Employees Picket American Airlines

Yesterday, the American Airlines flight attendants union, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), picketed the headquarters of American in Fort Worth. This kicked off a series of demonstrations that will take place in at least 15 airports. On Wednesday, the AA pilots will join in the demonstrations.

Why are they unhappy? It seems that they just found out that they are being screwed by American Airlines again. Four years ago, the rank-and-file employees of the airline agreed to a pay-cut to help save the financially-troubled airline. Now that the airline is back on is back on a firmer financial foundation, it is proposing to reward some of its employees.

But the financial rewards are not going to the employees that sacrificed to help save the airlines. The unions have recently learned that American Airlines is scheduled to give over $200 million to airline management next week. The head of American Airlines, Gerard Arpey, is scheduled to receive around $7 million.

This is a slap in the face to attendants, pilots and other employees who are still working for the reduced salaries agreed to in 2003. I don't blame them for picketing the airline! Why should they continue to work at reduced wages, while airline executives receive exorbitant bonuses?

Once again, an American corporation is shafting its workers while making its executives and management rich. This is just wrong!

Management should not receive a single dollar in bonuses until full wages have been restored to all employees. These bonuses have not been earned. They are coming straight out of the pockets of rank-and-file employees.

This is not a very smart move by American Airlines. I doubt if the unions can stop management from getting rich at their expense right now, but contract negotiations will begin next year for some of the airline's unions. You can bet the unions will not have forgotten how they were treated this year.

In their race to make themselves rich through bonuses this year, the American Airlines management have just made their next round of employee negotiations much more difficult. These unions will no longer be willing to make sacrifices just so the bosses can get richer.

Various Thoughts On A Friday

There's been a big furor over the latest idiotic and racist statements from the now former radio personality, Don Imus. Of course he's claiming he's not a racist - he just made a terrible mistake. Nonsense! The statement he made on nation-wide radio and TV speaks for itself.

Imus supporters would have you believe this is an isolated incident that he's being crucified for. That also is nonsense. This guy has been a slimeball for many years. I certainly won't be sorry to see him disappear from the airwaves.

But one of the most ridiculous stories on the Imus affair was on the LA Times website yesterday. It said the Democrats have lost a valuable resource by Imus being kicked off the airwaves - that he gave them a place to appeal to white males in this country. That is a ridiculous statement, and little more than an attempt to smear the Democratic Party. I'm sure Democrats can do just fine without Imus and his ilk.

***************

I have not remarked before about the TYC affair. Others have covered it very well - sites like Capitol Annex & Grits for Breakfast. But the Texas Senate has now proposed a couple of changes that I really think are needed and will help the agency to fulfill its mission.

First, they are proposing to cut the age of offenders committed to the agency. TYC would no longer accept 19 and 20 year olds as they currently do. This is a very good change. Like it or not, 19 and 20 year olds are adults, and are not likely to be helped by the youth-oriented programs of the Youth Commission.

Second, they propose to separate younger and non-violent offenders from the older and more violent offenders. This is another good change. Back in the seventies and eighties, the Youth Commission did this. I don't know why they changed the policy, but it will be good to get back to it.

Finally, let me say this. There are thousands of decent hard-working people working for the Texas Youth Commission, who are doing their best to protect and rehabilitate the young offenders committed to their care. Abusers must be flushed from the system, and changes need to be made to the system, but people should take care not to demonize the thousands of decent and innocent workers in the system. Most of these workers are happy to see changes are finally being made.

***************

Ten more American soldiers were killed over the last weekend in Iraq. Yesterday, a bomb blast went off inside the Iraqi Parliament, and insurgents blew up a bridge inside Baghdad. A few days ago, the most popular Shiite leader (Al-Sadr) called on his followers to attack American soldiers.

Is there anyone besides Bush, Cheney and McCain that thinks this new "troop surge" is accomplishing anything other than destroying our own military capabilities? How many more will have to die before our leaders come to their senses and bring our troops back home?

***************

I applaud the recent move by the University of Texas to honor two great Americans. By this Fall, they will be unveiling a statue on campus of Cesar Chavez. They are also in the process of choosing a likeness of Barbara Jordan, which will then also be made into a statue for the campus.

They couldn't have chosen two more worthy people to honor. These are the kind of American heroes I would like my children to emulate.

McCain Is Fading Fast In Race For Prez

You might as well wave goodbye to John McCain, because he's fading fast in the 2008 presidential race. But do it quick because he may not survive much longer as a viable candidate.

After the 2004 election, most people had McCain pegged as the favorite for the Republican nomination. But evidently that wasn't good enough for McCain. Since then he's made some really bone-headed decisions, and thrown most of that support away.

I guess he believed the idiots at Fox who said he must appeal to the far-right of the Republican party if he wanted to win. So several months ago he began to move to the right and pander to the nut-wing of the party. But the ultra-right just doesn't like McCain - they didn't like him when he opposed them, and they don't like him now that he's kissing their butts.

Instead of gaining votes by pandering to the right, he has just lost the votes of many moderates. In an effort to regain his lost momentum, McCain then makes an even worse decision. He decided to pin his hopes on rabid support for the war in Iraq. I can't believe that someone in his campaign didn't point out to him that 70% of the American people now oppose the war.

I'm glad he's fading fast, because I'd hate to have a president that makes such poor decisions. It would be like replacing Bush with his own clone!

The Los Angeles Times tells us that in a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll conducted recently, McCain finished third behind Giuliani and Fred Thompson (who is not even in the race). Romney finished a poor fourth. Here are the numbers:

Giuliani.............29%
Thompson.........15%
McCain..............12%
Romney.............08%

While McCain is dropping like a rock, Romney is not doing very well either. He may be a whiz at raising money, but it's not being translated into real popular support. And frankly, Giuliani's 29% is not all that impressive either. I'm starting to think that Republicans are not too happy with any of the three (and I don't blame them).

I think any of the major Democratic candidates (Clinton - Obama - Edwards - Richardson) could beat any of the three major Republican candidates. But there is one Republican that comes out of this looking good - Fred Thompson. He got 15% and he hasn't even said he wants to run.

Thompson is the only one of the Republicans that kind of scares me as a Democratic supporter. He has a lot of built-in name recognition after being both an actor and a senator. He also has a kind of homey grandfatherly image that makes you want to trust him. He is liked by those on the right and could easily be accepted by moderates. Personally, I hope he stays out of the race.

In other news, Bill Richardson continues to impress with his diplomatic abilities. He has just returned from North Korea, where he helped in the return of the remains of six American soldiers who had died in the Korean War. While he was there, he had high-level talks with the North Koreans, and now it looks like they will be shutting down their nuclear program.

In a letter to his supporters, Bill Richardson had this to say:

"The bottom line is that diplomacy works - there is no other lesson to draw from this monumental breakthrough. And we desperately need someone in the White House who understands this and can restore American international leadership.

In today's world, we have to be willing to engage our adversaries in tough and direct talks that lead to resolution, not more confrontation and isolation. I don't have to tell you that there are trouble spots all over the world that could use some of this tough and smart American diplomacy.

I'm running for President, in part, to keep our country safe and secure. I'm proud that yesterday in North Korea I was able to make a contribution to real progress toward that goal."

We need more of Bill Richardson's miracle-working diplomacy. Wouldn't it be nice to have a truly competent president?

Time To Stop College Tuition Inflation

In 2003, Texas legislators made a serious error. They decided to allow state colleges and universities to set their own tuition rates without guidance or regulation from state government. Since that time, it seems like every time we turn around colleges are raising their tuition.

On the average, tuition in state colleges has increased by 40% since 2003. At the University of Texas the figure is 57%. These are outrageous figures. As Senator Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) says, "This is like crack for the universities. They just can't seem to get enough of these tuition increases."

It was already hard for poor and working class people to be able to fund a college education. With tuition costs rising every year, many people are simply finding that they cannot afford a college education no matter how badly they want it. This is not only a tragedy for those denied a college education. It is also a tragedy for our society and our state.

The fact is that the more people who can get a college education, the better off our state will be. Funding a college education is one of the most cost-effective things a state can do. Those who receive the education make significantly larger salaries, and over their lifetime will pay a lot more in taxes of all kinds. The government receives far more in additional taxes than it spent on educating these people.

During the Republican regime of the last few years, our government has found billions of dollars to throw at corporations, but has been unable or unwilling to help Texas students to get a college education. They claim to be business-minded, but cannot understand a truly cost-effective proposition such as funding college educations.

If we were really smart, we would be offering free tuition for those who maintained a 2.5 grade-point average, and open up the opportunity of a college education to all who want it. It would increase the percentage of educated people in our society. It would raise the standard of living for many thousands of people. And it would feed the tax coffers of our state with more money. It would truly be a win-win situation.

But I'm afraid that is just a dream no matter how much sense it makes. Probably the best we can hope for is for the legislators to put a cap on tuitions and regulate their growth. We'll probably be lucky if they even do that.

Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) said, "I think we'll look back in history on the day we deregulated tuition as one of the worst decisions ever made by the Legislature." He is right. The only question now is do they have the political will to correct this horrendous decision.

Our society already has too large a divide between the rich and poor. We cannot allow a college education to become something only the rich can afford.

White House Aides Misuse Their Computers

When the Bush administration took over the White House in 2001, the Republican National Committee provided White House aides with laptop computers. According to the RNC, this was so the aides would not use the government computers for campaign purposes, which they recognized would be inappropriate.

I'll give the RNC the benefit of the doubt and say if that was their ultimate purpose, then it was appropriate and laudable. But after years of lies and coverups by the Bush administration, it should come as no surprise to anyone that these computers have been misused.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) has discovered that many of the aides have used the computers to conduct official government business. This is a clear violation of the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation and disclosure of government records. Instead, the Bush administration has used these computers to hide many of its government records.

Waxman also believes the computers were used to hide White House communications with convicted lobbist, Jack Abramoff. By keeping Abramoff communications off the government computers, they thought they could hide his White House ties.

These same computers were also used to hide the White House involvement in the politically-motivated firing of U.S. Attorneys. And they were used to pressure the General Services Administration to make decisions that would help Republican candidates in the last election.

Many Republican activists are terrified now that this computer misuse has been discovered, because they have no idea what other dark secrets may be lurking in these computer files and e-mails. Waxman is now demanding access to the computer e-mails, and since they have been used to hide government business, he should be given that access.

After watching Bush's rather cavalier disrespect for the law over the past few years, it is easy to believe that he would take a gift given him to obey the law, and use it to break the law. Is there any depth to which Bush and his henchmen will not sink to further their own ambitions?

Congressional democrats need to back Rep. Waxman on this issue. It looks like we have only seen the tip of this iceberg, and much more muck is hiding under the surface.

Did Bush Make The World A Safer Place ?

After 9/11, many who weren't already paying attention suddenly realized that we live in a dangerous world. President Bush used the opportunity to promise Americans (and the world) that he would declare a war on terror, and make the world a safer place for everyone.

His first move, the invasion of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, was almost universally supported. Anyone who has read this blog knows I am not a Bush supporter, but even I thought the Afghanistan invasion was neccessary and appropriate. The Taliban didn't just support and protect Al-queda, their beliefs are virtually interchangeable.

But Bush wasn't happy with attacking the real criminals who had attacked us. Before we had even finished the job in Afghanistan, he turned his attention elsewhere. After lying to America and the world, he invaded Iraq, once again using the excuse of "making the world a safer place".

Of course, now we know that he was not telling us the truth. Saddam was not a danger to America (or any other country for that matter), he did not have nuclear weapons or even a nuclear weapons program, and he was not in league with Al-queda. In fact, as most Muslims already knew, Saddam and Osama hated each other.

Now we are stuck in a real mess in Iraq, and the Taliban is coming back in Afghanistan. Why did Bush have to invade Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan? I don't know. But most of the world thinks it was to control Iraq's vast oil supply.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project gives us the following percentages of people in different countries who think we invaded Iraq because of the oil:

Great Britain..........33%

Russia.....................51%

France.....................58%

Germany.................60%

Pakistan..................54%

Turkey....................64%

Morrocco................63%

Jordan....................71%

But has the invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place? No! Once again referring to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, we find that most people, including half of Americans, think Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. Here are the numbers:

COUNTRY............LESS SAFE

France..................76%

Spain....................68%

Germany..............66%

Great Britain.......60%

Russia..................44%

Japan...................61%

China...................44%

India....................34%

Nigeria................32%

Jordan.................74%

Egypt...................70%

Turkey.................70%

Indonesia............54%

Pakistan..............52%

As you can see, a majority of people in countries that we consider to be our allies, think that Bush's blunder in invading Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place.

The war in Iraq is bleeding away the effectiveness of our military, is needlessly costing the lives of our soldiers, is using resources that could be put to better use in Afghanistan, and has made the world a more dangerous place!

It is time to bring our troops home. Just yesterday Muqtada al-Sadr, who was once a supporter of the government Bush installed in Iraq, called on Iraqi soldiers and police to join his militiamen in attacking American soldiers. Over the weekend, 10 more American soldiers were killed in Iraq. Our soldiers have no friends in Iraq. They are hated by both the Shiites and the Sunnis.

Stop the madness and bring our soldiers home!

Vote Erik Williams For Amarillo City Commission

I have not lived in Amarillo for long, but I am really starting to like living here. In that spirit, I wish to endorse Erik Williams for City Commissioner - Place 4. I doubt if enough Amarillo residents read this site to be any real help to Erik in the upcoming May 12th election, but I've never been known to let little things like that stop me.

One of the main reasons I'm supporting Erik Williams, other than the fact that I've met him and like him a lot, is the fact that he supports the single-member district concept for the City Commission. I must admit that I was rather shocked to find that Amarillo does not have single-member districts. This is a concept that has already been established in most cities of Amarillo's size (and larger). Single-member districts are the only way to assure that all parts of a large city receive equal treatment.

Here is what my candidate, Erik Williams has to say on the subject:

Single Member Districts are the future of political representation for our city. We need a modern system of citizen participation in government, one that recognizes a century of growth and diversification in our community’s population. Representation by a member from our own district is a fundamental organizing principle of republican government.

The defeat of single member districts at the ballot box did not happen because most of Amarillo wanted it defeated. Most of Amarillo does want single member districts. Only one area of Amarillo seems to want to keep things as they are, and having managed to turn out more voters, has told the rest of Amarillo how it will elect its commissioners.

The system may not be broken but it is starting to break, and that has been recognized by some. I believe Mayor Debra McCartt has done well moving the commission from its chambers to its meetings out in the community. But personalities alone cannot solve the problem inherent in a century-old institution. In time the easy path will lead them back to council chambers and the historic neglect of our neighborhoods.

We are often reminded of how important it is that only someone from our region can represent the interests of the Panhandle in Austin or Washington, not someone from across the state in Houston or across the country in Oregon. Yet we are told someone from well across town can represent our neighborhood. It only takes a phone call. But isn’t it just as easy to call someone living in Houston or Oregon?

Our commissioners cannot just represent the few who contribute or vote. In a democracy the interests of the many must be considered. We should have commissioners in our own neighborhoods that can assure us of direct and fair representation.

Other issues supported by Erik Williams are the revitalization of the downtown area, and the modernization of vital city services. If you also believe in fair representation and a vital and growing Amarillo, I urge you to consider voting for Erik Williams on May 12th. For more information, drop by and visit his website.

Water Bill Leaves Out Worst Offenders

Last year, water use became a serious issue in Parker and several other North Texas counties, when it was learned that ground water levels are dropping in the Trinity and Pawluxy aquifers. It has gotten so bad that some residents are reporting that their water wells are drying up.

The Texas Commission on Enviornmental Quality thinks the issue is critical enough that they recently included Parker county in a "priority" area with 13 other counties. They threatened state action if the counties didn't create water districts to regulate water use.

Phil King, the Republican representative from Parker county, has taken action - sort of. He is sponsoring a bill to create a water district that would include Parker, Wise, Montague and Hood counties. This would be a step in the right direction if it didn't exclude some of the worst water use offenders from regulation.

Under King's proposal, the oil & gas industry could continue to waste millions of gallons of ground water while the residents and other businesses in these counties would be subject to water use regulations. It shows how powerful the oil & gas industry is in Texas. King's legislative aide, Clinton Quisenberry, said the measure would not pass in the legislature if oil & gas interests were included in the water monitoring.

This is a serious matter. Many parts of Texas are starting to experience water problems, and with the greenhouse effect starting to cause global climactic changes, the problem will only get worse. According to the U.N. report released yesterday, Texas will be subject to increasingly hotter summers, with longer & more severe droughts.

With the rapid growth of business and population, it will not be long before Texas as a whole faces a critical water shortage. Sadly, our Republican state government, having sold out to the oil & gas industry and other corporate interests, is doing little to solve the water problems of our state.

We must find new sources of water. But we must also regulate the use of the water we currently have. Allowing corporate interests of any kind to waste our precious water resources, while regulating the water use of citizens and small businesses, cannot be tolerated.

EVERYONE should be subject to water regulation, including the oil & gas industry.

12,000 More Troops To Be Sent To Iraq

It looks like the "troop surge" of over 21,000 new troops sent to Iraq is not working out as Bush told us it would. He had told us that these extra troops would only be needed for a few months, and would allow him to control the violence in and around Baghdad. He was wrong on both counts.

The violence in the sectarian Iraqi civil war is nowhere near being under control, even though Republicans are doing everything they can to create the illusion that it is. Recently John McCain went to Baghdad and did a photo-op in the market area, supposedly to show how safe the area really was.

But they didn't tell us the truth about McCain's photo-op propaganda. The truth is that before McCain went to the market, the area was flooded with American troops. These troops created an artificial "safe zone" for McCain. Merchants in the marketplace said this was nothing like normal conditions in the market. It's sad that McCain, who was once known as a straight-shooter, is now just another Republican liar and Bush apologist.

Things have not gotten better in Iraq. People still die every day, including American troops. Defense Secretary Gates recently warned that putting limits on Bush's war could lead to "ethnic cleansing". Who's he trying to fool? The ethnic cleansing has been going on for quite a while now, and we are powerless to prevent it.

Now, we learn that the temporary troop surge is becoming permanent. NBC News has recently learned that the Bush administration is planning to send another 12,000 National Guard troops to Iraq in 2008, in order to bolster the troop surge that was supposed to end sometime this summer.

Is it any wonder that 70% of the American people now oppose Bush's war? Bush lied to get us into the war, and has continued to lie about it since then. Isn't it time to act in defense of our own soldiers and get them out of the middle of this civil war?

It has long-since become clear that we cannot impose our wishes on Iraq through military power, even if we had the right to do so (which we don't). The Iraqis must find their own solution, and it will probably be bloody - civil wars usually are. But keeping our troops in the line of fire between the opposing factions, can accomplish nothing except to delay the inevitable.

The only sane course of action is to bring our troops home now. Not next year, NOW!

More Religious Nonsense In Texas Legislature

Evidently some Texas legislators think they were elected to further their own religious beliefs. Yesterday, we discussed the ridiculous idea of Rep. Chisum to force Texas schools to teach a course on the Bible. Today we learn of another instance where a legislator want to force her own religious beliefs on Texans.

Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball) wants to pass a law that would put the phrase "state under God" into the Texas pledge. That would make the pledge read:

Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible.

State law has required Texas students to say the U.S. and Texas pledges in school since 2003. I don't have a problem with having students say the pledge as it currently stands. It's kind of a silly sounding pledge, but it doesn't hurt to have the students pledge allegiance to the state in which they live.

However, I do have a big problem with Rep. Riddle interjecting her religion into the pledge, and then requiring students to recite it. Texas students should not be forced to pledge allegiance to any God, christian or otherwise - but that's exactly what the revised pledge would entail.

And don't even bother telling me that students could opt out of the pledge with a note from their parents. A family tried that in Lewisville, and it resulted in their son's suspension from school. This is really ridiculous. We send our children to school to get a secular education, and not to have some religious bigot force her own weird religion on them. If you want your child to be taught religion in school, send them to a religious school, but don't force your religion on others.

One commenter said since he was muslim, he would have to substitute Allah for God in the pledge. That opens up a real can of worms. If that substitution is OK, can a satanist substitute the word Satan? Can a hindu substitute Krishna? You can see the problem that would ensue.

As the pledge currently stands, all students (with the exception of adventists) can say the pledge without compromising their own beliefs. But after Riddle makes the pledge a christian one rather than a Texas one, there will be many who could not in good conscience take the pledge.

Doesn't it make more sense to have a pledge for everyone, rather than just a pledge for christians? I realize that christians are a majority in Texas, but this should not give them the right to force their beliefs on others. In a free country, all citizens should be free to practice whatever religion (or lack of religion) they feel is appropriate.

The state of Texas, and our schools, should not be in the religion business.

The Bible Is Not A Textbook !

Sometimes I wonder if Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) has any brain function at all. The bills he introduces certainly don't show any evidence of it.

Chisum has now authored a bill that would mandate school systems to offer an elective course on the Bible. Chisum said the course would be taught "from a secular point of view", would need no books other than the Bible, and the teachers would need no training. What a bad idea!

First, just who's "secular" point of view is the course to be taught from. I seriously doubt he would want it taught from the secular point of view of an atheist, showing the Bible as an evil force that has caused much bloodshed and hindered the progress of mankind for centuries. But his bill as it is written would allow just that, along with a thousand other interpretations.

Surely he doesn't think that everyone believes in his own interpretation of the Bible. The huge number of different sects of christianity shows that the Bible can be twisted to justify thousands of differing beliefs.

While Chisum's bill would mandate the book be taught from a secular point of view, it is obvious that an untrained teacher would be poorly prepared to do that. Instead, they would teach it from their own, very probably religious, point of view. This would be guaranteed to irritate parents in nearly every school district, and probably produce a rash of lawsuits.

John Ferguson, a Howard Payne constitutional scholar and Baptist minister, gets it right when he says, "Without the training, without the financial support they need (for training), school districts across Texas are going to be riddled with lawsuits. Everyone would rather you spend your money on textbooks and teachers rather than attorneys and court fees."

School boards are doing a poor enough job of educating our youngsters without throwing lawsuits and religious roadblocks in their path. We need to concentrate on teaching secular subjects like math, science, geography, literature, history and political science. Leave the religious instruction to families and the religious institution of their choice.

Chisum needs to start thinking these bills through before offering them up. He was not elected to shove his own religious views on his fellow Texans. He is free to practice any religion he likes, but he needs to keep his religious beliefs out of our schools.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Human Rights

In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court has said it will not rule on the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism law that allows Bush to incarcerate prisoners indefinitely and without a trial at Guantanamo.

The court says these 385 prisoners, most of whom have been imprisoned and tortured for over five years, do NOT have the right to appeal their imprisonment in the U.S. court system. What was the legal reasoning behind this denial of basic human rights? It was pretty flimsy in my opinion.

The Court said they did not have juristiction because Guantanamo was not U.S. soil. That's an odd statement, because all other embassy and military bases everywhere in the world are considered U.S. soil as long as they are occupied and controlled by the United States. What makes Guantanamo so different?

There is only one thing that makes Guantanamo different. It's because Bush and Cheney have decided they don't want these 385 human beings to have any rights. In the over 5 years of illegal imprisonment and torture, there has been only one trial. Last week, Australian David Hicks pled guilty after realizing that was the only way he would ever get to leave. He received a 9 month sentence to be served in Australia.

This is the very definition of denial of human rights. If we have evidence of the guilt of these 385, we should give them a fair trial. If we don't, we should release them.

As for Guantanamo not being U.S. soil - whose soil is it? Is it Cuba's? If so, that would make the 385 prisoners subject to the court system of Cuba (and the U.S. military should evacuate Cuba's soil. I can assure you that would make Cuba very happy.) But it is not Cuban soil, and Bush will not allow Cuban courts to intervene.

That is because as long as we have a base there, it is really considered U.S. soil. Bush knows it, and so does the Supreme Court. They just needed some excuse, however flimsy, to deny basic human rights to the 385.

The rest of the world is watching, and it is becoming obvious to them that the United States has turned its back on the Constitution and basic human rights. Why should anyone trust us after this?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the prisoners. Some of them are pretty bad people. But EVERYONE deserves a fair trial! That is a basic tenet of a free country. If your government can deny a fair trial to ANYONE, then you don't live in a free country.

Our forefathers knew this - that's why they gave us a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. But Bush doesn't care as long as he gets his own way. However, the Supreme Court should know better.

This is a shameful day for America - the day the Supreme Court stopped believing in basic human rights.

The picture above is courtesy of Mask of Anarchy.

Is Iran Daring U.S. To Attack ?

The other night on the Daily Show, John Stewart did a very funny aside to the rulers of Iran. He asked them if they knew what they were doing, and reminded them that while we may not be very good at "nation-building", we are the very best at "nation-destroying".

One of the reasons the piece was so funny is because it contained a lot of truth. Bush has been an abject failure at building a new democracy in Iraq, but we completely destroyed the country in record time. We truly are the world's best at doing that.

It's no secret to anyone that Bush and his White House henchmen would like nothing better than to unleash our destructive capabilities on Iran. He has already sent several carrier groups to that part of the world. He also has Pentagon plans already drawn up for an attack on Iran.

The only thing that has made him pause in his plans for an attack on Iran, is the overwhelming unpopularity of his war in Iraq. That's why I must question just what the leaders in Iran think they are doing. Are they daring the United States and Great Britain to attack?

The taking of British hostages and parading them before the world, even trying to use them for propaganda purposes, seems designed to provoke Great Britain. Are Iran's leaders completely insane or just suicidal? After seeing Iraq totally destroyed, do they still not understand the destructive terror that Bush and Blair could unleash?

It has been hard enough to keep Bush from attacking Iran. Now it may be impossible to stop it. Now Bush can claim he is just defending our "best" ally - Great Britain.

We are closer than ever to a war with Iran. They must release the hostages immediately, or prepare to be bombed back to the stone-age.

It might already be too late.

Electric Companies Should be Consumer Owned

For years now, we have heard conservatives tell us how much better the private sector can do at providing services than the government can do. They have tried turning over many government functions to private concerns, and most of the time these are disasters which wind up costing ordinary citizens even more.

They tried it with the Department of Human Services here in Texas, and we wound up with a mess that we're still trying to solve. We were also told a few years ago that electric deregulation would show how efficient the private sector was and would result in lower prices for consumers. This was nothing but a huge lie told by Republicans so they could funnel windfall profits to their corporate buddies!

Anyone who really thought deregulation through could have seen it for the lie it really was, but the Republicans were smooth talkers and were able to convince most people that black is really white. Now there is proof of the lie.

The private companies who were deregulated here in Texas are now charging some of the highest electric rates in the nation. Meanwhile, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram tells us that government and consumer owned electric companies are charging significantly less for the electricity they deliver. These companies were not deregulated because they are not "for-profit" companies.

Let's look at some prices being charged consumers. TXU is charging its customers 13.8 cents a kilowatt-hour (kwh). But the consumers in Denton, which has a municipally-owned power company, are paying only 8.6 to 9.7 cents per kwh (depending on the times of year). The average of 6 North Texas co-operatives and municipally owned plants was 10.2 cents per kwh, and none of them came close to the rates charged by the private companies.

Why are the 150 municipal and co-operative power providers charging their 6 million customers less than the private companies? It's pretty simple. They don't have to turn a profit - they just have to cover their costs (and those costs don't include multi-million dollar salaries, thousand dollar-a-night hotel rooms, or private jets).

It's pretty clear that deregulation of private electric providers has not worked. In fact, consumers get the best deal when they are the owners - whether through their government or through a co-operative.

This is one of those functions that could probably be done better by government. You need only look at the deregulation in Texas to see that the private corporations will squeeze every nickel they can out of their consumers. At the very least, we must re-impose regulation on the private electric companies. They have proven they cannot be trusted with deregulation.

The private sector doesn't do it better, thay only charge more to do it.