Someone tell me how...

In yesterday's news conference, Scott McClellan touted the idea that Democrats need to shift their focus in the NSA Domestic Spying scandal. He said:

I think that where these Democrats who are calling for this ought to spend their time is on what was the source of the unauthorized disclosure of this vital and critical program in the war on terrorism, because what it has done is signal to the enemy some of what we're doing to try to save lives. And I really don't think there's any basis for a special counsel, and I think the Attorney General has spoken about that, as well. But the fact that this information was disclosed about the existence of this program has given the enemy some of our play book, and that is very dangerous in the war on terrorism.

Ann Coulter is still on the bandwagon as well with this doozy from her February 22 column discussing the cartoons and getting in a Coulteresque jab at the New York Times:

At least The New York Times has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming with classified information about our techniques for spying on terrorists here in America--no room for newsworthy cartoons! The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.

This idea has been a bi-line of the right ever since this story broke. My question is this, and I know it has been asked before (I bring it up again only because the right is still talking about it): The terrorists already knew that we were tapping their phones. It is ludicrous to believe otherwise. Ergo, how is telling them that in a news story going to help them? Are they going to think, "Oh crap, I better find a different way to communicate. Those clever Americans are tapping our phones. Why didn't I think of that?"? The truth is that they did.

When asked this very question, Alberto Gonzalez gave this absolutely ridiculous response in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings:

I think, based on my experience, it is true - you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance. But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

Huh? I think the Attorney General and I both know that his answer doesn't hold water. So, what is the truth? How did the exposing of this story damage national security? How did it give our playbook to the enemy? I have yet to hear a better answer than Gonzalez's, and I believe that is because this is a red herring. It is a way to divert attention from the real issues and questions surrounding the program. I can't believe that the Administration expects us to buy this. I don't. I just wish they were this upset about the Plame leak, but then again, that would have made them look bad and given the American public some real answers.

Please, someone tell me how this leak has tipped off the terrorists. I just don't understand. What I do understand is that the American public has a right to know about the questionable dealings of its government, and that no information of this nature will come out without courageous whistle-blowers like those in this case.

Cheers,
Jeff

"Render Unto Caesar..."

In the Bible, Jesus makes reference to the separation between church and state. When asked, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not" (Matthew 22:17), Jesus responded the following:

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are casework; and unto God the things that are God's" (vs. 21).

To me, Jesus is setting up the idea that there is a boundary between God's law and Caesar's law, or the law of the state. He would certainly have said that God's law was the higher law to which we owed our allegiance, but there is a difference, and I believe the boundary is clear.

My own church, which reads the Bible as well, has another reference from a book called Doctrine and Covenants:

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied (D&C 134:9).

Now, I believe that both of these verses allow for freedom of religion and separation of church and state, two important principles. One of which, separation of church and state, was grossly violated in North Carolina.

In what Rev. Richard Land called "completely beyond the pale of what is acceptable," the "North Carolina Republican Party asked its members this week to send their church directories to the party."

Now, I firmly believe that religious people should get involved in civic and political activities, and I believe that their religion should help them decide how to get involved; however, I do not believe that churches should endorse or contribute anything to a certain political party, including their directories. I believe that by so doing, a religion puts its members in an untenable position: vote the way we want you to or go against the will of God. I also believe that it puts the political process in jeopardy by unduly influencing a large group of the electorate.

Shame on the Republicans in North Carolina. Shame on the churches that acquiesced to their request. And, most importantly, shame on anyone who would desecrate the sacred nature of religion by making it a political arena.

Cheers,
Jeff

Because I can...

I've been out of town and out of touch with the news a bit. I'll be back to pontificating about politics next week. In the meantime, I thought I would post a couple of links that people might enjoy. They are pictures of beautiful Lake Powell in southern Utah and Northern Arizona. I just want you all to be jealous about where I live.

Lake Powell Pictures

Quicktime Movie

Enjoy,

Jeff

Why We Need to Recognize Hamas

Ever since Hamas won an overwhelming victory in the Palestinian elections, I have worried about the "We don't negotiate with terrorists" rhetoric that has come from the White House. I'm not saying we should go buddy up with terrorist organizations, but Hamas is now a democratically elected government in a region where we are pushing for democratization.

If we refuse to recognize the newly elected Palestinian governement, what kind of message are we sending to the region? Are we saying, "We want you to have democratic, free elections UNLESS you elect someone we don't like"?

Not recognizing Palestine and continuing to pressure the Iraqi government to become more "balanced" sets a dangerous precident. Either we support democracy or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

There is a caveat to this point of view, however. We can recognize the Hamas-led government of Palestine without giving them money. We can cut their purse strings and apply political pressure in order to meet our needs of a peace process in the region, but we cannot refuse their claim as a democratically elected government.

Also, we need to be mindful of our rhetoric in Iraq as well. The Shi'ite majority needs to be prodded in the right direction with political pressure. It is absurd to think that we can establish a balanced, "unitary" government in Iraq and still call it a democratically elected government. We must value the will of the people even if we disagree. I believe Democrats have been told a thousand times that "elections have consequences." They do in Iraq and Palestine as well.

Cenk Uygur has a great post about this at the Huffington Post.

Cheers,
Jeff

Apples and Oranges

The ability to ask the right question is more than half the battle of finding the answer. --Thomas J. Watson

After a long debate with Garry at MoonDawg's Den, I came to the following conclusion. People debating the NSA Wiretapping scandal aren't arguing the right question. We're comparing apples and oranges. Both sides are correct in what they are saying; they are simply not asking the right questions. Here is my response to Garry on this issue:

Garry,

In our last debate, we seem to disagree on whether or not the President is targeting "American persons" in the NSA Spying program. Troung and some of the other case law makes it clear that foreign surveillance without a warrant is fine; however, the FISA Court, as you have admitted, is still required for domestic wiretaps.

It seems to me that we are debating the wrong thing. I agree that statute allows for warrantless foreign surveillance. I think that it is ludicrous to suggest that we get a warrant to spy on someone outside of this country. What we disagree on is whether or not the government is indeed spying on "American persons." Is that a fair assessment of our debate?

My question, then, is this:

If we discover through hearings or investigation that "American persons" are the targets of warrantless electronic surveillance by the NSA and the Executive Branch, would you change your position on whether or not the President broke the law?

The reason I am posting this on the front page is that I think people on opposite sides of this debate are comparing apples and oranges. The question seems simple: if American persons are the target, the President has broken the law. If they are not, then what the President is doing is legal. Am I right?

Just a thought,
Jeff

My 30-30 Partisan Blindness Principle

I'm becoming increasingly cynical about national politics. I've been cynical about Utah state politics for a long time, but hey, that's because I'm a liberal in an overwhelming conservative state. My cynicism toward national politics is a little more complicated: I call it "My 30-30 Partisan Blindness Principle."

I'm sure I'm not the first to claim this principle, but the root of it is that 30 percent of Americans will always support the conservative candidates, regardless of what facts are brought out about them. On the flip-side, 30 percent of Americans will support the liberal candidates no matter what. The other 40 percent, called swing voters or moderates, can be swayed by information that arises about candidates. This is all well known theory, but I want to discuss why it's a problem.

Our last two presidents (Bush Jr. and Clinton), and the congresses that served with them have been entrenched in controversy and legal/ethical problems. Both have been divisive and extreme in their policies. I believe that this is bad for America. Moderates no longer have a voice in government, and the radical wings of both parties disagree so vehemently that very little productive work gets accomplished. There is no common ground any more, nor civility for that matter.

I'm amazed at the scandals that are dismissed so quickly by certain people. I'm sure that 50 years ago, politicians with records like Bush and Clinton never would have been elected. Where is the voice of reason that once dominated American politics? Where are the common-sense leaders like Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy? They all served in troubled and war-torn times, and yet they didn't succumb to the temptation to use the country's perils for political gains. I'm appalled by the partisanship in Washington, and I believe that we will never be secure here at home until we mend the government that is severely broken. One of the keys to mending is putting aside partisanship and breaking through the 30-30 Partisan Blindness Principle.

How do we do it?

Jeff

Cheney Takes Responsibility

I have to commend Vice President Cheney for taking responsibility today for shooting his friend. In an interview with Brit Hume, Cheney said this:

Ultimately I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry.[...]I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend, and that's something I'll never forget.

I do think he is a couple of days late, but at least he will silence the crazy people who were trying to blame Mr. Whittington. For any of those who still want to blame the victim, read this statement by the VP:

It was not Harry's fault.

A member of the Bush Administration took responsibility for something!! Maybe there is hope yet.

Cheers,
Jeff

"Don't blame me. I just pulled the trigger!"

I didn't watch the news all weekend, so I was surprised when I arrived at school Monday and heard that Dick Cheney became the second sitting Vice President to shoot a man. Aaron Burr was of course the first when he shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel July 11, 1804.

When I first heard the news, I was somewhat shocked. Then, I heard that Mr. Whittington, the man who was shot would be okay, so I laughed a little. I tuned into several websites and news shows that poked fun at the Veep, and I had a good laugh. In fact I had drafted a post called "Why Republicans Lack a Sense of Humor," which was a critique of bloggers such as Michelle Malkin who were criticizing Dana Milbank for wearing hunter orange during an appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I thought Milbank was funny and that he didn't deserve the criticism that he was getting.

I was about ready to post this morning when I heard that Mr. Whittington had suffered a mild heart attack because bird shot had come close to or in contact with his heart, and BAM!! I couldn't really make light of the situation any more. Now, I have to agree with Ms. Malkin (Am I really saying this?) that we should cut the humor. However, I now have a few concerns. I had a couple of these concerns before, which I had included in my never-to-be-published post, but I also have some new ones.

Concern Number One:
Why on earth are right-wingers trying to blame this thing on Whittington? In the New York Times, Alan Simpson, a former Wyoming senator and friend of Mr. Cheney came up with this completely ridiculous statement:

"This is a hunting accident, created by the victim. Dick Cheney didn't do anything. He's a master hunter. And they're portraying him as some sort of assassin. I mean the headline I saw today was 'Cheney Bags Lawyer.'" (emphasis added)

Mr. Simpson is of course referring to the allegation that Mr. Whittington did not announce himself to the party as he should have; however, he is neglecting one of the four rules of hunter safety that everyone must learn before they can get a license: "Be certain of your target, and what's beyond it." Everyone who takes hunter's safety, including yours truly, learns that when a shot is fired, it is the shooter, not the target, that is responsible for the outcome. Period. I cannot believe that this is the spin coming from bloggers and others who are trying to defend Cheney's negligence. I'm not saying that the VP should be arrested or anything, but it would go a long way for him to come out and publicly acknowledge that he did, in fact, do something wrong. I'm not holding my breath.

Concern Number Two:

Everyone that reports this story keeps saying that Cheney "peppered" Mr. Whittington. When I was 16, I went pheasant hunting with my family, and my cousin shot a rabbit that was running between us. Bird shot and dirt were sprayed into my leg, and my cousin's father, who was my first cousin, gave the young man the butt chewing of his life for shooting at me (I wonder if someone did the same with Mr. Cheney). Now, that is what being peppered is. It didn't break the skin. It hurt, but there was no real damage.

With Mr. Whittington, however, birdshot found its way into his chest cavity and lodged itself near his heart. If the shot was fired from 30 yards as has been reported, with a 28-gauge shotgun and birdshot, Cheney would have had to make a direct hit. That means Whittington wasn't peppered; he was shot. It also means that when he pulled the trigger, the VP had a pretty good view of his target, and I'm not talking about the bird.

I want to be clear that I don't believe that Mr. Cheney should be prosecuted. I genuinely believe that this was an accident. However, I'm sick of hearing people say that he did nothing wrong, and I'm appalled at anyone who blames Whittington. The truth is that Cheney did do something wrong, and he should be honest with the public that he made a mistake. Is that too much to ask?

Cheers,
Jeff

Album Review: Back to Bedlam

I recently purchased James Blunt's album Back to Bedlam. I'd like to take a couple of minutes and review what I found to be a remarkable album.

Straight out of the British military, which took him to Kosovo, Blunt brings inspired lyrics and a haunting tenor voice to this album, making it one of the most powerful that I have heard in a long time. His lyrics are full of pain and heart break, but also full of hope.

I was drawn to the album when I saw a flash movie at Peace Takes Courage that used Blunt's song "No Bravery" over scenes from the Iraq war to spread an anti-war message. I teared up as I watched the images go by and heard the lyrics:

There are children standing here,
Arms outstretched into the sky,
Tears drying on their face.
He has been here.
Brothers lie in shallow graves.
Fathers lost without a trace.
A nation blind to their disgrace,
Since he's been here.

And I see no bravery,
No bravery in your eyes anymore.
Only sadness.

The song goes on to describe the terrors of war, which Blunt saw first hand in Kosovo, and which he protests against with passion. It's by far the best protest song of this decade.

The other songs on the album ring with the same power and passion toward a myriad of topics, and each one has its own unique flavor that keeps the album interesting. In his song "Cry," Blunt reveals the source of his inspiration, singing

I have seen peace. I have seen pain.
[...]
I have seen birth. I have seen death.
Lived to see a lover's final breath.
[...]
I have seen fear. I have seen faith.
Seen the look of anger on your face.

But, with all of that pain and sorrow that he sings about, Blunt reminds us at the end of "Cry" that we can cry on each other's shoulders because we're all friends.

I recommend this album whole-heartedly. You can get more information and links to where you can buy the album at James Blunt's Website.

Cheers,
Jeff

Faith vs. Fear

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
--Justice Louis Brandeis

Senator Feingold ended his speech yesterday at the NSA Hearings with this quote. His impassionedd speech brings to light several problems with the President's domestic spying program and gives rationale to be concerned with it.

I won't go into the details here. You should all read it for yourselves. However, I want to comment on something that worried me greatly as I watched the hearings--the blatant partisanship of my senator Orrin Hatch.

When I was a missionary for my church in Chile, all the missionaries in my area were addressed by the late church leader Elder Dallas Archibald. Elder Archibald illustrated for us that fear was the antithesis of faith, and that faith should be the driving force for our decision making. He also noted that faith and fear cannot co-exist, so if fear is present, it is the force driving our decision making, not faith.

That being said, I believe that Senator Hatch has not acted in Utah's best interest for some time because of fear. During the hearings yesterday, Senator Hatch framed every question in an either/or scenario. He seemed to say, "Either you support this program, or you support Al Qaida and their mission." That is a disingenuous analysis, much like Senator Hatch's statement that the party-line vote in Committee on Justice Alito was all about abortion (It was much more about presidential power. Read the transcript of the hearing). Everyone in America believes that Al Qaida should be stopped, and that wire-tapping and intelligence gathering is essential in our war against them; however, those criticizing and questioning this program are questioning the President's power and lack of oversight. They are not in league with the terrorists. To suggest that is wrong, and it plays on the fears of Americans at being attacked again, not on their faith that the government will protect them while protecting their civil liberties.

I believe that Senator Hatch is driven by fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of losing his great power in the senate, and fear of upsetting President Bush and Karl Rove. Over the past few years, Senator Hatch has been a tool in pushing the President's agenda. He has repeatedly engaged in political hate speech and deception in order to further the cause of President Bush. Just once, I would like to see him break with the President because it's the right thing to do. I would like to see him ask difficult questions in hearings of Bush nominees, seeking the truth like he has in the past with Democratic nominees. I would like to see him think more about the people he represents than the power that he wields in the crooked city of Washington.

It takes courage to do the right thing. It takes courage to stand up to those in power and demand accountability. It takes courage to stand on principle instead of party line. But, if our leaders will show that courage, they will have a renewed faith and a renewed strength in the system, and we as their constituents will have renewed faith in them.

My two cents,
Jeff

For another good opinion on the issue, read what Jimmy Carter had to say.

An Outraged Football Fan

When I was 12, I frequently was asked to visit the homes of church members as part of my duties as a deacon (a calling given to boys who are between the ages of 12-14). One day, I visited a member who was watching football. The Bills were playing the Eagles, and I watched as Randall Cunningham scampered around in his own endzone for what seemed like forever, breaking tackles and avoiding the safety; then, he fired a pass about sixty yards down the field into the hands of rookie-receiver Fred Barnett. Barnett took the ball the last 40 yards into the endzone for an unforgettable 95-yard touchdown pass. I was mesmerized. I have been a huge NFL fan, and Philadelphia Eagles fan, ever since.

Since that day, I have had very few reasons to ever question the integrity of the game, until tonight. Watching the Super Bowl, I was very concerned about three controversial calls that shifted the momentum of the game. Now, I'm not the type to question officials, especially in the NFL. I believe that they do a very good job, but tonight, they messed up.

In the first quarter of the Super Bowl, Matt Hassleback threw a touchdown pass that was negated by a pass interference call. The call was wrong. The receiver did touch the defender while the ball was in the air, but he just touched him. That shouldn't have been called in a preseason game, let alone the Super Bowl. The normally reserved Steve Young even commented on the poor officiating of this particular play. Seattle had to settle for a field goal as a result.

Then, in what I thought was the key moment of the game, I believe that the officials made two crucial mistakes. In the fourth quarter, the Seahawks were driving into Steelers territory, preparing to take the lead. Hassleback completed a pass to the one-yard line that was called back for holding. On review, there was no holding. Even John Madden agreed that the officials got it wrong.

On the very next play, Hassleback threw an interception, an interception that should never have happened if it wasn't for the holding call. During the return of the interception, Hassleback made a touchdown-saving tackle by throwing himself into the knees of the ball carrier. He was rewarded for this fine play with a 15-yard penalty for a chop block. Last time I checked, a chop block only exists if the person you are hitting DOESN'T HAVE THE BALL!!! If officials are going to penalize tackles that occur below the waist, football doesn't exist anymore.

It turns out that the interception and the 15-yard penalty led to the 11-point lead for the Steelers that could not be overcome. Kudos to the Steelers for holding the lead, but they got a little help from the men in stripes.

Like I said, I'm an Eagles' fan who had nothing riding on this game but the soda that I bet with one of my students, no big deal. However, as a football fan, I'm very disappointed at the way the game was handled at key moments by the officials. I'm not saying that Seattle would have won, but the complexion of the game certainly would have changed had the officials done their jobs.

My two cents,
Jeff

Super Bowl Prediction

While I completely respect Pittsburgh and all that they've done, I think today will be Seattle's. I predict that Seattle will win in a close game 28-26.

Enjoy the game,
Jeff

Warrantless Wire Tapping

As we approach hearings on the NSA Domestic Spying program and the legality of it in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I just wanted to post an interesting article from the Washington Post on the subject:

"Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects"

Also, I just want to say that I hope and pray that the senators involved in these hearings will be open-minded, objective, and thorough in their examination of the evidence. This may be one of the most important senatorial hearings of our time, and I hope that it is not marred by partisanship and political maneuvering.

I will comment more next week on the hearing itself as it unfolds.

Cheers,
Jeff

Whose Sacrifice Is Acceptable?

This post will concern old news and possibly old opinions, but I believe that it's important, so I will take some time here.

Before the State of the Union address, war protester and gold-star mom Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a t-shirt with the number of soldiers who have died in Iraq on it. She attended the speech with an invitation she was given by several congressmen. In a letter she wrote to explain what happened, she said this:

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

You can read the rest of her letter here.

Now, I certainly don't agree with everything that Cindy Sheehan says; in fact, I think some of her views are a little scary. That being said, I believe that she has been unfairly treated by the media and by many right-wing pundits, who seem to believe that some different ideas open a person up to be vilified for everything that he/she does.

I worry that we send the wrong message to our troops who are serving or who have served bravely in wars overseas when we eviscerate people who have a real, human connection to war and who express concerns about this war and the motivation for it. For example, Cindy Sheehan lost her son in the war. She has the right to question why. She has a connection to the war that Bush and his war cabinet can't understand because they haven't been there. None of them. They didn't serve. They haven't lost family over there. And they don't plan to any time soon. The same can be said for pundits like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter who repeatedly use hate speech to question Sheehan's integrity and her patriotism. I would say that Sheehan is the embodiment of our First Amendment in action. Even if one disagrees with her, she should be respected for her courage as she tries to do what she believes is the best thing to do for her fallen son.

Other people who have a much closer connection to war, combat, and the horror caused by them have also been criticized as being anti-American and cowardly. People like John McCain, John Kerry, Max Cleland, Paul Hackett, and most recently John Murtha have had their service in the military questioned, their characters assassinated, and their courage doubted by people who haven't served their country in the military, all because they expressed a view that was contrary to the will of the President and the Republican majority. I believe that this is wrong, and that it should concern many Americans who want our soldiers and veterans to be treated with the respect that they deserve.

I have spoken to soldiers who have returned from Iraq and are totally supportive of our mission there. I would never question their patriotism or character because I hold a different view. To do so would be totally unacceptable. Why is it acceptable to do it to those soldiers who, like Paul Hackett, choose not to support the action that we are taking there?

Some have said that it is these men who have made their service an issue, but I believe that it is ironic that all the criticisms of them are the same: they didn't really deserve their medals or their service wasn't good enough. Will we as Americans stand by and watch while our brave veterans are told that their service, their sacrifice, is not good enough? Whose sacrifice is acceptable? Must you be a pro-war Republican veteran, soldier, or gold-star mom in order to have your sacrifice recognized by those who sport "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers? The hypocrisy amazes me, and I hope that Americans will see through the rhetoric and not continue to support this denigration of our troops by the very people who sent them into combat.

My Two Cents,
Jeff