and third; increasing the value of it to make a real dent in the cost of giving care. The start-up cost of a fully refundable Caregiver Credit would be about $10 to $15 billion, depending on usage (most income programs are underutilized). It is far less costly than the alternative: institutionalization. It would entail less bureaucracy, be more transparent, and begin to set mothers and other caregivers on a course toward economic parity.
Not long after her son’s death, Anna was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Anna’s doctors said stress was a factor in her rapid deterioration. She died homeless. When her son first had become “unresponsive”, she was asked why she “failed to comply” with workfare rules, thereby causing her case to be closed. She had answered, “Because when I touch his face, he smiles.”
The author is the Executive Director of Social Agenda, Inc., a think tank and advocacy group that is leading the Caregiver Credit Campaign to convert the Child Tax Credit to a fully refundable Caregiver Credit.
The GOP Has Lost Its Mind
I have never seen a political party or political representation implode so quickly in my life. It seemed like it took years for the Democratic Party to completely go to pieces but this GOP party has managed to fall apart nearly twice as fast. I also didn’t think that the GOP having a monopoly on federal power would wreak this much havoc within the first few months of year one. As the saying goes, power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely…and apparently faster than normal.
Of course I’m talking about the never-ending saga of concerning Terry Schiavo and the multiple intrusions on her behalf by the GOP in congress. Frankly, I didn’t want to have to write about this anymore. I made my point in the first article and I figured from my vantage point there was nothing else to be said. As from the start, let justice take its course and God’s will shall be done, that was my philosophy so I might as well move on to other topics. However, what I heard today on talk radio and then was confirmed on Newsmax.com has made me madder than a wet hen.
This from Newsmax.com: “Legal experts say that if Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defies state judge George Greer and orders state troopers to rescue Terri Schiavo, he and any other officials who participate in such a move risk a contempt citation from Greer that could put them in jail.
But with a powerful ally in the White House, Terri Schiavo's would-be rescuers have nothing to fear from the runaway judge.
In 2001, President Clinton pardoned drug dealers, international money launderers - even FALN terrorists, who were spared in a blatant bid to win votes for his wife's Senate campaign.
The episode taught a bewildered nation that the powers of the president to pardon anyone he wishes are absolute and irrefutable.
Today Clinton is the most popular American politician in the world and his wife is the front-running candidate for her party's presidential nomination. In other words, the Pardongate scandal's lasting political fallout was nil.
He even pardoned his own brother, who had been convicted of selling cocaine.
Should Gov. Bush decide to rescue Terri Schiavo by force in violation of Judge Greer's order, President Bush could do the same for his brother - along with any other officials the right-to-die judge tries to punish.
Would there be controversy? You bet. Would the Bush family's political enemies try to capitalize? Absolutely.
But a nation that forgives one president for pardoning terrorists will certainly forgive another who uses his pardon power to save a life.
Once Terri Schiavo begins to receive the treatment she's been denied for more than a decade, her condition will almost certainly improve. Nurses who have cared for her have already testified she can speak and eat without a feeding tube, in stark contradiction to Judge Greer's findings.
Terri's recovery, however minimal, would serve as powerful evidence that the Bush brothers did the right thing in coming to her rescue.
In the meantime, the nation would be spared the haunting specter of its government starving an innocent citizen to death.”
So it’s come down to two wrongs make a right, is that where we are? The GOP and their buddies in the media echo chamber are seriously suggesting sending in the National Guard a la Janet Reno and “rescuing” Terry Schiavo. You people have lost your bloody minds! I cannot believe that in a matter of weeks the GOP has moved from disingenuously political, to Moveon.org level shrill, to flat out full goose bozo. I'm simply amazed at how little respect they have for the law and for our legal institutions. I thought this was the small government, less intrusive party? Apparently they are small government, less intrusion so long as they can legislate morality a la Iran. I used to chafe at the term, "Taliban Wing of the Republican Party" but now I can see where it's accurate. I stand here as a proud registered Republican wondering just what the hell happened to my party? They bet the farm on saving this woman’s life and now they will in fact reap the whirlwind.
It feels pretty macabre to talk about the political fallout from these events as the woman hasn’t actually died yet but when you are talking about sending in the National Guard to “rescue” her like she’s Princess Leia from Star Wars then it’s politics we must discuss.
Jeb Bush and Bill Frist are done. Neither of them will be able to recover enough from this to seriously contend the presidency, especially against Hillary Clinton. The political calculations of attempting to save Terry and then failing are so overwhelming that I just don’t understand why they would be so eager to throw their careers off of a bridge like this. The fact of the matter is that there aren’t enough “saved” Christians in this country to elect anyone president. That’s what the whole last election was about in the first place. If you lose us moderates, Republican or Democrat moderates, then you don’t win the election, period. We were turned off when Congress intervened in the first place, do you honestly think we’re going to be pleased if you repeat the mistakes of Waco and Elian Gonzalez?
It is truly scary watching a political party disintegrate like this. It’s like when we saw Howard Dean implode after the Iowa caucus. For the love of this country, the Constitution and all that we hold dear, would the GOP and their compadres in the talk radio echo chamber get a grip and come back to reality before you take us all off a cliff!
Of course I’m talking about the never-ending saga of concerning Terry Schiavo and the multiple intrusions on her behalf by the GOP in congress. Frankly, I didn’t want to have to write about this anymore. I made my point in the first article and I figured from my vantage point there was nothing else to be said. As from the start, let justice take its course and God’s will shall be done, that was my philosophy so I might as well move on to other topics. However, what I heard today on talk radio and then was confirmed on Newsmax.com has made me madder than a wet hen.
This from Newsmax.com: “Legal experts say that if Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defies state judge George Greer and orders state troopers to rescue Terri Schiavo, he and any other officials who participate in such a move risk a contempt citation from Greer that could put them in jail.
But with a powerful ally in the White House, Terri Schiavo's would-be rescuers have nothing to fear from the runaway judge.
In 2001, President Clinton pardoned drug dealers, international money launderers - even FALN terrorists, who were spared in a blatant bid to win votes for his wife's Senate campaign.
The episode taught a bewildered nation that the powers of the president to pardon anyone he wishes are absolute and irrefutable.
Today Clinton is the most popular American politician in the world and his wife is the front-running candidate for her party's presidential nomination. In other words, the Pardongate scandal's lasting political fallout was nil.
He even pardoned his own brother, who had been convicted of selling cocaine.
Should Gov. Bush decide to rescue Terri Schiavo by force in violation of Judge Greer's order, President Bush could do the same for his brother - along with any other officials the right-to-die judge tries to punish.
Would there be controversy? You bet. Would the Bush family's political enemies try to capitalize? Absolutely.
But a nation that forgives one president for pardoning terrorists will certainly forgive another who uses his pardon power to save a life.
Once Terri Schiavo begins to receive the treatment she's been denied for more than a decade, her condition will almost certainly improve. Nurses who have cared for her have already testified she can speak and eat without a feeding tube, in stark contradiction to Judge Greer's findings.
Terri's recovery, however minimal, would serve as powerful evidence that the Bush brothers did the right thing in coming to her rescue.
In the meantime, the nation would be spared the haunting specter of its government starving an innocent citizen to death.”
So it’s come down to two wrongs make a right, is that where we are? The GOP and their buddies in the media echo chamber are seriously suggesting sending in the National Guard a la Janet Reno and “rescuing” Terry Schiavo. You people have lost your bloody minds! I cannot believe that in a matter of weeks the GOP has moved from disingenuously political, to Moveon.org level shrill, to flat out full goose bozo. I'm simply amazed at how little respect they have for the law and for our legal institutions. I thought this was the small government, less intrusive party? Apparently they are small government, less intrusion so long as they can legislate morality a la Iran. I used to chafe at the term, "Taliban Wing of the Republican Party" but now I can see where it's accurate. I stand here as a proud registered Republican wondering just what the hell happened to my party? They bet the farm on saving this woman’s life and now they will in fact reap the whirlwind.
It feels pretty macabre to talk about the political fallout from these events as the woman hasn’t actually died yet but when you are talking about sending in the National Guard to “rescue” her like she’s Princess Leia from Star Wars then it’s politics we must discuss.
Jeb Bush and Bill Frist are done. Neither of them will be able to recover enough from this to seriously contend the presidency, especially against Hillary Clinton. The political calculations of attempting to save Terry and then failing are so overwhelming that I just don’t understand why they would be so eager to throw their careers off of a bridge like this. The fact of the matter is that there aren’t enough “saved” Christians in this country to elect anyone president. That’s what the whole last election was about in the first place. If you lose us moderates, Republican or Democrat moderates, then you don’t win the election, period. We were turned off when Congress intervened in the first place, do you honestly think we’re going to be pleased if you repeat the mistakes of Waco and Elian Gonzalez?
It is truly scary watching a political party disintegrate like this. It’s like when we saw Howard Dean implode after the Iowa caucus. For the love of this country, the Constitution and all that we hold dear, would the GOP and their compadres in the talk radio echo chamber get a grip and come back to reality before you take us all off a cliff!
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Supreme Court Won't Hear Schiavo Case
The AP now has the story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.
The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash through the federal court system by Bob and Mary Schindler.
Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.
The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash through the federal court system by Bob and Mary Schindler.
Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.
BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Appeal
The Supreme Court has said they will not hear the appeal. Terry Schiavo is out of options unless the FL Supreme Court decides to grant custody to the State vis a vis Jed Bush.
More on this as it develops...
More on this as it develops...
A Different Shade of Cold War
Before September 11th the administration really had only two foreign policy goals. One was to depose Saddam Hussein and the other was to check China before it became a rival superpower. From what I've read, they really had no grand strategic vision for shaping international affairs, only stopgap measures and half-baked ideas on how to execute wars on the cheap. After September 11th, issues involving China went on the backburner as the US moved to confront the wave of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. The administration also used the “War on Terror” as an excuse to move up their plans to depose Saddam Hussein, which was done easily enough but then resulted in an urban guerilla war subsidized by Iran and a host of other countries. In the middle of all of this the North Koreans periodically shook their ballistic missiles at us and demanded a small sacrifice, namely a shrubbery…one that looks nice and is not too expensive (if you can name the movie I got that from give yourself 10 points).
Outside of “promoting Democracy in the Middle East,” which more or less is happening by accident or happenstance rather than by legitimate planning and strategizing, the US under George W. Bush hasn’t really defined an overall narrative for their dealings in world affairs. There is no theme or over-riding goal that brings us all together in the name of America. For example, the Cold War was defined by stopping the spread of communism, especially in South America and South East Asia. We “supported any friend” as they saying went and though mistakes were made and collateral damage incurred, eventually the Soviet Union fell and for intents and purposes we won. We don’t have that now, just this vague picture of the administration attempting to put out brush fires when they pop up, like in Lebanon currently. The revolution going on in Lebanon got thrown into the pot of “Democratizing the Middle East” but the fact is that the Lebanese had the matter well in hand and as can be seen in recent stories, they don’t want us involved in their affairs.
While the administration seeks to define a narrative for its foreign policy, the Russians seem to be instigating yet another cold war. I’ve eluded to this in past posts about how China and Russia are moving closer to a strategic partnership and that both are forming strong bonds with countries such as Iran and Venezuela. If you’ve ever played the game Risk, I think it’s easy to see what’s happening. Russia is slowly but surely building up strategic allies around the world in order to match the US in influence, power and strength. It’s the same as it was since the end of World War II but instead of spread communism, they are spreading Russoism, the belief or practice in Russia returning to its superpower status.
The latest example of Russia seeking to spread its influence while setting up elaborate checks against the US is in the aforementioned Venezuela. This from the Chicago Tribune, “BRASILIA -- The Bush administration says it is increasingly alarmed at a series of weapons purchases by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Venezuela has confirmed that it is buying 100,000 AK-47 rifles from Russia next month. But senior U.S. defense officials said intelligence reports conclude Venezuela also is in the process of a multibillion-dollar effort to buy other weapons.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, traveling Wednesday in South America, urged Chavez to reconsider the purchases.
"I can't imagine why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s and I just personally hope that it doesn't happen," Rumsfeld told reporters in an appearance with Brazilian Vice President Jose Alencar. "And I can't imagine that if it did happen that it would be good for the hemisphere."”
Another example of Venezuela lining up to become a client state of Mother Russia comes from an article in the United Press International. “MOSCOW, March 23: Russia and Venezuela share close or identical views on key international problems, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The Moscow statement was circulated during a meeting held by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak during his visit to Caracas, Interfax reports.
Kislyak held ministerial consultations and a series of meetings on Monday and Tuesday with leading officials from the Venezuelan defense and mining ministries.
"The talks revealed a coincidence or closeness of positions on key international problems and the role of the United Nations as a central mechanism of maintaining peace and stability," the Foreign Ministry statement.”
One of the defining elements of the Cold War was that Europe needed to be protected from and advancing and hostile communist Soviet Union. Out of sheer necessity, the US had a strategic partnership with the countries of Western Europe and for the most part where the US went Western Europe followed. That is certainly no longer the case as Europe has been eagerly waiting the day when they could throw off the heavy hand of American protection and become their own powerful entity again. The EU has been making deals in much the same fashion as the US; they do what solely benefits them and to hell with the rest of the world.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Empire, Europe has been rushing to embrace their lost brethren in Moscow and have done what they could to welcome her back into fold. For example, this from Novosti, “MOSCOW, March 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization will pave the way for his country to economically integrate into the European Union, Economic Development & Trade Minister German Gref told reporters Monday, after talks with EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
Russia's WTO accession is the key to solving issues of economics and commerce, Mr. Gref pointed out. Only after gaining WTO membership will the nation be able to substantially expand and harmonize its trade rules with the EU, he argues.
Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed the government to step up the negotiating process toward Russia's integration with the EU, in terms of security, culture, education, and scientific research as well as economics. Mr. Putin would like all contentious issues hindering the talks to be resolved as soon as possible, but, according to the minister, it seems unrealistic to get all necessary blueprints ready before the next EU-Russia summit in May. As for trade and economic issues, there is no major disagreement on any of them.
At their talks Monday, Messrs. Gref and Mandelson discussed outstanding problems in the EU-Russia relationship that needed to be addressed without delay. These have to do primarily with transit to Kaliningrad via Lithuania, phyto-sanitary regulations, and trans-Siberian flights.
Mr. Gref said Russia had committed itself to bringing payments for trans-Siberian flights in line with international standards by the year 2013 and that these commitments had been consolidated in a newly signed agreement with the EU.
The sides agreed to consider all these issues in greater detail at their next meeting in the latter half of April, Mr. Gref told the media.
The EU Trade Commissioner, for his part, reiterated the European Union's willingness to assist Russia in joining the WTO before the end of 2005. "We have a long way to go, but the objective is not unattainable, provided there is enough political will," Mr. Mandelson pointed out.”
The world is rapidly changing. The US government is filled with people whose entire perspective is shaped by a world born in the 50’s and died in the 80’s when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. If the US doesn’t get wise to the new cold war brewing around them we will be equally surprised just as we were on 9/11 when yet another tragedy strikes. We’ve made some headway in gathering allies such as the newly democratic Ukraine and Iraq but it’s going to take more than a hodgepodge of elections and land invasions to secure the US through the next several years. If I can see the wagons circling from the EU to Russia to China to Venezuela, I’m wondering just what is it our leaders in Washington are looking at and more importantly what they are going to do about it?
Outside of “promoting Democracy in the Middle East,” which more or less is happening by accident or happenstance rather than by legitimate planning and strategizing, the US under George W. Bush hasn’t really defined an overall narrative for their dealings in world affairs. There is no theme or over-riding goal that brings us all together in the name of America. For example, the Cold War was defined by stopping the spread of communism, especially in South America and South East Asia. We “supported any friend” as they saying went and though mistakes were made and collateral damage incurred, eventually the Soviet Union fell and for intents and purposes we won. We don’t have that now, just this vague picture of the administration attempting to put out brush fires when they pop up, like in Lebanon currently. The revolution going on in Lebanon got thrown into the pot of “Democratizing the Middle East” but the fact is that the Lebanese had the matter well in hand and as can be seen in recent stories, they don’t want us involved in their affairs.
While the administration seeks to define a narrative for its foreign policy, the Russians seem to be instigating yet another cold war. I’ve eluded to this in past posts about how China and Russia are moving closer to a strategic partnership and that both are forming strong bonds with countries such as Iran and Venezuela. If you’ve ever played the game Risk, I think it’s easy to see what’s happening. Russia is slowly but surely building up strategic allies around the world in order to match the US in influence, power and strength. It’s the same as it was since the end of World War II but instead of spread communism, they are spreading Russoism, the belief or practice in Russia returning to its superpower status.
The latest example of Russia seeking to spread its influence while setting up elaborate checks against the US is in the aforementioned Venezuela. This from the Chicago Tribune, “BRASILIA -- The Bush administration says it is increasingly alarmed at a series of weapons purchases by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Venezuela has confirmed that it is buying 100,000 AK-47 rifles from Russia next month. But senior U.S. defense officials said intelligence reports conclude Venezuela also is in the process of a multibillion-dollar effort to buy other weapons.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, traveling Wednesday in South America, urged Chavez to reconsider the purchases.
"I can't imagine why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s and I just personally hope that it doesn't happen," Rumsfeld told reporters in an appearance with Brazilian Vice President Jose Alencar. "And I can't imagine that if it did happen that it would be good for the hemisphere."”
Another example of Venezuela lining up to become a client state of Mother Russia comes from an article in the United Press International. “MOSCOW, March 23: Russia and Venezuela share close or identical views on key international problems, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The Moscow statement was circulated during a meeting held by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak during his visit to Caracas, Interfax reports.
Kislyak held ministerial consultations and a series of meetings on Monday and Tuesday with leading officials from the Venezuelan defense and mining ministries.
"The talks revealed a coincidence or closeness of positions on key international problems and the role of the United Nations as a central mechanism of maintaining peace and stability," the Foreign Ministry statement.”
One of the defining elements of the Cold War was that Europe needed to be protected from and advancing and hostile communist Soviet Union. Out of sheer necessity, the US had a strategic partnership with the countries of Western Europe and for the most part where the US went Western Europe followed. That is certainly no longer the case as Europe has been eagerly waiting the day when they could throw off the heavy hand of American protection and become their own powerful entity again. The EU has been making deals in much the same fashion as the US; they do what solely benefits them and to hell with the rest of the world.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Empire, Europe has been rushing to embrace their lost brethren in Moscow and have done what they could to welcome her back into fold. For example, this from Novosti, “MOSCOW, March 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization will pave the way for his country to economically integrate into the European Union, Economic Development & Trade Minister German Gref told reporters Monday, after talks with EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
Russia's WTO accession is the key to solving issues of economics and commerce, Mr. Gref pointed out. Only after gaining WTO membership will the nation be able to substantially expand and harmonize its trade rules with the EU, he argues.
Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed the government to step up the negotiating process toward Russia's integration with the EU, in terms of security, culture, education, and scientific research as well as economics. Mr. Putin would like all contentious issues hindering the talks to be resolved as soon as possible, but, according to the minister, it seems unrealistic to get all necessary blueprints ready before the next EU-Russia summit in May. As for trade and economic issues, there is no major disagreement on any of them.
At their talks Monday, Messrs. Gref and Mandelson discussed outstanding problems in the EU-Russia relationship that needed to be addressed without delay. These have to do primarily with transit to Kaliningrad via Lithuania, phyto-sanitary regulations, and trans-Siberian flights.
Mr. Gref said Russia had committed itself to bringing payments for trans-Siberian flights in line with international standards by the year 2013 and that these commitments had been consolidated in a newly signed agreement with the EU.
The sides agreed to consider all these issues in greater detail at their next meeting in the latter half of April, Mr. Gref told the media.
The EU Trade Commissioner, for his part, reiterated the European Union's willingness to assist Russia in joining the WTO before the end of 2005. "We have a long way to go, but the objective is not unattainable, provided there is enough political will," Mr. Mandelson pointed out.”
The world is rapidly changing. The US government is filled with people whose entire perspective is shaped by a world born in the 50’s and died in the 80’s when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. If the US doesn’t get wise to the new cold war brewing around them we will be equally surprised just as we were on 9/11 when yet another tragedy strikes. We’ve made some headway in gathering allies such as the newly democratic Ukraine and Iraq but it’s going to take more than a hodgepodge of elections and land invasions to secure the US through the next several years. If I can see the wagons circling from the EU to Russia to China to Venezuela, I’m wondering just what is it our leaders in Washington are looking at and more importantly what they are going to do about it?
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Annan: Assad OKs Complete Lebanon Exit
If Assad is serious then this is a major accomplishment for the severely tarnished and corrupted United Nations. As I've stated in previous columns, if the UN and the EU want a legitamate say in world affairs seperate and apart from the United States then they have to earn it by producing results. The EU has to stop the Iranians from building a nuclear bomb and the UN has to stop genocide from occuring. As in the case of Syria or in recent history Iraq, the UN has to back up its resolutions or their words will be singularly meaningless. As much as I criticize the UN and EU, there needs to be a balance of power in the world or, as we've seen in the Terry Schiavo case, the ruling party seems to go insane within record time. The US, God bless her, cannot be allowed to be the only superpower making semi-unilateral decisions in the world that seemingly only benefit the American business class. However, I'm not comfortable with giving up power to paper tigers in the name of political correctness or expediency because then we will surely have a repeat of the 1919 scenario that eventually led to World War II. This story as well as a few others gives me some degree of hope that the UN and the EU may actually rise to the occasion and become legitamate powerbrokers in the global community.
This from the AP: ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday that Syria's president has agreed to present a firm timetable by early April for a full withdrawal of his country's troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon.
Annan announced the commitment from President Bashar Assad after talking with the Syrian leader on the sidelines of the Arab League summit where the region's leaders largely sought to skirt the major issues facing the Middle East.
"The withdrawal has begun and it continues," Annan told reporters. "He's working out a timetable in consultation with the Lebanese authorities and will withdraw his troops completely into Syrian territory. Not just the troops but also the security service, as well as all the logistical and material equipment to Syria."
In recent weeks, Syria has pulled back its troops and intelligence agents into eastern Lebanon toward the border, while facing strong international pressure and widespread street protests in Lebanon demanding a withdrawal from the neighboring nation it has dominated for decades.
"We are going to work with him to ensure that it is done," Annan said.
Syria suggested previously that a date for a full withdrawal would be set at an April 7 meeting between Syrian and Lebanese military officers.
Officials of Lebanon's pro-Syria government have said 4,000 of the 10,000 soldiers that Syria had in Lebanon already have left the country and the others are now concentrated in the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon.
Besides the turmoil in Lebanon, the Arab world has seen signs of other deep-running change in recent months.
After national elections, Iraqis are struggling to put together a new government, one that will likely be the only one led by Shiite Muslims among the Arab League nations. Elections also have been held by the Palestinians and, on the local level, in Saudi Arabia - and Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is promising a multi-candidate election for president.
But the mood was defensive among the 13 heads of state from the Arab League's 22 members who attended the summit. Other leaders stayed away because of health reasons or personal disputes, sending lower-level representatives.
The host, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, rejected U.S. pressure for democratic reform in the Middle East - a region where most countries are dominated by autocratic regimes.
He said Arab nations are making changes at their own pace. "These reforms were not and will not be imposed on us. We implemented them willingly and out of conviction," he said.
At last year's summit, the leaders said they would sign a pledge on democratic reform, but that never took place.
Ahead of this summit, Arab leaders rejected a Jordanian proposal for a sharp change in the Arab strategy in dealing with Israel, offering the Jewish state normal relations without it first returning land as Arab nations have traditionally demanded.
"This shouldn't be," Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said. "It should be commitment for commitment. Then we can reach a balanced peace and close the issues of the conflict in order to establish relations in parallel with the withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Still, several Arab nations, particularly Morocco, Qatar and Oman, are considering reviving or upgrading ties with Israel.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the only way to solve Arab-Israeli difference is through negotiations. "A position that says we will not talk to you until we solve all the problems is self defeating," he said.
The two-day summit, which ends Wednesday, is expected to reiterate a Saudi Arabian peace initiative, first approved in 2002, that offers diplomatic relations with Israel only in exchange for its full withdrawal from occupied Arab territory, the creation of a Palestinian state and settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue.
Iraq heard words of support, but no solid gestures of help. "Iraq is threatened in its stability and lives in a situation where Arab help is needed," Moussa said.
This from the AP: ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday that Syria's president has agreed to present a firm timetable by early April for a full withdrawal of his country's troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon.
Annan announced the commitment from President Bashar Assad after talking with the Syrian leader on the sidelines of the Arab League summit where the region's leaders largely sought to skirt the major issues facing the Middle East.
"The withdrawal has begun and it continues," Annan told reporters. "He's working out a timetable in consultation with the Lebanese authorities and will withdraw his troops completely into Syrian territory. Not just the troops but also the security service, as well as all the logistical and material equipment to Syria."
In recent weeks, Syria has pulled back its troops and intelligence agents into eastern Lebanon toward the border, while facing strong international pressure and widespread street protests in Lebanon demanding a withdrawal from the neighboring nation it has dominated for decades.
"We are going to work with him to ensure that it is done," Annan said.
Syria suggested previously that a date for a full withdrawal would be set at an April 7 meeting between Syrian and Lebanese military officers.
Officials of Lebanon's pro-Syria government have said 4,000 of the 10,000 soldiers that Syria had in Lebanon already have left the country and the others are now concentrated in the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon.
Besides the turmoil in Lebanon, the Arab world has seen signs of other deep-running change in recent months.
After national elections, Iraqis are struggling to put together a new government, one that will likely be the only one led by Shiite Muslims among the Arab League nations. Elections also have been held by the Palestinians and, on the local level, in Saudi Arabia - and Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is promising a multi-candidate election for president.
But the mood was defensive among the 13 heads of state from the Arab League's 22 members who attended the summit. Other leaders stayed away because of health reasons or personal disputes, sending lower-level representatives.
The host, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, rejected U.S. pressure for democratic reform in the Middle East - a region where most countries are dominated by autocratic regimes.
He said Arab nations are making changes at their own pace. "These reforms were not and will not be imposed on us. We implemented them willingly and out of conviction," he said.
At last year's summit, the leaders said they would sign a pledge on democratic reform, but that never took place.
Ahead of this summit, Arab leaders rejected a Jordanian proposal for a sharp change in the Arab strategy in dealing with Israel, offering the Jewish state normal relations without it first returning land as Arab nations have traditionally demanded.
"This shouldn't be," Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said. "It should be commitment for commitment. Then we can reach a balanced peace and close the issues of the conflict in order to establish relations in parallel with the withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Still, several Arab nations, particularly Morocco, Qatar and Oman, are considering reviving or upgrading ties with Israel.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the only way to solve Arab-Israeli difference is through negotiations. "A position that says we will not talk to you until we solve all the problems is self defeating," he said.
The two-day summit, which ends Wednesday, is expected to reiterate a Saudi Arabian peace initiative, first approved in 2002, that offers diplomatic relations with Israel only in exchange for its full withdrawal from occupied Arab territory, the creation of a Palestinian state and settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue.
Iraq heard words of support, but no solid gestures of help. "Iraq is threatened in its stability and lives in a situation where Arab help is needed," Moussa said.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Terry Schiavo and Naked Republican Politics
The Republicans in congress have committed an unforgivable sin. I can tolerate a certain amount of cynicism in our government and I can live with being lied to. What I won’t accept is blatant disregard for the law they are sworn to uphold. This is a representative democracy and when our representatives brazenly disregard our constitution there can be no recourse but to vote the bums out of office. On March 21, 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law a bill passed by the U.S. Congress that morning, which allows the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, to be placed under federal review. This act of interference on the part of Republicans in congress flies in the face of the separation of powers and the right of individuals to make personal decisions without the federal government doing exactly what it’s not supposed to do.
I tend not to cover personal interest stories in my writing space because for the most part, they just don’t pique my interest. I work in a field where I see men, women and children brutalized on a daily basis. I’ve worked with children who’ve seen one parent murdered by another or have been molested, or whom have suffered any number of horrific attacks. One child I remember was beaten about the head by her father with a wrench and needed to have her skull restructured. That little girl is blind in one eye today because of that but you’ll never hear about on the news. When you work in field that deals with man’s inhumanity to man on a daily basis, Lacey Peterson et al. becomes less interesting. The fixation on one particularly horrific case only makes me wonder why that one stands out and not the innumerable ones I see every day. With that said, until today I hadn’t been paying much mind to the tragic Terry Schiavo case. I figured that this matter will flow through our legal system and for better or for worse justice will be done so I felt my time was better spent watching the China-Taiwan situation.
However, as I was watching Studio-B with Shepard Smith today I was drawn into the finer points of the case as they relate to this weekends flash session regarding Mrs. Schiavo. Newshounds.us summed up the segment for me between Smith and Fox News Legal Analyst Judge Napolitano: “At one point Judge Napolitano said that the law that Congress just passed was "Unconstitutional and unprecedented in our history."
Later in the segment Napolitano explained that one of two things would now happen. He said that 1) The law would be declared unconstitutional or 2) The judge would look at everything that the state courts had looked at (which he said would take a considerable amount of time and would offer a temporary reinsertion of the feeding tube) and it would follow the same course that the state law had - it would then go to the Federal Appellate Courts in Atlanta, and to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said this second option would still have the same outcome - the law would be found unconstitutional.”
This is no longer a personal interest story. As of today this has become a story about congressional Republicans and their naked disregard for our laws. The fact of the matter is that Congress had no right to insert themselves into the business of this case. As I have understood it, the law states that where a living will is not present, the legal guardian of an incapacitated person, in this case the spouse, Mr. Schiavo, has the final say over his wife’s medical treatment. In the 15 years since this woman has been in a “vegetative state,” every court that has heard the grievances of Mrs. Schiavo’s family has upheld Mr. Schiavo’s right to ostensibly end her life by removing her feeding tube. No court has found Mr. Schiavo to be conducting the business of his wife’s well-being with malicious intent, which would disqualify him for having a say the decision to keep her alive or not. In the 15 years since this woman collapsed the matter has flowed through our legal system, such as it is, and in every case the finding’s favored Mr. Schiavo’s assertions that indeed Mrs. Schiavo wanted and has the right to die. As a simple matter of legality, this should have been an open and shut case. Once the US Supreme Court opted not to hear the case then the findings of the Florida State Supreme Court become presiding law and the matter is settled.
But the matter is not settled now is it. Christian Conservatives, who in my opinion are no better than the neo-Marxists in the Democrat Party, have decided to insert themselves in the private matters of the Schiavo family. This crowd who purports to be standing up for a, “culture of life” is demanding that their wishes, not the wishes of the legal guardian be met and because of political expediency, the congressional Republicans are too quick to oblige. First off, the whole idea of the Christian Right standing up for a “culture of life,” is so hypocritical I can barely take it seriously. These are the same people who applaud the death penalty rather than standing up for policies of prisoner rehabilitation. These are same people who are ardently against abortion but when the babies are born they turn their back on the mother’s who cannot care for their children in the first place without some assistance. There’s no compassion in these people, only blind ideology to a religion that most don’t know the first thing. It’s a crying shame that Christianity’s most supportive followers aren’t very good Christians to begin with.
What makes them even worse are the cynical politicians in the Republican Party that enable them in our national dialogue. It’s so obvious that this whole episode involving “Terry’s Law” is one giant pander-fest. The congressional Republicans figure since they can’t abolish abortion and they can’t do anything legally about the culture wars, they might as well attempt to satiate the Christian fundamentalist masses by keeping this woman alive in defiance of the laws they’re supposed to be upholding. Normally pandering to ones political base doesn’t bother me but when you manage to supercede the separation of powers that make our representative democracy work then I believe you should lose your job. Those that voted for “Terry’s Law” are bad representatives and I will not be voting for them come the mid-term elections (mind you, I’m a Republican).
This isn’t about my personal beliefs. I personally think Mr. Schiavo is suspect and his motives are suspicious. I believe when his wife’s parents offered to absorb the costs of keeping her alive he should have been gracious and granted them their wish. I don’t want Terry to die and I’m entirely consistent in my beliefs about the sanctity of life. But she isn’t my wife so my opinion, Sean Hannity’s opinion, the Christian Right’s opinion, the Pro-Choice/Right-to-Die Left’s opinion, and certainly the Congress’ opinion have absolutely no bearing on this case. Frankly, her parent’s opinion really didn’t have any place in the discussion but it was their right to try and insert themselves in the process. They were heard and they were summarily dismissed in several US Courts of Law. That’s American justice, for better or for worse. We cannot re-write our laws to accommodate one family and it is criminal to do so in order to curry favor with a bunch of zealous radicals (from either side of the political spectrum).
If I had my way every one of those Congressmen who voted for Terry’s Law would be censured. Unfortunately, according to Judge Napolitano they can’t be. All we can do, as people that actually respect the law and think it should be followed is to vote them out of office in 2006. It has become apparent to me that one party cannot be trusted to have a monopoly over the Federal Government. When that happens you get this sort of nonsense. Since I don’t trust our armed forces in the hands of Democrats, I will gladly vote Congress directly back into their hands at my first opportunity. Democracy isn’t about my personal needs, Terry’s needs or your individual needs; it’s about the greater good of the larger population. When our elected representatives start running amok and changing laws in a cynical attempt to look like they are listening to a fringe element in the national discourse then changes (however painful to me personally) have to be made.
The constitution and the law of the land is above petty politics and our own personal philosophy and should be respected as so.
I tend not to cover personal interest stories in my writing space because for the most part, they just don’t pique my interest. I work in a field where I see men, women and children brutalized on a daily basis. I’ve worked with children who’ve seen one parent murdered by another or have been molested, or whom have suffered any number of horrific attacks. One child I remember was beaten about the head by her father with a wrench and needed to have her skull restructured. That little girl is blind in one eye today because of that but you’ll never hear about on the news. When you work in field that deals with man’s inhumanity to man on a daily basis, Lacey Peterson et al. becomes less interesting. The fixation on one particularly horrific case only makes me wonder why that one stands out and not the innumerable ones I see every day. With that said, until today I hadn’t been paying much mind to the tragic Terry Schiavo case. I figured that this matter will flow through our legal system and for better or for worse justice will be done so I felt my time was better spent watching the China-Taiwan situation.
However, as I was watching Studio-B with Shepard Smith today I was drawn into the finer points of the case as they relate to this weekends flash session regarding Mrs. Schiavo. Newshounds.us summed up the segment for me between Smith and Fox News Legal Analyst Judge Napolitano: “At one point Judge Napolitano said that the law that Congress just passed was "Unconstitutional and unprecedented in our history."
Later in the segment Napolitano explained that one of two things would now happen. He said that 1) The law would be declared unconstitutional or 2) The judge would look at everything that the state courts had looked at (which he said would take a considerable amount of time and would offer a temporary reinsertion of the feeding tube) and it would follow the same course that the state law had - it would then go to the Federal Appellate Courts in Atlanta, and to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said this second option would still have the same outcome - the law would be found unconstitutional.”
This is no longer a personal interest story. As of today this has become a story about congressional Republicans and their naked disregard for our laws. The fact of the matter is that Congress had no right to insert themselves into the business of this case. As I have understood it, the law states that where a living will is not present, the legal guardian of an incapacitated person, in this case the spouse, Mr. Schiavo, has the final say over his wife’s medical treatment. In the 15 years since this woman has been in a “vegetative state,” every court that has heard the grievances of Mrs. Schiavo’s family has upheld Mr. Schiavo’s right to ostensibly end her life by removing her feeding tube. No court has found Mr. Schiavo to be conducting the business of his wife’s well-being with malicious intent, which would disqualify him for having a say the decision to keep her alive or not. In the 15 years since this woman collapsed the matter has flowed through our legal system, such as it is, and in every case the finding’s favored Mr. Schiavo’s assertions that indeed Mrs. Schiavo wanted and has the right to die. As a simple matter of legality, this should have been an open and shut case. Once the US Supreme Court opted not to hear the case then the findings of the Florida State Supreme Court become presiding law and the matter is settled.
But the matter is not settled now is it. Christian Conservatives, who in my opinion are no better than the neo-Marxists in the Democrat Party, have decided to insert themselves in the private matters of the Schiavo family. This crowd who purports to be standing up for a, “culture of life” is demanding that their wishes, not the wishes of the legal guardian be met and because of political expediency, the congressional Republicans are too quick to oblige. First off, the whole idea of the Christian Right standing up for a “culture of life,” is so hypocritical I can barely take it seriously. These are the same people who applaud the death penalty rather than standing up for policies of prisoner rehabilitation. These are same people who are ardently against abortion but when the babies are born they turn their back on the mother’s who cannot care for their children in the first place without some assistance. There’s no compassion in these people, only blind ideology to a religion that most don’t know the first thing. It’s a crying shame that Christianity’s most supportive followers aren’t very good Christians to begin with.
What makes them even worse are the cynical politicians in the Republican Party that enable them in our national dialogue. It’s so obvious that this whole episode involving “Terry’s Law” is one giant pander-fest. The congressional Republicans figure since they can’t abolish abortion and they can’t do anything legally about the culture wars, they might as well attempt to satiate the Christian fundamentalist masses by keeping this woman alive in defiance of the laws they’re supposed to be upholding. Normally pandering to ones political base doesn’t bother me but when you manage to supercede the separation of powers that make our representative democracy work then I believe you should lose your job. Those that voted for “Terry’s Law” are bad representatives and I will not be voting for them come the mid-term elections (mind you, I’m a Republican).
This isn’t about my personal beliefs. I personally think Mr. Schiavo is suspect and his motives are suspicious. I believe when his wife’s parents offered to absorb the costs of keeping her alive he should have been gracious and granted them their wish. I don’t want Terry to die and I’m entirely consistent in my beliefs about the sanctity of life. But she isn’t my wife so my opinion, Sean Hannity’s opinion, the Christian Right’s opinion, the Pro-Choice/Right-to-Die Left’s opinion, and certainly the Congress’ opinion have absolutely no bearing on this case. Frankly, her parent’s opinion really didn’t have any place in the discussion but it was their right to try and insert themselves in the process. They were heard and they were summarily dismissed in several US Courts of Law. That’s American justice, for better or for worse. We cannot re-write our laws to accommodate one family and it is criminal to do so in order to curry favor with a bunch of zealous radicals (from either side of the political spectrum).
If I had my way every one of those Congressmen who voted for Terry’s Law would be censured. Unfortunately, according to Judge Napolitano they can’t be. All we can do, as people that actually respect the law and think it should be followed is to vote them out of office in 2006. It has become apparent to me that one party cannot be trusted to have a monopoly over the Federal Government. When that happens you get this sort of nonsense. Since I don’t trust our armed forces in the hands of Democrats, I will gladly vote Congress directly back into their hands at my first opportunity. Democracy isn’t about my personal needs, Terry’s needs or your individual needs; it’s about the greater good of the larger population. When our elected representatives start running amok and changing laws in a cynical attempt to look like they are listening to a fringe element in the national discourse then changes (however painful to me personally) have to be made.
The constitution and the law of the land is above petty politics and our own personal philosophy and should be respected as so.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Chirac told to speak up for EU constitution
Now this is interesting. Much of the debate regarding the role of the US in world affairs revolves around what its done wrong and how it needs to reform. We seldom hear about the inter-political trials and tribulations among Europeans with their own governments. This article talks about the people of France most likely voting down a European Union constitution somewhat as a sign against a few current French domestic policies. The article goes on to say that if the French do vote the EU constitution down, then that will set the EU back an inestimable amount time to formally come to the table of world leaders.
Here's my thinking on this; if the population of Europe can't melt together enough to form a cohesive military, diplomatic and economic entity then how is it supposed to maintain order in the face of deals made with nations such as Iran? If the EU makes a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons and the Iranians turn around and break the deal (like N. Korea did with the US) how will they then enforce punishments for breaking said deal? How will they hold Iran or any number of countries accountable if they can't even put forward their own constitution.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of an EU and though their interests sometimes run counter to our own I think the US needs an international opposition party to keep it from going neo-con crazy. However, they are demanding an equal seat at the table without the means of enforcing said demands. Now if I see this, I'm sure the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese and Venezuelans see it too. All I'm asking for here is a bit of consistency on the part of the Europeans. Nobody would take the US seriously if it were making demands on other countries while interminably squabbling over its own constitution. From the EU their demands will only be empty threats until greater cohesion is achieved.
This from the Financial Times: President Jacques Chirac of France was under pressure on Sunday night to get more involved in campaigning for a Yes vote in May's referendum on the European constitution as a second opinion poll in a week showed hardening public opposition to the treaty.
In a poll to be published in Le Figaro on Monday, 52 per cent of those who said they planned to vote in the referendum on May 29 are against the treaty, compared with 40 per cent in early March. The poll, conducted by Ipsos on Friday and Saturday, follows a poll by Le Parisien published on Friday showing for the first time a majority against the constitution.
A No vote by France to the treaty would almost certainly kill the constitution and plunge the EU into crisis. The treaty needs to be ratified by all 25 member states, and a French rejection would leave the EU facing the dilemma of how to move forward.
On Sunday party leaders called on Mr Chirac to increase his efforts to persuade voters to vote Yes. François Bayrou, the leader of the UDF, said yesterday: “Faced with a choice of this magnitude, the president is obliged to speak up.” François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist party, has also called on the president to make his views clearer.
The decline in support recorded in the Ipsos poll of 860 people was sharp among leftwing voters.
The president has remained largely distant from the campaign. On Friday he said he still believed France would back the charter. But it is clear that the constitution is becoming a focal point for general dissatisfaction with the government. The past month has seen a series of strikes and demonstrations against reform of the 35-hour week and an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly around 10 per cent. Some opposition to the treaty is also caught up with the debate on Turkey's eventual entry to the EU.
“Some will vote against the referendum for reasons that have nothing to do with the referendum,” said one senior government adviser. “It shows there is a growing gap between the establishment and the man and woman in the street. A No could increase the fragility of the country because of this gap.”
Since France is a founder member of the EU and the constitution was drafted by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a former president, a No vote would be also damning indictment of the growing distance between the EU and its citizens.
Without the constitution, the EU would be left with an outdated and complicated voting system and would be less able to act on the world stage: plans to create an EU foreign minister and full-time president would collapse.
The constitution also aims to involve national parliaments more in EU decision-making and to give the EU a greater role in the fields of asylum and immigration and judicial co-operation.
Here's my thinking on this; if the population of Europe can't melt together enough to form a cohesive military, diplomatic and economic entity then how is it supposed to maintain order in the face of deals made with nations such as Iran? If the EU makes a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons and the Iranians turn around and break the deal (like N. Korea did with the US) how will they then enforce punishments for breaking said deal? How will they hold Iran or any number of countries accountable if they can't even put forward their own constitution.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of an EU and though their interests sometimes run counter to our own I think the US needs an international opposition party to keep it from going neo-con crazy. However, they are demanding an equal seat at the table without the means of enforcing said demands. Now if I see this, I'm sure the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese and Venezuelans see it too. All I'm asking for here is a bit of consistency on the part of the Europeans. Nobody would take the US seriously if it were making demands on other countries while interminably squabbling over its own constitution. From the EU their demands will only be empty threats until greater cohesion is achieved.
This from the Financial Times: President Jacques Chirac of France was under pressure on Sunday night to get more involved in campaigning for a Yes vote in May's referendum on the European constitution as a second opinion poll in a week showed hardening public opposition to the treaty.
In a poll to be published in Le Figaro on Monday, 52 per cent of those who said they planned to vote in the referendum on May 29 are against the treaty, compared with 40 per cent in early March. The poll, conducted by Ipsos on Friday and Saturday, follows a poll by Le Parisien published on Friday showing for the first time a majority against the constitution.
A No vote by France to the treaty would almost certainly kill the constitution and plunge the EU into crisis. The treaty needs to be ratified by all 25 member states, and a French rejection would leave the EU facing the dilemma of how to move forward.
On Sunday party leaders called on Mr Chirac to increase his efforts to persuade voters to vote Yes. François Bayrou, the leader of the UDF, said yesterday: “Faced with a choice of this magnitude, the president is obliged to speak up.” François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist party, has also called on the president to make his views clearer.
The decline in support recorded in the Ipsos poll of 860 people was sharp among leftwing voters.
The president has remained largely distant from the campaign. On Friday he said he still believed France would back the charter. But it is clear that the constitution is becoming a focal point for general dissatisfaction with the government. The past month has seen a series of strikes and demonstrations against reform of the 35-hour week and an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly around 10 per cent. Some opposition to the treaty is also caught up with the debate on Turkey's eventual entry to the EU.
“Some will vote against the referendum for reasons that have nothing to do with the referendum,” said one senior government adviser. “It shows there is a growing gap between the establishment and the man and woman in the street. A No could increase the fragility of the country because of this gap.”
Since France is a founder member of the EU and the constitution was drafted by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a former president, a No vote would be also damning indictment of the growing distance between the EU and its citizens.
Without the constitution, the EU would be left with an outdated and complicated voting system and would be less able to act on the world stage: plans to create an EU foreign minister and full-time president would collapse.
The constitution also aims to involve national parliaments more in EU decision-making and to give the EU a greater role in the fields of asylum and immigration and judicial co-operation.
Friday, March 18, 2005
NY health report: Poor Women Die Younger
{This is a guest post by weekly contributors, Caregiver Credit.org. This week features a column by Theresa Funiciello, author of, "Tyranny of Kindness: Dismantling the Welfare system To End Poverty in America", Atlantic Monthly Press, New York 1994}
How do I kill thee? Let me count the ways. In "Poor Women Die Sooner" last Tuesday, the New York Daily News covered a Health Department report stating that poor women die younger than non-poor women. One reason is limited access to preventive care. For instance, even if you have insurance, you may not be able to afford travel to get mammograms. If your neighborhood is poor it’s likely to lack information on the importance of preventive care. These factors are a function of poverty – a problem that neither the city or state or nation have tried to address for forty years.
"Blame the victim" hypotheses in the report are more red- herring than fact. Take the issue of exercise, which non-poor women do more often than poor ones. This implies inactivity on the part of poor women. Three decades ago I was a welfare mother. No paying job or exercise is more totally demanding than being a poor single mother. Cooking with cheap "stick" pans. Cleaning without a vacuum. Hefting kids and schlepping laundry/groceries ten blocks because there are no laundromats/supermarkets closer. Not only mothers, but poor grandmothers and even great grandmothers are more likely to be caring for children than affluent ones. Forget time for exercise.
In 1970, the welfare grant in New York brought incomes for poor families to a smidgeon above the poverty line. Together with food stamps, families were managing. Today, the same welfare grant for a mother and two children buys less than half what it was intended to cover, placing a three-person family at forty-three percent of the $16,090 poverty line, or $6,924 a year. No family with a $35,000 annual income can imagine living on forty-three percent, or $15,500.
Though food stamps were raised episodically to keep pace with inflation, they haven’t actually done so. Most of a growing child’s food needs have to come from the welfare grant. Can’t afford to buy lean or even fresh meat. Ditto on vegetables. Only high fat or highly processed almost nutrient-free carbs, etc. Can’t buy half a phone, pay half the rent. Welfare costs
taxpayers as much as ever. But poor mothers are not getting any more than they did a decade ago, even though only about one third of the people are on the rolls. Where’s that beef?
Since welfare "reform," mothers are forced into short term, low-pay, no-benefit jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says five of the six lowest paid occupations in the nation were related to "food prep and serving" (think fast food and plucking chickens). Guess what jobs welfare mothers get?
Then there is the no-job job. Through "welfare reform," mothers who can’t get paying jobs are required to go to a "job" center to sit idly every day. The centers have no place to send them. If a mother brings a sick child to the "job" center, her welfare grant will be cut. Taking care of her own kid at home isn’t allowed, either.
Poor women do die younger. Blaming the victim got us welfare "deform." Now’s the time to try the outcry thing.
How do I kill thee? Let me count the ways. In "Poor Women Die Sooner" last Tuesday, the New York Daily News covered a Health Department report stating that poor women die younger than non-poor women. One reason is limited access to preventive care. For instance, even if you have insurance, you may not be able to afford travel to get mammograms. If your neighborhood is poor it’s likely to lack information on the importance of preventive care. These factors are a function of poverty – a problem that neither the city or state or nation have tried to address for forty years.
"Blame the victim" hypotheses in the report are more red- herring than fact. Take the issue of exercise, which non-poor women do more often than poor ones. This implies inactivity on the part of poor women. Three decades ago I was a welfare mother. No paying job or exercise is more totally demanding than being a poor single mother. Cooking with cheap "stick" pans. Cleaning without a vacuum. Hefting kids and schlepping laundry/groceries ten blocks because there are no laundromats/supermarkets closer. Not only mothers, but poor grandmothers and even great grandmothers are more likely to be caring for children than affluent ones. Forget time for exercise.
In 1970, the welfare grant in New York brought incomes for poor families to a smidgeon above the poverty line. Together with food stamps, families were managing. Today, the same welfare grant for a mother and two children buys less than half what it was intended to cover, placing a three-person family at forty-three percent of the $16,090 poverty line, or $6,924 a year. No family with a $35,000 annual income can imagine living on forty-three percent, or $15,500.
Though food stamps were raised episodically to keep pace with inflation, they haven’t actually done so. Most of a growing child’s food needs have to come from the welfare grant. Can’t afford to buy lean or even fresh meat. Ditto on vegetables. Only high fat or highly processed almost nutrient-free carbs, etc. Can’t buy half a phone, pay half the rent. Welfare costs
taxpayers as much as ever. But poor mothers are not getting any more than they did a decade ago, even though only about one third of the people are on the rolls. Where’s that beef?
Since welfare "reform," mothers are forced into short term, low-pay, no-benefit jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says five of the six lowest paid occupations in the nation were related to "food prep and serving" (think fast food and plucking chickens). Guess what jobs welfare mothers get?
Then there is the no-job job. Through "welfare reform," mothers who can’t get paying jobs are required to go to a "job" center to sit idly every day. The centers have no place to send them. If a mother brings a sick child to the "job" center, her welfare grant will be cut. Taking care of her own kid at home isn’t allowed, either.
Poor women do die younger. Blaming the victim got us welfare "deform." Now’s the time to try the outcry thing.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Phantom Menace
Before Germany invaded Poland nobody thought that there would ever be another World War. The powers that be figured that if they gave in to enough of Hitler's demands he eventually would be placated and war would have been averted. History has taught us that if you give an inch, dictators take a mile.
Two stories from Xinhuanet.com remind me of pre-war Europe. The first refers to Russia and China executing joint military exercises:
BEIJING, March 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Visiting Russian army chief said here Thursday that the preparing Russian and Chinese joint military exercise is not targeted at any third country.
"The first joint military exercise is a new way of cooperation between the two militaries," said Yury Baluyevsky, Russian chief of general staff, who is on his first trip abroad since he took upthe post last July.
Instead of being targeted at any third country, the exercise scheduled to take place in autumn this year is aimed at "improvingthe training capabilities of the two militaries and boosting theircooperation," Baluyevsky told reporters after meeting with his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie Thursday afternoon.
Baluyevsky will also meet with Chinese state and military leaders Friday before he leaves Beijing for Sanya, a seaside resort in southern Hainan Province.
He said that the two sides have some details to further discuss.
Russia and China also agreed on the make-up of the troop, arms and equipment and military methods involved in the training.
"Russian paratroopers, marines and other forces will take part in the exercise," he said.
Russian and Chinese military leaders are also expected to attend this exercise.]
This wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't followed by this story:
BEIJING, March 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia is against any secessionistactivities of "Taiwan Independence" in any form and will stick to the one-China policy, said Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky here Thursday.
Baluyevsky made the remarks during a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie. He arrived this morning, three days after the country's parliament approved the Anti-Secession Law aimed at preventing "Taiwan independence" from the country.
The two army chiefs also highlighted the importance of cooperation between the two armies.
Building and developing the Sino-Russian strategic partnership of cooperation is the choice of both nations and Russia's strategic target, Baluyevsky said, adding that Russia is willing to work with China to further the strategic partnership after the two countries and armies have scored closer ties and fruitful cooperation in recent years.
Liang said strengthening cooperation between the two armies is an important part in furthering the partnership, which has maintained a good momentum for many years. In recent years, he said, high-level visits between the two armies have been frequent and exchanges in all fields effective.]
I know I've beaten this drum before and people have commented back saying that both China and Russia have to much invested in the US to start a war. Maybe, maybe not. A year ago I would have agreed but the world is changing and hubris is rising. Iran fancies itself a Middle Eastern regional power, who is to say China and Russia don't see themselves as supplanting the US as a joint world-wide hyperpower. I'll be keeping an eye on situation as best I can but I would prefer not to be in the position of saying, "I told you so." On this subject, I would prefer to be dead wrong.
Two stories from Xinhuanet.com remind me of pre-war Europe. The first refers to Russia and China executing joint military exercises:
BEIJING, March 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Visiting Russian army chief said here Thursday that the preparing Russian and Chinese joint military exercise is not targeted at any third country.
"The first joint military exercise is a new way of cooperation between the two militaries," said Yury Baluyevsky, Russian chief of general staff, who is on his first trip abroad since he took upthe post last July.
Instead of being targeted at any third country, the exercise scheduled to take place in autumn this year is aimed at "improvingthe training capabilities of the two militaries and boosting theircooperation," Baluyevsky told reporters after meeting with his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie Thursday afternoon.
Baluyevsky will also meet with Chinese state and military leaders Friday before he leaves Beijing for Sanya, a seaside resort in southern Hainan Province.
He said that the two sides have some details to further discuss.
Russia and China also agreed on the make-up of the troop, arms and equipment and military methods involved in the training.
"Russian paratroopers, marines and other forces will take part in the exercise," he said.
Russian and Chinese military leaders are also expected to attend this exercise.]
This wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't followed by this story:
BEIJING, March 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia is against any secessionistactivities of "Taiwan Independence" in any form and will stick to the one-China policy, said Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky here Thursday.
Baluyevsky made the remarks during a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie. He arrived this morning, three days after the country's parliament approved the Anti-Secession Law aimed at preventing "Taiwan independence" from the country.
The two army chiefs also highlighted the importance of cooperation between the two armies.
Building and developing the Sino-Russian strategic partnership of cooperation is the choice of both nations and Russia's strategic target, Baluyevsky said, adding that Russia is willing to work with China to further the strategic partnership after the two countries and armies have scored closer ties and fruitful cooperation in recent years.
Liang said strengthening cooperation between the two armies is an important part in furthering the partnership, which has maintained a good momentum for many years. In recent years, he said, high-level visits between the two armies have been frequent and exchanges in all fields effective.]
I know I've beaten this drum before and people have commented back saying that both China and Russia have to much invested in the US to start a war. Maybe, maybe not. A year ago I would have agreed but the world is changing and hubris is rising. Iran fancies itself a Middle Eastern regional power, who is to say China and Russia don't see themselves as supplanting the US as a joint world-wide hyperpower. I'll be keeping an eye on situation as best I can but I would prefer not to be in the position of saying, "I told you so." On this subject, I would prefer to be dead wrong.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Mind & Media: Publicity Uniting Bloggers, Authors, Publishers and More
{I've just begun a new book review venture in association with Mind and Media. However, if you are interested, this is the letter she sent out looking for additional reviewers.}
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to take a moment to invite all of you to check out my blog Mind &
Media with the purpose of hoping you will join me in my new adventure.
I started Mind & Media to promote bloggers and the power and influence we
all have. I have targeted primarily Christian publishers at this point,
although I am open to all type of books.
I now have a number of books and a few upcoming DVD's I'll be promoting and
I want to invite you all to become an Exclusive Mind & Media Reviewer.
Here's what's you get:
1. YOU will get a free copy of the books/dvd that I am promoting.
Currently I have non-fiction, and fiction books available.
2. YOU will become known as a partner with Mind & Media and known as a
trusted and valued reviewer.
3. YOU will be the first to know what books are going to be promoted, which
will give you first dibs on the material you like.
4. YOU will have access to any author you'd like to interview so you can do
Exclusive interviews on your website.
5. You're link will be on the Mind & Media website under a section that I
will be putting up soon. This will give you more traffic.
Here's all I ask if you want to join.
1. You link to Mind & Media with a special graphic I have designed.
2. You review the book and the whole time you are reviewing the book
you have a link with the graphic I will provide on your blog for 30
days.
3. Sign a formal contract saying you will do these things.
4. You post about what Mind & Media is doing so other bloggers can join.
And that's it!
If you're interested, please email me and let me know. You can visit
http://mindnmedia.blogspot.com to see the current books I am promoting. Not
all of the books are up on the blog yet for review, but if you join my list
of Exclusive bloggers, you will receive updates about the latest.
This worked great with the promotion I did with Reagan: In the Face of Evil,
and I will also be doing a few films as well.
So join me today!
Thanks!
Stacy L. Harp
Owner, Mind & Media
http://mindnmedia.blogspot.com
714-244-6890
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to take a moment to invite all of you to check out my blog Mind &
Media with the purpose of hoping you will join me in my new adventure.
I started Mind & Media to promote bloggers and the power and influence we
all have. I have targeted primarily Christian publishers at this point,
although I am open to all type of books.
I now have a number of books and a few upcoming DVD's I'll be promoting and
I want to invite you all to become an Exclusive Mind & Media Reviewer.
Here's what's you get:
1. YOU will get a free copy of the books/dvd that I am promoting.
Currently I have non-fiction, and fiction books available.
2. YOU will become known as a partner with Mind & Media and known as a
trusted and valued reviewer.
3. YOU will be the first to know what books are going to be promoted, which
will give you first dibs on the material you like.
4. YOU will have access to any author you'd like to interview so you can do
Exclusive interviews on your website.
5. You're link will be on the Mind & Media website under a section that I
will be putting up soon. This will give you more traffic.
Here's all I ask if you want to join.
1. You link to Mind & Media with a special graphic I have designed.
2. You review the book and the whole time you are reviewing the book
you have a link with the graphic I will provide on your blog for 30
days.
3. Sign a formal contract saying you will do these things.
4. You post about what Mind & Media is doing so other bloggers can join.
And that's it!
If you're interested, please email me and let me know. You can visit
http://mindnmedia.blogspot.com to see the current books I am promoting. Not
all of the books are up on the blog yet for review, but if you join my list
of Exclusive bloggers, you will receive updates about the latest.
This worked great with the promotion I did with Reagan: In the Face of Evil,
and I will also be doing a few films as well.
So join me today!
Thanks!
Stacy L. Harp
Owner, Mind & Media
http://mindnmedia.blogspot.com
714-244-6890
Iran offers US share in nuclear programme: report
Nice play by the Iranians. This is an interesting opprotunity if the Iranians are serious. They are asking to be recognized as a regional power in exchange for thawed tensions and a 50-50 share of their nuclear program. I think the US should take them up on it. It gets us back in the country, it will show that, at least on the surface, we're not the would-be imperialist Chavez et. al. have made us out to be and it would rebrand us a country that is backing the multipolar world the Europe has been craving. Once we're in there and we start meding ties we might even get Iran to back away from Israel via Hezbollah.
However, this could absolutely be a ruse but if it is and we're in the country already then we'll have the moral authority to attack if something goes drastically wrong a la the Iranian Revolution. In a weird way it's kind of win-win for us from a leverage point of view. This from Reuters:
LONDON - Iran is prepared to offer the United States a half share in any future nuclear programme to demonstrate it is not pursuing atomic weapons, a senior Iranian official was quoted on Wednesday as saying.
The Financial Times said it was unclear how far the remarks of Hossein Kazempour, Iranian governor to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and an energy adviser to the government, represented the policy of Teheran.
“I am telling you that the Americans can come and have 50-50 (of an Iranian nuclear programme),” Kazempour was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
“This offer is on the table. But they have their suspicions. This could be removed by their presence (in the programme).”
US President George W. Bush has accused Iran of trying to secretly develop nuclear arms. Teheran rejects the charge and says its nuclear programme is solely for electricity generation.
The Financial Times quoted Kazempour as saying Iran was committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Washington must change its policies towards Iran and recognise Teheran as a regional power if relations were to improve.
In a policy shift last week, the United States offered Iran economic incentives to try to persuade it to scrap nuclear work which could be used to make atomic bombs.
Washington said it would drop its opposition to Iran’s membership of the World Trade Organisation and the sale of civilian aircraft parts to Teheran as part of a coordinated strategy with the European Union.
Iran has dismissed the US offer as insignificant.
Failure to abandon any sensitive nuclear activities would see Iran’s case referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, US officials say.
Washington broke ties with Iran in 1980 after its embassy in Teheran was taken over by students who held 52 captives for 444 days. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets were seized and progressively tighter restrictions imposed on US investment and the sale of US products in Iran.
Tentative rapprochements over the years have petered out quickly. Bush branded Iran part of an “axis of evil”, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism as well as secretly developing nuclear bombs.
However, this could absolutely be a ruse but if it is and we're in the country already then we'll have the moral authority to attack if something goes drastically wrong a la the Iranian Revolution. In a weird way it's kind of win-win for us from a leverage point of view. This from Reuters:
LONDON - Iran is prepared to offer the United States a half share in any future nuclear programme to demonstrate it is not pursuing atomic weapons, a senior Iranian official was quoted on Wednesday as saying.
The Financial Times said it was unclear how far the remarks of Hossein Kazempour, Iranian governor to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and an energy adviser to the government, represented the policy of Teheran.
“I am telling you that the Americans can come and have 50-50 (of an Iranian nuclear programme),” Kazempour was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
“This offer is on the table. But they have their suspicions. This could be removed by their presence (in the programme).”
US President George W. Bush has accused Iran of trying to secretly develop nuclear arms. Teheran rejects the charge and says its nuclear programme is solely for electricity generation.
The Financial Times quoted Kazempour as saying Iran was committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Washington must change its policies towards Iran and recognise Teheran as a regional power if relations were to improve.
In a policy shift last week, the United States offered Iran economic incentives to try to persuade it to scrap nuclear work which could be used to make atomic bombs.
Washington said it would drop its opposition to Iran’s membership of the World Trade Organisation and the sale of civilian aircraft parts to Teheran as part of a coordinated strategy with the European Union.
Iran has dismissed the US offer as insignificant.
Failure to abandon any sensitive nuclear activities would see Iran’s case referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, US officials say.
Washington broke ties with Iran in 1980 after its embassy in Teheran was taken over by students who held 52 captives for 444 days. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets were seized and progressively tighter restrictions imposed on US investment and the sale of US products in Iran.
Tentative rapprochements over the years have petered out quickly. Bush branded Iran part of an “axis of evil”, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism as well as secretly developing nuclear bombs.
Former WorldCom CEO Guilty on All Counts
Our justice system may stink at times but it's the best one out there. The thing I like about the United States the most is that every now and then we will eat our own, the mighty fall and yet the Republic lives on. This from tha AP:
NEW YORK (AP) - Bernard Ebbers, the once-swaggering CEO of WorldCom, was convicted Tuesday of engineering the largest corporate fraud in U.S. history - an $11 billion accounting scandal that capsized the big telecom company three years ago.
The verdict marked a colossal fall for Ebbers, who had turned a humble Mississippi long-distance provider into a global telecommunications power, swallowing up companies along the way and earning the nickname "Telecom Cowboy."
A federal jury in Manhattan returned guilty verdicts on all nine counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy and lying to regulators - a decision that could send Ebbers, 63, to prison for the rest of his life. Sentencing was set for June 13.
The former chief executive reddened deeply when the jury announced its verdict after eight days of deliberations, and his wife, Kristie, burst into tears in the courtroom's front row. Later, as his lawyer spoke outside, promising an appeal, Ebbers and his wife - nearly toppled by the enormous crew of cameras and reporters camped outside the federal courthouse - made their way to a nearby street, hailed a cab and drove away.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called the conviction a "triumph of our legal system." He said the jury had recognized that the fraud "extended from the middle management levels of this company all the way to its top executive."
In a six-week trial, prosecutors painted Ebbers as obsessed with keeping WorldCom stock high, and panicked about pressure he was getting over $400 million in personal loans that were backed by his own WorldCom shares.
From late 2000 to mid-2002, the government claimed, Ebbers intimidated chief financial officer Scott Sullivan into covering up billions of dollars in out-of-control expenses and recognizing improper revenue.
"He was WorldCom, and WorldCom was Ebbers," prosecutor William Johnson told jurors. "He built the company. He ran it. Of course he directed this fraud."
The defense claimed all along that the fraud was masterminded by Sullivan, who testified as the star government witness that Ebbers instructed him quarter after quarter to "hit our numbers" - meet Wall Street expectations.
Ebbers himself took the witness stand at trial's end and flatly denied any role in the fraud. He said he viewed his role at the company as a visionary and cheerleader, was uncomfortable with accounting and left it to Sullivan.
"He's never told me he made an (accounting) entry that wasn't right," Ebbers said of Sullivan. "If he had, we wouldn't be here today."
The largely blue-collar jury of seven women and five men considered the case for eight days, an uncommonly long deliberation for white-collar cases, but never showed signs of discord.
The jurors were ushered away from the courthouse without speaking to the media, and Judge Barbara Jones instructed reporters not to badger them.
Outside court, top defense lawyer Reid Weingarten said he was "devastated" but predicted Ebbers "will ultimately be vindicated" on appeal. He said he had no regrets about calling Ebbers to testify.
"I did not think Mr. Ebbers ever acted with criminal intent," he said. "Obviously we're disappointed by the result, but the fight will continue."
Legal experts said the appeal would be difficult. Weingarten said part of the case would center on prosecutors' refusal to grant immunity to three former WorldCom executives the defense wanted to call as witnesses.
The nine criminal counts against Ebbers - securities fraud, conspiracy and seven counts of making false filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission - carry up to 85 years in prison. He will be free on bail until sentencing.
The conviction comes more than two years after an internal auditor began asking questions about curious accounting at WorldCom, touching off a scandal that eventually unearthed $11 billion in cooked books.
NEW YORK (AP) - Bernard Ebbers, the once-swaggering CEO of WorldCom, was convicted Tuesday of engineering the largest corporate fraud in U.S. history - an $11 billion accounting scandal that capsized the big telecom company three years ago.
The verdict marked a colossal fall for Ebbers, who had turned a humble Mississippi long-distance provider into a global telecommunications power, swallowing up companies along the way and earning the nickname "Telecom Cowboy."
A federal jury in Manhattan returned guilty verdicts on all nine counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy and lying to regulators - a decision that could send Ebbers, 63, to prison for the rest of his life. Sentencing was set for June 13.
The former chief executive reddened deeply when the jury announced its verdict after eight days of deliberations, and his wife, Kristie, burst into tears in the courtroom's front row. Later, as his lawyer spoke outside, promising an appeal, Ebbers and his wife - nearly toppled by the enormous crew of cameras and reporters camped outside the federal courthouse - made their way to a nearby street, hailed a cab and drove away.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called the conviction a "triumph of our legal system." He said the jury had recognized that the fraud "extended from the middle management levels of this company all the way to its top executive."
In a six-week trial, prosecutors painted Ebbers as obsessed with keeping WorldCom stock high, and panicked about pressure he was getting over $400 million in personal loans that were backed by his own WorldCom shares.
From late 2000 to mid-2002, the government claimed, Ebbers intimidated chief financial officer Scott Sullivan into covering up billions of dollars in out-of-control expenses and recognizing improper revenue.
"He was WorldCom, and WorldCom was Ebbers," prosecutor William Johnson told jurors. "He built the company. He ran it. Of course he directed this fraud."
The defense claimed all along that the fraud was masterminded by Sullivan, who testified as the star government witness that Ebbers instructed him quarter after quarter to "hit our numbers" - meet Wall Street expectations.
Ebbers himself took the witness stand at trial's end and flatly denied any role in the fraud. He said he viewed his role at the company as a visionary and cheerleader, was uncomfortable with accounting and left it to Sullivan.
"He's never told me he made an (accounting) entry that wasn't right," Ebbers said of Sullivan. "If he had, we wouldn't be here today."
The largely blue-collar jury of seven women and five men considered the case for eight days, an uncommonly long deliberation for white-collar cases, but never showed signs of discord.
The jurors were ushered away from the courthouse without speaking to the media, and Judge Barbara Jones instructed reporters not to badger them.
Outside court, top defense lawyer Reid Weingarten said he was "devastated" but predicted Ebbers "will ultimately be vindicated" on appeal. He said he had no regrets about calling Ebbers to testify.
"I did not think Mr. Ebbers ever acted with criminal intent," he said. "Obviously we're disappointed by the result, but the fight will continue."
Legal experts said the appeal would be difficult. Weingarten said part of the case would center on prosecutors' refusal to grant immunity to three former WorldCom executives the defense wanted to call as witnesses.
The nine criminal counts against Ebbers - securities fraud, conspiracy and seven counts of making false filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission - carry up to 85 years in prison. He will be free on bail until sentencing.
The conviction comes more than two years after an internal auditor began asking questions about curious accounting at WorldCom, touching off a scandal that eventually unearthed $11 billion in cooked books.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Parents, Take Back Your Children and Your Schools
There are a ton of federal programs I’d like to see cut. I dream everyday that farm subsidies will be a thing of the past and Third World countries will be able to compete in the marketplace. I pray that the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio lose their funding and those folks have to go out and get real jobs. I’ve already written about cutting NASA loose and letting space be explored by entrepreneurs instead of bureaucrats. To be frank, the only thing I want to the federal government involved with is building interstate roads and supplying our military. Other than that, I long for the days before the New Deal when the federal government at least attempted to let the states determine their own fates, for better or for worse.
One complete waste of taxpayer money is the Department of Education. “Unlike the educational system of many other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the Federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curriculum or educational standards. Rather, the primary function of the United States Department of Education is to administer federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws involved with privacy and civil rights. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal process known as accreditation which the Department of Education has no direct control over.”
So essentially we’ve created a bureaucracy that funds institutions across the states but does not have the ability to hold said institutions accountable. This is the same sort of thing that defined welfare for far too many years. The Democratic Party preyed upon people’s impressions of poverty and demanded obscene amounts of money to fund programs that didn’t work and would never work from what must have seemed like an infinite well of taxpayer dough. That same mentality is what has defined funding of our public schools.
The fact of the matter is that every year that passes the Department of Education along with the school boards and the Teachers Union continue to invalidate the role of the parent and the parent in turn gladly removes themselves from their role in guiding their children’s education. In short, the federal government is attempting to become more of a parent to the nations children while the parent takes a siesta. In the end this arrangement is sending the performance and intelligence of our children down the toilet.
I see it everyday when I go to work. I see parents, single mothers mostly, attempting to raise their children and reconcile their mistakes as best they can. They rely heavily on the schools to co-parent with them and the schools are only too happy to oblige. However, that’s not the role of school. Parents have to do the work themselves and stop relying on the federal government via teachers, social workers, police officers, etc., to be the parent they can’t bring themselves to be. The kind that takes an interest in their child 24 hours a day instead of whenever the mood suits them.
Meanwhile, as stated above, the Department of Education and public schools in general need to be mothballed. They have outlived their usefulness. There are several alternative solutions that every member of society can utilize if we’d only stop reinforcing this co-dependant behavior. I think the rules of the marketplace should absolutely be applied to the education system. First, get the federal government out of it entirely. Life works much better when local governments work directly with their constituents rather than invoking this big hulking mammoth of a disconnected bureaucracy to settle issues it cannot possibly comprehend or do anything constructive about.
With the DOE unable to muck things up, you have the option of employing several ideas. Obviously the most talked about strategy for improving education is the school voucher program. Parents have to take a direct interest in where their children go to school and they should be given the opportunity to shop around for competent districts rather than be herded into failing ones. Again, we should let the marketplace decide which schools stay and which ones go instead of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of the Teachers Union. Funding for the school vouchers should come in the form of tax-credits or negative income for parents who don’t make enough money to send their children to private schools on their own. We don’t need a new bureaucracy for that and not having to pay for the old one would free up plenty of money.
Part of “No Child Left Behind” allows for the conversion of charter schools from public schools that have failed their students. While I think said Act is ridiculous and misses the larger point of what is going wrong in public schools, this idea of school conversions needs to be implemented across the board. Every school (except elementary schools) should be a charter or private school, which would command the rules of the business world thus ultimately being better, as capitalism usually is, for our children. This would also effectively kill the Teachers Union, which in my opinion has done more damage to the profession than it has benefited it. Having been a teacher myself in the Los Angeles Unified School District for a period of time, believe me, I saw this nonsense first hand.
For those of you that cannot imagine a world where the federal government doesn’t insert itself where it truly doesn’t belong, there is another suggestion. I am aware that even with tax-incentive vouchers, scholarships, etc., many students will not make it to a private institution for a variety of reasons. Programs such as the ones I’m describing would have a difficult time penetrating the lowest-income sections of our cities and rural areas. Here I would suggest letting the federal government do what it does best and allow the armed forces to set up training academies in place of public schools. Essentially it would be sleep-away private school with all the benefits getting kids out of the environments that aren’t conducive to learning in the first place. If certain parents are going to drop their kids on the steps of City Hall and say that the “government” should parent for them then let the best institution have a crack at it. Military institutions are the only federal programs that can parent effectively when the parents themselves simply cannot function in that capacity.
In my opinion, these are the choices in front of today’s American parents; step up and become invested in your child’s education or stand back and let the military have them. Either way, the system we have now isn’t helping anyone. We continue to burn money on a failed system while our children become less educated and more obstinate.
One complete waste of taxpayer money is the Department of Education. “Unlike the educational system of many other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the Federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curriculum or educational standards. Rather, the primary function of the United States Department of Education is to administer federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws involved with privacy and civil rights. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal process known as accreditation which the Department of Education has no direct control over.”
So essentially we’ve created a bureaucracy that funds institutions across the states but does not have the ability to hold said institutions accountable. This is the same sort of thing that defined welfare for far too many years. The Democratic Party preyed upon people’s impressions of poverty and demanded obscene amounts of money to fund programs that didn’t work and would never work from what must have seemed like an infinite well of taxpayer dough. That same mentality is what has defined funding of our public schools.
The fact of the matter is that every year that passes the Department of Education along with the school boards and the Teachers Union continue to invalidate the role of the parent and the parent in turn gladly removes themselves from their role in guiding their children’s education. In short, the federal government is attempting to become more of a parent to the nations children while the parent takes a siesta. In the end this arrangement is sending the performance and intelligence of our children down the toilet.
I see it everyday when I go to work. I see parents, single mothers mostly, attempting to raise their children and reconcile their mistakes as best they can. They rely heavily on the schools to co-parent with them and the schools are only too happy to oblige. However, that’s not the role of school. Parents have to do the work themselves and stop relying on the federal government via teachers, social workers, police officers, etc., to be the parent they can’t bring themselves to be. The kind that takes an interest in their child 24 hours a day instead of whenever the mood suits them.
Meanwhile, as stated above, the Department of Education and public schools in general need to be mothballed. They have outlived their usefulness. There are several alternative solutions that every member of society can utilize if we’d only stop reinforcing this co-dependant behavior. I think the rules of the marketplace should absolutely be applied to the education system. First, get the federal government out of it entirely. Life works much better when local governments work directly with their constituents rather than invoking this big hulking mammoth of a disconnected bureaucracy to settle issues it cannot possibly comprehend or do anything constructive about.
With the DOE unable to muck things up, you have the option of employing several ideas. Obviously the most talked about strategy for improving education is the school voucher program. Parents have to take a direct interest in where their children go to school and they should be given the opportunity to shop around for competent districts rather than be herded into failing ones. Again, we should let the marketplace decide which schools stay and which ones go instead of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of the Teachers Union. Funding for the school vouchers should come in the form of tax-credits or negative income for parents who don’t make enough money to send their children to private schools on their own. We don’t need a new bureaucracy for that and not having to pay for the old one would free up plenty of money.
Part of “No Child Left Behind” allows for the conversion of charter schools from public schools that have failed their students. While I think said Act is ridiculous and misses the larger point of what is going wrong in public schools, this idea of school conversions needs to be implemented across the board. Every school (except elementary schools) should be a charter or private school, which would command the rules of the business world thus ultimately being better, as capitalism usually is, for our children. This would also effectively kill the Teachers Union, which in my opinion has done more damage to the profession than it has benefited it. Having been a teacher myself in the Los Angeles Unified School District for a period of time, believe me, I saw this nonsense first hand.
For those of you that cannot imagine a world where the federal government doesn’t insert itself where it truly doesn’t belong, there is another suggestion. I am aware that even with tax-incentive vouchers, scholarships, etc., many students will not make it to a private institution for a variety of reasons. Programs such as the ones I’m describing would have a difficult time penetrating the lowest-income sections of our cities and rural areas. Here I would suggest letting the federal government do what it does best and allow the armed forces to set up training academies in place of public schools. Essentially it would be sleep-away private school with all the benefits getting kids out of the environments that aren’t conducive to learning in the first place. If certain parents are going to drop their kids on the steps of City Hall and say that the “government” should parent for them then let the best institution have a crack at it. Military institutions are the only federal programs that can parent effectively when the parents themselves simply cannot function in that capacity.
In my opinion, these are the choices in front of today’s American parents; step up and become invested in your child’s education or stand back and let the military have them. Either way, the system we have now isn’t helping anyone. We continue to burn money on a failed system while our children become less educated and more obstinate.
Monday, March 14, 2005
N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
Well, it took the NY Times long enough to report the truth. What kills me here, and I 've been saying this for about a year or more now, is that if the missing material and equipment described in this story turn up in Syria, the people who rediculed Bush for going into Iraq won't apologize or even recognize that they were the ones that were wrong and failed to see the bigger picture. This from Newsmax.com:
In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.
The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."
"Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials."
Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that "nuclear-related materials" had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision.
Quoting Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry since the 1980s, the Times said:
"It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away."
Calling the operation "sophisticated," Dr. Araji said the removal effort featured "cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," adding, "They knew what they were doing."
The top Iraqi defense official said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's WMD program.
Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.
The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said.
In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.
The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."
"Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials."
Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that "nuclear-related materials" had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision.
Quoting Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry since the 1980s, the Times said:
"It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away."
Calling the operation "sophisticated," Dr. Araji said the removal effort featured "cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," adding, "They knew what they were doing."
The top Iraqi defense official said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's WMD program.
Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.
The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said.
China Enacts Law to Stop Taiwan Secession
The drums of war are getting louder. For those of you who so heartily protested against the US invading Iraq, I hope you've got your signs ready to go against China. This from the AP:
BEIJING (AP) - China's national legislature on Monday overwhelmingly approved a law authorizing a military attack to stop Taiwan from pursuing formal independence, a day after President Hu Jintao told the 2.5 million-member People's Liberation Army to be prepared for war.
The measure was approved by a vote of 2,896 to zero, with two abstentions on the last day of the figurehead National People's Congress' annual session.
"We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars if any," the official Xinhua News Agency quoted Hu as saying Sunday.
Hu's comments, made to military delegates at the national legislature, appeared aimed at underlining Beijing's determination to unify with democratically ruled Taiwan, which split from the Chinese mainland in 1949. Delegates to the NPC burst into applause after the approval of the law, shown live on national television.
"This law ... represents the people's determination not to allow Taiwan to be separated from China by any means or any excuses," said Wu Bangguo, China's No. 2 leader and chairman of the parliament.
On Sunday, Hu was appointed as chairman of the government's Central Military Commission, a largely symbolic move that capped a generational transfer of power. He already heads a parallel party commission that runs China's military.
Hu, 62, has shown no sign of diverging from former President Jiang Zemin's hard-line stance toward Taiwan, a democratically ruled island that Beijing insists is part of the communist mainland.
The two sides split in a civil war more than 50 years ago, and Beijing has long threatened to invade if Taipei takes formal steps toward independence.
The anti-secession law passed Monday is aimed at discouraging self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory, from making its de facto independence permanent.
"We must ... always place the task of defending national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and safeguarding the interests of national development above anything else," Xinhua quoted Hu as telling military delegates to the congress.
Taiwan's government has condemned the law, saying it risks raising tensions. The United States also appealed to China not to enact the measure.
At a news conference after the measure passed, however, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao denied it was a war bill.
"This is a law advancing peaceful unification between the sides. It is not targeted at the people of Taiwan, nor is it a war bill," Wen said.
Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian has said it "enables China to unilaterally decide Taiwan's future and ignore that Taiwanese have the right to choose a democratic and free lifestyle."
After the bill passed Monday, the Japanese government's top spokesman said it could dangerously raise regional tensions.
"We are concerned about negative effects of the bill on the peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the relationship between the two sides, which had been improving," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda.
The United States would be Taiwan's most likely defender if China attacked. Washington is lobbying strongly against European Union plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo against China, arguing that high-tech European weapons might be used against Taiwanese or U.S. forces.
BEIJING (AP) - China's national legislature on Monday overwhelmingly approved a law authorizing a military attack to stop Taiwan from pursuing formal independence, a day after President Hu Jintao told the 2.5 million-member People's Liberation Army to be prepared for war.
The measure was approved by a vote of 2,896 to zero, with two abstentions on the last day of the figurehead National People's Congress' annual session.
"We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars if any," the official Xinhua News Agency quoted Hu as saying Sunday.
Hu's comments, made to military delegates at the national legislature, appeared aimed at underlining Beijing's determination to unify with democratically ruled Taiwan, which split from the Chinese mainland in 1949. Delegates to the NPC burst into applause after the approval of the law, shown live on national television.
"This law ... represents the people's determination not to allow Taiwan to be separated from China by any means or any excuses," said Wu Bangguo, China's No. 2 leader and chairman of the parliament.
On Sunday, Hu was appointed as chairman of the government's Central Military Commission, a largely symbolic move that capped a generational transfer of power. He already heads a parallel party commission that runs China's military.
Hu, 62, has shown no sign of diverging from former President Jiang Zemin's hard-line stance toward Taiwan, a democratically ruled island that Beijing insists is part of the communist mainland.
The two sides split in a civil war more than 50 years ago, and Beijing has long threatened to invade if Taipei takes formal steps toward independence.
The anti-secession law passed Monday is aimed at discouraging self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory, from making its de facto independence permanent.
"We must ... always place the task of defending national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and safeguarding the interests of national development above anything else," Xinhua quoted Hu as telling military delegates to the congress.
Taiwan's government has condemned the law, saying it risks raising tensions. The United States also appealed to China not to enact the measure.
At a news conference after the measure passed, however, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao denied it was a war bill.
"This is a law advancing peaceful unification between the sides. It is not targeted at the people of Taiwan, nor is it a war bill," Wen said.
Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian has said it "enables China to unilaterally decide Taiwan's future and ignore that Taiwanese have the right to choose a democratic and free lifestyle."
After the bill passed Monday, the Japanese government's top spokesman said it could dangerously raise regional tensions.
"We are concerned about negative effects of the bill on the peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the relationship between the two sides, which had been improving," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda.
The United States would be Taiwan's most likely defender if China attacked. Washington is lobbying strongly against European Union plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo against China, arguing that high-tech European weapons might be used against Taiwanese or U.S. forces.
Rice For President: Will She or Won’t She Run?
Americans who are hoping and praying that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will run against Senator Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of the United States of America in 2008 got very mixed messages this weekend.
The first was more or less an affirmative from the Washington Post where she told editors that she would not rule out running for president. However, in that same article she quickly followed up by saying that she didn’t see herself in the role of someone who needs to be elected by the masses.
Dr. Rice then when on Meet the Press with Tim Russert where they had the following exchange:
DR. RICE: Tim, I don't want to run for president of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: "I will not run"?
DR. RICE: I do not intend to run for--no. I will not run for president of the United States. How is that? I don't know how many ways to say "no" in this town. I really don't.
MR. RUSSERT: Period? Period? I will not run as president of the United States.
DR. RICE: I have no intention. I don't want to run.
This of course means nothing. Dr. Rice does not have to do a thing until the mid-term elections in 2006 except continue to be a stellar Secretary of State. Between now and then a whole host of things could happen so it would be silly to take what she said today at face value.
There are plenty of politicians who deny running for office only to turn around and do it when the moment is right. That’s part of the gig. If anyone is whispering in Dr. Rice’s ear about how she should play a possible nomination (Karl Rove I’m looking in your direction) she’s probably being told to keep her intentions to herself for now. It would make perfect sense for her to remain focused on her current position until the time and opportunity presented itself for her to shift focus and concentrate on becoming the first black, female president.
One of the major criticisms both John Kerry and John Edwards suffered was that they seemed negligent in their duties as senators while they campaigned for the presidency. People who follow politics are quite sensitive to the idea that their representatives attempt to get elected to an office for the purpose of getting elected to a higher office and then react accordingly. Politically speaking, “the Vulcan’s” as James Mann calls them, are extremely intuitive and apt at planning and maneuvering. If I’m pointing that one can reveal their ambitions to soon and possibly cost you an election, I’m fairly certain Rove and company have realized it as well. For now Rice will say no until the opportunity to say yes presents itself.
I am pretty well convinced that Dr. Rice will be running in the primaries come 2008. However, while she may go through with it and it is absolutely conceivable she could best Senator Clinton head-to-head, I am sympathetic to the idea that she may indeed not want to run. It’s certainly a dangerous but historic prospect for Madame Secretary. It’s a lot to take on and she may be a bit gun shy about opening up her private life the way presidential prospects do, especially after her confirmation hearing a few months back. Senator Barbara Boxer used those hearings to grandstand all over Dr. Rice and that was just to be the nations leading diplomat. If she does run for president, treatment such as what she suffered from Boxer, Kennedy and Kerry will most likely pale in comparison.
For now it’s all just speculation, and speculation in politics can be quite fun. But for those who think that the Russert interview closes the book on a possible Rice candidacy, I would not take it too literally. After all, Jeb Bush has said he isn’t running about a dozen times and nobody believes him either.
The first was more or less an affirmative from the Washington Post where she told editors that she would not rule out running for president. However, in that same article she quickly followed up by saying that she didn’t see herself in the role of someone who needs to be elected by the masses.
Dr. Rice then when on Meet the Press with Tim Russert where they had the following exchange:
DR. RICE: Tim, I don't want to run for president of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: "I will not run"?
DR. RICE: I do not intend to run for--no. I will not run for president of the United States. How is that? I don't know how many ways to say "no" in this town. I really don't.
MR. RUSSERT: Period? Period? I will not run as president of the United States.
DR. RICE: I have no intention. I don't want to run.
This of course means nothing. Dr. Rice does not have to do a thing until the mid-term elections in 2006 except continue to be a stellar Secretary of State. Between now and then a whole host of things could happen so it would be silly to take what she said today at face value.
There are plenty of politicians who deny running for office only to turn around and do it when the moment is right. That’s part of the gig. If anyone is whispering in Dr. Rice’s ear about how she should play a possible nomination (Karl Rove I’m looking in your direction) she’s probably being told to keep her intentions to herself for now. It would make perfect sense for her to remain focused on her current position until the time and opportunity presented itself for her to shift focus and concentrate on becoming the first black, female president.
One of the major criticisms both John Kerry and John Edwards suffered was that they seemed negligent in their duties as senators while they campaigned for the presidency. People who follow politics are quite sensitive to the idea that their representatives attempt to get elected to an office for the purpose of getting elected to a higher office and then react accordingly. Politically speaking, “the Vulcan’s” as James Mann calls them, are extremely intuitive and apt at planning and maneuvering. If I’m pointing that one can reveal their ambitions to soon and possibly cost you an election, I’m fairly certain Rove and company have realized it as well. For now Rice will say no until the opportunity to say yes presents itself.
I am pretty well convinced that Dr. Rice will be running in the primaries come 2008. However, while she may go through with it and it is absolutely conceivable she could best Senator Clinton head-to-head, I am sympathetic to the idea that she may indeed not want to run. It’s certainly a dangerous but historic prospect for Madame Secretary. It’s a lot to take on and she may be a bit gun shy about opening up her private life the way presidential prospects do, especially after her confirmation hearing a few months back. Senator Barbara Boxer used those hearings to grandstand all over Dr. Rice and that was just to be the nations leading diplomat. If she does run for president, treatment such as what she suffered from Boxer, Kennedy and Kerry will most likely pale in comparison.
For now it’s all just speculation, and speculation in politics can be quite fun. But for those who think that the Russert interview closes the book on a possible Rice candidacy, I would not take it too literally. After all, Jeb Bush has said he isn’t running about a dozen times and nobody believes him either.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
A Message From Diane Pagen at the Caregiver Credit Campaign
I am someone who is a trained social worker (MSW) who has recently made the decision to work on changing US social policy. I made this decision because I have seen that the U.S. social system is a failure for the women and children it is supposed to protect because of the ideas it is constructed on.
The system believes that the only valuable work is paid work. The harm being done to women both those who work outside the home and those who raise their children full time is yet to be fully calculated. Women in poverty are now told that they must leave their children in day care so that they can go "work." The idea that what they were doing at home is not work hurts all women. Two ironies of the whole welfare to work thing: these women get jobs in the paid labor market doing child care, which is exactly what they were doing at home; and, sending them into the workforce costs the nation MORE money, to sustain the bureaucracy it takes to get them there, even though less money than ever of the welfare budget is being spent to feed and clothe the children.
Taking care of children (and even adults who need care) is not undignified or shameful. It is something many of us will choose to do in our lifetimes as women, and social policies need to support women who want to do it. In particular, women who are poor, who cannot command a decent wage in a paid market job should not be forced to abandon the one job that they do well and want to do--care for their children. Women need productive choice--they need to know that when they decide to engage in unpaid labor for the good of their families, that they will not be ridiculed, called lazy or forced into an impoverished life.
It is because what we do in the home is so unvalued by the economic system, that when we choose to go into the paid marketplace we are paid so badly vis a vis men. The fact is that the wage gap between women and men is now negligible for similar work--it is the wage gap between mothers and men that is appalling (mothers make about half of what men make for the same work). The failure to account for the cash value of unpaid labor is the major factor behind the poverty of women and children and the low wages of women when they get paid jobs. We need to talk about fixing this via policy change in a
multitude of nations including the US.
The system believes that the only valuable work is paid work. The harm being done to women both those who work outside the home and those who raise their children full time is yet to be fully calculated. Women in poverty are now told that they must leave their children in day care so that they can go "work." The idea that what they were doing at home is not work hurts all women. Two ironies of the whole welfare to work thing: these women get jobs in the paid labor market doing child care, which is exactly what they were doing at home; and, sending them into the workforce costs the nation MORE money, to sustain the bureaucracy it takes to get them there, even though less money than ever of the welfare budget is being spent to feed and clothe the children.
Taking care of children (and even adults who need care) is not undignified or shameful. It is something many of us will choose to do in our lifetimes as women, and social policies need to support women who want to do it. In particular, women who are poor, who cannot command a decent wage in a paid market job should not be forced to abandon the one job that they do well and want to do--care for their children. Women need productive choice--they need to know that when they decide to engage in unpaid labor for the good of their families, that they will not be ridiculed, called lazy or forced into an impoverished life.
It is because what we do in the home is so unvalued by the economic system, that when we choose to go into the paid marketplace we are paid so badly vis a vis men. The fact is that the wage gap between women and men is now negligible for similar work--it is the wage gap between mothers and men that is appalling (mothers make about half of what men make for the same work). The failure to account for the cash value of unpaid labor is the major factor behind the poverty of women and children and the low wages of women when they get paid jobs. We need to talk about fixing this via policy change in a
multitude of nations including the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)