99% of Republicans Give the Rest a Bad Name

The title I stole from a bumper sticker, which I just love.

My post today is about a Republican politican who fits into the 1% of Good Republicans.

John Danforth, who recently resigned his post as Bush's ambassador to the UN and who served many years as a Republican Senator from Missouri, and came close to being Bush's Vice Presidential pick in the 2000 race. He's also an ordained Episcopal minister.

Danforth is angry about the extremists who've taken over the Republican party and he isn't taking it sitting down. In today's edition of the New York Times, Danforth had a scathing op-ed about the Republican party. I think it's worth posting here.

Go Danforth!!!!! We need more politicians with guts like you. I would actually vote Republican if I could vote for him.

In the Name of Politics
By John C. Danforth
The New York Times

Wednesday 30 March 2005

St. Louis - By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.

Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.

High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.

In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.

I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.

Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.

-------

John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal minister.

March Wrap-Up

March Readings

Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
Great Book - I’ll be posting a blog in response soon.

Catherine the Great by Henri Troyat, translated from French
Surprisingly good. I was afraid it would be a totally dull and slow history. To my delight, it was detailed but rich and luxurious and completely engrossing. I felt like I was there watching the history happen and I greedily devoured every word. I knew very little about Catherine the Great and I could only remember a picture of her on a horse from my world history course in high school.

2 Bobby Darin biographies
Fun, enlightening reading on a great singer and entertainer.


The Titanic Murders by Max Allen Collins
Fun, brainless reading by the author of “The Road to Perdition” and other popular fiction. Great description of the ship and famous characters on board. Well-researched.

Reading In Progress

“Dream Lovers - The Magnificent Shattered Lives of Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee” by their son Dodd Darin (1994)

“Who’s Looking Out for You?” by Bill O’Reilly - I believe in trying to understand people with different opinions than myself; not just shouting at them. So far O’Reilly’s book is way better than his TV show...he has some good points and spreads the blame to all politicians, including some Republicans.


March Listenings

Duran Duran “Astronaut”

Misc. Bobby Darin & Duran Duran

To Quote George Harrison, "Think for Yourself"

Today I opened my email to get a message from my friend who’d sent me a forward with the subject: "Makes you Think..." I read this email and the facts in it did not sit right in my soul. I thought about all the Americans who have/will read this and blindly believe what it is saying. After simmering on this for a few hours, I did some research. I found that this email has incorrect data and is just political propaganda with no basis in reality.

“Things that make you think a little........

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month
of January.”

Actually 107 of US military personnel died in Iraq in January 2005. Plus 20 from our coalition of the willing. That's a total of 127. I see that 47 US military and 5 coalition members died in Jan. 2004. Maybe this email has been being forwarded for over a year. However, I still can’t figure out where the writer got their numbers.

A total of 1525 US military personnel have died.

Since the war started two years ago, 11,220 service people have been wounded.

Source: icasualties.org/oif/

That's not counting the thousands of innocent Iraqi civlian's who have died in the war.

The email went on to say, "That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, think about the following ..

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average
of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea
never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam intoa quagmir. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

These are reasons to support or even go to war? These all sound like good reasons not to go to war to me. What about the 10 Commandments - "Though Shalt Not Kill"?

In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

Is it freedom to live in a country where insurgents are fighting the occupyingAmerican and coalition forces? Is it freedom for the thousands (many more than the US or coalition troops) of innocent Iraqi civilians who die in the firefights and violence?

Have we found any of the Weapons of Mass destruction that Bush, Powell and Rice said were there?

Have we captured Osama Bin Laden?

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Oh please. This is entirely stupid. It's been 2-years since the war started. That's a longer time than Waco, Clinton's Rose Law, Kennedy's Chapaquiddick or the Florida recount put together. And it is still a war, despite the “mission accomplished” photo opp that president Bush had to end the war (which also ended combat pay to our troops and reinstated peace-time wages)...our troops are still in Iraq and fighting and dying.

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

This is more propaganda. Since this person did not share their name or their sources, couldn’t this email be considered biased media?

Military morale is not high. Why have we been talking constantly about the lack of enlistments since the war started? Why is the military having to enforce the “Stop Loss” rule and not allowing our service people to go home when their tours are done.

According to an Oklahoma TV news report about a deserter from Oklahoma National Guard Reservist, “The number of deserters has gone up from about 1,500 in 1995, to more than 5,500 since the war in Iraq began.”

According to a New Zealand Herald article, 100 service people have fled to Canada since the war started. Jeremy Hinzman, who just lost his bid for refuge in Canada, is one of them.

An article in the Canadian Press said...

“He said the U.S. military regarded all Arabs in the Middle East - Iraqis in particular - as potential terrorists to be eliminated and were referred to as ''savages.''

His case was bolstered by a former United States marine, who said trigger-happy American soldiers in Iraq routinely killed unarmed women and children, and murdered other Iraqis, in violation of international law.

Adjudicator Brian Goodman had previously ruled that the soldier's view of the legality of the war on Iraq could not be used to support his refugee claim.

As a deserter, Hinzman faces court martial if he returns to the United States and a potential five-year jail term.

A federal government lawyer said U.S. military deserters are normally sentenced to one year, but Hinzman said he would be treated more harshly because of his views on the Iraq war. ...”

What about the brave men and women who are serving and coming home extremely traumatized? Some are dealing with the things they have seen and done by creating home videos of explosions, fighting, violence and bloodshed.

One artist has made a photographic novella based on the graphic video and information from a soldier she met on a trip from Paris, France to Portland, Oregon. She has been corresponding with this soilder for a year now. He shares that he’s worried about coming home and hurting his daughter and family.

Read more on this.

The email's last part says: "JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn:
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn:
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line.

It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible. I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"

This is the only part the author got right.

People who haven’t served in the military cannot understand what it’s like. Myself included.

Interestingly enough most of the Bush administration and many prominent Republicans have never served in the military.
The whole list

Dick Cheney got 5 deferments in the Vietnam War. .

Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq war and the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, never served.

Neither did John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, or Jeb Bush.

The only two in the Bush administration who have served are Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard but did not see action in the Vietnam war. Rumsfeld was in the Navy from 1954-1957 and served as an aviator and flight instructor.

Meanwhile, two other Republicans who had military careers have been attacked by the Radicals in their own party. President Bush said during the 2000 election that John McCain became mentally unstable while he was POW. And General Colin Powell is attacked by the radical right as being an appeaser and being too soft on Sadam and other enemies.

Source 1
Source 2

Early on some military big-wigs were expressing concern about the Iraq war. General Schwarzkopf expressed concerns and said he felt there wasn’t enough evidence. Having also fought with the military in the first Gulf War he also knew what the military would be facing.

In 1998 Papa Bush wrote an essay for “Time” entitled “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam”, in which he said, "Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different-and perhaps barren-outcome.”
Source

Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman once said, "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry for blood, more vengeance. More desolation."

The people who are crying loudest for this war are the ones who've never actually seen combat. We are only increasing the hatred toward our country in the Middle East and eventually people will join the ranks of terrorists because of this war and the 50 plus years of our government's meddling in the region.

America study your history and think for yourself.

Losing my Republicanism, Part the Second

In "How I lost My Republicanism, Part the First", I questioned Cheney's immoral, hypocritical conduct as CEO of Halliburton and in politics.

In this blog, I want to work through the issue of it being unConstitutional for Cheney and Bush to run together in the 2000 Election, since they both lived in Texas at the time.

According to the Rolling Stone article, "Since Cheney lived in Texas at the time, choosing him led Bush into a situation that, if the words of our Founding Fathers still have any meaning, is unconstitutional. The Constitution forbids a state's electors from voting for candidates for president and vice president who are both "an inhabitant of the same state as themselves." Yet by voting for Bush and Cheney, electors in Texas did precisely that. Cheney lived in Texas, had a Texas driver's license and filed his federal income tax using a Texas address. He had also voted in Texas, not in Wyoming, a state where he had not lived full-time for decades."

Now I hadn't studied the Constitution since school - more than 10 years ago, and being naturally untrusting of the media after having worked in marketing for 5 years, I wanted to find out exactly what they were talking about. Luckily, I kept and was able to find the booklet "The Constitution of the United States" from the Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution

So I read through it to see if this was true.

The 12th Amendment says: "The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;..."

Hmmm...

A presidential and vice presidential candidate residing in the same state cannot both earn that state's electoral votes. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal.

George W. Bush is, without a doubt, a resident of Texas. The Governor of Texas from 1994-1999. Owner of the Texas Rangers. His Ranch.

Dick Cheney had lived in Highland Park (Dallas), Texas since 1995. He had a Texas driver's license. He filed his federal tax returns using a Texas address. (Source: http://austin.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/cheney_texan.htm)

That all makes sense considering that since 1995 Cheney had worked for Halliburton, which is based in Dallas.


In July 2000, Cheney applied for voter registration in Wyoming. (Source 1: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/global_user_elements/printpage.cfm?storyid=700997; Source 2: http://austin.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/cheney_texan.htm)

However, according to the opinion piece http://www.dailytexanonline.com/global_user_elements/printpage.cfm?storyid=700997, "He also voted as a Texas resident in the last eight election cycles, up to this one."

According to an article from the November 22, 2000 Austin American-Statesman, Cheney claimed the homestead tax exemption on his Dallas home, which he later put up for sale, which is only allowed on property the owner considers their main home. (Source: http://austin.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/cheney_texan.htm)

Another article, this one from 2001, on the Austin American-Statesman's website archives, described Bush and Cheney as "former Texas residents."

There is no doubt that Cheney and Bush were both residents of Texas when they ran for office in 2000.

I was totally unaware of this during the 2000 election. I don't remember any of the media outlets in my area saying or running anything about this. And it barely got more coverage in 2004.

Thankfully, not everyone was unaware of this. In 2000, a Florida lawyer filed a lawsuit saying that Texas' 32 electoral votes could not be counted for Bush/Cheney. When this suit was thrown out by a Miami federal judge because it wasn't filed where the defendant lived, three Dallas, Texas voters filed a lawsuit. According to the forementioned article in the Austin American-Statesman, that federal judge refused to schedule an immediate hearing on the case; this judge also declined to issue a restraining order to keep the Texas electors from voting for Cheney.

At the time, the Bush/Cheney campaign called this a frivolous lawsuit. But the actions of Cheney show that he knew that running with Bush was Unconstitutional and Illegal; and he knew that it would be challenged as such. Yet they still went ahead with their campaign. And took those 32 electoral votes.

Bush/Cheney talk copiously about "Strict Constitution", not to mention Christian values like "honesty", "integrity", and "character". How does running knowingly with someone who is a resident of the same state and allowing the electors to cast an illegal vote, fit in with Christ's teachings?

As a Christian and an American who believes in our Constitution, it goes against my values.

So why does this not anger my fellow Americans and Christians? Are you just unaware of this, as I was until I read the Rolling Stone article?

And Now For Something Completely Different!

I grew up in the 80s. I love the 80s. I am unashamed to still listen to Def Leppard, Rick Astley, A-Ha. My favorite tv shows were Webster, Charles in Charge, the Fraggles, Mr. Belvedere. I still adore John Hughes and especially "16 Candles". I wore Jelly bracelets and plastic charm bracelets. The 80s rocked.

So when I heard that Duran Duran (whom I affectionally call Duran Squared or Duran^2, no disrespect to "Barbarella") was reunited and coming to my hometown, I was stoked. Now granted, when the band had their first hit, I was only 5-6 and I didn't know them from the Care Bears. I wasn't allowed to listen to rock n' roll until 5th grade and I didn't have the older brother or sister who listened to them. The album that really got me into them was their Wedding Alblum (or Duran Duran 2), which came out when I was in high school.

I knew this would be a fun concert. But this was one of the best concerts I've ever seen. It was WICKED AWESOME! As much as I hate to say it, it was better even than the Annie Lennox & Sting concert last year (Annie I love you!). There was so much energy - so much love between the band and the crowd. I have never heard a crowd so loud in this stadium. I've never seen so many people on their feet, dancing the entire time. There are some who will smirk, but I have to say Duran^2 has only gotten better with age. I mean a couple of the songs they played, I didn't like until I heard them live. (However, I still don't care if I ever hear Rio again, even if it did sound alright. Bleck!) The one mar on the evening is that they didn't sing my James Bond song! I guess every concert I go to the band must ignore one song I really love.

But I am getting ahead of myself.

I shall start from the beginning..

Promptly at 8 p.m., some opening band came out to play. No-one in my row knew who they were. Some d-grade punk mixed with new wave mixed with English wannabes. Their beats were great, probably because they reminded me of classic beats from the Clash and other 80s bands. I sincerely hope they weren't from around here. I actually felt bad because the biggest cheer they got was when the spastic lead singer (my friend thinks he was high on something...it's totally possible in this city) said they were playing their last song. Enough of them....

While they roadies got the stage ready for the main attraction, my friend and I chit-chatted away. Amazingly soon, I heard the crowd near the stage start roaring, so I jammed my binoculars to my eyes and start scanning. I see nothing.... Something has to be happening. Are they coming?!?!?!?! The roar grows.

A faint heart-beat starts. Finally, the lights go down...the stage is lightly illuminated with blue along the edges of the walkways. For minutes we are yelling and clapping and I'm scanning the darkness for the band. Any sign of movement yet?! Wait, someone's walking on stage...dang...just a roadie. Where are they?! My friend, the crowd and I are screaming.

Then, from the black murk to the rear of the stage, I sense movement. Yes, there is movement! Several sets of lower legs walk to the front of the stage and pose there. For another minute, the legs stand there in the dark. All I can see is legs. All of us in the crowd are immediately on our feet, screaming, clapping, jumping, going bonkers. I giddily jump up and am screaming like a 13-year old banshee. I understand now how Beatles' fans must have felt. (yes, I know it's for DD, but this is a visceral experience not a spiritual one). Then the legs break away and go to their various parts of the still darkened stage.

Duran^2 started with a new song. Then went into one of their recognizable 80s tunes. Then into an hit (don't ask me which, I can't remember, too hyper and too much stimulation). Then another classic. Then into another new one...maybe the one about the alien sex. That song was okay. I bet it's humorous if I could actually understand the lyrics. But then it was back to a classic Duran^2 song. Another new song. That was pretty good, I will have to get the new album. Oh yeah! - My favorite! "Come Undone" - ahh, high school memories of unrequited love. And more...and more...new, old, new, old.

One song took me 5 minutes to realize what it was because Simon was trying to get the crowd to sing in response to him...but I couldn't understand or recognize the song so I just screamed. Again, I've forgotten the title...maybe it was "notorious" or "big thing". Not sure. Of course, I loved "Ordinary World" too! During another song they showed this awesomely funny, anime with the band kicking ninja's and Godzilla's butts (not to mention the Music Industry). That was totally cute.

The music was awesome, although sometimes too loud and typical of that arena the acoustics weren't always great. Sometimes we couldn't understand what they were saying or singing. And the crowd was so loud that made it harder to hear too.

For once in my life I actually remembered to bring my binoculars and I did not squander any opportunity to check out the band. I mean I just had to know how they looked. My friend and I took turns scoping them out.

By the late 80s, I had pictures of the keyboardist, drat this brain of mine, I can't remember his name...NICK? Yeah that's it. Nick!!! I even kissed the posters, leaving lip gloss imprints (bear in mind I was around 10! ; >) Okay, that's still a little embarrassing but oh well, I am not ashamed to be a dork. Around the same time, I also had pictures of the keyboardest from A-Ha (I do remember his name because of the unusual spelling - Pal!). I had a thing for slender, blond keyboardists at the time.

My first impression was that Nick looks totally freaky. His hair is different shades of blond and poofy. Maybe all those years of dye and hairspray have taken their toll. His angular face has filled out some and is more round. He still wears the most make-up of any of the guys. Although he was wearing this kick-ass sparkly tie with his all black suit. He didn't smile much; he would looked better if he smiled more. He looked rather humourless. I mean, it doesn't look like you're doing that much over there....your hands aren't flying like Ray Charles...can't you smile and play your keyboard?!

He was totally creeping me out (and yet mystified me). Probably because it means I also am getting older. But then at the end, when Simon introduced the band...when on the screen behind them they show the handheld video Simon is taking of him and he does this thing with his eye and his eyebrows. Oh. My. My old crush is back. And wait, is he smirking? Oh yeah! There's the hotty that I had plastered on my bedroom walls!

Simon's gained a little weight in the face too. But it suits him. He's still hot. But now he's a pretty man, not a pretty boy. And he's totally funny. He takes the stage and owns it. He too looks like he's put way too many chemicals in his hair. From where I was it looked almost spotted. Wait a minute, for this song, he's. Got. On. A. Black. Police/Chaffeur's. Hat. I get excited when a man wears a hat. (I think that's one fashion style that should come back!) Um Hmmmm... ... ...

And last but never least, is John Taylor. I also had a crush on him. No doubt about it, I still do. He's totally dreamy. Tall, dark and handsome. He has the slender, artistic, Englishman aesthetic. He definitely looks the best, IMHO, in the band. He was wearing leather pants (grrrrr : >) topped with a black jacket and a red/white shirt underneath. He Rocks. He rocks... he rocks... No, He really rocks...he and the other guitarist would sometimes battle (in hard rock terms, I think it's called, grind the axe?) and he'd sometimes groove with the drummer, the back-up singer with legs second only to Tina and the sexy go-go boots, and Simon. Oh, that smile! .

Whoa! John looked even hotter when he came out for the encore without the jacket and wearing a long black scarf!!! over his red/white shirt. And now, as Simon is introducing him, he's... Stalking (from stage left). Stalking. Stalking. Stalking. Over. To. The Camera (which Nick is holding). Pant, Pant, Pant!!!! : >

So, my friend will take Simon. I will take John. We share Nick. ; > Yes, we have a healthy appreciation for the men in Duran^2. We are going to run away and stalk the band during the world tour. Well, maybe I'll just put a picture of them on my computer background and dream. And I'm definitely getting their new album when I have some money.

Thank you Simon, Nick, John, Roger and Andy for coming to my town!!! You rock!!!

Factoid

According to the US Energy department, underinflated tires waste an estimated 4 million gallons of gas daily! If every American kept their tires properly inflated the US would save as much oil as drilling in the arctic refuge would produce.

Check out pumpemup.org for more information.

Losing my Republicanism

The genesis of this blog began last fall when I readthe Rolling Stone article about Dick Cheney. I was curious because I really didn't know too much about the man besides his work with Halliburton and his dossier as VP the last four years.

In this article, two things that struck me, with a vengeance. Firstly, during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton, the company did business with Saddam Hussein; Muammar el-Qaddafi and the ayatollah of Iran. Secondly, Cheney being on the same ticket as Bush was unConstitutional because they both LIVED in Texas when they ran.

Even though I haven't been registered as a Republican for about 6 years, I felt completely betrayed. I felt rage. I felt like crying.

It so happened that I had lunch that day with my father. He saw I was upset and I told him why. Now, my father and I disagree on politics. He's a diehard Republican who detests "that scum-bag Michael Moore". I was always a liberal Republican. Today, I am a moderate, liberal, progressive, independent. (Meaning I'm not happy with the Democrats either). My dad's reaction was unconcerned and he replied to my anguish, "Well, American companies did business with Japanese before WWII."

However, this wasn't before the war. This was after the 1990 "Gulf War", and, after the UN and United States laws against doing business with Iraq or Iraqi companies. Not only that but Cheney has never served in the armed forces (unlike my father, who's a 1960s-era army veteran). Between 1963 and 1966, Cheney received five deferments. The only time he's ever deigned to answer a question in the media about why he didn't serve he said, "I had other priorities."

After work, I did some research about Halliburton's business dealings under Cheney. (I'll do a separate blog on the UnConstitutional comment made in the Rolling Stone article).

What I found inspired me to write a letter to the editor of our newspaper. Of course, this was never published. So much for having a liberal media.

This is my letter.

"While campaigning this year [2004], Dick Cheney has been saying that Iraq and Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorists, both Al-Quaida and to 9/11 hijackers. However, before he became vice president, Cheney had no compunction about doing business with Saddam Hussein or other alleged terrorist regimes.

As CEO of Halliburton (1995-2000), Cheney had contracts with Iraq, Libya and Iran. Never mind the fact that President Reagan imposed an embargo against Libya in 1986 because of alleged ties to terrorists. Never mind the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq beginning in 1990. Never mind that in March 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order that prohibits "new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets." That same executive order also restricts U.S. companies from performing services "that would benefit the Iranian oil industry. Violation of the order can result in fines of as much as $500,000 for companies and up to 10 years in jail for individuals."

Undeterred, Cheney urged Congress in 1996 to ease sanctions against Iran. During a trip to the Middle East in that same year, he also told some U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships with those countries.

Halliburton directly violated US and UN sanctions by doing business with Iraq, Iran and Libya. Not only did Cheney profit from these deals, he may also have inadvertently funded terrorist activities and helped those countries develop weapons of mass destruction by selling Iraq and Libya oil equipment that can be used for developing nuclear weapons.

After Bush and Cheney were sworn into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish oil and gas companies that invest in Iran or other countries suspected of sponsoring terrorism, including Syria and Libya. How convenient.

We the people need to look beyond the rhetoric and look objectively at the actions of our president and vice president. Where do their loyalties lie? What master do they really serve? Do they really have the best interests of the American people in mind? "

Here are some links to information regarding Cheney and his dealing Iraq, Iran and Libya (these were my sources).

Misc. Dick Cheney and Halliburton links from Mass and indy media outlets

"The Nation" article "Cheney's Lamest Excuse Yet"

The above article makes more excellent points regarding Cheney's time at Halliburton. "Halliburton, the top oil services corporation in the U.S., filled its coffers with Iraqi money during the heyday of the Oil for Food program. When Cheney's was Halliburton's CEO, the company did not collect vouchers; rather, its subsidiaries took advantage of the opening created by the "Oil-for-Food" program to cut deals with Saddam Hussein's government that allowed it to take money directly from Iraq. During 1998 and 1999, Halliburton's Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump subsidiaries signed contracts to provide roughly $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq.

The services provided by Halliburton's subsidiaries during the period when Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company helped rebuild Iraq's oil production and distribution infrastructure. That work, which got Iraqi oil flowing, was, of course, necessary for the implementation of the "Oil-for-Food" program -- and, presumably for the abuses about which Cheney is now so concerned.

Under Cheney's leadership, the contracts obtained by Halliburton subsidiaries were among the most substantial awarded any U.S. firm doing business with Saddam Hussein. But they were not as ambitious as the company would have liked. A scheme to have Halliburton subsidiaries repair an Iraqi oil terminal that had been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War was blocked by the U.S. government because it was determined to violate the sanctions regime.

Might Cheney have been unaware of the Halliburton Iraq tie -- as he tried to claim in one 2000 interview? Not likely. James Perrella, former chairman of Ingersoll Rand told the Washington Post that based on his knowledge of how Halliburton and its subsidiaries worked, Cheney had to have known. "Oh, definitely," Perrella said of Cheney, "he was aware of the business." "

Those aren't the only reasons to distrust Dick Cheney.

While serving as a Republican from Wyoming on Capitol Hill, Cheney combined what the Rolling Stone article called "a moderate demeanor with a radical agenda." His congressional voting record includes:

In 1986, he was one of only twenty-one members of the House to oppose the Safe Drinking Water Act.

He fought efforts to clean up hazardous waste and backed tax breaks for energy corporations. (Hmmm, after the last four years and secret energy commissions this isn't too surprising.)

He repeatedly voted against funding for the Veterans Administration. (So who really supports the troops?)

He opposed extending the Civil Rights Act.

He opposed the release of Nelson Mandela from jail in South Africa.

He voted for cop-killer bullets.

When appointed to head the Defense Department under President Bush Senior, Cheney pushed to turn many military duties over to private companies and began moving "defense intellectuals" with no military experience into key posts at the Pentagon. People like Paul Wolfowitz, who later masterminded much of the strategy that George W. Bush has pursued in Iraq. As VP in the current administration he undercut the position of Colin Powell, one of the Republican's I respect.

Can anyone explain to me why any Veterans, that is - those with actual military experience, support these people?

Especially since we went to "war with the Army we have, not the Army you might want or wish to have" (Thanks Mr. Rumsfeld!) and don't give our troops the weaponry or armament that they might need. Then by cutting veteran's benefits and then later, by saying "mission accomplished" and cutting veteran's wages back down to peace-time wages.

Cheney isn't the only one who's profiting from the administration's current Iraq war. A recent article in the LA Times acknowledges that a member of the Bush family also has profited from work in Iraq.

"The Iraq ( news -web sites ) war helped bring record earnings to St. Louis-based defense contractor Engineered Support Systems Inc., and new financial data show that the firm's war-related profits have trickled down to a familiar family name — Bush.

William H.T. "Bucky" Bush, uncle of the president and youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush, cashed in ESSI stock options last month with a net value of nearly half a million dollars.

"Uncle Bucky," as he is known to the president, is on the board of the company, which supplies armor and other materials to U.S. troops. The company's stock prices have soared to record heights since before the invasion, benefiting in part from contracts to rapidly refit fleets of military vehicles with extra armor.

William Bush exercised options on 8,438 shares of company stock Jan. 18, according to reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( news -web sites ). He acknowledged in an interview that the transaction was worth about $450,000. "

Another part of the same article says, "William Bush was named to the board of ESSI in 2000, eight months before his nephew was elected president of the United States.

In an interview Tuesday, the uncle said he decided to cash in the options because they would soon expire.

"The deadline was coming up, and we put in a bid on a house in Florida," William Bush said. He said he declared in advance to the company president his intentions to exercise those options.

Asked whether he was troubled by the fact that the company had earned significant revenue from the military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan ( news -web sites ), the president's uncle said he would "prefer there was no business in Iraq. Unfortunately, we live in a troubled world." ..."

It's ironic that in my Bible reading today, I read this passage, Mark 7: 6-7: "Well, hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."