more #@%! on Cheney

Dick Cheney (who I've never liked or respected) recently told Senator Patrick Leahey (who I've liked and respected for a long time) to "f@#^-off" the other day on the floor of the Senate.

Characteristically, after it was reported in the press, Cheney neither apologized nor appeared contrite in any way. In fact, he said it made him feel good to say it! Here is how it was reported in the Seattle Times:

"I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it," Cheney told Fox News' Neil Cavuto. The vice president said those who heard the putdown agreed with him. "I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue."

The forceful defense by Cheney came as much of Washington was discussing his outburst on the Senate floor. Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session Tuesday. A chance meeting with Leahy became an argument about Cheney's ties to oil-services giant Halliburton and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice: "Go (expletive) yourself."

So, concerned as I am about the well-being of our vice-president (see previous posting)I am wondering what other things would make Dick Cheney "feel better". Here are a few suggestions. Please feel free to add your own!

1. Barge into a meeting of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with an automatic weapon and exclaim "It's Cheney Time!"
2. Telling Pope John Paul II to "Can the anti-war crap old man!"
3. Removing animals from the endangerd species act and telling them to "deal with it or die you maladaptive freaks"
4. Drill like mad in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, rape the pristine environment, and tell the environnmentalists who complain to "bite me!"
5. Standing on street corners, waiting for hybrid energy efficient cars to pass and then yelling to "get a real car you wimp"!

Farenheit 9/11

Michael Moore's new film opens today, and it promises to take some pretty good shots at the President. Moore is calling it the equivalent of an op-ed piece. Some conservatives are up in arms and have tried to get theaters to refuse to show the film.

With all the controversy that has come up over this film, I was wondering how many of you are planning to see it? Liberals, progressives, Democrats, and the anybody-but-Bush crowd are expected to be out in big numbers to see it. What about those of you who are independent or Republican? Are you considering seeing the film?

I probably will see the movie in the next few days and will post a review. In the meantime, let me know what you think about the movie. Also, Moore was upset the movie got an "R" rating. Do you think it deserved the rating and why?

The Mighty We the People Rams - 2004 

Who for V.P.?

Who will John Kerry select as his running mate? In a close race like this one, the candidate for Veep might have the ability to help him pick up enough votes to make the difference in the race.

Yosef Fufa suggested that I throw this topic out for comments and I think it is a good idea. I'd like to know who you think would be the best choice for V.P.

First, however, I must say that I think George Bush made a big mistake in keeping Dick Cheney as his running mate. Yes, Cheney is a solid conservative, and that makes the right-wing of the party happy, but there are plenty of strong Republicans in the party that would bring more to the ticket.

First of all, Bush could have dumped Cheney by simply asking the man, who has no ambition to be President, to step down because of his health. The public would have bought that. I mean really...how many heart attacks has the man had? Bush wouldn't even have to kick him out of the government entirely. He could take a lesser cabinet position; become the next ambassador to Iraq; become a test subject for the Surgeon General; anything!!!!

Secondly, and more seriously, the man has given the President some of the worst advice of his Presidency. Cheney was one of the neo-conservative hawks demanding that we invade Iraq. Cheney insisted (and still insists!) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had dangerous ties to al-Queda. It is pretty well established that these things have been proven false.

Thirdly, Cheney trusted and promoted Ahmed Chalabi more than anyone else in the Bush administration. He was being paid by the U.S. government up until a few months ago, for his help and intelligence reports. Of course a few weeks ago, when we found out that Chalabi had been selling U.S. secrets to Iran, we cut off ties with him and ransacked his house in Iraq looking for evidence.

Fourth, he was the CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000. He made millions from them, now they are making billions off of rebuilding Iraq. Oh yeah, Cheney still has tons of Halliburton stock. 'Nuff said.

Lastly, I don't think Cheney brings anything to the ticket to help Bush get re-elected. He's from a state with a tiny population, he has no charisma, and he is unwilling to admit that he has made mistakes. The good thing for Bush is that he doesn't look to bad in comparison to Cheney.

Bush could have tapped someone like Colin Powell as his running mate. Powell has been a loyal soldier to Reagan, Bush Sr., and "W". He went along with the war in Iraq only after encouraging the President to wait longer and get more support from our allies before going in. He made a presentation to the U.N. that turned out to be full of untruths, but he has admitted the intelligence he relied on was faulty. Compare this to the pig-headed obstinancy that we keep getting from Cheney.

Powell or someone else could create excitement for Bush and place a sane, rational man a heart-beat away from the presidency instead of this crusading ideologue.

Am I wrong? Has Cheney got some sort of redeeming qualities that Bush sees that I don't?

Oh, yeah. The Democrats. I think Kerry would be crazy not to select John Edwards as his running mate. I think he offers the best chance to help Kerry get votes.

Post some comments and let me know what your political strategy would be.

"under God"

So much for the Supreme Court not being political!!!!

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision (or non-decision) in the case of the Elk Grove School District v. Newdow. It dealt with one of the most controversial cases of this term - whether the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause if recited by students in public schools.

In short, the Court allowed the Pledge of Allegiance to continue being recited in public schools with the phrase "under God" intact. But...

...the Court did not rule on the central question presented in the case: does the phrase "under God" amount to a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state?

Instead, they ruled that the young girl's father, Michael Newdow, who did not have legal custody of his daughter, did not have the right to bring the suit against the school district. The mother (and the daughter) are Christians and have no objection to reciting the Pledge. The Court said that Mr. Newdow did not have the right to sue in Court to over-ride a decision made by the parent (mom) with legal custody. But, if the Supreme Court decided to take the case, one would assume that they were prepared to deal with the difficult question of the separation of church and state. But they didn't.

What do you think about this? Did the U.S. Supreme Court wimp out? Is the Pledge, which has contained the words "under God" since Congress added them in the 1950's a violation of the 1st Amendment?

I could say a lot more about this case, but will leave it at this for now: I think the ruling was a good thing for the nation. Maybe I'll add some more of my opinion of this if a few of you have some interesting comments.

Let me know what you think...

Thanks for the response!

Thanks for the response from those of you that posted some comments. It was great to hear your thoughts. I enjoyed hearing from all of you that posted! This seems like it might be a fun thing to try to get going. I hope to catch up on some personal e-mails to a few of you soon. For now, I'm taking the advice of my wife and Nate Porter, who suggest I get my grades done!

I guess I wasn't the only one feeling a bit "off" about the coverage of Ronald Reagan's death.

I missed the coverage of the big ceremony in D.C., but I did watch in full the coverage of the "Final Farewell" in California at Sunset. I thought hearing the personal comments of his children - Michael, Patti, and Ron Jr., were quite moving. Each of them had difficult relationships with their father at different points in their lives, and it was nice to see that they had reconciled and come to be at peace with the relationship they had with their father before his death.

For now, I'm much to busy to get into any more detail about serious world affairs, but I've realized that a lot of the e-mail addresses that I have are old, so if you would like to pass on the e-mail addresses of more MRHS alumni, I'd love to have them. Or, if you know they might be interested in popping off on some political issues, send them to this blog site.

brain-dead reflections on the news...

I don't really think I have anything intelligent to say...my mind has been numbed by reading inane research papers and listening to bland, pointless discussions of "Reagan's Legacy" on network and cable news.

Are we really supposed to expect people to engage in a critical analysis of Reagan's policies and deeds while he is laying in state in the Capitol? Give me a break - the networks are spending all this time covering Reagan's death, people naturally want to remember the good in him at a time like this, but true to form, the networks ALWAYS feel the need to present two sides to every issue. (As if there are only two!)

So in response to those people that want to put Reagan's likeness on Mt. Rushmore, we get these weak, half-hearted statements saying Reagan was responsible for record budget-deficits, and played a dangerous game of berating the Communist system of Russia early in his presidency.

Why don't they just give it a rest? There is pleny of time for historians and political pundits to analyze the effects of Reagan's presidency. The news is that he has died after a long illness and the country wants to take some time to remember the man who served in the highest office of the land for most of the 1980's.

Isn't that enough of a story? Do we really need to have the appearance of "hard news" analysis by a bunch of Democrats and Republicans that are in no position to make an unbiased assessment?

Please! Don't waste my time. Once again, the U.S. media doesn't get the point. I think grading those 11th grade research papers doesn't seem like such a waste of time after all.

Am I the only one thinking this way???

Click on comments, and let me know what you think!

Why visit this site?

I have enjoyed teaching and working with so many great Mt. Rainier High students in my "We the People" classes over the past years. Unfortunately, it is pretty hard to keep up e-mail correspondence with more than a few of you, so I thought creating a web log might be a great idea for us to reconnect.

I thought it would be fun to have some "virtual" class discussions with you again. I'd like to invite you to share your views on current events with me and the rest of the alumni from my WTP classes.

During the summer I plan to post some questions and comments on the big questions facing our nation and the world, and I'd love to have you post yours here as well.

For the first topic though, I thought I would just send out a general question. I think it will be the first presidential election most of you will be able to participate in as voters. Are you excited about voting in the up-coming fall election? Do you like any of the candidates enough to work or contribute to their campaign? Or if not at the Presidential level, are you excited about any of the other races?

Let us know what you think, and feel free to give us a personal update on where you are and what you are up to these days!