|
Michael Parker's Journal
 |
Thursday, July 29, 2004 |
John Kerry wrapped up one of the most memorable and remarkable conventions in my lifetime, Republican or Democrat, by giving a speech that may have waned in the middle with all of the "Hope is on its way" message but finished strong and (quite frankly) presidential. I loved his comments that we will rely on our own ingenuity in regards to our energy crisis and not on the Saudi Royal family. I loved his comment that we will not politicize the Constitution of the United States (which received one of the heartiest responses from the audience). But I thought he hit a home run with his comments regarding religion and the us vs. them mentality, saying that we should not be claiming to have God on our side but rather that he hopes we will claim to be on God's side. Amazing. Wise. Inspiring. His comments gave me the chills. I was most very impressed.
10:15:46 PM  | |
|
|
|
Sunday, July 25, 2004 |
On Saturday, I ran Salt Lake City's Deseret News Marathon. It runs in conjunction with Pioneer Day and the course nearly follows the route the Mormon pioneers took.
I was up at 2:15 AM to dress and drive myself into downtown Salt Lake City from Bountiful. Marathon runners had to catch the bus at the Delta Center no later than 3:45 AM. The buses drove us to the starting line up the top of Big Mountain, east of Salt Lake City. We arrived before 4:00 AM and had to stand around in a cold wind till the starting time of 5:30. Luckily they had a large enough tent that shielded the runners from the wind. I will remember the splendid view from atop this peak-- the lights of the city resting off in the distance outlined the valley floor.
During the course of the race, I met an elderly gentlemen who was running his 108th marathon. I was running my 7th so meeting him humbled me.
I encountered one of the most arrogant runners ever. I first heard his voice a few yards behind me, trying to convince another runner to run ahead of him and take his picture. The runner he was asking replied that he didn't necessarily want to change his pace just to take his picture. So the rude runner replied "Well you have to take my picture....how else can I prove to my wife that I got accepted to medical school?" (A remark coinciding with the husband of the missing runner in Salt Lake City--Mark Hacker--and his lies about graduating from the Uof U and getting accepted to medical school in North Carolina.)
And then as he approached other runners, he would say something about the person he was passing. To one lady who was listening to music, he said "If your mother knew you were listening to that she'd never let you out of the house alone."
To another runner who was wearing an American flag bandana, he bemoaned to the runner how he was using the flag as a head-dress.
When he passed me, he said "Oooo, only real men wear black socks."
I replied, "Yah, I like 'em."
"Obviously," he quipped rudely. "You're wearing them."
I said no more and he ran on.
Unfortunately, I passed him up when we went through the next aid station. A couple miles further, he passed me again. And of course, every idiot has to have a sidekick, which I failed to mention earlier. He did not say anything that I heard. He simply laughed at everything the rude runner said. As he passed me this econd time, Mr. rude runner started singing an Army marching tune but integrated something about only real men wearing black socks.
He was finding humor by mocking everyone. Not good form, in the least.
On the positive note: I have to give a shout out to Strawhat, who ran with me for a good stretch of the middle of the race. Strawhat, from Georgia, had run 23 marathons and ultra-marathons, on his way to completing 52 by the end of the year. Strawhat was a welcome running mate. We talked about running, jobs, the economy, politics, philosophy, astronomy, philanthropy, and Japanese animation. I had every intention on crossing the finish line with him but we encountered a stiff wind combined with an uphill grade for a mile and one-half. This wore me out and I could not keep his pace. I wished him well and let him run on.
I was on my way to finishing the race at a sub-four time until I hit this stiff head-wind around mile 18 to 19.5. But I became so exhausted from fighting to run in it that I struggled from miles 21 to the end. My vision even became fuzzy when I stopped for a drink. And then I got sick after I finished the race.
And I would be remiss not to mention my sister-in-law "A" and Gary.
"A", who participated in the 10k race and finished with a great time, waited around the park for three hours to cheer me in (and DVD the event). She met me in the recovery area and, noticing I was not myself, helped me get my bag of food (bagel, yogurt, and banana) and drink and didn't leave me until I was doing okay. You're great "A."
Regarding Gary--While I was laying ill in the park's recovery area, I realized that I had lost my car key. It could have been anywhere-- at the area where volunteers take the time chip off your shoe, the area where volunteers hand out bags of food and fruit, the area where vendors were handing out free Coca Cola cans. Gary went out and scoured those areas in which I had been. He came back with my key. I thanked him profusely. He replied that I could help him after a race if I ever saw him in need of it. I promised I would.
This marathon was both rewarding and frustrating. I was quite disappointed with my 4 hour 26 minute time. But marathon runners will tell you, and it is true, that some races go your way and some do not. I'm chalking this one up as a great training run for the St. George Marathon coming up in October.
11:01:57 PM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, July 22, 2004 |
I support the Don't Amend Alliance movement in Utah, a group of non-partisan individuals who believe that we do not need an amendment to the Utah Constitution regarding marriage. Scott McCoy is the president of the alliance and I wanted to share some main talking points about the mission of the alliance and the importance of voting against this amendment from a form e-mail I received:
1. The Don’t Amend Alliance is not just a group of Democrats. It includes a diverse coalition of political, community, religious, racial, business, labor, and educational groups.
2. The campaign is NOT advocating for gay marriage.
3. The Alliance opposes Amendment 3 because it is not just about defining marriage'. According to McCoy, "there are thousands of Utahns that are opposed to same-sex marriage and also opposed to Amendment 3 because it goes too far."
Amendment 3 has two parts:
a) Part One defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. This has been the definition of marriage in Utah since 1977. Besides, in Utah law, marriage is already defined as the union between a man and a woman in three different places. Considering the fact that this definition has never been challenged in the courts by anyone, the need to define it as this point in time seems ridiculous. As McCoy states, "We have not needed a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage for the last 27 years and we don’t need one now."
b) Part Two of the amendment explains that no other domestic union can have any legal recognition. Because the statement is so vague, this could apply to opposite sex couples such as those in common law marriages or domestic partnerships or gay and lesbian couples. When we speak of legal recognition, McCoy explains that this "means no health care benefits, no hospital visitation rights, etc."
"The Don’t Amend Alliance is focused on the fact that Part Two of the amendment goes too far in denying basic rights and legal protections to certain families in Utah—gay and straight. We are not asking people to support gay marriage or even civil unions or domestic partnerships. Again, there are thousands of Utahns who are in favor of protecting traditional marriage but don’t believe it necessary to hurt real families and innocent children to do so."
For more information about Don't Amend Alliance, and to read the complete text of Amendment 3, visit their website at www.DontAmendAlliance.com.
9:26:26 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 |
I did not know that Jeffrey Dahmer or Hannibal were such an influence in Saudi Arabia. But news today that Paul Johnson Jr.'s head was found in a freezer is most bizarre, creepy, and odd, to say the least.
Here is what the Herald Sun out of Australia had to say about it:
THE head of slain American hostage Paul Johnson, who was kidnapped and beheaded by militants in Saudi Arabia last month, was found by Saudi security forces during a raid on a militant hideout.
The raid left two militants dead, the Interior Ministry said yesterday.
In a statement on Saudi al-Ekhbariya television, the Interior Ministry said the head was found in a freezer in a flat.
But his body was not found.
The US embassy in Riyadh issued a statement saying the Saudi authorities had informed it that they had found "what they believe to be the head of Paul Johnson"....
Last week, US authorities announced the search for Mr Johnson's body had been called off.
Mr Johnson's son in Florida, Paul Johnson III, 28, had been pressing US officials to do more to find his father's body.
The head was found after a search of one of three locations following the raid late yesterday. Weapons, including an anti-aircraft SAM-7 missile, chemicals, video cameras and cash were among items seized.
This CNN article has an interesting commentary about beheadings as a legitmate lawful act or simply a perversion of Muslim law:
In Iraq, I think its a way for these factions to fight back in this war. In Saudi Arabia, after this news, I'm not quite sure.
9:32:51 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 |
Did you happen to read the Peter Shane article Usurping the Voters, published in the Washington Post on the 19th? Here's the crux of the whole thing:
We seem to be devoting a lot of time and energy in this summer of our discontent to thinking about things that could go wrong with the conduct of the November elections. Here's one you probably hadn't thought of.
Suppose that some of the electors -- the people who under our constitutional system conduct the real presidential election some weeks after voters go to the polls -- aren't actually selected by the voters.
Impossible? Not if you give a close reading to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bush v. Gore, which finally settled the presidential election of 2000, if not to everyone's satisfaction. Under that decision, there is no guarantee that the electors who are decisive in choosing the next president of the United States will themselves be selected by the people of the United States. That's because the justices ruled in that case that state legislatures have unlimited authority to determine whether citizens in their respective states shall be allowed to vote for president at all.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States," the court said, "unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College."
Imagine, now, a state in which the same party controls both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. There would presumably be no partisan impediment to the state legislature, with the governor's approval, deciding that the majority party in state government shall control the state's electoral vote, regardless of any popular vote in the state. If the Supreme Court's declaration is an accurate statement of the law, there would not be any legal impediment either.
9:47:05 PM | |
|
|
Bob Herbert of The New York Times had a noteworthy column on July 16th titled Bush's Not So Big Tent about Bush not attending the NAACP conference. (Bush is the first president since Hoover not to attend.) In these paragraphs, Herbert compares Bush's promises at the 2000 convention with what his policies have actually done for African-Americans.
Four years ago, on the first night of the Republican convention, a parade of blacks was hauled before the television cameras (and the nearly all-white audience in the convention hall) to sing, to dance, to preach and to praise a party that has been relentlessly hostile to the interests of blacks for half a century.
I wrote at the time that "you couldn't tell whether you were at the Republican National Convention or the Motown Review."
That exercise in modern-day minstrelsy was supposed to show that Mr. Bush was a new kind of Republican, a big-tent guy who would welcome a more diverse crowd into the G.O.P. That was fiction. It wasn't long before black voters would find themselves mugged in Florida, and soon after that Mr. Bush was steering the presidency into a hard-right turn.
Among the most important props of that 2000 campaign were black children. Mr. Bush could be seen hugging them at endless photo-ops. He said a Bush administration would do great things for them. He promised to transform public education in America. He hijacked the trademarked slogan of the Children's Defense Fund, "Leave No Child Behind," and refashioned it for his own purposes. He pasted the new version, "No Child Left Behind," onto one of the signature initiatives of his presidency, a supposedly historic education reform act.
The only problem is that, to date, the act has been underfunded by $26 billion. A lot of those kids the president hugged have been left behind.
9:36:21 PM | |
|
|
July 16th's feature editorial in the New York Times, titled A Pause for Hindsight, apologizes to its readership for not being more critical of the Administration's talking points for the invasion of Iraq. Consider the opening excerpts:
Over the last few months, this page has repeatedly demanded that President Bush acknowledge the mistakes his administration made when it came to the war in Iraq, particularly its role in misleading the American people about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links with Al Qaeda. If we want Mr. Bush to be candid about his mistakes, we should be equally open about our own.
During the run-up to the war, The Times ran dozens of editorials on Iraq, and our insistence that any invasion be backed by "broad international support" became a kind of mantra. It was the administration's failure to get that kind of consensus that ultimately led us to oppose the war.
But we agreed with the president on one critical point: that Saddam Hussein was concealing a large weapons program that could pose a threat to the United States or its allies. We repeatedly urged the United Nations Security Council to join with Mr. Bush and force Iraq to disarm.
As we've noted in several editorials since the fall of Baghdad, we were wrong about the weapons. And we should have been more aggressive in helping our readers understand that there was always a possibility that no large stockpiles existed.
To those of us, me included, called by the Republican attack dogs as appeasers, who wanted more stricter measures placed on Saddam via inspections rather than an invasion, this apology is a welcome sight. I hope they have learned their lesson.
9:23:58 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, July 18, 2004 |
Micahel Froomkin of Discourse.net posted this article today from the Miami Herald reported about an Episcopalian Bishop in Miami, Leo Frade, born in Cuba, and his comments about Bush's plan to use churches to help build his voting base amongst church goers.
Consider Frade's remarks from the article:
To Bishop Leo Frade, the Bush-Cheney strategy violates the separation of church and state.
“Handing over names for partisan politics to any party would be an infraction of our tax-exempt status as a religious institution,” said Frade.... who was born in Cuba and came to the United States in 1960 as a college student....
“I’m alarmed by any suggestion of providing the names of church members to any particular political group....I saw this request made by Fidel Castro at the beginning of his regime, and his persecution of churches that refused.”
Let's let the Republicans stew about this comparison for awhile. I'm sure they won't like it one bit. But when the shoe fits.......
2:46:45 PM | |
|
|
Added my summer 2000 review of Hillary Swank's film, Boys Don't Cry to my database. Her exceptional performance of Brandon Teena won her the Oscar for Best Actress.
In the review I talk about the film's historical relevance because of California's Proposition 22. Today, the election of 2004 is bringing the issue of basic rights to homosexuals. Again, this film is relevant.
11:44:36 AM | |
|
|
|
Friday, July 16, 2004 |
Josh Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo talked to the president of the Jefferson County Republican Party in Kentucky, Jack Richardson IV, to validate that they are distributing banners and stickers that say "Kerry is bin Laden's Man; Bush is My Man." And sure enough, they are passing them out. Consider this excerpt from his post today:
...."I believe that if you look at John Kerry's voting record in the senate," he told me, "why wouldn't bin Laden prefer Kerry over Bush?"
When I pressed Richardson on whether or not his party organization was distributing it, he acknowledged that they probably were handing it out on their campaign literature tables at recent events. And if it was being handed out, "I make no apologies for it."
"I think it's funny how the truth not only can be amusing but also make a point," Richardson went on. "Why wouldn't Kerry be bin Laden's man? Bush certainly isn't bin Laden's man."
You know, I bet bin Laden thinks Bush is the next best thing to Allah for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, for not pursuing him until they captured him, for not pursuing the funding coming out of Saudi Arabia for his terrorist group, and for invading Iraq and making his cause more legitimate in the eyes of the Muslim world. Yes, I think Bush is very much bin Laden's man!
10:08:03 PM | |
|
|
|
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 |
Note: I'm not a professional runner but I've been running long enough to know a thing or to about training and running races, especially half-marathons and marathons. As the years have gone by, and the race t-shirts and completion medalions keep stacking up, I've experienced many things and have heard some amazing stories. It's my hope that I can share them with you in conjunction with helpful tips. And this way, runners and non-runners should find them interesting.
________________________
Set and keep a pace.
It was the first Saturday in May, 2004. I was running the Provo canyon path near my house. The path travels six miles and passes through five beautiful parks--Canyon View, Canyon Glenn, Nunns Park, Bridal Veil Park, and Vivian's Park. Vivian's Park sits at the end of the stretch.
On this particular morning, I was running the round-trip, a total of 12 miles.
2.5 miles into the run, while passing through Canyon Glenn, three university-aged kids fell in behind me (approximately 30 yards). They came upon me fast. I thought how great it would be to be young again--the ability to run fast. As they passed me, however, one of the runners exclaimed that there was no way he could run this fast and make it through the entire run. The other two laughed. One replied "It's only four miles."
They slowly edged further and further ahead of me until they disappeared around the bend at the top of the hill that dips down into Nunn's Park..
I ran through Nunns Park, Bridal Veil Park, and passed the the gorgeous Bridal Veil Falls that falls off sharp and majestic cliffs. In the two mile stretch in between Bridal Veil Falls and Vivian's Park, I ran around the corner and nearly plowed over the three runners, who were walking slowly as if they were completly spent.
As I passed them, I overheard the same runner who complained earlier say "See, that's what I mean by pacing!"
The ability to keep a pace is fundamental to succesful long-distance running. If you start off at a pace that is too fast for what your body is used to, you will expend your energy far too quickly. (I've heard many refer to this state as the collapsing point.) You'll end up like my three friends, walking and sore.
Speaking of being sore, another reason for not pushing yourself beyond what you are able to run is because of the likelihood of incurring an injury--knees, ankles, tendons, muscle pulls or strains.
Just like a house needs a sturdy foundation to sit on, you could consider that a strong pace needs a strong foundation to support it. And that foundation, if you are a new runner, is built by 1) creating a consistent running routine; 2) starting off with minimal miles and increasing the mileage weekly; and 3) starting off at a pace that helps you finish the miles you are running for that particular day.
You will see your pace naturally increase the more you run. Faster paces are developed through building your endurance (distance) and speed. Endurance is developed by conistent training and a gradual increase of mileage. Speed is developed not only by a consistent running routine but more so by implementing speed-work in with your training runs or integrating speed runs in between your distance runs.
A 1975 running guide Step Up to Racing from World Publications published a table of data that pinpoints how far you can run based off of the criteria of how many miles you run per week. The results explain 1) what the maximum distance your body can race; and 2) what your body's collapsing point is.
Consider these examples:
If you run 10 miles per week = 5 miles is your collapsing point; 3 miles is the maximum race distance.
20 miles = 9 miles is your collapsing point; 6 miles is the maximum race distance.
40 miles = 17 miles is your collapsing point; 15 miles is the maximum race distance.
60 miles = 26 miles is your collapsing point; 20 miles is the maximum race distance.
9:49:16 PM | |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 |
California state Education Secretary Richard Riordan was at a promotional event last Thursday at the Santa Barbara library. The event was focused on creating and maintaining summer reading programs for young kids. An unidentified girl, preschool age, asked Riordan if he knew that her name meant "Egyptian goddess."
Riordan replied, "It means stupid dirty girl."
The Salon news reported on comments from various leaders:
Alice Huffman, president of the California chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said Riordan "is not suitable to lead education in our state" and should be removed.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, his longtime friend, called Riordan's statement to the girl "unacceptable in any context" ....
....In an editorial Thursday, The Sacramento Bee said California "shouldn't have an education secretary who makes offensive, damaging remarks to young children for no apparent reason."
"He's the governor's top person on education, which means we would expect him to have some love and respect for children," Huffman said. "I think he is the wrong man for the job. There is no way for him to explain this away."
Riordan, who has a history of this type of flippant and controversial behavior, has apologized to the girl twice for his remarks.
State Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, a Democrat who served on the Los Angeles City Council when Riordan was mayor, called the remarks to the girl "completely reprehensible" but said they were uncharacteristic for a man with a soft touch for children.
"I've been in dozens of situations with him with children -- he's usually the grandfatherly guy," Goldberg said. "I've seen him say things he wished he could take back many times -- but never around kids."
When Goldberg explains that Riordan is a "man with a soft touch for children," the only thing I can think of is Michael Jackson. Not a good turn of phrase to persuade someone that your friend is a viable advocate for children and their education! Arnold, if he's not interested in replacing Riordan, should get him into a program that will work on social skills and behavior problems.
6:11:30 PM | |
|
|
From Chris Hedge's work War is the Force That Gives Us Meaning; the first chapter The Myth of War, page 38:
The myth of war rarely endures for those who experience combat. War is messy, confusing, sullied by raw brutality and an elephantine fear that grabs us....Soldiers in the moments before real battles weep, vomit, and write last letters home, although these are done more as a precaution than from belief. All are nearly paralyzed with fright. There is a morbid silence that grips a battlefield in the final moments before the shooting starts, one that sets the back of my own head pounding in pain, wipes away all appetite, and makes my fingers tremble as I ready myself to go forward against logic. You do not think of home or family, for to do so is to be overcome by a wave of nostalgia and emotion that can impair your ability to survive. One thinks, so far as it is possible, of cleaning weapons, of readying for the business of killing. No one ever charges into battle for God and country.
"Just remember," a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel told me as he strapped his pistol belt under his arm before we crossed into Kuwait, "that none of these boys is fighting for home, for the flag, for all that crap the politicians feed the public. They are fighting for each other, just for each other."
5:36:16 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, July 12, 2004 |
Cancelling the Presidential Elections? is the link on MSNBC website tonight.
Thanks to Tom Ridge's psuedo-terrorist warning--I call it pseudo because the warning came with no specifics, wasn't backed by any tangible intelligence, nor was the terror level raised-- the news about delaying or postponing the election (in case of a terrorist attack) is making the rounds.
In fact, Newsweeks coverage of it in the Campaign 2004 section of the July 19th issue (which is the online link from MSNBC) brings the issue into the living rooms, front porches, and doctors offices of middle America. As I mentioned in June, this issue has been tossed around ever since the elections in Spain voted out the Bush-friendly government and put in the "appeasers." The Republicans don't want that happening here so their grand plan is to subvert the right to vote by cancelling the election in case of a terrorist attack.
Now, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) " told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress. 'These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen...But we're preparing for all these contingencies now.'" [Reuters]
Right! And I'm the toothfairy.
Let me digress and talk about two points that concern me about allowing this Administration to create contingency plans that allow the postponement of the presidential election.
Can we trust intelligence managed by this Administration? With the findings of the recent intelligence report that stated, among other things, that the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence for the Iraq war was dysfunctional, and that the White House and other figures put pressure on the CIA to stylize the intelligence to substantiate a viable reason to invade Iraq, how much credit should be given to the "alarming intelligence" Tom Ridge warns points to election day attacks?
Why is so much being said about this warning when Ridge and "other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots."
How can intelligence be "alarming" if there is "no intel about any specific plots"? (Talk amongst yourselves.)
But Ridge gets plastered over the airwaves wearing a serious we're-gonna-be-dying-soon look that's broadcast over every top-of-the-hour-every-hour news programs as if the attacks are plotted and coming soon to your hometown, neighborhood Wal-Mart.
The cost of the Iraqi war depleted funds for building viable, working homeland security measures. If there is a terrorist attack, Bush and company should be voted out of office for neglecting homeland security by taking their war on terrorism to Iraq rather than concentrating their efforts on Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. As of September 30th, the Iraqi War will have cost the US $135 billion dollars. "This is the lowest estimate of what Congress has appropriated for the war in Iraq in two supplemental appropriations."
Furthermore, and not less important then the above point, the cost of this war has taken funds away from developing and maintaining a fully-staffed, fully-trained, and responsive homeland security (first responders and hazmat crews) for each state and major city.
Finally, there seems to be a logistical problem about the development of this contingency plan. It appears the only ones allowed to make any real significant input on it are Republicans. And, not surprising, it is void of details. Here are some of the questions/ideas that need to be addressed:
1. Who or what committee decides if a terrorist attack is grave enough to postpone the presidential election?
2. How long will the election be postponed? Is it a set number of days? Or is the new date subject to the whims of the threat of terrorism -- some magical calculation based off how secure someone or some committee feels America is?
Point 2 is most important. We have already seen how the threat of terrorism brought the House and Senate to its knees in support of an invasion of Iraq. We also know how many Americans have bought into the myth of the war on terror. As Orrin Hatch explained in a letter to me: "we are fighting a shadowy enemy that seeks to destroy our very way of life. The war against terror will last years, possibly decades...."
If the presidential election was postponed, it seems far too easy (based off of what we have seen and experienced) to spike up the threat of terrorism and postpone the election until the war on terror is won. And whether or not you have bought into the myth, you probably know that could "last years, possibly decades...."
3. Is there any feasibility to pass legislation (in this case) that only gives the president certain rights, powers, and privileges in the interem time until the scheduled election? This might insure that the president cannot do a power grab.
_______________________________________
I also wrote about this issue on June 30th.
11:20:16 PM | |
|
|
|
Sunday, July 11, 2004 |
Added links to posts going back into April. More to come later.
10:04:19 PM | |
|
|
From the Center for American Progress Report, July 9:
In a dramatic scene on the floor of the U.S. House yesterday, the White House and Republican leadership rigged a key vote on a bill that would have reformed the Patriot Act by requiring "law enforcement to go to a regular court instead of a secret court to get permission to demand library and Internet access records of people it is investigating." The reform, sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and broadly supported by 332 local governments, at one point was winning 219-201, and when the official voting time ran out "appeared to have been approved by a 213-206 vote." But even as House members screamed "Shame!," Republican leaders abused their power by indefinitely extending voting time, using the extra time to force nine of their colleagues to switch their votes and defeat the bill on a tie vote 210-210. Rep. Butch Otter (R-ID), a top sponsor of the bill who voted for it, said "You win some, and some get stolen." See the video of Rep. Sanders' admonishing House leaders after they rigged the process and subverted democracy. And see how lawmakers who supported yesterday's legislation are today attempting to shut down the House in protest.
IGNORING THE PROTEST OF DICK CHENEY: In rigging the vote, House leaders ignored the timeless protest of Vice President Dick Cheney. In 1987, then-Rep. Dick Cheney (R-WY) criticized the practice of holding open votes to overturn bills, calling the maneuver "the most heavy-handed, arrogant abuse of power in the 10 years I've been here.''
VOTING DOWN A BILL THEY CO-SPONSORED: Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), both co-sponsors of Sanders's underlying legislation, refused in the waning moments to support the bill. Lofgren, who voted "present," argued the Sanders bill was too broad. What she refused to acknowledge, however, is that House rules precluded him from offering more limited legislation, and that his measure would have likely been modified in House-Senate negotiations to ultimately become the very bill she co-sponsored in the first place. But because she and Wamp cast the deciding votes against the measure, there will be no Patriot Act reform at all.
SPREADING A MYTH TO DEFEAT A BILL: The Bush administration, which threatened to veto the measure if passed, resorted to outright misinformation to confuse wavering Members of Congress. Just before the vote, the Justice Department sent a letter to House members saying that at least twice in recent months "a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al Qaeda used Internet services provided by a public library." What they failed to say was that the Sanders legislation would not have precluded law enforcement from obtaining those library records – it would have merely forced them to obtain a warrant from a judge (which, if the threat was as critical as they said, should not have been difficult). Rep. Wamp, the co-sponsor who voted against his own legislation, cited the Justice Department letter as the reason he switched his vote.
CLAIMING PATRIOT ACT OPPONENTS DON'T CARE ABOUT 9/11 DEATHS: During the floor debate on the bill, Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) had the nerve to argue that those supporting the bipartisan legislation were disregarding those killed on September 11. Referring to those in his district who died, Shays said, "I have 70 constituents who lost their rights on September 11; and to hear this debate, I am not sure [you] seem to care about that." Incredibly, Shays made his comments just moments after an impassioned speech in support of the bill by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who represents the Manhattan district encompassing Ground Zero. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who also represents New York City and supported the bill, immediately stood up after Shays and said "to have a New Yorker hear that we somehow do not care for the victims of September 11 is really the cheapest kind of blow... I knew people that died there. I was friends with people who died there...[But] in the process of caring for the victims of September 11, no one said we were supposed to throw away the Constitution."
A PATTERN OF INTIMIDATION: Republicans have abused their power and extended votes before in order to get their way. As the NYT reports, when the controversial Medicare bill appeared headed for defeat last year, Republican leaders "held the vote open for three hours to get colleagues to switch their votes." Currently, the House ethics committee is looking into accusations that one lawmaker, Mr. Smith (who also switched his vote on the Patriot Act measure yesterday), was offered a bribe on the House floor for his vote. Rep. Sanders' noted just how obscene yesterday's behavior was saying, "I find it ironic that, on an amendment designed to protect American democracy and our constitutional rights, the Republican leadership in the House had to rig the vote and subvert the democratic process in order to prevail." Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the tactics "have turned [Congress] into a laughingstock," while other lawmakers "suggested wryly that the United Nations needs to send in election observers to monitor the House."
10:15:02 AM | |
|
|
|
Thursday, July 08, 2004 |
On Wednesday morning, John Kerry announced John Edwards of North Carolina as his running mate. I was hoping Edards would be the man, or Wesley Clark. The more I read about Edwards, the more I like him; the more I sense that the Kerry-Edwards ticket is the ticket for America. If you think Bush has that down-home sense about him, meet John Edwards, who seems to have a smile in his pocket for everyone he meets and talks like he is the neighbor you've known all your life.
Regarding what Edwards does for the ticket, it might be obvious--
1) He's a southern boy who has the potential to swing a few of those states Kerry's way.
2) He appeals to middle and poor America. His "Two Americas" theme has found an audience because its talking points are so relevant-- to blue-color workers, to the elderly, to university students, to middle-class America, to the struggling families. The proof of the supposed economic recovery in America is not making its way down into the bank accounts and pockets of those who need it.
3) His charisma is magnetic and personable. Kerry, to me, is more regal and reserved. Since Edwards has joined the ticket, even Kerry seems happier. (It will be interesting to see how long the honeymoon, if you want to call it that, lasts.)
4) Like Kerry, Edwards has vision of America as a great nation again. It is well known that we are not respected the way we were just four years ago. With news today from Afghanistan that Americans have been arrested and charged with kidnapping and abuse, our character as Americans will once again suffer a blow internationally. On the homefront, I feel Americans may slowly be waking up to the realization that those running our country aren't fit to be managing it and don't have the best interest of any program in America, especially education. Do you remeber the Director of Education calling teachers terrorists? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize there is something wrong with that. Also see #2.
I've gathered a few comments regarding John Edwards from some of the articles I've been reading the last two days. The kaleidoscope of thoughts paint a great picture of possibly our new Vice President.
From the Guardian's Leader Editorial "Kerry Goes for Charisma," July 7, 2004:
In the end Mr Kerry chose a man he was more likely to feel threatened by. Mr Edwards is a millionaire personal injury lawyer who portrays himself as a champion of the American working man. He announced his presidential campaign from the factory whose floors he had swept to earn money for college. He has the charisma, the fresh face, the self-confident youthfulness that Mr Kerry, nine years his senior, so clearly lacks. He attracts epithets like "golden boy". People magazine calls him its "sexiest politician". Mr Kerry's speeches ramble on in their worthy way about education, healthcare, jobs and equal opportunity. Mr Edwards' speeches rouse. He is a brilliant campaigner, a real fund-raiser. He oozes energy and optimism. He makes his audience feel good about themselves and America again.
From Salon Magazine's article, The Smile vs The Scowl, by Tim Grieve, July 7, 2004:
It was late January in Columbia, S.C., and a friendly crowd was turning ugly on John Edwards. The event should have been a natural for Edwards, a town-hall meeting where the Democratic presidential candidates could talk one-on-one with average people -- poor people -- about the problem of poverty. But a few minutes into Edwards' time onstage, the moderator turned against him. "You talk about 'two Americas,'" he said, but isn't it true that you're a millionaire trial lawyer with a couple of multimillion-dollar homes?
The crowd smelled a phony in their midst. Their hoots and "gotcha" groans drowned out the first bit of Edwards' response, but the senator kept talking. He told the crowd about how he was born the son of a mill worker, how his father had to borrow money to bring him home from the hospital, how he had worked his way to a better life by representing little people against big corporations. He told them that the Bush administration was eliminating opportunity for poor kids like the one he once was.
The moderator tried to cut him off, but Edwards wasn't done. "You have to let me finish," Edwards said. "You asked me the question." Edwards turned back to the crowd. "I grew up the way you grew up," he told them. "I come from the same place ... I will never forget where I come from, and you can take that to the bank."
By the time Edwards was finished, he had turned the crowd around. The jeers became shouts and then thunderous applause, and Edwards left the hall in triumph.
From Salon Magazine's article, John Edwards' Southern Strategy, by Sidney Blumenthal, July 8, 2004:
The instant Kerry announced Edwards, the Republicans opened an attack on him as a trial lawyer, supposedly the mark against him. Yet in 1998, when Edwards first ran for the Senate in North Carolina, his Republican opponent, a tool of the Jesse Helms political machine named Lauch Faircloth, spent $2 million on advertising depicting Edwards and hate-figure Clinton with Pinocchio noses as "two tobacco-taxing liberal lawyers who are well known for stretching the truth." The ads backfired; Edwards won handily.
In one of his prominent cases, involving a girl left brain-damaged by hospital neglect, Edwards told the jury: "She speaks to you. But now she speaks to you not through a fetal heart monitor strip; she speaks to you through me." The tradition for which Edwards now takes his stand is as open to demagogues as to statesmen, but in the mouth of a statesman it can undo a demagogue.
____________________________
Also consider these great articles:
John Kerry's Brilliant "Fallback" Plan, by Arianna Huffington, Salon Magazine, July 7, 2004
A Good Pick, Not a Great One, by LiberalOasis, July 7, 2004
A Stunt that Might Work, by Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, July 7, 2004
8:43:25 PM | |
|
|
|
Monday, July 05, 2004 |
Call me weird. But it seems anymore that reports about these beheadings are wrought with incongrueties and come across as terribly written scripts for television. They really are simply odd. The latest is the supposed beheading of Wassef Ali Hassoun.
Saturday's Report, the AP, and Nadia Abou el-Magd
On Saturday, an AP report by NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD reported that the group Ansar al-Sunna claimed on an Arab website that Wassef had been beheaded. The group, of course, was a different group than who claimed to have kidnapped him--the Iraqi Resistence. This in itself was odd because we had not seen this type of behavior with terrorist groups--that one group captures their victims and the other one does the beheading. The article seemed to lack authenticity when El-Magd failed to give the name of the website that posted the statement by Ansar al-Sunna.
Another aspect of this article that intrigued me, like the other AP reports we so often read lately, is that it reads like a laundry list of things that are happening in Iraq, rather than concentrate on the main story. The impression I got imparticular with el-Magd's information was that she was doing nothing more than spitting out information that she was being told to write. Do our AP journalists in Baghdad get all of their information from the US military?
I have been intrigued with the names of the AP journalists who have been listed on these beheadings and captures, mainly Chris Tomlinson, Nadia Abou el-Magd, and Paul Foy. Going to the AP website and viewing a list of the AP writers, 1) I'm only viewing the list of the domestic writers and 2) I suspect that this list is only the managers of the foot soldier journalists out in the field. There is no comprehensive list of journalists out in the field so it makes it hard to verify if these writers are indeed AP writers. The AP website did offer a search tool about the latest reports they have published. Chris Tomlinson's reports do show up in a search. But Nadia Abou el-Magd's name is not even recognized. I don't know the business practices of the AP. Maybe el-Magd is not an AP journalist, per se, but a freelance writer who submits articles to the AP. Maybe the AP allows the writers of accepted reports to use the name AP writer. If she was a legiitimate AP writer, wouldn't you think their own search engine would recognize her name and reports? I'd also like to know why it is so hard to find a list of AP journalists.
Ansar al-Sunna Denies Beheading Wassef
On Sunday, the group Ansar al-Sunna Army made the statement that they had not beheaded Wassef.
What we know from this revelation is that the information in el-Magd's article on Saturday can now be considered spurious in hindsight because it gave us two unknown facts-- 1) It pinpointed the leader of the al-Sunna group as witnessing the beheading of Wassef : "....[The statement was] signed in the name of the group's leader, Abu Abdullah al-Hassan bin Mahmoud." Knowing what we know today, that al-Sunna militant group did not behead Wassef or make that statement on that un-named website, someone or some group of people were trying to pin Hassoun's death on bin Mahmoud. And 2) it fleshed out the "lured off base" claim by explaining that Wassef was involved in a love affair with an Arab woman.
When this revelation came out, I went back to read el-Magd's entire article. But the link for the article now directs me to an article about the Iraqi Cleric who wants the cease-fire to work. If you notice in the link, the date is clearly yesterday's date, not today's. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&;u=/ap/20040704/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716)
Even though al-Sunna declared they did not behead Wassef, Paul Foy of the Associated Press noted in his article that the National News Agency in Lebanon still beleives that Hassoun had been beheaded based off of the report by the Foreign Ministry, which was informed of the death by "Lebanon's charge d'affairs in Baghdad."
Paul Foy's article was not the only article seeming to confirm this fact. An online Australian magazine, Bignewsnetwork, in its article "Arabs Angry at Coverage of US Marine Beheading," states two interesting talking points. 1) That a statement was indeed made that Hassoun had been beheaded, but that there was also video. And because of this, 2) Arabs are saying that the Western media is not covering Hassoun's beheading like the previous beheadings because Hassoun is Muslim. Here is an excerpt substantiating point 1:
Hassoun was reported beheaded after a video surfaced showing his execution in Iraq. A statement subsequently issued by the group responsible has denied the beheading took place.
Here is an excerpt substantiating point 2:
Meantime sections of the Arab press are reportedly angry at the coverage the 'beheading' was given. The Western media saturated coverage of the execution of American Nick Berg and was generous in the space it allocated a similar execution of a South Korean hostage last week.
The Arab media is unhappy the death of a U.S. Marine who is a Muslim in a similar fashion has received little coverage. The Khaleej Times, the largest circulation English language newspaper in the Gulf dedicated its lead front page story Monday to the Lebanese-born Hassoun under the headline, "West Calls Muslims terrorists! But they now behead a Muslim American, proving our stand not to equate religion with terrorism." A sub-headline followed, "Western Media Fails To Give Enough Space To This American Muslim Soldier Who Was Beheaded."
The headline startled usual readers as the paper is highly regarded as a conservative publication with balanced and accurate reporting. The content of the story, derived from agencies AFP and DPA concentrated on the conflicting reports of Hassoun's fate. Rather than a religious bias it may well be the lack of coverage afforded the incident is that Hassoun is in the U.S. Military. The Pentagon is slow to report events where confirmation is lacking. From the outset the military indicated it had concerns about the authenticity of the video which purportedly showed the Marine's beheading. From the events that followed it appears that concern was justified.
Another Paul Foy article, posted today (Hostage's Family Wait for News on Fate) focuses on Hassoun's family. But it reveals two more interesting twists to the story: 1) Wassef is alive and being kept by the same captors who kidnapped him-- the Islamic Response. And 2) Wassef says that "[he has] promised not to return to the American military."
Consider this excerpt:
In a statement sent to Al-Jazeera television, the group calling itself "Islamic Response," said Monday that Hassoun was safe at an undisclosed location. The statement also claimed that Hassoun had promised not to return to the American military.
"At this point we are uncertain about the destiny of our brother, our son, our friend, Wassef," Tarek Nosseir, a family spokesman, said Monday.
"We pray that the news of his safe release is true. If he is still in captivity, we remind the captors of the saying of our beloved prophet: Be merciful to those on earth, mercy will descend upon you from heaven," Nosseir said in front of the family's home in West Jordan.
Nosseir would not say why the family thought Hassoun may have been released.
Based off this information, are being lead to assume Hassoun is a deserter again?
Why would the militants reveal that Wassef no longer wants to return to the American military? Was it an option for his release? If he was being tortured and was told that by stating he won't return to the American military that he'd be released, wouldn't Wassef agree, adamantly? Is it just to get the goat of the US military?
Whatever happens in the next few days in regards to the actual fate of Wassef Ali Hassoun, I'm leary of this facts:
- The changing of the militant groups from Islamic Response to Ansar al-Sunna, back to Islamic Response.
- How accurate should we consider the reports from today, considering el-Magds report on Saturday was discredited by the al-Sunna militant group's denial?
- The fact that the name of the website publishing the statements about his capture and beheading was never named.
- The changind of the story of how Wassef was lured away from base-- 1) he was lured away from militant Iraqi's posing as base workers; 2) he was a psychologically disturbed soldier who had witnessed the death of a soldier and needed to get out; 3) he was having an affair with an Arab woman; 4) he has promised not to return to the American military.
10:29:18 PM | |
|
|
|
Saturday, July 03, 2004 |
The sound of fireworks shakes the air outside tonight as we celebrate Independence Day. Yesterday, Utah welcomed home the 419th Transportation Unit from Iraq, a unit that saw their duty extended two times. But many thoughts and hearts have been turned toward Wassef Ali Hassoun, the Muslim marine from West Jordan, Utah. He was taken hostage around June 19th or the 21st, depending on the news source you were reading, by an Iraqi militant group. They vowed to behead Wassef if the US did not release all of the detainees in the war prisons.
Many people, including the Hassoun family in Utah and Lebanon, where Wassef's father and brother live, found hope in the news of the three Turkish hostages being released because of their ties to Islam. A great debate has arisen in the Middle East the past week about whether it is right to harm a fellow Muslim. But today, the debates and pleadings for Wassef's safe release could not save him. The militant group holding him hostage claims that they have beheaded Wassef Hassoun.
According to NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD Associated Press article, this is what we know:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi militant group claimed on a Web site Saturday it beheaded a captive U.S. Marine, in what would be the fourth decapitation of a foreign hostage in the region since May.
The group, called the Ansar al-Sunna Army, posted a written statement on an Islamic Web site claiming that it had killed Lebanese-born Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, saying he had been lured into a trap involving a love affair with an Arab woman....
The U.S. military in Baghdad said it was checking into the report of the 24-year-old Hassoun's death but had no confirmation.
It was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the group's statement.
"We would like to inform you that the Marine of Lebanese origin, Hassoun, has been slaughtered. You are going to see the video with your very eyes soon," said the statement, signed in the name of the group's leader, Abu Abdullah al-Hassan bin Mahmoud.
| |
