Bush ... with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz providing him advice on both the War on Terror and the Occupation in Iraq

I couldn't help this! I am an animal lover, as some of you know -- even have seven 100% indoor -- or in-my-bed -- cats, six raccoons (maybe eight, if the two mothers who would bring them to my front door last winter are still there) living under my front porch, and three deer (mama and two fawns) who "love" my rhododendrons and generally hang out in the woods to the side and back of my house-cabin.

But anyway, I ran into this picture while surf-scanning data on primates and immediately saw GWB receiving advice and consent from his three principal advisors.

Is this one "over the top," Richard? I hope it's not mean or, in any way, a display of anger. Would Jesus post this?

Freedom of Speech versus Secularism to the Point of Godlessness

Have we stepped so far beyond the lines of reasonable secularism as to give credence to the title of Ann Coulter's best selling new book with the untrue and (to some of us) unpleasant title, The Church of Liberalism, Godless.

Hopefully not! After all, the high school that turned off the microphone on valedictorian Brittany McColm (above) was only one of thousands of high schools countrywide that made such an unamerican decision. And for all I know, the majority of the students at that high school were legal immigrants from the Middle East.

But assuming they were not legal immigrants from the Middle East, Brittany's rights were clearly breached -- and for that matter, they were breached even if the majority of students and faculty at Foothill High School in Clark County, Nevada were/are fascist hold-overs from Nazi Germany, which I doubt -- at least not a majority!

I promised my brother Richard from Connecticut that I would be at least "toned down" in my comments on this subject, which he thought not so important as necessary to be posted. But, that said, let me at least state that I would give even the fascist school administrators and those teachers there who might be fascists (probably a minority of the teachers there), the right to their opinions in a forum such as that at which Brittany was speaking as a valedictorian speaker. Not everybody is a liberal Democrat, and extreme right-wingers who believe that Freedom of Speech has strict limits (such as the administrators at Foothill High School) deserve to be heard as well. I might not agree with them, but they have the right to be heard.

The point is simply that Brittany had every right in a valedictorian speech to credit her good work over the four years she spent at Foothill High School to anyone she so chooses -- her parents, her teachers ... and/or even her beloved Jesus Christ, her "Lord and Savior," as she included in the speech that was cut short, causing booing and jeering from the 400 or so in attendance.

Now, of course, the notoriety (wide spread knowledge) of her words will only give wide spread credence to what she said and what she was not able to say -- the exact opposite of what the radical right-wingers intended when they ordered her mic turned down/off. Heck, I even heard an interview of her twice -- once on a right-wing talk show and the other on a left-wing talk show -- which says something about how God's plan was inscrutable to the last nano-thought.

Admittedly, her speech was vetted and the offensive words (e.g., "God") were taken out ... and she had agreed to deliver the censored speech ahead of time. She changed her mind (a woman's right, my wife and daughters have often reminded me), however, and decided at the last minute to be true to her conscience and that which she believed to be "the biggest part of her [my] life."

Good for you, Brittany; you will go far in life as you stay true to your beliefs and don't let those who would have "thought police" (1984 by George Orwell) reign and/or freedom of speech watered down to where it might as well no longer be a part of our Bill of Rights" impede your forward progress.

Congratulations on your graduation, by the way; I am a teacher/professor and understand the excitement of this time in your life.

I wonder ... am I being politically incorrect by nature -- or because I read what Barack Obama had to say?

As I look at my previous posting, and note that I not only included reference to and a picture of Jesus Christ, but even closed with a Psalm from the Bible, I have to ask myself, "was I subconsciously induced to do so because I had read the great speech given Barack Obama at the Call to Renewal Conference that ended early today?" ... Or was I genuinely calling on my Savior for His intervention in the events in the Middle East, if intervention be in His Holy Will?

Fact is, it was from the heart, but I was also very, very pleased to read Obama's excellent advice to his fellow Democrats -- pay attention to the Evangelicals, but have faith in Jesus from the heart, not just as a political necessity.

He's 100% correct in just about everything he said in that important speech. We all have different views on a number of issues that are considered "religious," but I think we agree that each of us, no matter how fundamental a Christian he or she might be -- or not be, has a right to his or her opinion and a responsibility to let others know how he or she feels about the specific points at issue.

Many Democrats are truly "born again" Christians, in my opinion, but have views that differ with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (as examples of Evangelicals who almost see Democrats in the same way Muslims see Americans or Israelis as infidels) on issues about which they don't believe are addressed directly by the Bible. For example, how many of us really know what a stem-cell is, whether embryonic or not?

My own views on abortion, for example, are considerably more (fundamentally) strict than most Democrats in that I believe that an embryo is a human being even if it was created by rape or incest ... or in any other manner. I personally only see abortion as being called for if it's a matter of the life of the mother or the embryo. But at the same time, I view the War/Occupation in Iraq as even more reprehensible than abortion under those circumstances (rape or incest) and have voted Democrat three straight times (sadly, I did vote for Ross Perot back in 1992).

Jerry Falwell made a comment on the radio today that said it all when he cited abortion and gay marriage as the sum total of what is/was wrong with the Democrat's platform in 2000 and 2004. Exit polling suggests that he was right in that those were indeed the wedge issues that gave GWB the key states needed to win the required electoral votes to take and hold the presidency.

For goodness sake! Isn't Global Warming a moral issue? What about medical care for the poor and elderly -- like myself? And if a precipitous invasion of a country that hadn't killed a single American for the previous ten years isn't an immoral action, what the hell (excuse me!) is? What about the torture and abuse of prisoners at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? And what about the refusal of Congress to (again) not raise the minimum hourly wage for the poorest among us, yet they give themselves yet another pay raise? Aren't all of these genuine moral issues that cry out for meaningful debate.

That was what Barack Obama was trying to say earlier this week -- and what Al Gore was saying vis-a-vis Global Warming in An Inconvenient Truth.

A few quotes from Obama's speech are worth repeating:

* "Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation."
* "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God,'"
* "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps off rhythm to the gospel choir."
* "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."
* "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

Applause, applause, applause to you Senator Obama!

But please, read the entire speech!

Hmmm, I wonder how a Gore-Obama ticket or, for that matter, a Clinton-Obama ticket would fare in 2008 ...

Just musing ...

Death only begets death! Please stop the strikes against Gaza!

Even as I am keying this posting while watching The Situation Room on CNN, seven ... no, now eight strikes have been made against the Palestinians in the Gaza territory. The only specifics thus far is/are damage against the Interior Ministry, although an earlier web-surf (on my part) showed a bridge destroyed while it was still daylight (in the photo)

As most of you know, the entire incident (war?) is related to the murder of a young Israeli, Eliahu Asher (18) and the capture of an Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit (also, very young). Sound familiar?

Asher and Shalit are shown below and look so very, very young!


But as we are learning in Iraq, the additional Arab and Muslim anger that comes from demonstrating our (and Israel's in the case of what is happening at this minute) superior air power only brings with it more death. The horrid torture, murder and mutilation of our young servicemen last week are only likely to be repeated in either Gaza or the West Bank after the current attacks.

When will mankind learn that anger and frustration are seldom the seeds of humane treatment of hostages and/or peace, in general? Recall that our hostages in Teheran were ultimately released after discussions between President Carter and the Iranian revolutionaries -- although they waited until after Reagan became president as a last slap at Carter.

I pray that the Palestinians will realize that doing harm to Gilad Shalit will only continue the cycle of violence. And yes, I am praying to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that His glorious hand intervene and save this young man.

Please Lord!

Sing to the Lord, all you godly ones! Praise his holy name. His anger lasts for a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime! Weeping may go on all night, but joy comes in the morning. Psalm 30:4-5 NLT

The US Supreme Court came through ... for a change!

Wasn't it only Monday that I posted a blog relating to the "combatants" being held at Gitmo that stated, "Even without a poll to lend support to my personal repulsion of such an obvious breach of either international laws (Geneva Conventions apply if they are POWs) or our own laws (if they are suspects in a crime), no one should be held indefinitely without the right to hearing the charges against them and (ultimately) a fair trial"?

Well, most of you now know that the Supreme Court agreed with Mediawingnuts on this one and handed down today what can only be regarded as a real blow to the President and his principal advisors.

The ruling came in many parts, of course (lawyers like to use lots of words), but the principal ideas presented were that (1) Bush didn't have the authority to hold the tribunals he (reluctantly and after almost five years) said he was going to hold and (2) the tribunals (if held) would "violate the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Gee, I got that one right ...

I have to add that the radio news I heard on the way back from Grays Harbor College also said that the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, was going to introduce legislation authorizing the tribunals that Bush desires. I'll have to read the wording of that bill, but the above statement about such tribunals violating the GC and the UCMJ ought to cover that possibility too, I would think.

Here's hoping ...

Let's call these prisoners what they really are -- either POWs, foreign spies or common criminals guilty of treason (if any are US citizens) -- and be done with it. Why do we have to deprive them of some sort of legal defense and timely trials? There's something about this whole "enemy combatants" terminology that eludes me -- and has a rotten smell to it besides. Also, what will this ruling have to say (if anything) about "enemy combatants" (hell, many of them are out-and-out terrorists, but deserve to be charged and tried) that are being held secretly in other countries? That program, when it was leaked to the press, taught me an entirely new English-language word -- rendering!

I agree with George Bush that these dudes are, by and large, pretty awful people, but we are a nation of laws and a constitution -- besides operating under the regulations of the Geneva Conventions for POWs -- if this is really a "war," as we have been told often enough.

Thanks for the info on the "real" original flag raising at Iwo Jima

The original photo (shown above) taken before the staged photo used as a morale booster through the end of World War II and beyond is also poignant, I think. It was taken on February 23, 1945 and the more famous picture shown in the blog posting that is two or three below this one, was taken shortly later. It was "set up" in the very same location, ... only Hollywood-style.

BlogsterOne: Thanks for the e-mail. Do you have a blog?

Our thirteen-digit debt!

That last posting relating to two of the richest men in the world -- coupled with my having just seen An Inconvenient Truth last weekend, with its scary graphs all sky-rocketing on the right side -- brought to my mind the fact that our Senate recently raised the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. What was really surprising was that, for a change, it was a close vote with the senators basically voting along party lines to insure that the occupation of Iraq could continue. Usually, the debt ceiling votes are one-sided, reflecting the reality of the spending bills before Congress at the time.


I wonder how many Americans are aware that, at last count, we were in debt to the tune of about $8.395724 trillion (rounded to the nearest million). Largely due to two causes: the tax reduction to the wealthy and, of course, the high cost of waging war (excuse me, waging the occupation) in Iraq. Yeh, we had to raise the ceiling to $9 trillion, didn't we?

When viewed as a percentage of the national (annual debt, the chart doesn't look too scary, does it?



But then, why not look at it as it really is ... a truly inconvenient truth, when we see the debt over time adjusted for inflation!



Now that's scary!!

The re-emergence of deficit spending on a year-by-year basis is surely a problem with which we must deal! But looking at the far right-hand side of the chart should give us some concerns too. Notice the sharp climb in just the last five years -- without inflation -- and note that even during the Clinton years -- when we brought deficit spending down to zero and beyond (we actually had a surplus in the final years of Mr. Clinton's presidency), we still see a scary and unprecedented increase in the national debt.

That says we won't simply "fix" this problem in a hurry -- like immediately withdrawing from Iraq, or even revising the tax structure back to something equitable for all. We will have to come up with new ideas and new solutions! The balance of trade is woefully in the red. Median (50% above, 50% below) incomes are down in almost every sector of the economy -- while the mean (the common average) income continues to rise as the rich get richer, giving a distorted picture of how we, as Americans workers, are faring economically.

I surely don't have all the answers, but I also know that the current Administration and Congress (both houses!) don't either -- and are going in almost exactly the wrong direction besides.

But of course, our focus is in the other direction right now -- away from little problems like the growing debt, growing deficit spending, the occupation in Iraq and ... global warming. We are busy worrying ourselves sick over flag burning (when was the last flag burned in the US?), gay marriages, immigration laws (which have been just as they are now for the past 250 years), who will become the new American Idol and why ABC cancelled Commander-in-Chief. Admittedly, I was bothered by that one, which shows that I am (sadly) right there with the rest of Americans in letting my focus become redirected away from the truly big issues.

But for starters, we could get the &%$#! out of Iraq and restructure the tax code to give middle class Americans a much needed breather ... and oh yes, relating to the debt and deficit spending, Congress should give Mr. Bush his desired "line-item-veto" so that he could selectively take some of the pork out of every bill put before him for signature. He's 100% right on as regards that issue, you know!

What can be done with $60 billion -- that's B, as in Bill or Buffett!

I continue to teach in my old age at a part-time hourly wage of ... well, my daughter, Rebecca, said to me yesterday, "But dad, housemaids in Washington, DC make more than that!"

But then, I see what others who have passed into (not "passed on") their retirement years are doing with their fortunes, I feel good inside and out. I can't even imagine what $1.5 billion might be like, but a donation of that much per year to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is surely something that will cure disease and educate so, so many young people who would otherwise remain uneducated and thus, underdeveloped and underprivileged, to an extent that boggles my mind.

From all of us, thank you William Buffett -- and you too, Bill and Melinda Gates, for seeing the light. My brother, Richard from Connecticut, suggested that I post something about your generosity and I am very happy to do so.

I also understand that you both (or should I say "all three of you") are opposed to the abolishment of "death tax" (a.k.a. "Estate Tax") and that too makes me feel good inside. Now, if only the Walmarts and a few others would set aside their greed and join that way of thinking, the GOP might not be so eager to do away with that very fair taxation on what certain families (and their employees) have earned in their lifetimes. The push to exempt large estates from a progressive tax is only fueled by the money that is shoveled into the Republican (and Democrat, I'm afraid) political campaigns and the wonderful golf trips and exotic vacations that our lawmakers enjoy..

66 to 34 ... It couldn't have been closer, but "free speech" (in some people's view) won out!

Strangely, I didn't really care which way the voting went today, but now that it's over, I guess I'm glad that our Constitution won't be desecrated with such a strange Amendment.

Although none of our lives would have been altered substantially had the Senate come up with the required 67 "yea" votes to start the process rolling to make desecration of the flag "unconstitutional," it would continue a divisive process that might take years as state after state would undoubtedly have ratified the Amendment.

And even after ratification, can you imagine the difficult time the Supreme Court would have trying to rule on cases based on the wording of the proposed Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States"?

I truly love our flag and hate to see situations arise wherein it's seriously desecrated for whatever reason, but my own personal picture of the flag is the one I remembered from when I was about twelve years old (above) and not the one (below) taken in Teheran in 1979 at the time of the hostage crisis.



I am personally more offended by bikini-style bathing suits that portray our flag or worse -- when it's used to advertise products from cigarettes to condoms.

Wow! A victory over terror and a victory in Iraq during the same week!

How is it possible? We tore down a major Al-Qaida terror network (7 black men) in Miami and Alberto Gonzalez (on the right) announced that we now have them on the run, so to speak. The fact that the group was purported to be plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and then didn't even have pictures of it after one of the men (who had previously lived in Chicago) visited there sometime over the past eight months. When asked if the "Al Qaida cell" had ever had contact with actual Al-Qaida operatives, Mr. Gonzales reluctantly said "no" -- but only after consulting with his advisors who were with him at the news conference. (How is it that he wasn't prepared for that question beforehand?)

The other questions were equally interesting: Did they have guns or explosives? "No!" What did they have? "well, they had boots and uniforms" -- paid for with money that the intelligence agent posing as an Al-Qaida member gave them.

As it turns out, they weren't even Muslims in the fullest sense of the word, being that they belonged to a Muslim-Christian offshoot of something like the "Black Jews for Christ," whatever in heck that is, called the "Seas of David."

I have no doubt that these seven men should be locked up in a loony bin somewhere, but fail to see where the Government broke up a dangerous terror network -- as it was originally portrayed to us.

The other victory -- this one in Iraq, was announced by Rick Santorum who is, of course, running for reelection to the Senate in Pennsylvania. He announced that recent investigations showed that Saddam Hussein was indeed armed with WMDs when we attacked him in 2003. Trouble is though, the WMDs turned out to be old canisters (many empty) and degraded artillery rounds containing degraded mustard agent and saran gas. Further, they were found early on during our occupation and were already reported more than two years ago. Even before the war, they were known to exist -- since they were (1) known to have been lost or abandoned by the Iraqis at the conclusion of the war with Iran in 1988 and (2) were in the area covered by our "no fly" zone in the southern part of Iraq close to the Iranian border. They were clearly not what President Bush was referring to as the "WMD program" which Saddam was alleged to have activated just prior to our invasion in 2003. The Pentagon has since verified that these are "not the WMDs we were looking for when we went in this time," Of course, such degraded weapons are dangerous -- as are the land mines we (the US) has left here and there in places like Vietnam. The same could be said for depleted uranium rounds or (maybe even) Agent Orange and some of the more exotic defolients we used in recent conflicts.

Bottom line: much ado about nothing and a big embarrassment for the likes of Santorum and Gonzalez. What next?

An item or two I should really have included in the posting just below this one

First and foremost, it is only proper that I direct you to the excellent research paper by Professor Jones at BYU. The carefully selected photos and superb selection of additional links alone are well worth the visit. You will have to scroll down a page or so before reaching his actual paper -- in its sixth draft for publication in a peer reviewed journal.


Also, I thought I had (and surely should have!) included a couple of photos that highlighted the specific points which I mentioned. One, of course, is the liquid metal streaming from the South Tower.

And the other obvious omission is a photo of the "third" of the WTC buildings to have imploded and collapsed perfectly symmetrically on that fateful day. That is Building WTC #7, of course, which more than 85% of Americans -- even today, according to polling data, are unaware even existed! Of course, all you will have to do is Google "WTC Building 7" and see the plethora of websites entirely devoted to this one building which (1) collapsed on September 11, 2001 at about 5:30 pm, (2) was never struck by a plane, (3) was the location of Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's "Command Post" on the 23rd floor -- as well as federal intelligence offices here and there throughout the building, (4) was not even mentioned in the 9-11 Commission's (cover-up) report and (5) was the particular building for which actual videotape of Larry Silverstein ordering that it be "pulled" exists and is on many, many "conspiracy" tapes/DVDs, thanks to its having "gotten out." Oh yes, Silverstein owned all three of the WTC towers -- and more. His selfish attempts to have the insurance company that covered the buildings regard the two attacks separately made even the mainline news. Even so, he made a bundle.

Thermite Evidence is Convincing -- Something isn't Being Told!

Okay, okay ... I know that this posting will label me as some kind of "conspiracy nut," but give me a moment here.

No one would argue that Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida organization were behind the horror and mayhem of September 11, 2001. However ... there are many, many questions that have yet to be answered to the satisfaction of hundreds of tenured professors from among the scientific community in America, and around the world.

Those of you who happened to watch Hannity and Colmes over the weekend couldn't have missed noticing how quickly they dismissed and cut away from the Emeritus Professor from Minnesota when they realized that he wasn't "teaching" a course in "9-11 Conspiracy" as they had been told by their sources, but was simply organizing a group of scientists who are relooking at the evidence (what's left of it) in light of the findings of Professor Steven Jones of BYU -- a senior professor at Brigham Young University.

And yes, their investigation is uncovering new truths. Most damaging to the "official story" that the towers simply collapsed due to fires in all three (yes three!) buildings at the WTC that terrible day were pools of yellow molten steel found underneath all three buildings. Building Seven -- 47 stories tall -- wasn't even mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report, by the way, despite excellent video of its perfect vertical collapse and Silverstein's videotaped order to "pull" Building Seven only moments before its collapse. The FEMA report at least mentioned it, but stated that its collapse was not yet explained.

In any event, the scientists working with Professor Jones are finding iron, sulfur, magnesium and potassium -- all characteristic of what is called a "cutting blast" of thermite which cuts through steel quickly and evenly. Of course, thermite is what is used in controlled demolitions.

The only way that thermite could have been present is for it to have been "planted" in the buildings sometime before the three collapses. Clearly, the Al-Qaida flew planes into the buildings prior totheir collapses, but (1) never in the history of large (tall) buildings has their been even one such collapse before we had three in one day and (2) no plane crashed into Building Seven.


Jones isn't just some come-lately. He has had over 40 peer reviewed articles, including articles in Nature and Scientific American.

He used the word "clever" in mentioning the use of thermite because it is composed of aluminum and iron oxide (rust), neither of which require tagging by law, which means it can't be traced back to the original manufacturer of the thermite.

The videos are even more telling in that they show white ash rising from the South Tower (#2) and long streams of dripping liquid metal that seemed (to me) to go on forever in the videotape which I have watched several times.

Hey, Americans are Finally Seeing the Light as Regards Gitmo

This is as of today! A poll taken by ABC News and the Washington Post shows that 71% of Americans believe that the prisoners at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba should be either given Prisoner of War status or charged with a crime. The poll was taken between Thursday and Sunday (23 - 25 June 2006) with the required sample size (about 1100) to give it a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. (Yes, I teach statistics at the local college!)

Only 25 percent support the current White House policy of holding these detainees indefinitely and without charges.

Even without a poll to lend support to my personal repulsion of such an obvious breach of either international laws (Geneva Conventions apply if they are POWs) or our own laws (if they are suspects in a crime), no one should be held indefinitely without the right to hearing the charges against them and (ultimately) a fair trial.

How is it that this continues to slip under the radar as regards coverage in the mainstream media year after year?

Joe Lieberman versus Ned Lamont

Wow! Democrat versus Democrat and both fine persons in almost every way. But the choice this time isn't "Joe versus Ned"; it's "War/Occupation versus Peace/Sensibility."

As it stands today (and I haven't spoken with Richard, my brother in Connecticut where all this is happening, in at least two days), Lamont is trailing Lieberman by a two-digit margin ... about 15 percentage points. He was behind by at least 40 points only a few weeks ago, so maybe the momentum is on his side. Indeed, Dick Morris, a real pro in the business of politics, according to my brother, Richard, is predicting that Lamont will overtake Lieberman by August 8 -- the day of the Democratic primary in Connecticut -- this, according to NewsMax's website. It was also hinted at by this week's Time magazine which I am still digesting.

Lord knows, I wish Senator Joe Lieberman the best, and I truly believe that he wants us to stay the course in Iraq for what he honestly believes would meet the long-term goal of a stable Middle East, but on this one he's just wrong, plain and simple wrong. Clearly, Israel and many pro-Zionist Americans see the issue of stability in that region and Israeli security as largely hinging on our continuing presence with a permanent US presence there in the manner of permanent well-equipped bases (and manpower) in Iraq. Notice the number of times I used the word, "permanent"!

And that is, isn't it, Senator Lieberman, what you believe best for Israel and the entire Middle East?

But I see it differently. If we were able to extract our young servicemen and women out of Iraq -- redeployed nearby with the substantial air power we have shown to be capable of employing with almost no notice (remember "Shock and Awe) -- the non-Iraqi terrorists would almost have to leave as the Shiites and Sunnis would be literally forced to come to some kind of permanent accommodation ... likely after some fighting, but with losses far fewer than the civilian population is currently enduring there. And oh yes, with no (zero!) additional US losses in Iraq.

By the way -- Senator Lieberman: I voted for you as Vice President in 2000 and was proud of the way in which you handled both yourself and your campaign. I believe you are deep inside proud and happy with the way Mr. Bush is conducting his foreign policies in the Middle east -- in particular, the way he is staying the course in Iraq. But (and this is a big "but"), if you should happen to fall behind Mr. Lamont and lose on August 8, please, please, don't run as an Independent. If that happens -- that is, if you should happen to lose on August 8 and then stay out of the November elections as an Independent or whatever else might open up, who knows? GWB might replace Donald Rumsfeld with you, who would then be "available," to be Bush's new SecDef in September or October as a desperation move on the Republican Party's part before the mid-term elections in November and then ... you'd have a few moments in the sun before the new Democrat-controlled Congress forces an immediate withdrawal from our ill-conceived escapade in Iraq.

Think on that one, Senator Lieberman; it's a no-lose proposition!

I may owe Mr. Bush an apology ...

I feel that it's important that I clarify some of what I started at the end of the previous posting. I possibly left you with the opinion that I was trying to put Mr. Bush down while looking like a really gracious guy. After all, I did include the cover of the Rolling Stones magazine sitting there at the bottom of the posting for all to view and then, after letting you smile at Bush with a dunce cap on, only suggested that GWB was really one schmartt cookie.

Not at all. That's not what was intended, not what I meant and certainly not what I want even my brother, Richard, to believe.

What can be said about W. is that he has a lot of public speaking quirks that make him endearing to some and appear dumber than a doorknob to others. Yes, he periodically slips-up with his verbiage and, thus, has created a new word in our wonderful English language: Bushisms. Most of them were spoken at times of stress and almost always when answering questions or otherwise speaking off the cuff, so to speak.

I empathize! I even scramble the letters within a single word. My students have learned to laugh politely when I go "bubledubblydubble" after tangling a word, a sentence or even a mathematical or scientific concept.

One thing that I particularly like about the way Mr. Bush answers questions, addresses issues and even (at times) tries to explains himself more clearly ... is that he gets directly to the point at issue and speaks from his heart. Someone once pointed out on Fox News that he comes from a Texan way of life that has as one of its main theses, "there are no easy answers, but there are often explanations or solutions that are simpler to grasp and implement" (or something like that). To an extent, that's probably how he views the situation in Iraq, and why it's so difficult for him to admit that he's wrong or has made a mistake ... as is obviously the case with the war ...… and now, occupation, in Iraq. Terrorism is truly a complex issue and we seem to have taken an unusually simple approach -- invade and occupy Iraq! -- even if Iraq was not a haven of the terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.

I will gladly "give" Mr. Bush all the latitude in the world vis-a-vis his verbal gaffes if he sees the logic to the consistency of the wording of the two seemingly contradictory bumper stickers, "Support Our Troops!" and "Bring Them Home!"

He doesn't even have to admit making a mistake. He only has to say, "Mission Accomplished!" But whatever, BRING THEM HOME!! If he were to do that tomorrow, his poll numbers would be back above 50%!!!

"Evil is as Evil does ..."

Why I bother to even put myself through the torture of watching Forrest Gump for the umpteenth time, I really don't know. I tear up every time ...…at all of the predictable moments during what has to be a classic answer to the question that atheists and others eager to point out the fallacies of Christianity put forth, "since God created evil, doesn't that mean that God must be evil!"

Yeh, "Evil is as evil does ..." as Forrest Gump's mother put it early in the movie, but I have always enjoyed the attached spam that rolls around in webspace every now and then. It goes as follows:

(begin quote of email spam)
------------------------------------------

DID GOD CREATE EVIL?

Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is, in reality, the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy and heat. What makes a body or matter have or transmit energy? Absolute zero (-460 °F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat." The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanities to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name??? Albert Einstein............

A true story.
-------------------------------------------
(end quote of email spam)

Well, I happen not to believe that this is an actual "true story" taken from the life of Albert Einstein ...… whose words (I suppose) might well (but not likely) be recorded in this manner in some obscure German language diary --…but I do believe that it is an accurate portrayal of the meanings of many words in our come-lately English language to include hate, war, violence, stupidity and even death.

Watching Forrest Gump this afternoon on TNT (a Cable TV station) made that point abundantly clear to me.

It also brought memories of Vietnam (actually two words -- "Nam" means "south," as I recall, and all Vietnamese people -- north and south of the old boundaries regard themselves as "Viets"). And it also brought to this old man a reminder of the randomness of life as portrayed by the white feather in the final scene of Forrest Gump.

I will probably return to the theme (if that's what it might be called) of that incredible flick later in the summer since I finally ordered the DVD from Amazon and will surely see it a couple of times in July or so.

At the very least, I will argue that President Bush is NOT a caricature (real or imaginary) that could be portrayed as Forrest Gump's evil twin.





Not exactly an accurate comparison ... and quite mean, besides!

Despite my wish that we had never become embroiled in a needless war against the Sunnis in Iraq (I think we are on the side of the Shiites, but don't really know, since a war strategy has yet to be revealed to us), I truly believe that President Bush is just as sad as we all are at the deaths of both our youngsters there and the Iraqi civilians. I also think that he is just a tad smarter than most of us give him credit for being, although a tad more likely to listen to the bad advice given him by his closest advisors.

Just musing ...

My brother, Richard, has one little weakness!

Yes, my brother, Richard in Connecticut, does indeed have a weakness. He has clung faithfully to his love (nay, call it worship!) of those (admittedly great as of today) Detroit Tigers.

He's even offered to take me along on a trip to Iceland (why Iceland, I've yet to figure out) next summer if the Tigers take it all in October. Actually, I agreed to this crazy trip -- if he kept a (reluctantly given) pledge.

Hellfire! I'd take him to Iceland if the Dems would manage to grab enough of a victory in the midterm elections to have the votes to impeach Mr. Bush for his crimes against all of us -- in dragging the death and destruction in Iraq on and on indefinitely, in his unconstitutional eavesdropping program, in his disregard for the record (in the $trillions) deficits being left for our grandchildren, etc.

My Gosh! Has it been that long since rumors were flying about Cheney stepping down and Condoleezza Rice stepping "up"?

It seems like more than a year since I was insisting to my brother, Richard from Connecticut, that it was inevitable that Dick Cheney would step down (for "health reasons") and that Condoleezza Rice would fill his shoes as Vice President. Richard's exact words were, "You're crazy!"

Well, that was then and now is now.

Since those conversations with Richard in early and mid-summer of 2005, the Scooter Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) indictment was handed down and, of course, we all remember the rumors that were flying about Washington (DC) towards the end of 2005.

Since then, of course, other events have taken place such as Bush's poll ratings and Cheney's even worse poll ratings (see the Polling Reports website for both) -- not all as a result of his shooting a lawyer buddy in the face while murdering helpless pheasants who were bred in cages.

Since then, the Occupation (not "War") in Iraq has gone downhill and Mr. Bush is probably looking at Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as his chief architects of the "strategy" that has taken us from his moment of glory when he addressed us all from aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln ("Mission Accomplished") ... until today.

Besides, he probably sees it as God's will that he choose his own successor, and what better way to accomplish that trick than to set Condi up for that job -- despite her protestations to the contrary. Thou protesteth too much, sweet Condi, and just think: Wouldn't that just get the Democrat's goat really up if the GOP were to have the first woman, first black and first single Vice President in history -- with a shot at the same for President in 2008? The imagery is almost too good to pass up.



I'm sure it would bring a smile to both GWB's and Condi's faces to see the wind in Hillary's sails go the way of the glaciers I saw melting in An Inconvenient Truth yesterday. Mind you, Hillary has been one of my heroes since watching her on TV taking on the medical and insurance vultures back in 1993-94. But Mr. Bush and Condi (who are so close that she called him "my husba-- uh ... President" once -- accidentally) must surely think thoughts like those that enter my own diseased mind periodically.

And wasn't it only last Fall that Dick Morris (my brother, Richard from Connecticut, regards him as a brilliant political strategist) wrote a book entitled, Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race? That's the book wherein he and his co-author (Eileen McGann) went so far as to write that Condi is the only Republican who can (1) win the GOP nomination, (2) beat Hillary, and thus, (3) hold onto the White House and maintain a conservative Supreme Court for the Republicans.

Yeh, I know, Al Gore might just be the hottest thing going since pepperoni pizza by 2008, but then, he might really want to put the environment and his war on Global Warming first for some time -- at least for another 4 - 8 years. As Tipper Gore said last week, "he's only 58 years old!"

And Cheney is as expendable as Ken Lay, Tom DeLay and Scooter Libby, at the very least! And if he's indicted over the Valerie Plame affair ... well, he wouldn't have to cite his weak heart as an excuse to step down.

Whatcha think?

Helen Thomas -- A Heroine of our Times!

Without doubt, Ms. Helen Thomas is one of the true "heroines" of our times. She has made presidents from Eisenhower (and possibly ) Truman to Bill Clinton and GWB think hard about how to squeeze around her insightful and sharp questioning. Her questions this week to Tony Snow had him stammering for several seconds before he accidentally blundered into negating one of the Administration's major assertions re. the "Occupation" (not "War") in Iraq.

Still that didn't stop Representative Steve King (R, Iowa) from attempting to titillate a partisan Republican audience by making fun of this fine 86 year-old woman's looks, of all things. He was commenting on the great republican victory of 2006 (the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi by either a 500-lb LGB or an Al-Qaida bullet -- cause of death still not made public -- when he mused that perhaps the Al-Qaida leader in Iraq might not be received by 72 virgins in his personal Hell, and if he were so "received," they (the 72 virgins) "would all look like Helen Thomas."

Well, I am 71 years-old myself and take his remarks as "over the top" in lack of respect for those of us who no longer look like Tom Cruise or Jessica Alba. (I never did look like Tom Cruise, BTW, but I kinda think I looked a little like King Kong or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Love Your Enemies -- Even the Most Dastardly!

As I watch the television news, I am more and more reminded that I am a truly "fallen man." One minute, I am angry at Republicans, another minute I am angry at Democrats. I find myself hating the Islamic Fundamentalists who do such awful things to our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Jesus' words ring loud and clear: "turn the other cheek," "put away thy sword" (to Peter), and (most important) "do not return evil for evil."

I gasped! It's terrifying ...

I saw An Inconvenient Truth this afternoon and am truly frightened -- not for myself, but for my children and grandchildren. To say that the movie is inspirational isn't enough. It's FACT! I never thought I'd see a movie that focused on charts, graphs, numbers and science in its purest form. As a mathematician, engineer and former Chief Scientist for the US Air Forces in Europe -- from England to Turkey, although I was stationed at Ramstein AFB in Germany (not bragging, but credibility seems to be important these days), I believe that I am qualified to state that the sources used and quoted by Al Gore in this marvelous movie were of the very highest caliber. It's real!

Al Gore's "slide show" brought both the human element front and center as well as the dire consequences for the entire earth if we don't take his suggestions seriously -- and soon! From droughts to floods, from hurricanes to epidemics caused by Global Warming, Vice President Gore let it all hang out, so to speak. And hang out, it surely does. The scenes of glaciers crumbling and of the ice melting literally beneath both the Antarctica and Greenland (to name the two most serious concerns) was perhaps the most dramatic part of the presentation -- and I was glad that he used a cartoon drawing of the polar bear as it was unable to find a floating sheet of ice before giving up and (in animation) drowning. I'm an animal lover and even the animation almost brought tears to my eyes.

In particular, the correlation between the spike (from about 1980 until 2005) of both carbon dioxide and average global temperatures was scary enough to make me gasp aloud. To make this part of the argument simple: think of trees as breathing in (using) carbon dioxide so that fewer trees means more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.



Please see this movie and tell your friends to see it too.

Whoops! I owe Richard an apology ...

I did a more thorough examination of the images on my hard drive and realize now that this graph is not Richard's artwork, nor is it related to Global Warming. This was extracted from one of my TOP SECRET COSMIC folders containing warplans and this particular image is the latest Pentagon Plan for an Exit Strategy out of Iraq. The ordinate and mantissa (the axes) are "War on Terror" and "War in Iraq," respectively. I have to leave the actual placement of the axes and scaling (for the axes) off of the graph to keep it UNCLASSIFIED, but you get the idea.

My sincerest apologies to my brother, Richard in Connecticut, for my having mislabeled the graph in the previous posting.

For right now, I will be feeding my cats and heading to Olympia, Washington (not Seattle as I originally thought would be necessary) to (finally) see An Inconvenient Truth. More on that later. Also, more on my thoughts as regards what might be meant by "winning" the war/occupation in Iraq and what exactly the "mission" might have been -- before Bush declared it "accomplished," of course.

Richard's Take on Global Warming

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that my brother, Richard from Connecticut, provided this slightly original take on Global Warming. I think that it's supposed to be a graph of average global temperature in hyperspace, but I haven't had the chance to verify this with Richard. Thanks, Rich, but how should I label the axes?

I'll be watching An Inconvenient Truth (finally) tomorrow!

Northern Hemisphere

Global Temperatures

Note that these graphs are supported by statements made by the Environmental Protection Agency (and the National Academy of Sciences) -- and the EPA is one of GWB's own agencies.

This is just a preview -- I'm sure I'll have more to say about all of this on Saturday or so.

Demand that Rumsfeld present an exit "strategy" NOW!

The vote in the Senate today was shameful. Politics seems to be winning and we, the people, seem only to have one option left. The ballot box! And yet, maybe, just maybe ... the folks in charge of the debacle in Iraq can be convinced (sooner than November) if enough of us make some meaningful noise on the subject. Donald Rumsfeld is the principle architect of our current "stay the course" strategy; perhaps he can be made to see the light -- in light of his daily briefings, what he sees on his television set and letters from all of us.

Just maybe ...

Slaughter begets slaughter!

God knows how awful I felt when I first heard the (not unexpected) news that the two young GIs who were being held captive were found both dead and mutilated beyond description. (See posting below.) The torture they must have endured is beyond my comprehension and I can only pray (and I am even as I key this in) that Our Lord will bring comfort to the grief-stricken families.

But ... the answer is not to compound slaughter with more slaughter ... endlessly and with little regard to who is being slaughtered. The daily accounts of the killing of Iraqi civilians by our own boys and girls continues to grind on in the nightly newscasts. Of course, our Government does not condone the needless killing of civilians, and our military is doing its utmost to insure that justice is meted out. Admittedly, I hope punishments are both merciful and light (or not at all, if they are found to be innocent). Our servicemen and women are under extremely harsh conditions and enormous stress from minute to minute, and not out there deliberately and cold-bloodedly killing innocents, I'm sure.

But every time we lay a city under siege -- recall Fallujah


-- and just what is taking place this week around Ramadi (capital of Anbar Province)? -- we are threatening countless civilians (I saw one estimate of at least 100,000 unable to leave the Ramadi, primarily families in poverty -- with children, the disabled and the elderly). Last night's evening news only hinted at the ongoing and upcoming events in that area as our troops were/are surrounding that city.

The posting of the details of the horrid killing of the two young servicemen and the subsequent airing of a claim (quite possibly accurate) of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir that he personally beheaded the young soldiers ... has enraged America (myself included) and set us up for some kind of retaliative strike against ... anyone!

God knows, I am quite human and would get great glee (albeit sinful) to watch the actual demons who tortured and murdered our boys get their just comeuppance -- ugly, painful, slow and bloody!

But Jesus tells me that we are not to return evil for evil, as I discussed in a posting earlier this week. He also said something like "he who uses the sword dies by the sword" or words to that effect. The torture that was permitted to happen at Abu Graib or the deadly sweep in Haditha last November are not necessarily "causes" for the murderous tactics of the al-Qaida, but they diminish, ever so little, our hope of taking the higher moral/ethical position in the "war" to gain the hearts and minds of the civilians in Iraq.

A repeat of Fallujah in Ramadi is not called for at this time. I've been there and seen more than enough ...


Although I was quite safely working with photo recon on the computers at Tan Son Nhut Air Base in Saigon when I first saw the above photo in a news account -- a year or so later (like Haditha, My Lai was kept under wraps for some time), this image has been with me for more than 35 years.

Remember ... slaughter (evil) begets slaughter (evil) every time.

What do you call a posting with no comments?

Well, in answer to that question, I told my brother, Richard from Connecticut, that it was not unlike the question relating to a tree that falls in the forest when there's no one around to hear it fall.

But more to the point of the above photo, it is actually a tree felled by all too human loggers in the Manu National Park in the Rainforest in Peru.

Now that's something far sadder than a blog-site that goes unvisited, considering that sights as the above photo are not unusual in rainforests throughout the world. I live close by two wonderful rainforests and also (sadly) in the midst of some of the worse logging abuses in America.

Global Warming is real, folks! Don't just take Al Gore's word for it. Just read the weather reports worldwide.

More on this later, I promise ... but not until after I get up to Seattle to see An Inconvenient Truth.

Federal Contracts Increased by over $175 Billion during 2000 - 2005

Yeh, you read that correctly. $175 BILLION!!!

But to make matters worse, only yesterday the Senate rejected a proposal to form an oversight committee to investigate "contract improprieties" in the war zones. To his credit, Henry Waxman (not a US Senator, but an honest US Congressman from California) released a 65-page report described as "the first comprehensive assessment of contracting" by the LA Times. You might want to click on the link on the right side of Waxman's home page, entitled Full Report: Dollars, not Sense, if you have time (and stomach) to read it.

Hardly unexpected were the mentions of cost-plus contract increases (no company can lose on one of those!), monopoly contracts and "no-bid Contracts" -- the fastest growing such contractor in this last category being Dick Cheney's favorite, Haliburton.

The fun though is in the details -- items such as meals that were not delivered to our troops (but for which we paid), cost overruns (for which we taxpayers picked up the difference), enormous sums of unaccounted for funds earmarked to build more than a dozen (non)permanent bases in Iraq and the Taj Mahal of the Middle East -- the new US Embassy in Baghdad -- and ...



well, you get the idea.

And you wonder why the Republicans are frightened silly about the possibility that we might redeploy our troops out of Iraq to neighboring countries as is suggested by Murtha?

I don't. It's called greed!

It's time for us to redeploy out of Iraq NOW and yes, investigate thoroughly the war zone procurement improprieties before another ten to twenty billion (or maybe $200 billion) US dollars slips through the cracks.

Let's make it at least a little tough on Tony Snow, guys!

Watching Face the Nation this week was bothersome in more way than one. But let me at least state my current gripe. Tony Snow stated, during his interview with Bob Schieffer, that Iraqi leaders "to a person" asked Bush (while GWB was there during his "sneak" visit) not to take our troops out of Iraq.

He wasn't challenged. Why not???

After all, This statement was directly contradicted by a June 15 Associated Press report that Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi had asked President Bush "for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq." Iraqi President Jalal Talabani supported Hashimi's request. I dug the quote and statements right out of the Face the Nation website only moments ago after hearing something that reminded me about it on Air America.

In fact, the entire interview was handled with such velvet gloves that I might have thought that Ann Coulter was hosting Face the Nation.