REGIME CHANGE IN THE U.S.

For your consideration:

The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

Blame my hysteria on my friend Hugo Zoom who sends me links to articles like this which only exacerbate my armageddonoid schizophrenia.

Rush week for the Nuclear Club

When you look at who is in the Nuclear Club, or suspected to be, Iran's inclusion in that fraternity doesn't seem unreasonable. Pakistan and India (orange, above) have nuclear weapons and Saudi Arabia (green) could develop them within a few years, according to an article on Wikipedia. Between them is Iran (yellow). Of course Iran wants to protect itself from neighbors on either side.


While watching the C-Span broadcast of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at a press conference in Tehran on 29 August, I was amazed at how..."ordinary" he seems. In the same kind of setting, Saddam's arrogance and bloated self-importance were pretty obvious. (Yes I know Saddam is Arab and not Persian.) But Ahmadinejad moved easily between chuckling with questioners to speaking seriously about political topics. I didn't get a sense of an ego of Saddamic proportions.


I also didn't get a sense that he was just another Ayatollah Khomeini type but without the turban (Khomeini is in the picture behind Ahmadinejad below). (All photos are AP.)



I don't know... While watching him talk, I was more reminded of Lance Armstrong than Saddam or Khomeini. Ahmadinejad is no doubt a super-competitive type like Armstrong, but I don't see him, in a tense situation, pushing the Big Red Button nearly as quickly as


or Dubya might in a similar situation. Am I wrong? Are Ahmadinejad's small, shrewd eyes those of a madman?

My only reservation is that Ahmadinejad's refusal to budge on his nuclear position may provoke the invasion of Iran. He must know that this decision to stand tough may result in the deaths of many Iranian soldiers and civilians. Is he just goading the Big Boys? Or is it the adrenaline of his competitiveness talking?

Not a greased pig, an oiled elephant

From MoveOn.org:

Last week, thousands of us held more than 300 rallies at gas stations across the country to expose Republican oil-corruption in Washington. It was a huge success—lots of media coverage, and Republicans got so worried they were distributing talking points about our events.

Now it's time to take our message on the road. As summer driving season moves into high gear, we're offering FREE bumper stickers that spread our message (we'll even take care of the postage).

These stickers will make sure that when people are feeling the pinch of high gas prices, they'll know that Republicans are the problem.

People LOVE war. It's the ultimate football game.

Ramsey Clark's latest message:

The case for impeachment is clear beyond question.

The list of Bush's crimes is long. The “Shock and Awe” invasion was Bush’s war of aggression -- a crime identified as the “the Supreme international crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Remember Falluja, the American Guernica, a virtual destruction of a defenseless city by superior military technology (36,000 homes, 8,400 shops destroyed in the final assault alone); Abu Ghraib, the shameful celebration of sick forms of sexual torture; Haifa Street, Baghdad, where a U.S. helicopter gun ship killed 13 unarmed people and injured 50 dancing around a burned out Bradley Armored Vehicle; Abu Shifa, a small village, where U.S. soldiers were accused of rounding up civilians, forcing them into a room, then opening fire, killing 11 people, including a 75 year-old, a 6 month-old baby, and five children under the age five; Haditha, where Marines murdered 15 defenseless civilians, and injured many more, most women and children; and tiny Guantanamo, where the U.S. has compiled human rights violations in four years that have been denounced by the entire world including the United Nations. Yet President Bush arrogantly refuses to close the Guantanamo prison, or return the land and sovereignty to Cuba while U.S. officials fret over three prisoners who committed suicide in one day to “embarrass the U.S.”

The grand total of civilian deaths in Iraq is probably more than 250,000, and rapidly growing. (The Lancet Medical Journal) U.S. military deaths exceed 2500, the seriously injured number more than 15,000 and the number who will suffer mental and physical impairment from the occupation of Iraq is in the unknown tens of thousands.

What respect for human dignity! What reverence for life! What better way to make enemies?

The necessity for citizen action to secure impeachment is also clear beyond question. The Congress will not act unless We, the People demand it and vote those out of office who fail to respond.

Our government is geared for war as directed by transnational corporations, domestic industries, and the corporate media.

Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way. Consider,

(1) Regime Change in Iran (1953) the Shah replacing democratically elected Mossadegh; Eisenhower (R);
(2) Regime Change in Guatemala (1954) military government for democratically elected Arbenz; Eisenhower (R);
(3) Regime Change in Congo (1961) assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Eisenhower (R)
(4) the Vietnam War (1959-1975), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R);
(5) Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965), Johnson (D);
(6) Contra Warfare against Nicaragua (1981-1988), resulting in regime change from the Sandinistas to corrupt capitalists; Reagan (R);
(7) Attack and occupation of Grenada (population 110,000)(1983-1987) Reagan (R);
(8) Aerial attack on the sleeping cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, (1986) Reagan (R);
(9) Invasion of Panama Regime Change (1989-1990), George H. W. Bush (R);
(10) Gulf War (1991), George H. W. Bush (R);
(11) "Humanitarian" occupation of Somalia leading to 10,000 Somali deaths (1992-1993) George H. W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D);
(12) Aerial attacks on Iraq (1993-2001) Bill Clinton (D);
(13) War against Yugoslavia (1999) 23,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton (D)
(14) Missile Attack (21 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles) destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Khartoum which provided the majority of all medicines for Sudan (1998) Bill Clinton (D);
(15) Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, Regime Change (2001-present) George W. Bush (R);
(16) War of Aggression against Iraq and Hostile Occupation (2003)-present) George W. Bush (R);
(17) Regime Change in Haiti (2004) Democratically elected Aristide for three years of chaos and systematic killing, George W. Bush (R).
There have been major aggressions every several years.

Remember that every Congress in the past half century has approved excessive military budgets and the last three have approved increases that have made the U.S. military budget larger than those of all other nations combined.

The U.S. will remain a military threat to the world until it vastly reduces its military expenditures. The single highest priority for peace is cutting the U.S. military budget. The United States government may have been able to outspend the Soviet Union into economic collapse in the Cold War arms race, injuring the entire planet in the process. Now Bush has entered a new arms race and is provoking a Second Cold War with China. Yet what can China do, as the U.S. builds a first-strike oriented missile shield and uses Japan and a huge advanced military base at Pyongtaek on Korea's west coast, not 500 miles from Beijing?

The U.S. at this time is capable of striking any place on earth with a nuclear armed missile within one hour of the order to fire, launched from a Trident II, or other nuclear weapons system. We are at this time spending billions on a new generation of nuclear weapons that can be used tactically, against four blocks of Falluja, or an alleged Al Queda camp in Pakistan. At the same time, we threaten Iran and others for seeking to develop nuclear energy with the claim that they may build a crude bomb. Yet the only defense a nation today has to U.S. militarism is the threat of nuclear retaliation. The U.S. is seeking total dismantlement and prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction everywhere else, because it possesses the vast majority of all WMD’s and far superior delivery systems.

George Bush loved being a War President while he was winning - winning over the bodies of impoverished and defenseless people, that is. Someone told him only war presidents can be great presidents. He will love war again if his polls go up.

President Bush would rather make enemies by the use of force to have his way, than seek agreement with friends by helping others and recognizing their rights and interests. He prefers to go it alone, and then entice or coerce whatever help he can get from others, whether it is for Iraq, global warming, the prohibition of land mines, or the use of minors in war, addressing hunger, poverty, AIDS, natural disaster relief, or most United Nations activities, and absolutely, the International Criminal Court which might indict him. He is spared defeat at the polls because he cannot seek re-election.

He can be held accountable only by impeachment. The American people must not acquiesce to his crimes.

Consider that all the major candidates, Democrat and Republican -- Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, McCain, Frist -- voted for the war and/or favor the Iraq Occupation.

To stop U.S. militarism, the U.S. must vastly reduce its military expenditures, 50% in five years and further down from there on. It must use those savings to combat poverty, hunger, sickness and unemployment at home and abroad.

The U.S. must seek friends by word and deed, rather than make enemies. The harm George Bush has done to the way the rest of the world sees our country will take a generation to overcome, after we change our warlike ways.

But the only way to convince the world that We the People do not approve of the conduct of George W. Bush is to impeach him. Otherwise we can only be seen as approving of his acts, or as powerless to prevent them.

And the only way we can deter the next, and future Presidents, from seeking war rather than peace is to impeach George W. Bush and his key advisors now. Only then will political leadership know the American people will not accept more war.

Last week ImpeachBush.org placed an ad calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush on the second page of the internationally read newspaper, USA Today. The impeachment movement has placed similar ads in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. The time to impeach is now.

Ramsey Clark
June 15, 2006

The Red, Whitenoise and Blue

It's—
That—
Time of year for the GOP's noise!
Every speech you hear seems to say
"We're the good guys! Every lib-er-al's from He-e-e-ell!
We'll protect your land,
Values, marriage and
Fool you while we treat
Big oi-l we-e-e-ell."



"Election year stunt or legislative rescue for society troubled by the breakdown of traditional families"?? Do they even need to ask? Maybe it would be better to call it an aggressive move on the political chessboard. It worked last time, why not use it again?
 

How would Jesus vote?

A recent email from the Human Rights Campaign:

WASHINGTON – Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement as the Federal Marriage Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) was marked up today by the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"This shameful election-year ploy puts the Senate one step closer to a vote that threatens to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. Today's vote served only to divide Americans, not help us with our collective challenges. As this amendment nears a vote on the Senate floor, it's critical that fair-minded Americans speak up and speak out against discrimination in the Constitution."

With less than 24 hours notice, the Senate Judiciary Committee moved the mark up from a public hearing room to a restricted-access room in the Capitol. The President's Room is not open to the public and does not even have enough chairs for every Senator on the committee to sit.

Solmonese continued, "Using the Constitutional amendment process as a political tool is bad enough, but doing it behind closed doors is appalling. The U.S. Senate shouldn't be playing fast and loose with our most fundamental freedoms."

In 2004, the Senate and House both fell far short of the two-thirds vote necessary to send the amendment to the states for ratification. In the Senate, the vote against cloture was 50 to 48, with six Republicans voting no. The Republicans who opposed cloture were Senators Campbell, Chafee, Collins, McCain, Snowe and Sununu. In the House, the vote was 227 to 186.

Many prominent Republicans and conservatives expressed opposition to the amendment in 2004, including Vice President Cheney, Arlen Specter, Rudy Guiliani, Chuck Hagel, David Dreier, George Pataki, Bob Barr, Alan Simpson, George Will and David Brooks. This year, those numbers increased to former Senator Danforth who called the amendment, "silly" and "contrary to basic Republican principles." First Lady Laura Bush was recently quoted as saying, "I don’t think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously." Sen. John McCain has repeatedly reaffirmed his opposition to the amendment. And today George Will again restated his opposition by lauding Sen. John Sununu's vote against the amendment was a vote against the "federal usurpation of the traditional state responsibility for marriage law" and that it "affirmed the value of cultural federalism."

Mushroom clouds over Iran

When I opened up the latest email from MoveOn.org and read "Not only do the officials say war is really on the table, they report that the Bush administration is making plans to use nuclear weapons"—when I read that, my hair stood straight up. I thought Okay, okay, wait a second, this might not be true. Eli Pariser and the crew at MoveOn may have gone off the deep end with the power thing. MoveOn apparently has 3 million members now and maybe the leaders have gotten drunk on their ability to mobilize that many people with just email. At this point in time, after everything that's gone before, Dubya and friends are stupid enough to even think of planting mushroom clouds in Iran??

Who knows? Anything's possible. Maybe it's just a red herring created by Karl Rove. Maybe it's just a late April fool's joke. I'm hoping for a better-case scenario than finding out it's true.

This is part of MoveOn's email:

The big question on all of our minds, of course, is whether the president really is willing to wage nuclear war with Iran. After the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, would he really attack the much larger, much stronger, much better armed country next door with nukes?

As he did before Iraq, President Bush claims he's just pursuing a diplomatic route—but he still refuses to take nukes off the table. In the New Yorker piece, Seymour Hersh—who broke the Abu Ghraib story—quotes numerous administration and Pentagon officials who make very clear that war plans involving nukes are in the works.

Even a conventional attack would likely be a disaster. But just the threat of a nuclear attack could close off our best diplomatic options. Ironically, it would also increase pressure within Iran to create a full-fledged nuclear program—strengthening Iran's hard-liners. With most experts estimating Iran is 5 years or more away from having a nuclear weapon, there's time for a diplomatic solution.

And the consequences of an actual attack would be horrifying. The civilian deaths from a nuclear assault could be in the thousands or hundreds of thousands. According to a front-page article in the Washington Post, CIA experts believe Iran would almost certainly counter-attack through its terrorist network, Hezbollah. With 150,000 American troops right next door in Iraq, Iran would have what security experts call a "target rich" environment. Even Jack Straw, the British Foreign Sectrary, said that the nuclear option was "completely nuts."

Is there anything that would preclude a sitting president and his cabinet from being given psychological testing? I would really like to know if these people are nuts or not. Wouldn't you?

Green enough

On its St. Patrick's Day page, Yahoo describes the holiday as "Originally a day to honor the patron saint of Ireland, March 17 has become a worldwide celebration of all things Irish."

Okay, so what day do we celebrate all things Costa Rican? Or Turkish? Or Rwandan? I don't have any problem with the Irish celebrating the birthday of their patron saint, but I'm baffled by the pervasiveness of St. Patrick's Day. If you toured elementary-school classrooms today anywhere in the U.S., would you find many that weren't decorated with shamrocks and leprechauns? All greeting-card shops have been shimmering for weeks with the vernal glow of green foil. I did't notice—was Oprah wearing a shamrock brooch today?

It makes sense to me that St. Patrick's Day parades became part of the American landscape after the discrimination Irish immigrants experienced in the mid-nineteenth century (although Wikipedia argues that the prevalence of NINA signs—"no Irish need apply"—at that time is mostly an urban legend). The parades functioned as Irish Pride parades, like Gay Pride parades function now, to establish solidarity and improve the self-image of an underpriveleged minority. But I think the Irish are doing okay now in the U.S. Are parades still needed?

I have to assume that the branding of St. Patrick's Day has been so successful in the U.S. because beer is involved. Similarly, the branding of Christmas has been so successful because of the gift-giving custom and its impact on the economy. The branding of Valentine's Day has been so successful because chocolate is involved. The Wikipedia article on St. Valentine, however, was an eye-opener for me. Valentine's Day was removed from the Catholic calendar in 1969?? Nobody told me! I'm amazed that we still celebrate it. The story of Valentine, or Valentinus, was dismissed as almost entirely legend nearly four decades ago. But you'd never know that from the Valentine's Day displays in the stores.

Of course we could blame retailers for creating hype to increase sales. But that doesn't explain everything. If retailers in Santa Monica all got together and started hyping St. Monica's Day on August 27 because August needs a holiday, would the tradition catch on and spread throughout the Western world? Probably not. Why don't we celebrate St. Agnes' Eve on January 20? She's the patron saint of chastity, gardeners, girls, engaged couples, rape victims and virgins, and "folk custom called for [young girls] to practice rituals on Saint Agnes' Eve (20th-21st January) with a view to discovering their future husbands." Retailers could come up with a decorating theme involving lambs and wool scarves and mace sprayers and diamond rings, and Keats' "The Eve of St. Agnes" could be set to music, if it hasn't been already, and played in stores the week leading up to the holiday. Would it become a mainstream holiday? Probably not. A holiday has to resonate with people in order for them to respond to retailers' hype. For some reason, Sts. Valentine's and Patrick's Days do and Sts. Monica's and Agnes' Days don't.

It seems innocent enough to decorate with shamrocks and leprechauns, doesn't it? It's cute, the kids like it, where's the harm in a green milkshake? The green thing celebrates the welcome approach of spring. A lot of us like Celtic music, at least in small doses. Okay, but is there equal time dedicated to celebrating Costa Rican, Turkish and Rwandan cultures? And is it okay that there isn't? In a multicultural environment, all religious holidays should be observed equally. And that, of course, would result in an overabundance of holidays and the need to change decorations every three or four days. Why not let now-useless religious holidays like St. Patrick's Day just fade into cultural history? Do we have a reason to continue celebrating them other than "[Shrug] It's what we've always done"? Is that a good enough reason to do anything?

Just say no to green beer.

A little catastrophe music

A recent email from MoveOn.org mentions that Bush "campaigned, attended birthday parties and played guitar" while Hurricane Katrina bashed New Orleans, and I couldn't help but notice the parallel between Nero plucking the lyre while Rome burned and Dubya pickin' n' grinnin' while New Orleans sank. The differences are instructive regarding executive protocol: during a firestorm, play the lyre; during a hurricane, play the guitar.

The video revealing that Bush was briefed about possible levee breaches has been dismissed by Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke as "nothing new or insightful." He said that "most transcripts of discussions had already been made available to congressional investigators examining the response to Katrina." Dzzzzzzzzzz. Now, did a little warning buzzer go off when you read that? The investigators learned from the transcripts that Bush had been briefed, and they weren't concerned that, four days after Katrina made landfall, Bush said "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"? Did the investigators actually read the transcripts? Or were they anticipating that the public would never find out how much the President knew? Surely the investigators would know how the public would react if we learned about the briefings. Move over, Downing Street Memo. Now there's the Crawford Briefing.

I expect that conservative bloggers' reactions to the video are uniformly "This is old news." Okay, you're right. The investigators learned nothing new from the video. But how did news like this get old? They thought it wasn't important enough to report? Based on what criteria?

I've actually reached the point where I'm no longer appalled by the amount of fibbing by the Bush administration. I've started feeling bad and embarrassed for them. They so are the Not Ready For Prime Time Players. Even Condy Rice, a smart, smart lady, doesn't seem to know when it's not a good time to fib. Maybe if the Bush administration could start fresh all over again in 2001, with all of the knowledge they've gained since then, we would have an administration making much wiser decisions.

Does your oven have a Sabbath mode?

This undated press release from GE describes an option which became available on April 1, 2001:

GE Introduces New Sabbath Mode Feature on Cooking Products to Meet the Needs of Observant Jewish Consumers

..."Although the Sabbath and holiday laws, especially as they relate to the cooking and heating of foods, are rather complex, the engineers at GE are to be congratulated on their ability to have appreciated and comprehended the intricacies of Halacha (Jewish law) as they developed a Sabbath mode that will enhance the Sabbath and holidays of observant Jewish families," noted Dr. Avrom Pollak, president of the Star-K Kosher Certification. "This new feature is truly kosher consumer friendly and we at the Star-K are confident that the observant Jewish community is going to show significant interest in GE cooking appliances," he continued.

Most modern ranges are equipped with an integrated twelve-hour shut-off safety device. This feature shuts down the oven's power after the oven has been operating consecutively for twelve hours. The GE cooking products with Sabbath Mode will override the twelve-hour shut-off. The oven will not shut off automatically making it possible to keep cooked foods warm on the Sabbath or use the range over religious holidays for cooking and warming food.

In addition to overriding the shut off, the Sabbath Mode feature will meet the observant Jewish consumer's restrictions for observing the Sabbath and other holidays by:

Eliminating tones or timer beeps.

Not displaying icons.

Permitting temperature adjustments on holidays without displays or beeps.

A more truthful name would be "stealth mode," wouldn't it?

Okay, now explain this to me: How is changing cooking temperatures but avoiding the appearance of changing cooking temperatures keeping the Sabbath holy?

Anybody? ...Nobody can explain this to me?

What you're doing is lying about whether you are cooking on the Sabbath or not. Why is lying okay on the Sabbath but cooking is not?

Anybody? Help me out. I'm at a loss here.

Okay, so I'll resort to Wikipedia:

In Jewish philosophy it is recognized that many of the 613 mitzvot cannot be explained rationally. They are categorized as chukim, comprising such laws as the Red Heifer (Numbers 19). There are three basic points of view regarding these laws:

One view holds that these laws do have a reason, but it is not understood because the ultimate explanation for mitzvot is beyond the human intellect.

A second view holds that most of the laws have some historical and/or dietary significance (such as preventing the consumption of unhealthy food, or differentiating oneself from non-Jews through dietary restrictions); and

A third view holds that these laws have no meaning other than to instill obedience.

Probably the second sentence of the next section of the Wikipedia article is the key: "Indeed, the Hebrew word for 'holiness' is etymologically related to the Hebrew word for 'distinction' or 'separation.'" Wait a minute. Holiness is equated with separation? As it turns out, all of the irrationality of the mitzvot is acceptable because it creates a separate-and-thus-better status for those who follow it. An irrational basis for superior social status? Is that a good idea? I mean, in 2006?

In a sense, I can understand the hatred of the Arabs for the Jews. I don't understand the degree of the hatred, but I can understand its origin--a nation which shares ethnic origins with the Palestinians and Syrians (genetic links have been found on the Y chromosome) assuming an inherent superiority for thousands of years without any factual basis, more or less playing the part of Mrs. Oleson in Little House on the Prairie. That would get a little old after a couple of centuries. Of course I could balance this argument with a discussion of the equal irrationality of Islamic law, but that would probably result in the torching of Google headquarters, the parent company of Blogger, which hosts this blog.

Why should I care? What business is it of mine if six million Jewish Americans may want to own an oven with a Sabbath mode?

9/11 comes to mind. The continuing insurgency in Iraq comes to mind. Whenever an insurgent shoots at an American soldier, he's actually trying to shoot at Israel. My neice's husband safely returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. Why should it matter to me that my neice's three kids, at least for the time being, won't have to grow up without a dad?

"My oven is the cause of 9/11 and the war in Iraq?? You're a shvents, shmendrik, shmegege, schmuck!!," Linda Richman might sputter on Saturday Night Live. No, of course the oven isn't to blame. The clinging to the irrational belief system is to blame. The refusal to let go of the elevated status the irrational belief system provides is to blame. The willingness to lie to maintain the appearance of following the irrational belief system is to blame. Self-centeredness, on an international scale, is to blame.

The same can be said of Muslims. And Catholics. And Protestants. Clinging to any belief system that on occasion requires an explanation like "My ways are higher than your ways" is stupid.

In the centuries before giant military transport ships and satellite communications and Stealth bombers, friction between conflicting irrational belief systems occurred less often and the collateral damage was much more confined. Now that Earth is wired like one large city, being stupid has a much greater impact.

I let go of mine. Let go of yours.

Thoughts on Super Bowl Sunday

Iran, gay-bar shooting, Muhammad-cartoons backlash, suicide bombers, Gaza, surveillance, the Super Bowl, FEMA, Alito, intelligent design, millionaire Christians, SUVs, cell phones...

Bennett and Beck?

My email to CNN:

Bill Bennett and Glenn Beck?

We won't be watching CNN anymore.

Thanks for the memories!

It's the end of an era. I'm feeling nostalgic.

Impeachment

Congressman Schiff,

It's admirable that the left has shown restraint regarding impeachment. That has been laudable. If liberal Congressmen had bulldozed forward with impeachment proceedings earlier, it would have appeared simply as a revenge tactic. Now that we all have spent time carefully considering the accusations and their legal implications, it will be clear to everyone why impeachment is moving forward.

The issues are substantial. Among them:

1. The Bush administration lied to the people and Congress about the justifications for going to war in Iraq.

2. It has now been revealed that Bush, like Nixon three decades ago, has carried out an illegal wiretapping program against the people of this country.

These are serious offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. I urge you to support impeachment.

It's probably not too much of a stretch to imagine that, because my blog is listed in the Big Brass Alliance, my phone has been tapped and my emails intercepted. Of course, the surveillance people quickly lost interest when they observed so little activity, but it does bring the issues closer to home to realize that even my privacy may have been invaded.

I'm curious whether criminal investigations will be undertaken once Bush is no longer a sitting president. If not, I will wonder why not. Won't you?

Sometimes it's the simple things that are the most eloquent and moving

AP photo

The headline on Yahoo, "Sign tallying military deaths upsets Army," caught my eye and I clicked on the link to find the image above showing Scott Cameron of Duluth, Minnesota, sitting beside his simple, poignant sign.

That's right... That's why I got involved in political blogging in the first place. Not over whether the right team or the left team wins or loses, but because there's a human cost in fighting a war that was begun primarily to enhance the prestige of a President.

Sometimes it's just the simple things, a small sign with numbers that change daily, or a mom sitting in a folding chair near the entrance to an estate, that cut through the noise of ideological competition and remind us why we're competing in the first place.