Texas House Must Hate Women

I couldn't believe my eyes today when I read that the Texas House voted today to overturn the governor's edict to immunize Texas women from cervical cancer caused by the human papilloma virus. Do they hate the women of Texas? Or even worse, do they care so little for Texas women that they are willing to play politics with their lives?

While the legislature of our sister state to the west moves swiftly to protect its women by mandating use of the vaccine, Texas has just taken a step backwards by refusing to protect its own female population. Why should New Mexico be the progressive state and Texas the regressive one?

I've heard the arguments against using the vaccine, and they just don't make sense to me. The author of the ridiculous bill says the vaccine hasn't been tested long enough, and wants to wait to see the "effect over time". How much time must pass and how many lives must be lost before he is willing to act? Would he EVER be willing to act?

Some question the governor's motives in moving to protect Texas women. They wonder if he was paid off by the drug company. If he was, then go after him. Don't punish Texas women.

Others say Perry doesn't have the authority to mandate use of the vaccine. These people are willing to use the health of Texas women as a cudgel with which to beat the governor in their political fight.

Some on the right have said that protecting women from this virus will make them more likely to have premarital or extramarital sex. They must think that all Texans are as stupid as they are!

One right-wing columnist from the Panhandle even had the gall to say it was not needed because all one had to do was wait until marriage to have sex, and then not have sex with anyone else. Obviously, he has never heard of the multitude of women in this state and country who are raped each year, or the many wives who are given diseases by their philandering husbands.

No matter what his motives, after years of selling Texas out to corporate interests, our governor finally did something good for the citizens of Texas. Today, the Texas House turned back the governor's one good deed, and chose to play politics with the lives of Texans.

Once again, I am ashamed of our elected officials.

Many Iraqi Vets Coming Home With Mental Problems

Most of us are vividly aware of the cost of the Iraqi war to our troops and their families. Nearly 3,400 of our brave soldiers have given their lives. Tens of thousands more have been wounded, many of them maimed for life. Each of these dead or wounded soldiers have a family, and their lives have been negatively altered also.

Now we learn that many of our soldiers are returning with mental health problems - the kind of problems that could affect them and their families for many years to come.

The University of California at San Francisco and the San Francisco VA Hospital have conducted a survey of 103,788 veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005. This survey shows that a stunning proportion of our vets are returning with mental health problems.

Out of the 103,788 vets surveyed, 32,010 (31%) have been disgnosed with some sort of mental illness. More than half of these with mental health problems have been diagnosed with two or more mental disorders.

This is what's been diagnosed in that 32,010:

52% have post-traumatic stress disorder

24% have anxiety disorder

24% have adjustment disorder

20% have depression

20% have substance abuse disorder

The disorders cut across racial, sexual, ethnic and social boundaries - affecting all groups in about the same percentages. This is a price being paid by all corners of our society, except the rich of course.

Former Senator and veteran Max Cleland, wounded during the Vietnam war said, "This is the price of war. You can't send young Americans to Iraq and Afghanistan...and expect them to come home and just fit right in. They bring that trauma with them. If you don't intervene with the emotional aftermath of the war up-front and early, it can slide down a precipitous path to hell."

The war in Afghanistan was a justifiable one. They had attacked us on our soil, and would have again if we had not acted. If Bush had used the full might of our military there, it would have been over by now. But he didn't.

I don't know why Bush left Afghanistan half done and went to Iraq. Was it for the oil? Was it some family grudge? Was it the neocon myth of spreading American influence through military power?

Whatever the reason, it screwed everything up. The Taliban is returning in Afghanistan, and we have accomplished nothing in Iraq except to cause the deaths of thousands of people on all sides.

That is the sad part of all this. Thousands of our soldiers have died, and many more have been wounded, both physically and mentally.
And there is still no end in sight. Bush's only solution is to sacrifice even more soldiers in the hope that his successor can find a solution. He has admitted this himself.

It is time to override this pathetic excuse for a president, and bring our troops back home. We cannot impose a democracy in Iraq thru military power, no matter how brave and resourceful our troops are. The Iraqis will install the government they want, whether we like it or not. It's time to leave and let them get on with it.

It's time to bring our troops home NOW - before we do even more damage to our troops and our country.

Halliburton Moving Headquarters To Dubai

It looks like Dick Cheney's old company will soon no longer be an American company. They have announced plans to move the company's headquarters to Dubai in the Middle East.

According to company spokesmen, this will make it easier to expand their business in the Middle East. They may be right about that. After the way Bush has continually screwed up in that area of the world, it can't be easy for an American company trying to do business over there. And in 2006, Halliburton only had a profit of $2.6 billion - they obviously need new business to survive.

It certainly doesn't show much patriotism though. Maybe this will finally start to convince those who wish to hand over power to the corporations, that it would be a mistake to continue down that road. Corporations have no allegiance to any country. They consider themselves to be international, and their only allegiance is to the dollar. Their motivation is greed, not patriotism.

This should worry those who support the war in Iraq. After all, the U.S. and its troops depend heavily on Halliburton in the war effort. They have wound up with nearly all the contracts to provide services over there - and many of those contracts were awarded without competitive bidding (it's nice to have friends in the White House).

I do wonder though if the impetus for the move might be something besides searching for more business in the Middle East. This corporation is not like the die-hard Bush apologists. They can read the hand-writing on the wall. They can see the war is a failure and the public is not happy.

What have they done with the many billions of dollars they have been paid by our government? Democrats have already taken over in the House and are even in the Senate (Lieberman doesn't count - he's not a Democrat). It's looking like the Democrats will gain more ground in 2008. When they do, there are going to be lots of investigations about what has gone on in Iraq - and Halliburton will be one of the major entities being investigated.

After 2008, Cheney will no longer be able to protect them. Could this be a major reason for moving to Dubai? It's going to be a whole lot harder to hold the corporation and its officers responsible if they are a foreign company.

I think they are getting out before the Democrats can expose them before the American people for stealing from our government and shortchanging our troops.

Toll Roads Are Not The Solution

I think everyone believes that Texas needs more and better roads and highways. At one time, Texas had one of the best road systems in the nation. That is no longer true.

The question is not whether we need to build new roads and improve existing roads. We do. The question is how do we pay for the new roads and improvements.

Our governor and his cohorts think the answer is to privitize much of our road system. They want to let corporations build the roads and then own them for 50 years or more, charging Texans to drive on what should be their own roads. These corporations would be guaranteed enormous profits. If the tolls don't provide these profits (because many would not be able to afford them), then the state would be obligated to pay the corporations out of our tax funds. This is just a very bad deal for ordinary Texans.

The reason our politicians want to let corporations build and profit from our road system is because they are too gutless to solve the problem themselves. They think if they raise the gas tax to cover the costs of new roads, the public will be angry and won't re-elect them. I believe they are misjudging the people of Texas.

It is true that Texans got angry when the gas companies raised the prices recently and recorded enormous record-breaking windfall profits. The reason they were angry is because they knew they were being gouged and were receiving nothing for the huge increase in price.

Our legislators are afraid to raise the gas tax 10-12 cents a gallon. In truth, I believe that Texans would accept an even larger jump in the gas tax - as long as it all went to pay for much-needed new roads and improvements, and to avoid the imposition of more toll roads.

If after raising the gas tax we still need to build some toll roads, then the state should build those roads. There are some things that just should not be privatized, and roads are one of those things. They are too important to all Texans.

Years ago, a new roadway was needed between Dallas and Fort Worth, but funds were tight then as they are now. It was built and operated as a toll road. However, when enough money was collected to pay for building the road, they tore down the toll booths and made it a freeway (I-30). If we must have a toll road, it should only be to pay the building costs - not to put enormous profits into some corporation's pockets.

Private roads are a bad idea. It is time our legislators solved the problems we elected them to solve, and stop trying to sell us out to the corporations.

Federal Court Overturns Handgun Ban

On friday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for District of Columbia struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. This gun ban had been in effect since 1976.

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence called the decision "judicial activism at its worst". Mayor Adrian Fenty said, "I am personally deeply disappointed and, quite frankly, outraged by today's decision". Fenty vowed that the city would appeal the decision.

For a while now, many progressives have tried to interpret the second amendment to mean that militias, and not individuals, have a right to bear arms. The court struck that idea down.

The court said, "The amendment does not protect the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people. If the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did".

I believe the court was correct in its decision.

Let me be clear - I do not like handguns. I would be very happy if all the handguns in the world would disappear tomorrow. I have never owned a handgun and probably never will own one. Handguns are good for only one thing - shooting other humans.

In fact, as some of you know, I was the victim of a handgun attack myself about a year and a half ago. A desperate criminal, running from the police, shot me in the stomach and stole my car. I came very close to dying that day.

But regardless of how I feel about handguns or what happened to me, I can still read. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly grants individuals the right to own firearms. For a handgun ban to be legal, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Actually, the court was pretty reasonable in its decision. It left intact the provision that outlaws carrying unregistered weapons on the streets of our capitol, and also the provision that would prevent ownership by certain individuals (convicted felons, mentally ill persons, etc.).

Like it or not, our forefathers made gun ownership a right. This was not "judicial activism". The court simply upheld the Constitution as it is written.

(The picture above courtesy of Ken Lunde at http://www.praxagora.com/lunde/firearms.html)

U.S. Government Muzzles Scientists

If you're a scientist going abroad on business for the U.S. government, truth should not be your primary concern. Instead, you should focus on presenting Bush's position - even if that position is wrong.

Memos from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to scientists going abroad have been exposed by two environmental groups - the National Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The memos state that any scientist traveling abroad on government business must understand that climate change, sea ice and polar bears are delicate subjects. The memos say that top officials of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service must be assured that the traveling scientist "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues".

In other words, toe the party line or don't go! After all, a scientist speaking the truth is a nightmare for the Bush administration. In the neocon world of Bush and Cheney, science is not determined by experimentation - it is hatched in the Oval Office.

Doesn't this tell us that Bush knows he is wrong on these issues? If he was even close to right, there would be no need to suppress the truth or muzzle U.S. scientists.

Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council says, "The administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming. Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric."

It is very troubling to see our president trying to hide the truth, and it has to make one wonder how many other truths he is trying to hide. Can we believe anything he says?

We need a president who will tell Americans the truth - even if it is a truth that he does not like.

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

For years now, the United States has accused China (among other nations) as being guilty of human rights violations, and I have no doubt that this is probably true. But now China is returning the favor. Today China accused the United States of human rights violations.

China said the U.S. has no right to criticize human rights in other countries when it has serious human rights violations of its own. The Chinese report said, "As in previous years, the State Department pointed the finger at human rights conditions in more than 190 countries and regions, including China, but avoided touching on the human rights situation in the United States."

The Chinese pointed out serious problems in America such as child poverty, racism, mistreatment of prisoners, the place of women in our society, and the civilian deaths in Iraq. Of course they are right.

And the situation has just gotten worse since George Bush and Dick Cheney took office. Now we can add invasion of privacy rights, denial of habeas corpus, military "kangaroo" courts, inequitible tax laws, and mistreatment of immigrants.

Sometimes I think the only right Bush wants us to have is the right to agree with whatever he wants to do. Anything else is surely a violation of "national security". Under Bush and Cheney, corporations have more rights than citizens do.

Maybe it's time for the U.S. to stop hurling accusations at other countries until we start to work on our own human rights problems. Until then, we are just the pot calling the kettle black.

How Long Before The Pardon Comes?

Another Republican bites the dust. This time it's White House insider "Scooter" Libby. Yesterday, Libby was found guilty of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. I don't think the verdict really surprised anyone - his guilt was pretty obvious.

The only real questions are what will his sentence be, and when will Bush pardon him. The electronic media are fond of saying that he could get 25 years, but that is very unlikely. The media always wants to report the extremes. I think it's more likely he'll get less than 10 years - probably more like five.

But don't expect him to actually serve any real time. The right-wing noise machine will crank up to make the case for a pardon, and I expect Bush will cave in to them and pardon him. Bush has given the right-wing nuts everything else, so why would he hold out this time?

Their best argument is that Libby was just a "fall guy", thrown under the bus to save the necks of higher-ups (Rove and Cheney). While I think Libby was as guilty as hell and needs to serve some time behind bars, I have to admit the "fall guy" argument has some merit.

Even the Libby jury thinks this is the case. While they knew he was guilty, several said, "Where is Rove? Where is Cheney?" They knew who the guiltiest of all were, and they were not in that courtroom. They will never be punished for their crimes.

But as guilty as Libby is, I don't expect him to actually serve any time. He will probably delay his needed incarceration with an appeal bond and some fancy legal footwork, as the rich and powerful usually do. Then, Bush will issue a pardon.

My guess is that the pardon will come sometime this Fall. I'd love to hear what the readers think. When do you think the pardon will come?

A Plea For Justice For David Hicks

Below is more good stuff from our friend Korova at Mask of Anarchy. Is this really the kind of "justice" we want America to be showing the rest of the world? The United States used to be a beacon of justice. Because of the "military tribunals" we are now becoming a sick joke.

I Am One Of The Lucky Ones

I'm a little older than a lot of the bloggers I know, and lately I've been thinking about the times I grew up in, and how that has affected my entire life and made me a better person. In the last few years, I've come to the conclusion that I'm one of the lucky ones.

I don't mean lucky in the sense of having a lot of money or worldly possessions - my family was poor. I grew up on a 160-acre cotton farm in North Texas. The farm was not big enough to make much money, and most of his working life my father had a second job in addition to farming.

As a child, I was barefooted most of the time because my one pair of shoes was designated to be worn only to school, to town and to church. But I was still one of the lucky ones.

I was lucky because I was not taught to hate at home. You see, I am old enough to remember that the "good old days" were not all that good. I can still vividly remember seperate water fountains, bathrooms and schools for Whites and Blacks. I can remember African-Americans being denied access to resturants. It hasn't been all that long ago - just a little over forty years.

I remember Gays having to stay "in the closet" to avoid being beaten and ostracized. I remember women being denied an equal opportunity to better their lives. I know that much inequality still exists, but it was worse back in those supposed "good old days".

I never understood why things were that way, and still don't. I remember asking my father why. He just said, "Some people are stupid" and wouldn't discuss it further. I think he was frustrated that his children had to witness such insanity.

My father required only three things for another human to earn his trust and respect, and none of those three things had anything to do with a person's race, ethnicity, religion (or lack of it), sex or sexual preference. His requirements were:

1. Be a hard worker
2. Be honest
3. Be willing to help your neighbors

If you did these three things, then you could easily earn his respect. I guess he taught me well, because to this day I still think he was right.

But one thing he didn't teach was hate. Hating a person for something they had no control over simply did not fit his simple moral code. Thinking you were better than someone else didn't either.

It was my good fortune to be raised by this hard-working, honest and generous man. Perhaps you are fortunate enough to say the same, but there are many in our world who were not so fortunate.

That is why I say - I am one of the lucky ones.

Democratic Insiders List Their Preferences

An article in the Los Angeles Times says that Hilary Clinton is the favorite of Democratic party "insiders". The article must have been written by a Clinton supporter, because that is a very generous interpretation of what the numbers actually show.

The Times polled every member of each state's delegates to the Democratic National Committee. Since every delegate was polled, and not just a random survey, there is no margin of error in the poll. What did the poll of party insiders show? Here are the numbers:

No favorite...............30%
Clinton.....................20%
Edwards...................15%
Obama......................11%
Gore.........................10%
Richardson..............09%
Others......................05%

I don't read the above numbers as showing that Clinton is the favorite of party insiders. In fact, the poll clearly shows that 4 out of 5 party insiders do NOT support Clinton. The real leader in this poll is "no favorite".

The poll really shows that none of the so-called "big three" candidates (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) have been able to break out of the pack and become the clear leader. No candidate is anywhere near gathering majority support yet.

This has to be disappointing for the "big three", considering the campaigning they have done and the extensive media coverage they have received. This poll really contains good news for only one candidate - Bill Richardson.

A couple of months ago, most experts had Richardson pegged as a minor candidate with only 1-2% support. This poll puts him up near the big dogs with a strong 9% showing (only 2 points behind Obama and a scant 6 points behind Edwards).

And he has done this while being virtually ignored by the media. Just imagine what he might be able to do with equal media coverage!

It is still very early. We still have nearly a year to go before primary season arrives. I believe that by this Fall the media will be forced to admit that Richardson is a major candidate, and will have to give him the media coverage that he deserves. Then things could get really interesting.

Federal Courts Not Interested In Justice

When I was growing up, I was taught that the primary interest of the courts in America, especially the appeals courts, was to ensure that justice was done in our judicial system. Under the Bush administration, that is no longer true.

The primary purpose of our federal courts under Bush is to protect the dirty secrets of lawbreakers in the CIA and other government organizations. Consider the following case.

On New Year's Eve of 2003 Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was trying to legally enter Macedonia. He was kidnapped by CIA operatives and "renditioned" to a CIA-run prison in Kabul, because he was mis-identified as an associate of the 9/11 hijackers.

He was held there illegally, secretly and without charges for five months. While there, he was beaten and sodomized with various objects in an attempt to extract information that he did not have. In fact, after the five months of torture they realized they had kidnapped the WRONG PERSON!

The Bush administration has not denied that this happened. They are still convinced they have the right to do anything to anyone as long as they use the magic words "national security".

Khaled el-Masri felt he had been wronged - imagine that! He sued George Tenet, the CIA and the corporations who owned the airplanes used to illegally transport him to Kabul. But instead of hearing his legitimate case, the court dismissed it, saying the case could not go forward because it would reveal national security secrets.

He then appealed this outrageous dismissal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Surely he could get justice from them - right? Wrong! They backed up the ridiculous action of the lower court.

Judge Robert King, who wrote the cout's opinion, said that the case could only go forward by using "evidence that exposes how the CIA organizes, staffs and supervises its most sensitive intelligence operations."

ACLU attorney Ben Wizner probably puts it best when he says, "What's most troubling about this is it literally grants the CIA complete immunity to engage in any kind of misconduct."

It also shows us that under the Bush administration, the priorities of our federal judicial system have changed. The number one priority is to cover up crimes committed by government organizations. The second priority is to not embarrass the Bush administration. If we're lucky, administering justice comes in a distant third. Disgusting!

Where's The News?

Looking at the "news" headlines the last couple of weeks, it's not hard to see why many Americans are ignorant of what is happening in this country and the world. Many Americans are very poor at world geography and history. They couldn't even find such countries as French Guyana, New Guinea, Burkina Faso and Oman on a map.

How many of your neighbors do you think could tell you what is happening in Sudan, Dardur, Venezuela or Lebanon right now? And these are countries that have had a tiny bit of coverage lately.

I'll bet nearly anyone you meet could tell you what's happening with Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears though. After all, these have been the top stories on all the news programs lately. But is this really news?

When I was younger, news giants like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntly and David Brinkley filled us in on what was happening in our country and the world. They left the entertainment updates to others because they knew it was not really news.

Nowdays, a good part of a newscast is spent advertising the networks other shows that are coming up. This is even true for the so-called 24 hour news stations. Maybe it is time to remind these networks just what news is.

I forget who said it, but I like this definition. News is what makes those in power uncomfortable - everything else is either publicity or propaganda.

How can we expect Americans to be educated to what is going on in our country and the world, when all we give them is publicity and propaganda?

Richardson Talking Some Sense About Iran

The Bush administration seems in a headlong rush to get us into a third war before we have even extricated outselves from the current two failures they have provided. They have moved another carrier group into striking range of Iran, and almost daily they hurl threats at Iran. Threatening another country is what Bush calls "diplomacy".

No one wants Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. There is no doubt that would make our world a much more dangerous place. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely one of them will actually use them. But what can we do? Surely Bush is not right in his belief that the only two options are threats or military action.

Take note of these words from a saner politician:

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

These are the words of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and he is right. We cannot afford to go to war with Iran at this time, and threatening them will only increase their determination to stay on their current path. What we need is real diplomacy, where nations sit down with each other, treat each other with respect, and find common ground on which to solve mutual problems.

While Bush rushes headlong into another war, and Clinton and Obama seem interested only in giving each other a black eye, there is a candidate with real solutions to our problems - Bill Richardson.

And this is not just talk. Richardson has the diplomatic experience and skills to actually get things done. He has proven time and again in the past that even those we consider "outlaw" nations will respond to reason if they are treated respectfully by people that they trust. Bill knows how to establish that trust and create that respect. He understands what real diplomacy is and knows how to use it properly.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a president who understood that there are many kinds of power other than military power? Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a president who knew how to create good will among nations rather than turning the world against us? Bill Richardson would be that kind of president.

I implore you to ignore the flash and dazzle of shallow candidacies, and opt instead for competence. That is what Bill Richardson offers and that is what America so desperately needs.