More Debate On The Iraqi Constitution May Be The Better Option

The Bush Administration is hopeful that the Iraqi constitution may pass. Yet because of so many limitations, failure of the constitution, and more constructive debate may well be the better option.

One of the best signs was that many Sunni voters made an effort to vote against the constitution. Compared to the ongoing Sunni support for insurgent violence including planting roadside bombs, using suicide attacks against innocent civilians, or shooting at American soldiers, the fact that many Sunni voters are expressing their opinion about the constitution at the polls rather than insurgent street violence is a constructive step.

The current draft of the Iraqi constitution is hardly a document intended for a future united state of Iraq, Instead it is more of a dissolution document in which the oil assets are divied between the Shiite and Kurdish ethnic groups, only leaving the 22% Sunni minority the sand Western Iraq as a natural resource. More debate onthe Iraqi constitution would likely lead to a document in which a united state of Iraq is actually planned for the future. If Iraq should splinter into three ethnic states, the problems for the U.S. in regards to the policy of these three states would be greatly complicated. Turkey is wary of Kurdish intentions to seek a state of Kurdistan which would involve part of Turkey, and current ethnic tensions among the Turkish Kurdish community would be greatly worsened. And the Shiite state may seek very close relations with Iran, and become either a near satellite state or even worse, annexed. And a Sunni state may well become the haven for terrorists that would be the worst fears of Washington.

Women are not really happy that their role in Iraq seems to be compromised in the current Iraqi constitution. And those seekng a more modern, more secular Arab state, are concerned about the role of the Muslim faith that seems to be heavily part of the current document. There is one of the largest Christian communities in the MidEast in Iraq, as well as a small Jewish community in this state. Both of these minority religious groups may face increased religious persecution if the Muslim faith is officially embraced in the current Iraqi constitution.

The exit of American troops from Iraq is not really tied to the success of the Iraqi constitution. The exit of American soldiers is tied to a success of the Iraqi military and police as a force to defend their own country. And whether the U.S. actually intends to completely exit from Iraq is also an issue. Congress recently approved $500 million for permanent American military base construction in Iraq. And Paul Wolfowitz testified before congress at a time prior to the 2003 Iraq War, about the need for an American military presense in Iraq to secure the Strait Of Hormuz oil pathway that is under Iranian control. And the U.S. has sought military bases in former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states, and still maintains military bases in Japan, Germany and Korea, with little sign of leaving in the near future. One airbase in Germany was recently returned to German control. But bases established since the end of WWII will still remain for the foreseeable future.

What's positive in Iraq is that it has democratic elections. It has elected representatives, and that many in the Sunni community bothered to vote rather than support insurgent activity. These are far better factors than whether the Iraqi constitution passes or fails. If the Iraqi constitution would fail, it would be shortsighted for the media to see it merely as a defeat for America or the Bush Administration. Instead it might well be in the better intersts of Iraq to have more debate on a constitution, that would involve more and more Sunni participation in the debate, and to create a far better document that would help to secure a single united Iraq state for the future.

The Moonie Washington Times Disconnect From Reality

The Moonie owned Washington Times is often little more than a mouthpiece for absurd and silly right wing propaganda. A recent feature published by Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales is a prime example. This absurd feature claimed that Iraq now has 117 battalions, when all recent proof is that a few months ago Iraq had three battalions of about 2,000 soldiers able to fight on their own, but now is down to just one battalion of 700 men. This is no sign of progress in the minds of anyone but the Editors of the Washington Times. It is not the opinion of some antiwar organization that only one Iraqi army battalion exists, it is based on the best military intelligence information given to U.S. Senators such as Joesph Biden and others. Even Republicans such as John McCain and Chuck Hagel, both respected war veterans find real problems with the truth about Iraq.

In fact, the number of American troops was even increased by 14,000 recently in Iraq to 152,000 soldiers. If the military of Iraq was coming together as well as the feature in the Moonie paper claims, then why is this increase in American troops necessary?

But even more troubling is why such an absurd propaganda feature is even published? Is it solely to bolster the sagging poll ratings for the war by dangling false hope for an early American exit from Iraq?

But a good question is this, is there really any intent for the U.S. to leave Iraq or simply to scale back troops somewhat. Congress recently approved $500 million for American military base construction for permanent military bases in Iraq. And Paul Wolfowitz, one of the planners of the Iraq War testified before Congress, arguing that an American presense in Iraq was central to protecting oil supplies from the Strait Of Hormuz, which is controlled by Iran. And the U.S. still has military bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, after those wars. Today the Bush Administration is holding up the hope to America that the vote on the Iraqi constitution is central to American troops leaving Iraq. But is this really true? Is there any evidence that the Bush Administration wants America out of Iraq. In fact, there are new attempts by the Administration to station American soldiers in former Soviet bloc or allied states. Every effort of the Bush Administration is to expand the American military presense around the world, not to roll it back.

Even in Iraq,the war is slowly expanding to other states, as a number of border fights between U.S. Army Rangers and Marines has killed a number of Syrian soldiers, as Syria becomes the new Cambodia for border fighting of foreign invading insurgents. It is only a matter of time before the combat with Syrian soldiers becomes less covert, and an open truth. And only a matter of time before open combat with Iran over their nuclear ambitions and sending of foreign fighters into Iraq becomes a major friction point, rsulting in open warfare between the U.S. and Iran.

It's always curious when American conservatives and even the so-called religious right gathers in support of the Moonie Washington Times. It was not that long ago that that some in Congress helped to stage and participated in a Moonie ceremony in part of the Capitol building in which the leader of the Moonie cult, Rev. Moon was crowned as the new "Messiah", replacing Jesus. It is yet another example of the religious right and conservatives openly accepting false religion as well as the false politics promotted by the Washington Times. Whether it's support for Rev. Moon, The Washington Times, embracing a ceremony accepting a false replacement for Jesus, or accepting nonsense propaganda about the Iraq War, some conservatives seem very gullible to accept outright foolishness as truth.

Sometimes it seems there is the Moonie version of events, and there is the truth.

All The War's A Stage

It seems like in a futile effort to sell the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, that increasingly pathetic means are being used to sell the war. Thursday morning, Mr. Bush had what was supposed to be a question and answer session with some soldiers in Iraq and one Iraqi soldier. However, a satellite feed before this event involved a Pentagon person using the term "scripted", and the entire question and answer event was a staged event with scripted questions intended to serve as solely propaganda for the war effort. Even pauses in speech by the soldiers were scripted by the Pentagon before the question and answer event. Almost everything, except eye blinks were scripted by the Pentagon it appears.

This scripting of military interaction with the press is nothing new. The military has already warned soldiers they will face discipline or demotion in rank if they are critical of the war with reporters. Only positive and scripted approval of the war is approved by the military, other unscripted talk by soldiers with reporters is officially prohibited.

With all the attempts to stage events to sell the unpopular war by the military, the Pentagon has also lied about some aspects of the Iraq War in a manner that is more befitting of "Baghdad Bob" and not an open and honest republic. The Pentagon has denied the use of a modern napalm type bomb in Iraq. Yet from the beginning of the first Gulf War and again in 2003, a modern version of napalm, a fuel gel bomb, the 750 lb. Mark 77, were used. A total of 530 of these fuel gel bombs have now been dropped in Iraq, despite official denials by the Pentagon, contradicted by pilots who reported the loading and dropping of such bombs. These fuel gel bombs have been outlawed by a U.N. treaty where all of 191 U.N member nations but the U.S. and Russia signed the U.N. treaty and do not use such terrible conventional weapons. It is no wonder that the Pentagon lies to the American public and officially denies the use of such terrible weapons.

But the Bush Administration has made other use of scripted or staged events.

Two well dressed women who drove to the disaster area after the hurricane Katrina disaster simply to loot clothing from damaged homes were used in photo-opt by Bush handlers and presented as disaster victims to the media. This may not have entirely been the fault of Bush handlers, but was certainly yet another outrageous event surrounding this administration in which a photo-opt was constructed solely for political propaganda purposes.

Before the 2004 election, the "granddaddy" of staged photo-opt events by the Bush Administration was the use of an empty warehouse as a "Hollywood" style set for a staged event for an economic address propaganda event by Bush. Bush handlers contracted to have a gaint painted canvas made to be hung in the empty warehouse that appeared to the television cameras as a factory full of American made goods about to be shipped. This is an old Hollywood visual trick, where painted hills or valleys are often a painted canvas on an indoor set. And empty boxes of goods made in China, had phony "Made in USA" labels pasted on. And White House staffers and other Bush workers put on factory worker costumes with hardhats to appear as cheering factory workers against a scripted speech. Never mind that over 30 million American jobs have been lost to China, the event was used to falsely portray the strength of the American economy and factories. It was deeply sad that a real American factory of cheering workers could not be found within the borders of the U.S. This was the real tragedy.

This administration like no other has made use of phony staged events, costumes, scripts, props, painted sets, and rigged photo-opts. Just the other day, Bush was part of a photo-opt in which he donned a hardhat to put a few nails on a Habitat For Humanity home. He certainly did not build the home as many who spent many days, weeks, months or years working for Habitat For Humanity have done. This administration relies on far more smoke and mirrors and illusions than magician David Copperfield it seems, in it's absurdly staged attempts to sell it's unpopular views to an increasingly wary public.

Oregon Legislator Girl Gone Wild: Update

Since I wrote yesterday about the situation with Oregon state legislator, Kelly Wirth, much has happened. She turned herself into the police and is being charged with felony drug possession for meth. A statement from the Democratic Party of Oregon leaked out where Kelley Wirth is gong to officially resign her seat in the state house of representatives today.

One person even claimed that Rep. Wirth is known meth user. This is sad because not that long ago she was part of the legislature efforts to rid oregon of this terible problem of meth. But the spiritual evil of drugs have proven themself as Rep. Kelly Wirth got sucked down through the drug world it brought on a sad cycle of poor decisions and bizarre acts that ruined her reputation and destroyed her career in the Oregon state legislature. What started out as almost laughable Jerry Springer typre capitol love triangle nonsense, soon turned sadder and sadder. Rep. Kelly Worth deserves the prayers of all that her life shows an upswing and she leaves her problems behind her very soon. But the Oregon legislature is no place for her or any legislator who cannot responsibly conduct themselves.

I was also pleased that the leadership of the state Democratic Party as well as her fellow representatives made no attempt to defend the absurd conduct of Rep. Kelley Wirth. Rep. Diane Rosenbaum D-Portland, hoped that most persons would remember the legislature for their efforts on behalf of "health care, education and public safety". Most legislators did in fact conduct themselves in a constructive manner. It was only Kelley Wirth would brought disgrace on herself with a scandal of sex and meth.

Oregon state democrats handled the scandals of Kelley Wirth very well. There appeared to be a large behind the scenes effort to urge her to quickly resign and not to tarnish either the legislature or the Democratic Party organization. On the other hand, at the national level, both Tom Delay and Karl Rove have not handled their situations very well at all. Tom Delay has turned on prosecutor Ronnie Earle in a new attack, and claimed partisanship on the part of Earle, although of the 15 politicians that Earle has prosecuted for corruption, 12 of 15 were democrats. And a lobbyist friend associated with Delay even has some association to a recent story on America's Most Wanted that dealt with a murder and organized crime. No major politician should be so close to a lobbyist friend with some ties to any story events on America's Most Wanted. It often seems that you can judge the character of some by who their friends are, and Delay needs at least one new friend.

Delay needs to quickly divorce himself of any relationship to any figures under serious question, or his vindicative attitude towards others and instead build a credible defense for the charge that Delay himself is facing. Delay needs to prove his innocence of the charge and prove to a judge or jury that he's a decent defendant, not some sort of thug . The attack on prosecutor Earle and the reputation of Delay of as "The Hammer" who brutally ruins his opponents is not helping his case . And the scandal involving Karl Rove in which an ambassador's wife was somehow exposed as a CIA officer to possiby retailiate for the ambassadors opposition to the Iraq War, also raises serious issues. Neither case has been handled in the mature way as the fellow legislators or Oregon state democrats have dealt with the scandals of Kelley Wirth.

Voters have the right to expect moral and reasonable leadership in government. Sex scandals, meth abuse, thuggery or other poor conduct is simply not acceptable or moral.

Oregon Legislator Girl Gone Wild

Corvallis Oregon is a college town. And 40 year old democratic Oregon state legislator, Kelley Wirth acts as though she is still a college sorority girl out on a wild spring break weekend. Rep. Wirth, who is attractive, and looks a little like a slightly heavy-set and overaged Susan Dey from the old Partrige Family TV Show. And Wirth, who still lives with her mother, has managed to turn her recent reputation as an Oregon legislator into an absurd tale of sex and drugs, much to the disappointment and concerns of both fellow legislators and her district voters.

A few weeks ago, a reported relationship that Wirth had with a young janitor in the state capitol building resulted in a three person argument at the home of the janitor, in which it was reported that Wirth, the janitor, and the former girlfriend of the janitor engaged in a very angry exchange. This angry exchange led to a violent episode later that evening that resulted in the janitor's former girlfriend running down Wirth with her car, causing severe leg injuries to Wirth. For an Oregon legislator who is supposed to act maturely in office, this entire incident seemed like a Jerry Springer Show love triangle gone bad. Who knew the Oregon legislature was ever intended to be a dating agency for the unfulfilled passions of legislators?

In the Oregon legislature, three bills came up for a vote in the last session to tighten-up the supply of chemicals that are used to create meth drugs in Oregon. Oregon has the worst problems in the nation with meth abuse and meth crime. And interestingly, Rep. Kelley Wirth was the only legislator to vote against all three of these bills. One bill, for example puts Sudafed, and similar over the counter drugs behind pharmacy counters and creates a drug log of buyers to prevent large sales to persons who use this medication to produce meth. Another bill that has been signed into law will require a doctor's prescription for drugs such as Sudafed, that often end up in meth . Ebay for example recently banned the sales of large amounts of Sudafed to help to stem the use of this over the counter drug in meth.

Now comes the latest silly episode of the Kelley Wirth saga. The incident last month in which Wirth was injured has now reportedly turned up a user amount of meth that police want to question Wirth about. And despite the fact that Wirth is still injured from last month's automobile assault, she is now missing and cannot be found for police questioning and investigation into the meth evidence found.

At least Wirth is not a hypocrite. She was the only vote against tightening the Oregon meth laws. But this is certainly not the sort of conduct that Oregonian's expect of their legislators. The mounting problems for Wirth are a huge embarrassment.

Oregon democrats were able to win back a majority in the state senate. And every race in the Oregon state house is critical to democrats hopes for regaining support in the Oregon legislature. The Republican speaker of the house has sided with the big tobacco lobby interests and has blocked legislation from even coming to a vote that she personally disagreed with, or was against the interests of big business or big lobby efforts. Oregon democrats need to quickly rid themselves of the plague of Kelley Wirth. 2006 may indeed be a big year of "make it or break it" for the democrats. They cannot afford an anchor like Kelley Wirth to drag along the feet of the party. The Oregon state democrats need to quickly urge Wirth to resign her seat, and seek to find an attractive candidate who will honorably represent the seat that Wirth holds in the Oregon legislature. With every seat vital to a democratic revival in the Oregon legislature for democrats, the bad publicity surrounding Wirth is hardly helpful to the chances of the state democrats. Only serious democrats need apply for political offices. There is no room for politicians like Wirth and her "girl's gone wild" type of politics when serious issues face Oregon, and democrats face a vital test in 2006 to wrest control of the state house from the republican majority.

One Sunni Party Cooperation Does Not Guarantee Peace In Iraq

It has been announced that one Sunni political party will cooperate with the Shiite and Kurdish elements that are in the driver seat with the design of the Iraqi constitution. Yet this does not necessarily hold promise that the Sunni led insurgency will cease. The support of a single conservative Sunni party to lay down it's deep-set and long running ethnic conflict with the Shiites and Kurds, who are urging their members to vote for the constitution, will hardly quell the most radical elements who are the face of the Iraqi insurgency.

The roots of the conflict in Iraq began shortly after WWI. During WWI, Turkey aligned with other ethnic Arab areas in the MidEast and formed the old Muslim Ottoman Empire which had long sought to impose the Muslim faith throughout Europe in the long running conflict between the Muslim and the Christian world in Europe. Past conflicts left pockets of Muslims in states like Bosnia setting up the ethnic conflict that followed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

During WWI, Turkey was an ally of Germany, and this set up a conflict where Turkish control of southern Europe would likely mean that Southern European states such as Spain, Italy and other states would likely have the Muslim faith imposed on them if Turkey and Germany should win the war. A combined military of British, Irish, French and Australian soldiers faced a terrible military defeat at the horriby failed invasion of Galliopi in an attempt to battle with Turkey. After the eventual defeat of both Turkey and Germany, the victorious British sought to impose control over parts of the old Ottoman Empire in the MidEast, partially due to the discovery of oil in the region now known as Iraq. In a post WWI hotel room, Winston Churchill drew up a map of Iraq that combined three ethnic groups with nothing in common, and called this artificial state of British occupation "Iraq".

Britain soon found that it was forced to take the Sunni side in the ethnic dispute between the Shiite and Kurdish ethnic groups. Despite this, Britain faced more than 40 years of terrible insurgent fighting and used mustard gas attacks on entire villages by aircraft, armored vehicle attacks, and other mechanized warfare tactics to suppress the growing insurgency in Iraq. However by the 1950's the rise of the Arab socialist movement in Eygpt with the successful coup by Gamel Nasser helped to inspire the Baath Socialist movement in Iraq and the successful 1958 rebellion that forced the British withdrawal from Iraq.

Despite this history, neoconservatives representing themselves as the Project For The New American Century, an organization that was defense contractor funded, and founded by Weekly Standard Editor, William Kristol, advocated a new war against Iraq to wrest power from Saddam Hussein and to put Iraqi opposition forces into power. The PNAC actually served two political factional goals, those who were either affilated with military contractor interests liked the financial windfall aspects of a renewed war with Iraq. This included some like Donald Rumseld, Halliburton's Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Jeb Bush and others. Another faction was a wing of Jewish community conservatives such as William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and Morton Krondrake promotting the notion of a renewed war with Iraq under the guise of fears of WMDs as a form of proxy effort to make the tiny state of Israel more secure from any future threat from Saddam Hussein. Yet due to 12 years of U.N. sanctions and past weapons inspections by UNSCOM, Saddam Hussein was hardly the military threat or WMD threat to Israel that the American Jewish conservatives had feared. He had been reduced to an impotent role in MidEast politics. But others in the oil community as well as some concerned with U.S. national security goals, liked the notion that if Iraq could be brought under a new government, then U.S. efforts to have a closer control of the Strait Of Hormuz, which is under Iranian control, and hence the world's oil supply would be greatly enhanced.

The 1990-91 Gulf War was poorly concluded where the unconditional surrender of Saddam Hussein was not made a primary condition of the ceasefire by the first President Bush. This forced 12 years of cruel U.N. sanctions makng food and medicine supplies tight, while Saddam Hussein's family were able to skim enough funds to build palace after palace, while most Iraqis suffered from a shortage of daily vital provisions and goods.

The current American war, just like the British one in Iraq , has been very bloody. The Pentagon for example has publicly denied the use of Mark 77, a modern form of napalm incediary fuel gel bomb that weighs in at 750 lbs. , in Iraq. However, American pilots have publicly claimed that they dropped such bombs in Iraq. Despite official claims of the Pentagon, 500 of these bombs were droppedby the U.S. during the first Gulf War, and at least 30 more in the 2003 war in Iraq. The U.N. Convention on some conventional weapons outlaws the use of these modern napalm weapons, however the U.S. has failed to sign this treaty. Both the U.S. and Russia continue to defy the world community by their continued military inventory of fuel gel type bombs. And the U.S. made heavy use of depleted uranium bombs as well.

And the despite massive military efforts in the Western sector of Iraq near the Syrian border, the U.S. has failed to stop but small handfuls of foreign insurgent fighters who pour into Iraq from foreign states. There has been civilian deaths, or "colateral damage" as the Pentagon terms it, of civilians whose homes were bombed to rout out a handful of insurgent fighters here or there, leaving many women or children maimed or dead. And electricity, food, water and medicine supplies in Iraq are now at even worse levels than during the 12 terrible years of harsh U.N. sanctions.

And the current government of Iraq, instead of creating a document for the future of Iraq, essentially used the constitution to construct a document dividing the oil assets of Iraq among the more powerful coalition of Shiite and Kurdish ethnic groups, leaving the Sunni minority little more than the sand of Iraq. The current constitution is little more than a dissolution document for Iraq, more similar to divorce papers, and highly unlikely to secure Iraq as a single state for the future of a united Iraq. And Turkey has fears that the Kurds in the North will press for a modern state of Kurdistan, while ethnic tensions with Kurds in Turkey continue to rise.

The worst of the British conflict in Iraq lasted from 1920 to 1958. In all this time, Britain could not impose control over Iraq. Equally the U.S. will likely find itself embroiled for many years in Iraq. It is highly likely that America's sons, and their grandsons, will find themselves in Iraq for quite some time. 40 years of mustard gas attacks and armored warfare against entire Iraqi villages could not bring Iraq under British control. Equally the napalm attacks of Mark 77 bombs, and the bombing of homes in villages in Iraq to fight first the military of Iraq, then the insurgents, has failed to secure the peace as of yet in Iraq. And the most radical Sunni elements will continue to ignore and oppose the Iraqi constitution, and will not likely lay down arms in the near future.

America's ticket out of Iraq, is the elusive peace and stability. But more likely than not, America's sons and their grandsons will be bogged down in this qaugmire for a good many years. Currently only one Iraqi military battlion of 700 men is able to fight on it's own without American military support, down from three battlions of about 2,000 men a few months ago. America has recently quietly increased the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 14,000 to 152,000 in the last few days. Iraq has proven itself so far unable to effectively unable to govern itself, police itself, provide military for itself, enough food, clean water, electricity or medicine for itself. This leaves America clearly stuck in the Iraq quagmire with little hope of an early exit in the near future by any honest, realistic or objective opinion.

UnChristian Values?

In Multnomah County, Oregon , Lou Beres, former head of the Oregon Christian Coalition and head of the Multnomah County Republican Party is facing some allegations of sexual abuse according to sources in the Portland newsmedia. While Beres has not been charged or indicted for any crime, it has forced him to withdrawal from any activity associated with the Republican Party or the Christian Coalition.

This is yet another body blow to the religious right and the Republican Party which are suffering from national problems because of problems related to Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Bill Frist and the political freefall of George Bush down to a mere 37% public approval support in a late public opinion poll.

The problem probably lies in the fact that the religious right is merely a self-righteous movement similar to the Pharisees in the Bible. Publicly they appeared to be religious. But their hearts were in the wrong place. And similarly the religious right lacks any credible Biblical support for their political/religious ideology. There is no language to be found anywhere in either the Old or New Testament that God chose the United States to be a God ordained state, only Israel was chosen to be this. And there is no support for the religious right or conservative support for tax breaks for the wealthy, starting the Iraq War, hurting public social service programs for the poor, siding with big industries like tobacco, or other numerous nonBiblical concepts. The religious right preaches a false Gospel contrary to the Gospel of Christ. It is a spiritual counterfeit and is now being exposed by God as a counterfeit faith that dilutes and soils his actual teachings from the Bible. This is likely the reason for the public collapse of and problems for the religious right. God is exposing a false and counterfeit faith movement that is misleading millions into following this false faith. Bible prophecy predicted such an end times event, where false religion would have a huge public rise along with wars, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Since WWI it has been apparent that the events foretold in the Bible as end time events have been greatly increasing. In all likelyhood the public collapse and freefall of the religious right and their allies within the right wing of the Republican Party are yet another endtime event that is now publicly unwinding. It is getting increasing difficult for anyone to deny that end time events are not starting to unfold. It is as if the mysteries from the pages of the book of Revelation are now starting to publicly open.

Every new natural disaster, every new rumor of war, every new revelation of false religion are all examples foretold in scripture of events that would mark the end times.

FEMA Acts like Halliburton With Excessive Disaster Expenses

Halliburton made a bad name for itself with some extremely high expenses related to the reconstruction in Iraq. Yet little has been done about this so far despite so much evidence presented of excessive profiteering in some expenses paid for by the federal government. Now FEMA is folowing in the same bad footsteps of wasting vital disaster funds with excessively inflated tree removal services contracting.

FEMA is paying up to $18,000 a day to some companies in New Orleans who simply remove a tree that has fallen against a house rooftop, and then put up a blue tarp, but offer no real roof repairs. And private companies have been charging up to $7,000 for simply removing a tree that has fallen against a roof of a home, and putting up a blue tarp without any actual roof repairs as well. All of this means that terrible profiteering is eating away disaster funds that could provide other vitally needed services.

Of note should be that Operation Blessing, the charity organization founded by Rev. Pat Robertson is also offering tree removal and free blue tarp services to homeowners in New Orleans. There is no charge for this service. It is as much as $7,000 cheaper than what some homeowners are now paying and as much as $18,000 cheaper per day than what FEMA is paying.

Many of the the first and best responders to the Katrina disaster have been charities such as religious run organizations such as the Salvation Army, Feed The Children and Operation Blessing. And again, just like Iraq, many of the worst most expensive Katrina disaster costs can be laid at the feet of a few contractors who gouge the system for all they can take from it. Such is life.

The Contradictory World Of Strict Constructionists

If the new Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts is indeed a "strict constructionist", then he opened his lifetime career on the bench with a sour note. When the case involving the assisted suicide issue from Oregon was to be argued by both sides, Roberts almost instantly interrupted before any side could argue their side of the case and seemed to make a strong statement against the 10th Amendment which gives any powers to the state that are not expressly stated as federal powers. In the case of Oregon's assisted suicide law, Roberts will almost certainly hand down an opinion that states cannot set their own medical regulations, and award that power to the federal government. But when an issue of abortion is brought before the court, then the contradictory oppposite opinion will no doubt be issued from Roberts, Miers, Thomas, Scalia and maybe others, that Roe v. Wade be overturned and the individual states set policy regarding whether abortion is legal or not, and regulations over this medical procedure should be decided by the states. Such is the silly and contradictory world of the conservative "strict constructionists".

Besides a twofaced approach to issues of state's versus federal powers, and a two faced approach to the 10th Amendment, this flimsy view of law based on political ideology rather than an honest interpretation of the wording of the U.S. Constitution and Bill Of Rights has no consistent grounding in the wording or intent of these documents, but is solely intended to promote a conservative political ideology. It was only a few days ago that Roberts told the Senate during his confirmation hearings that he would give a fair hearing to all parties in the Supreme Court. But as the assisted suicide case pointed out, Roberts interrupted any arguments to pretty much state his decision of the case without even hearing a single argument. The worst fears of some about Roberts appear to already be fulfilled.

If strict constructionists were to rule on Brown v. Board Of Education, today, then American schools would still be segregated, Blacks would hold less worthwhile jobs, hold far less political offices such as mayors, or even hold positions as police chiefs or even policemen. If the Supreme Court cannot order broad social policy changes in their decisions from the bench, then America becomes a socially backward country where the difficult process of attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution would be involved to move so many issues forward for America. Segregation, if not slavery may even still be fact of life if strict constructionism was the guiding principle of law in America.

Another problem is that congress tends to pass complex laws that are not clearly written, that sometimes are 3,000 pages long, and that most members of congress never even bothered to read before the bill was voted on. This involves entire passages or sections that are clearly unconstitutional, not well written, nearly impossible for normal compliance by those affected, or even contradictory with other sections, or with past standards set by previous Supreme Court decisions. Justices in opinions need to strike portions of bad legislation or to clarify concepts into a constitutionally acceptable form to clean up part of this legal mess that congress creates in sloppy bill construction.

Conservatives love the ring of "strict constructionist" to their ears. But the sharp limitations of this silly approach to law moved along by mere ideology, rather than a more consistent approach to sensible law based on the wording or intent of the constitution, or that the constitution must be viewed as a living and evolving document to answer the modern issues that confront the constitution written in the 1700's as the guiding priciples for the American way of life, involve a deeper and more dependable vision of honest evaluation of law in an evolving nation.

How The Media Created A Story

On March 11, 2005 a strange series of events took place in which a computer engineer for Hewlett Packard who reportedly earned a six-figure income was involved in the violent shootings of 4 persons in a violent escape from the Fulton County Courthouse where he faced rape charges. Brian Nichols staged a daring shootout and fled the courthouse, and ended up at the house of Ashley Smith, and while holding this woman hostage, the broad newsmedia reported that Smith talked to Nichols about God and faith and Nichols then gave himself up. This story seemed very inspirational. The only problem is that's not really true or accurate.

Ashley Smith even admits that she had a history of methamphetamine abuse. She even related this in an interview on the Pat Robertson's 700 Club program as well. And while Nichols at first held Smith hostage and tied her up in the bathroom, he let her loose when she had meth and beer to offer Nichols. While Smith smoked cigarettes, Nichols abused meth and alcohol. Some discussion of religious values came up during the 7 hour ordeal, but is was mainly after the event that Smith herself found the strength from fear of escaping the event with he life as well as more new found faith to quit cigarettes as well. She had previously quit using meth. But still kept the temptation of a meth stash in her house. Smith called 9/11 after Nichols left. And Nichols eventually surrendered.

I love truly inspirational stories of faith. But this wasn't really one. The media ran with a premise that was not really accurate that a discussion of faith took place, and Nichols seemingly surrendered as a result of this faith embolding discussion with Smith as though she was something of an angel that turned around a cold blooded killer into a peaceful surrender. Some in the newsmedia desperately wanted to create an isnspirational story to make it appear that a very religious woman was able to turn around the life a man who just killed four persons in his cold-blooded escape from a courtroom. But this simply was not the case.

In Portland, Oregon a drug abuser who rode bicycles through SouthEast Portland often at night, was able to con a major local news station into putting his "story" on television, which claimed that he was a military veteran but could not get benefits because all of his military records were destroyed in a house fire. But the truth was that military records are not kept in a persons home, but with military computers where veterans of all wars are able to apply or receive veterans home loans, health care, or other benefits. This story worked where this local drug abuser was able to get sympathy and local help. But his story was merely a con and not true. Whether this drug abuser was ever in the military is also another issue left unanswered.

A local newspaper in Portland, The Portland Tribune, mistated testimony from a local crime story in which thay falsely quoted a witness in the case as claiming he "stole" 100 automobiles, when the truth was in testimony he said that he "sold" 100 automobiles, as he had been involved with automobile business for quite some time. The Tribune refused to retract this major error, which was used to support a larger story premise that the individual was a criminal personality, and even sold the erroneous story to MSNBC for national broadcast information. This is how reporters get paid. They construct stories that are not always accurate or truthful, and the sensational side of journalism often draws more readers.

A free press is very important. I strongly support a free press. But sometimes what is reported is not even close to being accurate or truthful. Some stories even appear to be reverse engineered from a premise of the reporter, and when the facts don't match, they mysteriously suddenly seem to when some reporters piece their story together. Most reporters are ethical and honest journalists. But a few create stories that have little relationship to fact.

News is a commodity product that is bought and sold like all products and commodities. But sometimes human interest or sensational stories appear to be manufactured from few good facts to futher a thin premise of a jounalist. This is a huge discredit to the honored role of responsible journalism based on true facts.

The Fringe Politics Of George Bush

As the job approval of George Bush continues to fall, it is clear to more and more Americans that George Bush does not represent their values. In fact Mr. Bush does not even represent the values of many republicans.

The latest poll from CBS finds the job approval of Bush down to a mere 37%. And support for the war in Iraq down to a mere 32%. And 59% of Americans now want American soldiers out of Iraq as soon as possible, however supposedly as support for the October 15, vote on the constitution in Iraq, there are now 152,000 American soldiers in Iraq, a new increase of 14,000.

Republican senator, John McCain of Arizona brought a bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate, that was overwelming supported that banned torture of detainees in response to the outrageous abuses justified as "interrogation" techniques at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. Mr. Bush now threatens to veto this bill. For someone who claimed to be some sort of a "compassionate conservative", this calls into question the values system of George Bush.

John McCain faced years of harsh and abusive treatment as a prisoner at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" in North Vietnam, after a SAM missile damaged his Navy jet and he was forced to bail out over Vietnam. With so many years of harsh treatment, McCain is very sensitive to the fact that American prisoners of war may face harsh treatment from enemy armies in future years unless America sets a standard that prisoner abuse is not morally acceptable. Allowing prisoner abuse is to weaken the accepted international standards of the Geneva Convention for humane treatment of POWs. And the argument of some, such as those of the Bush Administration, that detainees from Iraq or Afghanistan do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection is an outrageous denial of humane treatment for a captured enemy fighter that we expect to be extended to any American military or civilian man, woman or child captured as well. My own grandfather, Captain John Einarson was a merchant marine captain during WWII. He was born in Norway, and spoke with a British accent. He was a very worldly and handsome gentleman. But while transporting arms to American, British and Australian soldiers in the Pacific, his ship was captured by the Japanese Navy, and he faced abusive torture including flogging to try to force information from him about allied troop positions in the Pacific. Desipte the Geneva Conference rules, even civilians like this faced terrible abuses. Many Japanese involved were later brought to trial for war crimes against both civilians and allied soldiers as well. The values of George Bush are far from the mainstream if he believes that torture and abuse should be allowed as an option for America to practice. All POWs are entitled to humane treatment.

And in another area, conservative republican senator Charles Grassley wants to extend Medicaid funds to the Katrina disaster victims who currently do not have any medical benefits. This involves some emergency help to 6,000 persons in Louisiana and maybe 10,000 more displaced in other states. And again the values of the Bush Administration are brought into question, as Bush opposes the use of temporary medical benefits to those in Louisiana who lost their homes and are still homeless and in a world of economic hurt.

Legendary entertainer, and liberal republican, Paul Newman has contributed more than $150 million to charity through the sale of his Newman's Own products. Not only are these foods top quality, but all profits help provide important funds to worthy projects. Rev. Pat Robertson, a very conservative, but also very compassionate republican, donated $22.5 million in medical supplies and 2.5 million pounds of food to the recent Katrina hurricane disaster victims, and the food was prepared as free meals that was served by members of Menonite faith. Yet Bush draws the line at certain aid to the disaster victims, playing the a role of befitting of "Scrooge".

Mr. Bush attempted to promote his "compassionate conservatism" as some sort of conservative answer to the long tradition of kindness towards others inherent in American liberalism. But as time goes on, and the curtain is opened just like the curtain of the man in the Wizard Of Oz, it appears that man behind the curtain hardly has as much heart as he claims. The man behind the curtain of "compassionate conservatism " is little more than a fraud.

The Unethical Packing Of The Supreme Court

While I'm both personally prolife, and also voted twice against the assisted suicide measure on the Oregon ballot that is now at issue in the Supreme Court, I am nonetheless very concerned at the White House efforts to unethically make the Supreme Court an instrument of a narrow "conservative" ideology rather than an arena in which all cases are given a fair hearing.

With the court hearing on Oregon's assisted suicide issue, the questioning of John Roberts on the court took a sharp turn from the questioning of other justices, instead looking to identify with the same line of legal reasoning of Alberto Gonzales who is the plaintiff for the Justice Department's line on the assisted suicide issue. And this raises some ethical questions about the role of the court and the official policies of the Bush Administration. Roberts is a former corporate lobbyist attorney closely associated with other republican administrations, so must be considered a form of White House insider. He is hardly an idependent voice from the opinion's of the White House, or an independent judge on issues presented to the court by the administration. And with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acting as the chief plaintiff in the assisted suicide case, this entire case smacks of an inside deal to shape public policy of the state of Oregon, of which a majority of Oregonians approved on the ballot, first by a 51%, then by a 60% margin. One of my former doctors is even a spokesman on the issue. What should be an issue of a state setting it's own medical policy, is now under debate to be federally regulated. The 10th Amendment apparently does not apply to Oregon in this case.

Roberts line of questioning on the issue involved questioning about the role of federal law as having a the leading role over state law. Yet when issues of abortion will face the court, then any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, will not automaticly make all abortion illegal, but instead, will return the issue back to each state to decide. And that's the problem that I see. As Bush packs the Supreme Court with nominees such as Roberts, and Harriet Miers, someone who is even more directly associated with the White House, and was reportedly involved in help in suppression of questions about Bush's national guard service, then an inconsistent pattern of law will come from the Supreme Court in which some issues will be decided that are considered "states's rights" and other are decided as federal rights will be used merely to promote a conservative social policy line, rather than based on evidence found within the U.S. Constitution or Bill Of Rights used as the real master guide to decide all legal matters.

When Mr. Bush refers to the type of court nominee choices he intends to choose for the Supreme Court and for federal judgeships, he keeps echoing the same line of of choosing "conservative judges" and those who will "interpret the Constitution". Yet there appears to be little evidence that Roberts is actually "interpreting" the U.S. Constitution, as in regards to the 10th Amendment which gives some powers not specified as for the federal government to the states, rather it appears an attempt to find a line of reasoning to give the federal government power to regulate state medical policy is being reverse engineered to supress a state role in assisted suicide, another pet issue often associated with right to life organizations.

When other presidents have chosen other judicial nominees, the choice was based on finding those who were well qualified. But with Bush, shopping for an ideology, and only the "conservative" one seems the one, the only, and the most important qualification. Other past presidents, such as democrats didn't publicly state that only "liberal" justices would be considered to be nominated. And republican presidents such as Ford, Bush and Reagan all chose reasonably fair minded justices in many cases to fairly hear the cases that are presented before the Supreme Court. And conservative Websites constantly look for a purely ideological line to promote in the American court system, rather than a system based on a fair and impartial hearing of a case by all parties. In a case like the assisted suicide one from Oregon, in which the administration's own Attorney General is the plaintiff, and the new Chief Justice is a figure closely associated with republican administrations, the search for judges must be seen as one in which the conservative's goal for the American court system is to politicize it, and turn it into an ideological rubber stamp for more of their own personal opinions. This is a form of kangaroo court construction for the American justice system and highly unethical in my view. It is a classic American symbol that justice is often seen as carrying two scales, and blindfolded as well. The American justice system is supposed to be independent and fair. A fair arena where the least of American society can gain a fair hearing with the most powerful in an equal platform. It was never envisioned by the founding fathers that some political ideologues would seek to turn the american justice system into yet another political wing of government or a single ideology. I find this all deeply sad.

My personal opinions on abortion or assisted suicide don't matter as much, as my stronger feelings that the American court system is now being corrupted into yet another ideological tool by some who hold less than democratic views. This is now the greater moral evil.

Toyota Sets A Positive Challenge For A Better World

Last night I saw a new ad by Toyota that offers one of the most positive challenges to the industrial world yet. It offers all the benefits of cleaning up the air by the development of more hybrid automobiles. I can't remember seeing such a positive and uplifting vision of the world as promotted in this ad. No politician has ever made me so hepeful for a positive future as this ad can promote. This ad is just plain wonderful.

Next to heaven on earth, the vision of a society free of as much pollution as possible where all persons can go for a walk or play outside, live longer, have less health problems, is a grand vision for a great new way of life. Cities may be crowded, yet the air would be better than in decades. A person could go outside and take a breath of fresh air. And the world dependence on oil could be reduced if most new vehicles were based on hybrid technology.

But more advances towards clean air could be undertaken as well. More electric, less gas lawnmowers. A ban on all public smoking, except in the privately owned home of the individual. Less smokey backyard barbeque units. More electrically heated homes, less ones that burn oil. More older homes retrofitted to burn clean hydrogen, where only harmless water vapor, not smoke is the exhaust product. Less smokey fireplaces, or burning wood or old pallets.

Toyota presented a great vision for a wonderful world where illness such as cancer and asthma could be greatly reduced. People could live much happier without constant health problems from so much unnecessary sinus, lung , throat, tongue or other painful chronic pollution caused problems, or the need for the daily use of decongestants or allergy preparations. Instead of a chronic escalation of illnesses that alarm the Surgeon General and others, Toyota offers a vision where life actually improves, not worsens.

I think society should embrace this high standard that Toyota offered in the ad. The benefits are too great to ignore this challenge, and the mitigation of so much pollution caused suffering, illness and more full enjoyment of life cannot be ignored. This ad is just plain terrific.

Who Is Harriet Miers

Harriet Miers is a woman of great achievement in the world of law on one hand. But on the other hand, who is she?

This 60 year old, never married former head of the Texas Bar no doubt is a top attorney. And Harry Reid, the prolife Democratic leader in the Senate even suggested her as a possible choice. Miers even was a former democrat, and even contributed to Al Gore before.

But the Pastor of Harriet Miers paints an image of a "born again" Christian, who is certainly prolife. This choice will certainly be more prolife than Sandra Day O'Connor who allowed the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 to hang together by a thread. The vote of Miers on the bench will almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade when an important case challenges legal abortion in the nation. This will satisfy the prolife community in America, but will will also create an angry divided response among the prochoice community. However some countries such as Ireland and Germany have long had antiabortion prolife laws on the books.

And in other areas, Miers may well be more of a social conservative than even Roberts. On issues such as Gay Marriage, Freedom Of Speech, Assisted Suicide, and other areas, she will no doubt be less flexible in her opinion than the procorporate lobbyist attorney Roberts is.

Roberts represents a form of procorporate conservatism, while Miers is more of a social conservative.

Just like progressives come in different shades as well, Miers is the type of conservative that will more than satisfy the goals of social conservatives who feel that imposing their will on others is very important. Simply living a life according to certain values is not merely enough for them, it is important to them that all of society reflects their vision as well.

It is a funny thing that despite the major influence of books, music, movies, and culture, as well even beloved Gay entertainers such as Ellen or Rosie, that social conservatives actually wield so much power to impose their social vision on others. Social conservatives are convinced that those they disagree with are either immoral, Godless, or stupid. Yet there is so much of a spirit of latter-day phariseeism in this spirit. Social liberald don't seek to impose their view of cu;ture on others, only to have the right to enjoy a culture they create and enjoy. A social conservative is much like if a person likes vanilla ice cream, and seeks to ban chocolate ice cream because it's different than vanilla. There is nothing inherently immoral with chocolate, it's only a different choice. And some such Jimmy Swaggart and John Hagee still continue to attack rock music for example, misaligning all of it with the worst of evils.

How far Harriet Miers will walk down this cultural conservatism path is not known. But she's certainly an ally to social conservatives. Those who are merely prolife, but support cultural openess may find that Harriet Miers will not be their favorite justice on the bench. And those full blown progressives, may be deeply upset at her role on the court. Why some conservatives are so critical of her at this point doesn't seem to make too much sense. She's certainly more of a cultural conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor, and will be a great ally in their vision to rubber stamp their views as the law of the land.

The Electoral College Is Over-Representative Of Small States

The 2004 election was a little different than most, in that democrat John Kerry won many small states in New England. But most often in national elections, democratic candidates are somewhat less likely to win election because small states that tend to vote republican are over-represented in the electoral college.

Little Montana, with a population of 926,865, has three electoral votes, which means that one electoral vote represents 308,955 persons. And little Idaho, with 4 electoral votes, has a population of 1,393,292 persons, which means that one electoral vote represents 348,250 persons. Many other small states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah , and others with smaller populations which are likely to vote republican are over-represented in the electoral college.

Large states, including the big industrial states that tend to vote democratic, are under-represented in electoral votes. California with a population of 35,899,799 has 55 electoral votes, or one per 652,709 persons. And New York with 31 electoral votes, has a population of 19,277,088, or one electoral vote per 621,838 persons. This means that each vote cast in a small state like Montana has twice the electoral colege weight of a vote cast in big democratic leaning states such as California and New York.

This inbuilt bias in the electoral college towards small states that tend to vote republican has helped to elect three republicans who lost the popular vote. No democrat has ever been elected by the electoral college that lost the popular vote, only republicans, because of this inbuilt advantage in the electoral college. In 1876, and again in the failed re-election of Grover Cleveland to republican Benjamin Harrison, and with the electoral vote loss of Al Gore in 2000, to republican George Bush who lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes nationwide. George Bush was the only one of the three republicans elected by the electoral college who lost the popular vote who was re-elected.

It would have been thought that after each of these flawed elections in which a candidate who lost the popular vote was able to claim a technical victory in the electoral college that some reform of the system would have been expected. But even in the very disputed 2000 election, too much critical view was aimed at the flawed election in Florida, and the electoral college itself was not questioned or reformed.

Instead of being based on population like the seats in congress roughly are, in which every state can have no less than one representative, two electoral votes are added to the every state equal to the number of senators, and this helps to bias the system towards more power to small states that tend to vote republican.

The election system isn't really based on majority rule for presidential elections, instead the votes of small states have nearly twice the clout of the votes of larger states because of the inbuilt bias of the electoral college that over-represents the votes of these small states and tends to benefit republican presidential candidates. America seems to want to promote "democracy" around the world. Yet democracy in America is deeply flawed. And despite the flawed election in 1876, change has never come to the electoral college, so three republican candidates who lost the popular vote were able to claim victories because of the electoral college and the bias towards too much clout to small states that tends to benefit republican presidential candidates.

More Setbacks For The American Efforts In Iraq

When the United States decided to commit itself to the Iraq War effort and brought a number of opposition groups into power in Iraq, it was expected that these opposition groups would do a little of the "heavy lifting" of bringing Iraq together as a reconstructed modern democratic MidEast state. Yet more and more evidence exists that America is bogged down in a military effort in which little ambition on the part of many in Iraq, including the government are willing to put in the effort to do the necessary things to make Iraq work as a state that can stand independent on it's own, and American troops can eventually leave.

A couple months ago, out of the claimed 147,000 Iraqi soldiers that were claimed to be in training from the U.S. by Gen. Richard Myers, it turned out that only 3 battlions, of just 2,000 Iraqi troops were considered to be combat ready to stand on their own without American support to battle insurgent offensives. Now this figure has sunk down to only one Iraqi battlion that is combat ready, of just 700 Iraqi troops. The other battlions either lack the necessary skills, manpower, willpower, training, moltivation or other skills to be able to confront insurgent threats on their own without America support. More and more, it is beginning to look like the failed Vietnamization efforts in theVietnam War, in which little drive, moltivation, or other skills of soldiers of the South compared to the highly disciplined forces of the NVA(North Vietnamese Army) and the Viet Cong fighters. America's ticket out of Iraq is for the patriotic and nationalistic sentiments of the Iraqi people to seek to defend their own nation. Without this, America cannot leave Iraq on it's own. Otherwise insurgent forces would quickly overthrow the government in Iraq and make at least a terrorist state in the Sunni areas, and possiby Iran would control the Shiite areas in some manner, and the Kurdish North would become a threat to Turkey to establish some state of Kurdistan.

And within the government in Iraq, many armed members of militia groups hold power, and there is no moltivation to disarm such organizations as the Badr Brigade, which comprises 15,000 armed members. 120 armed members of this organization recently overthrew the secular mayor of Baghdad, and replaced him with a Badr Brigade militia member. And this armed militia controls a number of important seats within the government of Iraq, as well as six provincial governorships. And in the North, the Kurds have a militia comprised of 100,000 members. And the radical cleric Sadr has a radical armed militia that act on his behalf and have frequent military showdowns with the American forces. There is no effort by the government to disarm any of these of the other armed militia groups within Iraq by the government. In fact just the opposite, the government of Iraq sometimes even complements militias such as the Badr Brigade for their efforts.

This month will be a vote on the constitution for Iraq. Instead of a genuine spirit of unity to make Iraq a nation united together, the Shiites and Kurds used the process to essentially divide the oil assets of Iraq among themselves, in a sort of "divorce papers" arrangement to split Iraq along ethnic lines and leave the Sunni ethnic group in Iraq with little but the sand of Iraq, and no oil assets. This failure to compromise with the Sunni minority, as well as writing a document not really intended to cement Iraq together as a single state for the future of a single united state of Iraq prove a real lack of moltivation on the part of Iraqi government to write a serious document intended to glue Iraq together. In 1920, after the British defeat of the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, Winston Churchill drew up a map in a hotel room that combined three ethinic groups of the defeated Ottoman Empire together under British control and created Iraq. Britain then occupied this region until the 1958 rebellion in Iraq, which caused Britain to lose power and leave Iraq. Today Iraq remains as divided as ever. The Iraqi constitution is likely to be defeated by the Sunni voters, or to even spur civil war in Iraq. This country cannot even discipline itself well enough to write a serious constitution.

Given all of the problems in Iraq, it seems very unlikely that Iraq will remain a single state in the future, and terrorists are likely to control at least the Sunni regions and become a new threat in the MidEast unless the U.S. military presense in Iraq remains. With all of the problems in Iraq, it seems unlikely that a good outcome in Iraq is likely by the various powers within Iraq, unless the U.S. keeps some semblence of order. Just like Gen. Colin Powell who was concerned about the Pottery Barn rule, "you break it, you bought it", America has bought Iraq, and cannot seem to get rid of it. And breaking Iraq has cost the U.S. nearly $200 billion, and over 1,900 American lives. Too many in Iraq are just not willing to do the "heavy lifting" to make Iraq work as a nation.

Conservatives Behaving Badly

By any honest assessment, last week was a rotten week for conservatives. Often by their own sword did they manage to fall on their own words and deeds, and play up to the very worst of conservative stereotypes of unethical handling of finances and closet racism. By any reasonable standard and objective account, conservatives were terrible advocates for their philosophy last week.

Tom Delay managed to embroil himself in yet another scandal last week, when charged with a felony after an Austin Texas grand jury voted for an indictment that Delay used his Washington PAC in a scheme where corporations such as Sears donated funds to his PAC, and then the corporate donation money was laundered returned back to Texas to be earmarked to help specific republicans running for the Texas legislature to gain a majority in the state house of representatives. Under Texas law, it is a felony for corporations to donate campaign contributions to state candidates. And it is likely that many republicans supported this bill while in legislature in Texas, and probably signed into law by a republican governor as well. A felony seems like very tough penalty for violating this campaign law, and if Mr. Delay is found in violation, the penalty may involve jail or prison time as well as a fine.

Bill Frist, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, managed to make himself seem like the Martha Stewart of senate politics, and shot a huge hole through any presidential ambitions by a new question into whether he sold some stock that was supposed to be in a blind trust before the price dropped, and raised eyebrows whether he had some sort of inside information on the stock and sold it before an issue would depress the market price. This raises so many questions, that Bill Frist's presidential ambitions may be toast now.

Former Reagan era, Secretary of Education, William Bennett made an absurd statement on his radio program, by making an outrageous comparison that crime could be reduced if all Black babies were aborted. Of course Mr. Bennett did not mean the statement literally, and coupled it with a comment about that such a thing would be immoral and wrong. But it did raise questions of closet racism by Bennett, of equating Blacks with crime, and the genocidal statement of aborting all Black children seemed almost Nazi-like in nature. Even the White House was quick to condemn this stupid comparison statement by Bennett. Bennett usually represents something of an intellectual wing of the republican party, and for the former Education Secretary, this statement hardly seemed very educated or enlightened, and raised questions of closet racism.

This week's conservative idiocy , built on recent absurdity by others such as Rev. Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of democratically elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, then tried to deny the statement was made, but then later issued a statement that he was sorry about the comment. The only reason this comment didn't create a worse international crisis is that Venezuela is a major oil supplier to the U.S. and the has 14,000 Citgo gas stations in America, and could not immediately sever econmic ties to the U.S.

During the hurricane Katrina disater, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh tried to deflect blame from the federal government, FEMA and President Bush, by attacks on the democratic mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. Rush Limbaugh committed a so-called Freudian slip by calling this Black mayor, "Mayor Nagger" on the air. Whether this was intended to appeal to the right wing racist audience that is attracted to even worse right wing "hate" radio hosts, or a mere slip on the air is not really known. But with allegations of prescription drug abuse that have clouded his character, Rush Limbaugh is hardly a figure to be admired.

Fox News and Radio commentator, Bill O'Reilly is quick to attack what he calls "culture war" issues, yet a 2004 scandal involving O'Reilly 55, and a 33 year old female co-worker who brought a sexual harassment suit against O'Reilly claiming lewd phone calls from O'Reilly with talk that involved phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation and loss of virginity, became the material for jokes by late night comedians such as Conan O'Brien. For many, O'Reilly now has little standing when he argues about so-called culture war issues. The Allegations involved in the suit against O'Reilly pulled the rug out from his attacks on mainstream movies and music, and hollow out his "culture wars" attacks into meaningless radio talk show hypocrisy.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is using his role as Attorney General to wage a "war on porn", most likely to enhance his role as a possible Supreme Court candidate to many doubting conservatives. This diverts funds and manpower away from the war on terrorism, illegal immigration of violent gang and criminal organization members or even terrorists, money laundering by drug kingpins, and public official corruption, especially in the Miami area. Many newspapers and columnists such as Arianna Huffington have been highly critical of this new Bush Administration policy as a waste of money as well as a moralistic attack that is misdirected. And the cost of so many expensive bizarre and crazy Bush Administration policies is partly putting Katrina relief costs in a real budget bind. While it appears that most of material that will be targeted is oddball weird stuff far out of the mainstream such as kooky bondage material, this begs the question that if a Web search for such rare, oddball and weird material must be undertaken, then the Internet is hardly overwelmed by such crazy and disturbed, offensive material, so such an expensive war on these nonmainstream adult entertainment Websites will not satisfy the far right who are opposed to the huge supply of much more common supply of mainstream and commercial sleaze on the Internet. This hardly satisfies the concerns of those about the huge mainstream of the sexually eplicit material that is all over the Internet or invades the homes of persons in an unwanted manner through unsolicited spam Emails. The Gonzales "war on porn" makes one wonder why he is so concerned for such rare and oddball material that is probably more difficult to find on the Internet without a long search or tips where to even find such odd fetish material, and children under 18 are highly unlikely to be exposed to compared to the huge supply of far more mainstream and far easier for children to access very explicit material. Organizations such as Morality in Media, Focus On The Family, and other groups are concerned about this huge supply of such explicit material, yet this is not the target. The Bush/Gonzales "war on porn" will not satisfy the far right, creates some late night comedy jokes about the Bush Administration which looks like the workings of moral hypocrites because of so-many unresolved issues such as questions about the Iraq War or Karl Rove and hurts public support, and offends civil libertarians who take an absolute view of the wording of the First Amendment and those who support freedom of expression. Most men, and probably women have visited sexually oriented sites on the Internet, and this even includes church goers and preachers as well, and little evidence exists of a public demand to remove such sites, rather such sites are part of a $10 billion dollar industry that much of the public seems to support in some way. And even major hotel chains and companies profit from cable porn and other material. When the Bush Administration wants to put an oddball bondage Website operator in prison for 50 years, but Bush Administration figures like Karl Rove and others seemingly avoid justice in the minds of some democrats and progressives, then more resentment brews against the Bush Administration. When a female reporter is jailed for 88 days protecting a White House source that leaked a CIA operatives name, and nothing happens at the White House where the leak originated, then resentment builds.

Conservatives wanted power in Washington. But with this power in the Presidency, Senate, House, Supreme Court and the bulk of talk radio, conservatives seem unable to govern the nation effectively with the power they have. Conservatives are far better at constructing petty and meaningless attacks on liberals and democrats by name calling or any means that avoids a discussion of the issues. And numerous and building ethics and character questions are painting an image of conservatives as moral hypocrites and that America's experiment with a conservative government has failed, and it's time for a change to a more progressive direction in the near future in elections.