Palin for President!

My favorite Python!

A letter to John Conyers

"Dear Chairman Conyers:

Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least, five categories of repeated, defiant “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.

In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.

In 2005, a plurality of the American people polled declared that they would favor impeachment of President Bush if it was shown that he did not tell the truth about the reasons for going to War in Iraq. Congress should use its authority under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to officially determine what President Bush knew before going to war in Iraq.

Your files and retrieval systems are bulging with over-whelming evidence behind all these five categories. When constitutional duty combines with the available evidence, inaction amounts to a suppression of that evidence from constitutional implementation.

When the Democrats were heading for a net election gain in 2006 in the House of Representatives, many observers of presidential accountability entertained the hope that the Judiciary Committee, with its new chairman, would hold hearings on an impeachment resolution. No way! The next backup was the belief that there would an impeachment inquiry (fortified by your own op-ed in the The Washington Post) No way! The next lowered expectation backup was just a hearing on impeachment urged by several of your present and former Congressional colleagues. So far, no way!

The fourth fallback was simply a hearing on the criminal and constitutional violations of Bush-Cheney by your Committee, as urged in a letter sent to you earlier this year by, among others, several of your former Congressional colleagues, including Senators George McGovern and James Abourezk, and Representatives Andy Jacobs and Paul Findley, along with Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City, and the undersigned. So far, no progress.

There is another option: do nothing. Since January 2007—the politically expedient option of doing nothing has triumphed. Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and their colleagues had just these kinds of monarchical abuses and violations in their framework of anticipation.

Declarations by Bush on the somber occasion of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this past March 20, 2008 demonstrated his criminal, unconstitutional arrogance and his confidence that this Democratic Congress will continue to be cowed, continue its historic cowardliness, and continue to leave the American people without representation. Even should he unilaterally attack Iran. The Democratic Party has abandoned its critical role as an opposition Party in this and other serious matters.

In a January 6, 2008 op-ed in The Washington Post, former Senator George McGovern wrote an eloquently reasoned plea for the impeachment of George W. Bush. More than two out of three polled Americans want out of Iraq, believing it was a costly mistake.

Repeatedly during the past seven years, Mr. Bush has lectured the American people about “responsibility” and that actions with consequences must incur responsibility.

It is never too late to enforce the Constitution. It is never too late to uphold the rule of law. It is never too late to awaken the Congress to its sworn duties under the Constitution. But it will soon be too late to avoid the searing verdict of history when on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush becomes a fugitive from a justice that was never invoked by those in Congress so solely authorized to hold the President accountable.

Is this the massive Bush precedent you and your colleagues wish to convey to presidential successors who may be similarly tempted to establish themselves above and beyond the rule of law?

Is this the way you and your colleagues wish to be remembered by the American people?

Sincerely,
(Readers, are you ready for this?)

Ralph Nader"
(Lifted from Nader's site.)

What's my point?

Once again at the end of the week, liberals had their undies in a big old bundle because Nader had the audacity to urge Hilary Clinton to stay in the race despite the fact that Sen. Leahy said she should drop out. He said -- can you believe this -- that she has a Constitutional right to run for president for as long as she wishes. There were comments dripping with venom, saying things like it would just help Nader's cause if Clinton stayed in. I read that and thought, "Yes, and it helps the Democratic leadership's cause, i.e. putting the party ahead of the best interests and will of the American people which has been the problem all along, to have Clinton drop out."

Meanwhile, we can all sit on our thumbs in our crumbling infrastructure, permanently unemployed, and feel great - yay. - about the health of the Democratic Party, while the billions of dollars continue to flow into the hole in Dick "So?" Cheney's arm! (People were justifiably shocked and appalled at Cheney's arrogance last week, but guess what, friends? The DC Democrats have essentially been saying the same thing to us, the people, for the last 2+ years! "You want us to hold these leaders accountable? So?")

I'm not advocating that you vote for Ralph Nader, unless you want to. As I've said before, I don't know whether I will or not; if it looks too close in my state, I probably will vote for the Democrat. But look at where [the arrogant and self-serving] Nader puts his energy and his activism. And if more liberals embraced his message, perhaps the massively popular Barack Obama would pay attention and embrace his message too.

It is no secret that I don't believe that Nader lost the 2000 election for Gore. I think Gore lost the 2000 election for himself, fair and square. That, and the stolen votes in Florida (which should not have been repeated in 2004, but was.) Nader got votes because he had a message that we wanted to hear. He still is saying the things that many of us want to hear, that we, the American people -- the proverbial Little Guys -- matter.

He is calling for Conyers to do his job, to do what he promised the American people: to conduct an investigation into the crimes of the Bush White House. I still want to see it happen. Don't you?

Good Reading ...

One of my favorite bloggers, Enriched Geranium, has written an excellent and thoughtful post about Ralph Nader, and I urge you to get off the beaten track and go read it. And while you're there, listen to the song Impeach the Moron, on the sidebar.

(In the interest of full disclosure, OK, I admit that Enriched Geranium is my husband, and I'm doing some shameless promotion here. So humor me.)

I'll tell you, I am not particularly inspired by this election. I don't feel optimistic that it will bring about much significant change in terms of the war, for example. The entire system is so deeply flawed. I support Obama more than I do Clinton, and will in all likelihood vote democrat, unless it is clear that the democratic party candidate will win my state with or without me. But it is difficult to place a lot of faith in the very same people who have either not had the guts or the will to stand up to the Worst. President. Ever, Inc.

Back in 2004, against my better judgment (and maybe because he brought Bruce Springsteen to town -- how cool was that? Pretty dang cool!) I voted for Kerry. That ill feeling that so many of us had on the morning of Nov. 3 will stay with me for a long, long time. Not for the first time, we were betrayed by a politician. In 2006, we turned out in droves to vote and gave the democrats a decisive victory. We liberals are a little like Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football, aren't we?

In short, I'm pig-bitin' mad at the democrats. And until we have viable parties beyond the dems and the rethugs, we're going to be trying to kick that damned football until the end of time (which may come sooner than we think.)

Where does Nader come in? Well, he is an excellent writer and a tireless advocate for the downtrodden (and more and more we're all in that category). Should he enter the political arena again? As far as I'm concerned, that's his choice, under the law of our land. And we all get to choose who we vote for. (Sort of. Of course, if you live in a state that has a later primary, you don't have much of a choice at all. And the populist message that was carried by Kucinich, Richardson, and Edwards has largely been sidelined.)

I don't care if you support Nader, or not. But if you're somebody who has held deep anger toward him since 2000, please read what Enriched Geranium has to say, maybe even go to Nader's website and read some of the thousands of essays he has posted. (I tell you, the man works all the time.) And if you are tempted to repeat the popular memes about him, ask yourself, "How do I know this? Is it really true?"

This election is showing us, if we didn't know it before, that the democrats are just as capable of Rovian tactics as the rethuglicans. We do not need to help the smear campaigns.

Hollywood Heartthrobs for Kucinich

Yay for Aragorn, a.k.a. Viggo Mortensen!

He flew into New Hampshire to campaign for Dennis Kucinich, gave Sean Hannity what for, and spoke out for impeachment.

At the height of LOTR madness, I thought maybe I could win points with my teen-aged daughter with the impressive revelation that I had seen Viggo Mortensen's unborn child. We had gone to a club to see the band X, fronted by Exene, who was quite pregnant with ... Viggo's child! Cinderbelle was unimpressed. (Kids! I don't know what's wrong with these kids today.)

George McGovern Speaks Out

I worked on the McGovern campaign when I was a middle schooler. I stuffed and licked envelopes, helped silkscreen yard signs, canvassed. The McGovern campaign headquarters was my social scene for a while, probably because I was tagging along with my best friend, Anne, and her mom was a big time Democrat in this city. She was even a delegate to the 1972 Democratic Convention and I remember watching her on t.v.

McGovern's loss was my first taste of electoral heartbreak.

As I said in my last post, they don't make politicians like they used to. Since 1972, George McGovern has shown himself to be more than worthy of the title "elder statesman" and today's Democrats would do well to pay attention and learn from him. In an op ed piece in today's Washington Post, he calls for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, saying,

Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot. (And so much more. Read it here.)

Cool buttons up at the top, eh? Mr. Ether found them in one of his boxes in the basement.

Farewell, LSD ...

... or former Wisconsin governor Lee Sherman Dreyfuss, to the uninitiated. He was the dark horse Republican candidate for governor in 1978, starting his campaign with a grand total of $17,000 in the bank -- and he won! He was a unique politician in that he was an educator, and he understood the value of education. He ran a populist campaign much like Paul Wellstone's, crisscrossing the state in an old school bus, wearing a signature red vest, and shaking hands with people.

He was the kind of Republican that perhaps people mean today when they say, "I'm not a Bush Republican." He was very progressive on social issues, and signed into law landmark legislation protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination. Just last year he publicly opposed a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions in Wisconsin. I believe he was also pro-choice. Both he and his wife were huge supporters of funding for the arts.

He had a few moments of infamy. He signed a law decriminalizing oral sex between consenting adults, with some comment about how everyone does it so it shouldn't be illegal. I remember my brother saying, "Governor Dreyfuss is a muff diver" at which we both laughed hysterically. He also took a record surplus and gave it back to Wisconsin citizens in the form of a check in the mail, a move which later caused an economic crisis when the next recession hit. But I still have a print on my wall that I bought at an art fair using my LSD refund. His wife, Joyce, infuriated Wisconsin beekeepers when she made the comment that when she was a little girl she thought that honey was "bee poop."

I don't remember when the Bee Gees came to town, but it must have been when they were riding the disco wave. It's hard to tell in a black and white photo, but LSD has a shiny Bee Gees jacket and the Gibb brothers are wearing red vests.

This is all to say that they don't make Republicans -- and indeed, politicians of any stripe -- like they used to. That's a loss for all of us.

(Read more about LSD here.)

Thoughts For A Saturday Morning

Well, things are going well enough with Molly the Temp Dog (especially now that Mr. Ether has been taking her to the barky park to run) that she will be with us until February. I went to pick up her stuff from the house at which she was staying before, and the person I talked to there was wearing a "Not My President" t-shirt.

This set me thinking about the little man who is not my president. My first thought was, "He's never been my president." One thing that really bothers me is, how after 9/11™, the airwaves and print media were filled with people who should have known better saying things like, "We have to support him. He's our President."

There are a couple of prominent examples: The cartoonist/humorist Ted Rall wrote an essay after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, saying something to the effect of, "They attacked us. We can't just turn the other cheek." To which I said, "Why not?" It's easy to be anti-war when there isn't a war on. It is extremely hard to be anti-war at the outset of a war, yet that is exactly what Jesus was preaching. Ted Rall took the coward's road, and I have not been able to enjoy his writing since then.

The other example is the NPR talking head (or is it a talking voice when it's on the radio?) Scott Simon, who identified himself as a Quaker and then spoke eloquently in favor of the bombing of Afghanistan. The effect this had was to give the general notion that the majority of Quakers (and for those of you who may not know, the Religious Society of Friends or Quakers is one of the historic peace churches) supported the invasion, which was absolutely not the case. I had a colleague say to me, "But the Quakers think the invasion is a good thing!" It was appalling. I have heard that Scott Simon made peace with his Monthly Meeting, but I have had a hard time making peace with Scott Simon! (Which probably isn't very Quakerly.)

So now it is seven years later, and opposition to the war and to the policies of BushCheneyInc. has grown exponentially, a trend for which I am truly grateful. But sometimes I am angry, furious, enraged, thinking "How could you NOT have known then?" There were many people who know how bad it all was and tried to speak out, but there were so many more -- thinking, progressive people -- who practiced self-censorship (the worst kind) and wished that the rest of us would do the same. People for whom, literally overnight, the president who stole the election became "my President."

Just look at the mess we're in now. My younger daughter talks all the time about how she is going to move to Europe when she's old enough. And though it breaks my heart to contemplate it, I hope she does! It feels as if, in the last seven years, my children's future has evaporated. Poof! Gone.

My mood matches the November weather outside. Cold. Grey. Half-hearted drizzle.

Moving right along with Saturday morning thoughts -- although now it is eleven minutes past noon -- I finished reading Terry Pratchett's Making Money. As I said before, I love his books. When I say that, people often respond, "I tried reading one of them once, but I couldn't get into it." And to all you TP nay-sayers, I say "Try again!" But don't begin at the beginning. His earlier Discworld books, such as The Color of Magic, are not nearly as good as his more recent offerings. So here are a few suggestions:

Going Postal followed by Making Money. (They go together, sort of.)
The Monstrous Regiment
The Wee Free Men, followed by A Hat Full of Sky.
Small Gods

Pratchett nerds go to L-Space and read the books following characters they like, instead of necessarily reading the series chronologically. The characters I most like to follow are Sam Vimes (a cop) and Granny Weatherwax (a witch.) For you librarians out there, Pratchett has created one of the most memorable librarians ever. Ook! If you like zombies, werewolves, trolls, vampires, and dwarves and believe in affirmative action, you may like these books.

I'll leave you with a passage I enjoyed in Making Money. The background is, an ancient army of golems has descended on the city of Ankh-Morpork. Lord Vetinari is the city Patrician, who may or may not be a tyrant. The city is in an uproar over what to do.

"Any of the other cities would attack us if they had these golems," said Lord Downey, "... Surely a bit of conquest would be in order?"

"An empirette, perhaps?" said Vetinari, sourly. "We use our slaves to create more slaves? But do we want to face the whole world in arms? For that is what we would do, at the finish. The best we could hope for is that some of us survive. The worst is that we would triumph. Triumph and rot. That is the lesson of history, Lord Downey. Are we not rich enough?"

Off to get my hair cut. I pray that I do not come home with "car crash bangs." But that is another post.

I love these guys!

Al Gore -- Nobel Laureate

What a nice piece of news to come home to today.

Accountability? Impeachment? Hey, Congress ... Those words mean anything to you?

Many thanks to hippie-gone-mean Pygalgia who posted a reminder on his blog that it was on this date in 1974 that Richard Nixon resigned the presidency rather than go through impeachment proceedings.

I was 14 when Nixon resigned. I watched his resignation speech on t.v. in a Tokyo hotel room (in between watching reruns of Bewitched and I Dream Of Jeannie dubbed in Japanese.) We got home a few days later to find that my older brother, who was "watching the house", had done a little too much dancing in the streets that night. In his elation he had taken a meat cleaver and decapitated a little fiberglass mannequin that we had, before somehow knocking the ventilation fan out of the kitchen wall. My mom was kind of upset with him. (Sorry, Jim, for revealing family secrets here. But you'll never know I revealed anything, 'cause you never read my blog. Bwahahaha.)

Yeah, I remember when accountability extended to the Executive Branch.

Dennis Kucinich Is So Nice I'd Vote for Him Twice

Come the next presidential primary, I will have voted for him twice. So there.

And PETA shouldn't have a problem with him, there's a relief. Isn't he veg?

My personal belief is, I've let fear decide my vote in the general election too many times. Rethugs, Dims -- the outcome is always the same. Big money talks.

This time I'm voting with my heart. All joking about Dennis' manly characteristic aside, he stands for so much of what I believe in. Peace. Hope. Decency (in the broadest sense of the word.)

That's it. I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich. Find out more here.

(Note to Left: You have the tendency to turn on your sweethearts when things don't go your way, calling them such things as "spoilers" or "media whores". The Right just loves it when you do that. Keep that in mind as we wend our way toward 2008 and beyond.)

2 political thangs

1. I got a fund raising appeal tonight from the national Democratic party. I've noticed that whenever I get these calls, my husband starts skulking around; he thinks it's funny to hear how it will go. First of all, the caller told me that she was not asking for money, and then shortly thereafter asked for my "support." Huh? I spent at least 10 minutes patiently explaining why I might give political donations to individual candidates, but not to the national party. The caller would interrupt to say, "Ma'am, I hear what you are saying, but the Democrats are the party that is working to end the war in Iraq." I gave my opinion on that (you don't end the war by giving the White House all the funding they've demanded with no time line for pulling out the troops.) Over and over I told her that I MIGHT consider making a donation when Pelosi starts talking impeachment. Wow, she was a tenacious young woman. She argued with me a long time, which is an interesting thing to do when she called asking me for money! Either she finally wore out or she got what I was saying. Probably the former.

2. A few weeks ago I wrote about going to Tammy Baldwin's listening session. Today I got a letter from Tammy. I was expecting the usual "Your opinion matters to me, bow wow woof woof ..." and there was that, but Tammy herself had filled in my first name, signed it, and written a note on the bottom: "Thank you for your strong comments on impeachment." Nice. Now what's she going to do about it? (Maybe I can give her a call and ask, now that we're pen pals.)

A sign of hope?

Well, maybe.

Kucinich announces impeachment charges against Vice President Cheney
Michael Roston
Published: Tuesday April 24, 2007

After a series of delays, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a candidate for president in 2008, announced a series of charges against Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington, DC, late in the day. Kucinich alleged that the Vice President had committed a series of impeachable offenses, and he was therefore introducing Articles of Impeachment against Cheney in the Congress today.

Kucinich started off by reading the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, arguing they were "instructive at this moment."

"Whenever any government official becomes destructive of the founding purposes, that official must be held accountable," he said.

The Ohio Democrat's move intended to provide a "defense of the rights of American people to have a government that is honest and peaceful."

Kucinich excoriated the Vice President who he called "a driving force for taking us into war against Iraq under false pretenses, and is once again rattling sabers of war against Iran, with the same intent to drive America into war, again based on false pretenses." (read more)

I'm not holding my breath. On the other hand, everything has a tipping point, and between this and the resolutions in both Vermont and Washington state, perhaps the ball is rolling.

I want my country back!

Barbara Lee STILL Speaks For Me -- Along With 13 Of Her Colleagues

On Friday most of the House Democrats betrayed their constituents and treacherously voted to continue funding Bush's war on Iraq. (And Iran, you know it's already happening.

Here are the true representatives of U.S. voters. If you feel so inclined, a thank you to each one would probably be welcome. And if your representative is not among them, contact them and voice your displeasure.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich voted NO. Standing firm with him on this NO vote were 13 Democrats: John Barrow [GA], Dan Boren [OK], Lincoln Davis [TN], Barbara Lee [CA], John Lewis [GA], Jim Marshall [GA], Jim Matheson [UT], Michael McNulty [NY], Michael Michaud [ME], Gene Taylor [MS], Maxine Waters [CA], Diane Watson [CA], and Lynn Woolsey [CA]. (from the Kucinich 2008 website)

War is over if you want it. Clearly, most of the members of the House value something else over the lives of the troops and the countless Iraqis who will continue to be killed in droves because of their vote on Friday.

More Transparency?

Yes! The Dems are not entirely spineless (only mostly so.) This is good news:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Brushing aside a veto threat, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to overturn a 2001 order by President George W. Bush that lets former presidents keep their papers secret indefinitely.
(read more ...)

And while they're at it, what about the Fairness Doctrine?

Articles of Impeachment, anyone?

On Wisconsin!

I'm proud to to publish this little news item today:

Doyle Turns Down $600,000 In Federal Abstinence Money

State Received Money Since 1997

POSTED: 1:35 pm CST March 3, 2007

MADISON, Wis. -- Gov. Jim Doyle has directed the state to turn down about $600,000 in federal abstinence education money because new rules would limit how much recipients could talk about contraception or sexually transmitted diseases this year. Doyle directed the Department of Health and Family Services to notify federal authorities of his decision, according to department spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis. Wisconsin becomes one of a handful of states to reject receipt of the $50 million Title Five Abstinence Program for the current fiscal year. Wisconsin has received the money since 1997.Marquis said although the program's funding recipients had more discretion in making their own programs in the past, new rules this year require the programs to teach that sexual activity outside of marriage could have harmful physical and psychological effects. Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

Fair & Balanced

The Fairness Doctine is back on the table and Dennis Kucinich is my hero of the day. What is the Fairness Doctrine? Briefly,

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

Done away with during the Reagan Administration. Imagine how different the last 6 years might have been with such a law on the books. We wouldn't have been subjected to that biased liberal media 24/7, if you know what I mean. Read more about it here.

And then, write to your representatives in Congress supporting fairness in media -- real fairness, not "fairness" ala Faux News.