A Can Story

This morning, my husband and I walked down our driveway in the frosty pre-dawn to deposit the trash can for its weekly pickup. In the spirit of the season, we taped a Christmas card to it. Inside the card was a little $ for the driver and the picker-upper. They'd been conscientious about returning the empty can to a sensible place, in an upright position, with lid locked, throughout the year. It felt good to say thank you.

I happened to be home when the trash truck came by. I peeked out the window to see them look at the card, look at each other, and pocket it. They left the can and lid strewn in the middle of the street. The duct tape that was holding the card was lying on the sidewalk. Merry Christmas.

Compassionate Conservative

Don't go to Google and type in failure, miserable, miserable failure or other combination.^{1, 2} It could bias your objectivity.

________
¹ Via Biomes Blog.
² "Google bombing" was added to the New Oxford American Dictionary in May 2005.

What To Do With $100

The cost of home heating is set to increase 30% to 70% this winter - closer to the high side if natural gas is used for heating, and you live in a colder state. Both pertain in my case.

That's $100/month more if I apply a middle-ground 50% to a $200/month bill. That's a hefty chunk.

No wonder the stores have been eager this Holiday season to rev-up the blood in our consumer veins. They want first dibs at that $100.

A Sovereign Iraq

With all this wrangling over what to do with our troops in Iraq ... do we "increase troop strength", "withdraw", "redeploy" ... I think we're forgetting that Iraq is a sovereign country. It's entirely their decision what to allow American troops to do in their country, and when to ask them to leave.

Last week, when Bush was asked about a timetable for troop withdraw, he replied, "When our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home."

Am I the only one who thinks that this decision doesn't lie with our commanders, but with the Iraqi people? How would we feel if China decided to deploy troops in the US to control our human rights abuses? Would we just let them patrol our streets until their commanders deemed it an appropriate time to leave? Just what does it mean to be sovereign anyway?

Speaking of our troops leaving, The Ostroy Report raises a trenchant question in his post:
Is Bush Set to Do an About-Face on His Misguided "Stay the Course" Policy By Withdrawing Troops In Time For '06 Midterms?

Boy, would it be suspicious if the Iraqi government asked our troops to leave in time for our midterm elections. The war hawks would have their out.

Congress Never Voted to Declare War

I'm a bit put off by the misconceptions surrounding "the vote to go to war". And it's not just the White House saying a majority voted for the war¹, it's Democrats themselves.

This just isn't the case.

And again:
In his "War on Terror" speech on Veteran's Day in PA, Bush said "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

This is not true.

No one voted for a war. No one voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Here's what was voted for:

"The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

- The culminating statement of Congress' Joint Resolution, SJ Res 45, Authorization For Use of US Armed Forces, September 30, 2002

Since, according to our Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, the president had to seek their approval. Even then, Bush did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. Bush sought, and received, authority to use US military force to back UN Resolutions which would counter any threat posed by Iraq, defending our national security.

It is legally the UN Security Council, backed by a unanimous vote of its 15 member states, that can use military force against a country deemed a threat. Bush knew this, so he lobbied the Security Council for a Resolution that, if voted upon, would authorize the use of force if Iraq didn't comply. Bush got close to this on November 8, 2002 with the infamous UN Resolution 1441. It required Iraq to reveal all its WMD to UN inspectors or face "serious consequences".

Bush didn't believe the findings of the UN inspectors. So he called for a Resolution authorizing military action. No UN Resolution authorizing force against Iraq was brought to a vote - since at least France, Germany, Russia, and China were against this - and you needed unanimous approval for military action.



So, On March 20, 2003², in an illegitimate move, without UN approval, without a declaration of war from Congress, Bush struck Iraq. It was his decision, not the UN's, not Congress'.

That is my understanding.
________
¹ "The war" here is referring to the conflict in Iraq. This is distinct from the "war on terror", although how you wage war on an indeterminate act, and not a person or a state, is beyond me.

² AP Photo shown. Caption: "An explosion is seen in Baghdad early this morning as the U.S. launches a war on Iraq with an air assault on the capital in a surgical strike intended to kill Saddam Hussein and top Iraqi leaders."

Go, Michael!

'Go-getter,' 18, Ousts Mayor in Michigan

Criminalizing Abortion

If the Supreme Court becomes an entity with the power to criminalize abortion, then abortion will go underground. I don't see women just pushing it off the table as an option.

Sadly, it's the marginalized groups already - those living in poverty, those without education, without medical and contraceptive resources - who will suffer. Poor, single, disenfranchised women who find themselves pregnant and opt for (a medically risky) abortion would then have to add criminal to their list of attributes. And what will society do then, incarcerate them?

I just don't understand this reasoning. Why don't we use all the money and resources it would take to prosecute abortions and spend it on the root causes? It seems to me there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country than to hang all those "bad women" who seek them.

________
Painting by Haitian artist Raymond Cadet, from Jane's Addictions.

Vote Smart

For all the whining people are doing about all things government right now ... the indictments, the mishandled conflict in Iraq, the mishandled hurricane relief, the mishandled judge nominations ... you'd think they'd be chomping at the bit to vote next Tuesday. But ask people, ask them if they even know who's running in their district, ask them if they know what the ballot questions are, and, sadly, if they even re-registered after a move.

I can't say I'm up on all my local issues. But I'm eager to vote next week. I can't wait to punch my ballot (we still use cards, we still deal with pregnant and hanging chads, yep) and reshape my government from the bottom up.

Two excellent non-partisan sites for anyone looking to become informed about their local issues before next Tuesday are (or just click their icons above):

Project Vote Smart
League of Women Voters

Fall

I'll be back in 2.5 minutes. I have to rake the leaves.

Click for larger.
________
Photo by AAA Member John Wernette.

Fallout

No matter how you look at it, Libby's indictment doesn't reflect well on Bush. If he didn't know what his VP and Chiefs of Staff were doing, he lacks their loyalty and could be viewed as not in charge. If he knew what they were up to, then he's complicit, and cannot be taken at his word.

Another way of saying that...

He's either politically weak, or a teller of tall tales.

________
Sketch by David Mamet.

October 28, 2005

"Libby submitted his resignation and left the White House."

Iraq is not Vietnam

I was a kid during the Vietnam War. I wasn't paying attention then to combat casualties. I couldn't have told you that just over 1800 Americans soldiers lost their lives in the first 4 years (1961-1965) of US combat there. Or that just over 1600 were killed in the last 2 years (1971-1972).¹

Now that I know that, I'm finally understanding what politicians mean when they say "Iraq is not Vietnam." With 2000 American soldiers killed in Iraq in the last 2 years, our rate of death has surpassed that of Vietnam's ... by a chilling factor of 2.

________
¹ Soldiers Lost in Iraq Top Those Lost in First Four Years in Vietnam; Expert on the '60s Reflects on Similarities, Differences

Aging

Gouda wishes her special cheese a Happy 17th.

Plame Leak

The jubilation over possible indictments of (from what I can tell) mostly Republican members of the administration, by (from what I can tell) mostly Democrats is strangely partisan and, well, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's not as if Democrats are saints.

I like to see people who commit crime or engage in slimy backroom deals meet justice - regardless of their party. But people are treating this like a game, another "gotcha!".

That's sad, because the story that should be making headlines is the repercussions that ensue from disclosing the undercover status of a CIA operative. That agent, by nature of their work, has to build and maintain covert relationships with people, informers, all over the globe - some in levels of power, some just ordinary citizens. Those people's lives are immediately threatened when an agent is exposed. Outing doesn't just destroy people's careers, it places lives in danger. It also deconstructs an intricate network of years-in-the-making, on-the-ground, intelligence gathering. It is precisely this lack of intelligence that led to terrorists' successful bombing of the World Trade Center.

I hope Fitzgerald gets to the bottom of the Plame leak, not to discredit Republicans, but to root out those government officials who care more about their career than about thwarting another terrorist attack, who care more about smearing the reputation of someone who disagrees with them, than about the sanctity of human life. (And who have the gall to label themselves as pro-life.)

I Love This Time of Year

Pro-life is not the Opposite of Pro-choice

There's a term floating around that I have a feeling was invented as a "God-sanctioned" argument against people who support a pro-choice stance for women facing an unwanted pregnancy.

The term is pro-life. What does this term mean? It's certainly not the opposite of pro-choice.

I would like to see our society lessen the number of abortions now taking place. Contraception, education, and a lessening of poverty are some means to that end. But I am also pro-choice. Expressing my belief that life is sacred does not reveal my concurrent belief that a woman should possess a legal right to make choices about her body, including having an abortion.

In framing Harriet Miers' views as pro-life, the White House seems to want to send a message to their conservative Republican base that she will vote to overturn the freedoms set forth in Roe Vs. Wade, while maintaining enough ambiguity so as not to alienate someone like me ... who thinks life is precious, but is also against any legislation that governs how a woman may treat her body.

Harriet Miers can be labeled pro-life until the cows come home. But this doesn't make a statement on how she would vote on issues of privacy, under which abortion falls.

I think a better line of questioning for her in the hearings is not whether or not she believes in the sanctity of life, but whether she would rule to protect a woman's privacy.

Liberation

I feel happy that people who live in Iraq can vote.

I feel sad that 2.5 years after their unrequested liberation, they bear a 25% inflation rate, a 30% unemployment rate, and generate for their entire country, which is about the size of California, the amount of electricity that one US college campus uses in a year.

Iraq Constitution Out-democratizes US Constitution

The new Iraqi Constitution does a better job of serving democracy than our own, in at least one area, its provision for the representation of women.

You can read an English translation of Iraq's draft constitution here (pdf) or here.

I want to draw attention to one Article:

"Article (151): A proportion of no less than 25 percent of the seats in the Council of Representatives is specified for the participation of women."

Is there a reason that the US Constitution can't also stipulate a minimum requirement? If not, I'd like see an amendment that would guarantee a more equitable representation for women in this country.

Currently, 50% of the US population between 15 and 64 is female.

Yet, in the 108th US Congress (2003-2004), only 14 of 100 Senators (14%), and 60 of 435 Representatives (14%) were women. Only 2 women¹ have ever served on the US Supreme Court, a mere 2% of the 108 justices that ever served! And regrettably, no woman has ever served as President or Vice President.

It's not as if the US doesn't have a pool of educated and qualified women to draw from. If Iraq, where only 24% of the women can read and write, can guarantee their representation, why can't the US where 97% of women are literate?
________
¹ Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsberg (1993).

You Got to Love a Gore Speech

The man thinks. He also comes across as more true to his convictions than the man he lost to 6 years ago, as well as genuinely compassionate.

Last week (Oct 5) he gave a speech at a Media Conference in New York. You can read it here.

He discusses democracy, and the threat to its existence by the loss of a "marketplace of ideas". This he describes as the unrestricted flow of ideas between and among all levels of wealth and power, and claims it has been threatened by the insidious infiltration of television into the American experience.

"So, unlike the marketplace of ideas that emerged in the wake of the printing press, there is virtually no exchange of ideas at all in television's domain."

And...

"To the extent that there is a "marketplace" of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen."

He cites the following example:

"Moveon.org tried to buy ads last year to express opposition to Bush's Medicare proposal which was then being debated by Congress. They were told "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, one of the networks that had refused the Moveon ad began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the President's Medicare proposal. So Moveon complained and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporary, I mean it was removed until the White House complained and the network immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the Moveon ad."

Is that true? Grrr. If I ever thought television was anything more than a corporate soap-box, I've just been hand-slapped.

He points to the internet as one salvation for American democracy, and closes on an uplifting beat:

"The final point I want to make is this: We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use."

Regardless of their ISP? What compelled him to add that? Is there something on the drawing board for ISPs that isn't so ducky?

You got to love a Gore speech.

Evolution, a Little Bit

I'm having difficulty understanding what Christians believe concerning evolution.

When President Bush says that a recently evolved avian flu virus could mutate and become transmissible between humans, is he endorsing evolution? It sounds like he is, so I'm guessing that he believes in evolution for some things. Either that or he believes that a benevolent God sees the utility of placing a specific avian flu virus on the earth that's capable of being transmitted between humans, with fatal outcomes.

If he endorses evolution sometimes, when are those times?

There's a news story making headlines recently:

University of Chicago Researchers Find Human Brain Still Evolving

Do Christians deny this? I'm guessing they do, but I don't know.

One more point, if Christians endorse evolution at all, why do they support teaching intelligent design as an alternative to it, and not in addition to it?

________
Shown is an image of the April 28, 2005 edition of the journal Nature. Its cover reads:

"This journal contains material on evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
- Approved by the University Board of Regents, 2006"