Guy's Blog

Guy's Blog Has Moved

2006-07-23T23:15:00.000-07:00

Yep . . . .as I've done with my other Blogs, I've jumped on over to WordPress, which is where you can find Guy's Blog and all future posts here.

All Future Posts Will Be Made Here:

http://guymurray.wordpress.com/

Dan Quayle The Music Critic

2006-07-17T09:07:00.000-07:00

This is rich--Dan Quayle walking out of a John Mellencamp concert because Mellencamp dared to express a political viewpoint different from Quayle's. I'm certain Quayle's departure must have just devestated Mellencamp. Please!!!!!!! Perhaps he was rushing off to a spelling bee?

Bush's Eloquence

2006-07-17T08:46:00.000-07:00

As eloquent as ever, the (so-called) leader of the free world revealed exactly how it is that the big boys talk when they don't think anyone is listening. Below is complied transcript of a discussion between Tony Blair of Great Briton and Bush, which was recorded by a live microphone, during some downtime at the G-8 summit. Hat tip to Adam Boulton (Emphasis is mine):

A fascinating conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush has been caught by the microphones at the G8, when the two men didn't think they were being overheard. It tells us a lot about the relationship between the two men, about the US-UK special relationship and the two men's views on the Middle East. Here's a transcript as best as we can make out.

Bush: Yo Blair How are you doing?
Blair: I'm just...
Bush: You're leaving?
Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy...[inaudible]
Bush: yeah I told that to the man
Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?
Bush: If you want me to
Blair: Well, it's just that if the discussion arises...
Bush: I just want some movement.
Blair: Yeah
Bush: Yesterday we didn't see much movement
Blair: No, no, it may be that it's not, it maybe that it's impossible
Bush: I am prepared to say it
Blair: But it's just I think what we need to be an opposition
Bush: Who is introducing the trade
Blair: Angela
Bush: Tell her to call 'em
Blair: Yes
Bush: Tell her to put him on them on the spot.Thanks for [inaudbible] it's awfully thoughtful of you
Blair: It's a pleasure
Bush: I know you picked it out yourself
Blair: Oh, absoultely, in fact [inaudble]
Bush: What about Kofi [inaudible] his attitude to ceasefire and everything else ... happens
Blair: Yeah, no I think the [inaudible] is really difficult. We can't stop this unless you get this international business agreed.
Bush: Yeah
Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral
Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon
Blair: But that's that's that's all that matters. But if you, you see it will take some time to get that together
Bush: Yeah, yeah
Blair: But at least it gives people...
Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer to...
Blair: Well...it's only if I mean... you know. If she's got a..., or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk
Bush: You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over
Blair: [inaudible]
Bush: [inadubile]
Blair: Syria
Bush: Why?
Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing
Bush: Yeah.
Blair: What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way...
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet
Blair: He is honey. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the same with Iraq
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Bashad [Bashir Assad](9a and make something happen
Blair: Yeah
Bush: [inaudible]
Blair:
Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government
Blair: Is this...? (at this point Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.)

Thanks to Adam Cottam, Julia Alasheyeva, James Rubin and Barnay Green for help compiling this.

Gosh, George H.W. and Barbara must be so proud. I know I would be!

Iraq Insurgency Rages On

2006-07-09T21:05:00.000-07:00

Washington Post: Scores Of Sunnis Killed in Baghdad
Neighborhood Residents Describe Signs of Torture

BAGHDAD, July 9 -- Shiite Muslim militiamen rampaged through a Sunni Arab neighborhood in Baghdad early Sunday morning, killing more than 50 people and discarding bodies in the streets, according to Iraqi officials and witnesses. Hours later, attackers struck back, detonating two car bombs near a Shiite mosque.

Sunni politicians described the violence against the Sunni residents of the al-Jihad neighborhood in western Baghdad as one of the deadliest waves of murder since the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The killings occurred on a day when the U.S. military announced charges against four soldiers in the alleged rape and murder of a girl and the killing of three members of her family in the southern Iraqi town of Mahmudiyah. [Details, A14.]

Sectarian killings escalated sharply across Iraq after a bomb destroyed a revered golden-domed Shiite shrine in Samarra on Feb. 22. The bombing prompted reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques and pushed the country further toward all-out civil war.

In Baghdad on Sunday, the armed men, some wearing masks and dressed in black, descended on the al-Jihad neighborhood in buses after sunrise. They set up checkpoints along a main commercial street, demanded identification cards from passersby and burst into homes to single out Sunni Arabs to kill, residents said.

One resident, Hazim al-Rawi, said he gathered up his family and fled the neighborhood after he saw 15 bodies outside his home.

"Some of them were tortured with drills," he said of the bodies. "Some of them were hanged by ropes."

A U.S. military spokesman said that Iraqi national police and American soldiers found 11 dead Iraqis in three locations in the neighborhood. The higher casualty reports "do not marry up with what we have found," Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington said.

Still, Sunni politicians said the spate of attacks gravely exacerbated the problems in Baghdad, where killings occur almost daily, and they accused Iraqi police of collaborating with Shiite militiamen in the violence.

"This is a new step. A red line has been crossed," said Alaa Makky, a Sunni member of parliament. "People have been killed in the streets; now they are killed inside their homes."

Wow . . . it's really good that this insurgency thing is in its final throes eh?

Don't Let Your Cowboys Grow Up To Be President

2006-07-09T08:10:00.000-07:00

And . . . its about time I say. Excellent article.

We Hold These Truths . . .

2006-07-04T07:46:00.000-07:00

to be self evident:

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles andorganizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate thatGovernments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses andusurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States . . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. —

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Happy Birthday to America. Happy 4th of July to Her grand citizens. Long may God shed His Grace upon thee.

America's Finest

2006-05-29T07:31:00.000-07:00

To the men and women of America's Military the world over: Thank You, and may God Bless!

Rumsfeld Should Not Resign--Bush Should Resign!

2006-04-27T15:53:00.000-07:00

My previous post asked whether Donald Rumsfeld should resign. I'm asking the question about the wrong guy. Rummy only does what he is told. He implements the policy decisions made by the"decider" in chief. Bush needs to go (and by extension Cheney as well). We need a restructuring of the entire executive branch. We need a new vision (hell any vision) for our country.

Rolling Stone Magazine has a powerful, take your breath away article , The Worst President in History, on Bush's competence and potential standing in history as the worst president ever. The article was writted by Sean Wilentz, a Professor of History at Princeton since 1987.

They also have an I told you so link to their previous review of Bush prior to entering office--entitled All Hat, No Cattle. Both are must read articles. I'm reposting them in their entirety below just to have for future reference should they move the links at some future time.

The Worst President in History?

One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

Flashback: Bush in '99 -- We Warned You!

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.

Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, "a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.") Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.

* * * *

How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

* * * *

THE CREDIBILITY GAP

No previous president appears to have squandered the public's trust more than Bush has. In the 1840s, President James Polk gained a reputation for deviousness over his alleged manufacturing of the war with Mexico and his supposedly covert pro-slavery views. Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois congressman, virtually labeled Polk a liar when he called him, from the floor of the House, "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man" and denounced the war as "from beginning to end, the sheerest deception." But the swift American victory in the war, Polk's decision to stick by his pledge to serve only one term and his sudden death shortly after leaving office spared him the ignominy over slavery that befell his successors in the 1850s. With more than two years to go in Bush's second term and no swift victory in sight, Bush's reputation will probably have no such reprieve.

The problems besetting Bush are of a more modern kind than Polk's, suited to the television age -- a crisis both in confidence and credibility. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam travails gave birth to the phrase "credibility gap," meaning the distance between a president's professions and the public's perceptions of reality. It took more than two years for Johnson's disapproval rating in the Gallup Poll to reach fifty-two percent in March 1968 -- a figure Bush long ago surpassed, but that was sufficient to persuade the proud LBJ not to seek re-election. Yet recently, just short of three years after Bush buoyantly declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq, his disapproval ratings have been running considerably higher than Johnson's, at about sixty percent. More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy, and a decisive plurality consider him less trustworthy than his predecessor, Bill Clinton -- a figure still attacked by conservative zealots as "Slick Willie."

Previous modern presidents, including Truman, Reagan and Clinton, managed to reverse plummeting ratings and regain the public's trust by shifting attention away from political and policy setbacks, and by overhauling the White House's inner circles. But Bush's publicly expressed view that he has made no major mistakes, coupled with what even the conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. calls his "high-flown pronouncements" about failed policies, seems to foreclose the first option. Upping the ante in the Middle East and bombing Iranian nuclear sites, a strategy reportedly favored by some in the White House, could distract the public and gain Bush immediate political capital in advance of the 2006 midterm elections -- but in the long term might severely worsen the already dire situation in Iraq, especially among Shiite Muslims linked to the Iranians. And given Bush's ardent attachment to loyal aides, no matter how discredited, a major personnel shake-up is improbable, short of indictments. Replacing Andrew Card with Joshua Bolten as chief of staff -- a move announced by the president in March in a tone that sounded more like defiance than contrition -- represents a rededication to current policies and personnel, not a serious change. (Card, an old Bush family retainer, was widely considered more moderate than most of the men around the president and had little involvement in policy-making.) The power of Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, remains uncurbed. Were Cheney to announce he is stepping down due to health problems, normally a polite pretext for a political removal, one can be reasonably certain it would be because Cheney actually did have grave health problems.

* * * *

BUSH AT WAR

Until the twentieth century, American presidents managed foreign wars well -- including those presidents who prosecuted unpopular wars. James Madison had no support from Federalist New England at the outset of the War of 1812, and the discontent grew amid mounting military setbacks in 1813. But Federalist political overreaching, combined with a reversal of America's military fortunes and the negotiation of a peace with Britain, made Madison something of a hero again and ushered in a brief so-called Era of Good Feelings in which his Jeffersonian Republican Party coalition ruled virtually unopposed. The Mexican War under Polk was even more unpopular, but its quick and victorious conclusion redounded to Polk's favor -- much as the rapid American victory in the Spanish-American War helped William McKinley overcome anti-imperialist dissent.

The twentieth century was crueler to wartime presidents. After winning re-election in 1916 with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," Woodrow Wilson oversaw American entry into the First World War. Yet while the doughboys returned home triumphant, Wilson's idealistic and politically disastrous campaign for American entry into the League of Nations presaged a resurgence of the opposition Republican Party along with a redoubling of American isolationism that lasted until Pearl Harbor.

Bush has more in common with post-1945 Democratic presidents Truman and Johnson, who both became bogged down in overseas military conflicts with no end, let alone victory, in sight. But Bush has become bogged down in a singularly crippling way. On September 10th, 2001, he held among the lowest ratings of any modern president for that point in a first term. (Only Gerald Ford, his popularity reeling after his pardon of Nixon, had comparable numbers.) The attacks the following day transformed Bush's presidency, giving him an extraordinary opportunity to achieve greatness. Some of the early signs were encouraging. Bush's simple, unflinching eloquence and his quick toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan rallied the nation. Yet even then, Bush wasted his chance by quickly choosing partisanship over leadership.

No other president -- Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War -- faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats. Top military advisers and even members of the president's own Cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies -- including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president's supporters or investigations into their alleged breaches of national security. The wise men who counseled Bush's father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher Father that I appeal to."

All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demonstrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to American security, one that the White House suggested included nuclear weapons. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq -- an appeal that would have sounded too "sensitive," as Cheney once sneered -- the administration built a "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked, preventive warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy-makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. He did so while proclaiming an expansive Wilsonian rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy -- yet discarding the multilateralism and systems of international law (including the Geneva Conventions) that emanated from Wilson's idealism. He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops -- accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off the mark."

When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible has happened. Even as a brash young iconoclast, Buckley always took the long view. The Bush White House seems incapable of doing so, except insofar as a tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.

* * * *

BUSH AT HOME

Bush came to office in 2001 pledging to govern as a "compassionate conservative," more moderate on domestic policy than the dominant right wing of his party. The pledge proved hollow, as Bush tacked immediately to the hard right. Previous presidents and their parties have suffered when their actions have belied their campaign promises. Lyndon Johnson is the most conspicuous recent example, having declared in his 1964 run against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater that "we are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." But no president has surpassed Bush in departing so thoroughly from his original campaign persona.

The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more than a series of massively regressive tax cuts -- a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics." Bush crowed in triumph in February 2004, "We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." The claim is bogus for the majority of Americans, as are claims that tax cuts have led to impressive new private investment and job growth. While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services. The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense. Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.

The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!

The rest of what remains of Bush's skimpy domestic agenda is either failed or failing -- a record unmatched since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. The No Child Left Behind educational-reform act has proved so unwieldy, draconian and poorly funded that several states -- including Utah, one of Bush's last remaining political strongholds -- have fought to opt out of it entirely. White House proposals for immigration reform and a guest-worker program have succeeded mainly in dividing pro-business Republicans (who want more low-wage immigrant workers) from paleo-conservatives fearful that hordes of Spanish-speaking newcomers will destroy American culture. The paleos' call for tougher anti-immigrant laws -- a return to the punitive spirit of exclusion that led to the notorious Immigration Act of 1924 that shut the door to immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe -- has in turn deeply alienated Hispanic voters from the Republican Party, badly undermining the GOP's hopes of using them to build a permanent national electoral majority. The recent pro-immigrant demonstrations, which drew millions of marchers nationwide, indicate how costly the Republican divide may prove.

The one noncorporate constituency to which Bush has consistently deferred is the Christian right, both in his selections for the federal bench and in his implications that he bases his policies on premillennialist, prophetic Christian doctrine. Previous presidents have regularly invoked the Almighty. McKinley is supposed to have fallen to his knees, seeking divine guidance about whether to take control of the Philippines in 1898, although the story may be apocryphal. But no president before Bush has allowed the press to disclose, through a close friend, his startling belief that he was ordained by God to lead the country. The White House's sectarian positions -- over stem-cell research, the teaching of pseudoscientific "intelligent design," global population control, the Terri Schiavo spectacle and more -- have led some to conclude that Bush has promoted the transformation of the GOP into what former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips calls "the first religious party in U.S. history."

Bush's faith-based conception of his mission, which stands above and beyond reasoned inquiry, jibes well with his administration's pro-business dogma on global warming and other urgent environmental issues. While forcing federally funded agencies to remove from their Web sites scientific information about reproductive health and the effectiveness of condoms in combating HIV/AIDS, and while peremptorily overruling staff scientists at the Food and Drug Administration on making emergency contraception available over the counter, Bush officials have censored and suppressed research findings they don't like by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture. Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."

The Bush White House's indifference to domestic problems and science alike culminated in the catastrophic responses to Hurricane Katrina. Scientists had long warned that global warming was intensifying hurricanes, but Bush ignored them -- much as he and his administration sloughed off warnings from the director of the National Hurricane Center before Katrina hit. Reorganized under the Department of Homeland Security, the once efficient Federal Emergency Management Agency turned out, under Bush, to have become a nest of cronyism and incompetence. During the months immediately after the storm, Bush traveled to New Orleans eight times to promise massive rebuilding aid from the federal government. On March 30th, however, Bush's Gulf Coast recovery coordinator admitted that it could take as long as twenty-five years for the city to recover.

Karl Rove has sometimes likened Bush to the imposing, no-nonsense President Andrew Jackson. Yet Jackson took measures to prevent those he called "the rich and powerful" from bending "the acts of government to their selfish purposes." Jackson also gained eternal renown by saving New Orleans from British invasion against terrible odds. Generations of Americans sang of Jackson's famous victory. In 1959, Johnny Horton's version of "The Battle of New Orleans" won the Grammy for best country & western performance. If anyone sings about George W. Bush and New Orleans, it will be a blues number.

* * * *

PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT

Virtually every presidential administration dating back to George Washington's has faced charges of misconduct and threats of impeachment against the president or his civil officers. The alleged offenses have usually involved matters of personal misbehavior and corruption, notably the payoff scandals that plagued Cabinet officials who served presidents Harding and Ulysses S. Grant. But the charges have also included alleged usurpation of power by the president and serious criminal conduct that threatens constitutional government and the rule of law -- most notoriously, the charges that led to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and to Richard Nixon's resignation.

Historians remain divided over the actual grievousness of many of these allegations and crimes. Scholars reasonably describe the graft and corruption around the Grant administration, for example, as gargantuan, including a kickback scandal that led to the resignation of Grant's secretary of war under the shadow of impeachment. Yet the scandals produced no indictments of Cabinet secretaries and only one of a White House aide, who was acquitted. By contrast, the most scandal-ridden administration in the modern era, apart from Nixon's, was Ronald Reagan's, now widely remembered through a haze of nostalgia as a paragon of virtue. A total of twenty-nine Reagan officials, including White House national security adviser Robert McFarlane and deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver, were convicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair, illegal lobbying and a looting scandal inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three Cabinet officers -- HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, Attorney General Edwin Meese and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger -- left their posts under clouds of scandal. In contrast, not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties, despite repeated high-profile investigations and a successful, highly partisan impeachment drive.

The full report, of course, has yet to come on the Bush administration. Because Bush, unlike Reagan or Clinton, enjoys a fiercely partisan and loyal majority in Congress, his administration has been spared scrutiny. Yet that mighty advantage has not prevented the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges stemming from an alleged major security breach in the Valerie Plame matter. (The last White House official of comparable standing to be indicted while still in office was Grant's personal secretary, in 1875.) It has not headed off the unprecedented scandal involving Larry Franklin, a high-ranking Defense Department official, who has pleaded guilty to divulging classified information to a foreign power while working at the Pentagon -- a crime against national security. It has not forestalled the arrest and indictment of Bush's top federal procurement official, David Safavian, and the continuing investigations into Safavian's intrigues with the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, recently sentenced to nearly six years in prison -- investigations in which some prominent Republicans, including former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed (and current GOP aspirant for lieutenant governor of Georgia) have already been implicated, and could well produce the largest congressional corruption scandal in American history. It has not dispelled the cloud of possible indictment that hangs over others of Bush's closest advisers.

History may ultimately hold Bush in the greatest contempt for expanding the powers of the presidency beyond the limits laid down by the U.S. Constitution. There has always been a tension over the constitutional roles of the three branches of the federal government. The Framers intended as much, as part of the system of checks and balances they expected would minimize tyranny. When Andrew Jackson took drastic measures against the nation's banking system, the Whig Senate censured him for conduct "dangerous to the liberties of the people." During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln's emergency decisions to suspend habeas corpus while Congress was out of session in 1861 and 1862 has led some Americans, to this day, to regard him as a despot. Richard Nixon's conduct of the war in Southeast Asia and his covert domestic-surveillance programs prompted Congress to pass new statutes regulating executive power.

By contrast, the Bush administration -- in seeking to restore what Cheney, a Nixon administration veteran, has called "the legitimate authority of the presidency" -- threatens to overturn the Framers' healthy tension in favor of presidential absolutism. Armed with legal findings by his attorney general (and personal lawyer) Alberto Gonzales, the Bush White House has declared that the president's powers as commander in chief in wartime are limitless. No previous wartime president has come close to making so grandiose a claim. More specifically, this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance and the torture of detainees. When Congress has passed legislation to limit those assertions, Bush has resorted to issuing constitutionally dubious "signing statements," which declare, by fiat, how he will interpret and execute the law in question, even when that interpretation flagrantly violates the will of Congress. Earlier presidents, including Jackson, raised hackles by offering their own view of the Constitution in order to justify vetoing congressional acts. Bush doesn't bother with that: He signs the legislation (eliminating any risk that Congress will overturn a veto), and then governs how he pleases -- using the signing statements as if they were line-item vetoes. In those instances when Bush's violations of federal law have come to light, as over domestic surveillance, the White House has devised a novel solution: Stonewall any investigation into the violations and bid a compliant Congress simply to rewrite the laws.

Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Constitution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law -- that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening.

The president's defenders stoutly contend that war-time conditions fully justify Bush's actions. And as Lincoln showed during the Civil War, there may be times of military emergency where the executive believes it imperative to take immediate, highly irregular, even unconstitutional steps. "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful," Lincoln wrote in 1864, "by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation." Bush seems to think that, since 9/11, he has been placed, by the grace of God, in the same kind of situation Lincoln faced. But Lincoln, under pressure of daily combat on American soil against fellow Americans, did not operate in secret, as Bush has. He did not claim, as Bush has, that his emergency actions were wholly regular and constitutional as well as necessary; Lincoln sought and received Congressional authorization for his suspension of habeas corpus in 1863. Nor did Lincoln act under the amorphous cover of a "war on terror" -- a war against a tactic, not a specific nation or political entity, which could last as long as any president deems the tactic a threat to national security. Lincoln's exceptional measures were intended to survive only as long as the Confederacy was in rebellion. Bush's could be extended indefinitely, as the president sees fit, permanently endangering rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizenry.

* * * *

Much as Bush still enjoys support from those who believe he can do no wrong, he now suffers opposition from liberals who believe he can do no right. Many of these liberals are in the awkward position of having supported Bush in the past, while offering little coherent as an alternative to Bush's policies now. Yet it is difficult to see how this will benefit Bush's reputation in history.

The president came to office calling himself "a uniter, not a divider" and promising to soften the acrimonious tone in Washington. He has had two enormous opportunities to fulfill those pledges: first, in the noisy aftermath of his controversial election in 2000, and, even more, after the attacks of September 11th, when the nation pulled behind him as it has supported no other president in living memory. Yet under both sets of historically unprecedented circumstances, Bush has chosen to act in ways that have left the country less united and more divided, less conciliatory and more acrimonious -- much like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover before him. And, like those three predecessors, Bush has done so in the service of a rigid ideology that permits no deviation and refuses to adjust to changing realities. Buchanan failed the test of Southern secession, Johnson failed in the face of Reconstruction, and Hoover failed in the face of the Great Depression. Bush has failed to confront his own failures in both domestic and international affairs, above all in his ill-conceived responses to radical Islamic terrorism. Having confused steely resolve with what Ralph Waldo Emerson called "a foolish consistency . . . adored by little statesmen," Bush has become entangled in tragedies of his own making, compounding those visited upon the country by outside forces.

No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents -- Harry Truman was one -- who have left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars. But so far the facts are not shaping up propitiously for George W. Bush. He still does his best to deny it. Having waved away the lessons of history in the making of his decisions, the present-minded Bush doesn't seem to be concerned about his place in history. "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."

Another president once explained that the judgments of history cannot be defied or dismissed, even by a president. "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history," said Abraham Lincoln. "We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."

Flashback: Bush in '99 -- We Warned You!

SEAN WILENTZ

Posted Apr 21, 2006 12:34 PM

All Hat, No Cattle

We warned you! Look back at our 1999, pre-primary assessment of George W. Bush

George W. Bush was head cheerleader in prep school, a hard-partying frat rat and mediocre student at Yale. After skirting the draft in 1968, he failed at business three times, got bailed out by powerful friends, made a fortune at taxpayer expense and became the popular but weak governor of Texas, an evangelical Christian who preaches morality but ducks questions about his own past. And now he might be president?

As of early July, all indicators seemed to confirm that Texas Gov. George Walker Bush had wrapped up the Republican presidential nomination -- a full eight months before votes will be cast in the first primary, in New Hampshire. After months of buildup, the oldest son of former president George Bush left his home in Austin -- in a campaign plane he'd named Great Expectations -- and set out to take his message of compassionate conservatism to America.

With a Bible in one hand and a cell phone -- on which he speaks regularly to Christian Coalition leader turned political consultant Ralph Reed -- in the other, Bush sounded more like a Southern minister than a presidential contender. In Iowa, at the announcement of his candidacy, he boasted, "Some people think it is inappropriate to draw a moral line in the sand. Not me." He preached abstinence to Christian students in South Carolina. "The twin epidemics of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease are a major problem for the future of America," he warned. "It is hard for the American dream to touch a life if you've had a baby out of wedlock." Later that week, he appeared with his brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, at a church-run school in Tampa.

At these first few appearances, audiences loved George W. Bush, just as Texans have for the past four years. Much of his success lies in his ability to connect with people: He is, simply put, a masterful retail politician. "George W. has finally found his place," says Georgette Mosbacher, a longtime friend of the Bush family, whose former husband, Robert, served in the Bush Cabinet. "Even though he's Harvard-Yale, he has a real folksy quality that lets him connect with people. He's a people's politician."

No one, however, predicted that George W. Bush would ever be in this position. Until his fortieth birthday, he appeared to be a feckless rich kid, the first-born son of a powerful father. "The whole key to understanding George W.," his cousin John Ellis told Time, "is his relationship with his father," a onetime Texas oilman whose twenty-plus years of political networking landed him in the Oval Office. "Bushes had to be winners," one Bush Sr. biographer wrote.

That emphasis on winning, combined with his father's reserved and emotionally distant personality -- "We don't air our psychological laundry," Jeb once told a reporter -- made George W. the person he is today. Charming, shrewd and quick-tempered, he sometimes seems driven by the fact that, for years, he saw himself as the "Bush family black sheep" -- a phrase he's used to describe himself. "Can you imagine what it's been like to be the son of the man who has built the most impressive political resume of the twentieth century?" Mosbacher says. "No wonder it took G.W. some time to find out who he is. What about the sons of powerful men who never find their way? That could have happened to him."

But questions linger about Bush. Is it enough that the only political post he's held is governor of Texas -- a state whose constitution renders its governor a virtual figurehead with no real power? Will he be hurt by the wishy-washy stands he's taken on abortion, hate-crime legislation and Kosovo? Will he be sunk by persistent rumors of illegal drug use and carousing in his past? When one examines the fullness of his life -- and for this article, Rolling Stone interviewed some 100 people who know Bush -- a more disturbing problem emerges. What Bush is saying now, with its overtones of evangelical Christianity and a moral one-upmanship, has almost nothing to do with the way he has actually lived most of his life. Is Bush being hypocritical? Or is he, as his supporters claim, a man who has recognized the error of his ways -- the one politician who can point the country in the right moral direction?

The forty-sixth governor of Texas was born on July 6th, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, where his father, then a young World War II veteran, was rushing through Yale in just two and a half years. By 1948, after George Herbert Walker Bush had graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Yale, he and his wife, Barbara, and their young son moved to Texas, to stake their claim in the oil business. The Bushes would move around some over the next few years before settling in Midland, Texas, a dusty piece of oil patch where George W. passed much of his youth.

In 1953, while Bush was creating Zapata Petroleum with his friends John Overbey and Hugh and Bill Liedtke, Georgie's younger sister, Robin, was diagnosed with leukemia; she died at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital in New York that October. During the months when Robin was sick, George and Barbara never revealed her illness to Georgie, then six and attending Sam Houston Elementary School. Following Robin's death, Georgie tried to ease his mother's grief. "One lovely breezy day, I was in our bedroom when I heard Georgie talking to a neighbor child who wanted him to come over and play," Barbara Bush later wrote in her autobiography. "Georgie said he wanted to, but he couldn't leave his mother. She needed him. That started my cure."

In 1959, after Georgie graduated to San Jacinto Junior High, Bush and his partners split up Zapata, and Bush took its offshore drilling subsidiary. Because he needed to be near the Gulf of Mexico, where Zapata's drilling took place, he relocated his family -- by then there were five kids: George, Jeb, Marvin, Neil and Dorothy -- to Houston and enrolled Georgie at the Kinkaid School, a private academy favored by Houston's wealthiest families. Two years later, George W. transferred to the Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, the school his father and grandfather had attended. "He was not a goody-two-shoes," classmate Tom Seligson said, recalling a spring-break trip they took to Fort Lauderdale. "He partied as much as anybody. I don't ever remember him being depressed." Indeed, at Andover, where his nicknames were "Lip" and "Tweeds," Bush was known as an "unexceptional student," as another classmate would later remember, who "played a lot of sports, none of them particularly well." In his senior year, he became head cheerleader.

George W. may not have been as academically inclined as his father, but, according to Tom Craddick, a state representative from Midland who has known the Bushes for years, "George was strong and opinionated, like his mother. She's more of a forceful person than George W.'s father is. George W. says he got his mother's mouth." A prominent Republican is less kind: "Barbara Bush is an exceedingly vindictive, nasty individual with a very high opinion of herself. She's always been that way." Cocky, boisterous, flippant -- these were the traits George W. was developing as a young man. They were anathema to his formal father. To crush George W., his father merely had to say he was "disappointed." "Dad was shy," George W. said years later. "We never had 'the talk.' He never told me to wear a raincoat [condom] or anything. I never had any sense of what his ambitions were for me." But he and his father did have a real affection for each other. "I know George respected his father a lot," says John Kidde, a roommate of George W.'s at Andover. "I remember whenever he greeted his father, he always gave him a hug or grabbed him around the waist."

Despite his modest grades, George W. was accepted at Yale, his father's other alma mater. "He was not accepted because he was a legacy, either," says Henry Chauncey Jr., Bush's adviser at Yale's Davenport College. "It was a time in Yale's history when the admissions office was not being favorable to alumni children, since the school was trying to broaden its base. Some alumni got angry because they didn't think the school was accepting enough legacy students." Clearly, Yale was in transition -- and not just concerning admissions. More profound changes were taking place, many of them caused by the Vietnam War. "Yale was on the cusp of change," says Lanny Davis, the former special counsel to Bill Clinton, who was one year ahead of Bush at Yale. "By the end of my time at Yale, there was a light-year of change because of the antiwar and countercultural movements -- movements many Yale students joined."

George W. steered clear of the famous anti-war protests there. He majored in history, but he couldn't match his father's Phi Beta Kappa performance. One friend comments that he "didn't set the place on fire" but fell into "that broad middle." Actually, Bush was too busy partying to study. Later, more than one friend would compare him to Otter in Animal House. Not only did he join Delta Kappa Epsilon, but he was elected president. Naturally, he wasn't averse to drinking. "Let's just say, liquor was permitted in the fraternity house," says Donald Ensenat, one of Bush's friends at Yale, "and George W. had a good time." Lanny Davis concurs: "We were fraternity brothers, so we went to parties frequently. In all of the times I saw George partying -- and we were not known for bashful parties -- he was always just drinking and dancing and having lots of fun. I never saw him lose control."

Not surprisingly, Bush had the minor brushes with authority to be expected of a rambunctious frat boy. One Christmas, New Haven police arrested Bush for stealing a wreath from a fraternity house. On another occasion, Princeton University campus police seized Bush along with other Yale students -- "all of them well-lubricated," says one eyewitness -- when they rushed the football field and tore down the goal posts after Princeton defeated Yale in the Ivy League championship game. "George W. was detained out of the crowd with a few others," Ensenat recalls. "Who knows why they picked him. I have a vivid memory of him walking down the length of the football field with a campus policeman on each side, grabbing him by the arms."

After running unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1964, George W.'s father decided to get serious about politics. He sold his share of Zapata and ran for a House seat in 1966, in a state dominated by a Democratic Party that had a president, Lyndon Johnson, in the White House. Bush won, making him one of the few Republican congressmen from Texas. Then, just weeks after his father was elected to Congress, George W. saw his name in the paper. On Sunday, January 1st, 1967, the Houston Chronicle ran a wedding announcement: "Congressman's Son to Wed Cathy Wolfman." The item identified Bush as a Yale junior and Delta Kappa Epsilon president, while Wolfman was a Rice University junior -- and a member of the Elizabeth Baldwin Literary Society -- who had previously attended Smith College. In the accompanying picture, George W. is young and handsome, his hair cropped in a neat crew cut; his bride-to-be is smiling and cheerful. That year, though, the engagement was postponed.

In the late Sixties, as the United States remained mired in the Vietnam War, any young man in his twenties was at risk of being drafted. While his grandfather had served with distinction in Europe during World War I and his father had been nothing short of a war hero in the South Pacific during World War II, George W. received academic deferments. After Yale, he needed an additional deferment to avoid military service -- and Vietnam. As it happened, when he graduated, in 1968, Bush joined the National Guard, which drastically reduced the odds that he would ever see active duty. That summer, Bush and Wolfman ended their relationship for good. "We were very young," Wolfman says. "It just kind of died."

How Bush got into the Guard when its nationwide waiting list had 100,000 names is a story that illustrates his privileged position in life. Although the likelihood of his being accepted through standard channels was remote, Bush applied to the Guard during his last semester at Yale and was immediately admitted to the 147th Fighter Group of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, near the congressional district then represented by his father. He enlisted in May and was commissioned in September. Later, Bush's commanding officer, Brig. Gen. Walter Staudt, insisted that congressman Bush did nothing to get his son into the Guard, but this is contradicted by a source close to Ben Barnes, the speaker of the House in Texas in 1968, who was elected lieutenant governor that same year. According to the source, George Bush telephoned Barnes and asked him to make a phone call to facilitate George W.'s acceptance into the Texas Air National Guard. Barnes made the call.

In 1968, Houston, the business hub of the oil industry in Texas, was growing so fast, it barely resembled the cow town it had once been. As Big Oil boomed, skyscrapers appeared as if from nowhere, while sprawling two-story brick-and-shingle apartment complexes sprung up throughout a city whose limits grew to be sixty miles wide. When Bush arrived in Houston for his Guard duty, he rented an apartment in one of those complexes -- in a fashionable new "singles" building called Chateau Dijon. Advertised as "the place to live," it was described by residents as having a wild side and a sedate side, each configured around a swimming pool. Except for training periods in Georgia, Bush spent all of his time in Houston. He flew fighter jets for the Guard, but mostly he zipped around town in his sporty Triumph and partied. At the Chateau Dijon, he chose to live on the wild side. Though he never ran into her, his future wife, Laura Welch, a second-grade teacher at John F. Kennedy Elementary School, lived there, too -- on the sedate side.

Bush would call the years he spent in Houston his "nomadic period." "He's said he did some things that are bad, but what's bad? Heroin?" says a friend who has known Bush since college. "He didn't do heroin. Grass is not a big deal anymore -- is it?" But at the time, some people close to Bush believed his indulgent lifestyle was a big deal, among them his father. Sensing that his son had lost perspective in his life, Bush arranged for George W. to volunteer at an inner-city community group called Project PULL, an organization founded by former Houston Oiler John White to keep urban teenagers off the streets. "George W. volunteered to assist in the gym and the recreation area," says Otha White, White's widow. "John knew George Bush's father very well. They wanted to build his character at the time." Ernie Ladd, a former professional football player involved with the group, recalls Bush fondly: "Kids in the black community had a lot of fear of the police. George helped bridge that gap."

In 1970, at Richard Nixon's urging, Bush Sr. left the House to run against Lloyd Bentsen for the Senate. When Bush lost, Nixon named him ambassador to the United Nations, a post he held for two years before becoming chairman of the Republican National Committee. Meanwhile, George W. continued his nomadic existence -- an attempt, he later admitted, to "reconcile who I was and who my dad was, to establish my own identity in my own way." As his father realized one triumph after another, George W. suffered under what one friend calls "the overwhelming weight of being who he was": Bush's first son. Normally, Bush Sr. was understanding of George W., but one night in 1973, their relationship reached a low point. Visiting his family in Washington, where they lived while Bush chaired the RNC, George W. took his fifteen-year-old brother, Marvin, out drinking. As George W. drove home drunk, he smashed into a neighbor's trash cans, causing a loud commotion. Once the boys got inside and Bush Sr. discovered that both sons were drunk, he confronted George W., who challenged him physically. "You wanna go mano a mano right here?" George W. said to his father. It was ugly and unpleasant, the kind of confrontation with a family member Bush Sr. avoided at all costs. The scene ended peacefully, but this much was clear: George W. did not have the full respect of the man he admired most.

When his National Guard commitment ended just as the Vietnam War did in 1973, George W. was free to do whatever he wanted. Applying to graduate schools, he was rejected from the University of Texas Law School but accepted at the Harvard Business School -- a recognition, some speculated, of his father's growing success in the business and political worlds. Following his graduation from Harvard in May 1975, George W. decided to return to Midland, which had become so prosperous because of the sustained oil boom that Rolls-Royce had opened a dealership there. Midland did not have the cosmopolitan sheen of Houston; the place still had a rough, unsophisticated edge. The "in" spot to go for dinner was the Petroleum Club, a hangout for nouveau riche wildcatters, not Ivy League MBAs. "We didn't have a lot of Yale and Harvard graduates in Midland-Odessa," says Bob Barnes, a businessman who became friends with George W. "Yet he fit into the crowd. He was as down-home as you could get, which was refreshing coming from his background. Compared to his dad, he was certainly a Texan." Bush paid the rent on his garage apartment by working as a land-rights consultant.

"When George moved back to Midland," Tom Craddick said, "he bummed an office, he bummed golf clubs, bummed shoes. You were lucky if you saw him in a fresh shirt." Another friend recalled, "In the Seventies, while everyone was wearing boots and bluejeans, George was walking around town in these flimsy black Chinese slippers" -- no doubt a gift from his father, who now served as Gerald Ford's envoy to China. At the Midland Country Club, where Bush was a member, the management started to give out the George W. Bush Dress Award, a tongue-in-cheek honor presented to the club's worst-dressed golfer.

During the spring of 1977, George W. Bush, thirty years old, took stock of his life. Besides earning two Ivy League degrees with so-so academic performances, George W. had achieved little. Now he wanted to add some legitimacy to his life. So he decided to run for the House of Representatives from Midland. But there was a problem: He had no profession, no family, no home -- none of the traditional trappings every candidate has. He had to change that.

By fall, he had. In June, at a barbecue in Midland, Joe O'Neill, a childhood friend, reintroduced him to Laura Welch, "a very pretty woman" (as George W. would describe her) with whom he'd grown up in Midland in the Fifties and who had lived in the same Houston apartment complex in the late Sixties and early Seventies. After earning a bachelor's in education at Southern Methodist University and a master's in library science at the University of Texas, Laura, the only daughter of a prosperous Midland home builder, now worked in Austin as a librarian. George W. and Laura couldn't have been more different; that's why she told O'Neill, when he had tried to fix them up once before, that she "wasn't interested" because Bush was "real political." This time, however, she agreed, and they started dating right away. "I guess," Laura said, "it was because we were the only two people from that era in Midland who were still single." Barbara Bush put it more romantically: "George W. fell madly in love with her."

Bush also got busy on the job front. On June 24th, 1977, using $17,000 from his education trust fund, Bush incorporated Arbusto Energy (arbusto is Spanish for bush). Next, he bought a house and announced he would run for Congress. By November, he concluded what Laura described as their "whirlwind romance" by marrying her. Now he had everything he needed for a political career: a business, a home, a wife.

Throughout 1978, Bush campaigned, often with the help of his family. His manager was his younger brother Neil. In the primary, Bush took conservative positions on touchstone issues -- he believed the Equal Rights Amendment was "unnecessary"; he opposed the use of federal funds for abortions; he said he had "done nothing to promote homosexuality in our society" -- and he reminded Republicans that they should run him in November because he had "proven [he] can raise money." He also demonstrated that he was remarkably adept at retail politics, though his youth worked against him. "When he goes canvassing door-to-door," a New York Times reporter noted, "his boyish appearance suggests less a go-getter businessman than a nice young fellow next door, offering to help bring the grocery bags in." Despite the fact that his opponent in the Republican primary was endorsed by national GOP heavyweights like Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, Bush won his party's nomination, by a razor-thin margin. In November, Democrat Kent Hance beat him by calling him an East Coast carpetbagger.

After that failed run for Congress, Bush decided to make a serious foray into the oil business. In March 1979, he drilled his first well and thereby turned Arbusto, which up till then had existed only on paper, into a real company. "The first well I ever drilled in which I had a participatory interest was dry," he said. "And I'll never forget the feeling. Kind of, 'Oops. This is not quite as easy as we all thought it was going to be.' " That was the beginning of a string of dry wells. "I lucked out," Tom Craddick says. "I didn't get into any of George's wells." Indeed, Bush was so unlucky, friends like Craddick joked that Arbusto should have been called El Busto. "It's hard to believe George couldn't hit one well," says a Bush observer. "After all, the Oil Patch was so rich with oil -- and Midland was in the middle of the Oil Patch -- you could smell oil on the wind."

Because federal tax laws made oil companies good tax shelters, Bush had no trouble getting investors for Arbusto. Of course, he was helped by the fact that as 1979 passed, it became clear that his father was going to run for president. That year, George W. raised $565,000, based on a lackluster drilling record. He sold five percent of Arbusto for $50,000 to James R. Bath -- a friend from the Guard who, after going into business in Houston, ended up with numerous dealings that involved the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, an institution that would soon become caught up in a worldwide criminal investigation so serious that by 1991 BCCI was the very symbol of corporate corruption. Not only did James Bath have BCCI connections, but one of his clients, Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz, the banker for the Saudi Arabian royal family, would even be indicted in the scandal. For his part, Bush would later contend that he "had never heard of BCCI" at the time.

Most of Arbusto's investors were friends and associates of George W.'s father, whose attempt to win the Republican presidential nomination in 1980 ended with Ronald Reagan putting him on the ticket as his vice president. One Bush friend was Philip Uzielli -- a New York businessman and friend of Bush Sr. political ally James Baker III -- who invested an undisclosed sum in Arbusto, betting on spec wells Bush was drilling in New Mexico that, not surprisingly, came up dry. In late 1981, Bush was planning to offer a public drilling partnership, something many independent oil companies were doing, but Arbusto had less than $50,000 in cash, with debts that included nearly $300,000 in bank loans and $120,000 owed to creditors. So in January 1982, Uzielli arranged for Bush to get an influx of cash when his Executive Resources bought 400 shares of Arbusto stock for $1 million in exchange for ten percent ownership of the company and a seat on its board. It has never been made clear why the sales prices of two minority positions in Arbusto -- $50,000 for five percent to Bath, $1 million for ten percent to Executive Resources -- could have varied so drastically.

In May 1982, Bush changed Arbusto's name to Bush Exploration Oil Co., a marketing move clearly intended to play off the name of his father, now vice president. Despite the new name, the public offering failed. According to Securities and Exchange Commission documents, Bush intended to raise $6 million but brought in just $1.3 million. To make matters worse, the wells he drilled either were dry or produced little oil, and investors lost seventy-five percent of their money. During one quarter, Bush Exploration operated sixteen wells that produced less than 50,000 barrels of oil, ranking it 993rd among oil companies in Texas. Bush's continued failure was offset by the fact that he was now a new father. In November 1981, Laura had given birth to twin girls, who were named for their grandmothers, Jenna and Barbara.

In 1984, Uzielli tried to keep Bush Exploration solvent by buying another 400 shares of stock, this time for $150,000 (it's hard to understand the logic of how the sales price was established.) Bush Exploration needed to merge with a profitable company, so Bush found Spectrum 7, a Cincinnati-based oil company owned by William DeWitt Jr. and Mercer Reynolds III, two GOP contributors who, in 1988, would be major donors to his father's presidential campaign. DeWitt and Reynolds named Bush CEO of Spectrum 7 Exploration, a subsidiary of Spectrum 7, with a $75,000 salary. At Bush's urging, Spectrum sank $1 million into stripper wells in Texas in 1985, just when oil prices started to drop. Indeed, Spectrum's financial performance proved to be as dismal as that of Bush's previous two companies. Finally, in January 1986, the world oil market collapsed. In a six-month period, Spectrum lost $400,000. The company's plight had become so bad that Bush and his partners were considering bankruptcy. "I never saw him depressed over the failures," says a Bush confidant. "What he became was angry."

If it hadn't been for his father's friends, in fact, Bush would have been out of business by then. In July of that year, George W. reached a turning point when he and Laura traveled with friends to Colorado Springs to celebrate his fortieth birthday. The group was staying at the Broadmoor Hotel, and on the night of his birthday, over dinner, George W., who "was not a quiet drunk," according to one friend, had too much to drink and became obnoxious. "It was a party," said Joe O'Neill. "We were all sort of loud, and George gets louder than most. You know, we were that loud table in the corner of the restaurant. And I think in my heart that it dawned on him, or Laura said to him, that he could end up doing something to embarrass his father, and that just did it."

George W. went cold turkey the next morning. "I just quit," he said. "I had had enough. And it's the best thing I've ever done in terms of seeking a more meaningful life." Naturally, Laura was elated. "I think he had been thinking for probably a couple of years before that that he was drinking too much and it was interfering with his life," Laura said. Over time, Bush replaced his drinking with a near-addiction to jogging and a new devotion to Laura's Methodist religion -- a faith much more evangelical than the Episcopal Church he'd grown up in.

In late 1986, again in need of a financial savior, Bush merged Spectrum with Harken Oil and Gas, a company headed by Alan Quasha, whose family was a major supporter of the Republican Party. Bush received 212,152 shares of Harken stock, valued at $530,130; he was not given a management position, but he was made a director and a consultant, the latter position paying him $120,000 a year. Now Bush's ability to raise money got a kickstart. In 1987, Jackson Stephens, an Arkansas investment banker and a major Bush Sr. fund-raiser, sold about five percent of Harken to Union Bank of Switzerland for $25 million. Harken officials -- including Bush, who attended a meeting in Little Rock at which this sale was discussed -- would later deny they knew that Union Bank's partner in a Geneva bank was BCCI. According to congressional hearings that were eventually held, Union Bank was even helping BCCI avoid money-laundering laws in Panama by flying cash out of that country in jets. In time, Swiss banking rules forced Union to divest its Harken stock, so Stephens sold Union's shares to Abdullah Bakhsh, a Saudi Arabian investor with his own BCCI connections -- he was a co-investor in various deals with BCCI frontman Ghaith Pharaon and used Khalid bin Mahfouz, a principal BCCI shareholder, to handle his investments. As for whether it was odd for a Texas businessman to have BCCI connections, "it's not that unusual," says Peter Truell, the author of False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World's Most Corrupt Financial Empire, since there was frequent overlap between "big Saudi oil money and big Texas oil money."

In mid-1987, Bush moved to Washington to work for his father's presidential campaign. By this time, George's brother Jeb, seven years his junior, was already the secretary of commerce in Florida. Now, Bush Sr., not entirely happy with the way George W. had lived his life, was giving him a chance to prove himself. "Mrs. Bush didn't trust Lee Atwater [Bush's brilliant but erratic campaign manager] as much as the president did, so they brought in G.W. to watch Lee," says Ed Rollins, who worked as White House political director from 1981 until 1986. "Of course, Lee needed watching. He needed adult supervision, and G.W. provided that supervision. It was awkward for G.W. being first son, but in the end people came to respect his judgment and political instincts." Republican adviser Roger Stone says that "G.W. didn't have a title, but he was listened to because he was the candidate's son. He was a hothead with a very short fuse who was always looking for a fight, but ultimately G.W. and Atwater got along well."

Following the election, which ended in Bush's victory over Michael Dukakis, George W. stayed on in Washington "long enough," Stone says, "to make sure the people who were for Bush got rewarded and the people who were against him got fucked." Another Bush intimate says, "They did this by rewarding their supporters through patronage and freezing out people who didn't support Bush. The Bushes have long memories, and they keep lists."

Finally, George W. got something out of the campaign he might not have expected. "He earned his spurs in that campaign," Rollins says. "His father certainly had greater respect for him afterward. My sense is, he grew in stature and became one of the intimates to his father. He was now more than just a son."

In December 1988, Bush returned to Texas, settling in Dallas, and encouraged by the role he had played in the campaign, set his sights on trying politics again himself by running for the Texas governorship. Bush needed one significant business achievement, so, with the help of Bill DeWitt (whose family had owned the Cincinnati Reds), he started to assemble an investor group to buy the Texas Rangers, the baseball team located in Arlington.

Since baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth insisted that the new owners be from Texas, Bush's group decided he'd be a managing partner, to increase public awareness that a Texan was buying the Rangers -- even though Bush could afford to invest only $606,000, which gave him a mere 1.8 percent of the team. Ueberroth thought that Bush's investor group needed more Texans, so he approached Richard Rainwater, a man who had become wealthy as the financial adviser to the Bass family of Fort Worth. Suspicious of Bush's lousy business reputation, Rainwater agreed to invest only if the club made his friend Edward "Rusty" Rose a managing partner along with Bush. When this was agreed to, the Bush-DeWitt-Rainwater group bought the Rangers, on April 21st, 1989, for $86 million. When Barbara nixed George W.'s plans to run for governor in 1990 because she thought it would be unseemly for the son of a president to run for such a conspicuous public office, Bush became a Rangers managing partner, for which he was paid $200,000 a year.

At once, the new owners told the city of Arlington they wanted a new stadium or they would move the team to another Texas city. Under this threat, Arlington officials devised a plan. They would give the owners not only a new stadium but a facility that included parks, restaurants, shopping malls, an amphitheater, a learning center and a Little League baseball field. The cost of what became known as the Ballpark at Arlington was $191 million, out of which the owners would contribute $30 million, which would be raised through a loan and a "seat option bond" (a one-time fee that box-seat season-ticket holders would pay to keep their tickets). The other $161 million would be raised by implementing a half-cent sales tax in Arlington.

As if this deal wasn't good enough, the owners could buy the Ballpark at Arlington from the city for $60 million by applying their $5 million annual rent to the purchase price. In twelve years, then, the Rangers organization could own the stadium and never have to produce any upfront money. (In the end, to avoid paying property taxes, the owners deferred outright purchase of the stadium, though the option remains open.) George W. had found himself a deal that was unquestionably good for him and his partners, if not the taxpayers of Arlington. "You might call this politics as usual," says Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist, a leading expert on public financing in the sports industry. "You might call this politics as usual with an exclamation point. But it doesn't appear that anything expressly illegal happened."

In April 1989, Yousuf Shirawi, the oil minister for the Persian Gulf emirate of Bahrain, called Michael Ameen, a Houston oil consultant who worked as a consultant to the State Department, to ask him to recommend a company for an offshore drilling project in Bahrain. Perhaps because he was friends with Abdullah Bakhsh, the Saudi investor and major Harken shareholder, Ameen picked Harken -- a company that had never drilled a single well offshore, much less overseas. Even so, Bahraini officials were so impressed that the president's son sat on Harken's board that they gave the contract to Harken in January 1990, even after Harken officials admitted they didn't have enough money to finance the project. "[George W.] was the son of a big muckety-muck," says BCCI expert Peter Truell. "They were using the son to cozy up to the dad." With a contract in hand, Harken got the capital from Bass Enterprises Production, a company whose assets were managed by Richard Rainwater, Bush's Rangers partner.

On June 22nd, 1990, when Harken's stock price was unusually strong because of the Bahraini deal, Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harken stock at $4 a share, for $848,560. On August 2nd, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Harken's stock dropped to $3 a share. On June 30th, Harken had released a quarterly report disclosing a $23.2 million loss for the second quarter, which Bush had known about before he sold his stock, since he was on Harken's audit committee. On news of the loss, Harken's stock dropped to $2.38 a share. Finally, Bush waited until March 1991 -- eight months later -- to file the required insider-trader forms with the SEC. When he was subsequently accused of insider trading, Bush justified his lateness by saying that the proper paperwork had been filed on time but lost by the SEC. An SEC investigation found Bush guilty of no wrongdoing, but skeptics note that the SEC's chairman had been nominated by Bush's father in August 1989 and that the SEC's general counsel had actually represented George W. in the Texas Rangers negotiations. As it happened, the Bahraini project turned out to be a bust, since every well Harken drilled came up dry. "Can you believe it?" says a Texas political insider. "G.W. goes to the Middle East and he can't even hit oil there! Midas he is not."

While the Harken deal developed in 1991, George W. moved to Washington again, to work as an adviser in his father's re-election campaign. He came out throwing punches. "G.W. played a key role in the ousting of John Sununu," Ed Rollins says. "John was too high-profile to be Bush's chief of staff. He saw himself almost as a deputy president. The reality was, John had to go -- and G.W. knew it. Others in the Bush administration did not want to take on Sununu, even though they shared G.W.'s view. So G.W. became the messenger who told his father this had to happen. I'm sure G.W. volunteered to fire Sununu himself. There's a hard-ass side to G.W. that he enjoys." Because of the Sununu firing, George W. was often asked to do the more unpleasant duties his father wanted to avoid. "That's how he got the nicknames the Hatchetman and the Enforcer," says a Bush White House insider. "George W. was the one who carried out the trash." As a result, when the Bush campaign needed a tough-guy spokesman, George W. was trotted out. It was he, for example, who met with reporters to deny charges that his father had had an affair with longtime Bush staffer Jennifer Fitzgerald, a rumor that had become so widespread that the Washington Post once described Fitzgerald as a government worker "who has served president-elect Bush in a variety of positions," to the great hilarity of the Beltway crowd. The line George W. gave to reporters that day would become infamous: "The answer to the Big A question," he said, "is N-O."

Like other Bush advisers, George W. thought his father was waging a losing campaign in 1992. "Bush Sr. didn't believe the country would throw out the commander of the Gulf War for this cracker governor from Arkansas," Ed Rollins says. "He actually told people that. I'm sure G.W. told his father he was in trouble, but, right up to the closing days of the campaign, the only person in America who didn't know Bush was going down in flames was George Bush." Roger Stone adds, "He simply didn't think voters would turn down a war hero for a draft dodger." They did, of course, and in November 1992, Clinton defeated Bush. Despite the loss, some good came out of the experience for George W. If Bush had been unhappy with periods of George W.'s life in the past, he had grown to respect his son in ways he never did before. Indeed, had he listened to George W.'s warnings, the election might have turned out differently. Beyond this, "The '92 defeat, as hard as it was on George and Jebby," Laura Bush said, "in a lot of ways was the first time in their lives they were liberated from the shadow of their dad." As evidence of this, when George W. moved back to Dallas to resume his job with the Rangers, he started to make plans for something else: a run for governor against Ann Richards in 1994.

The first person Bush called was Karl Rove. A college dropout who had attended five different schools before he finally gave up, a Denver native who moved to his wife's home state of Texas in 1977, Rove was a ruthless political operator in the tradition of his close friend Lee Atwater. During the Eighties and early Nineties, Rove handled so many successful Republican campaigns, one Democrat quips, "Texas didn't become a Republican state, it became a Rove state, and Rove can run Texas as well as anybody." Rove does this through sheer force of will. "He reminds me of [loyal Nixon aide] Charles Colson," says Tom Pauken, a former Texas Republican Party chairman who worked in the Nixon White House. "Colson would run over his own grandmother to help Nixon. With Rove, you're either on the team or you're on the enemy list. It's very Nixonian. He's a control freak who runs roughshod over anyone in his way."

Rove signed with Bush, who relished the idea of running against Richards, the crusty grandmother turned politician who had hit the big time when, in her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 1988, she dismissed George W.'s father by sneering, "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" Rove put together a winning strategy: Bush would campaign on four issues -- reform of the education, welfare, tort and juvenile-justice systems -- and nothing else. From the start, Bush stuck with these four issues, or at least he did after Rove made it clear to him that he'd lose if he didn't. "Bush almost lost to Richards early on because he was out there saying this incredible shit," says one political observer. "Rove's people woodshedded him. They took him out to Bush's weekend place in Athens for three days. Man, when he came back, he was the most disciplined candidate you'd ever seen. He talked about his four little issues and that was it." The only time he did go off-message was to highlight a personal achievement he felt qualified him to be governor, such as what he claimed was his success as a businessman. He was "an unabashed capitalist," he said at one campaign stop.

Soon, Bush's private life become an issue. In early May 1994, a Houston Chronicle reporter asked Bush whether he'd ever used illegal drugs. "Maybe I did, maybe I didn't," Bush said. "What's the difference?" The day after the Chronicle story broke, Bush held a news conference in Lubbock. "What I did as a kid? I don't think it's relevant," he said. "I just don't . . . don't think it matters. I think what matters is my view on prisons, welfare reform and education."

In the coming weeks, the Ballpark at Arlington opened, and Bush pointed to the stadium as his greatest achievement. In September, Richards challenged Bush's record as a businessman when Caterair, an airline catering company on whose board Bush had sat for five years, announced it was near bankruptcy. "I'm proud of my business record," Bush said. "And what I hope that Ann Richards does is focus on issues that matter to Texans and lay off of personalities." Instead, Richards aired a television commercial charging that the various businesses Bush had been involved in, either as director or owner, had lost $371.6 million. Richards continued her attack in October in the campaign's one debate, but the exchange that created the biggest dispute that night was Bush's answer to the moderator's question about his National Guard duty. "Putting an F-102 jet in afterburner in a single-seat, single-engine aircraft was a thrill, but it also wasn't trying to avoid duty," Bush said. "Had that engine failed, I could have been killed. So I was at risk." In the days after the debate, veterans groups angrily criticized Bush for comparing the risk he faced flying jets on practice runs over Texas to the risk American soldiers faced in live combat in Vietnam.

In late October, Richards suggested that Bush was guilty of insider trading when he sold his Harken stock -- a criminal act. Now Bush's camp had to fight back in a way that would end the controversy about his business dealings for good. So, only days before the election, Rove fired his big gun: Barbara Bush. "It makes me pretty darn mad," the former first lady said in a speech picked up widely by the press, "to see these ads that just plain aren't true. . . . [George has] been a good, successful, decent, honest businessman. Why doesn't Ann Richards talk about the issues? That's what George is doing. She should be so lucky as to have a son like George."

Texas voters agreed. On November 8th, Bush won with fifty-four percent of the vote. At the time, Richards still had a nearly sixty percent approval rating. On the night of Bush's stunning victory, Jeb lost his gubernatorial race in Florida, so the Old Man, as George W. had taken to calling his father, was tempered when he called from his home in Houston to congratulate George W. in his hotel room in Austin. Even so, George W. knew what he had done. "You've made me proud," Bush reportedly said that night to his son.

"This is what happened," Roger Stone says. "George W. used to be more like his mother, but over time he became more like his father. He matured."

What few outside the state understand about Texas politics is that the governor has little statutory power. "Texas has a restrictive constitution," says Earl Black, political-science professor at Rice University, in Houston, "that has historically made the governor of Texas a weak executive position. The lieutenant governor has the real power, since he presides over the Senate and appoints the legislative committees. The only real strength the governor has is power of the bully pulpit."

In the days following his victory, Bush made a concerted effort to become friends with Pete Laney, the speaker of the House, and Bob Bullock, the lieutenant governor -- both Democrats. (Bullock died this June.) "Mr. Bush, we can make you a good governor," Laney said at the trio's very first meeting, "if you let us." Bush did. In the 1995 session, he also met informally with almost every representative and senator by showing up unannounced at their offices -- something Richards never did during her term as governor. "The ultimate defining moment for me was when he was first elected governor," says Georgette Mosbacher, "and he was able to bring together his enemies. He did it quickly and quietly. I had never seen that done in Texas politics. It was at that point that I knew he was a winner."

While Bush politicked, he let Laney and Bullock push through previously proposed reform bills on education, crime, welfare and tort -- Bush's "four little issues." Rove had picked those issues, as it turned out, because he knew bills on each were already in the legislature's pipeline. Now Bush could take credit for the bills, even though he had nothing to do with creating them. "Bullock was really the governor during Bush's first term," says Tom Pauken, the former Texas Republican Party chair. Columnist Molly Ivins agrees: Most of the time, "W. was bright enough to do what Bullock told him to do for four years, but as a result we have no evidence W. really knows how to govern."

In June 1995, Bush made one of his most controversial moves as governor. The Patient Protection Act, which was approved by the Texas legislature, would have instituted major HMO reforms by requiring companies to be more open about their benefits, allowing customers dropped from a plan to appeal and instituting reviews by the Texas Department of Insurance. Bush vetoed it. He argued that the act "imposes too much government regulation and unfairly impacts some health-care providers." The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association released a statement applauding Bush's veto. In the coming years, Bush would receive some $1 million in campaign contributions from insurance companies for his re-election bid.

In 1997, Bush again broke free of Laney and Bullock, proposing a plan to overhaul Texas' tax system by cutting local property taxes by $2.8 billion; new business and sales taxes would offset the reduction, so public schools would continue to be fully funded. Laney killed the plan in committee, and the eventual property-tax-reform bill the House passed didn't resemble Bush's. Once that bill left the House, Senate Republicans, who feared it was merely a guise to invent new taxes, voted it down. Instead, the legislature passed a one-time referendum that saved Texas homeowners $1 billion over two years. "We had a major problem with George the Second's tax bill, which had more than seventy new taxes," Pauken says. "He even wanted to tax haircuts. I led the fight to defeat it, and then we got a billion-dollar property-tax cut. Bush fought against the billion-dollar cut, but eventually he took credit for it." Says Senfronia Thompson, a Democratic state representative from Houston, "The governor has been able to benefit greatly from the hard work of the Texas legislature."

When Bush ran for re-election against Gary Mauro in 1998, Laney and Bullock were back on his side. Bullock even endorsed him, despite the fact that he was godfather to one of Mauro's daughters. Other Democrats, among them Lyndon Johnson press secretary George Christian, supported Bush, too. "LBJ would've had a problem with that," Christian admits. "Mrs. Johnson sure did. Liz Carpenter [Lady Bird Johnson's press secretary] jumped all over me." Carpenter says, "G.W. is extremely likable. The Bushes all have good manners and great civility. But they don't have a lot of vision. Anyway, I'm a Bible-thumping, foot-washing, full-immersion Democrat who can never bring myself to vote for a Republican."

With even some major Democrats supporting Bush, Rove had little to do, although controversies did crop up. Bush angered many Christians when he ignored appeals by Pope John Paul II and Pat Robertson to stop the February 1998 execution of pickax murderer Karla Faye Tucker -- she had found religion in prison -- only to commute confessed serial killer Henry Lee Lucas' death sentence six months later. That same year, Bush had to answer the charge that he got rich off the public when Dallas businessman Tom Hicks bought the Texas Rangers and the Ballpark at Arlington, which had been paid for with taxpayers' money, for $250 million. Bush made $14.9 million on the sale -- an astonishing profit on an initial investment of $606,000. That's not the only way Bush made money off the public, either. During much of his first term, he held interest in Crescent Real Estate Equities, a company owned by Richard Rainwater. As governor, Bush approved Crescent Equities' purchase of two office buildings from the state's Teachers Retirement System. The state lost $44 million on one building, and wrote off $7 million in principal and $19.4 million in interest on the other, while Crescent profited handsomely.

The Crescent deal angered some voters, but it was Bush's theme of abstinence before marriage (which continues into his presidential campaign) that made many snicker. Bush proposed spending more than $9 million on a statewide effort to "encourage young people to save sex for marriage." When reporters asked him about his own behavior before marrying Laura at thirty-one, he said only that he had been "irresponsible." "Do as I say and not as I did," he told his young audiences.

Throughout 1998, Bush also had to deal with claims that he was soft on crime. In 1994, he'd attacked Richards on the issue of criminals being released from prison early, saying Texas was "the third most dangerous state in the nation [because] in the last three years, 7,700 criminals have been released early." But during Bush's first term, more than 60,000 prisoners were released early. One was even involved in the racially motivated dragging death of James Byrd Jr., in Jasper. "That should have been his Willie Horton," says one Democrat, "but the public didn't care." Why? "There's a cult of personality with George W.," says a Republican. "The public loves him." Apparently. On November 3rd, the night Jeb succeeded in being elected governor of Florida, George W. won, too, getting sixty-nine percent of the vote to Mauro's thirty-one.

After George W. was re-elected governor, he began to take serious steps toward a presidential run, again emulating his father. "It doesn't take a genius to see there's something Freudian going on here," says John Calvin Batchelor, a Republican historian. "Or Shakespearean." Rove started to systematically court potential Bush supporters. Almost every weekday, late in the morning, buses and vans would line up in front of the governor's mansion and state politicians, party officials and businessmen from all over the country would pile out to have lunch with Bush. By having them come to Bush, Rove was able to limit the national press corps' access to the governor. Many of these visitors have ended up contributing money to Bush's campaign, which is one reason why Bush had raised a phenomenal $36 million by the end of the second quarter of this year. Rove also instituted what became known as the "front porch" strategy, which had Bush ensconced in the relative safety of Austin (where local reporters have been unusually lenient on him), until the biannual legislative session was over at the end of May.

During this time, Bush -- with the help of Rove -- was also honing his theme of compassionate conservatism. He began to mention Myron Magnet, the neoconservative pundit at the Manhattan Institute, as his "guru." In his 1993 book, The Dream and the Nightmare, Magnet made an argument that appealed to Bush: It was the overall decline of morals in America, prompted by the counterculture movement and sexual revolution of the 1960s, that had led to the rapid growth of the underclass. This idea fits in neatly with Bush's belief that the "if it feels good, do it" mentality inaugurated in the Sixties had begun a widespread moral decline in this country.

With his party's overwhelming support and his message ready to be sold to the public, Bush finally hit the campaign trail in June, playing to wildly cheering audiences eager to hear his message of moral righteousness and reform. His rhetoric is perfectly tuned to the times -- compassionate conservatism being a finely wrought catch phrase that allows him to come across on the one hand as a rock-ribbed right winger and on the other hand as an everybody-wins pork slopper. But when one looks beyond the slogan and examines the life of the man, George W. Bush seems less like a moral visionary and more like a man who, above all else, knows how to work the inside game -- a consummate opportunist. His entire life has been the pursuit of accommodating himself to power -- to his father, to his father's wealthy and influential friends, and, in his current incarnation as politician, to the Democratic leaders who controlled the Texas state legislature.

In the end, what Bush really seems to stand for is business as usual. His greatest achievements all seem to involve an almost magical ability to position himself in the channels where the money flows, from the oil bailouts of the 1980s to the fortune he made off of the sale of the Texas Rangers and lastly to the staggering amount of money he has already raised for his presidential campaign.

The shadows of his father's successes are never far from George W. What ultimately doomed George Sr.'s presidency was the perception that he had no vision for America and that he broke his promise not to raise taxes. Now comes the son, a man who wants to be president because it will bring him not just more power and prestige but also personal vindication. Should he achieve this goal, he will finally be able to say that he is just as successful as his father.

PAUL ALEXANDER

Posted Aug 05, 1999 12:00 AM

Should Donald Rumsfeld Resign?

2006-04-14T06:18:00.000-07:00

According to George Bush: No! Like Michael Brown (aka Brownie) he's doing a heck of a job:

"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Thursday.

According to these guys, all retired generals from the United States Military:

(From left, Major General Paul D. Eaton, General Anthony C. Zinni, Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Major General John Batiste, Major General John Riggs and Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr.)

Absolutely yes! Today's New York Times reports:

The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."

Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Mr. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.

There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Mr. Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Mr. Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.

Among the retired generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, some have emphasized that they still believe it was right for the United States to invade Iraq. But a common thread in their complaints has been an assertion that Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides too often inserted themselves unnecessarily into military decisionmaking, often disregarding advice from military commanders.

The outcry also appears based in part on a coalescing of concern about the toll that the war is taking on American armed forces, with little sign, three years after the invasion, that United States troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.

So, the question naturally arises, who do we believe? Do we believe a guy who availed himself of every opportunity to avoid active military duty when his country called him at at time of war, to defend the Texas borders from Arkansas? A guy whose military records are so incomplete now, or conveniently lost that we don't even know if he completed the obligation he agreed to assume in exchange for staying out of Vietnam? A guy who took America to war on selectively picked intelligence at best, and at worst, outright lies?

Or, do we believe men who actually served their country in times of war, who legitimately wore the uniform, who had the character to place their lives on the line for their country, who didn't cower and avoid the draft to land a cushy job as a national guard airforce pilot? Men, at least one of whom actually commanded troops on the ground in Iraq?

Call me crazy . . . I'm going with the guys whose rubber hits the road. Not the clown who currently occupies the Oval Office. Rummy . . . your 15 minutes are up--it's time to go!

2006 Toyota Prius

2006-04-10T20:44:00.000-07:00

I gave up one of these

For one of these.

And so far, I'm really loving it. The 2006 Prius is a like a technology love fest, as well as an excellent source of transportation. There is quite a steep learning curve, not so much to drive it; but, to really learn all of its capabilities. I have conquered some of the basics; but, I have a long, long way to go to truly learn all it can do. So far I'm averaging close to 40 mpg; however, I'm only on the first tank of gas.

Just doing my part to cut down on middle east oil, and making the central coast just a bit cleaner place!

A Good Question For Mr. Bush

2006-04-06T21:03:00.000-07:00

I don't suppose Mr. Bush gets many of these types of questions in the scripted and controlled public appearances he routinely makes; but, every once in a while a real person actually gets through. That's what Mr. Harry Taylor did today at one of Mr. Bush's promotional tours touting his immoral war of choice in Iraq. Mr. Taylor's repartee with Mr. Bush went like this:

Q You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what's your question?

Q Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and --

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.

Q And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.

THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)

Q And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.

THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate --

Q I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you.

I say good for you Mr. Taylor for having the courage to get up in the midst of one of Mr. Bush's Iraqi infomercials, and speak your piece. It's rare indeed Mr. Bush ever hears a voice of discontent confront him directly.

Where Are America's Values ?

2006-03-31T08:20:00.000-08:00

This guy had oral sex with an intern, was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, and later acquited by the Senate.

This guy has sent thousands of people to their deaths in an immoral war of choice, has spied on American citizens without warrants, and we can't even get a censure vote in Congress. What the HELL is going on in America?

Happy St. Patrick's Day

2006-03-17T05:56:00.000-08:00

Hey there all you Irish and adopted Irish for this day . . . Have a Happy ONE! By the way. Isn't this supposed to be a holdiay? Shouldn't we get the day off?

New Nipomo Blog--Nipomo News

2006-03-12T13:45:00.000-08:00

I have a new blog, where I'll be discussing issues relating to Nipomo, CA, where I live and work. I'll also be discussing issues affecting the south county in San Luis Obispo County, and the county and community in general. Come check us out over at our WordPress site. I'm trying out WordPress to see its advantages over Blogger. Come on over and read for a while over at the new Nipomo News.

Iraq's Sunnis Now Change Their Tune

2006-03-05T18:11:00.000-08:00

From today's Los Angeles Times, on why the once Hated Americans need to remain occupiers of Baghdad:

Two years ago, doctor Riyadh Adhadh cursed the U.S. soldiers who had overrun his homeland, toppled the Sunni-dominated government and tormented prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A member of the city council, he loudly demanded that American troops leave Baghdad.

Last week, his Sunni Arab neighborhood under attack by Shiite militiamen, Adhadh found himself huddled over the telephone in panic, begging the U.S. Embassy to send American soldiers.

The moment of bitter irony for the 52-year-old father of six is emblematic of a sharp shift in Iraqi opinion. Three years after the March 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, with the threat of civil war looming, leaders of a nervous Sunni Arab minority have started to drop demands for an immediate U.S. withdrawal.

My how times have changed in Baghdad. But the real kicker to me is Adhadh's quote:

"We've changed our ideas," Adhadh said. Iraq's current government, dominated by Shiites, has been "abusing people more than the Americans," he said. "Iraqi security is the responsibility of the Americans. They have established this type of government — this will be written in history. We are living in a jungle."

Nope! Iraqi security is the responsibility of the Iraqi's. They need to step up and take responsibility for their own future. They have voted for their current government. The fact the abuse has changed from one group to another is of no import. They've been living in a jungle for decades. We need to support our troops, and bring them home. Let the Iraqis deal with Iraq!

Isn't This Why Bush Claims We Went To Iraq?

2006-03-05T15:21:00.000-08:00

From Saturday's Los Angeles Times:

It was the day after President Bush's State of the Union address, and social studies teacher Jay Bennish was warning his world geography class not to be taken in.

"Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say," Bennish told students at the suburban high school Feb. 2. " 'We're the only ones who are right, everyone else is backward and our job is to conquer the world.' "

Bennish, who has taught at Overland High School for five years, was placed on paid leave Wednesday by the Cherry Creek School District, sparking an uproar over issues of free speech and teacher conduct.

About 150 Overland students walked out of class Thursday to protest Bennish's absence, and the teacher's lawyer — who met with district officials Friday — has threatened a federal lawsuit.

Attorney David Lane contended on the Mike Rosen radio show, which originally played the tape, that his client's comments were not outlandish and were intended to get students to think about current events.

"Maybe it's not mainstream, middle-American opinion," Lane said Friday. "But the rest of the world agrees with him."

Lane added that if Bennish had spoken strongly in support of Bush, he would not be under investigation.

Isn't this why young Americans, and others are fighting and dying in Iraq? To spread democracy, and its accompanying freedoms? Attorney Lane has a good point. Had Mr. Bennish spoke out in strong support of George Bush, he would not have been investigated or punished in any way. This is very dangerous.

Tort Reform Extreme

2006-02-22T14:43:00.000-08:00

I just saw this, or I would have posted it sooner. It's pretty funny--I thought. Hat tip to The Whiskey Bar.

California's Death Penalty Redux

2006-02-22T07:38:00.000-08:00

It looks as though the federal courts will be reviewing California's death penalty again. This is a good thing. Today's Los Angeles Times reported that the State had to postpone the Morales execution indefinitely because they couldn't locate a doctor who would participate in putting an inmate to death:

San Quentin spokesman Crittendon said the state "was not able to find any medical professionals willing to inject medication intravenously, ending the life of a human being."

"The warden felt it was not ethical to approach an individual who would potentially be putting their license in jeopardy," Crittendon said. "How would it affect their careers by being involved in the execution process in the manner we've been discussing?"

I've blogged more in depth on this issue over at Bloggernacle Times here.

I Will Never Be Taken Alive

2006-02-20T10:10:00.000-08:00

Your offer is acceptable!

The Bla Bla Lawyer

2006-02-19T13:40:00.000-08:00

This is a great story. It could only happen between two lawyers (I know):

It happens that a young attorney by the name of Dianna Abdala was applying for a job with a criminal defense lawyer named William A. Korman.

Korman apparently thought Abdala had a bright future ahead of her so he offered her a job in their first meeting. They agreed upon a start date.

But Korman then called Abdala to his office to tell her that he had decided to hire two lawyers, not one. As such, he had crunched some numbers and decided he had to reduce the amount of salary they had discussed. Still, he said, he was excited about her working for him. Korman set up computer resources for his new hire and made the other usual arrangements. But Abdala did indicate to Korman that she may have to give the job some more thought.
Then Korman received an email from Abdala on the Friday evening before the Super Bowl. She had changed her mind. Abdala wrote: "Dear Attorney Korman: At this time, I am writing to inform you that I will not be accepting your offer. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you. I have decided instead to work for myself, and reap 100% of the benefits that I (sic) sew. Thank you for the interviews.

Apparently the two exchanged a series of emails which are reprinted verbatim below:

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:23 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Thank you

Dear Attorney Korman,

At this time, I am writing to inform you that I will not be accepting your offer.
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you. I have decided instead to work for myself, and reap 100% of the benefits that I sow.

Thank you for the interviews.

Dianna L. Abdala, Esq.

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Korman
To: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Dianna --

Given that you had two interviews, were offered and accepted the job (indeed, you had a definite start date), I am surprised that you chose an e-mail and a 9:30 PM voicemail message to convey this information to me. It smacks of immaturity and is quite unprofessional. Indeed, I did rely upon your acceptance by ordering stationary and business cards with your name, reformatting a computer and setting up both internal and external e-mails for you here at the office. While I do not quarrel with your reasoning, I am extremely disappointed in the way this played out. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Will Korman

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:01 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Re: Thank you

A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so.

Again, thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. KormanTo: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:18 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Thank you for the refresher course on contracts. This is not a bar exam question. You need to realize that this is a very small legal community, especially the criminal defense bar. Do you really want to start pissing off more experienced lawyers at this early stage of your career?

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
To: William A. Korman
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you

bla bla bla

Wow! I can't imagine an exchange like that when I just got out of law school with a prospective employer--particularly in a very small legal community. But, hey . . . she will likely now get even more and better job offers. Time will tell just what she will in fact reap!

This Is Simply OVER THE TOP

2006-02-05T19:36:00.000-08:00

Islamic radicals are over the top. Others have blogged in depth about the subject, so my post will be rather short. See the Moderate Voice for an excellent blog round up of the Islamic idiocy. The unrest is sweeping the Middle East and who knows where it might be headed. See also here, here, and here.

Most interesting is that many Islamic governments are now boycotting certain European products. Where this is headed could be very telling. In the long term, if the West were to come together over this, it is the Islamic governments which have potentially more to lose in a battle of economic might and trade. It might even be a long overdue wake up call to the West to get their economic and energy houses in order. There is no better time to become independent of Middle East oil. Let's do what it takes, make the economic, political, and real life sacrifices neccesary to leave the Middle East to the Islamic fundamentalists who want to be left alone there.

Additionally, there are religious overtones to this entire fiasco. I have posted over at my religious blog, Messenger and Advocate my thoughts from a religious perspective.

America Using Terrorism To Fight Terrorists

2006-01-28T07:35:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post reports that the United States' Army has jailed the wives of insurgents to persuade them to surrender:

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.
In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

Ok, help me out here. How is this different from Iraqi "terrorists or insurgents" kidnaping innocent western women and holding them hostage to leverage American policy? Call me crazy, but it sounds pretty much like the same thing to me. How are we any better than the scum of the earth over in Iraq, who are kidnapping in order achieve their own means? This is disgusting, immoral, and reflects George Bush's bankrupt policies in Iraq. Decent people everywhere should be outraged! Of course true to Bushspeak, there is always some explanation:

Iraq's deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and "we are not Saddam." A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an "imperative threat" are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

The American government denies the allegations; however, the documents released by that same government conflict with the party line:

But documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Kidnapping a nursing mother? I am ashamed, repulsed, and not at all surprised that American policy makers under George Bush have sunk to levels lower than the Iraqi insurgents. We will continue to fail in Iraq as we continue to pursue such policies.

John Kerry Still Doesn't Get It

2006-01-26T17:50:00.000-08:00

CNN reports John Kerry plans to lead a filibuster against Justice Alito. Says Kerry:

"Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court," Kerry said in a written statement explaining his support for a filibuster.

"We can't afford to see the court's swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, replaced with a far-right ideologue like Samuel Alito."

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Democratic sources told CNN.

Sources said Kerry talked to a group of Democratic senators Wednesday, and urged that they join him. He also has the support of fellow Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.

John Kerry had every opportunity to help shape the United States Supreme Court. He could have run a better presidential campaign. He could and should have better pointed out the contrast of Bush's complete incompetence, and their various records of public service. He failed on all counts, and for better or worse the American people rehired George Bush as their President. That choice has had disastrous consequences for America.

The bottom line is that George Bush won reelection. He won the right to appoint Supreme Court Justices. Judge Alito is an extremely well qualified judge to sit on the Supreme Court. He has been on the appellate court for over 15 years. The Senate should confirm him unless there is objective, verifiable evidence he is somehow unqualifed or incompetent to sit as a justice. If John Kerry wanted a different justice, he could have and should have won the election. A filibuster is a bad idea for the democrats. Worse, it is a bad idea for America. Get over it John.

Defending The Indefensible

2006-01-23T12:56:00.000-08:00

George Bush in classic Bushspeak called his spying on Americans a terrorist surveillance program, in today's Washington Post.

According to George:

"If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you," Bush said.

Well that's just fine and dandy. I'd like to hear just one example of "them" making phone calls into the United States.

Bush said of the intercepted communications, "These are not phone calls within the United States. This is a phone call of an al Qaeda -- known al Qaeda suspect -- making a phone call into the United States."

Well, if there is actual evidence of known al Qaeda suspects calling into the United States, why aren't these suspects calling in either being arrested or abducted? If you can tap their phones, certainly you must know where they are. And, if they are known Al Qaeda suspects why not arrest or abduct them?

He said, "I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress . . . about this program.

"You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Bush said with a chuckle.

Yes, I can just imagine George having all kind sof lawyers review this process. Harriet Myers comes immediately to mind. If he was so up front about his domestic syping on America citizens. why haul the New York Times editors into the White House to beg them not to go public with this story?

Bush said he has "authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies," and that a 2001 congressional authorization for the use of force gave him "additional authority" in waging war against al Qaeda.

"Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics," he said. "It said, Mr. President, you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how."

This is sheer Alice in Wonderland logic. Congress has not repealed the 4th Amendment. Congress never gave George Bush authority to use any and all means, particularly those against the law to "protect the American people." He continues to live in his dream world. The only problem, is that it's actually a nightmare! Congress, let's wake from this nightmare and begin your investigations. If ever there were a legitimate case for impeachment of a president, this is it: Abuse of authority in direct contradiction of the United States Constitution.

And We Should Believe These Guys Why?

2006-01-20T18:51:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post reports that Karl Rove has come back from the politically dead to outline the Republican's 2006 campaign strategy. Rove speaking to the Republican National Committee was quoted:

"At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security," Rove said. "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Well, if it's one thing Rove, Bush and company know something about, it's being "wrong." The Post continued:

Mehlman and Rove accused the Democrats of trying to weaken the USA Patriot Act and of embracing calls for a premature exit from Iraq. They defended Bush's use of warrantless eavesdropping to gather intelligence about possible terrorist plots. "Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells in the United States?" Mehlman asked. Pelosi (D-Calif.) is the House minority leader.

So, one has to ask based on the Bush track record, should we really buy what these guys are peddling? They were wrong on weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong on Iraq's nuclear program. They were wrong about Mission Accomplished. They were and continue to be wrong about the "insurgency".

So, when they knowingly feed the American people a line about how we have to side step the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to spy on Americans because Osama Bin Laden is calling, don't you believe it for a second. Osama Bin Laden is not calling on Americans' telephones or sending them secretive emails. And, if he were there are safeguards built into law to account for those unlikely possibilities.

When they say the Bush critics are all wrong (meaning unpatriotic) don't you believe it for a second. Many, are well meaning, clear thinking individuals who have served their country far more nobly than Carl Rove, George Bush, or Dick Cheney.

The Bush Administration has yet to get it right on Iraq and its connection to national security. I see no reason yet to believe anything they say on the subject, particularly when it runs contrary to our American values, so deeply rooted in our history.

Where I've Been

2006-01-19T06:50:00.000-08:00

Wendol M. Murray 1930~2006

My blogging has been interrupted over the last several weeks. My Dad died on 1/7/06, and I've been attending to other responsibilities since then. I will now have some time to resume blogging in the very near future; however, in the interim, I've posted a tribute to my Dad over at my LDS blog, Messenger and Advocate.

Photo Courtesy of Owen R. Murray

Send In The Clowns . . .

2006-01-06T18:20:00.000-08:00

Robertson on Sharon

(Cross posted over at Messenger and Advocate)

4th Amendment To King George

2005-12-22T20:55:00.000-08:00

Yes King George, you know that pesky Constitution . . .the one that contains the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Founding Fathers were quite clear when drafting the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Spying on American citizens without warrants supported by probable cause is NOT legal, no matter how many times King George says it is.

It's beginning to sound a lot like Impeachment . . .

Messenger and Advocate

2005-12-13T21:26:00.000-08:00

As a reminder I'm now blogging over at The Messenger and Advocate strictly on LDS issues. My personal blog here is where I will continue to post on current events, and politics.

Tookie Williams Update

2005-12-13T20:57:00.000-08:00

In order to put "Tookie" Williams into context, I highly recommend reading The Los Angeles County District Attorney's response to Stanley Williams' petition for executive clemency here.

As I said before, this is NOT a very nice guy. Did he deserve to die? Probably. Should the State of California executed him? I still believe no. He should still be rotting in prison, and should have remainded there until he died of natural causes having to reflect the remainder of his days on his useless and miserable life.

Tookie Williams Executed By California

2005-12-13T14:21:00.000-08:00

Stanley "Tookie" Williams is dead. Does that mean justice is or has been served? I don't really know. Here's an interesting eyewitness account of the execution, by Kevin Fagan, a Reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle:

This was not a man who went meekly': An eyewitness account of Stanley Tookie Williams' execution

Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The execution of convicted murderer Stanley Tookie Williams was a defiant, determined and messy affair -- surprising right up to the bitter end, just like his unfortunate life.

From the moment five guards walked him into the death chamber at 11:59 p.m. until 36 minutes later when Williams' heart stopped beating, the 51-year-old former gangster and his supporters tried their hardest to get through his final minutes on earth on their own terms. And they succeeded, as well as could be done under the circumstances -- and certainly more than in any of the 11 other executions since 1992, when San Quentin Prison's lime-green death chamber was put back into action after a 25-year hiatus.

All of the other men killed by lethal injection lay so quietly on the gurney as they were strapped down and poisoned that, except for a few small movements, it was hard to tell if they were even awake. Even in the two gassings at San Quentin that preceded the injections, Robert Alton Harris and David Mason faced their ends stoically.

Williams was different.

He got exasperated at the guards for taking too long inserting his needles -- 11 minutes, about nine longer than usual -- angrily asking, "You guys doing that right?" He prayed as he was being lashed to the cross-shaped gurney, lips moving rapidly several minutes at a time. At one point, a tear rolled down his cheek.

Just before the poisons began pumping into his veins at 12:18 a.m., Williams struggled mightily against the straps holding down his shoulders, arms and chest to raise his head and stare, hard, at the press corps on the western wall of the witness room for six long seconds. He'd done the same thing earlier to gaze at other parts of the room.

Finally, as a woman prison guard read off the warrant proclaiming that prisoner number C29300 had been sentenced to die and "the execution shall now proceed," Williams forced his head up one last time to stare into the eyes of the five friends he asked to be present -- and he kept it raised until he passed out 1-1/2 minutes later from the first salvo of chemicals, sodium pentothal to put him to sleep.

From there on it was a nail-biting vigil for everyone outside staring in, with no way to know which chemicals were being administered, since the plungers sending them into the intravenous tubes are pressed by unseen hands behind the chamber walls. Williams's chest heaved several times as he lay with his eyes closed, but somewhere in the 15 minutes from 12:20 a.m. to 12:35 a.m. the executioners filled his veins with pancuronium bromide to stop his breathing, and then potassium chloride to stop his heart.

Finally, someone behind the walls called out, "He's flatlined," and it was over.

During the last execution -- triple-killer Donald Beardslee, in January -- the actual injection process took four fewer minutes; injections for William "The Freeway Killer" Bonin only required four minutes in 1996. The extra time to administer poisons to Williams seemed excrutiatingly long, with everyone tensely watching, and I began to think something had gone wrong. But after I'd walked out of the chamber, and after prison officials assured us they did not have to administer extra shots of chemicals, it made more sense.

Williams was the most muscular man of the 12 killed at San Quentin since 1992 -- his bulging arms looked like toned thighs and his chest was a barrel -- and it seems to me his body was fighting off the inevitable, even after consciousness and the ability to move had fled.

This was not a man who went meekly.

That seemed in line with someone who co-founded the notorious Crips street gang decades ago in defiance of law-abiding society, and then converted so strongly to the cause of peace that he renounced the gang life and campaigned for peace from behind the prison walls. From youth to death, Williams was always trying to set his own terms, to stick to what he perceived as his own sense of dignity. I watched the final manifestation of that.

Williams didn't even give his final words to the warden, as is tradition. Warden Steve Ornoski said Williams chose instead to leave his final message with Barbara Becnel, his friend and co-author of the anti-gang books that earned Williams Nobel Prize nominations and praise for their spirit of redemption.

Things were also startlingly different in the witness room, where 39 of us stood or sat watching through the thick glass walls of the cramped, 7-1/2-foot-wide chamber. Prison guards always warn that if anyone cries or talks loudly he or she will be instantly ejected, and nobody ever even waves, let alone talks -- and for most of the witnesses, that was the case Tuesday morning.

It's impossible to tell who many witnesses are, because nobody can move from their spot or talk, but they always break down into four groups: Supporters of the condemned man, supporters of his victims, 17 media representatives, and more than a dozen law enforcement and legal officials. In this execution, at least five witnesses were related to the four people Williams was convicted in 1981 of shooting to death in Southern California -- convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, and motel owners Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and their daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43 -- and one of those family members sat in the front row, Owens' stepmother Lora Owens. Three other women sitting near her appeared also to be relatives.

Aside from one blonde woman putting an arm around Owens for a few minutes, none of the women showed any emotion until the very end, staring somberly at Williams. Indeed, nobody else betrayed any overt feelings either -- with the exception of one group.

The Williams contingent.

Becnel stood with two companions -- a woman and a man -- at the only window in the death chamber with a clear line of sight into Williams' eyes, and it was as if the three were willing themselves to transcend the glass and stand right there in the death chamber with their friend. They thrust their fists up in what clearly seemed to be a black power salute, and the man once called out softly, "Tookie." They repeatedly whispered, "I love you," and "God bless you," as they looked adoringly into Williams' eyes. After his eyes closed, the women clasped their hands as if in prayer.

Then, in the most radical departure of decorum for this modern era of executions, the trio shouted as they left the death chamber: "The state of California just killed an innocent man!" The sound crackled like lightning through the thick silence of the room, and Lora Owens gasped as if she'd been slapped. She burst into tears, pressing a Kleenex to her face.

An anguished look filled her eyes and a blonde woman sitting next to her put her arm around her, comforting her. That was the last I saw of her as we in the media were marched out by guards.

Outside the prison, I'm told 2,000 demonstrators -- most of them against the death penalty -- wept and shouted and waved picket signs as the execution went through. But for those of us inside the death chamber, none of that mattered. It could not even be heard. The walls are too thick in the fortress-like Death Row, where the execution chamber is appropriately enough placed, for any outside noise to leak in.

It was just as well. We didn't need to see it.

I know from talking to many others who have shared that chamber with me before that when months or even years have gone by, there will be no real closure or peace after what we saw Tuesday morning. Williams will not be alive for the supporters who wanted to save him, and the people he was convicted of killing will still leave huge empty spaces in the hearts of their loved ones.

All those most intimately involved witnesses will be left with is the memory of the grimacing, the shouting, the staring, the thick tension of the waiting and watching that we all underwent for 36 minutes.

That will be enough for them to deal with.

Stanley Tookie Williams' execution is the sixth that Kevin Fagan has witnessed.

I will post other accounts I find interesting as I come across them. As always, I remain troubled after the state puts anyone to death, regardless of the crime. I have already posted that I think life in prison without the possibility of parole is preferable.

Tookie Williams Headed For Execution

2005-12-12T21:26:00.000-08:00

Governor Arnold has finally issued his decision in the "Tookie" Williams case. The Washington Post reports:

Schwarzenegger Declines to Halt Execution of Gang Founder

Stanley "Tookie" Williams, a gang leader-turned-peace advocate whose cause drew worldwide attention, was set to be executed in San Quentin's death chamber Tuesday morning after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied his last-ditch plea for clemency and the Supreme Court refused to block the execution.
Having virtually exhausted his appeals, Williams, 51, who co-founded the notorious Crips gang, was scheduled to be killed via injection at one minute past midnight Pacific time for four murders committed during two separate robberies in Southern California in 1979.

As of this posting, Tookie has only hours to live; however, absent some unexpected intervention, he will die for his convicted crimes of murder.

One interesting aspect of this case, is the Governor's Statement of Decision, denying the clemency petition in this case, which you can read here. Reading the decision, regardless of one's opinion on the content, it is clear, the Governor had little, if anything to do with writing the statement. Anyone who has heard the Governor speak, recognizes immediately someone else wrote, and likely thought through this statement for him.

I personally oppose the death penalty in all cases; however, that said, I thought the Governor's rationale for denying clemency was actually quite compelling. Quoting from a portion of the statement (written by a ghost writer) he reasoned:

But Williams’ claim of innocence remains a key factor to evaluating his claim of personal redemption. It is impossible to separate Williams’ claim of innocence from his claim of redemption . . .

Is Williams’ redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise? Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case. Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption. In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do.

It's hard to argue with this logic. Without some expression of responsibility, how can one possibly atone for anything wrong? Without and admission of guilt, there was nothing for which he could, or would need to atone.

One complaint I have with these death penalty vigils is the circus atmosphere they generate. Here, we have Snoop Dog, Jessie Jackson (neither of whom have any moral authority whatsoever), and countless other "celebrities" using that celebrity to advocate a political opinion (one with which I may agree--though probably for differing reasons). I think the First Amendment protects evencelebrity opinion; however, I am troubled by them using their fame to forward their politics. The State of California is going to willfully take a human life early Tuesday morning. That is a very somber act, that deserves more dignity than the circus atmosphere will allow.

Finally, I want to make it perfectly clear, I think Tookie is likely guilty of the crimes of which he has been convicted. I do not believe he is a very nice person, at all. In fact, he is likely the lowest form of human life on the planet; however, I do not believe he should die for his crimes.

I believe he should spend his entire life behind bars, in prison, at hard labor to help pay in a very small way for the lives he so senselessly took. I would take away his color TV, and most other privileges he is afforded, and require him to perform hard labor for his remaining days on earth. I would never allow him the possibility of any parole, or freedom of any kind. Life without parole, is a significant penalty, equal in my view to capital punishment.

My major political complaint with capital punishment is the inconsistent way in which it is applied. Wealth and privilege rarely see the cells on death row. Tookie Williams will ingest a lethal cocktail in a matter of hours, while O.J. Simpson continues to look for the "real killers" on America's golf courses. I am deeply troubled by the application of capital punishment in our country. It doesn't appear things are about to change anytime soon.

Bush's Bubble

2005-12-12T06:45:00.000-08:00

This week's Newsweek lead article gives an interesting insight into an increasingly isolationist president. Living in a bubble is not a good idea in real life. It’s worse in the so-called leader of the free world, particularly when he continues to send brave young American men and women to die in an increasingly bankrupt war effort. This article is definitely worth a read. It also boosts Congressman Murtha's credibility stock.

New LDS Blog Messenger and Advocate

2005-12-06T05:55:00.000-08:00

"TO every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." A time to blog, and a time not to blog, perhaps even a time to change the way I blog. On my personal blog here, I've blogged on wide variety of topics; however, because religious thought, particularly LDS thought and issues are of significant import to me, I've created a blog just for posting and discussing those ideas and thoughts: The Messenger and Advocate. I hope you will stop by, and leave a comment if so inclined. I will blog all future religious and LDS issues, and thoughts over at Messenger and Advocate. Here, I will continue to blog; however, the posts will be more political, and current events issues.

Saints and Soldiers To Air On History Channel

2005-11-18T14:09:00.000-08:00

Saints and Soldiers, the award winning WWII drama, premiers on the History Channel this weekend. It plays Saturday, 11/19/05, at 8:00 p.m. and 12:00. Eastern Time. Looks like a decent movie weekend after all. Here's Netfix reviews.

BYU vs. U of U Rivalry

2005-11-18T08:38:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year again, when all the big school football rivalries play out. It's no different for BYU and Utah. I'm, of course, a BYU graduate. For those uninformed on the subject, it's also known as "The Lord's University". On the other hand, if you're a Ute (sorry NCAA) fan, your retort is that you attend the School that Brigham Young actually founded, rather than the one that bears his name.

Anyway, today's Salt Lake Tribune (that's the heathen liberal Newspaper in Salt Lake City--not Church owned) has a pretty funny article on the rivalry between the two biggest letters in all of Utah, the "Y" and the "U". You can read it here.

Some of the funniest parts:

The Urban Dictionary, a Web site at urbandictionary.com where readers submit their own definitions for people, places or things, has this definition, obviously submitted by a BYU fan:

University of Utah: A taxpayer-supported university located in Salt Lake City for people who don't have the grades or the test scores to get into BYU; want to major in smoking pot, getting laid, drinking beer . . . or journalism; want to study Marxism; are non-Mormon or Jack Mormon

Not to be outdone:

Meanwhile, the Utahania blog reported that an enterprising Ute fan put a picture of BYU's mascot for sale on eBay, noting Cosmo has had all his shots and has been neutered. The bid reached $26 Thursday.

The rest of the article then points out some observations on the differences between the Y and the U:

Several of the Ute players are so young they still don't shave. They will compete with 30-year-old, 400-pound linemen, quarterbacks with five kids, and receivers already vested in their employers' retirement plans.

BYU players have a prayer before every game. Ute players have performed ritualistic lamentations following many of their games.

Utah fans strip down and paint themselves for cold November games because they're drunk. BYU fans do it because they're stupid.

Ute fans don't boo the other team. They've been too busy this year booing their own. BYU fans don't boo at all. Instead, they proudly boast their colors, yelling in unison: Bluuuuuuuuuue. Bluuuuuuue. Bluuuuuuuue.

BYU fans still follow the life and activities of their beloved legendary coach, LaVell Edwards. Ute fans are following closely the fortunes of the Florida Gators, and are secretly hoping they lose.

Ute fans drink their caffeine hot. BYU fans drink their caffeine cold.

To BYU fans, the screwdriver on game day remains in the drawer in the garage
with the other unused tools while the game is being played. To Ute fans, the screwdriver on game day is breakfast.

For BYU fans, the forward pass is a common topic of discussion during Sunday School lessons. For Ute fans this year, the forward pass has led to many silent prayers, followed by many sinful profanities.

Many Ute co-eds like the Britney Spears bare-midriff look. Many BYU co-eds prefer the Marie Osmond look, as do many of the male BYU students.

BYU students have been known to jump out of the stands and tackle Ute cheerleaders as they parade along the sidelines. Ute cheerleaders have been known to beat the crap out of the BYU fans who tackle them.

Many Ute fans voted for Rocky Anderson. Many BYU fans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Many Ute fans went into withdrawal when Tom Barberi was taken off the air and were all atwitter when the guy who coined the phrase, "Utah by five," came back on the air. Many BYU fans need their daily Sean Hannity fix, which is why they still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Utah is known for its leadership in medical research, bio-engineering and for launching Karl Rove. BYU is a leader in producing quarterbacks, TV anchors, beauty queens and white collar criminals.

Looking forward to Saturday's game! (Go Blue!)

Another Voice Of Reason

2005-11-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post reports today, that Representative, John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran has called for the Bush Administration to withdraw American Forces from Viet . . .I mean Iraq:

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said in a Capitol news conference that left him in tears. Islamic insurgents "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. ". . . It's time to bring them home."

As expected, the Bush sleaze machine went into overdrive! Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) immediately returned fire:

"Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the president is on foreign soil."

Dick Cheney also chimed in claiming that Rep. Murtha was essentially waiving the white flag of surrender. Cheney also accused war critics:

Cheney called Democrats “opportunists” who were peddling “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.
“Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein,” Cheney told the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative policy group.

Well, I can see how one would draw that conclusion. Representative Murtha is a retired full bird Colonel from the United States Marine Corps. A sampling of his military background from his own website:

Congressman Murtha is so well-respected for his first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues that he has been a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties on military and defense issues and is one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in the country. He is ranking member and former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective.

He learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67, receiving the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He remained in the Reserves until his retirement. This first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues has made him a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties and one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in Washington. At the request of Presidents and Speakers of the House, he served as chairman of delegations monitoring elections in the Philippines, El Salvador, Panama and Bosnia.

He was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal by the Marine Corps Commandant when he retired from the Marines.

Yep . . . pretty much sounds to me like this Murtha guy is most definitely one of those left wing peace activist nuts. I can see how a guy like this is waiving the flag of surrender--clearly an opportunist--a cut and run kinda guy.

Of course Dennis Hastert and Dick Cheney haven't served a single day in uniform in America's or any other armed services. And, Mr. Cheney as we know, who had an opportunity to serve his country, elected to hide behind five deferments when his country called.

I don't think Americans are fooled by the nonsense coming out of the Bush administration. Yet, there is something shameful the way people who dare speak a different point of view about the Iraq war are demeaned by those least in any position to engage in any rock throwing. Rather than smear great American heros like Rep. Murtha, they are to be commended.

Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they are the children of God.

Not bad company, in contrast to the Bush boys.

Semper Fi Rep. Murtha. Your voice is not alone!

Now Here's a Bloggernacle Map

2005-11-16T08:40:00.000-08:00

Well, ok not really Bloggernacle per se . . .but still impressive. A friend forwarded me this wmv clip which purports to show growth of the Church by Stakes throughout the world from 1847 to 2004. It's about 10 MB and takes a couple of minutes to open up, or download, so be patient, even with high speed connections. I thought it was pretty cool.

And speaking of the Bloggernacle . . . it appears that it is now on the map, or at least on "the fringes of English" I didn't know it was being considered as a word on the fringe. Go check it out, and give them some definition possibilities here!

Rough Review Trolling

2005-11-14T21:52:00.000-08:00

I just read Larry McMurtry’s review of Richard Bushman’s Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling, about the Prophet Joseph Smith. You can find it in the New York Review of Books. Unfortunately it is a pay only service, so unless you already subscribe it will cost you $3.00 just to look at the review for a week, which of course you can download and save forever if you were so inclined. Personally I thought it was overpriced.

To say the least, McMurty’s review is unfavorable. To begin, he acknowledges two anti-Mormon books to which he looked as sources in helping him write his review: No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie, and Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer. Brodie’s problem, of course is that she candidly acknowledges her anti-Mormon bent in her book (which is quite evident anyway). So, Brodie has little if any credibility on Joseph Smith. Krakauer, is a mountain climber turned recent historian in his book Under the Banner, which deals not so much with the LDS Church as the extreme splinter groups which are more on a par with radical Islam than they are with mainstream LDS thought and/or practice. Alas, I’m at a loss about why McMurty needed to rely on any other sources in reviewing Professor Bushman’s work, let alone anti-Mormon sources.

McMurty doesn’t make it past the first paragraph of his review without making his first serious error. He confuses Ishmael of the Old Testament, with the Ishmael of the Book of Mormon, claiming them to be the same person, who helped Nephi and his family escape from Jerusalem:

In the Book of Mormon, the biblical Ishmael, son of Abraham, soon appears and helps the questing Nephi out of a spot of trouble with the locals —just the kind of trouble, with just the same kind of locals, that real Mormons, in the 1830s and 1840s, constantly found themselves in.

One doesn’t have to be a believing Mormon to know that Ishmael of the Old Testament, even if a fictional character lived at least several thousand years before Christ was born. Ishmael in the Book of Mormon died approximately 592 B.C.

McMurty then quotes one of Joseph’s more famous (McMurty’s characterization) quotes, from which Brodie takes the title of her work:

You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it; I shall never undertake it. I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself.

A few paragraphs later, McMurty’s sloppiness is manifest again:

About three weeks later (April 27, 1844), Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were gunned down by vigilantes in their jail cells in Carthage, Illinois, where they were held mainly for being Mormons. Joseph had intended to flee across the nearby Mississippi River into the west, but Hyrum thought they might be able to work things out with the local militia in Illinois. The Prophet, who seldom welcomed advice from anyone, took some from his brother, although he knew it probably meant death, producing yet another enigma in a life that was rich in enigma.

While I’d agree with his assertion for the reasons why the Prophet and Hyrum were held in Carthage, his date is two months off. I’ve checked Bushman’s book, and sure enough, on page 551 he has the correct date of June 27, 1844. Did McMurty really read Bushman’s book, or is he just guessing on critical details like the Prophet’s Martyrdom? It’s a bit like asking where were you when JFK was shot on September 22, 1963?

McMurty spends an inordinate amount of time on polygamy, given the amount of time Bushman gives it in his 740 page text. But, of course polygamy is all about sex right? And, of course we know that sex sells. So why not use it to hype your book review?

Certainly polygamy is part of the Prophet’s history, and should be discussed; however, McMurty seems to dwell on it so that it takes a more prominent part of Joseph’s life, than everything else he did, said, or believed.

McMurty also seemed to go off on unrelated tangents during his review. Just after discussing Joseph’s polygamous tendencies, he strays off and talks about Fawn Brodie’s excommunication:

In 1946 Fawn Brodie was excommunicated for heresy from the Mormon Church. Richard Bushman suggests that she was on her way out of Mormonism when she published No Man Knows My History. This may be true; but both her father and her uncle held high positions in the church, so her exit was probably not all that easy. On the day she was to have faced her judges she went, instead, to a hospital and gave birth to a son.

Exactly what Ms. Brodie’s excommunication contributes to a review of Bushman’s book on the Prophet is lost, at least on me. But, again, there is that juicy detail about her relationship to the Prophet David O’ Mckay–a very critical bit of information in helping us understand more about Joseph Smith.

Of course, what would a book review of Joseph Smith be without some mention of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Never mind that the massacre occurred in 1857, 13 years after the Prophet had been martyred. In the same breath and paragraph, McMurty then tars the Church with the sins of fundamentalist offshoots of the original Church, as outlined in the classic story of Under the Banner of Heaven. He drones on and on about the plight of teen aged males supposedly expelled from their communities, leaving more teenaged girls for the leaders of these cult religions. Exactly how this ties into Joseph Smith, is again a mystery to me. The Banner of Heaven events of course took place well over a century after the Prophet’s martyrdom and almost a century after the LDS Church officially renounced polygamy. But, again, polygamy is all about sex, and sex sells.

McMurty also reviews the Prophet’s history with treasure seeking, money digging, folk magic and seer stones. All of these are a matter of historical record; however, I like Bushman’s treatment of these issues in his book, which you can read in a different post here.

The golden plates are difficult for McMurty to digest. It is clear he is sympathetic to Brodie’s view of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and is rather dismissive of Professor Bushman, just because he is a believing Mormon:

The history of early Mormonism clearly has two phases, the Establishing phase and the Exodus phase. In the former, it is when we come to the rather baroque business of the golden plates and their translation that the fact that Professor Bushman is a believing Mormon becomes a shoe that begins to pinch a little. This is the second of his books to deal with early Mormonism—the first, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, was published in 1984. What is difficult to determine is where biography ends and apologetics begins. Where does this scrupulous scholar stand on the main points, which he knows must seem incredible to most readers? Does he believe in the angel? Does he think the golden plates were real? Does he read the Book of Mormon as literature or as revelation? At one point he says, "Incredible as the plates are, hunting for deception can be a distraction."

A distraction? The golden plates? Surely their existence and Joseph Smith's ability to translate them must be one of the central elements of Mormon belief. Either Joseph Smith was the mouthpiece of God or he was just a clever young man who babbled out a kind of trance-written novel.

Apparently McMurty is the only one able to discern just where biography ends and apologetics begins. If you actually read the Bushman book, it clearly is not apologetic. From what I have read thus far, he presents the Prophet warts and all. If McMurty is seeking apologetics for his attack, he’s looking in all the wrong places.

In dismissing the plates McMurty also dismisses the written testimony of 11 witnesses who actually saw and handled the plates, as well as the witness of Emma Smith who felt and handled the plates regularly:

Somehow, by about 1827, these plates, covered with diverse and curious characters, were transported to the Smith household, where they seem to have been kept either in a box or under the table or plunked on the table and covered with a cloth. Joseph Smith was very loath to let anyone, including his wife, Emma, see the plates. Nearly a dozen men, some of them Joseph's scribes, claimed to have seen the plates, but their claims inspire no confidence. It's not really clear that anyone except Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni really saw the plates, if there were plates—a big if.

McMurty offers no evidence in his review why the testimony of the 11 witnesses inspire no confidence. Perhaps McMurty is again just lazy, or possibly ignorant. Oliver Cowdrey, and Martin Harris, both two major witnesses, never recanted their testimony about seeing the Golden Plates. Yet, both these men for several years were formally excommunicated from the Church Joseph founded. Why on earth would they have remained faithful to that testimony after having parted ways with the Prophet? Martin Harris, in fact lost $3,000.00 he put up for the printing of the original edition of the Book of Mormon. If anyone had reason to recant their prior witness of seeing the plates, both Martin and Oliver would have been likely candidates.

In short, I thought McMurty’s review of Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling was somewhat shallow. It had some legitimate complaints; however, after reading the first few paragraphs it is abundantly clear he is hostile to the Prophetic claims and mission of Joseph Smith. To paraphrase Hugh Nibley, No Sir, that’s not a book review. Here, however, is an excellent book review by a non LDS reviewer. Hat tip to Clark Goble of Mormon Metaphysics.

God Continues to Speak to Man

2005-11-14T06:30:00.000-08:00

Over at Mormanity, Jeff Lindsay has an interesting post here, about the concept of continuing revelation from God to man. He quotes from an address given by LDS Apostle Hugh B. Brown in October 1967 General Conference. A good analysis.

More Thoughts From Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling

2005-11-13T21:57:00.000-08:00

I was reading in Rough Stone Rolling, still on the Translation chapter, and came across a thought by Bushman, I had never considered, or even knew for that matter. He has just covered the period where Joseph has let Martin Harris take the first 116 pages of transcript, and lost them. Bushman points out that 1828 was a pivotal year for the Prophet Joseph. It was the year he began, and at the same time lost the ability to translate, as well as 116 pages of translation itself. He also lost a new born Son, Alvin, named after his own late older brother. He was severely chastised for his role in allowing Martin Harris to take, and then lose the transcript.

Yet, in that time, the Prophet began to find his prophetic calling, as Bushman points out, when Joseph received his chastisement revelation. Bushman notes:

His true history began with his search for a church and his plea for forgiveness. These led to the revelation of the Father and the Son and the visit of Moroni, the cardinal events of his boyhood. After 1828, Joseph could no longer see that magic might have prepared him to believe in a revelation of gold plates and translation with a stone. It did not occur to him that without magic his family might have scoffed at his story of Moroni, as did the minister who rejected the First Vision. Magic had played its part and now could be cast aside.

See Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 69.

The irony lies, of course, in the anti-Mormon crowd usually beating the Prophet Joseph over the head with his prior dabbling in money digging and the occult. Bushman's thesis, arguably correct is that earlier activities by Joseph, while not the best uses of his Divine gift, were nonetheless preparatory for his eventual Prophetic calling. I like this analysis, and was again something I had never really before considered. It shows the human side of the Prophet, which clearly he was. Yet it also shows his growth and progress as he learned from his past mistakes.

UPDATE: Note that M* has a great inteview with Prof. Bushman the author of this book, which you can read here. It is a good interview, and I'm sure will generate some interesting comments. They note that Prof. Bushman may pop in and out of that discussion to answer further questions and comments.

Dutch Oven Cooking

2005-11-13T08:35:00.000-08:00

One of my hobbies is dutch oven cooking. On Saturday, a friend of mine, went north to Paso Robles country to demonstrate a new Camp Chef product, the Ulitmate Turkey Roaster (photo left). It is essentially an oversized dutch oven. For those who are unfamiliar with dutch oven cooking, here are some of my favorite dutch oven links here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are lots more; but, these are the ones I frequent the most.

I've posted a series of photos I took at our little cookout here. Feel free to stop by and take a look. You can see how we cooked a 19 pound turkey in about two hours using the turkey roaster and a one burner stove, both Camp Chef products. I don't work for Camp Chef, but I do like their dutch ovens. The store where we demonstrated our turkey cooking carries these and other products. You can find them at Delta Liquid Energy in Paso Robles, located at 1960 Ramada Drive, Paso Robles, CA, (805) 239-0616.

The turkey turned out quite well--you can see the photos at the link above. It was very moist, not too brown--but certainly well done and tasty.

For other dutch oven creations, here's a photo of a chicken and dumplings dish we did on a recent scout camp out at the beach. This was all cooked with charcoal heat in a traditional dutch oven, and took about an hour, possibly a little more. It too was very, very good.

And, for dessert, on other occasions I have made a chocolate cake to die for. This one is a photo of the finished product, in the lid of the dutch oven after cooking and frosting. This hobby is lots of fun, and results in lots of great food!

Bill O'Reilly Invites Al Qaeda To Kill In San Francisco

2005-11-12T20:53:00.000-08:00

Mr. Family Values, hero of the "regular folks" Bill (Bombastic) O'Reilly has come out with another winner, I'm sure you've heard by now. He has invited Al Qaeda terrorist activity, including bombings and murder to take place in the City by the Bay, San Francisco. More and more his comments make reason stare. Then, I remember this self-proclaimed guardian of virture of the right wing has some pretty shaddy dealings in his own past--sexually harassing the hired help. It always seems the good journalists are in the wrong places at the wrong time. And the Bill O'Reilly's of the world just keep demonstrating their lunacy.

Wrestling With History

2005-11-12T19:24:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post has a fascinating article on Donald Rumsfeld in an article dated 11/13/05. It's long but worth the time investment, and discusses a great deal of Rumsfeld's different wars, including the one against Collin Powell, reorganization of the Pentagon, Iraq, a future war with China, and himself to a degree. One of the most memorable lines from the story, dealing with this wrestle with history reads:

Robots, computers, missile shields and orbiting lasers address threats that no longer seem as pressing. The someday menace of enemy missiles has faded compared with today's car bombs, suicide vests and that medieval remnant, beheadings.

One of Rumsfeld's favorite maxims, one he supposedly included in a memo to George Bush before the Iraq invasion:

"it is easier to get into something than to get out of it."

If only they both had given it greater weight when it mattered . . . some interesting insights into Rumsfeld, and the war.

Tort Reform Hypocrisy

2005-11-12T08:00:00.000-08:00

I've posted about "tort reform" before over on my legal blog, NipomoBlawg, here, and here. It's time for an update; however, since it's more political than legal, I'm going to post here, and link from my other blog. ABC News is reporting that Senator Rick Santorum has some explaining to do! You see, the junior senator from Pennsylvania is an ardent tort reformer. This means he doesn't believe people should have full access to the judicial system, and let a jury as guaranteed by the Constitution's Seventh Amendment, decide the case based on the evidence, without any outside artificial constraints.

Senator Santorum's website sets for his position on tort reform as:

Liability Reform

Legal reform is an important issue that I place high on the agenda in the 109th Congress, as it is crucial to curb lawsuit abuse. Patients across America are being denied critical health care as doctors and hospitals are closing their doors due to skyrocketing liability costs. We must focus our efforts on protecting access to emergency rooms and OB-GYNs, as well as passing medical liability legislation that will protect doctors and promote accessible and affordable health care in our communities.

Additionally, we must pass class-action reform legislation. Injured plaintiffs are suffering due to weak state court oversight of class-action lawsuits. On too many occasions plaintiffs receive little or no settlement and, in some instances, lose money after paying attorneys' fees.

As you can see, this has a "high" priority on the senator's agenda for this congress; however, it appears it is only high on the agenda long after his own wife, Karen Santorum took full advantage of the judical system and prosecuted her own case against a medical provider for malpractice.

On December 11, 1999, The Pittsburg Post Gazette reported in part:

A Virginia jury last night awarded the wife of Sen. Rick Santorum $350,000 in damages after she charged in a lawsuit that a Virginia chiropracter's negligence caused her permanent back pain.
Deliberating more then six hours after a four-day trial in which Santorum, R-Pa., testified, the Fairfax County Circuit Court jury unanimously ruled for Karen Santorum. She had sought $500,000 against Dr. David Dolberg of Virginia, because of pain from his 1996 treatment of her.

"Mrs. Santorum has been vindicated," said her Pittsburgh attorney Heather Heidelbaugh. "She was injured permanently through the actions of a chiropractor who acted negligently."
Heidelbaugh, with the Pittsburgh law firm of Burns, White & Hickton, said Mrs. Santorum has "permanent back pain" and "permanent numbness" in one leg.

Given the senator's tort reform views it is understandable he didn't much want to talk to the press about his wife's judicial victory:

Throughout the trial, Santorum aides declined to provide details. Yesterday, they issued a brief statement from the senator saying: "The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife."

The ABC report is even more enlightening:

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.

But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.

One has to wonder how the senator found religion from verdict time in 1999 up to now. And, one has to wonder the extent of the conversion from then to now. When the ABC reporters asked the senator about the hypocrisy of his push for damage caps and his own wife suing for twice the amount of those caps, he responded:

"I guess I could answer that in two ways," he said. "Number one is that I've supported caps. I've been very clear that I am not wedded at all to a $250,000 cap and I've said publicly repeatedly, and I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that."

'Of Course I'm Going to Support My Wife'

But the fact is that Santorum has sponsored or co-sponsored a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages two times — even though he testified in his wife's case against the doctor.

"Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."

But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.

"That's where again you're misled is that a lot of, there was cumulative damages," he said. "The medical bills, lost income, all those other things that were out there."

Those medical bills totaled $18,800, yet she sued for $500,000. And lost income? The judge made no mention of that when he slashed the jury's award in half, saying it was excessive.

The judge noted that the remaining damages "awarded amounted to something in the neighborhood of $330,000 or so for injuries sustained and the effect upon Mrs. Santorum's health, her past and future pain and suffering and inconvenience."

Wow! What? How convenient! Sounds to me like tort reform's the most important item facing the country on the campaign trail. But, at home, it's "support the wife" all the way. Unfortunately, it's at the expense of ordinary Americans and their constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Washington D.C. Newspaper Roll Call, in December 1999 covered this trial and specifically the senators testimony, which he gave subject to the penalty of perjury. Roll Call reported that the senator testified in part:

“Karen Santorum, he said, ‘likes to be fit,’ but has had trouble losing weight since the birth of their two youngest children - Sarah Maria, who was born two years ago this month, and Peter, who is 2 months old – because she can’t exercise as easily as she once could.

“While Santorum described his wife as an exercise fanatic who used to engage in everything from step aerobics to jogging to lose weight after the birth of each of their first three children, the herniated disk changed all that.

“‘We have to go out and do a lot of public things. She wants to look nice, so it’s really difficult,’ Santorum told the jury.

“The Senator also said he fears his wife will be unable to help him out much with his upcoming re-election campaign because of her physical limitations and the poor self-image she has developed since her back problems changed her life and her daily routine.

“‘She has always been intricately involved in my campaigns,’ Santorum said, explaining that he and his wife ‘knocked on 20,000 doors together’ during his previous campaign.

“Now, he says, she ‘does not have the confidence to do that.’”

I'm going to attempt to obtain trial transcripts; however, that may prove impossible. If I do, I will post verbatim from the senator's testimony on this blog.

Some points worth considering. Like many plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits, Ms. Santorum did not compile a hugh amount of medical expenses. From the press accounts she incurred nearly $19,000 is medical bills. Yet her prayer for relief in the lawsuit apparently sought $500,000 in total relief.

I'm not able to judge whether her case actually had that value; however, a jury, sworn, and sitting on her trial after listenting to the evidence decided that the case did have that value. So, from where did all that value come? Most likely in what we call general damages, i.e., pain and suffering. For many people this is the most difficult concept: awarding money damages for a person's subjective pain and suffering. Based on the trial excerpts above, Senator Santorum's testimony, under oath at trial focused on his wife's general pain and suffering damages. The same damages, the senator (at least in everyone's elses lawsuit) thinks are just phoney.

Of course, I make a living as a trial lawyer. I try these types of cases, i.e., personal injury. I have asked juries to award these types of damages. I have also defended personal injury cases, and have asked juries to be responsible in awarding damages, or not to award them at all. The fact is that we have a good tort system. George Bush wouldn't know a tort if it fell out the sky and landed on his head. He and other tort reformers like Senator Santorum use the issue as a political club for their own political advantage. This is confirmed by the facts in the Santorum case.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a sworn jury to do their job in coming to verdicts on a case by case basis. We don't need artifical constraints on the amount of money or damages juries should award. There are built in safeguards in this system, one of which we saw in the Santorum case. The judge can, and often the do, reduce the jury awards if in fact they are not supported by the evidence, or if justice so requires.

I reality I don't think the Santorums case is unique. When you need and want a lawyer to plead you case, you don't want that lawyer to be hampered by the artifical constraints of tort reform. You want your opportunity at justice as afforded by both state and federal constitutions. But, is it too much to ask to be consistent, and not a hypocrite when your ox is in the mire? Well, Senator, I say get off your tort reform political agenda, and afford every American the same legal rights you testified under oath for in your own wife's medical malpractice case.

Bush's Faulty Intelligence Arguments

2005-11-11T21:44:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post has another must read story on Bush's recent attempts to justify his Iraqi invasion and the continuing deaths of American men and women in the armed services. The Post points out that while Congress saw some of the same intelligence before the war, that the Mr. Bush saw, Mr. Bush had access to much more intelligence, that he did not share with Congress. Furthermore, the bipartisan commission Mr. Bush touts in his defense, was not authorized to determine whether the Bush Administration lied or distorted the intelligence conclusions:

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

The Post also points out that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hasn't completed its inquiry about whether or not the Bush Administration cooked the intelligence books:

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Mr. Bush, it appears is the one guilty of the irresponsible act of re-writing the history of how the Iraq war began, as I mentioned in my previous post. He conveniently ignores the fact that he as the commander in chief has the most complete intelligence available. Intelligence that he does not, and did not completely share with Congress. Furthermore, it appears not everyone in the Bush Administration viewed Saddam as the threat Mr. Bush and Cheney painted him to be:

Even within the Bush administration, not everybody consistently viewed Iraq as what Hadley called "an enormous threat." In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein's Iraq: "Frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

In his most blatant (and irresponsible) attempt at rewriting the history of how the Iraq war began, Mr. Bush distorted the October 2002 joint resolution authorizing him to utilize force if necessary. Bush claimed Congress went along with his decision to remove Saddam, when in fact the resolution never mentioned removing Sadam:

Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.
The resolution voiced support for diplomatic efforts to enforce "all relevant Security Council resolutions," and for using the armed forces to enforce the resolutions and defend "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

We should pressure our congressional representatives to move the inquiry in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence along with all due speed!

Veteran's Day Besmirched by George Bush

2005-11-11T19:25:00.000-08:00

Happy Veteran's Day to all the Honorable Veterans of this great and noble country. Veteran's day had its origins shortly after the end of World War I. On Monday, November 11, 1918 the Germans signed the the Armistice. An order then followed ending the hostilities in the war to end all wars.

In November, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson issued an Armistice Day proclamation, which in relevant part stated:

To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nation.

In 1938 Congress proclaimed each November 11 to be Armistice Day. For 16 years the United States observed the holiday, including observances at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. At 11:00 a.m, the hour reflecting the original signing of the Armistice (truce) traffic stopped, in tribute to the dead. Volleys fired and taps sounded also in honor of a greatful nation to its war dead.

After World War II, Armistice Day was changed to Veteran's Day by an Act of Congress on May 24, 1954. President Eisenhower referred to the name change as an honor for the service of all America's armed forces in all of America's wars. (Source Veterans' Day Homepage).

Today, George Bush rather than honor America's sacred dead, rather than unifying a nation in solemn rememberance of her dead, he injected the hateful politics for which he is infamous. He used this Veteran's Day to berate those who dare disagree with him on his failed Iraq war policies. The Washington Post notes:

"It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," Bush said as he used a Veterans Day address here to lash out at critics. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Democrats retaliated with a barrage of statements accusing the president of skewing the facts, just as they maintain he did in the run-up to the invasion of March 2003.

Although the two sides have long skirmished over the war, the sharp tenor Friday resembled an election-year campaign more than a policy disagreement. In a rare move, Bush in his speech took a direct swipe at last year's opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), while the White House issued an unusual campaign-style memo attacking Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman followed with a speech blistering 10 Democrats for "political doublespeak."

From their campaign-style war rooms, the Democrats and allied liberal interest groups churned out "fact sheets" dissecting Bush's comments and comparing them with past statements and investigation findings in an effort to undercut his arguments. Kerry accused Bush of "playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day."

The one re-writing the history of how the Iraq was began is George Bush. And, he is right: It is deeply irresponsible. His policies in Iraq, from the war's inception, to its prosecution, and the aftermath have been, and are irresponsible. What's more, most American's seem to know it:

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of how Bush is handling the war and 60 percent believe it was not worth fighting -- in both cases, the worst numbers for the president since the invasion. The perjury indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who resigned as chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, has revived the issue of the administration's truthfulness in building the case for war, and nearly 3 in 5 voters in the Post-ABC poll do not consider Bush honest.

Mr. Bush is now resigned to fighting political battles, over a year old when he continues his criticism of Senator John Kerry over Iraq:

Taking aim at Kerry, who recently announced his support for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Bush quoted the senator's statement in voting in 2002 for a congressional resolution authorizing use of force against Saddam Hussein. At the time, Bush noted, Kerry said that "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our country." Bush added that other Democrats "who had access to the same intelligence" voted for the resolution.
Kerry later fired back. "This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition," he said. "That's why Scooter Libby has been indicted."

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Bush had "resorted to his old playbook of discredited rhetoric" and was "attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush administration made to take our country to war."

It's clear to me, Mr. Bush has nothing new to say. He has no vision for our Country on what to do in Iraq, rather than pursue the same failed policies that have created the morass in which we now find ourselves, and will continue to find ourselves until we change direction.

Nipomo's Newest Golf Course

2005-11-11T07:03:00.000-08:00

Great news for local central coast golfers. Please see my latest post over at the Central Coast News Mission Blog for the latest information. See you on the links!

Thoughts From Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling

2005-11-07T18:51:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in an earlier post that I'd be starting the new biography of Joseph Smith entitled Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Lyman Bushman. As I read through the book, I thought I'd share a few of the passages I enjoyed the most, and give a few comments as well. I'm not a book reviewer or an historian, so all these thoughts are clearly of a lay person.

I've just started Chapter 3: Translation. As the title notes it deals with Joseph's translation of The Book of Mormon. It begins with a quote from Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, who in part stated:

J.S. could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.

Emma Smith Bidamon, Notes of Interview with Joseph Smith III, 1879.

Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling p. 57.

I liked this particular quote. Emma knew Joseph since their early 20's, when they were first married. She was present for a great deal of the translation, and was in fact an eye witness to the entire translation process as the rest of this quote reveals:

I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it and dictating hour after hour, with nothing between us. He had neither mss nor book to read from. If he had had anything of the Kind he could not have concealed it from me. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I felt of the plates, as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. O[liver] and JS wrote in the room where I was at work.

Emma Smith Bidamon, Ibid.

Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling, Ibid.

The interview from which this passage came was one her son, Joseph Smith, III conducted in 1879, just before her death, and some 35 years after The Prophet was martyred at Carthage Jail. Three years after The Prophet's death, Emma remarried to Lewis Bidamon, a non-Mormon. Emma never associated with the Utah branch of the Church, the main sect which traveled across the plains to Salt Lake City in 1846 to 1847.

Emma was also opposed to Joseph's practice and introduction of polygamy. She tolerated the practice while he was alive, but eventually denied the Prophet ever practiced the doctrine. Of course, this view is inconsistent with the historical record.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Emma Smith suffered greatly during her mortal life, lost her first husband, The Prophet, in the prime of their lives, and became estranged to the Utah Mormons in later years, she continued firm in her testimony that Joseph was who he claimed to be; that in fact Joseph translated The Book of Mormon by the Gift and Power of God; that she knew of the physical reality of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated; that she physically felt the plates; that she physically wrote for the Prophet as he dictated; that she personally and physically witnessed the translation process unfold; that in fact her husband, The Prophet Joseph, translated the Book of Mormon by the Gift and Power of God.

Crew & Troop 432 Camp Out

2005-11-05T21:29:00.000-08:00

Our Crew and Troop went to the Oceano Dunes this weekend for our monthly camp out. I'm testing my new Flickr account, that allows me to post photos directly to my blog. So, check out our photos. If you reside somewhere like Fargo, North Dakota keep in mind we can actually camp out on the beach in November on California's Central Coast. You can see all the photos I posted of our camp out here. And, I just can't resist posting these two below of our incredible Central Coast beaches.

Religious Bigotry Evangelical Style

2005-11-01T18:47:00.000-08:00

The Eleventh Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( Mormons, or LDS Church) states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God, according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship, how, where or what they may.

Every six months, The Church, hosts either an annual (April), or semi-annual conference (October) in downtown Salt Lake City. At that conference Mormons from the world over flock to Salt Lake City to hear the leaders of their Church, whom they consider to be living prophets, seers, and revelators.

We attend conference to receive religious and practical instruction from these leaders. We attend for spiritual renewal and rebirth. As we attend, we exercise our rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, affording us the free exercise of our religious beliefs.

Before the conference attendees are able to partake of their spiritual feast, they are verbally assaulted and abused for their religious beliefs on the very conference center steps. Each conference scores of "protesters" line the designated areas outside the LDS Conference Center to shout their religious bigotry and hate at those attending conference.

Who are these religious bigots? For the most part they appear to be on the fringe of the Evangelical movement. They are members of a group called the Street Preacher Fellowship, and have links to Baptists in Pennsylvania. Here's another Christian web site for these folks.
This past October, was no exception. The fine folks over at FAIR, the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, have documented in good detail some of these obnoxious displays. You can see some of them here, and other links here. Some of the more egregious I'm reposting here, with thanks to Scott Gordon at FAIR for his permission to republish.

This Book of Mormon was defaced by our Evangelical brothers, and waved at Mormons as they arrived outside the conference center. Can you imagine the the defacement of the Koran outside an Islamic Mosque? Who would do this? Why would you do this?

Another favorite tactic of our Christian Evangelical brothers is to wave what Mormons consider to be sacred clothing, in their faces as they enter the Conference Center. From the photo, and the original post at FAIR it appears the Street Preacher in the photo is waiving the temple garment, which if you are interested you can read about here.

Again, I ask, can you imagine defacing a yarmulke by using it as a frisbee outside a Jewish synagogue, because you didn't agree with Jewish religious beliefs and traditions?

As a practicing and believing Latter-day Saint, I am appalled by this "Christian" conduct by our Evangelical brothers. It is reminiscent of the mob mentality of the early 1800's resulting in murder and mayhem toward many early Latter-day Saints on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices. This same mob mentality culminated in the Prophet Joseph's murder in Carthage Jail in 1844.

Questionable Evangelical behavior is not limited to April and October General Conferences. Dave, over at Dave's Mormon Inquiry has two excellent posts on this theme here, and here; however, what prompted my post was yesterday's post over at FAIR with the publication of the newest round of Street Preacher photographs. Evangelical ridicule toward Latter-day Saints began with the Prophet Joseph's First Vision. It remains unabated to this day.

Even more troubling is the recent political clout of the far religious right. With the ascendency of George Bush to the Presidency, the Evangelical movement has unprecedented political power. The most recent manifestation of which is the recent withdrawal of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Before Harriet was the Terri Schiavo fiasco, in which the Evangelical right was up to its eyeballs.

To my Evangelical brothers who are so fond of Biblical citations, I refer you to John 13:34-35, Love one another . . .

To those not ecclesiastically inclined, I quote Joni Mitchell:

Lord, there's danger in this land
You get witch-hunts and wars
When church and state hold hands

Mires Withdraws

2005-10-27T06:01:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers withdraws from consideration for the SOCTUS. It was the right move. She, rather than Mr. Bush did the right thing for the country. She also saved Mr. Bush some face in this withdrawal . Check out the Washington Post.

Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

Watch the talking points to be "Executive Privilege ." The White House and Republican Senators are already spinning the withdrawal under the cover of documents and and executive privledge as well as attorney client privilege. Those may have been minor factors; however, make no mistake Ms. Miers was in over her head, was not qualified, and was a poor choice by Mr. Bush. Now he can name a quality nominee as he did with Chief Justice Roberts.

More later . . .

Vietnam Redux

2005-10-24T08:30:00.000-07:00

Who says that Iraq has no Vietnam parallels The Washington Post reports that our good friends at the Pentagon (who have brought us both Vietnam and Iraq) have decided to release enemy body counts! Why is that? What good does that do? Is this information useful? Was it useful 40 years ago? Was it truthful 40 years ago? Is it useful or truthful today? Read the whole article; but, here's a taste:

Eager to demonstrate success in Iraq, the U.S. military has abandoned its previous refusal to publicize enemy body counts and now cites such numbers periodically to show the impact of some counterinsurgency operations.

The revival of body counts, a practice discredited during the Vietnam War, has apparently come without formal guidance from the Pentagon's leadership. Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said they knew of no written directive detailing the circumstances under which such figures should be released or the steps that should be taken to ensure accuracy.

Instead, they described an ad hoc process that has emerged over the past year, with authority to issue death tolls pushed out to the field and down to the level of division staffs.

Now all we need is another General Westmoreland . . . or do we have one? This is very chilling, and very telling . . . demonstrating our "success" in Iraq? Oh my.

On a Lighter Note--Steve Martin

2005-10-24T06:50:00.000-07:00

All Miers makes for a dull Guy----so, here's a lighter piece from today's Washington Post about comedian Steve Martin. I can still my earliest memories of Steve as a stand up comic working as a warm up act for popular singers. I remember seeing him as the warm up act for Neil Diamond while I was at BYU years and years ago. His "cat juggling" routine was hilarious. Read the whole article--but here's a taste:

And so the evening inevitably skimmed the highlights. It was, in fact, like a Steve Martin career highlight reel, with the occasional roast as intermission.

Martin Short, who has made four films with Martin, recounted that "Steve got his first job in comedy as a writer on the 'Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour' because he was dating one of the dancers. Oh, by the way, Steve, Tommy Tune says hi."

Short correctly noted that Martin took comedy from clubs to the arena ("and back to the comedy clubs"), becoming "the first comedy rock star." Roll clip of Martin's 1978 stand-up performance at the Universal Amphitheater in Los Angeles, with all the iconic bits: arrow through the head, the banjo, "Happy Feet" and, of course, "Well, excuuuuse me ."

It's refreshing to see good talent rewarded. Congrats to Steve!

Fund on Miers . . . and more

2005-10-24T05:47:00.000-07:00

The Miers' opposition continues to grow, particularly from the right thinkers and writers. Today's op ed piece by John Fund in The Wall Street Journal explains why Mr. Bush failed so miserably with this nomination. A must read!:

The President trusts his instincts, and they are usually right. But when they fail him, the result can be calamitous . . . This time, the normal vetting process broke down, with Mr. Card ordering William Kelley, Ms. Miers's own deputy, to conduct the background checks--a clear conflict of interest. Even Newt Gingrich, a supporter of Ms. Miers's nomination, says that "the president believes in her so deeply, he is so convinced she's the right person, that I don't think it ever occurred to him to go through the kind of normal opposition research and normal vetting.

Also, today's New York Times points out the Miers' nomination has garnered rare criticism for a Supreme Court nominee:

Harriet E. Miers, President Bush's nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, brings a similar résumé, along with five years in the White House and one year as its counsel. But in just three weeks, her nomination has provoked a range of opposition that some scholars say may have no modern precedent.

"I would be very hard pressed to think of a good historical analogy," Richard Baker, the Senate historian, said. "I don't think there is one."

Though past nominees have faced swift opposition, what makes Ms. Miers's nomination extraordinary, historians say, is the combination of doubts about her philosophy from within the president's own party and attacks on her legal qualifications from both sides of the aisle.

Read the entire article.

Also, the Bear's call for bloggers to blog their Miers' stands continues with the results posted here.

More on Mires Nomination

2005-10-23T17:53:00.000-07:00

On Meet the Press today, New York Senator Charles Schumer claimed that Harriet Miers currently lacks the votes necessary to win Senate confirmation. He claimed she would not garner a majority of committee votes or votes on the Senate floor:

“If you held the vote today, she would not get a majority either in the Judiciary Committee or the floor,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. On the 18-member GOP-controlled committee, “there are one or two who said they’d support her as of now.”

He continued, pointing out that Ms. Mier's hearings (assuming they occurr) will be the critical moment for her nomination:

“The hearings will be make or break for Harriet Miers in a way they haven’t been for any other nominee,” Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “She’ll have to do very well there. She has a tough road to hoe.”

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican had a more optimistic assesment, claiming that Ms. Miers should be confirmed primarily because no other current justices have practical real world experience:

“She is the only one whose entire career is in private practice,” Hutchison said, in contrast to the current justices. “I can’t imagine not having someone with practical real-world experience.”

They may not have had the same "real world" experiences as Ms. Miers; but, certainly they live in the real world, and have "real world" experiences like everyone else. This seems a pretty weak argument justifying Ms. Miers lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Following along the hearing theme, the Boston Globe has an article by Charles Fried, who teaches constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He also served as solicitor general in the second Reagan administration and as a justice on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Professor Fried points out that Ms. Miers doesn't need to be an elite law school graduate, or even need to have been a judge on a lower court; however:

What is indispensable is that she be able to think lucidly and deeply about legal questions and express her thoughts in clear, pointed, understandable prose. A justice without those capabilities -- however generally intelligent, decent, and hardworking -- risks being a calamity for the court, the law, and the country.

The Supreme Court hears arguments in some 80 cases a year that present the widest range of issues of importance to the law. To give some recent examples: What innovations are patentable and what should be the role of juries in deciding whether a patent is valid or has been infringed? Are police officers entitled to ask the passenger of a car to step outside when they have made a lawful traffic stop? Does the First Amendment protect a government worker if his boss thinks his complaints are a nuisance to the work of the office? Does the exception for child-related materials in the First Amendment's protection of sexually explicit speech extend to computer generated images that look like they depict children? What are the proper procedures to be followed when the tax court considers recommendations from its administrative law judges?

All these questions have two sides (at least) and present real puzzles, or else they would have been settled at some lower level. None of them will yield simply to good instincts and a pure heart. Nor will something called a judicial philosophy -- whatever that is -- guide a judge through this maze of nicely balanced intricacies.

Once a conclusion has been reached it must be announced in an opinion setting out the circumstances, the competing considerations, and the reasons for that conclusion. Otherwise the parties will feel cheated and lower court judges, lawyers, and affected interests will have no guidance in dealing with the problem in the future. In this sense Chief Justice John Roberts -- who bids fair to becoming one of our great chief justices -- was wrong in saying that his job is just to call balls and strikes. It is that, but it is just as much to explain why he has made the calls he has. The courts are the only organs of government whose job it is not only to decide contentious issues but to explain those decisions. Its most important product is those explanations, on which the enduring effect of its decisions depends.

His concern, a valid one, is whether Ms. Miers has the intellectual firepower to understand the intricate issues she will confront, and whether she will be able to produce the requisite written opinions justifying the legal rationale she will bring to the bench:

A justice without the strength of mind to pick her way through these intricacies and the skill to explain her decisions in understandable and compelling prose suited to those intricacies will flounder in a number of ways that would be disastrous for the law. Such a justice might rely on instincts undisciplined by clear analysis and therefore over time spin a web of confusion which increasingly will entangle that justice, the justice's colleagues and a perplexed public. Or that justice might fall under the sway of one or more of his or her colleagues and so disappoint the expectation that a fresh and independent mind has been added to the court.

Worse still, if the justice cannot write then someone is going to have to do that writing for the justice, and that will inevitably be the justice's law clerks. Those law clerks almost to a person are wizards at untangling legal puzzles and masters at setting out the answers in precise if usually turgid and uncompelling prose. But they are also young graduates without wisdom, experience, or a constitutional mandate to help run the country.

Unfortunately over its history the Supreme Court has had its share of intellectually inadequate, wavering, incoherent, absurdly stubborn, or clerk-driven justices. It is not the Senate's job to test for some abstract and ineffable ''philosophy," and certainly not to apply litmus tests on particular issues: the questions a justice will have to resolve over 10 or 20 years cannot be anticipated nor categorized by such empty slogans as ''having a heart as well as a head, ''legislating from the bench," ''nourishing a living constitution," or ''strict construction."

We may grant that Miers is intelligent, decent, and hard-working. The hearings must convince us that she has the ability to understand both sides of a question, to reach sensible conclusions connected to established law, and to explain those conclusions in words that we can understand, whether or not we agree with them.

I've stated before these hearings are likely to be the most interesting nomination hearings since Clarence Thomas. Monday's Washington Post notes that the Senate Judiciary Committee may subpoena Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson, to find out what he and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove discussed shortly before Mr. Bush announced the Mires nomination. Aside from the content of such a potential discussion. What exactly is Karl Rove doing discussing the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice with an evangelical partisan before it is even announced to the American public?

Libby's Spotlight Dimming

2005-10-22T20:20:00.000-07:00

Sunday's Washington Post has a fascinating, fact filled story on Dick Cheney's chief of staff, the man who launched 80 days in jail for the New York Times' Judith Miller. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby according to the Post once joked he would be Cheney's chief of staff till he was indicted. Well, Scooter, like so many self fulfilling prophecies of the Bush administration, this one may be a little too close to home.

I'm not sure what it says about Scooter, than he won't say what the I stands for in his name--but it makes me wonder just how secure he is:

Several aspects of Libby are subject to varied interpretations, or at the very least, casual mystery. Libby is loath to disclose -- even to close friends -- what the "I" stands for in his name. Matalin credits USA Today with "breaking" the story that Libby's first name is "Irv" (though other publications had reported "Irving" and public databases list him as "Irve").
Cheney's office would not confirm or deny what the "I" stands for.

Is there really an official talking point of no comment from the Vice President's office when asked about Scooter's first initial? Then there is the etiology of "Scooter" which is apparently equally mysterious:

Likewise, there are differing accounts of where "Scooter" comes from. He told the New York Times in 2002 that his father, an investment banker now deceased, coined it upon seeing him crawl across his crib. The same year, in an interview with King, Libby spoke of a childhood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil "Scooter" Rizzuto ("I had the range but not the arm," Libby said).

I'm not sure. What significance does this name and initial thing have? Does Scooter's secrecy begin with his name, and extend all they way to being Judith Miller's secret source?

More interesting is the web of links with all the high ranking neo cons of the Bush administration:

"He's always been excruciatingly careful, which is ironic in his situation," says World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz, a former deputy secretary of defense and a longtime mentor of Libby's . . .

Among vice-presidential aides throughout history, Libby is distinctive for the power and authority he wields, a product largely of Cheney's outsize role in the Bush administration. Libby holds three titles: chief of staff and national security adviser to Cheney, and assistant to Bush. Like few other advisers, he attends the highest level of White House meetings. He attends the weekly gathering of Bush's top economic advisers and -- according to Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack," about the Bush administration's run-up to the Iraq war -- was one of two non-principals who attended National Security Council meetings with the president after Sept. 11, 2001 (the other was Condoleezza Rice's then-deputy, Stephen Hadley) . . .

After graduating from Columbia Law School, Libby was practicing law in Philadelphia in 1981 when Wolfowitz, then an assistant secretary of state, recruited him as a speech writer . . .

Libby also worked for Wolfowitz during Wolfowitz's stint as policy undersecretary of defense during the first Bush administration. He had long been interested in unconventional warfare, particularly in the Middle East, and his portfolio included the biological and chemical capabilities of Saddam Hussein. Cheney, then secretary of defense, shared Libby's interest in weapons of mass destruction and was, according to a Pentagon official of that era, impressed by his diligence and analytical skill . . .

This comming week, with the expected conclusion of Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation, should be interesting for Scooter, I. and the rest of the gang.

I Oppose The Miers Nomination

2005-10-22T14:53:00.000-07:00

The conservative cacophony rises in opposition rather than support of Mr. Bush's nominee to the High Court. A different George, Mr. Will has another devastating column (Defending the indefensible) on Ms. Miers here. Right thinking thinkers (led by George Will) all over the country are in open rebellion against their non thinking "right" but apparently not conservative enough Mr. Bush. I'm not much of a "thinker", and many folks do not view me as conservative; however, I am now opposing the Miers' nomination, even though initially I felt she at least deserved a hearing. The evidence is overwhelming, yea . . .even clear and convincing that she is simply in over her head.

She can't keep her law license current. She can't fill out the Senate questionnaire sufficiently to placate even the Republican majority. She has questionable, and extremely limited constitutional understanding. Ms. Miers does not measure up to constitutional muster.

A list of some of the "thinkers" and bloggers in general coming out in opposition to Mr. Miers is being compiled here. Others, in no particular order include: George Will; Jonah Goldberg; Chalres Krauthammer. Other Bloggers are also coming out against Ms. Miers, some even having a Miers withdrawl watch.

Nixon Redux?

2005-10-21T23:26:00.000-07:00

I don't think anyone knows what is really going to happen with the Plame investigation; however, reports claim the special prosecutor now has a website. Of course they say not to read anything into that; however, if he is just going to go away, and let this thing die, would he really go to the trouble of creating a website, and then begin posting documents? When was the last time there was talk about indicting the closest aides to the President, and in this case the Vice President, on potential charges of coverup? Yep . . . long ago, but not so far away. It seems that those in power don't ever seem to learn this one simple lesson: The coverup is always, always, worse than the crime! Stay tuned, next week could be big on this one.

Launch of the Titans

2005-10-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

Cross posted over at Central Coast News Mission:

No . . .not the Nipomo Titans . . .the Lockheed Martin Titan. In fact its the final launch from Vandenberg Airforce Base of this particular type of Titan. Launch is supposed to be between 11:04 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Check out the story in today's Santa Maria Times. If the sky is clear, you should be able to see, and probably even hear and feel the launch right here in Nipomo. Luck permitting, I'll try and post a photo later.

Update: 11:14 a.m.

The Titan just took off about ten mintues ago. I was able to get a couple of shots . . . nothing very close up; however, it was the view from downtown Nipomo on Wednesday morning. I may be able to get a few better shots from a source I have who was at the launch. If so, I'll post them later as well. Outstanding!

What I've Been Doing II (Wood Badge)

2005-10-18T16:40:00.000-07:00

I've been out of town again, for the completion of Wood Badge, which I blogged about in September. We spent the last three days of our Wood Badge experience camping out up at Camp French, near Lopez Lake. It was a very intense, yet very rewarding experience as well. I don't have much time to blog at the moment, so I'll have to return soon with more details.

New Central Coast Blog

2005-10-18T16:31:00.000-07:00

Actually the Central Coast News Mission Blog is not that new (probably been around several months now); however, what is new, is that I have been asked to Blog over there on the South SLO County section, specifically Nipomo issues. So, if you want to check out some local happenings over in Nipomo, please come visit the Central Coast News Mission Blog, and check out the whole blog---but of course the South SLO County section.

What Gives Me Pause

2005-10-11T05:56:00.000-07:00

I've been pondering the last few days just what it is that gives me pause about Harriet Miers' nomination. Most of her political opposition at this point is from the far conservative right. I don't consider myself as part of that political group. I am not an evangelical. I don't support George Bush the man, or most of his policies. I am not part of the conservative, intellectual, thinking elite who have for the most part taken upon themselves to oppose Ms. Miers' nomination; yet, I find myself in almost complete agreement with what they are saying about her. So, why is this?

I sense much of the the conservative opposition to Ms. Miers revolves almost exclusively around the abortion issue. There may be some sub issues involved as well, such as prayer in schools, gay marriage, and the so-called cultural war issues; however, for the most part it seems this conservative movement is mostly troubled by the fact Ms. Miers is an unknown quantity. They don't know how she will approach and decide these issues. It also seems that they justify their opposition on the basis that Ms. Miers is unqualified for the seat.

I, on the other hand, don't find the cultural issues so troubling--some I do, but not all. I am personally opposed to abortion, and would not likely enourage anyone I know to undergo such a procedure, except if the life of the mother were in danger, or in cases of incest or rape; however, I believe the choice should be available in those particular cases. Yet, I am most troubled not by how she might vote one way or the other in the cultural issues, as I am about whether she is truly up to the task of Supreme Court judging.

It is simply beyond belief that there aren't more experienced jurists or legal minds, not necessarily jurists, who are more familiar with the constitutional issues that confront the Supreme Court each term. I would be much more comfortable with the appointment of such an individual, regardless of how I thought they might vote on the cultural issues.

I listened to Robert Bork yesterday talk about Ms. Miers. Again, I found myself agreeing with him and his critique on Ms. Miers. And, while I agree with Judge Bork, I was extremely grateful that he was unsuccessful as a prior Supreme Court nominee; however, to be consistent, if he, or another justice with similar views and experience were nominated, I think I would have to support the nomination out of principle. I firmly believe that a President is entitled to nominate most any person for a position, as long as that person is actually qualified for the job. Unfortunately, here, Mr. Bush has missed the qualification mark by so much with the Miers' nomination it is really not a difficult choice.

That said, I would like to hear Ms. Miers' testimony at the hearings to better determine her qualifications or lack thereof; however, at this stage, I'm certainly in agreement with all those conservative commentators, writers, and thinkers who have serious doubts about her. I just think I'm on a different page though. As far as I'm concerned it is just as wrong to pack the Supreme Court with a justice whom you know will vote a certain way on the cultural issues, as it is to appoint a justice who is not up to the job.

More on Miers

2005-10-10T05:58:00.000-07:00

In Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich pens an outstanding article on Harriet Myers, which I will re-post in its entirety below. Hat tip to The Huffington Post, and also to Truth Out which also reprinted Rich in his entirety:

The Faith-Based President Defrocked
By Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 09 October 2005

To understand why the right is rebelling against Harriet Miers, don't waste time boning up on her glory days with the Texas Lottery Commission. The real story in this dust-up is not the Supreme Court candidate, but the man who picked her. The Miers nomination, whatever its fate, will be remembered as the flashpoint when the faith-based Bush base finally started to lose faith in our propaganda president and join the apostate American majority.

Though James Dobson, America's foremost analyst of the gay subtext of SpongeBob SquarePants, was easily rolled by Karl Rove and dragged back into the Miers camp, he's an exception. The pervasive mood on the right was articulated by Cathie Adams, president of the Texas branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum. She told The Washington Post: "President Bush is asking us to have faith in things unseen. We only have that kind of faith in God."

This is a sea change. If anything, Ms. Miers's record of opposition to abortion (a contribution to Texans United for Life, a leadership role at a strenuously anti-abortion church) is less "unseen" than that of John Roberts, whose nomination aroused no protest on the right only three months ago. The difference between then and now is a startling index of the toll taken by a botched war and hurricane response on whatever remains of Mr. Bush's credibility. The continuing inability of the administration to accomplish the mission in Iraq and of its post-Brownie FEMA to do a heck of a job on the Gulf Coast has inflicted collateral damage on its case for Harriet Miers.

"The president's 'argument' for her amounts to: Trust me," George Will wrote in the op-ed column that last week galvanized conservative opposition to the nomination. He then went on to list several reasons why he doesn't trust Mr. Bush. As if to prove the point, the president went out to the Rose Garden and let loose with one whopper after another in his first press conference in four months.

"Of all the people in the United States you had to choose from, is Harriet Miers the most qualified to serve on the Supreme Court?" Mr. Bush was asked. "Yes," he answered. Has he ever discussed abortion with her? "Not to my recollection." How much political capital does he have left? "Plenty." With a straight face he promised that Ms. Miers was "not going to change" and that "20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today." Even were that a praiseworthy attribute, it would still contradict the history of a woman who abandoned her Roman Catholic faith for evangelical Christianity and the Democratic Party for the Republicans.

But Mr. Bush's dissembling wasn't limited to his Supreme Court nominee. Asked how he was going to pay for Katrina recovery, the president twice said he'd proposed $187 billion in budget cuts over 10 years - but failed to factor in his tax proposals and other budget increases. The real net total for proposed Bush cuts is $103 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and even less according to some independent number crunchers. Turning to Iraq, Mr. Bush once again fudged our "progress" there with a numerical bait-and-switch, bragging about "30 Iraqi battalions in the lead." (Translation: in the lead with American military support.) Less than a week earlier his own commanders had told Congress that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting unaided had dropped from 3 to 1 since June. (Translation: 750 soldiers are now ready to stand up on their own should America's 140,000 troops stand down.) For good measure, Mr. Bush then flouted credibility one more time to set the stage for the next administration fiasco. In the event of a bird flu epidemic, he said, one option for effecting a quarantine would be to use the military. What military? Last week The Army Times reported that the Pentagon, its resources already overstretched by Iraq, would try to bolster sagging recruitment by tapping "a demographic long deemed off limits: high school dropouts who don't have a General Educational Development credential."

Like most Bush fictions, the latest are driven less by ideology than by a desire to hide incompetence. But there's a self-destructive impulse at work as well. "The best way to get the news is from objective sources," the president told Brit Hume of Fox News two years ago. "And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." Thus does the White House compound the sin of substituting propaganda for effective action by falling for the same spin it showers on the public.

Beware of leaders who drink their own Kool-Aid. The most distressing aspect of Mr. Bush's press conference last week was less his lies and half-truths than the abundant evidence that he is as out of touch as Custer was on the way to Little Bighorn. The president seemed genuinely shocked that anyone could doubt his claim that his friend is the best-qualified candidate for the highest court. Mr. Bush also seemed unaware that it was Republicans who were leading the attack on Ms. Miers. "The decision as to whether or not there will be a fight is up to the Democrats," he said, confusing his antagonists this time much as he has Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Such naked presidential isolation from reality was a replay of his response to Hurricane Katrina. When your main "objective sources" for news are members of your own staff, you can actually believe that the most pressing tragedy of the storm is the rebuilding of Trent Lott's second home. You can even believe that Brownie will fix it. The truth only began to penetrate four days after the storm's arrival - and only then, according to Newsweek, because an adviser, Dan Bartlett, asked the president to turn away from his usual "objective sources" and instead watch a DVD compilation of actual evening news reports.

Mr. Bartlett's one desperate effort to prick his boss's bubble notwithstanding, the White House as a whole is so addicted to its own mythmaking prowess that it can't kick the habit. Seventy-two hours before Ms. Miers was nominated, federal auditors from the Government Accountability Office declared that the administration had violated the law against "covert propaganda" when it repeatedly hired fake reporters (and one supposedly real pundit, Armstrong Williams) to plug its policies in faux news reports and editorial commentary produced at taxpayers' expense. But a bigger scandal is the legal propaganda that the White House produces daily even now - or especially now.

As always, much of it pertains to the war in Iraq. On Sept. 28, to take one recent instance, the president announced the smiting of a man he identified as "the second most wanted Al Qaeda leader in Iraq" and the "top operational commander of Al Qaeda in Baghdad." As New York's Daily News would quickly report, the man in question "may not even be one of the top 10 or 15 leaders." The blogger Blogenlust chimed in, documenting 33 "top lieutenants" of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who have been captured, killed or identified in the past two and a half years, with no deterrent effect on terrorist violence in Iraq, Madrid or London. No wonder the nation shrugged at the largely recycled and unsubstantiated list of 10 foiled Qaeda plots that Mr. Bush unveiled in Thursday's latest stay-the-course Iraq oration.

The administration's strategy for covering up embarrassing realities with fiction reached its purest expression two weeks ago when both Laura Bush and Karen Hughes were recruited to star in propagandistic television "reality" shows. In the first lady's case, this was literally so: she was dispatched to Biloxi to appear in an episode of ABC's "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." The thinking seems to be that if Mrs. Bush helps one family on a hit reality series, perhaps no one will notice the reality that no-bid contracts and ineptitude have kept hundreds of thousands of other hurricane victims homeless indefinitely while taxpayers foot the bill for unused trailers and cruise ships.

Ms. Hughes took her act on the road in the Middle East. There she conducted a culturally tone-deaf "listening tour" in which she read her lines from briefing papers and tried to win hearts and minds by posing with little Arab kids as if they were interchangeable with the little black kids in Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservative" photo ops back home. She didn't seem to know that this stunt wouldn't even fly on Fox News anymore, let alone Al Jazeera.

This Saturday is supposed to bring new victories on both these troubled fronts: Oct. 15 is the day that Iraqis vote on their constitution and the day that the president set as a deadline for all hurricane victims to be moved out of shelters. Chances are that the number of Americans who still have faith that the light is at the end of either of these tunnels is identical to the number who believe Harriet Miers is the second coming of Antonin Scalia and that Tom Cruise has found true love.

I have not looked as forward to a set of Senate confirmation hearings since Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill graced our television sets for three days back in the early nineties. While Ms. Miers' hearings won't be as juicy . . . they should be as interesting in their own "right."

The Founding Fathers and Harriet Miers

2005-10-09T20:09:00.000-07:00

I can't know for certain; however, I'd venture to say George W. Bush has never read Federalist Number 76. If you want to be one up on Mr. Bush, you can review it here. In this paper, Alexander Hamilton, in his own right a brilliant constitutional lawyer, discusses the Presidential power of appointment. Specifically, in part of this paper, Hamilton discusses the Senate's role in giving its advice and consent to any particular Presidental nomination in relevant part:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

So, the question now arises, will the Senate also arise to the occasion and fulfill its obligation under the Constitution? The United States Constitution sets for the standard for Executive appointments of Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution, Article II, Section II, Clause II provides:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The Senate's Constitutional duty is to advise and consent to Ms. Mier's appointment, contingent upon Hamilton's checks and balance formula outlined in Federalist 76. I'll reserve my final judgment until after Ms. Miers' confirmation hearings, assuming she lasts that long; however, based on what facts we know at this juncture, Ms. Miers' nomination is classic for rejection based on her well documented personal relationship with Mr. Bush, and the paucity of her constitutional qualifications.

Self Pity

2005-10-09T08:59:00.000-07:00

I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
Without ever having felt sorry for itself.

-- D.H. Lawrence

I came across this short poem by D.H. Lawrence for the first time while watching the movie G.I. Jane. Its powerful message punctuated this movie with an overarching theme, and a powerful message. Whether you liked the film or not (I did), Lawrence's words, in my view gave it more impact and meaning.

Bush's Second Supreme Court Nomination

2005-10-05T14:13:00.000-07:00

In today's Washington Post, George F. Will says it all about George Bush, and his second court nomination. I repost it in its entiriety; however, you can read the original here until moved by the Post:

Can This Nomination Be Justified?

By George F. Will
Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

Hard words from a true conservative.

General Conference Sunday Morning Session

2005-10-02T11:25:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not going to try and repeat a live blog of this morning's session, which has now begun--though my retention level of Saturday afternoon's session was higher than normal. I may post a few thoughts as the sesssion goes on, but not like yesterday. Based just on the choir selections this morning, (Joseph's First Prayer, and A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief--two excellent selections) it appears this morning's session may have some Joseph Smith talks. I would very much enjoy that, as we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 175th anniversary of the Church he restored.

President Monson 9:18 a.m. Yes. President Monson, First Counselor in the First Presidency begins the conference with a talk on the Prophet Joseph (Millions shall know Brother Joseph again). Since I've been asked to speak on this subject in December in our own ward, these talks will be a great resource for me. He begins with the story of Joseph's leg operation, and his courage that he exemplified.

President Monson appears to be giving a good history of the Prophet's life, including the First Vision, and now into the translation of the Book of Mormon. "I am going like a Lamb to the slaughter . . ." as Joseph went off with his brother to meet his fate at Carthage Jail.

Though the Prophet was murdered by mobs seeking to destroy his work, that work continues to this very day. And, millions proclaim him a Prophet of God, as indeed millions know him again.

Section 135 of the Doctine of Covenents quoted about Joseph doing more than Christ only to save mankind. Fine closing for this talk.

9:35 a.m. Elder Boyd K. Packer, moves away from the specific theme of Joseph's life, but still remains on theme by discussing the Scriptures, including those we have as a direct result of Joseph's works. Today opposition is not so much directed to the Church as a body, but to us as individuals. The scriptures teach us that if we are prepared we shall not fear. This is also clearly set forth in the Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared! Any correlation here between scouting and our young men's program---absolutely!

Good discussion of the compiliation of the LDS publication of the Scriptures, including the current indexes, dictionaries, and cross references. Good point about the use of modern technology and computers involved in the compliation of these modern scriptures. The most comprehensive scriptural compilation of the name Jesus Christ can be found in the Topical Guide of the LDS publication of the Scriptures. We are encouraged to read and study it.

The scriptural cannon is not closed, as the revelation of the Blacks and the Priesthood was also added to this publication. We beleive all that God does reveal, and all that He has revealed, and that He will yet reveal. Continuting revelation a critical topic, and foundational principle of Christ's Church. While the Church is housed in chapels, it lives in the hearts of Latter-day Saints. Nice quote by Elder Packer.

9:50 a.m. Merrill J. Bateman Quorum of the Seventy Discusses the parable of the wicked husbandman. Still there is a discernable Joseph Smith theme to the conference. Here, Elder Batement discusses the apostacy after Christ's death, and then the Restoration, by the Prophet Joseph. The Savior in the last dispensation will gather together all things. The restitution of all things began in the Sacred Grove. Again, specific reference to Joseph's mission.

He's now discussing how at each dispensation there is a Book involved. Of course in this last dispensation that is the Book of Mormon, which discusses Christ's Atonement more clearly than any book in history. This is clearly the case, as we read about Christ and his Atonement throughout the Book of Mormon. And, we read about the Atonement more clearly in the Book of Mormon than anywhere else. Good points all by Elder Bateman. Good discussion about Christ's Atonement and the Restoration by Elder Bateman

10:00 a.m. Choir and Congregation sing Sweet is the Work. Well, it's half time folks....the equivalent of the Seventh inning stretch at the Dodger game. Wow, that was a quick stretch--not a very long hymn.

10:02 a.m. Cheryl C. Lant General Primary President. She starts off speaking about reading the Book of Mormon again per President Hinckley's challenge. I'm remiss here, and confess I haven't yet taken up that challenge. Since so many are discussing this at conference, then I realize I need to get up to speed. There's still time to read and complete the Book of Mormon by the end of the year; however, combining that with the Prophet Joseph's new biography, that will be a tall order---well at least a great deal of reading, no doubt! Good empahsis on reading scriptures with the family.

10:11 a.m. Richard Scott, Quorum of the Twelve Deteriorating world conditions prompt people to seek out God's guidance and assistance. Elder Scott returns to the plan of salvation discussion and how we came to earth as part of a plan to test us. Part of the plan was to remove our recollection of our prior existence before this life. He also points out the opportunities lost by those rejected Christ's pre-mortal plan of salvation. They were cast out with Satan and deprived of a great learning experience and the opportunity for mortality.

How can we confirm these truths? How does God guide his children on earth? Prophets taught truths in their respective dispensations. Christ came and established his Church with apostles and prophets. He was crucified, over came physical death and was Resurrected. Yet, even Christ was rejected by the vast majority. Hence, the great spiritual darkness of the apostacy occurred.

Now back to the Joseph Smith theme, Elder Scott points out that God the Father, in His only appearance ever to mortals was to the Prophet Joseph, along with His Son Jesus Christ. This appearance dispursed the long spiritual darkness of apostacy, and commenced the Restoration. This initiated the dispensation of the fullness of times.

The Book of Mormon confirms the Restoration. Much of the Prophet Joseph's ministry focused on Christ and His Atonement and mission. Elder Scott has a distinct delivery--one has to learn to appreciate his delivery. I recall him from my mission days in South America when he came and spoke to us, year and years ago. Again the Book of Mormon challenge discussed. There's still time to take up this challenge and complete the reading. So, I'm again reminded of this important task.

10:26 a.m. Choir again sings The Seer

10:30 a.m. President Gordon B. Hinckley is the concluding speaker for this session. He is grateful for his extended life and the ability to serve. He travels a great deal, though observes he doesn't really like to travel. I don't travel much personally; however, I expect travelling as much as President Hinckley does probably gets old pretty quickly. So many hotel beds would not be something to look forward to I suppose.

He points out the prodigal son story, and encourages us to re-read that story, and he does in his talk. Sermon on the Mount also revisted, turn the other cheek, and give up your coat as well as cloak. Go not only one mile, but twain. Love our enemies and bless those who curse you. Strong words as the Prophet points out. And he asks, do we think we can really follow this injunction? Yet, he points out they are Christ's words, and we must decide whether we can, or will.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Woman where are thine accusers? A great review of some of the greatest verses of scripture--yet most difficult of concepts for those of us in mortality.

The use of frozen in fowel in the commision of a crime....great line by the prophet, and it got laughs as well . . . .but a great story as well about the individual who was a vicitm of crime, who actually forgave her assailant. These are hard words, and even harder concepts he is teaching. Forgivness, love and tolerance all tied into Christ's Atonement, His suffering, His promise of Salvation, Resurrection, and possible Exaltation.

We can all be a little more tolerant, walk an additional mile, lay aside old grudges, and move on.

Another very good conference session.

10:50 a.m. Choir concludes with two more Joseph Smith hymns, one my favorite, Praise to the Man.

Praise to the Man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer,
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere

Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assasins,
Plead unto heav'n while the earth lauds his fame

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know Brother Joseph again!

Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven.
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again!

Live Blogging Second Session of Conference

2005-10-01T14:55:00.000-07:00

I've never live blogged anything; but, I'm going to try at least part of this session. I don't know if I'll be able to do the entire session. We'll see how far I get, and how accurate! Please be kind.

Young men's women’s choir from Bountiful, Woods Cross and Salt Lake Utah provided the music

Elder Faust conducts this session of conference

1:01 p.m. Elder Faust welcomes all to conference

The choir sings Awake and Arise:

Choir sounds great, and looks even better. The women are multi colored in their dress--very impressive.

1:07 p.m. Elder Faust extends greetings to all present, on the net, and watching at various buildings around the world

1:07 p.m. Elder John H Groberg offers the opening prayer

1:08: Choir Sings again:

They (the young women) look like the fall mountain sides of Utah, and other locations that actually have seasons. Very well done! Why are the young men confined to dark suits, ties, and white shirts? I really like the color of the young women side of the choir.

1:12 p.m. President Monson presents the General Authorities of the Church for a sustaining vote.

First Presidency Sustained

1:13 p.m. Quorum of 12 sustained--camera pans across each Apostle as names read.

1:14 p.m. First Presidency and Quorum of 12 sustained as Prophets, Seers, Revelators

1:14 p.m. Some of Quorum of Seventy released, thanked, and placed as emeritus status members of that Quorum

1:15 p.m. New members of 2d Quorum of Seventy sustained; Area Seventies sustained.

1:16 p.m. Other General Authorities sustained as presently constituted. All sustained unanamiously.

1:17 p.m. Dallin H. Oaks addresses conferece:

Priesthood Authority in the Family and Church

Father died when he was seven. Raised by widowed mother. Ordained a deacon, and she was very pleased to again have priesthood in the home. He was puzzeled because his mother still presided in home, called on others for prayer.

Neighbor was abusive to his family. Wife walked behind husband to church. Sister Oaks angry.

Elder Oaks decries priesthood abuse and authority today in relationship between husbands and wives.

Some single women who have been abused, think this is male abuse, and suspicious any priesthood authority. This is in error. Don't forgo electricty because one appliance is bad.

Scriptures describe priesthood authority, but don't explain what principles apply just to family or to Church or both.

Programs in family and Church. Service to one is service to the other. When families are strong the Church is strong. The two run in parallel. Church should not intervere with family time, and Family time should not interfer with Sacrament Meeting.

If all families more perfect, the Church could sponsor fewer activities. So there is a special need for special Church activities. Elder Oaks mother saw the benefits of Church programs, for her fatherless son, i.e., Scouting.

Priesthood is power of God used to bless all His children, both male and female. Men are NOT the priesthood. Priesthood meeting is a meeting of men who hold the priesthood. Priesthood blessings available to men and women alike.

Priesthood authority just happens to be exercised by men, by devine decreee.

Sis. Oaks continued to preside over her own family after husband's death, while Priesthood holders presided over the church.

All Priesthood authority in Church is exercised under the appropriate authority holding the keys.

Family priesthood exercised without need to obtain authority to exercise the keys. Family councils, family blessings, home evenings, etc.

Priesthood authority to baptize, however, is exercised only with permission from those in authority. This falls to the Church exercise of Priesthood authority.

Church callings always temporary. Family relationships always current.

Head of family lacks family to adjust family relationships. Church relationships can change. Relief Society President can be released. But the Bishop can't release husband and wife. Family relationships more enduring than Church relationships.

Government of Church by Heirarchy; family by Patrichary. Husbands and wives though are equal partners. Marriage is a full partnership, per President Kimball. Wives are not silent partners, per President Kimball. President Kimball decried priesthood abuse of authority, i.e., I hold the Priesthood and you must obey. This is wrong.

Christ treated women consiterately. Men must exercise priesthood authority per D & C 121:41-42. Love unfeigned, with love and kindness.

Family proclamation quoted.

Gentleness and persuasion very important, as described in section 121. Single women's experieince with Priesthood authority only within government of Church. She doesn't experience priesthood authority of husband.

Church theology centers on the family. We are spirit children of heavenly parents. Church is family centered church. We are distressed with world's misunderstanding of marriage and childbearing. Family nature is eternal. Elder Oaks mother continued to honor her deceased husband.

Looking toward future and reuniting of families. Testifies of Christ

Jeffery Holland 1:35 p.m.

Recently aware he had a teen aged grandchild. Raising them is harrowing but important. We are very proud of our teens. They face great temptations, yet they strive to do right. He praises our youth, and expresses his pride.

Young women are focus of Elder Holland's remarks. Be proud you are a woman. Feel the reality of what that means. You are spirit daughter of Heavenly parents. This knowlege should be fundamental in every decision you make. God knows your name, your circumstance, your hopes, dreams, frustrations, and knows what you can become. You have full equality in God's sight. You have right to become joint heirs with God and Christ.

Christ taught all he taught both to men and women. Young women are sanctified investiture, per Elder Talmadge. The world needs you.

If you live beneath your potential, we express even greater love for you. Prophets and apostles, and parents only want what is best in your life. Don't be a slave to the world's lower fashion standards. The Churdh will always declare standards. One such standard is modesty, which is always in fashion. Our standards are not socially negotiable.

Strength of Youth pamphlet quoted on proper choice of clothing. Parents, please review with your youth.

Sunday dress--should be best dress. LDS chapel is House of Lord. Clothes need not be expensive. But, it should not appear we are on the way to the beach. When we arrive to partake of the sacrament, we should be as dignified as we can be. We should be true diciples of Christ. We should be meek, and lowly of heart.

Please be more accepting of yourselves, including body shape and style. Don't think you need to look like someone else. You can't live your live that the world is staring at you--they are not. Don't give away your power. Always listen to your innner self. The real inner you is more precious than Rubies.

Adult women, you are the greatest examples and resource for our young women. If you obscess over a size two, so will the youth. Eat right, exercise, but remember optimum health. There is no optimum size. The world has been brutal in this regard. Looks are not everything as the world teaches. They teach if you look good enough you will be popular and happy. Too often too much is done to the body to meet these illusory standards of the world. We mutilate our bodies to try to climb this slippery slope.

We are fixated on the self. This is destructive. We shouldn't remodel everthing that can be remodeled, by nipping, tucking, and implanting wherever possible. Great and spacious make up kit (laughter from audience) would be required to keep up with the world of glamour and fashion . . .but it would never be enough.

Much said in entertainment media about reality shows. I don't know what that is; however, this is reality: The Father and Son did appear to Prophet Joseph Smith, called by God from your very age group. These Divine Beings actually spoke to the Prophet Josephy. This was real! This was just a real as the Doubting Thomas' experience.

God is our Father. Jesus Christ is His begotten in the flesh. This is God's Kingdom on the earth. President Hinckely a true Prophet leads Christ's Church today.

1:51 p.m. Choir and congregation sing High on a Mountain Top

1:53 p.m. Benjamin De Hoyos Quorum of the Seventy

Happiness is purpose of the Gospel. Book of Helaman quoted Chapter 3:27-30.

Making correct decision leads us to happiness, even in difficult circumstances. Father Lehi warned ancient Israel, and they sought to take his life.

Story of Bro. Valdez, about whether he should continue to work for cigarette factory, in anticipation of baptism. He quit, and was offered a new job the same day. He made a correct decision leading to happiness.

Happiness is a condition of the soul. Happiness is the object an ddesing of our existence, per Joseph Smith. After struggling to get to promised land, Nephi summarized that they lived after the manner of happiness. Mosiah 2:41 quoted. Those who keep commandments will be happy. We need to live in such a way to be happy, i.e., keep the commandments.

Come unto me, per Christ's admonition to us all. He testifies of Christ and his Divinity, restoration of the Church, and the comming forth of the Book of Mormon, and also of President Hinckely today.

2:00 p.m. Elder C. Scott Grow Quorum of Seventy. He served a mission in Mexico. Most elders were from the U.S. One of his towns made mostly of adobe, with dirt floors, and very little possessions. One family even had no shoes. Yet they sold everything they had to travel to the Mesa Temple to be sealed.

Mexico now has over 100 stakes and 1 million members. Lehi prophesied of this long ago in the Book of Mormon. Mexico and other Latin American countries have decedents of lands long ago, to whom Christ appeared. Christ is light of the world.

Arise and shine forth that thy light may shine forth. Christ is that light. We also offer additional light from Book of Mormon another Testament of Jesus Christ.

President Hinckely has challenged us to re-read Book of Mormon this year in honor of the Prophet Joseph who was told his name would be known the world over for good or for evil, which prophecy has come to pass.

Story of a young man named Jesus in Mexico. He grew up wanting to join the Church, but was told he had to wait for the missionaries to contact him. When he took the lessons he was captivated by the story of Christ coming to the Americas. Some years later he had further contact with the missionaires. He read the Book of Mormon and was converted. Yet, he lost 12 years in waiting for the Gospel to come into his life. Today Jesus Santos is president of Monterey, Mexico Temple.

The Book of Mormon is its own witness to all. It bears witness that God is again gathering Israel. Who do we know who might respond to an invitation to read the Book of Mormon. Don't wait--ask. The Book of Mormon is means by which all nations will be gathered into the Church. Christ is the Savior. This is His Church and Kingdom.

2:10 p.m. Elder Paul K. Sybrowski Quorum of the Seventy

Book of Mormon quiz with family. Enos went into forrest to hunt, but without success in terms of food, but spiritually was found. We should seek after the one who is lost. Parable of the 99 related.

Since Adam's fall, we are all in a lost and fallen state. His grandparents were baptized per missionary discussions. But within one generation activity was lost. He was invited to primary, and then eventually Priesthood meeting.

Lloyd Bennet was his scoutmaster. He took time for the one. Take time to find one more. Look to the one in the corner who you may not have considered. Like Enos while in Fort Ord he came away found as a result of prayer. He was to serve a full time mission.

Christ came into the world to redeem his people and take upon him their sins. Isaiah saw our day. Behold I will set up my standard to the people through the Gentiles. We have been carried on arms and shoulders to safety.

If Christ had my opportunities what would he do? (This is a very powerful question personally) Remember the one, and try to bring him/her to Christ.

He recalls his mission which was important to him. Young men you can and should prepare to serve a mission. Sisters also can help build the Kingdom, as can seniors. We need you all to help bring all to the knowledge of the Truth. We must act and do. We must labor diligently. We must follow our impressions. Would we ask someone to listen to a prophet? What about tommorrow at conference?

Is grateful to again serve. Testifies of the Gospel's restoration. The Book of Mormon is the word of God. God lives, and Jesus is the Christ our reedmeer. Like Enos, I must declare the word of Christ.

2:18 p.m. Elder Faust resumes stand to remind us brethern of Priesthood at 6:00 p.m. Utah time. Also he reminds us Sunday's conference. He thanks the young men and women's choir.

ElderHenry Eyring Quorum of the Twelve 2:19 p.m.--The importance and relevance of the Family Proclamation. (Read this it's important!)

We have seen the tradegy of the recent storms. We ask how can we prepare? There is an imporant preparation we can make more important than temporal provisions. We need spiritual preparation. We need to have developed Faith in Christ so that we can pass the test of life. This is the purpose of God in the Creation. We will prove them (meaning us) to see whether we will hearken to and obey God's commands during the storms of life. The real test is whether we will choose the right.

Power of evil would have us surrender to temptations around us. The test of life is very hard. Nevertheless we are free to choose for ourselves eternal life, or the alternative. It takes unshakable faith in Christ to pass life's test. Only through this faith can we resist temptation and have Christ's atonement apply to us.

We will need to have prepared long before life's storms in order to pass the test. We need to decide now whether to obey. We should start early and be steady.

Four settings to spiritually prepare:

1. Feast on word of God

Read Book of Mormon before end of the year. If we procrastinated (like I have) the number of pages increased. It's important to start as soon as the command comes to obey. (One of my major problems). We need to act quickly on commands of Holy Ghost. Go to the scriptures early and consistently. We will be better prepared for the upcoming spiritual storms. We can then drink often and deeply from the Book of Mormon

2. Pray always.

We do this so that we will not over come. We can also build our faith by praying daily. God always answers our petitions and prayers. We will gain the faith to go back again and again to pray and receive further light and knowledge. Christ's example in the Garden is instructive. He prayed not only to accept the Father's will, but to do the Father's way.

3. Be a full Tithe Payer

We should not wait until the annual tithing settlmement. It takes faith to pay promptly, and without procrastination. If we are faithful, blessings will flow through the year, as well as now.

4. Resist Temptation.

The best time to resist is now. Choose quickly to repent if and when we do fail. Seek forgiveness now rather than later. Repent as we go along, and exercise faith. Resisting temptation will also build faith. If we are prepared we shall not fear. We must decide to obey and then do it. We can decide now to do quickly what God asks of us. This will carry us though the great tests to come..

Testifies of Christ, and his Atonement, and Ressurection. Testifies of Book of Mormon and its truthfullness. Testifies of Restoration. God can give us the power to do what he asks of us. Let us obey the Lord quickly, always, in quite times and in storms.

2:35 p.m. Elder Russel M Ballard Quorum of the Twelve

Several brethern and he had visited hurrican victims in Gulf Coast. Most touching was the crying out for family. What we care about most are our families. This will be even more important when we leave this life for the next. Everyone is a member of God's family.

This year is 10 year anniversary of Proclamation of the Family. It is a stern warning in the world of misplaced priorites of undermining the basic unit of the family. It was ahead of its time, and calls for priority and emphasis on families. Traditional marriage is important. The proclamation stands in contrast to the world's confusion about families.

Marriage between man and woman is ordained of man of God. Gender is an essential characterist of the eternities. Children are entitled to mothers and fathers who honor their marital vows. The family is the fundamental unit of society.

All are to hold fast to this great proclamation. It should be like the Title of Liberty. The Proclamation applies to everyone. Yet, modern culture ignores family.

Definition of family is expanded beyond any recognition. Rampant materialism and selfishness teach families and children are a milstone. These are both false.

Families across the world, across cultures and faiths feel the importance of the family. The world needs to know what the Proclamation teaches. Families will also be the basic unit of the next life. This truth is rooted in Restored doctrine.

Before this life we lived as a family in the heavens. We know families can also extend beyone death. Families who have family as a priority will gravitate toward the Church. Nothing more important than how we love and support one another within the family.

The Church is the Kingdom of God on Earth. In Heaven it will be the family as the basic unit. We are released from Church callings. We will never be released from families.

There is no happiness without service. No greater service than home and family per Joseph F. Smith.

1. Be consistent in holding daily prayer and family home evenings.

2. Teach gospel and basic values in the home.

Reach the scriptures together. Learn and teach basic values in the home. The family is where this should take place. Be wise and don't become too busy in outside activites.

3. Create meaningful family bonds.

This can be done through dinner times, traditions, family policy rules with clear expectations and consequences. Teach to avoid debt. Teach to be self reliant. Put families first.

We call on the media to be more family supportive. We call on government to put needs of family and children first. We call on internet providers to protect families and children from filth and sleeze. We call on Church members to love others in different faiths. We help ourselves when we help families. As we do, we fulfill the measure of our creation.

2:53 p.m. Choir sings the closing hymn.

Just as a personal observation I have never understood better, or received a greater depth of information from a conference session than this one, as I paid more close attention to what was said than any in recent memory. I should blog each session if only for my own edification. I was particularly impressed by Elder Ballard's discourse on the Family Proclamation. Greater Truth has not been spoken. I'll now try and go back and clean up the typos and incomplete sentences.

Good session!

Closing Prayer 2:56 p.m.

LDS General Conference Take 175

2005-10-01T10:30:00.000-07:00

Today is the 175th Semi Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why semi annual you ask...well, because the annual conference is held in April. So, every six months the Church meets in general conference, which emmanates from Salt Lake City. At conference, Church members and the world at large, for those tuning it, are instructed by modern Prophets, Seers & Revelators on all manner of information, spiritual, and practical for everyday life. The first link above will take you to a site where you can listen live if you are so inclined. I try and listen to most of conference; however, as with all things in life, some elements are more to my liking and interest than others. Significant about this conference is that it commemorates the 175th anniversary of the Church, since founded in 1830 by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

In conjunction with this conference and the accompanying celebration of the Church's founding is a new biography Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 730 pages, $35) by Richard Bushman. I haven't yet had an opportunity to read this biography, it just came out; however, I anticipate starting the volume within the next few days. It is supposed to be the definitive biography on the Prophet thus far written.

There are at least two open conference threads on two of the more widely read LDS Blogs. These are the closest I have found to any actual live blogging of the LDS conference. You can read them at Millennial Star, and also at Times and Seasons, both excellent LDS Blogs where you could literally spend hours reading about LDS issues and discussions.

Our Fox Totem

2005-09-30T06:30:00.000-07:00

Part of the Wood Badge training is practical training, dividing up the adult leaders into patrols, just like real scout troops are divided. Each patrol, is given a name at the start, then, they create their own flag, and also a totem, which is a drawing that is patrol specific and will follow you as an individual member of that patrol throughout your scouting career. We have finally come up with our Fox Patrol Totem, to the left. The numbers at the bottom reflect our particular Wood Badge course, taken in the western region, Los Padres Council, in 2005.

What I've Been Doing

2005-09-29T07:17:00.000-07:00

I've been too busy to blog regularly these past couple of weeks. I started Wood Badge training, for my scouting position. I'm in the Fox Patrol. For those unfamiliar with scouting, you can read all about Wood Badge training here. With work, and the extra time Wood Badge requires, my blogging has diminished . . ..though probably not noticeable to most. The practical portion of the training spans two three day weekends, one in September, and another in October, with two patrol meetings in between. We're now over half way done, with just the remaining three day weekend in October left. After that, its off to work my ticket, and complete the training within the next year or so. Thus far its been well worth the time investment--though somewhat more intense than I anticipated.

9/11 Four Years Later

2005-09-11T13:36:00.000-07:00

As we remember, let us also reflect. Just where are we fours years post 9/11, and four years into what Mr. Bush calls the war on terror. First stop, two articles in the September 11, 2005 Sunday New York times Magazine. The first article, entitled Lost at Tora Bora, is an insightful recap of one of Mr. Bush's greatest failures in his self-proclaimed war on terror.

The Buck Stops Where?

2005-09-09T06:42:00.000-07:00

As I reflect on the events of the last two weeks, I can't help but wonder the response of one of our former Presidents, who I think exemplified leadership at its best--Harry S. Truman. Of course, President Truman had a great sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here." In his farewell address to America President Truman reportedly said:

"The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."

How refreshing a concept in today's political climate of finger pointing, and responsibility avoidance taken to new heights by the Bush administration. It seems to me there is one person ultimately responsible for the safety and welfare of the American people and this great nation. That person is the President of the United States. Mr. Bush can whine and complain all he wants that everyone else in the world is to blame for the shortcomings of the federal response to Katrina's aftermath; however, at the end of the day, he can't avoid the ultimate responsibility--particularly in light of the fact it was he who created a separate cabinet department, the responsibility of which is to provide disaster relief and response in this exact scenario.

My best response to Mr. Bush, and his advisors, is actually another response from President Truman:

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Long gone are the days where true statesmen occupied the leadership positions in the White House and the halls of Congress. One can only hope for a return to more dignified and responsible leadership in this country. I suspect the earliest that will posssibly happen is after the next election.

The Blind Leading The Blind

2005-09-06T11:49:00.000-07:00

According to the AP, none other that Mr. Bush himself will head up the investigation to review his own administration's incompetence. How exactly will that work?

Buffeted by criticism over the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, President Bush said Tuesday he will oversee an investigation into what went wrong and why — in part to be sure the country could withstand more storms or attack.

Bush also announced he is sending Vice President Dick Cheney to the Gulf Coast region on Thursday to help determine whether the government is doing all that it can.

"Bureaucracy is not going to stand in the way of getting the job done for the people," the president said after a meeting at the White House with his Cabinet on storm recovery efforts.

"What I intend to do is lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong," Bush said. "We still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure we can respond properly if there is a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack or another major storm."

Well, my question, is who is going to lead Mr. Bush? It's good to know that bureaucracy won't stand in the way of getting the job done. Seems to me that's all it has done. Bureaucracy along with Mr. Bush's incomptence has been a disaster for America, and particularly the Gulf Coast region.

But Bush said now is not the time to point fingers and he did not respond to calls for a commission to investigate the response.

"One of the things people want us to do here is play the blame game," he said. "We got to solve problems. There will be ample time to figure out what went right and what went wrong."

Well, Mr. Bush, just when are you going to begin this investigation. If not now, when? Perhaps after he has finished "playing the blame game" by shifting responsibility to everyone other than him and his inept administration. This ought to be a classic--not since Richard Nixon's vow to get to the bottom of Watergate have I felt so reassured by such an investigation.

Et Tu Brutus

2005-09-06T10:16:00.000-07:00

Wow, the venerable conservative bastion, The Wall Street Journal is taking Mr. Bush to task for his post Katrina incompetence:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Bush and Katrina
September 6, 2005; Page A28

The White House is slowly recovering from its first-week stumbles responding to Katrina, with President Bush taking his second trip to New Orleans yesterday. His quick elevation of John Roberts to Chief Justice is another welcome sign of energy (see related commentary). But Mr. Bush can't afford to stop there, because the aftermath of Katrina poses a threat to his entire second term.

We aren't referring here to the storm surge of recrimination blaming post-Katrina problems on everything from Iraq, to tax cuts, to his refusal to endorse the Kyoto Protocol. The American public knows this was an epic natural disaster and won't fall for political opportunism. By the same token, Americans also won't have much patience for White House claims that state and local officials were the greater incompetents. Yes, Louisiana needed a Rudy Giuliani. But what Americans want now is proof that their government understands the nature of the challenge and is acting forcefully to meet it.

On this point, Mr. Bush is going to have to recognize the obvious initial failure of the Department of Homeland Security in its first big post-9/11 test. The President created this latest huge federal bureaucracy, against the advice of many of us, and we're still waiting for evidence that it has done anything but reshuffle the Beltway furniture. If FEMA can't now handle the diaspora out of New Orleans to Houston, Baton Rouge and other cities, the political retribution will be fierce.

Notably, the New Orleans mess improved only after the Pentagon got involved. Though the military is normally barred from domestic law enforcement by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Defense officials have been doing a lot of creative thinking about what they can do and what the public now expects post-September 11. The press corps might even want to report on that thinking, which is contained in a June 2005 report, "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support." If he ever fires anyone, Mr. Bush could do worse than find a few more Donald Rumsfelds as replacements.

When the snakes start committing suicide, you know you need to watch your step!

Update: 10:40 a.m. In my earlier post of Barbara Bush's let them eat cake comment, Discourse.net astutely points out that the editors at E & P actually softened Mrs. Bush purported quote in their piece. You really need to listen Mrs. Bush make the comment, which you can listen to it here for the time being. I don't know how how it will be up on NPR's website.

New Orleans Heartbreak Update

2005-09-05T00:08:00.000-07:00

I've updated my prior New Orleans post here, with further photos and commentary. I'd also add this link from the current New Yorker Magazine with one New Orleanian's thoughts of his hometown. It's late, I'm tired, and perhaps there will be more to say in the morning, ahh....make that later this morning.

Another link here to an Anne Rice opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times. The photo at the left is from that article. She provides an informative history of New Orleans along with an opinion on New Orleans from one who is well qualified to render such an opinion.

Update 3:30 p.m.

How refreshing would it be for an elected government official on any level to admit they made a mistake on the response to Katrina's aftermath---apologize for that mistake, and ask forgiveness of the affected victims? And, what's the likely of such an unlikely scenario?

Update 5:30 p.m.

According to the President's mother, Barbara Bush, things are just working out very well for the New Orleanians evacuated from their city. They are so enthralled with their new homeless shelters in the Houston area, they are going to move there. Her quote, from press reports is:

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (she chuckled)--this is working very well for them."

How understanding of Mrs. Bush of those poor underprivileged folk. By the way, just how would she know? The Bushs have been out of touch with reality from Bush I all the way down to the current Bush President, for decades. All that pretend Texas front can't cover up that life of East Coast privilege and blue blood background.

Along the same lines, the current President Bush revealed the same privilege outlook handed down byhis parents. Thanks to Radio Saigon for this observation and press account:

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we’re going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we’re going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is — and it’s hard for some to see it now — that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott’s house — he’s lost his entire house — there’s going to be a fantastic house. And I’m looking forward to sitting on the porch.(Laughter.)

Well Mr. Bush, please do let us know when that porch is done, so we can all come sit a spell!

Katrina's Political Storm Rages

2005-09-04T09:52:00.000-07:00

A fascinating article appears in Today's Times-Picayune, (New Orleans' print newspaper) about Katrina's political storm that continues to unfold. You can read Editor and Publisher's comments on the article here. You can read the Time-Picayune's actual letter in their online edition here.

Of course, at the time of Katrina's actual landfall, Mr. Bush was on vacation at his Crawford Ranch. He spends lots of time on vacation in Crawford, and rarely interrupts those vacations; however, when Congress rushed through the Terri Schiavo bill in record speed, Mr. Bush abruptly interrupted his vacation to personally fly back to Washington D.C. to sign that bill at 1:00 a.m. Yet, while New Orleans flooded, where was Mr. Bush? Why wasn't he immediately flying back to Washington D.C. to oversee recovery efforts? Once again Mr. Bush was AWOL.

When is the time, by the way, to discuss what went wrong? As I sit and watch nonstop coverage of Katrina and its political aftermath, one administration official after another sings the mantra, now is not the time to point fingers. There will be plenty of time later to review what when wrong. Well, I say NOW is the time to begin asking those questions. To America's free press, I say do your duty, and don't give Mr. Bush and those whose incompetent policies led to this fiasco a free pass. Let's have some measure of responsibility and accountability here.

If you did not watch today's Meet the Press, you should certainly read the transcript, which is here. Again, more of the "now is not the time to discuss our failure mantra", from Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. There is also a heart breaking account from Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard of government's failure in Katrina's aftermath. If you can, you should really watch a re-broadcast. If you can't, you should download the podcast here and listen to these mindnumbing exchanges.

More New Orleans Thoughts

2005-09-03T22:55:00.000-07:00

A few more thoughts on New Orleans. First, and most important, it appears relief efforts are finally reaching the thousands and thousands of stranded residents. While much of the city is flooded by varying depths of water from Lake Ponchartrain, there are a few bright spots. According to the Washington Post, some of the historic French Quarter has survived, but of course remains closed (Though, one article reports there are still some residents living life in typical French Quarter Style). I remain hopeful that one day my lovely wife and I will again snack on beignets at Cafe Du Monde, and feel the spirit of old New Orleans.

But, for now, the harsh and brutal realities of New Orleans, including the unimaginable death and destruction that hang over that city, require that "we the people" begin asking our elected representatives some hard questions--that require real answers.

Damage estimates from Katrina range anywhere from $25 to $100 billion. The average price of gasoline in the United States has risen to over $3.00 a gallon. In my area gasoline is over $3.09 a gallon. Production is in jeopardy. Demand is sky high. It is virtually impossible to build new oil refineries in the United States, and the ones we have are stretched to the breaking point--see here and here. America's electical grid is in need of major upgrades, requiring tens of billions of dollars.

Yet, in Iraq, we continue to spend up to $5 billion each month based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. By 2010 the United States is likely to have spent (simultaneously killing and rebuilding) up to $600 billion. We could have rebuilt, New Orleans, Mississippi, and Alabama's Katrina damage six times based on that estimate. We could have updated the country's entire electrical grid. We could have invested in true mass transit in our country (thereby reducing our need for foreign oil), including high speed bullet trains throughout the United States. Of course, these dollar figures don't even begin to address the incalculable human losses. When is it enough? What will it take for our leaders in Washington to realize we are squandering America's financial and human wealth in the sands of the Middle East?

It has been nearly four years since 9/11. In that time, Mr. Bush has created an entire federal agency to help keep the homeland safe. The Department of Homeland Security's own website sets forth its mission statement relating to natural disasters:

Emergencies and Disasters

Preparing America

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.

This cabinet level department is supposed to assume the primary responsibility for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. Well? What happened? Homeland security chief Michael Chertoff, who was supposed to have assumed this primary responsiblity lamely claimed that the Katrina scenario just did not exist--it was not anticipated. CNN's piece on their website throughly discredits this nonsensical claim. There has also been much discussion about two disasters, i.e., the hurricane and then the levee break. In reality it was one disaster. Two disasters would have been a hurricane, then followed by say an earthquake. One more instance of Mr. Bush's inability to accept responsibility for anything. The president who has never made a mistake, continues with his perfect score.

The blogs are replete with excellent and much greater in depth coverage than I could ever hope to produce. Therefore, I suggest that you take a look at some of the best posts I have found on these issues here, here, here, here, and here.

I am so tired of Mr. Bush's all too predictable responses to the facts of any given situation which stand in stark contrast to his own interpretation of reality. Now more than ever we need all of our resources marshaled at home to take care of our own. It is embarrasingly clear that America's Department of Homeland Security is woefully unprepared to assume primary responsibilty and perform the function for which they were created: To keep the homeland safe.

Mr. Bush is and has been seriously out of touch with reality in this country. His policies are are misguided, and are wasting desperately needed resources here at home: both monetary and human.

My Heart Breaks For New Orleans

2005-08-31T21:13:00.000-07:00

I've only been to the the Big Easy, three times--but it was love at first sight. It's a city of life, food, music, and fun. I will always remember it as it was the last time I was there in September 2003. The photos in this post are a small sampling of this last trip, which will now hold even more precious memories. My hope and prayers are that it can recover and will be rebuilt. It is heart wrenching to see the disaster that has fallen on that great city, and its fine people.

When I last visited, I stayed right in the French Quarter, at this lovely hotel, the Palace d' Armes. It was walking distance from all the sights in the French Quarter--most important, in my book was the world famous Cafe du Monde, where they served the world famous

beignets--the world's tastiest pastries. If you don't know what a beignet is, check her e. You used to be able to buy the mix online from the Cafe Du Monde website, and try to make them at home. We tried once, but they weren't the same as we bought in New Orleans.

Now, the only place I know, other than New Orleans that makes anything close is Downtown Disney in Anaheim, where the have a Ralph Brennan's Cafe, that also serves beignets.

In Jackson Square, the fortune tellers and other street folk line up early to get a start on the tourist trade that walks the French Quarter nightly. On Decatur street along the river front in the French Market section of the French Quarter you can hire a carriage driver to take you throughout the French Quarter.

Another shot along Decatur Street of one of the many colorful street folk that line the French Quarter on any given night (or day it seems). Above right, is a shot along the water front adjacent to the French Quarter where it meets the Mississippi River. Interestingly it was Lake Ponchartrain that swept into the city from the levee breach, rather than the river.

Above left is the old Jax Brewery also on the waterfront, and off Decatur Street. Above right another shot of the long line of Tarrot card readers and fortune tellers ever present each evening in Jackson Square, just off the French Quarter.

Above left is the waterfront trolley, which you can take all along the water front. Above right, one of the many mimes, who entertain throughout the French Quarter. Some are quite talented.

Above left is The Cat's Meow, one of the dozens of bars along Bourbon Street. It is located at the corner of Bourbon and St. Peter's Streets. If you look closely in the upper right window pane as you face the door, there is a live internet cam, which prior to Katrina would broadcast live shots of people at the corner just outside the bar. One day, it will broadcast again, and the party will resume. Above right, Bourbon Street in the early afternoon, is just beginning to come to life.

Above left is a shot of Pat O'Brien's, likely the French Quarter's most famous bar. Above left is one of the myriad of the voodoo houses in the French Quarter. Everything seems to make some money in the French Quarter.

These two shots above are from world famous Pat O'Brien's Bar in the French Quarter. The left shot is inside their Piano Bar, where dual pianos entertain the patrons nightly. I don't drink; however, I have sat for hours in this bar just listening to the tunes from the dual and dueling piano players, and watching the people. In the left shot you can also see Mr. Eddie Gabriel, aka Mr. Eddie, playing his aluminum tray with thimbled fingers. Mr. Eddie invented that act in 1945 during world war two. He has been a regular at Pat O'Brien's since 1937. You can read a bit of his history with Pat O'Brien's here and here. CNN reported on 9/4/05 that Mr. Eddie was missing, and had not been heard from since Katrina struck. He was 95 when Katrina struck.

Bourbon Street comes to life at night. The left shot above is early in the evening, on Friday, 9/26/03, and things are just getting warmed up on Bourbon Street. You can imagine what it looks like on Mardi Gras. Above right is one of the famous Bourbon Street balconies where many nights you can see more than just beads. You can even rent one of them for your own balcony party.

Above left, another balcony. And above right is early morning on Decatur Street, looking at Jax Brewery. It will be a long journey back for New Orleans and her residents; however, from what little I know about the city and those who live there, they have the love of life and their great city and will compel them to the task. God Bless to all victims of this horrible tragedy, and may they rebuild their unique way of life.

Thunder Over The Valley III

2005-08-29T20:35:00.000-07:00

This particular chopper is stationed in San Diego. They made the trip in about three hours, and flew right through downtown Los Angeles, flying straight up the 101 freeway through the downtown area. I can imagine what some of the higher floor office occupants must have thought seeing a military helicopter flying through downtown Los Angeles. The gauges in the cockpits are just mind boggling--much, much more complex than driving a car.

The by-planes were very impressive. Taking off, they almost lumbered off the airfield. They don't fly very fast, and they look as though the just might fall out of the sky; however, when they let their smoke out over the airport, it was quite breathtaking.

This helicopter was the biggest at the air show. It was a United States Marine Corps chopper, and is used to actually transport the marines. It has been in active duty, and has seen combat in every military action in which the United States has been involved, from Vietnam to the current Iraq war. There is over five miles of wiring inside this copter.

The highlight of the airshow, at least for the part for which we stayed was the fly over by the B-52 Bomber. The runway is not long enough for the B-52 to land; however, it did do a fly over on Saturday while we were there. It is quite an impressive sight to see that airplane in flight.

Thunder Over The Valley II

2005-08-28T21:25:00.000-07:00

Our scout troop, 432 attended the Santa Maria Thunder Over the Valley Air Show on 8/27/05 at the Santa Maria Airport, and it was all it promised to be. I'll try to post some of the better shots I took--some were better than others. I don't know the names and types of aircraft we saw, except for one, so I'm sorry I won't have proper names--but it was a great deal of fun regardless. This first sequence shows one of the several model planes that flew. They were actually quite large, as you can see. They can fly up to speeds of 90 mph--though for the stunts they were doing at the show it was likely much slower. These models were expensive, up to $4,000 or even more. The good news, though is that this particular spiral didn't end in a crash!

In addition to the models there were several real vintage and current planes. Most of them were World War 2 planes; however, there were also some active military air craft, including some helicopters.

For the most part, the planes at this show were the older vintage models. Though they were older, but each one was different in its purpose and branch of service.

Saturday was beautiful weather. As is customary on the Central Coast many days, particularly in summer, start of with a cloud cover, and it burns off later in the day; however, Saturday morming started off right away with clear, blue, sunny skies, from the moment we walked onto the airfield. In fact, sunscreen was the order of the day, as was lots of liquids.

The orange helicopter is a French designed, but American built aircraft that the Coast Guard uses. Interestingly, despite what most Americans feel about the French, the Coast Guard officer with whom I spoke indicated that the design was actually quite good. He also said that the engine was very good, as were many French designed engines.