True Evil

I read this article about Al Quaeda members strapping bombs to mentally disabled women and remotely triggering the explosion in crowded markets. I was thoroughly astounded at the horrific lengths terrorists will go. It is one thing to strap a bomb to one's self to blow up people - but to trick, coerce, or force an unwilling participant and blowing them up to in-turn kill others, is a whole new level of vile, senseless, and evil killing.

This demonstrates the lengths to which these Islamic radicalists will go to harm the free. We should not let fear control us and erode our privacy, but we should not underestimate those that wish to do us harm.

The Republican Playground

Did you see that so-called Republican "debate," held at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley California, last night??? If not you can see it here and probably here soon.

I think the Republicans should be disgraced by how their candidates acted in this debate. Romney and McCain were like kids on the playground arguing over the tether ball. Frankly, arguing over what Romney did or didn't say a year ago is a waste of our time (see clip below for the Romney/McCain bickering) - the American people need to know how maintaining troops in Iraq keeps us safer, why the sacrifice of life and money are worth it, and how they intend to finance this war in the long term.

McCain was disrespectful to all the other candidates. He kept laughing and grinning at Romney and Paul as if he were superior to them, like a bully on the playground. McCain has, in every debate, laughed Paul down, dismissing him as a looney. I realize Paul has radical libertarian ideas, and his ideas don't fit the current Republican landscape, but he still has legitimate ideas that should be considered and respected. Overall I think McCain is a good guy, and he has a good record in the Senate and he is a true war hero. But this bullying is unbecoming and disrespectful. My advice to McCain - stop the playing around and ACT presidential!

In the end Huckabee came out ahead. Huckabee was humble, classy, and respectful. He stuck to talking about his positions, and he was elegant in doing so. I realize that Huckabee is a scary candidate as far as his policies, especially social policy, but he the only one actually acting presidential. He has intelligence, wit & charm, and charisma, this is why he is still in the race.

And the media - a total bias towards "front-runners" - they gave Paul and Huckabee very little airtime, and did not ask them the same questions they asked Romney/McCain. During one of the other Republican debates one of the hosts literally picked on and laughed at Paul. Again, I'm not supporting Paul, but their should be a better system of fair play for candidates to get out their message. Let the voters decide if Paul's ideas are over-the-top or not. More candidates should be given a fair and equal chance to make their case. If the so-called "fringe" candidates are truly on the fringe, let the voters decide, not the media. I don't care who the candidate is - Paul, Kucinich, Nader, or even Alan Keyes. Let them debate, and let them debate at the same level as the front-runners. One shouldn't have to have a ton of money like Ross Perot to get noticed.

Ronald Reagan would be ashamed...

South Carolina Primary

Obama will win, and big!
Clinton will come in second, but don't be surprised if Edwards gives her a challege.
If Clinton falls to third, it will be her (and Bill's) extremely rotten negative campaigning that did the trick.

Nevada Goes To Romney and Clinton

The South Carolina results are starting to come in, but no winner yet. The big news - I PICKED correctly the winners in Nevada! With 97% of precincts reporting in Nevada, Mitt Romney wins for the Republicans and Hillary Clinton wins for the Democrats; both candidates getting approximately 51% of the vote in their respective parties. For the Demmocrats Obama comes in second with a strong 45% of the vote. Edwards comes in third with a weak 3.76% showing. I was a little surprised Edwards didn't do better and at least get 15% of the vote; without 15% he will not be awarded any delegates from Nevada. On the Republican side, the BIG surprise is Ron Paul coming in second with nearly 14% of the vote. The Republicans do not have a 15% threshold, so this means Paul will receive some delegates. McCain comes in third with close to 13% of the vote.

More to come...

Presidential Politics - Nevada & South Carolina

First, I apologize for missing Michigan! The Michigan Republican primary was a tough one to call - I'm not sure who I would have chosen anyway. Mitt Romney won, and I can certainly see why with hi s father being a former governor and Mitt himself having big ties to the state. Romney's win mixes up the Republican race once again, with three different candidates winning primaries, and goes to show that the Republicans are torn about who they want for President.

The Democratic primary in Michigan was for all intents and purposes void. Obama and Edwards did not bother putting their names on the ballot. Because of a state party dispute with the National Democratic Party, Michigan delegates won't be seated at the National Convention. I'm not sure what it's all about, but I know it had something to do with Michigan deciding to hold their primary earlier than national rules allow.

Now, for today - South Carolina Republicans are holding their primary (Democrats are next Saturday) and Nevada has both Republican and Democratic Caucuses today.

Here are my predictions:

South Carolina:
Republican -

1. 1. Mike Huckabee - South Carolina Republicans are religious voters and they will vote for the most evangelical candidate. Huckabee is that man.
   
2. 2. John McCain - For everyone else, there is McCain.
   
3. 3. Fred Thompson - Thompson is the second most conservative candidate for the Republicans. He's also a big fan with gun owners.
   

Mitt Romney will be upset in South Carolina, as he just doesn't hold much appeal in the South. Look for this to hurt his "electibility" factor nationally.

Nevada:
Republican -

1. 1. Mitt Romney - Republicans haven't spent much time in Nevada (instead focusing on South Carolina), so Mitt Romney leads in polls.
   
2. 2. John McCain - A solid second place for McCain.
   
3. 3. Mike Huckabee - Squeaks into third, as Nevada voters aren't big fans.
   

Democrats -

1. 1. Hillary Clinton - In a super close race, Clinton will squeak out the win over Obama.
   
2. 2. Barack Obama - He has lots of support in Nevada, including the largest union in the state, but he just can't stop Hillary's organizing power. Obama fans, don't despair, I am positive Obama will win in South Carolina next Saturday!
   
3. 3. John Edwards - Edwards will get a very strong third place finish and he could potentially upset Hilary or Obama in Nevada.
   

In closing, today will be a big day for the candidates, but don't look for anything to be decides. This years race will go down to the nominating conventions in August and September.

Also, I have some more thoughts about Edwards, and about Vice Presidential politics in this race. Tune in later.

Watch/Listen/Read All the Presidential Debates

Hello Friends.

Check this out - you can find all the Presidential debates in one place!

2008 Presidential Debate Series

Best of all - they are closed captioned for the hearing impaired. But don't worry, the audio is working too.

---

New Hampshire - Hillary wins Democratic primary, and John McCain wins Republican primary. I was totally wrong about Democrats in New Hampshire, and so was the force known as the "media" and so were the polls. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we vote! Here is an interesting article by Politico.com media journalists about "Why Reporters Get it Wrong."
Or you could just take Stephen Colbert's explanation:
"If you keep voting the way you want, rather than the way we tell you you want, then pundits are going to stop telling you how to think!"



This video is also a funny, yet scary, Colbert interview with Republican Mike Huckabee. I say scary because people might actually vote for Huckabee simply because he promised Colbert the VP position!

An interesting fact about NH. While Hillary did win the highest percentage of votes with 38.99% of the vote, both Obama and Clinton actually get the same amount of "pledged" delegates for New Hampshire. There were 22 pledged delegates, and because Obama got only 2.6% less of the vote (36.39%) then mathematically they both ended up with 9 pledged delegates a piece, and John Edwards gets the other 4. You have to receive at least 15% of the vote to get delegates and John Edwards got 16.91%. I am not an expert on the process, but I know that the way in which a candidate is technically chosen as a Party's nominee is by getting the most delegates in her/his name at the Party's nominating convention. Thus, technically Obama and Clinton are very close (if not tied) with total delegates after Iowa and New Hampshire. I only say close because I don't know how Iowa assigns delegates exactly and they didn't assign them right away. So while both Clinton and Obama might not be that far apart in delegates, in reality it is the perception that one candidate or the other is "winning" that actually matters the most!

---

John Edwards - What should do John Edwards do? Well, it's no secret that if John Edwards dropped out then Obama would have a greater chance of beating Clinton as inevitably Edwards would put his weight (and votes) behind Obama. Obama and Edwards have been very close in philosophy, and actually have been known to team up on Clinton (see New Hampshire ABC debate from link above). While this may be true, I believe Edwards should keep fighting for multiple reasons - 1) He is a very strong candidate by himself. Unfortunately, he is being overshadowed by the popularity of Obama and Clinton, and it doesn't help that he is the "old white guy" in this race. 2) To keep Clinton and Obama honest and on their feet. 3) To show he is a viable VP candidate in 2008 (I think he would make a strong addition to the Obama ticket) and 4) Anything can happen!

Presidential Politics New Hampshire Style

Turns out I was right on with my Iowa predictions for Democratic presidential hopefuls. With Republicans, I knew that Ron Paul was a long shot for third, but I got Huckabee and Romney correct. Now for some news -

If you don't already know - Democrats Chris Dodd and Joe Biden drop out of race.

New Hampshire primary is today -

My Thoughts:

Democrats: Obama "fever" has struck and his momentum is too strong to stop. Hilary Clinton is self-destructing - read this article in today's New York times about some very out-of-line comments from Hilary. Furthermore, this article in Politico describes the "panic" mode at Clinton campaign headquarters. The polls show Obama in first, Hilary in second, and Edwards in third. The real question is, can Hilary hold on to second? Look for Edwards to make a surprise second place showing.

Republicans: The media says John McCain has a big lead in New Hampshire. I imagine that the New Hampshire Republican is a different type than the Iowa Republican, so it makes sense that Huckabee would not be a front-runner in NH. Huckabee's conservatism and religious appeal played better to a midwestern state than to a north-eastern state. Futhermore, the X-factor in NH is the independent vote - Obama, McCain, and Paul will all try to court the independents. Look for McCain to come out with the win. Romney will come in second. The real question will be, who will come in third. Most polls show Huckabee with the advantage, but a Reuters/CSpan/Zogby poll shows a virtual tie between Huckabee, Guiliani, and Paul. Huckabee is the most likely to get 3rd, but I still think Ron Paul could make a surprise showing in one of the early states.

Predictions...

Dems: 1st - Barack Obama
2nd - John Edwards
3rd - Hilary Clinton

Reps: 1st - 1st - John McCain
2nd - Mitt Romney
3rd - Ron Paul

Tonight we will see...

Today is the BIG day - the Iowa Caucuses. I can not believe this day descended upon us so quickly (the earliest in history). Here are my predictions:

Democrats:

1st: Barack Obama - Obama has the momentum and newfound star power.
2nd: John Edwards - Edwards plays well in living rooms and is talking about issues more openly than others.
3rd: Hilary Clinton - For Democrats and Independents Clinton represents politics as usual and all Americans are fed up. Clinton's fall will help Obama and Edwards who have both vowed not to accept corporate donations, unlike Clinton.

Republicans:

1st: Mike Huckabee - Huckabee seems to have a late lead, and the popular choice with conservative voters.
2nd: Mitt Romney - A moderates moderate who has the money and good looks to get second (and possibly first).
3rd: Ron Paul - Paul is the sleeper. People love him because his libertarian ideals are not politics as usual. If the youth show up today, expect a surprise showing from Paul.

Blowing Up Satellites

Yesterday's NY Times article titled, "U.S. Knew of China’s Missile Test, but Kept Silent" is a very troubling look at the US response to China's anti-satellite experiments.

I ask you - should we not be very scared of China's ability to blow up satellites? Should we not also be worried that the US is simply watching them do it?

In today's interconnected digital world the American economy is literally driven by communications technology. I can not even begin to imagine the destruction and disruption in our way of life that could be caused by the destruction of key communication satellites. Even more frightening is the fact that the government and the military relies heavily on satellites for intelligence, communications, missile guidance, operations, imagining, and more. Our ability to gather intelligence and to use key military operations could potentially be crippled with the blast of a few anti-satellite pop-shots in outer space.

I only hope that behind the scenes our intelligence and military are developing anti-anti-satellite technologies, because the inaction displayed by the President is simply unacceptable.

Emergency!

There is something seriously wrong with the American psyche. I submit - this "problem" was the reason we failed to see 9/11 coming, and is the reason we will be equally surprised by 9/12. You see, we Americans have a problem - we are stuck on fantasy island and we can not escape because we are trapped by paradox.

You see, we are both extremely fearful, and yet exuberantly positive. We believe we can achieve anything, and complain that we are limited to nothing. We are both proud and ignorant of our past. We are optimistic about our future and yet we passively await its demise. We can dream big, but forget quickly.

What does this mean? What does it have to do with my subject? Well, it means we Americans have a dissonance of inaction. Our vision only extends as far as our willingness to believe, and our willingness to act falls even shorter. It means that we are failing to see the big picture and act long term. Let us take the topic of emergency planning. Let me ask you, do you know what to do in the case of an emergency? Are you prepared? How many Americans are prepared? Is our government prepared?

The CIA did not see 9/11 coming, air traffic controllers did not know how to respond, and the military was not ready to scramble jets. FEMA was not ready for Katrina, and they did not act accordingly following the disaster. These are just the shortcomings of our government, but the American people are equally to blame. How many of us have extra water and food stored, an emergency crank radio, flashlights and extra batteries, candles, matches, a corded phone that does not require electricity, exit plans, and rudimentary knowledge of what to do in different types of emergencies? From my interactions with others it seems not many. I personally have most of these things, and the things I do not have I am in the process of gathering. Some might see this as paranoia, but I see it as preparedness, awareness, and foresight. Am I fearful? Not at all; in fact, I am less fearful because I have taken action in the areas that I can have control.

It is this type of foresight that our government must have, and the American people must begin to develop. We must imagine the unimaginable, and then believe in possibility. Then we must use our ingenuity and creativity to be prepared. The capacity to believe that I speak of will surely help combat terrorism and help us be better prepared, but it does not have to be focused merely on doom and gloom topics. It can be focused to determine positive solutions for issues like health care, out of control spending, homelessness, global warming, etc. The point being, that if we fear the unknown and the unimaginable, then we become slaves to a future of uncertainty. If we dare to imagine, believe, and then take action, we can control our future for the betterment of all.

Why I Can't Support MoveOn Any Longer

When MoveOn.org first started gaining momentum after September 11, 2001, I was happy to have found the organization, because I felt their "progressive" values really spoke to me and my political views. MoveOn talked about peace in the face of angry nation bent on revenge. Next, during the 2002 and 2004 elections MoveOn talked about giving every person a vote and spreading democracy (and not necessarily Democrats). They talked about giving a voice to the people, helping the oppressed, and gaining real equality for all in America. Even now their web site still claims - "With over 3.3 million members across America from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders we work together to realize the progressive vision of our country’s founders. MoveOn is a service, a way for busy but concerned citizens to find their political voice in a system dominated by big money and big media."

MoveOn, progressiveives have lost my support, because they do not truly uphold the values they claim. Indeed, MoveOn has turned into an organization just as hypocritical as both parties, and even more interested in letting money do the talking.

Please let me give you an example of grave circumstance. As a person with a physical disability I understand the importance of being able to vote independently, privately, and equally with the entire electorate. Today, I see the following new bulletin from a disability newsletter I subscribe to:

"California Sued Over Inaccessible Voting Machines-In a case with nationwide
implications, a number of disability rights organizations including AAPD,
the California Council of the Blind and the Paralyzed Veterans of America
have filed suit against California election officials, challenging the
accessibility of voting systems in a number of counties. The complaint
asserts violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002."

You can read the entire legal complaint filed here: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/complainingly.pdf

The HAVA Act required that by January 2006 all precincts in America have at least one accessible voting machine to allow people of all disabilities the ability to vote independently and private, and with an option to verify their vote. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE), or computer, voting systems have been certified as accessible and are also universally recognized by the disability community as being accessible to both people with visual and physical impairments. The machines are accessible, certified, and secure. However, it is the disability community that has to undo MoveOn.org's "success" and fight for our right to vote.

Under MoveOn.org's "success stories" I found the following talk about their "accomplishments" in regards to "election reform."

"In North Carolina, Colorado, Hawaii, Connecticut, and California, we won legislation requiring electronic voting machines to print paper records. Phone calls by MoveOn members played a big role in these victories —showing legislators that the public was watching. This year, 19 more states required a paper record of every vote, bringing the total to 27. More than half the states now guarantee reliable voting machines."

As you can see, MoveOn.org takes credit for getting California to change the law to be incompatible with HAVA and reverting voters with disabilities backwards.

The issue at stake, and a noble one at that, is the issue of verifiability of electronic voting machines. MoveOn.org believes that DRE voting machines are not secure and therefore are advocating for a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) as a backup system in case of a mandatory recount of votes. I have been told that DRE machines are secure and have triple redundancy built in; however, I can still understand why there is uncertainty. I even share some of the skepticism. The reason VVPAT is not accessible is because the printed paper backup ballot is not verifiable to people with visual impairments - remember the words of the acronym VVPAT or "Voter Verified." Visually disabled voters can not verify the paper ballot and are effectively left in the dark.

I think MoveOn has a laudable goal, but it is their aggressive tactics that are despicable. I have received every MoveOn.org e-mail and never has MoveOn.org even recognized the rights of people with disabilities. Never have they acknowledged that their stance on the issue was a tough one to make considering the disenfranchisement it causes people with disabilities. Never has MoveON.org expressed a willingness to compromise on the issue and find a solution that truly makes sure every single voter can vote and every voter's vote is counted. Instead, MoveOn has ruthlessly campaigned for VVPAT and reversed the progress of new DRE machines, even as people with disabilities are testifying in the same room. MoveON - where is the compassion in denying the vote to a minority group of Americans?

I have other beefs with MoveON but this is the most egregious.
For more information on accessible voting, visit: http://www.aapd-dc.org/dvpmain/dvpindex.php

Writer's Block

I have been wanting to write a new blog entry for awhile, but I have been unable to find any inspiration. In the news it seems like the same old depressing stuff: no one knows where Fidel Castro is; Israel and Hezbollah are still fighting despite a peace truce; it is uncertain if the U.N. can hold together the truce and get an international troop force deployed in time; New York City does not know how to count and calculate costs on pensions; Democrats are getting more liberal, and Republicans more conservative while the general electorate is more independent (and apathetic); Federal deficits continue to grow and so does the dollar amount that the United States pays in interest; the U.S. still relies to heavily on Middle Eastern oil and their is little hope that Congress will actually do anything to promote energy conservation and alternative sources of energy; travelers still can't take liquids on planes and probably never will; apparently snakes are allowed on planes and they were #1 at the box office this weekend; the U.S. and Britain are still fighting a "war on terror"; and still no one knows what that means exactly.

Partners

I have a special place in my heart for the Partners In Policymaking experience and all the many great people I have met through the program. For those that do not know what I am talking about, Partners is a skill building program for people with disabilities, and parents of children with disabilities designed - according to the web page of the original Partners in Policymaking program in Minnesota - to achieve two main goals: To teach best practices in disability, and the competencies of influencing public officials. To achieve these goals, you and a small (about 20 to 25 people) group of Partners (who will inevitably become close friends and allies) meet for two days each month (Friday and Saturday) for eight months to listen to expert speakers, discuss issues, and learn best practices. Of course Partners is so much more than that - it is one of those experiences where you come out the other end as a resurrected human force of good.

I graduated from Partners in 2002, but recently I attended a Partners post graduation training. Through this two day addendum to my Partners training I was able to rejuvenate the spirit of Partners that I felt four years ago. I did not learn much, but I was able to re-connect with old friends and meet some new friends (from other classes). I remembered how Partners is a place where self-actualization, enlightenment, and discovery occurs. It is also place for group camaraderie, struggle, caring, and understanding. Partners learn together, love together, grieve together, advocate together, celebrate together, and grow together. As we come together, we empower ourselves, teach each other, and communicate to the world.

If you are interested in learning more about or joining Partners you can go to the Minnesota Partners page to get more information. If you live in Kansas, you can go to this page to find more information and get an application. To find information about Partners in your state Google "Partners in Policymaking" + your state name.

Intelligence Success or Just Another Starburst Plot?

You may not have heard the big news, so please allow me to inform you that the British Foiled a Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Planes. It sounds like this was a major success for British Intelligence service MI5, American Intelligence, and world intelligence. This Washington Post Article outlines - at least according to the many leaked sources they borrow from - how these suspected terrorists were tracked for many months. Apparently, British authorities received a tip right after last year's July 7 train bombings in London about suspicious activities of a Muslim friend in the British Muslim community. Authorities followed up on the tip, and "By late 2005, the probe had expanded to involve several hundred investigators on three continents." If this is all true, it was a major operation that spanned many continents, and was a coordinated effort by British Intelligence, US Intelligence, and other countries' intelligence services, as well as their governmental cooperation. In my opinion, this is a great success because it demonstrates how intelligence is SUPPOSED to work. Intelligence services should all work together to corroborate information and survey suspected terrorists and criminals. If intelligence and law enforcement operatives have reasonable suspicions that someone is planning something, then I have no problem with getting a warrant and putting people under heavy surveillance. I was glad to hear that in this case MI5 followed the suspects for as long as possible - "British and U.S. law enforcement authorities decided against breaking up the cells right away in the hope that they could learn more about the origins of the network and assemble evidence for prosecutors." This is good for two reasons: 1) As the article points out, it allows authorities to gather as much information as possible about all aspects of the plot, and possibly other plots, and of course connections. 2) It allows law enforcement to have more substantial evidence that a real and impending plot to kill was going to occur. The lesson learned here is that when intelligence services are vigilant, careful, collaborative, and well resourced they can stop terror before it occurs. This means that the old school rules of war - IE, tanks and bombs - are obsolete and the underground war is at hand. Please take note Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld!

What I am concerned about, however, is the degree to which we have responded in order to beef up security. I wonder if we are losing freedoms and convenience and ultimately the war on terror by placing these restrictive rules on travel? How long are these "liquid restrictions" going to last? As one article proclaims - "Liquid Threat is Hard To Detect.
It seems to me that if a person bent on terrorism has made it to the airport already with their weapon of choice, then they probably have a good plan to get through security. In addition, what is stopping them from doing the same thing on subway trains where something like liquid explosives would be nearly impossible with current technology and security to detect? This underscores an important point that this article makes clear - "Their [Al Queada on 9/11] choice of weapons underscored the potential danger in seemingly benign items." The NY Times article about the liquid threat mention that "There are technologies that may do the job [of detecting liquid explosives] — without simply throwing all liquids into the trash." I am all for technologies that can scan or detect as you move through a security checkpoint, but in the meantime is it really necessary to have to throw in the trash everything from everybody? If you think about it, if someone did have a liquid explosive and it was just thrown in the trash, then isn't it possible it would blow up in the airport as personnel transport it to a dumpster?

Here is a plot I dreamed up that demonstrates why it might just be impossible to detect against everything. Have you ever carefully unwrapped a Starburst candy and then took the wrapper and folded back into a perfect replication of the original wrapping, but without the candy inside? (If you haven't, it is possible to make it look like you have a wrapped starburst w/o actually having any candy inside - it is a cruel trick to play on Starburst lovers) Then, what if one were to fill that wrapper with some sort of explosive material? I do not know if this is possible, but could you mix corn starch and water (or something like it) to a liquid explosive and make it into a crystallized form? If so, you put that into a bag of Starbursts and figure out a way to ignite it and BOOM! To mix it up, in case of a suspicious TSA agent (which is unlikely) you could even mix in some real Starbursts - say like all the yellow ones (since they are the best flavor) are real candy and not the explosive material. Whether my plan would work I do not know because I am not an explosives expert; however, I imagine that there are unlimited ways to mask explosives and weapons as seemingly innocuous items.

Considering this, have we not gone too far with restrictions? Is it not the goal of the terrorists to "inflict terror" and "disrupt our way of life"? Are we not scared and fearful? Are our lives not being disrupted? We should really step back and consider at what point have we gone too far, and at what point do we just need to realize that the possibility of a terrorist attack is inevitable. I stumbled upon this Video Log about this subject and was impressed by what this guy ZEFrank had to say. I have included it in my blog for your convenience.

the show with zefrank

Israel, Hezbollah, and Elevators

Today, the conflict in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel continues as Israel moves 8,000 ground troops into Southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah fires over 200 rockets into Israel. This doesn't sound like very good news in a war that is likely to have very little good news, except for maybe if you consider that if Israel starts using more ground troops, and stops air strikes, then possibly less civilians will be killed. I do not pretend to know the answers in this horrible mess in the Middle East, but what I do know is that it does have a tremendous impact on the world, and it will, in some way or another, trickle back to the United States. Americans should be very concerned about the fighting, but I am afraid many times it only gets a cursory glance by television news media, and subsequently the general American public. Apparently, Mel Gibson's drunken tirade is more important.
Yesterday, Thomas Friedman, who recently visited Syria and Israel talked very candidly on NPR about the power interests involved in the fighting, most especially Syria. I found his comments to be very refreshing, and incredibly insightful, as well as informative. I recommend everyone listen to Thomas Friedman on NPR.


Of course, the most important news of the days is the crisis of the members-only elevators on Capitol Hill. Apparently, stupid people who can not read signs are inundating the Senators' members only elevators, and United States' Senators do not take kindly to that. I do very much admonish people who can not read signs and follow simple directions, but at the same time I do not feel too sorry for members of Congress. Personally, I think they should all take the stairs! A little exercise might actually help them get ready for the campaign trail. In full disclosure, I once took the members only elevator in a House office building, but in my defense, I was with a staff member of a Member of Congress, and the staff person ushered me into the elevator on our way to an event. Otherwise, I was very cognizant of when I could or could not use those elevators, and often just erred on the side of not using them. Also, I use a wheelchair, otherwise I'd take the stairs myself.

MTV Turns 25, Castro May Not Turn 80

Today the Music Television Network known popularly as MTV turns 25 years old today after debuting with the video "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles in 1981. This is, of course, fun but trivial news, that is only useful in giving us all a feeling of nostalgia and reminding us how old we are.

More importantly - today it was announced that Fidel Castro is temporarily relinquishing power to his brother Raul. Apparently Castro is having surgery for some intestinal problems, but no one knows his exact status. Castro's 80th birthday is in two weeks and there is much speculation about the state of Castro's health. This is a story that everyone around the world, most especially Americans, need to follow closely. Cuba has always had much weight in Central and South America, and the balance of power in that region will shift dramatically after the de-throning of Castro. Some see the significance, see Peter's blog, but unfortunately many people do not even know that Castro is ill (or possibly ill). What I find interesting is that reports have said that Cuba has been promoting Fidel's brother Raul over the last weeks. This, coupled with the current incident of Castro reporting ill, has fostered many rumours about Fidel Castro. One theory is that Castro is seriously ill or possibly dead. Another theory is that this is a ploy to test-run Raul as a leader for when Fidel is actually seriously ill. I am more inclined to believe that Fidel Castro is actually in trouble, since he has always been known to have an extremely tight hold on power and control. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would give up any power for any reason. Therefore, it is very possible that he is currently dying in Cuba. My guess is as good as yours, but regardless, we need to keep a close eye on the situation. Even if Fidel is currently okay, or Raul is peacefully handed power, both men are very old and will eventually pass, with only an uncertain future for Cuba and the world leftover.

Vision For America

This speech by Barack Obama engages the reasons why I participate so passionately in politics. I only hope that I can become half as principled, eloquent, and bold as Obama. You can accept or reject his "progressive" stance on the issues, but surely you can respect his honest passion to bring positive change to America. Here is an excerpt:

" She believed that we don't have to settle for equality for some or opportunity for the lucky or freedom for the few. And she knew that during those moments in history where it looked like we might give up hope or settle for less, there have always been Americans who refused. Who said we're going to keep on dreaming, and we're going to keep on building, and we're going to keep on marching, and we're going to keep on working because that's who we are. Because we've always fought to bring all of our people under the blanket of the American Dream. "

Inconsistency, Hypocrisy, and the Mis-informed

Nothing bothers me in this world more than people who commit the following faux pas - Inconsistency, Hypocrisy, and acting on Mis-information (or none at all). This is especially maddening when it is policymakers, people in great power, or radical policy-pushers who commit these egregious errors.

First, consistency is a must in applying values, ideas, and dedicating yourself to a cause. Now, consistency is not the same thing as mechanical, habitual, or just plain monotonous. Nor does consistency mean you can't change your mind occasionally when you have gathered new information or you have found that applying information in a new way gains a new conclusion. What consistency does mean, especially in the idealistic sense (as in the application of ideas), is that one uses definitions to mean the same thing every time they use them, it means that one applies their values equally without picking and choosing when it applies, and it means that one has a system of beliefs that are reconcilable. Consistency is not always possible in all situations, and people are not perfect at application, but many, especially when it comes to policy and politics, pick and choose ideas, values, morals, belief systems, facts, assumptions, logic, etc as it meets the needs of the situation, without any real consistency. This type of inconsistency truly drives me crazy!!!

Secondly, closely related to inconsistency is hypocrisy! Hypocrisy involves action - one holding or talking about beliefs that they hold, but then acting in a manner that is totally contradictory and insolent. You know a real hypocrite when you see/hear one, because she/he will always say things they think that people want to hear and then go out and do whatever the hell they want. I have no problem with one who honestly changes their mind or heart based on new evidence or a new understanding. In fact, I applaud people who are honest enough and secure enough to be able to declare that they were wrong in the past. When one can't admit to past mistakes or admit to new understanding, they become arrogant, proud, and stubborn in the worst way. I have no room for blatant hypocrites. Please if you ever see me being hypocritical please let me know (politely) so I can fix my mistake.

Finally, acting on mis-information or no information at all is the most unnerving faux pas! Sure, it's not possible for most of us to have a complete grasp on most issues, but you at least have to try to understand what you are talking about. You have to have at least some basis for your beliefs. If you're going to write or criticize policy I would hope that you at least have some experience, knowledge, or understanding of the topic or issue. One example that really upsets me is when people say say the following about people with disabilities - "Oh - that is so horrible how he/she suffers like that - I would NEVER want to live like that?" How in the world could they possible know what it is to "live like that???" Why are people so quick to judge what it must be like to live with a disability with absolutely no understanding of the quality of life that people with disabilities enjoy. This also applies when people make the false assumption that it might just be better to abort a baby who will be born with a disability and "suffer" then to let them live. This view is often based on a completely erroneous conception that the only possible life one with a disability one can live is one of pain, inferiority, and diminished quality of life. It is true that many people with disabilities have historically (and still continue) to live sub-human and oppressed lives. Fortunately, many do not, and there is no law that says that it is the way that it has to be. The other group of egregiously mis-informed are the biblethumping Jesus freaks who have absolutely no idea what their religion or beliefs mean. They spew out bible quotes and repeat sermons, but without any clue what the words even mean. When you question or challenge them, they simply quip back, "it's in the bible it must be true." Please don't get me wrong - I have nothing against people who have a deep and affirmed faith or belief system. I just think that one must actually know what it is that they believe. It only makes sense that when one has questioned their ideas, beliefs, and values they will have a deeper and more profound connection to the belief, because now they have had the opportunity to internalize and reason these important ideas.

In the end I don't care what ideas and beliefs you hold as long as you faithfully apply all the above when arriving at your conclusion.

Liberty and Safety

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " ---Benjamin Franklin

Ever since Leslie Cauley reported in USA TODAY an NSA wiretapping database that keeps and monitors the records of domestic phone calls made by millions of Americans, there has been much talk about the legality of the program, and what this means for privacy and civil liberties of Americans. While I have been unable to read/listen to all the talk, I thought I would weigh-in on this important issue.

It seems that two equally important threads have started over this issue: 1) Is such a program by the NSA illegal? And if so, why are we not calling for President Bush's impeachment? and 2) What does surveillance of Americans mean for our privacy and civil liberties?

I'll say that I am not a lawyer, but this program seems highly suspect as to its legality. Without a warrant to investigate a citizen of the United States, I do not see how any law enforcement, intelligence, or government agency of any sort can search, wiretap, or obtain any information about citizens. And if this program is illegal, I am deeply concerned with what this could mean for the future of the Republic, especially if the President is not held responsible.

As for privacy, I have this oddly disconcerting thought - I was not surprised by the revelation that the NSA is listening to my calls because I already figured they were intercepting my communications. Yes, it scares me that I had already resigned myself to this reality, and without thoroughly considering the consequences. The truth is, I do not know the consequences, but I do know they could be heavy, and that spying on citizens is a serious subject. I do believe there is an important link between privacy and freedom - how can one be free if she is not allowed to have a domain of autonomy independent from the watchful eye of the government? Yet, at the same time I figure, why am I so worried, I am a law-abiding citizen, they can't charge me with anything, and I still have the courts right? I already realize that public space is incredibly not private, so why not have the cameras, satellites, and computers monitor everyone and find the bad guys for my protection? I'd say there is surely an argument for safety, protection, and security, but at what price? At what point does the government stop monitoring its citizens for their own protection, and start monitoring them for its own protection??? It is exactly this dilemma that can separate a democratic state from an authoritarian one, and I am not sure I am willing to take that risk. Which is why I refer to the Ben Franklin quote above. How much liberty are we willing to risk for safety? At what point do we realize that freedom comes with inherent risks and we must live with those risks?

That Anti-Civil Rights Editorial

The following editorial appeared in the New York Sun on April 20, 2006:

The Anti-Disabled Act
http://www.nysun.com/article/31348:
New York Sun Editorial
April 20, 2006

Guess which piece of liberal-do-gooding may be at fault for bringing to an end the free steak dinners a famed Washington D.C. eatery was giving each week for wounded war veterans. That's right, the Americans with Disabilities Act. The restaurant is Fran O'Brien's Steakhouse, which has been making this wonderful

gesture for wounded GIs, many of them amputees, from Walter Reed army hospital every week for some two and a half years. But Hilton is refusing to renew

the restaurant's lease and given Fran's, a Washington institution for decades, until May 1 to leave.

The hotel is tightlipped about the reasons for the decision - a spokeswoman did not return our call for comment - but some are starting to suspect the Hilton has been scared off by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The restaurant sits in the basement of the hotel and is accessed via either of two staircases.

If neither of these is feasible for a patron in a wheelchair, the only alternative is the hotel's supply elevator, accessed via a locked coatroom at the lobby level and a long L-shaped hallway in the basement.

Veterans attending the free dinners have never actually complained about the accessibility problems, a co-owner of Fran's, Hal Koster, told us when we stopped by recently. But as part of an on-again, off-again lease negotiation, the restaurant eventually asked the hotel to make the facility ADA-compliant. At about that time, negotiations seem to have ended. The hotel and the restaurant exchanged letters about the conditions under which each party would be willing to renew (the hotel wanted a new carpet and a refinished bar, for example), most of which the restaurant was willing to fulfill. The only bone of contention, apart from handicap access, appears to have been whether to upgrade or replace the wonderful booths once enjoyed over the years by the likes of President Nixon.

The thinking among some of the restaurant's supporters seems to be that the landlord, given the potential burden of a suit under the ADA (although as far as anyone knows, no one has threatened such a suit at this point), figures it would be cheaper to evict a famous steakhouse and let prime commercial space in the heart of Washington lie fallow. The last any of the parties knew, Hilton has budgeted money in 2007 to install a lift, after which it will likely re-lease the space, although Fran's may be installed in a new home by then.

We're sympathetic to the restaurateurs, not to mention the vets, in their desire for an accessible restaurant, but there's got to be a better way than the ADA to accomplish that. Instead, the ADA makes it financially safer for the hotel to evict the restaurant and leave its location empty than to allow Fran's to operate in the interim. Another local hotel has agreed to host the veterans' dinners, and although they're grateful to their new hosts, the guests will miss the sports bar feel of Fran's. If it turns out that it was the ADA that put an end to Fran's great tradition, it's one of the most ironical results in the history of do-gooding.
--------

I am not sure whether I am more appalled by the ignorance of author, or the fact that such uninformed blasphemy was allowed to make it to print. However, there is obviously a major problem of understanding when it comes to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). I do not know if this misunderstanding results from institutional and societal perpetuation of myths about people with disabilities or whether it stems from the inability of the disability community to communicate our position in society. I believe it is probably a combination of both, which is why I am taking the time today to remedy the latter.

First, it must be understood that the ADA was not a "piece of liberal do-gooding" legislation. The ADA was signed into law by Republican President George HW Bush in 1990 after receiving wide bi-partisan support by Congress. If the author meant "liberal" in the sense that it was a progressive piece of legislation that dared to override the status quo then he is surely correct. But he is incorrect in his labeling the act as "do-gooding" as the ADA was not about doing good or random acts of kindness, it was about doing right; about giving full civil rights, equality, and empowerment to people with disabilities.

Second, as a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair and who has had to endure a loss of dignity by being forced to ride in freight elevators and seriously bereft, shaky, forgotten elevators; being led on deleterious detours by kitchens. dumpsters, and Timbuktu; and forced to be segregated from peers in order to dine at a restaurant, watch my government in action, access businesses, participate in community events, watch shows (which I paid for), and generally participate fully and independently in all that America has to offer - I know first-hand the importance of the ADA. The ADA is a civil rights law and it was made law in order to give people with disabilities full freedom, choice, and access to residency, employment, education, and society without discrimination. It is pathetic that after 15 1/2 years of being law, only a minority of the public understands the purpose and intent of the ADA. Yet, if this author had called the Civil Rights act of 1964, Women's Suffrage, or the 14th Amendment a "piece of liberal do-gooding" and wrote that these important civil rights laws were ironically anti-rights there would surely be an uproar by women, blacks, minorities, and the population at large. So I ask, why is there not an equal uproar over slanderous rhetoric aimed at an equally important civil rights law!