Why is anyone surprised?

The current administration has always treated those who disagree with it with contempt and scorn. A President of the United States who "served" as a National Guard pilot, who essentially failed in his duties and refused service overseas; a Vice-President who has never worn his country's uniform; a Speaker-of-the-House who has never seen a need to serve.... these "men" have seen fit to attack the patriotism of many combat veterans.

John McCain, a POW in Vietnam, during a campaign for the Presidency.

Max Cleland, a disabled veteran of Vietnam in Georgia.

John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, during the campaign for the Presidency.

And, now, Jack Murtha, a former Marine Drill-Instructor, winner of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam; a man who served his country honorably and with courage; a man who has consistently supported this adminstration during the Iraq War; a man who dared to announce, after much soul searching, that the time has come to begin to draw down our forces from a war which is taking the lives of our service men and women for no good reason.... this hero was yesterday branded a coward by Jean Schmidt (R-OH) for daring to make such a suggestion.

This action is being described by some as "Swift-Boating," a reference to the infamous "Swift-Boat Campaign" of the 2004 elections.

How dare anyone suggest that we've spent enough lives in Iraq? How dare anyone suggest that we were mislead into this war? How dare anyone question the President?

Why is anyone even vaguely surprised at the attack on Jack Murtha? I'm surprised it took as long as it did. This administration makes the Nixon adminstration look like the pinicle of government. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Peer Pressure and Public Prayer

I am facinated by those who insist that school-lead prayer is a good thing and that those who don't want to particpate don't have to do so. And I wonder if those people remember anything about what life was like when they were in school.

Let me start by saying I see nothing wrong, whatever, with any student, at any time, saying a soft prayer. As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in school.

But, while it is one thing for an adult to refuse to participate in public prayer, it is quite another for a child. Children want (and need) to belong to the group. A child who refused to participate in public prayer would be ostrasized. And it is tough enough already to be part of anything.

As a late developer, I know what it was like to be 5' 6" as a senior in high school. Not big enough to participate in sports, not smart enough to be a nerd, not "handsome" enough to be a hit with the girls.

I was thinking of the lyrics of "At Seventeen" by Janis Ian. Remember?

"To those of us who knew the pain
Of Valentines that never came
And those whose names were never called
When choosing sides for basketball
It was long ago and far away
The world was younger than today
When dreams were all they gave for free
To ugly duckling girls like me."

Again children want and need to belong. Forcing them to make a choice at their age between fitting in with the group by praying to something in which they don't believe or not participating and being outed, seems to me to be most unfair.

And, besides, isn't it the folks who are pushing public prayer who also want to forbid schools from teaching morality and sex education saying that is the job of the parents and churches? Of course it is. But they only feel that way when it is their ox which is being gored. Hypocrisy.

Perplexity

Is that a word?

Anyway, I have to confess that I am, once again, perplexed. Let me explain.

In a speech in Panama City on Nov. 7th, President Bush said that his administration would continue to agressively battle terrorism in sometimes unconventional but always legal ways. He said we are at war with an enemy "that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet, we'll aggresively puruse them, but we'll do so under the law." He also asserted, "We do not torture!"

Now, this speech comes after efforts by Vice President Cheney to lobby law makers to exempt the CIA from an amendment that would ban torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners. And, just weeks ago, Bush, himself, threatened to veto the Department of Defense spending bill if it contained an amendment proposed by Senastor John McCain to outlaw torture.

So, if we do not torture, as Bush claims, then why this unwarranted concern about laws prohibiting the practice? The only reasonable conclusion is that Bush has once again lied about the facts and that we do, in fact, torture people to obtain information.

And what is truly sad about that, beyond the loss of the moral high ground that America has always enjoyed, is that things learned under torture are, at best, unreliable. I spent part of my tour in Vietnam as an Intelligence Officer. It is well documented that people under torture will tell you anything you want to hear just to make it stop.

During World War II, the most effective man the German's had interrogating our POWs was successful because he treated them like human beings. He saw to it their wounds were dressed and offered them hot food and coffee. After the war, some of those questioned by him sponsored him to become an American citizen.

The U.S. military knows what works and what doesn't. They aren't the ones opposing the amendment to ban torture. It is folks like Dick Cheney and George Bush who, as usual, want to ignore the experts, just as they did going into Iraq.

It is time for every moderate in this country to jam the White House phone lines and demand that the administration stop its opposition to the McCain ammendment.

Codex Alimentarius

What I'm about to write about is going to sound a little like a right-wing diatribe against the United Nations. It isn't. Its about a move within the UN and the U.S. Government to take away your rights to certain vitamin and mineral supplements and to allow the use of proven deadly pesticides on your food supply.

The move, if left unchallenged, will allow the UN to regulate how much and what kind of medicines are available. For instance, Vitamin C would be outlawed, except in miniscule amounts, even with a doctor's prescription.

I urge you to look at the following link: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/aboutcodex.shtml

The legislation will go into effect in 2009 if we do nothing to stop it. I urge you to write or call your congressional delegation and sign the petition at the site above.

Your freedom of choice when it comes to medical care would be restricted to conventional methods.

Please take action and feel free to share this information with others.

Thanks.