http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:11:26 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/21/021126.php Michael D. Bryan Jeff Latas is a Democratic candidate for Congress in Arizona's CD8. What will probably catch people's notice about Jeff is that he is a veteran, as is his son Jesse. Jeff is one of a group of about 40 veterans running for Congress this cycle, the Band of Brothers. What Jeff would prefer to catch your attention is his bold stands on energy policy and environmental protection and his training as an aerospace engineer. Either way. Jeff is a man of parts, and he wants to be your representative in Congress.Jeff is 48, husband to Salette for 26 years, and father of two - 6 if you count the dogs, which they are inclined to do. Salette and Jeff were an ROTC romance, having meet at boot camp. Jeff lived in Arizona while attending UofA, where he received a BS in Aerospace Engineering. He later attended University of Central Michigan while in the service and achieved a Master's degree in Public Administration. Jeff spent 20 years in service to his country flying F-15E Strike Eagles for most of his career and was decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross on the 3rd night of Desert Storm, as well as 4 air medals, and 9 aerial achievement medals. Jeff retired from active military service in 2001 and took a job as an airline pilot for Jet Blue.Jeff lives in district 8, and has been a registered Democrat since he could first register to vote at age 18. This is his first attempt at government office, besides student government, and the first political campaign he's been involved with. Jeff feels that his best qualification for office is his ability to grasp how disparate policy areas, such as defense, energy and environment, interlock. Jeff describes himself as an agnostic who endorses the Gaia hypothesis, and thinks that evolution is a scientific fact.In his personal charitable giving, Jeff and Salette are supporters of animal welfare causes, such as Foundation for Animals In Risk (FAIR) and pit bull rescue, as well as Defenders of Wildlife and Save the Children. I think it says a lot about someone when they support causes which help protect those who can't protect themselves. The only magazine that Jeff subscribes to in print form is 'The Nation', and the last book he read was 'Running on Empty' by Pete Peterson.I found Jeff to be a credible and well-informed candidate with an open mind, strong principles, and can-do attitude. On the logistics of his campaign, Jeff is realistic, but optimistic. He knows that he is facing at least one, and possibly two primary challengers who likely have the ability to raise much more money that him. He points out that he getting a lot of professionals volunteering for his campaign who are providing many of the services, such as PR and video production, for free that others will have to pay for. Jeff says he's not really sure how much his campaign has raised so far, but I would guess it to be around 25K - one tenth of what Gabby Giffords reported for the last quarter.Jeff has a lot of credibility and expertise on military and foreign policy issues; probably a good deal more than any other candidate in the race of either party. For this reason I dwelt on those issues in this interview. Jeff would probably accept that label, but would also be quick to point out that the centerpiece of his campaign is energy policy and environment. This a new and bold strategy for a Congressional campaign, which usually center on bread and butter domestic issues such as jobs and economic development in the district, or on headline issues which the public is focused on, such as Iraq or immigration, at the moment. It will be interesting to see if the electorate responds to a candidate whose central message is changing our energy economy. In the right hands, Jeff's theme has the ability to become the center of a powerful narrative that touches on nearly every aspect of our society. We'll see if Jeff is up to the challenge of getting voters to dance to his tune.Jeff sometimes talks like a fighter jock in the locker room, so the interview has a few bits with slightly salty language. I didn't think it right to scrub Jeff's natural demeanor from the transcript. He is who he is. The transcript has been edited for brevity (and it's still really long!) so some of the back and forth and surplus has been removed, but it comes close to a verbatim transcript. This interview with Jeff Latas took place on March 9th 2006.M=Mike Bryan, J=Jeff LatasPERSONALM: What makes a truly great representative? Mo Udall-great?J: The ability to take their vision and enact it. To actually make the changes they intend to make.M: Whom do you admire most outside of your family?J: I knew you were going to ask me about things I hadn't thought about. In the political realm, the names that come to mind are Howard Dean, Russ Feingold. But then, there's other people who influenced me in my career, like John Glenn, Neil Armstrong. I've always admired explorers.M: What life experiences prepared you to represent the citizens of CD8?J: The most obvious is my military experience, because we have such a concentration of active and retired military personnel here. I think the 9th largest military population of any district. Also, my environmental concerns and desire to emphasize alternative energy.M: What do you think you are a better choice than the other candidates?J: Because of my convictions. I had strong beliefs getting into this race before Kolbe announced his retirement that this nation was going down the wrong path. This was a way that I might have some effect on changing that course. I believe in my positions and I'm willing to fight for them regardless of who the opponent might be.[Latas was one of three Democrats to file their candidacies before Kolbe announced his retirement: the other two were Francine Shacter and Dwight Leister.]M: What committees do you intend to lobby to be on?J: Obviously, I would be interested in being on the military affairs committee. But as for lobbying, Energy is one of the places I'd really love to go. That's where my calling really is, because getting off of oil affects so many things. I would also look at getting into environmental issues.CONSTITUTIONM: What's your view of the NSA domestic surveillance scandal?J: We really don't know exactly what has happened. So I reserve my opinion a little, however, the idea that my telephone calls can be monitored just because I'm talking to someone overseas is obviously an invasion of my privacy without due process being done by getting a warrant to do it. I think at this point it needs to stop. My understanding is they haven't caught any terrorist suspects by doing this monitoring. Being in the Pentagon as I was I know there's a lot of things that can't be shared with the public, and there might be some things regarding this program that are too sensitive for us to know at this point, but publicly I don't think anyone's been caught as a result.M: How do you feel about the Senate and House both voting not to investigate the program?J: That bothers me. That was a party run vote that when along party lines. I think it ought to be investigated, you bet.M; Would you vote for impeachment of Bush, Cheney, or other Administration officials and under what circumstances?J: That question's obviously coming up and I will say that HR635 [Conyer's bill to initiate an impeachment inquiry], I would support that at this point. Impeachment's a touchy issue. It is damaging to our government, whether it's a Democrat or Republican. But if laws have been broken, it doesn't matter who you are, you should be held responsible.[Jeff also signed on Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush as a citizen co-sponsor]DOMESTICM: How do you propose to incentivize the market to change over from oil to other sources of energy and feedstocks?J: We need to give efficiency-indexed tax incentives to individuals for solar cells and high-efficiency vehicles. We also have to give tax breaks or subsidies incentives to industry to develop alternatives and do R&D. We can also mandate government purchases and investments meet efficiency targets. We can make grants to universities to help develop new technology, for instance hydrogen from solar energy. Here in Arizona we can really boost our economy with alternative energy such as development of hydrogen plants without using fossil fuels: solar or otherwise. We need to figure out how to make conversion of energy to hydrogen storage more efficient and from alternate sources. Right now it's about 1:1 with fossil fuels, so that isn't really helpful.M: The 800 pound gorilla is private finance - wall street, banks and pension funds - needs incentives to invest in these new technologies. How do we get financial capital out of the rut?J: 1977-1980 we reduced our oil requirements from the Middle East by 87% at the same time the GDP went up 27%, so it's obviously healthy for this economy to get off of oil. Those were test-case years. It works to get off oil, regardless of what people say. There were other reasons we had high inflation at that time, but it's good for us to get off oil. You are going to boost the economy with new industry that's generate new jobs, and make our school systems better because we'll need new professionals to solve the problems we have to address. I don't have the answer how to make these things, I have a vision of how to go that direction based on my engineering experience that these things work. There's a lot of nay-sayers out there, but there were people who said we'd never go to the moon. We can do this. We have to political will to get off oil now. Bush even said so in his State of the Union.[I don't fault Jeff for missing the point of this question, but he did. He answered as if I asked him how to get Wall Street on-board politically, when what I wanted was ideas for how to get Wall Street to lead the way by actually investing in alt-fuels and conservation. The question of how to get Wall Street thinking in terms of long-term sustainability is one that some of the greatest economic minds have not yet cracked.]M: So the way out of the downward spiral of outsourcing is energy innovation?J: Exactly. Those are the kind of jobs you can't ship overseas. I will say China's a big threat if we don't get our heads out of our asses right now. China's going to be the dominant alternative energy technology producer because they are working on it right now because they can't meet their energy needs with just oil.M: How do we fix the medical care system in this country?J: 5 million people are losing their health insurance every year. It's because of declining income, people are getting poorer and people can't afford health care and eating at the same time. Which one would you drop? We have to stop that downward spiral of income; that will help. However, Universal Healthcare is something we have to address. We have to insure everyone in this country. There's obviously a cost; the Hillary plan would cost about 1 trillion dollars. I use this plan now. Tri-Care is based on the '94 study and the military leaned forward and went with Tri-Care. I pay $460 a year as a retiree and it's the best insurance I've seen. Of course, they [the GOP] is trying to raise that now. We're looking now at ways to fund a plan right now. If we have the will we can afford it and in the long run it will be cheaper for all of us.M: Will there still be a role for private, for-profit insurance?J: Yes, I think that we need to keep private plans available for people who want them. We want to make it affordable for the lower end, at have option of government or private at higher income levels.M: What about the Medicare Drug plan?J: Any time you have the pharmaceuticals companies writing the legislation - it's boondoggle for the pharmas. We can fix it. The VA can negotiate prices and the prices are lower than part D. It's costing us 50 billion a year, and though my mom's drugs did go down, that's the case for most. It was a fiasco the way it was implemented and in that there are companies now making bigger profits because of it.Why are many of these drugs cheaper in other countries. I'm told it's because we're paying the large R&D costs in this country; but why can't we share those costs among all countries?M: We have Clean Elections in Arizona, and it is likely to expand to other states. Would you want to see it Federalized, and would introduce such legislation?J: You damn right I do. You bet, in a second. I honest believe the reason you get Tom Delays and J.D. Hayworth's, and all those other corrupt, er... allegedly corrupt, individuals is because it all comes down to how they're financing their campaigns. The sooner we can get away from that, the more power to the people.M: Would you be in favor of an independent ethics body overseeing Congress?J: Why not? Why should a Congressman decide the rules of ethical behavior for himself? We need an objective means for determining proper behavior. I don't have any problem with that.M: What sorts of new initiatives would you be in favor of to protect our environmental quality?J: First we need to enforce the old laws, like the Clean Air Act. We need to be careful and enforce the Endangered Species Act; we can't afford to lose the act to the present legislation in Congress now [intended to make enforcement action more difficult]. We need stronger regulation on water quality.M: Would you support take-back laws on more products here in the U.S. like computers, televisions, and cars, etc.?J: Yeah. Especially those products containing hazardous wastes. It makes sense.M: What about OSHAJ: It's under-funded and there isn't enough enforcement.M: What do we do about reducing carbon emissions?J: That's my main platform. We need to get off petroleum. That's why I got in this race; with ecology in mind, asking how can I make my world a better place? How can I have an effect? By trying to get this nation aware that we can have a better society without oil.Once you realize that, then you start seeing all the connections between national security, foreign policy, war and oil. Many of our problems over the past 40 years are connected to that.I honestly believe that if we would have followed what Jimmy Carter started, there would never have been all this military activity in the Middle East. He realized back then that our dependence on the region's oil was a national security issue. But then, Reagan moved into the White House, and gave us a shift toward corporate controlled America, and oil companies gained considerable political influence. The genesis of all our security problems now is based on our need to sustain our economy with oil.M: We've have these spectacular collapses due to corporate malfeasance and mis-governance in recent years. What can Congress to fix that?J: You've got to give the people more political power to restore the balance. Lobbying, campaign finance, corruption, it's all connected and you don't have the people getting enough say. A lot of these problems will be aided by letting regular people have more say in government.We also have to look at those companies that are doing things right, like my company, Jet Blue, and Costco, and reproduce those successes.M: How do you intend to deal with the hot button GOP issues; abortion, gay marriage, immigration. How are you going to turn those issues into positives for you instead of for the GOP?J: Like I've been doing for the last 6 months.Abortion ought to be rare, legal, and safe. You have to have all three, or you can't have any. If it's not legal - it's not going to be safe. And there will probably just as many as there are now. Only 16% of the American population think that abortion ought to be illegal in all cases. 84% of us believe that abortion should be an option. Nobody wants an abortion, but they do want the choice.Gay marriage. What the hell business is it of mine if two people should love each other? Marriage is an old religious term. Government should recognize only civil unions, no matter who you are. Let the churches recognize marriage however they want. Marriage shouldn't be the government term. Nobody's religion, except my own, should dictate how I act in my private life.M: What about restrictions on adoption by homosexuals?J: Prove to me that it's bad. Show me the proof. I know plenty of families that have a man and woman where the kids are totally destroyed by the time they're grown. So I it's a truly loving family, I don't care if the parents are gay or not, those kids are going to come out as a benefit to society.M: Illegal immigration. Some people say they're creating a crime wave, using up taxpayer resources, destroying our culture, injecting their language into our government and even trying to re-conquer the United States.J: Obviously there is a real concern about using government resources in order to provide schools and medical treatment and such services. But there are certain cases where illegal immigrants pay their own way through their taxes. Some of that is failing to get back here to the states where the money is being spent, however. This issue needs close study of the facts. There might need to be a 'fencing off' of certain funds from those revenue sources, so that it can be sent back into the local economy where the impacts are. For instance, the state prisons here that are owed money for holding criminals who are Mexican nationals.The immigrants generally are helping our society out and benefiting us greatly. I think much of the negative rhetoric is used to conceal that simple fact. A lot of it might be hate-based and prejudice... I'm not willing to say that someone like Randy Graf is a bigot, but there are definitely people who are bigots who are attracted to this issue.M: What role do you think that the military should play in border defense and homeland security? Especially the US/Mexico border?J: Up until about a month ago, I'd of said that's not the military's business. They're not trained to do that. The mission profiles are 100 years old. I don't see Mexico or Canada looking to invade us at this point. The military is not for keeping migrants out of the country. There are things I want to investigate further now. Is the Mexican military so corrupt now that some of their units are actually escorting drug smugglers and coyotes [immigrant smugglers] and taking their cut? That's a worry of mine. It's happening in Texas, apparently. I don't think we need to put M1s [heavy battle tanks] on the border, but we need to address it to the Mexican government saying. "This needs to stop, or you WILL see fighters [military planes] patrolling our border. Because if we see a threat from your military, you'll leave us no option." That is a threat that we must deal with in a 'big stick' sort of way.M: What sort of technological fixes for border security might be useful?J: I think reaching out underdeveloped countries to the south is the long-term solution to the border issue. Funding enforcement for sanctioning employers also needs to be funded. The enforcement arm for employers funding has gone to basically nothing. We need to get at the white-collar criminal activity of our own people. That is going to put pressure on the legislature to change the immigration laws and make it more realistic when corporations begin to feel the pinch. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks we need increase the number of people coming across the border. We need to have people crossing in a more orderly and efficient manner, so the illicit crossing will decrease significantly, making it much easier on our enforcement agencies on the ground to do their job to apprehend the criminal element that's crossing the border.M: We need to increase the number of H2B [seasonal and temporary] work visas?J: I'm not sure about the details of which visas. But, we have about 66,000 issued now. That probably needs to go up to about 500,000. And we need to readdress immigration law itself and allow easier access for immigrants to cross the border to help sustain our economy, as well as contributing to our society.M: What would you consider funding as far as technological fixes (i.e. sensors, drones, walls. Etc.)J: If we do the things I talked about crossing will decline in number and we can sustain with our current border patrol and technology. We might no have to do anything. I don't know if those U-CAVS [pilotless drones] are really doing the job their supposed to be doing. You fly missions out there and they're seeing hundreds of people cross the border. The agents go out and the chase one group, hundreds of others get by meanwhile. In the short term, maybe we do need to increase some sensors. I don't know that you need more agents. If you've been down there, the place is crawling with agents. The people down there who actually live on the border feel that the agents that are working it can be more threatening than migrants that are coming across. They cut fences, shoot dogs in defense of agent safety. Migrants do it too, of course. But more agents are not going to help. Building a wall is not going to help. M: The Homeland Security Agency now a contract out to bid for a 25 billion dollar fiber optic system all along the border to detect vibrations as subtle as the footstep of an immigrant.J: Well, Jeez, how many cattle are the going to get arrested by border agents? The trouble is how well tested are these systems people want to put on the border? Those we have now have false signals all the time costing huge amounts of man-hours. Technology is not always the right answer. Before I would approve such things, I want to see serious studies that we the people can get our hands on, proving they're effective.M: Drug prohibition. A failed policy?J: Yeah. I think it's definitely failed. All throughout the 1990s we were spending lots of money on the 'war on drugs'; didn't do a damn thing except waste that money. The way we are approaching illicit drugs in this country is a failure. It's not that difficult to obtain illicit drags in this country, so we need to approach it completely differently. M: Would you be in favor of reforming the mandatory sentencing of drug offenders?J: Yes.M: Would you fund treatment and diversion programs?J: Yes. Incarcerating someone is a hell of a lot more expensive than treatment, regardless of how many times that person has to go back through rehab. So this is a cost issue, as well. People who addicted to drugs need help; they don't need to be thrown in jail - even if it is Rush Limbaugh. (laughs)FORIEGN AFFAIRSM: What values should we bring to the fight against terrorism?J: Well, terrorism can be view differently depending on the culture. I'm sure Hamas views Israeli attacks on the Palestinians as terroristic, as well as our bombing of Iraq all through the 1990s. To me, terrorism is when you try to instill fear in people. I don't know that's what we intend when we do military operations, whether I agree or disagree with what we did. We didn't bomb groups of people, we were trying to take out certain targets. Mistake got made. And I'll be the first one to admit innocent people died, and that's absolutely wrong. We have to, as a nation, demonstrate what real civilization should encompass, and that means dialogue with different cultures, it means respecting different cultures, and understanding what their motivations are. One we start sticking our nose in the business of Islamic law and fundamentalist governments we might see in the Middle East, it's only going to inflame that region, because they look at us affecting their values as well. So we need to go back to a Christian love model - do unto others - and show we don't want to hurt them, we want to respect them, and find our what they want in return. If that's just to go away; we go away.M: What about rule of law, and torture, etc.?J: What we are doing in Gitmo inflames the rest of the world to no end. We have a set of laws we follow, yet we are treating these people as if there were no laws. That is not what this country is about; we are a country of laws. And we ought to figure out we're going to give those people their day in court. Torture does not work. That's proven. We've had these people for three years and we're still thinking we can get information out of them. To me, that just doesn't make any sense. Torture just doesn't work.M: What's your opinion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?J: Six months ago I thought there was good progress being made. I hope to see that progress continue. Obviously, with Hamas taking control, and Sharon out of the picture, I hope both groups maintain their dialogue. I hope their problems don't escalate into more violence in the future.M: What can Congress do to assist in the peace process?J: We don't deal with terrorists. So until Hams renounces terrorism, we can't deal with them. However, that does push them into a situation where they are going to make deals with Iran, Syria, Russia. We are pushing them toward the more fundamentalist side. I think we could reach out to Hamas in direct talks in the correct circumstances and recognize that they are now the legitimate government of Palestine.M: Should we conditionalize aid to Israel on progress on a settlement with the Palestinians?J: Possibly. We do support Israel with a considerable amount of aid and that irritates the Arab people. It doesn't look fair. Israel has to behave themselves too. Israel did get out of hand in 2001-2002. They came down with an iron fist. Sharon was seeing that tactic was not going work and started to pull back, and withdraw some from the West Bank, things actually got better. We have to consider how much of this business between Israel and Palestine is actually US business. That is between two other states, and us getting in the middle of that doesn't make us look like a good actor either. Because is we favor one side over the other, it's a lose-lose situation.M: Iran is emerging as a possible crisis with its alleged nuclear weapons program. Can military force actually resolve this issue?J: (Laughs) No. Bombing the facilities over there is only going to make matters worse. The bet thing to do is to go back in time and erase that line 'Axis of Evil' from the President's State of the Union address. We invaded the country next door to Iran. That's got to make them feel they're next. We allowed another country of the 'Axis', North Korea, to develop a bomb and did basically nothing about it. So of course they are going to push hard now because they saw somebody else get away with it while they saw somebody who didn't have WMD get invaded. The logic there is obvious. I know something about the facilities in Iran. Military action would have only limited effect on stopping their plans.M: So you wouldn't support use of military force?J: No. We have to have better dialogue with the Iranian. We actually alienated some of the reformers over there who now see us more as a bully now. Whereas just 6 years ago we had made some progress toward to more liberal Iranian state, and that's gone now.M: Would you support economic sanctions through the UN.J: Iran should not be allowed nukes. As well as Egypt, and Israel, and Pakistan... you see where I'm going?M: You think GWB is a hypocrite in terms of the NPT and proliferation policy?J: Yes. You're referring to the India deal [to provide nuclear power generation technology outside of and in violation of the NPT terms]? There may be some things the public doesn't know. The current situation between Pakistan and India has defused considerably considering just three years ago they were ready to start dropping nukes on each other. I don't know exactly what technologies he [Bush] is talking about [selling to India] because obvious they had the technology to develop nuclear power and weapons. I don't know if it's more efficient or cleaner technology they're considering. I would like to know more about that and what exactly is in that package.M: How important is Non-Proliferation to the security of America in the future?J: Very important. I would love to see sometime in my life where we live in a county that has no more nuclear weapons. I thought we were on that road in the 1990s, but with the current Administration that progress has come to an end.MILITARYM: What are the greatest security threats we need to be able to address now and in the future?J: Rogue nukes. Port security, to catch radiological threats. We also need to look at countries like China, they have been developing ICBM and cruise missile technology. Meanwhile we are getting bogged down in occupation of Iraq. We need to be able to address asymmetric threats from China, maybe Russia. We're sucking all our money into readiness, equipment maintenance and replacement, just keeping our equipment running. Our airplanes are falling apart, we're working 'em so hard. And we're throwing 160 billion a year into Iraq.M: Being as you want to be on the Energy Committee, and they are responsible for DOE and funding nuclear threat reduction programs, such as that advocated by Kerry in the last election, what funding will you seek for such programs?J: I would push to reduce our nuclear arsenal. I would definitely make it a priority to get funding for nuclear threat reduction [loose nukes and securing nuclear materials for making weapons] back on track. I would also look at modernizing our nuclear arsenal by renegotiating the treaties that currently restrict us from developing the latest nuclear deterrents that are more humane, specific and very effective against chemical and biological threats. We could have a stronger and more humane deterrence with less weapons.M: Should we reduce the size of our nuclear deterrent and what size is sufficient?J: Zero is sufficient. I would like to see us get to that. I think we need to take a leading role in saying we can still be a strong nation without WMD. We are a promoter now of WMD. Everybody uses us as a model. If we can be a strong America and protect the rights of our people without WMD, I think that is the way we have to lead.M: Is National Missile Defense [Star Wars] as viable and useful program and would you continue funding it?J: The technology is very expensive. I don't know if it's going to be a viable program in the long-run. It's a technological challenge. It does keep an escalation of countries like Korea from developing short-range, and even long-range, ballistic missiles. If we can sit there and pop them off, we don't need a deterrent force of destruction. We can take care of those types of weapons in a defensive posture. This is where I'm going in terms of a strong defense. If we do have a viable, workable, affordable system, it's something we ought to consider for our own protection from countries that are rogue. However, I don't know that's really the biggest threat. Suitcase bombs are much easier to deliver.M: Do you think the US should be the first to deploy space based weapons as recommended by the Rumsfeld Commission?J: Weaponry is not allowed [by treaty]. There are [non-weapons] systems that can promote peace. First strike weaponry is - no. Not first-strike, not at all. Then you get into an escalation situation. It's not the way to go. The best way to go is to outsmart your enemy without spending money.M: Does the 'Bush Doctrine' of preventive warfare have any place in American military doctrine?J: No.M: Give me your position on Iraq.J: We should never have invaded Iraq and we need to get out. I join John Murtha in his plan to re-station fast-reaction air and ground forces in friendly countries such as Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. However we should not go into Iraq unless the Iraqi ask for help. We have to be able to quickly analyze the treat they face, too. Only if their democracy is being threatened, but we don't need to be stepping into the middle of a civil war, or trying to snuff out the Sunnis, for examples. We don't need to take sides except to defend democracy.The urgency to invade Iraq was false and very misleading. It should be investigated by Congress under HR635, to determine the real motive of invading Iraq. I don't believe that WMD was the real motive.[There was some drill down discussion between Jeff and I of the new book by Pape, "Dying to Win" I have left out. Pape's conclusion is that suicide terrorism is a nationalist phenomenon inspired by military occupation of what the terrorist organization considers its homeland by a people of another faith whose government is democratic. I suggested that placing our troops in neighboring Middle Eastern countries could still inspire suicide terrorism against American targets. We agreed that reaction might depend on whether the Middle Eastern country is democratic. For instance, would stationing 'over the horizon' forces in Turkey inspire suicide terrorist attacks against us by Turks? Personally, I think there is about 0% chance that Turkey would allow us to base there for that purpose, so the issue is purely academic. Some of the locations suggested by Jeff, like Qatar and Kuwait, are very much not democracies, and I maintain that should we base in those countries, our troops will be perceived as occupiers not only by natives of those countries, but will still be perceived as occupiers by many Iraqis, defeating the purpose of basing them outside the country. ]M: The war in Afghanistan is usually viewed as justified by the connections between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but do you share that view? And is the on-going occupation by our troops still justified?J: We really have done much in Afghanistan except having a few firebases over there. I don't think we are doing as much in actually securing the country as people might think. The hills are still pretty much left to the Warlords. The Taliban still has a little foothold. The Taliban's support for Al Qaeda was a direct threat to our national security. That's been proven.We need to promote democracy over there, but we need to let the Afghanis develop their own form. It should not sponsor threats to our civilization. Same thing with Iraq. We should do our best to help them develop into states that seek peaceful solutions.M: Do you support the continued basing of US troops in Afghanistan?J: At this point, yes. I would like to pull out of the Middle East altogether eventually.M: What the hell went wrong with the Pat Tillman investigation? What does the cover up say about the military's leadership culture?J: I would like to know. I'm waiting to see what the investigation reveals. With Abu Ghraib and even some things I've seen myself, there is a certain amount of cover-up that happens. I see a lot of our military leaders that shrug it off as, "war is hell."M: Is a certain part of it careerism?J: Yes, it is. There are certain standards we have to uphold. In a friendly-fire incident like Tillman's, a lot of them are just mistakes.M: Do you have any specific critiques or concerns about the Quadrennial Defense Review of 2006 [a Defense Department planning document produced every 4 years which envisions the next 20 years of defense policy]?J: It's puzzling that we are going to spend 600 billion with the Iraq supplemental and we can only go after one war at a time. Whereas we had 270 billion in the last QDR and we could fight to regional wars. So there's something being said here the way an occupation drains the life out of a strong defense. That bothers me. R&D is the future of our security and we dropped the ball on being able to out-think our enemies.M: Does it bother you that Northern Command, an operational command, now includes CONUS, whereas it used to stop at the border? Americans now live in a war zone.J: After 9/11 when the fighters took off to do the intercept, they were thinking the Russian Bear was coming and they flew out 100 miles over the ocean before someone said, "No. turn around; it's New York City you gotta go to." We might have to ask our airmen to go shoot down airliners, and, you know, it might be me. It might be a necessary evil at this point.M: The military is often categorizing PTSD of those returning from combat as a personality defect, and refusing to cover treatment. What's you take on that?J: I've got vets on my staff and I've heard some their stories of how they can to have PTSD, and I find some of their stories horrifying. Anybody would be affected the rest of their lives base on stories I've heard. Stories I'll never forget, and I didn't experience them, I just heard them. I've had my combat thrills, and been scared near to death, but I've never seen the gruesome things personally that some of the these people had to do. They had to commit that horror. This is not something that is to taken lightly, There are some reports that with 58K killed in Nam, but up to 100K committed suicide. We going to see this with Iraq. You can ask my son, he was there. The Administration has completely dropped the ball; the VA is grossly under-funded, it's understaffed, our military hospital and medical facilities, same thing. I got to go to Walter Reed to see what was going on there; amputees, blindness, head injuries, and it's disgusting that we are dropping the ball on these soldiers and veterans the way we are. M: How much more funding do we need, and are you willing to cut other areas to get the money? J: Yeah, I'm willing to cut the occupation and free up 150 billion a year. Some of that ought to go to the VA as well as health care, education - 55 billion left unfunded in NCLB - yeah we need to get out of Iraq and fund some the programs that are being defunded.M: How do you view the Bush Administration's use of the use of the Ready-Reserve Guard and Reserve system in fighting in Iraq?J: Reserve system is being abused. Jesse [Jeff's son] was back-door drafted through the reserve. I will say that when you sign a contract as a reservist or guard member you are giving the government the ability to use you, over and over [the only thing that stops them from abusing it is respect and honor]. The problem is that these soldiers coming back want to bail out because they know their time is coming next year to go back over there, but they can't find jobs, so they're force to stay in. We've shipped their jobs to India or China. My daughter can't even find a decent job, 23, just out of college.M: Do you have any concerns about the use of private contractors in security and combat roles?J: I have a problem when they're no-bid. Halliburton and KBR have basically taken over almost all the administrative and support functions of the force structure - laundry, sewing, food service - and it's all no-bid with no oversight. We're paying $33 a meal for everyone there. That's outrageous. Halliburton contracts in just the last 3 years have gone up 2000%. Something is wrong with that.I have a problem with the increase in private security forces in the past 10/15 years. They have always been there, but less in the eye of the public, working behind the scenes and not necessarily just military contractors. No one seems to be asking the question of why there are so many private security forces. I know that some of them actually are not on DoD contracts. Some are CIA, or some other agencies. One of my supporters in Bisbee was Special Forces and is now retired. His was being recruited to go over and interrogate prisoners/detainees. He declined that $100k/year job. My guess is that the Army can't keep trained soldiers at the wages they pay and have no choice but to go private or there is a pipeline in those positions and many are taking advantage of this system.I don't know if you classify truck drivers in this category, but there are lots of them in Iraq. My son is an Army Driver. He hardly ever drove. Halliburton contractors did most of the driving at around $120k/yr. My son made about $18k/year to do the same job. But instead of drive, a job he was trained to do, he sat in the passenger side of the vehicle with his M-16 to protect that valuable high dollar contractor asset. This is wrong and the US tax payer is paying hundreds of millions to support KBR and Halliburton. I had a contractor while I was in the Pentagon. He was paid about $90K/year and was worth that. However the actual contract was about $180K/year. ANSER, the contracting company, got the other half. This is how the contracts work. It's my guess that Halliburton is getting around $200k/year for every driver they hire to drive in Iraq. Do the math, that's about 10 privates the Army could have instead.M: Would you call that war-profiteering?J: Oh, you bet I would, because it's all no-bid. And it's obviously cronyism at work and it's shameful we don't investigate that.M: Are the courts martial of low ranking Abu Graib MPs covering for decisions taken at the highest level of the civilian and military leadership? What would you do about it in Congress?J: Cheney is saying it's perfectly OK to do what we've been doing, yet at the lower end of the scale we're throwing soldiers in jail for stripping the locals naked. Which one is right? You have the Vice President saying it's alright, but then you're throwing people in jail. Why doesn't Cheney say that we shouldn't put these people in jail, then?M: Can we reduce the size of some of our forward deployed forces and bases to save some money?J: I don't have specifics now. I think it is certainly possible to do it. We have drawn down over the past 15 years a significant amount of forces. A lot of people think we have 100s of thousands of troops in Korea, for example, and we really don't anymore [currently ~37K]. Most of our presence is just staging and transfer points. Iraq is the largest. When we pull those troops out we can reduce the [roughly 130K] number of troops [tasked to a rapid response force in the region].I understand the operation of carrier groups. Carriers are extremely expensive weapons systems for the actual combat capability they produce. But there is a certain amount of prestige when you set one of the carrier groups off someone's coast. Maybe there's a way we can integrate a fast reaction force, bombers, as a deterrent.M: Are there weapons system currently in the Pentagon's acquisition pipeline that are no longer appropriate for the strategic threats we now face? What are they, and would you work to kill them?J: I thought the F22 should have been cut ten years ago. I don't know if that's still an appropriate measure. You cut it now, and you've wasted I don't know how many billions on development. I did bring some new technology forward. I thought we should have skipped the F22 and gone right to the joint strike fighter - now I don't know if the joint strike fighter's affordable because of the F22 and the Super Hornet (the Navy's alternative to the F22). I thought we needed to look more at unmanned vehicles (though this was blasphemous when I was in service), and we are doing that more now. We need to look for places to make some cuts in these programs. We may be able to do much of the missions we want by developing new weapons instead of new platforms. Politics45300@blogcritics.org Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:11:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/11/101354.php Michael D. BryanMeet Congresswoman Mom. It's not her chosen campaign slogan, but I think it sums up Francine Shacter's iconoclastic campaign for Congress in Arizona's 8th District pretty well. When asked, Francine chose as her (purely provisional) slogan, "I will listen to people and represent their views and bring back to them good ideas." Not so snappy. A divorced Jewish woman, 77 years old, who raised four kids by herself in the 1960s and 70s (the result was nearly the Jewish trifecta - she got a lawyer and a doctor, but no Rabbi, just a scientist), Francine is a graduate with honors of the school of life (and of Goddard College in economics). She wants to use her life experiences to represent and work with and for the people of the 8th District.Francine proclaims herself proudly to be a Roosevelt Democrat; a highlight of her life was meeting Eleanor Roosevelt as a young woman. She clearly believes that government has a duty to make life better for people and is capable of doing so, given the right leadership. She is bucking against the trend of incivility in the current political climate. She pleads for the Democratic nomination campaigns to be more civil and less divisive.At the same time, however, and perhaps contradictorily, she in unabashed about her criticism of Randy Graf, whom she would likely face in the general election if she wins the primary. She told me to quote her specifically when she said, "There is something gross about him" and that he "embodies values I abhor." There seems little doubt that she'll be very forthright in her critique of the opposition should she be nominated. If you are worried that the Democratic nominee will fail to draw clear contrasts with the opposition, that's not a concern with Francine. At the same time, she makes it clear that she feels no personal animosity toward her political opponents. She says of Bush that she doesn't hate him; she just wants him out.Francine's philosophy of leadership is cooperative and constructive, despite her blunt opinions. As a major qualification for the calling she now pursues, she emphasizes her career of public service, where she gained experience in working across interest communities to achieve policy objectives. Francine worked for 30 years in government on the Hill and in the executive branch as a manager and statistician. The result is an enthusiastically people-oriented person who also delights in policy minutiae and numbers. During my formal interview with her, I asked her to refrain from details and focus on the big picture. Suffice it to say that I've had to edit for length nonetheless.She believes that Congress should be representative, not just in a formal sense, but also in reflecting the demographics of the populace. In this regard, Francine may be representative of views and persons not currently well represented in government. Francine was a pioneer of now common lifestyle, that of working single mother, and that experience gives her a perspective on labor and family issues, education, poverty, and government assistance that currently has little foothold in the corridors of power.Francine holds out her life experiences and her "smart and incorruptible" character as her best qualifications for office. She points out that she sees holding office as Congresswoman as a privilege, a public trust, and a capstone of her career in public service, not as the stepping-stone to higher office that others in the race may seek. She opines that it does not reflect well on a candidate to abandon one's recently elected office as soon as an opportunity for advancement presents itself.On the subject of the logistics of her campaign, Francine is forthright about her unconventional approach. She does not currently employ any staff, relying entirely on volunteers. She describes her current fundraising situation as dismal. She intends to run a very lean campaign and thinks that if she could raise 50K, she should be able to mount a successful campaign. She wants to limit her exposure to big money donations on principle, and she says the campaign she most admires is that of a certain current candidate for Congress who has 400 volunteers working actively on her campaign.While I do have opinions about the candidates I interview and their views, I am not interested (at this time!) in choosing a candidate to recommend to other voters. The transcript of the interview that follows is as close I could come to a verbatim transcript, except that it has been edited for brevity. My opinions or comments about specific answers are in square brackets and do not constitute part of the transcript.I interviewed Francine on February 28, 2006 in Tucson.Me: What do you think makes a great Representative?Francine: I think a great Representative is somebody who can connect with the people in the District, carry their message back to the Hill, forge the kinds of alliances that are necessary to accomplish the common good, and stay in touch.M: Whom do you admire most, outside of your family?F: Eleanor Roosevelt. I met Eleanor Roosevelt.M: Do you want to tell me about that?F: I worked with Montgomery County Democratic Women and she came speak to us once. I was in this small group of people that met with her before she spoke. She shook my hand. M: Thrill of a lifetime?F: It was the thrill of a lifetime. She exuded something noble and gentle and truly, truly wonderful.M: What was the last book you read?F: What's the Matter with Kansas?M: What life experiences have prepared you to represent the people of the 8th District of Arizona?F: I think my experiences raising four children by myself. They were looking for people to manage the census offices in the 1970s, and I volunteered to go to San Francisco. They asked me what makes me think that I can handle 400 people? I said because I get four kids out the door every morning after they've had a good breakfast, and I get them back in and give them dinner every night. I had 400 people working for me, and it was one of the only major cities in the United States that didn't demand a recount.M: Why do you think you are a better choice than the other candidates?F: I think I have a much broader experience, and I think I have a much longer life experience. My experience has largely been in helping people forge alliances, solve problems, and get solutions. I don't think that compromise is a dirty word as long as you don't lose your principles in the process, and I've been able to do that any number of times. M: What committees do you want to be on?F: I'm very concerned about Veterans Affairs. I don't like what they're doing with returning veterans. I have a big beef with what is being done about how returning veterans are being treated. The government is saying that PTSD is a personality disorder. I think that is an absolute sin that anybody who has flashbacks because he has killed somebody has a personality disorder. On the contrary, I think that he is a very healthy person. There's a lot of very hypocritical stuff going on on the part of this Administration, that I could not ever support, and I'll fight it.And I'm very concerned about education. I volunteer in the schools in the Rotary Club Reading Seed program. I 'm there three days a week with two children. Did you know that these children spend one hour a day until May preparing for the AIMS test? I don't think that's very good idea. I had a little girl who saw her results on the AIMS test and told me "I'm no good." She's 11 years old and she thinks she's no good because of what the test said about her. And we need to pay teachers well. They're teaching our children, for goodness sake.M: I see times of great trial and danger ahead for our democracy. Are you concerned about the future of our system of government?F: Absolutely. You better believe it. I think that when you have a President that says that anybody who criticizes him or disagrees with him is guilty of treason, the democracy is under terrible, terrible threat. Democracy succeeds not because there is a policeman on every corner but because people consent to be governed. We have more than 250 million people, and if there were not a tacit agreement that they accepted governance, there would be rioting in the streets. Once you destroy that trust with elections that are not verifiable, a President that cannot be disagreed with, you have poisoned the environment of public discourse. This is an assault on the democracy.M: Would you vote for the impeachment of Bush, Cheney or any other Administration members, and under what circumstances?F: Yes, I would vote for their impeachment. I don't think the Democrats can initiate it, because it would further shrill up the environment. But any time the Republicans are willing to bring [impeachment] proceedings, they can count on me as a Democrat to support it, and many Democrats.M: So if [Representative] Conyers were to bring Articles of Impeachment to floor of the House? F: I wouldn't support it right now because it would be divisive. If you absolutely cannot get something done, you don't need to be divisive and bloody your head over it. I think the tipping point is very close. The Republicans are not stupid, and as soon as they decide that this is what they want to do, we will help them, I guarantee you. I don't believe in political posturing.M: What must we do about the Iraq disaster?F: I think that we need to get out. I don't think that we need to announce a timetable. You might be surprised to hear that I agree with President Bush - he said that decision will be made by military men. Since we live in a democracy, the military men implement the policies of the civilians. I think that they need to be told what would need to happen in order for us to leave. That is how you phrase the question. Not "stay the course," or any of these other things. I think we need to get out. We need to eat a little crow and bring in some other countries. There are enough natural resources in Iraq to bring in the money to rebuild. We broke it; we should fix it. I think we should take responsibility for coordinating with other countries to come in and help rebuild. I don't think we should maintain any permanent bases, and I don't think we need to lose any more human lives, and that's been my position since the first day I spoke at Patagonia, and it has never changed.M: What values should we bring to combating terrorism at home and abroad? What principles should we uphold?F: I think that people are proven innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty good value. We should be vigilant but not crazy. I remember ... watching the McCarthy trials. People were so stigmatized by this man. Frequently he had no information whatsoever. Innocent lives were ruined. People committed suicide. I don't support innocent lives being ruined. I think we have enough honest techniques at our disposal that we can keep an eye out for terrorists and not perceive that everybody who isn't "us" is "them." It's an "us and them" philosophy.M: What about the use of what they call "extreme interrogation techniques" or torture?F: I'm 100% against it. I'm appalled that the President signed McCain's bill and then made that speech that said I'm signing it but I don't have to do it if I don't want to. He is not above the law. He is not above the law. Every time we support torture we put one of our people in jeopardy, and that is a sin.M: Do we spend enough on foreign aid, and should what we spend now be spent differently?F: I believe in the principle that if you teach a man to fish, he'll be able to take care of himself. I think we should work cooperatively, and we could get people working cooperatively. We could supply seed money. There should be a basis for cooperation and we should foster it.M: What should our goal be in foreign aid?F: Helping people to help themselves. Is there a more noble goal?M: So humanitarian assistance rather than military aid?F: I don't believe in military aid. I think that we have to stop solving problems by killing each other. Soon there won't be anybody left. M: So you'd be in favor of stopping foreign military aid?F: Yes.M: What is your view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?F: I have a solution for it. Both sides must decide not to kill each other anymore. We need to find some way to make them economically interdependent. And through that kind of economic interdependence and mutual respect, there may be a solution. It's a better hope than anything we've got now. I don't believe in killing as a solution.I think it's ridiculous to think that just because the Palestinians had a democratic election we should have gotten the outcome that we wanted. All a democratic election means is that the people have decided what they want. I would hope that ... instead of sitting in judgment on them and telling them what we were going to do against them, we [could ask them] what would have to happen for us to be able to resolve these issues. I can't believe, except for Jerusalem, which is much tougher, that it's that intransigent. If they see a benefit in cooperation, and they are reinforced for cooperation, you will have more cooperation. [Right now], they're not being reinforced for cooperation, they're being threatened. If you threaten me, what will I do? I'll fight you. But if you say how can we do this together? If there's something in it for me? Then I will listen.M: Under what circumstances would you allow this Administration to use force again?F: How does "never" grab you?M: Okay. Iran is emerging as a possible crisis, with its alleged program to build nuclear weapons. What's your approach to this problem?F: Same approach I have to most problems. Get in there and see what we can do to work cooperatively with these people. They had a democratic election, and they elected what they wanted. If we can find some way to find a communal interest instead of threatening them. When people challenge each other, this is what happens. I think it's very scary.When we went into Iraq we destabilized it. I'm not taking up for Saddam, don't misunderstand me, and I'm not taking up for the way he ran that country, but there was a certain equilibrium there. They were no threat to us. There were long-standing Christian communities, there was a long-standing Jewish community, everybody lived. It wasn't a theocracy. It wasn't great, don't get me wrong, but what we did, we completely destroyed the equilibrium. Then we wondered why everything went to hell in a hand basket.[Note - After the interview, Francine used the analogy for Iraq of "a gnat in your eye." When you get a gnat in your eye, you can't do much else until you get it out. It's just too irritating and painful to ignore or do anything else. To the Iraqis our occupation is a gnat. They will never be able to move on with coming to grips with their new situation and rebuilding the country's infrastructure and economy until the gnat is gone. I thought that was a pretty good analogy and an astute observation.]M: Would you take force as an option off the table in regards to the putative Iranian nuclear weapons program?F: I can't really answer that question because I don't know enough about the pieces. Force would be my last choice, and only if it were with a community of nations. I firmly believe that we can find a better choice than force. [Note - This is the second time that a candidate has refused to eliminate the use of force as an option for dealing with Iraq's nuclear program. For the reasons I laid out in detail in my interview with Patty Weiss, I think this is a mistake, and probably reflects a general failure to seriously think through this issue by the candidates. This is a serious issue. Most likely the Bush Administration will be attempting to bring this crisis to a head about the time the newly elected CD 8 Representative is taking his or her seat. These candidates need to be ready to make an informed decision.]M: How about defense spending? It takes up over half of the discretionary federal budget. What priorities should we change about how we spend our money on defense?F: It depends on our perception of the world in which we live. If our perception is that somebody is going to get us if we don't get them first, then we have big spending on defense. If our perception is that we want to take responsibility for making a decent life for our people and work in harmony with other countries and develop alliances with other countries so that we don't have to be constantly defending ourselves, it is much better. To some extent we have to be strong - you don't want to be a sitting duck for someone who's going to come in and topple you. I'm not naïve.[Note - It is clear that Francine sees the world as a much less threatening place than current political culture conditions our leaders and citizens to perceive. I think this may be a product of being born in 1928. The current security challenges we face are serious, but hardly as dire as they have been in Francine's adult memory. I laud her sense of proportion, though many people will wrongly accuse her of being Pollyanna-ish.]M: So you would be in favor of cutting defense spending?F: Yes. But, we have to take care of our soldiers. We have to take care of our veterans. That's an irreducible minimum as far as I'm concerned. That's honorable. As far as the weapons we build, I think some engineers are having a lot of fun building toys. I'm not interested in funding those kinds of toys. My principle is that people come first, and taking care of people comes first.M: What sort of role should America play in international affairs?F: A cooperative role. I think we should take leadership when it comes to defending democracy as long as we first restore our democracy at home, which I don't think is in very good shape. The President considers himself a king, and considers [that] anybody who disagrees with him is treasonous. We're not setting a very good example al all. If we work with societies from where they are, to try to move them to a better place, this is a good role for us.M: Immigration is going to be a big issue in the general election. What values and convictions do you bring to border policy?F: Immigration policy has to be humane. There are two things that I don't want to see happen. I don't want to see illegal immigrants coming over and working for half of what Americans work for. They should be treated humanely. One thing that is pointed out is that illegal immigration is a great stress on our infrastructure, schools and medical care. If we are in a position to educate and provide medical treatment for them, we should work out some kind of treaty arrangement -- it's largely Mexico we're talking about -- with Mexico to reimburse us for those costs. That takes getting together and figuring out how we can work in some kind of harmony. I think that families should be able to be reunited, ... if they have a patron family that is willing to stand up and sponsor [them], which is the old way people used to come in to this country. You need to take the money out of it. People here who hire illegal immigrants should be found and fined. People who charge these poor souls to try to bring them into this county should be found and fined. We need to take the money out of both ends of the operation. We need to find a way to work with Mexico to improve the economy for their people. The border here has always been very porous. In Bisbee, people can't go back and forth now and the people there are suffering financially. I want to get into these communities and listen to them. They call it the House of Representatives. Involve people in the solution. They probably have a lot of good ideas.[Note - While I agree with Francine in general terms, this is probably not a strong enough statement of the issue to counter Graf in a debate on this subject. And that debate will occur: ad nauseum. I would recommend that Francine sharpen her policy focus on this major and divisive issue.]M: What's your viewpoint about how we should reform the provision of health care services in this country?F: I think we should have a single-payer system. We should get the insurance companies out. I think John Kerry had a good suggestion in 2004. One thing you can do is at age 55 enroll people in Medicare. Private insurance has to get out because their administrative costs are often in excess of 20% whereas Medicare's is only 2%. There are 36 countries in the world that have universal insurance. Do you mean to tell me there's not a model out there? There has to be the will, and there isn't. We are in a situation where the corporations come first. And I think the people come first.[Note - Again, thank the writers of The West Wing for so nicely slipping this devastating factoid on administrative costs firmly into popular culture. I'm glad to see multiple candidates running with this particular ball.]M: What do we need to do to fix the Medicare drug benefit?F: Hah! I think it is a hopeless disaster. There is a lot that we need to do with the pharmaceutical companies. Right now, they can deduct every penny that they pay for advertising. They claim that they're spending all this money on research. It's not so. They're spending money on advertising, on "me-too" drugs. You turn on the television any night and you could throw up from all the advertising. When I see that, I think to myself, "This is coming out of my tax dollars," which drives me crazy. These problems are solved in other countries. This is not rocket science.M: We face a serious structural deficit in the Medicare system estimated at as much as $30 billion over the next 75 years. That's a much bigger issue than Social Security and it's not being addressed. What do we need to do about that?F: It may sound like a simplistic answer, but find a solution. There are solutions. I need to study it thoroughly before I give an answer. Part of it will be bringing in people at 55 to provide more money.M: Would you provide private accounts as part of a compromise on Social Security?F: Absolutely not. Under no circumstance. M: What's your take on our current fiscal position regarding taxes, especially Bush's tax cuts?F: I believe in a progressive income tax. As you earn, so you pay. I think it's a crime to give all this money back to people who don't need it. I think that anybody who works 40 hours a week should be able to live a decent respectable lifeM: So you are in favor of raising the minimum wage?F: To a living wage. Yes.M: We have huge budget deficits. Are you in favor of a balanced budget?F: YesM: How do we get there? Do we increase taxes or cut spending?F: Both. We have to stop building bridges to nowhere for 50 people. People in Congress who get set-asides for their districts have to realize that they have to look out for the interests of the whole country too. There has to be a different ethic on the part of Congress.[Note - What taxes Francine would raise is an open question. I admit, I'm not a perfect interviewer. I will update this answer if Francine wants to supplement.]M: We've had a series of spectacular corporate failures over the last several years. What can Congress do to restore confidence and integrity to our financial system?F: We can start with Sarbanes-Oxley. Some transparency in the system. We have to change what we allow corporations to do. A corporation cannot transcend the government. They don't have any responsibility to the public, and that's not in the best interest of the people. We have to change some of these laws.M: There are some serious problems with the nation's pension systems. Boomers are retiring and record pension defaults are occurring.F: One thing they can do is not allow corporations to walk away from their pensions in bankruptcy like United Airlines did. The bankruptcy laws are dreadful. They're not set up to protect people. They're set up to protect corporations. If we believe in government for the people by the people, we have to put our money and our practices where our mouths are.M: What's your opinion of the recent changes in bankruptcy laws?F: I think they're disgusting. Most of these people are not malingerers who just ran up credit card debt. They are people who have had very serious medical bills, and that's why they've gone under. It's also affecting people in the National Guard and Reserves; they're in the service and they're families are living on charity. I think the last bankruptcy law is probably one of the most mean-spirited laws that I've ever seen.M: What must we do to prevent the ethical abuses in our own government, including Congress?F: We have to get the money out of it. We have to make iy so they cannot make contributions in return for favors. It's very hard. Money is very sticky stuff. Passing laws is the first step. Transparency is the first step. Public financing of elections is imperative. We have it here in Arizona. I wish I could run "clean," but that's a state program. M: What must we do better to protect our environment?F: We have to stop the "dumbing down" of science. The Union of Concerned Scientists has said the number of lobbyists has more than doubled since 2000. There has never been a situation where scientific opinions have been ignored for political reasons. Science is not there to serve the President's agenda. M: What are your views regarding the hot-button values issues the Republicans are using these days? And what strategies would you use to counter or deal with these issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, etc.?F: I believe that we need to get government out of the bedroom and keep sex in the bedroom and protect people's right to privacy. And I believe that abortion is between a woman, her conscience, and her doctor. And I don't see how creating more families threatens families. I have a real problem figuring that one out. What threatens families is poverty. If you have two parents working, sometimes one parent is working two jobs, to keep a roof over their heads and to keep food on the table, that's what threatens families. This government's policies threaten families. The so-called religious right is not religious or right.M: If you could go to Congress and get your way on just one thing, get just one reform passed exactly as you wanted, and then you had to leave, what would it be?F: Progressive income tax. If you change the system so that people who make more, pay more, and people who make less, pay less, you will institute a system that will have other side effects. I think that adopting that kind of system requires an expression of values that people who can't, don't, and people who can, do, in paying income tax. Politics44805@blogcritics.org Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:13:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/22/194536.php Michael D. BryanI just finished reading "The Scorpion's Gate" by former Terrorist Czar and every Democrat's favorite Republican, Richard A. Clarke. I cannot say that it was the best fiction I've read. It suffers from far too much of the novice storyteller's filling in the gaps of the reader's knowledge with unrealistic expository dialog that the author has to strain to explain. I grant, however, that I can think of no other way the author could have conveyed the great depth and nuance of his understanding of Middle Eastern politics and geo-strategy more as efficiently and more artfully. Also, the ending is fairly anti-climactic, as are all novels premised on the idea of a cabal trying to drive world-altering events forward, only to be foiled by better-intentioned protagonists.Within these limitations, however, Clarke does manage, as the jacket cover promises, to tell the truth more effectively through fiction. Clarke's story begins a few years down the road. America has been invited to leave Iraq by the now Shiite dominated parliament. A popular revolution in Saudi Arabia, involving former Al Qaida members, has toppled the House of Saud, though not the gripe of the Wahabi clerics, and the nation has been renamed Islamyah. Islamyah is under economic embargo by the United States and oil is up to $85 a barrel.Against this backdrop, a political intrigue pitting the U.S. intelligence services against the Defense Department unfolds. The DOD and its Secretary wish to see every threat in the Middle East through the lens of their hatred for the new Islamyah government and their self-interested desire to place the Saudi royals back on the throne. The intelligence services want to know what's really going on and Clarke's story follows the international adventures of a few protagonists from the Western intelligence services in the quest to find the truth before it's too late.The central thrust of Clarke's story is that the real threat to American security is not from Islamyah, or even Al Qaida, or even a growing superpower like China, but from the Shiite pan-national movement led by the mullahs of Iran. This is a central insight into Middle Eastern politics that most experts on the region agree is the strongest threat to American energy security, as the greatest deposits in the Gulf region, making up the great preponderance of the world's reserves, have majority Shiite populations living on them. Those populations are scattered among Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Islamyah) and the Gulf Emirates, but the Shiite religious identity could be used to care rump states out of all these - as is arguably already underway in Iraq. I myself have written about Shiite pan-nationalism as being the greatest threat to America in the region, despite Bush's irresponsible use of a chimerical threat that Al Qaida will form the revolutionary vanguard for a re-establishment of a unified Caliphate across the entire Ulemma.Beyond the political message of his book, Clarke does manage to provide some great insight into the process of bureaucratic infighting, international espionage and modern military capabilities. His characters are well-drawn, though I did find myself often confused as to which spy belonged to what agency, that was probably my short-coming not Clarke's. There is murder, mayhem, love, betrayal, friendship, unlikely alliances and tragic endings enough for any aficionado of Tom Clancy, John Le Carre or Ian Fleming. Books42616@blogcritics.org Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:45:36 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/22/005050.php Michael D. BryanTom Tancredo (R - CO) and Bay Buchanan (sister of Pat Buchanan, director of the American Cause, and the manager of Pat's Presidential campaigns) came to Tucson on Friday in support of Randy Graf's unending campaign for Congress in CD8. The Bay and Tom show isn't just a one-off for Graf's benefit though, it is a national tour called the "Secure America Now" tour. Sound familiar? It should. It taps into the same issues and supporters that Arizona's "Protect Arizona Now" initiative did. At the breakfast one could find many of the same people who worked on PAN, not the least of which was Randy Graf himself.Secure America Now is the road show for Team America, a Political Action Committee dedicated to border issues founded by Tom and Bay. Only by understanding the significance of the SAN tour and the history of the Buchanans in American politics does the full significance of the tour's stop in Tucson really have a useful context. Randy Graf is only a small part of the story.The SAN tour is not just mutual support by ideologically allied politicians. This is something much larger, and more crass. This is anti-immigrant sentiment becoming the new centerpiece of the extreme right agenda. This is Tom Tancredo's shake-down run for his Presidential campaign - one in which he may be positioning to take Buchanan's traditional place to right of everyone else, and Pat's campaign manager, Bay, as well. The campaigns run by Bay are not traditional campaigns. Strategically they have a lot in common with Ralph Nader's campaigns - they seek to pressure the moderates to deal with ideas the fringes find compelling. Logistically they are pigeons to the Party nominee's Air Force One - lean and mean, they can keep going with minimal financial support. Monetarily they are as different from a major party campaign as could be. Where losing candidates often retire from the field with millions in debts to retire, Buchanan's campaigns end heavily in the black with millions in tax-payer dollars in the bank and valuable assets, such as supporter databases, which can be used to support a permanent state of campaigning. With Bay at the helm of Tancredo's tour two things are sure: it will be a very efficiently run campaign, and it will be a very profitable one, even more so now that grassroots organizing and fund raising via the Internet has come of age.Bay Buchanan is an experienced and canny political organizer and a revolutionary fund-raiser. Many people looked at the Dean campaign's tremendous success in raising large amounts of funding from small donations as something sui generis in Presidential politics. It isn't. Pat Buchanan's campaigns have been doing the same thing from the early '90s using the direct mail wizardry of Bay Buchanan. The Buchanan's were able to raise millions in the campaigns from small dollar donors, and capture federal matching funds much more efficiently that their more electorally successful competitors. Bay and Pat have garnered as much as 40 million in federal matching funds this way. For a complete account of the political fund raising and media empire which Pat and Bay have built I strongly recommend a very insightful and well-researched article by Monte Paulsen.Possibly even more profitable than the campaigns themselves has been the direct mail issue-oriented fund raising that Bay's American Cause has done between campaigns using the tremendously valuable conservative mailing lists that the Buchanan's campaigns have generated. Nor has Bay been shy about selling those lists to commercial and political interests who want to use them. A word of warning: don't give your personal information at conservative events associated with the Buchanans unless you don't mind junk mail.Tancredo is a dark horse and he knows it. He is a single issue candidate focused on immigration. As such, he has no chance and no intent of capturing his party's nomination. But to make his run successful, he doesn't have to win. Obscure little Dennis Kucinich showed all of Washington that was paying attention to how to parlay a Presidential run while sitting in Congress into a platform for strengthening your name recognition, focusing public attention on your issues, gaining a national following, and vastly increasing your fund raising power and influence among your peers. Dennis even got to stand on the stage with the bug guns during the primaries and deliver his message. Those benefits are looking good to Tancredo, and it looks like Bay is willing to help him do it.This campaign will be much like Pat Buchanan's prior runs, self-promotional, very remunerative, and influential among the far right. I will predict now that Pat's next book will be about immigration with a forward by Tancredo, or maybe the other way around. Bay and Tom, by founding a PAC, have added a new ability to the Buchanan campaign template; the power to reward allies who give them credibility and to give credibility to allies who give them power. Thus Tom and Bay's visit with Congressman Trent Franks in Phoenix, and their assistance to Randy Graf's attempt to hold CD8 for the GOP in Tucson. Team America splashed out over 25K in independent expenditures on behalf of Graf when he ran against Kolbe. They also spent over $2200 on Verizon Wireless in Tucson from 6/04 to 11/04 which I have to wonder if the Graf campaign benefitted from. Look for Team America to make an even bigger splash with independent campaign expeditures on behalf of Randy Graf as the GOP primary heats up, and yet more activity during the general.So far Graf's campaign has raised somewhat more than 75K, a poor fraction of what he needs. Yet Graf's staff seemed awfully sure that somehow Graf would raise 500K for the primary. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that much of that confidence comes from knowing that Tom and Bay are putting the list generated by the SAN tour and Bay's direct mail wizardry and lists from her brother's Presidential runs at Graf's disposal. What could be better for Tom Tancredo than having another like-minded Republican in Congress to help him formulate a final solution for the illegal immigration problem?There are some who will let folks like Tancredo, Buchanan, and Graf off the hook, calling them nationalists, or law and order types, rather than what they really are: racists. To those people I present the evidence. If a politician were only concerned with border security, because of terrorism, drugs, slavery, etc., his policies would target only border security. These folks are concerned about security at the border, but they also vehemently oppose amnesty and assimilation of immigrants who originally came here illegally, even threatening to discipline GOP members who support any sort of amnesty. They want to somehow deport 12 million people - and they only talk about illegal immigrants as Hispanics, except when they are terrorists - unless they speak of them as both. These folks are constantly penning screeds about how Hispanics are overrunning 'our culture', 'our language', 'our values', and, most importantly, 'our ballot boxes'. They show clear signs of xenophobic panic, racial and cultural intolerance, and a desire to eliminate the 'contamination'. If they were only concerned about the 'criminal element' among illegal aliens (which I would submit is no greater than among any randomly selected group of 12 million people) then they would look to consequence only criminals; instead they define them all as criminals based on their status no matter how much they contribute to their new society. And then there are the 'Reconquista' myths and conspiracy theories. QED. These folks are just racists.These folks' mind-set is plain in everything they do. When I was at the breakfast, there were a group of people from the Pima County Interfaith Council and other politically opposed groups who infiltrated the meeting. At one point several stood up with signs reading "Real Solutions for Real People". Those signs where violently ripped away and the the protesters assaulted while being removed from the venue. But that's not what is so revelatory. One of the volunteer staff who was holding a camera came up behind a PCIC member named Petra who had no sign and had not stood up to chant and he angrily indicated to a security person to eject her from the venue. What had she done? Listened to Tancredo while Hispanic. Graf's staffer ejected Petra simply for being Hispanic. Petra was racially profiled. These people are just racists camouflaging themselves as nationalists. Politics42589@blogcritics.org Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:50:50 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/26/110504.php Michael D. BryanThis week's Frontline addressed the use of torture in the "war on terror". It is an eye-opening account of how torture became mainstreamed into military culture over the past 4 years.Often when addressing torture in the context of terrorism, those who seek to justify its use pose a particular hypothetical to demonstrate the moral neccessity of torture. The scenario is that there is a WMD hidden in a major American city and you have a prisoner who knows where that device is hidden. You are presented with a choice, torture him for the information or let X number of people die. This hypothetical was played out over and over again in the popular television series '24' before millions of viewers. The only right answer is, of course, to torture the bastard and make him talk. The problem is that conclusion is that the hypothetical seeks to generalize a false dichotomy into real world conditions.The real-world hypothetical, reflecting the real-world intelligence environment, would be that instead of one person who you know has the information you seek, you instead have 10,000 people in custody, one of whom might have the information you seek. Most of the rest, if not all of them, are completely innocent and have no useful information. Now, do you torture all 10,000 on the mere possibility that one or a few of them have actionable intel regarding that WMD? No longer a clear-cut moral choice, is it? In Gitmo, Afghanistan and Iraq our government answered this real-world hypothetical by proceeding to torture those 10,000 for the scraps of intel hidden in that human haystack. Our forces swept up people nearly at random for detention and interrogation. Some were enemies, surely, but many more were just caught up in an indescriminate sweep. The problem, and the worst crimes, came where an indiscriminate policy to use 'harsh' techniques to interrogate prisoners met the chaos, emotions, prejudices, and fear of field conditions. The resulting abuses are so deep, so bad, and so common, that the full story will probably never be compiled by Western media; we simply don't want to know. And when something approximating the full story is told by Al Jazeera or a similar source, we simply won't believe it. What is already known makes my blood boil when I think about it. If you watch this Frontline, it will have the same effect on you. There are banal little war criminals sitting in our Pentagon and Defense Department as I write this. Honor will not be satisfied until they are instead sitting in a Federal prison for a very long time. Video38534@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:05:04 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/12/203539.php Michael D. BryanBush gave a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy that was widely panned as a hoary rehash of worn themes. It certainly wasn't effective at rallying support for his Iraq policy (currently hovering at 40% or less) or at convincing people that terrorism is job #1 (only 7% of the public think it the most important issue). What it did do was describe the new specter said to be haunting the Middle East: a pan-Islamic movement bent on global domination and competition with the West whose revolutionary vanguard is al Qaeda network terrorists.How realistic is such a bugaboo? What are the prospects of what is essentially the negative correlative of the Neo-Con democratic domino theory for the Muslim world?The lands with majority Muslim populations, especially those of the Middle East, have long been home to super-nationalist sentiments. The imperial past of Islam under the Caliphates is a golden age to the minds of many. Such internationalist sentiments have historically taken the form of pan-Arabism - an appeal to the allegiance to the common ties of language, culture and history - embracing people from North Africa to Mesopotamia. The very party we just toppled from power in Iraq, the Ba'thists, were the failed secular embodiment of that aspiration. However, in recent history it is pan-Islamism that, much like Christo-Conservatism here in the U.S., seems to have gained populist traction among average people. There is a growing tendency to see the possibility of a pan-national political entity born of the religious affiliation among the people of the Middle East. Certainly, al Qaeda and its ilk are a product of, and proponent of, such dreams. The threat of an extremist, international, and totalitarian Islamic Superpower brought into being by a violent and revolutionary vanguard has a toehold in reality, but little more.Such a dystopian vision suffers a few key delusions: it vastly overestimates the political appeal of radical fundamentalist Islam to the average Muslim; it vastly underestimates the strength and resiliency of national governments and the secular order in the Muslim world; it assigns far more power and resources to violent terrorist organizations than they actually possess; and it overestimates the political appetite among Middle Eastern people for confrontation with the West. In short, it is a boogyman with far less substance and reality than the Red Menace of the Soviets which it is intended to replace in the American political lexicon.I'm not going to defend my assertions in detail, I'm too lazy, and anyone who is seriously interested in these subjects can easily research them, but there is one aspect of Bush's boogyman I will consider more closely. Al Qaeda is supposed to play the role of a violent revolutionary vanguard in Bush's fantasy. This would be somewhat akin to abortion clinic bombers getting all the Protestants in the world to follow them and throw down their governments in their name. The political support of such violent extremists may be intense, but it is neither broad enough nor deep enough to sustain a political revolution - though it may spark and excite the political mobilization of a large constituency with more modest goals - again like the Christo-Cons in America.Ironically, it may be the minority of Muslims, the Shiites, rather than the majority, the Sunnis, who pose the most immediate threat to American security (if defined by Carter's Persian Gulf Doctrine). Al Qaeda and their most closely aligned supporters in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere are Sunnis. An Islamic state under the majority sect holds little appeal to Shiites, who are often considered not to be Muslims at all by the more purist of the 90% of Muslims who are Sunni. The inspiration for pan-nationalist Islamic political unification for the Shiites is the revolutionary Islamic Iranian state, not al Qaeda. It is to the political Mecca of Tehran that Shiites turn; and that constitutes a serious political threat that Bush's invasion of Iraq has only inflamed.The Southern provinces of Iraq have Shiite majorities and contain the greater part, about 70%, of Iraq's oil reserves. The Shiite majority is determined to control the revenues from those resources. With those resources the Shiites will have a power base from which to dominate Iraqi politics, or to accomplish a de facto secession from Iraq. The economic and military ties between the Shiite provinces of Iraq and Iran are already established and growing stronger fast. Before too long, the dream of a pan-national Islamic state may be a reality in all but name. But the real prospect of pan-Islamic unification is among Shiites led by Iranian mullahs, not among Sunnis led by terrorist radicals which the President claims are the paramount threat to our security. How does the President get this most important dynamic exactly backwards?The Arab-Persian alliance under a Shiite theocracy would be the most populous nation in the Persian Gulf by far, controlling both Iran's and a the majority of Iraq's oil resources, as well as the most productive and viable aquifers in the region (an often overlooked strategic asset). But that is not the worst of it. The geographically contiguous Eastern province of Saudi Arabia is also majority Shiite: it also contains 80-90% of Saudi oil fields and reserves. It generates most of that nation's wealth, but receives little of the benefit. The nominally Sunni House of Saud is highly unpopular, not only among these Shiites of the east, but also among average Sunni Arabs. There are already places in the Shiite majority east that are no-go areas for Saudi national security forces. It is not unrealistic to expect that an expansionist Shiite theocracy, emboldened by success in southern Iraq, would decide to foment the overthrow of the House of Saud in the hopes of peeling off the majority Shiite east in the fray. Nor is it unrealistic to expect that they may be successful in doing so.The only dominos likely to fall in the Middle East are the Shiite majority areas controlled by superannuated Sunni oil sheiks around the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Dubai and Qatar, all have substantial Shiite populations and sclerotic political institutions ripe for destabilization by populist movements. Without us being able to do much more to stop it than we could have done about Iran itself in 1979, a theocratic Shiite pan-national alliance, led by Tehran, could dominate the Gulf region and the great majority of the Middle East's oil. This is the real pan-Islamic threat that America should be concerned about. Instead, Bush rants about his fever vision of a grand pan-Islamic superpower stretching "from Spain to Indonesia" led by Osama bin Laden, or someone like him. Bush won't talk about the real threat, because that chain of dominos is one that his own rash invasion and occupation of Iraq tipped over. Bush is setting America up to be blind-sided by the most important security development in the Middle East since decolonization. Bush isn't providing leadership on national security, he's doubling up on a bet he's already lost, and hoping we don't notice.Ed/Pub:LisaM Politics37838@blogcritics.org Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:35:39 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/03/044947.php Michael D. BryanParis Hilton recently announced that, "I'm the closest thing to American royalty..." At first, I was annoyed. Then, I was sickened. Then, I decided that she was right.Royalty has often been held to personify the zeitgeist of a time and place. An American peerage should likewise serve as an exemplar of our times. Certainly, they could not serve any overt political function, but rather they could serve to embody the strongest trends and actual (rather than professed or aspirational) values of our society, writ large and made flesh, so that we can be reminded of what sort of society we are creating.In that case, Paris is perfect for elevation to the American peerage. Scion of dynastic family wealth she had no part of creating, sporting a name that functions as a brand, vain to the point of self-obsession, possessed of the moronic beauty of youth, superficially glamorous but morally and intellectually impoverished, famous mainly for public lewdness and exhibitionism, owning the mating habits of a Bonobo, and sporting a massive air of entitlement, Paris is eminently qualified to be a member of America's theoretical peerage. In fact, she is a strong candidate for America's Princess. However, I don't think it is a title of any honor, as Paris evidently believes it to be. Culture37287@blogcritics.org Mon, 3 Oct 2005 04:49:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/19/025733.php Michael D. BryanConsidering that many of the incompetent ideologues who have made such a hash of the Bush II Presidency are retreads from earlier conservative Administrations, we had best give some thought to preventing the worst bunglers from rising again like some awful neo-con revenants in any future GOP Presidency. A few of those I would rather not see return, in no particular order: Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith, Libby, Rove, Rice, Negroponte, Brown, Allbough, Tenet, Griles, Ashcroft, Mueller, Hadley, Chertoff, Boykins, Gonzales, Chao, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Bremer, Cheney, and, of course, Bush himself. I've undoubtedly forgotten to mention many who richly deserve impeachment. Heck, I would like to have most of them impeached. Age may take care of a few, but there are plenty of hale and hearty idiots who will colonize the think tanks and lobbying firms and then continue to plague the public sector, failing upwards in the inimitable GOP elite fashion, for years to come unless we do something about it.I suggest that we consider post-term impeachments all around. Normally, people think of impeachment as a way to remove an official from office, but impeachment has the effect of preventing the impeached person from ever holding a position of trust, honor, or profit with the Federal government ever again. Thus impeachment, even after an official has left office, is useful in preventing travesties such as Admiral Poindexter's or Dick Armitage's rehabilitations.There is clear consensus among legal scholars that although impeachment has yet to be used in this fashion in the United States it is Constitutional. The practice was, and continues to be used in England, from whence we drew the institution. The English practice is specifically limited in several particulars in our Constitution, but, significantly, not in regards post-term use. Finally, the Senate voted during impeachment proceedings against Secretary of War Belknap in 1876 that they had the power to proceed post-term after Secretary Belknap resigned.Of course, Democrats would need majorities in the House and Senate to succeed. A Democratic rallying cry for the 2006 and 2008 Congressional races could be to post-term impeach key members of the failed Bush II Administration, thus protecting the government from their incompetence and venality in the future. This Administration is becoming unpopular enough that running against it, even as it is out-going in 2008 could net electoral benefits. Politics36436@blogcritics.org Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:57:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/17/095652.php Michael D. BryanPresident Bush made two presidential proclamations designating September 16 as a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of Hurricane Katrina, and September 9th through 11th National Days of Remembrance for the victims of terrorism and the fallen veterans of his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Setting aside for the moment the obvious issue of his naked attempt to elide the outrage of 9/11 with his war of folly in Iraq, I wonder where he finds the authority to proclaim such national prayer services?In the proclamations themselves he makes a broad claim of authority for calling people to worship using the White House press office as a muezzin. He claims this religious function is based on "the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States." I question whether such authority exists. The powers of the President enumerated by the Constitution certainly do not include being the nation's pastor, and no act of Congress, itself enjoined from establishing religion, could confer ecumenical religious powers on the Presidency. I certainly concede that a secular day of observation and ceremony to honor the memory of those who have died in disaster, war, and terrorist attack is warranted, but I do not think that any American President has the authority to call Americans to religious services. Nor does this President, in particular, have any moral authority to do so.A far better memorial to the fallen would be to further real justice and equity in this nation, and to work toward peace and security for all, rather than issuing proclamations from on high calling for empty prayers. The ever-starker divisions between rich and poor, between those who can afford justice and those who do without, can only be bridged by acts, not by a costless proclamation of prayers. A President who has worked so assiduously to champion the causes of the powerful, and to denigrate and neglect the causes of the weak, has no more moral authority to proclaim days of remembrance for those his own failings brought low than he has the requisite legal authority to do so.The prophet Amos related the words of an angry God to an Israel that had begun to trample the rights of the poor, and deny justice to many of its people. God said: "I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts, I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen." (Amos 5:21)Amos said that God wanted justice for His people, not just empty words of worship nor worshipful acts while injustice was done in His name. God proclaimed, "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." (Amos 5:24) When the battered inhabitants of the Gulf coast are inundated with justice, Bush may be able to claim the right to memorialize those who died in Katrina's waters; not before.No one appointed Bush our national pastor, and his calls for the nation to worship in the name of those his Administration has wronged are rank hypocrisys in the eyes of any just and decent God. pub:NB Politics36342@blogcritics.org Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:56:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/07/073559.php Michael D. BryanEmperor Nero announced today that he would lead an inquiry into the burning of Rome. Interrupting his month long festival of fiddle concerts for a press conference, the Emperor said that he and his retinue were "working hard, to ensure we fix what's wrong and duplicate what's right" about the Imperial government's response to the Rome fire. Asked for an example of what would be duplicated, the Emperor told the reporter, "What? Are you some kind of Persian sympathizer? Get that asshole outta here!"While the Emperor has said that "we're not going play the blame game," when asked about where responsibility lay for the recent total destruction of Rome by fire while thousands of volunteer bucket brigades stood awaiting orders outside the city and the legions remained in their barracks, members of the Imperial party have repeatedly affixed blame to the victims of the fire for being "too flammable," and the urban quaestor for being burned to death along with his lictors early in the conflagration. "The irresponsible death of local officials left Imperial officials with no one to say 'tag, you're it,' to them, and thus helpless to assist," said the director of the Imperial Emergency Management Agency.The leader of the Imperial Senate remarked insightfully about the tragedy in Rome, "I think that we probably shouldn't rebuild Rome. It was exposed to oxygen and that made it very likely to burn. We should probably rebuild it somewhere where there isn't so much oxygen, if we rebuild at all." When criticized for his comments, the leader clarified his remarks, saying, "I just meant that when we rebuild Rome, we should get rid of all that oxygen, first."Despite misgivings, the Senate is likely to approve funding for the rebuilding of Rome. The Vice Emperor, former CEO of Halliburtoni, a major construction company expected to receive billions of sesterces worth of no-bid Imperial contracts, is quoted as saying, "Buy all the shares of Halliburtoni you can get your hands on... Hey, I'm dictating a papyrus here, get the hell out of my bunker!"The Imperial Spokes-slave, when asked why the Emperor was starting an inquiry into the Rome fire when the Senate has already begun two independent inquiries, said, "The Emperor's inquiry will be untainted by partisan politics. And the Emperor's final report will have a much greater public relations budget than the Senatorial reports, so as to get the propaganda out there. To catapult the truth, as it were."Ed:LM Politics35627@blogcritics.org Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:35:59 EDT