Unbearable Regulations

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="400" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4jcauTs9raU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A little entertainment, but a very serious message........

It's Been Fun and Therapeutic

Friends, it is time to stop blogging. Thanks to those of you who have stopped by. I started writing here last June and have written over 43,650 words. A total of 120 posts. The number of hours spent is too many! There are many good bloggers out there. So I am leaving it up to them now. This is the second anniversary of the start of Bush's war in Iraq. Over and out.

Alphacarol

Sadly, the Democrats Must Share the Shame

The Democrats are part of the problem. Yesterday, three Democrats voted against the Cantwell Amendment No. 168 which would have eliminated funding for drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. The vote was 51/49. The amendment was defeated.

The three Democrats who could have defeated the amendment with their yea votes are:

Akaka, D-HI
Inouye, D-HI
Landrieu, D-LA

Seven Republicans parted from their party and voted for the amendment. Hats off to:

Chafee, R-RI
Coleman, R-MN
Collins, R-ME
DeWine, R-OH
McCain, R-AZ
Smith, R-OR
Snowe, R-ME

There are some Republicans who care about our environment. And there are some Democrats who don't.

[Click on blog title to view the entire report on the vote.]

Living in a Glass House: Our Nuclear Weapons

Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia chairs the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private group opposing nuclear proliferation. He spent 24 years in the United States Senate. Last week Nunn spoke to reporters at the National Press Club. He criticized Bush's plans to build a so-called bunker-buster bomb, a nuclear weapon designed to penetrate hardened, underground facilities where leaders, personnel or weapons could be hidden. He told the truth: We are NOT turning away from our nuclear weapons programs. We are putting more emphasis on nuclear weapons.

"It's awfully hard to ask countries around the globe to do a lot more to fight against the North Koreans or the Iranians getting nuclear weapons if we ourselves seem to be increasing our dependence on nuclear weapons."

Nunn hopes that this trend will be reversed in this administration. (Good luck!) The former senator also said that both the Europeans and the US have to do a lot more to listen to each other and coordinate their approach in regard to Iran.

Listen. He suggests the US needs to listen. It's not going to happen. Our president does not listen to anyone.

Nunn states the obvious, but I hope he is not holding his breath. Certainly, after 24 years in Washington, D.C., he is not holding his breath. He must know what the chances are of getting anywhere with Mr. Bush. At least he is speaking out and exposing the truth.

[Click on blog title above to read the article which prompted this blog post.]

As Everyone Knows, Tom DeLay Is a Crooked Politician

Why would the House of Representatives of the United States stand for the likes of Tom DeLay? If one is going to be a Bush Republican, can't this be done by following the laws of the land? House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is getting away with bribery, threatening political opponents, vacationing with lobbyists, gutting House ethics rules- you name it. IN BROAD DAYLIGHT!

Here are twelve highlights of DeLay tactics in the last few years:

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=430

A recent Washington Post article contained this quote:

"If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple."

DeLay should go. The man is insufferably offensive and smug. He thinks the rules of decency are for other people, but not for him. Let's hope someone hits an artery soon.

Birdwatchers Could Be Terrorists

Maureen Dowd writes in today's NYT that Americans are not safer today than at other times in our history. We are less safe. Of course, this is not a new thought. Only those who are good at cognitive dissonance can try to believe we are safer now under Bush's leadership.

Read Ms. Dowd's column here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/opinion/10dowd.html?hp

Yesterday in my local news it was announced that birdwatchers who typically station themselves on the islands of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel in Virginia will no longer be allowed to do so due to security concerns. Hampton Roads has always been considered a target since it is a major port and military area on the East coast. We've known that all along. But to my knowledge, birdwatchers have never been impeded in their work. It seems like we focus on the absurd and overlook most of the obvious measures which could make us safer, such as checking all cargo coming into port from foreign lands.

If you were a terrorist, would you buy a pair of binoculars and bermuda shorts and pose as an Audubon society member looking for birds? The people who think these things up are the birds in my opinion.

Bush's Buddy Bill

What is Bill Clinton thinking? Presumably there is some benefit for him (or perhaps for Hillary) in this new-found friendship with the Bushes. But it is totally revolting to me. How can he sleep with the enemy? How can he? I can't look.

Here's a commentary that offers some possible explanations for this strange development.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7138526/

Is it self-serving? If so, Mr. Clinton might do well to remember the America he served as President- the America we may not have much longer. Clinton's behavior feels like betrayal. This business of rising above the fray is for the birds. Being cordial is one thing, but going golfing? That is another story. That's what friends do. Does Bill have to be palsy-walsy with the likes of George Bush? If one cares about America, one cannot keep company with George Bush. Doesn't that go without saying?

Bush Describes America to the Russians

President Bush made the following statement during his trip this week:

PRESIDENT BUSH: I live in a transparent country. I live in a country where decisions made by government are wide open and people are able to call people to -- me to account, which many out here do on a regular basis. Our laws and the reasons why we have laws on the books are perfectly explained to people. Every decision we have made is within the Constitution of the United States. We have a constitution that we uphold. And if there's a question as to whether or not a law meets that constitution, we have an independent court system through which that law is reviewed. So I'm perfectly comfortable in telling you our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way.

What country is he talking about? America? People are able to call Bush to account???? Every decision is made within the Constitution??? We have an independent court system??? We safeguard human rights and human dignity? We resolve our disputes in a peaceful way????

Bush has rarely been held accountable for anything. Our Constitution is under attack. Our courts are being stacked with right wing conservatives. We torture people. We accept that millions of people do not have jobs or health care. We invade a sovereign nation and plan for more military escapades. Peaceful resolutions? No. Bush is talking absolute nonsense. I bet the Russians take him with a grain of salt. If he weren't so dangerous, we could all just laugh. But this is not a laughing matter. Bush is our weapon of mass destruction. He is the emperor who has no clothes. The people who surround him are telling him how magnificent his outfit is. They are enablers for our president.

The Germans Have a Backbone

Seems Bush cancelled the town hall style meeting in Germany this week because those planning the event insisted it actually be a town hall format, that is, not scripted in any way. Bush declined. Originally, this town hall meeting was to be the main highlight of Bush's trip, a chance to talk with "average" Germans. A few weeks ago, the Bush administration had declared that the chat would be the cornerstone of Bush's visit in Germany. The White House, however, had second thoughts. Trip planners got cold feet. They asked if the rules could be changed. The answer was simply NO!


The Germans, though, insisted that a free forum should be exactly that. Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's Ambassador to the United States, explained to the New York Times last week: "We told them, don't get upset with us if they ask angry questions."

Instead the president will meet with a well-heeled group of so-called "young leaders." In order to guarantee an open exchange, the meeting has been closed to journalists.

What a coward!

[Click on the blog title to read the article from Spiegel Online from 02/23/2005.]

Simply Ridiculous: Perhaps Not

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1666314,00.html

Bush, speaking in Brussels this week, said that the idea that the United States was preparing to attack Iran was "simply ridiculous." He went on to warn that he was keeping all his options open. What kind of a thing is that to say? All options are on the table. (Click on above link to go to article from 02/23/2005.)

Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and U. N. inspector in Iraq, has said that he believes the U.S. will most likely attack Iran this summer. Read a related article here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-28.htm

Scott Ritter, Doomed to Fail, by the Baltimore Sun (02/22/2005):

Ritter writes:
"The intermingling of nonproliferation and regime change policies was doomed to fail. One requires skillful multilateral diplomacy based on the principles of uniform application of international law, the other bold application of a unilateral doctrine of aggressive liberation rhetoric backed by the real threat of military power. When blended, as the Bush administration did, unilateralism trumps multilateralism every time. North Korea's announced accession to the nuclear club represents the inevitable result."

Ritter's article states that all diplomatic efforts under Bush were regarded as disingenuous fronts intended to facilitate instability and regime change. Bush's approach leaves no choice for North Korea and Iran but to acquire an independent nuclear deterrent against possible U. S. aggression. Ritter believes there could be a solution to this dangerous situation, but it would require the Bush administration to unlink nonproliferation efforts from regime change. He sees this as unlikely since Bush and his ideologues have too much invested in the global crusade against tyranny. Ritter sees the possibility of nuclear apocalypse.

Germany, France, and Britain are involved in negotiations to get Iran to abandon any plans it has to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the U. S. has chosen not to join these talks. Without U. S. involvement, Europeans fear that the negotiations could be fruitless. Read further from a WaPo article by Tom Raum (02/23/2005):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46290-2005Feb23?language=printer

Why are we not participating in diplomatic efforts? Bush misled the American people and attacked Iraq rather than allow the U. N. inspections to be completed properly. He still maintains that Saddam Hussein was not complying with U. N. inspections. This was not true. But millions of Americans went along with Bush and supported the war. Now we know that there were no WMD and that WMD had been destroyed in Iraq by 1996, obviously long before Bush ever took office. However, the U. S. was committed to a policy of regime change in Iraq, which required economic sanctions-based containment and was dependent on finding Iraqi noncompliance with its disarmament obligation. Iraqi compliance was not an acceptable reality for George Bush and his neocons with their vision of American world dominance. So it seems another reality was constructed to suit the goals of the White House. Congress and the American people have complied over and over as calamity after calamity have occurred.

Is there a chance we can live through this? Can we stop killing and maiming people in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy? Must we greet the world with our big guns and strutting cowboy president? Where Bush is, war is. Can he be stopped?

American Troops Prepare for Attack on Ramadi

[Click on blog title to read full article.]

My friends, wherever you are out there, we are gearing up for another full-scale attack on an Iraqi city- this time, Ramadi, a city 70 miles west of Baghdad and adjacent to Fallujah. This attack, codenamed River Blitz, comes less than three months after the massive and controversial assault on Fallujah. The suicide bombings and other attacks on Shia Muslims during Ashura have been attributed to Sunni resistance and in particular the group led by al-Zarqawi. So the U. S. plans to attack Ramadi in retaliation and in an effort to "pacify" the remaining "rebel" strongholds. We are supposed to believe that military action is the answer in Iraq. America will continue to destroy and kill in the name of democracy and, of course, freedom. We seem to have resorted to the lowest form of human encounter- WAR- rather than use our heads to come up with more imaginative solutions in Iraq. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" months and months ago, and elections were held January 30th. Yet we are still on the warpath. The words of the song come to mind: When will we ever learn?

Supposedly, according to Maj-Gen Richard Natonski, commander of the 1st Marine Division, the U. S. has been asked by the Iraqi government to help out in Ramadi. And, if we are to believe reports from our government, diplomats and intelligence officers have been conducting secret talks with "insurgents" on ways to end the resistance. Meanwhile, the drumbeat of war can be heard in the distance. Is this what we call diplomacy? Can there be a meeting of minds when our soldiers are marching down every street in Ramadi, carrying huge weapons and giving the appearance of occupation? What are we thinking? What would we do if the same were happening in New York City or Boston? Would Americans trying to defend their cities be called "insurgents?"

Jon Stewart is certainly right. This is Mess-o-potamia.

When will we ever learn?

Obstructionist Republicans

The Bush administration and Congressional leaders, especially Frist, Hatch, and Allen, love to stand in judgment and express their holier-than-thou indignation about those Democrats who just want to obstruct every vote and stall the democratic process. It's that sour grapes syndrome they think. Democrats don't want anything that Republicans want. Democrats put their own agendas above the good of the country.

Well, well, well......

This past week the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee delayed voting on legislation (S. 131) on the so-called "Clear Skies" initiative until March 2 to avoid a tie vote that would have killed this attack on the Clean Air Act in committee.

Over the next two weeks, Committee Chair Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and the White House will be working hard to persuade key swing members on the committee like Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Tom Carper (D-DE) to vote for this dangerous legislation. Why is it dangerous?

The "Clear Skies" plan:
* Weakens clean air act requirements for most industries;
* Weakens requirements to minimize toxic pollution;
* Repeals local air quality protections;
* Weakens protections against haze and pollution for our National Parks;
* Revokes local and state authorities to control pollution;
* Delays deadlines for achieving clean air.

Why such a bill needs any debate is puzzling. You'd think everyone would be for improved living conditions and good health. And you'd think that everyone would want to leave the earth in good condition for future generations. Wouldn't they? But no wonder the Republicans want to further roll back environmental and public health protections. This is a Sweetheart Deal for polluters who, of course, contribute millions of dollars to the Republican Party. Our Congress listens to those who have money to keep them in office. It must be hard to resist being bought and paid for. Fundraising, after all, cannot be much fun. It's so easy to just take a stand for polluters and watch the money roll in. All the more vacation time for politicians who need not fund raise nearly as much. It's all about the money. Is it about what's best for human beings or the planet? Of course, not. What a ridiculous thing that would be!

So, of course, it is OK to delay this vote if it looks like the bill will be defeated. It's OK, that is, if you have an "R" after your name. Otherwise, you are aiding the terrorists!

Long live the filibuster! Disappoint Frist!

[Go to Save Our Environment for more information. www.saveourenvironment.org]

Study War No More

Read the words of Camilo Mejia who spent 8 months in Iraq and then refused to go back, filing instead for Conscientious Objector status. He was convicted of desertion and went to jail. He was released from prison this week.

Here are excerpts from his article, "Regaining My Humanity."

By putting my weapon down, I chose to reassert myself as a human being.

One of the reasons I did not refuse the war from the beginning was that I was afraid of losing my freedom. Today, as I sit behind bars, I realize that there are many types of freedom, and that inspite of my confinement, I remain free in many important ways. What good is freedom if we are afraid to follow our conscience? What good is freedom if we are not able to live with our own actions?

To read Mejia's article in full, click on the blog title above or click here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_021705Z.shtml

Nuclear Testing: Bush Wants to Do It

With all the rhetoric flying around about nuclear weapons, one would logically assume that the U.S. would perhaps be a leader in non-proliferation. However, though the Bush administration continues to spread fear about other countries possessing or developing nuclear weapons, he supports American efforts to resume actual underground warhead detonation and resurrect research on a potential "bunker buster" variation of an existing warhead to destroy buried enemy targets.

Though there have been some members of Congress and the Armed Services panel who have questioned the direction our country should take on nuclear weapons, our Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said on February 15th that the Nevada Test Site's ability to resume underground testing should be enhanced. The Bush administration's commitment to step up potential resumption of nuclear bomb testing in southern Nevada comes less than a week after the Utah Senate unanimously approved a House-passed resolution that urged the federal government not to "return to the mistakes and miscalculations of the past which have marred many Utahans." Thousands of Utah residents became ill between the 50s and 1992 when testing ceased. It is thought that their illnesses and deaths were caused by radioactive fallout.

Nonetheless, Bush continues to push for more nuclear weapons testing. Bodman stressed that we need to leave the door open to a resumption of testing in the event that future enemy threats require actual detonation. Millions of dollars will be budgeted for these activities.

I heard Bush's voice the other day saying, "I want to a have a few nuclear weapons at my disposal." We insist that no one but us can have nuclear weapons. We say nuclear weapons are dangerous and pose a threat to the U. S. Will not other countries attempt to acquire these weapons simply because they fear America? Are we not the cause of the buildup of weapons on the planet?

I don't think that America, especially George Bush, is to be trusted with nuclear weapons any more so than other countries. We should be actively seeking to ban all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, not producing more.

We are going to regret our poor leadership. We are so wrong sometimes.

[Click on the blog title to read an article from The Salt Lake Tribune.]