War is always a crime

Why is this not in bold-face on the front-page of every U.S. newspaper? American and Iraqi researchers, led by doctors from Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, write in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, that more than 100,000 Iraqis have died since the US-led invasion of the country than would have died otherwise. These new figures are much higher than any previous estimates, which generally said that between 10,000, and 37,000 Iraqis died directly or indirectly as a result of the March 2003 invasion. The Times of London reports Friday that the survey attributes most of the extra deaths, many of whom were women and children, to "airstrikes by coalition forces." The international team that did this study by visiting homes of people in Iraq say that their estimate is conservative. British and U.S. officials are not responding seriously to the numbers but are conceding that they were done by a respected and reputable group. People need to demand answers. People need to understand the nature of war and the suffering it causes.

It must be evident to anyone that the war in Iraq has been out of proportion with any risk posed to anyone inside or outside of Iraq. I fail to understand how anyone can look at what has gone on in Iraq and not believe it was a mistake. Yes, Saddam is gone. (Those of us involved in the human rights struggle had been protesting his rule since the late 1980's. No one paid attention until he invaded Kuwaiti oil fields.) The world benefits whenever a despot is deposed.

We, however, defied the United Nations best judgment, using faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction which provided the rationale for this war and launched a violent assault upon Iraq without exhausting every other avenue available to us.

The results have been a nightmare-come-true. Over 1,100 American deaths. Over 8,000 Americans wounded. Now, we must face the fact, that we may have caused, directly and indirectly, the deaths of 100,000 deaths in Iraq. Even Saddam didn't kill at that pace.

My bottom line: If Bush loses on Tuesday, it will be because enough U.S. citizens have seen the truth in what Winston Churchill once said:

“Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.”

If Bush wins, it is because too many of us have wrapped ourselves in the flag, and turned a blind eye to the folly of war.

Death Penalty for Teen Offenders?

Lee Boyd Malvo, the teenage partner of assassin John Allan Mohammed that terrorized the East Coast over a year ago has been sentenced to life in prison. He was 17 at the time he took part in the shootings.

This brings to light a question that was argued before the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago. Should 16 and 17 year old murderers be sentenced to death? While the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not, in and of itself, constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Gregg v. Georgia, 1976), they are re-visiting the practice of applying capital punishment to teen offenders.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=scotusexecute14&date=20041014

Why might the Court reverse itself? In a recent decision, Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Court ruled that it WAS a violation of the 8th Amendment to execute offenders that are mentally retarded. Does it logically follow that teens should not be given the ultimate punishment?

What do you think? Should the Court revise the meaning of “cruel and unusual punishment” with respect to juvenile offenders or do you think this is a matter best left up to the Congress and the individual states to decide?

Civil Discourse, factions, and Jon Stewart

There has been a lot of discussion about the intensely bitter debate that we have seen this political season. Is it a sign that our republic is in decline? Can we overcome the insults and personal attacks to come together as a nation? Whose fault is this? Does it take a late-night comic like Jon Stewart to public smack around the “partisan hacks” that masquerade as journalists these days? I hope that all of my current “We the People” students are forming ideas about this topic. The Framers feared this sort of thing would tear apart our republic.

In reality, this nasty tone has been building for years. One factor may be the rise of iconoclastic political commentators. People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ann Coulter and others have developed large audiences by using humor and outrageous statements to make their political points. (Except for Ann Coulter. I've never found her to be funny or clever. My guess is that if she was overweight and her face was more asymmetrical that she would have never landed herself a job as a TV commentator.)

You can make an argument that these entertaining political writers, filmmakers, etc. are doing good because they reach people who might not otherwise be paying attention. Hopefully a lot of those people go beyond the infotainment they provide and search for some real and serious discussion of politics.

Others say that we sowing the seeds of destruction by spreading political hatred. I encourage you to read a piece republished in today’s Seattle Times by Gary Alan Fine. (He is John Evans Professor of Sociology at Northwestern University – a big shout out to Jessica Joslin!) He makes some excellent observations about today’s political climate.

When I was young, my parents insisted that I show respect for the president,whoever he was and whichever party he represented. He was the president of all Americans, and we collectively selected him. My parents were not alone.

The hatred that has spewed across the land — first in conservative "red" territory under Clinton, then in liberal "blue" regions under Bush — has the potential, if allowed to continue, to erode the very possibility of political compromise.

Professor Fine continues:

I believe that our parents were correct for two reasons.

First, a nation consumed with bitter partisanship makes compromise and political transition more difficult. Hatred easily translates into mistrust and suspicion. The remarkable aspect of American politics is that despite a vibrant two-party system,
electoral losers lose gracefully and winners win with admiration for those over
whom they have triumphed. But intense anger in the system has the potential to
make a transfer of power difficult and has the potential to create political
deadlock when such vitriol enters the halls of Congress.

Second, the translation of policy difference into claims of extremism ignores that our two major parties are, in general, quite similar in their policy prescriptions. Both parties support national defense, economic growth through capitalism, protection of the environment, participation in global peacekeeping organizations, quality education and aid to families in need.

He concludes that:

We surely can judge what a politician has done during a political career and what policy prescriptions he or she is proposing, and we can be noisy in our support or rejection. We should judge the recent past and the alternative
futures proposed. This is productive civic engagement; anger and vituperation
over imagined youthful failures is not.

Understanding this may help us step back from the precipice of our politics of passion. Intense anger may satisfy our lust for absolute certainty. But in a society in which we must negotiate, this anger hardens our souls and debases our options. Politics becomes war, not persuasion.

If you'd like to read the piece in its entirety, click on the following link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002070413_polhatred24.html

For a similar view from a Christian pastor, Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, click on http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1025/p09s01-coop.html

Her conclusion is wonderful:

So in a divided nation where passions are running high over war, a tight presidential race, joblessness, and antagonistic media, let us remember the
common good....

But being civil to an adversary does not mean sacrificing core principles, because in challenging an adversary, you can separate what that person says from who they are.

A word to the wise: Reserve your passions for loving, speak forcefully to what you believe, and always reserve for yourself the possibility that you might just be wrong.

What do you think? Follow the directions at the top of my page to post your comments!

Who is gonna take this election?

Well, I haven't posted anything here in a long time. I had a busy summer and the school year is a little crazy. My son Anthony is sophomore at MRHS now and is the treasurer of Amnesty International. My wife is teaching 1st grade in the Kent School District. My youngest son is doing well in 7th grade and might be the most anti George W. of the whole darn Democratic family.

Anyway, I am wondering what you are thinking about the upcoming presidential election. It is less than two weeks away, and may be as unbelievably close as in 2000. Have you gotten "into" this election? Who do you think is going to come out on top? Would you like to persuade any other visitors to this site that they should vote for Bush or Kerry?

Respond here and let us know what you think!

I am very nervous about the whole thing. I am planning on doing some canvassing for Kerry this weekend. I encourage you to get involved. It is going to be close, and for a lot of reasons, I think this is an extremely important election!

More than 1,000 military deaths in Iraq

We have reached a sad milestone in the war in Iraq. The following information was taken from today's Christian Science Monitor:

US military deaths in the Iraq campaign passed 1,000 Tuesday, an Associated
Press tally showed, as a spike in fighting with both Sunni and Shiite insurgents
killed seven Americans in scattered clashes in the Baghdad area.

The count includes 998 US troops and three civilian contractors
killed while working for the Pentagon. The tally was compiled by the AP based on
Pentagon records, AP reporting from Iraq, and reports from soldiers' families.

It includes deaths from hostile and non-hostile causes since
President Bush launched a campaign in March 2003 to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. A few deaths occurred in neighboring Kuwait.

The grim milestone was surpassed after a spike in clashes that has killed 14 American service members in the past two days. Two soldiers died in fighting Tuesday with militiamen loyal to rebel Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Five other Americans died Tuesday in separate attacks, mostly in the Baghdad area.

Given all that we have learned about the circumstances surrounding our initiating this war, and that we are currently losing men and women at a greater rate than earlier in the war, why aren't Americans more upset? Why aren't they more angry with George Bush and the Congress that authorized the action?

I'll admit it - I'm an anti-war type and was against this war from the beginning. I think the whole notion of "pre-emtive war" makes our world a more dangerous place. Maybe I just don't get it. Give me your comments on this.

However, unlike others in the anti-war movement, I don't think we can just cut and run now. I do think that we made certain things a mess in Iraq and we have a moral obligation to help make those things right. Do you agree or do you think the U.S. should get out as soon as possible and let the chips fall where they may in Iraq.

Please share your wisdom with me....

Kerry-Edwards Ticket

Yesterday was a very good day for the Democrats. Let's face it, this year is all about beating Bush, and Edwards is going to help Kerry do just that. I was very worried he might choose his close friend Dick Gephardt, or someone else with which he had a longer personal relationship. But Kerry didn't make that political mistake.

The election is now the Democrats' to lose. Edwards can bring the charisma and "regular guy" appeal that Kerry lacks. He is intelligent and connects with audiences. He is a moderate (voted for the war in Iraq, pro-death penalty) and will force the Republicans to spend more time in money on Southern states they can't quite take for granted any more.

Like a lot of you, I've worked and voted for Democrats that were much closer to my solid left-wing ideals, but this year we understand that the stakes are too high not to go with a ticket that has lots of broad appeal.

We Democrats chose Kerry not because we loved him, but because we thought he could beat Bush. Kerry has now done us a favor in return by choosing his ex-rival Edwards, not because he loves him, but because he can help him win the election.

Or, as one Republican web-site has put it, is Edwards "a disingenuous, unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers."

What are your thoughts????

Saddam in Court

It certainly was strange footage to see Saddam appear before the Iraqi court. He was the man that we haven't seen since they pulled him out of the hole in the ground looking like hell.

This time, he did have moments of appearing nervous, but soon reverted to the same old Saddam, blaming the United States and Iran for the crimes for which he stands accused.

There are a couple of important questions about this trial. The first is whether, in the long process of gathering and presenting evidence against Saddam, it will bring a sense of justice to the Iraqi people. Will the ultimate conviction of Saddam under an Iraqi Court bring a sense of closure to nightmarish episode in the life of that nation?

Will Saddam be able to use the trial as a pulpit for his ideas and anger? Will he be able to use the trial to speak out against the American occupation and the legitimacy of the new government? Remember that when Adolf Hitler was convicted in the 1920's after the failed Beer Hall Putsch, he was able to use his trial as a springboard to public acceptance. Similarly, ex-Serbian President Slobodan Milosovic of Yugoslavia has dragged out his war crimes trial and blamed all of his political enemies for everything that has gone wrong in the Balkans in attempt to deflect attention from his own crimes.

Let's face it. Saddam can say a lot of things that will embarrass and implicate the CIA, the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as Russia, France, and a host of others that aided his rise to power. We not only tolerated, but supported and sold arms to Saddam in the 1980's. Our actions in Iraq are only one example of the morally dubious actions of United States foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War. We have tolerated and supported many brutal regimes because it served our immediate purposes. We continue to this tradition by supporting the government of Pakistan because it is supposedly helping us track down bin Laden and his followers. (We can all see how well that is working out.)

The United States likes to celebrate the good it has done around the world (like liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule) while ignoring the costs of our foreign policy (the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, the destruction of their infrastructure and the creation of unstable and nearly ungovernable nations in Afghanistan and Iraq, all while destroying 60 years of support for international law).

What do you think? Will Saddam’s trial bring to light not only his crimes, but those of the United States, and other members of the international community that were often complicit in his crimes? Or will the trial be rigidly censored to eliminate any embarrassing evidence from reaching the American public?

Let me know what you think. For more on the CIA and Saddam, see the link on this posting.

Bush Administration Checked and Balanced!!

George Bush says that he does not read newspapers. He relies on others to keep him up to date on what is happening out there. Putting aside the obvious “Emperor’s New Clothes” analogies, I certainly hope that someone has kept him up to date on what has been going down at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earlier this week, in three separate decisions, the Court struck down a basic operating principle of the Bush Administration’s war on terror; namely that the President has the authority to detain any person it claims to be a member of a terrorist organization. For almost two years we have seen an executive branch wield powers unparalleled in modern times. Many of us have been frightened at the growth of the new powers being exercised by this government. Many seemed to betray some of the most basic principles of our constitutional system.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court sent a very strong reality check to the White House in recently announced decisions.

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!