You know that William Jefferson's offices were searched in accordance with a duly requested and authorized search warrant.   You also know that several members of Congress from both parties stood up and claimed this was an abuse of power - that one of three branches of government was overstepping its authority and challenging, even trying to intimidation another.   The implication was that somehow Bush was wiping out political opponents in some sort of Hitleresque fashion.   The man thinks he is Dictator-in-Chief.   But that's hardly the case.   The real truth behind this episode is simple.   William Jefferson is a crook, the FBI is on to him, and you cannot hide your corrupt doings behind the Congressional office door.   The complaints of legislators is an effort to maintain the status quo of corruption which knows no party boundaries and pervades Washington.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page came down squarely against the Justice Department's search and claimed the President should intervene in this "Constitutional clash between the branches."   They went so far as to claim that perhaps a loose cannon at Justice is trying to intimidate not just Congress but also the President himself.   They called for Bush to override this search warrant, give back any papers confiscated, and accept the resignation of AG Alberto Gonzales, if he insists on quitting over this.   This they call for because "Congress's right to legislate without being intimidated by the executive is a core element of the Constitution, and bullying prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to violate it."

It is true that this sort of search is a first of its kind.   It is also true that we cannot allow the executive branch of our government to intimidate the legislative.   But the flaws in the Wall Street Journal opinion piece are the implication that chief executive is concurrently being intimidated and the notion that whatever is found in a Congressional office must necessarily be off limits to criminal investigators.

It just doesn't wash that Gonzales, the FBI and Justice Department would publicly intimidate the President if he is somehow behind this investigation and the investigation is politically motivated.   Jefferson is not a critical party leader, the downfall of whom changes the political map.   He's simply a cog.   If he is brought down, he'll be replaced by another Democrat cog.   If the President were behind this, Justice wouldn't do anything which might embarrass him.   If the President were not behind this, he'd simply do what he thought was right and not worry about any resignations.   Actually he'd welcome them if the individuals in charge were being insubordinate.   Bush doesn't seem like the kind of guy to brook insubordination.

There is no question that we want members of the legislative branch to operate free of intimidation.   The WSJ says this should include absolute protection of all papers held in their offices since the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution "protects Members as they consider legislation on the House or Senate floor.   This also arguably includes papers and other material in Member offices that are related to legislating."   But the WSJ's reliance on this clause as some sort of absolute protection, some sort of granting of "Lord" status upon legislators as they serve out their terms is misguided.

The Speech and Debate Clause has its limits in the sense that it protects members of Congress "acting in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity."   Though "legitimate legislative activity" is broadly interpreted, the US Supreme Court in United States v. Brewster has determined that this does not include circumstances where a member accepted a bribe which could have influenced his vote on legislation: "Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act.   It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator ... it is the fact of having taken a bribe, not the act the bribe is intended to influence, which is the subject of the prosecution and the speech-or-debate clause interposes no obstacle to this type of prosecution."

If the Speech and Debate Clause interposes no obstacle to this type of prosecution, it necessarily interposes no obstacle to the prosecutorial work to investigate Jefferson.   His Congressional offices are not granted special status of sanctuary which are completely off limits to investigators.   It is a complete non-sequitur that such offices have never before been searched.   What is important is Jefferson is a crook who took bribes and he may very well have hidden the evidence of such bribes in his office.   A separate co-equal branch of government issued the search warrants because it felt prosecutors had reason to search the offices.   That branch certainly knew the precedent-setting status of the warrant as did those requesting it.   Both obviously felt the need to investigate Jefferson outweighed the obvious pitfalls of doing something unprecedented.   The key question in all this is why they went to such great lengths.

Jefferson was caught with $90,000 inexplicably hidden in his ice box.   There is some belief he may have used official channels to protect his bribery receipts during the most critical hours after Katrina hit to the detriment of his constituents.   Some of the allegations surrounding Jefferson claim he took hundreds of thousands of dollars from iGate, Inc. in order to obtain placement of the company on the US General Services Administration schedule, making them eligible for federal contracts.   Jefferson is alleged to have demanded monthly payments of as much as $7,500 as well as a percentage of gross sales in return for providing "official assistance" to the company under a contract which was deliberately designed to conceal the illegal nature of the payments.   This is no instance of a small amount of dollars trading hands in some sort of borderline case.   This is the worst sort of influence peddling by a Congressman.   No amount of fluff reporting of Jefferson's humble beginnings by the New York Times covers that fact up.

Congressmen and women from both parties ought to be ashamed of themselves for speaking out publicly against Justice's search of William Jefferson's offices.   His alleged actions negate any protections his office might provide.   There is nothing nefarious about this search and seizure.   Bush should let it proceed.   The WSJ is wrong.

James Lovelock, a UK-based scientist, and author of the recently released, "The Revenge of Gaia", says that by the end of this century, the human race will be only 20% of what it is today.

The reasoning? Mass starvation due to global warming.

But his view of global warming is not the same as that of most environmentalists. Instead of green house gases, Lovelock believes the rise in global temperatures is due to the destruction of natural landscapes.

Everybody forgets the greatest damage we've done to the earth is not so much the emissions from greenhouse gases, but taking away the natural resistance from the farmland ecosystem. By doing that, we have disabled the planet's ability to regulate itself.

Personally, I've never subscribed to the theory that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the rise of temperatures. On the other hand, I don't argue that the Earth is warming, in fact, I don't really know if it is warming. The only hard evidence we have to date is that global temperatures have increased an average of 1°F since the 1890's, when the USA began recording temperatures on a consistent basis. That's the only information we have derived from a century's worth of recorded data. Therefore, that's the only reason why we can say we're going through a warming trend.

The data that's been collected over the last decade is way too short of a period to make any reasonable conclusions. I don't buy into any of the global warming alarms based on such short timeframes.

Lovelock goes on to blast environmentalists for trying to push "renewable energy" as an alternative to oil and coal. When asked what he thought about these people...

It's mostly made up of urban people, who know almost nothing about the countryside and still less about the ecosystem. Their solutions are basically urban-political solutions. They continue to insist on wanting to run their cars on bio fuels. This is one of the maddest ideas of the lot.

I tend to agree. In order to provide power to every person on the planet, we'd have to clear out almost half of the Earth's surface to either grow corn, build windmill farms, or dam up every river on Earth.

Instead, Lovelock calls for nuclear energy, citing its efficiency, its small footprint on the planet.

Read the whole interview with James Lovelock. The part about the mass exodus to the North Pole, and 80% of the population dying sounds a little crazy. The rest of what he has to say, however, makes some sense.

A man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was given probation istead of prison because he was too short to survive in prison.   Isn't that against the Americans with disabilities act?

The sentencing judge, District Judge Kristine Cecava, said he deserved a long sentence but she was worried the man, Richard W. Thompson, aged 50, was too small to survive prison life.   Convicts don't like child molesters.   They make life behind bars tough for them.   They might even sexually assault them.   We just cannot allow that to happen.

The man will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation.   Four whole months!   He was told to never be alone with minors again.   He was also told to get rid of all his pictures of nude children made to perform sexual acts.   And if he is caught breaking these rules, he risks 30 whole days behind bars.   Obviously that sentence would be commuted since he's too little to go to jail.

So in other words, a man who prays on children was protected from being prayed upon by men out of fear that he couldn't defend himself.   He is forced to live under what the judge believes to be strict terms.   And if he fails to follow these conditions, this judge is going to send him to jail for a tiny fraction of the time he deserved in the first place?   What's wrong with this scenario?

As I read about how Britain is turning to crops for heating and electricity to tackle the effects of global warming; as I heard Hillary Clinton's endorsement of ethanol made from corn; as I encountered discussion about how Brazil is becoming energy independent by burning down rainforests and growing sugar cane for energy needs; as I pondered the solutions to our energy problems, something struck me like a bolt of lightning.   That idea was so pure, so perfect, I just had to tell someone.   You're that lucky someone.

I am not an inventor.   I am not an engineer.   I haven't figured out solutions to all the obstacles.   Someone is going to have to develop some of the technology to implement it.   I'm not going to file a patent on my idea for an innovative solution to America's energy problem.   I'm merely presenting it here for your consideration.   My hope is that someone will pick up the idea, develop it, and make lots of money making it viable.

According to the government, 65% of our home energy use goes to space and water heating.   Everywhere I find proposed solutions to the energy problem, the solutions use agriculture.   My idea also involves agriculture.   My idea involves growing crops for the exclusive purpose of producing large amounts of energy for home space and water heating.   I don't think anyone has proposed it yet so here goes:

Why not use trees?   They grow taller than any other crop and produce more fuel per acre than anything else.   We could plant whole forests, chop them down as we needed them, and let the fuel develop and convert into a usable substance naturally.   We wouldn't need to build new facilities for energy conversions.   We could grow this fuel just about any place we had extra land.   We wouldn't have to chop down forests to make way for new agricultural development.   Normal everyday citizens could contribute to the good of the nation by planting trees in their own yards, cutting them down when they reach a certain height and then chopping them up for fuel.

Obviously many new technologies would have to be created for the purpose.   I propose placing energy conversion machines into every new house.   The device would need an exhaust channel for energy conversion by products.   An energy containment cell would be needed for the actual converion from plant to heat.   Each homeowner could make a contribution for the good of the country and the planet by spending a couple thousand dollars to build a power plant in their own homes.   Eventually we'd all get used to having one of these babies and maybe we'd even come to enjoy it.

ABC says "The FBI is looking at U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., in the congressional lobbying scandal investigation, ABC News reported Wednesday."

The US Department of Justice says, no, in fact the FBI is not looking at Hastert.

So, what exactly is going on here?   My guess is the feds are having some fun leaking stories to selected members of the press to see if they'll run with the negative ones and ignore the positive ones.   It's an interesting game but a little too easy.

The bull has been running deep in the Washington for quite some time.   And just as it is in Pamplona, the idea here is not to get Gored.   Republicans need to think hard about this and start their mobilization plans now, if they want to hold onto the presidency.   But Democrats also have some heavy soul-searching to do before they risk whiplash in a run with the green bulls.

Somehow, Al Gore has positioned himself as the American political victim in an existentialist play.   He dropped from the scene after 2000 to teach law school which, if nothing else, established his bona fides as an intellectual - something all Democrats must try to do.   Establishing one's credentials as an intellectual starts the automatic defense mechanism when specific policy recommendations are questioned.   The knee-jerk response is "my ideas are complex and nuanced, perhaps too nuanced for the idiot, fundamentalist conservatives to understand.   Maybe you don't understand them either but I'm an intellectual.   Trust me."   Gore's defenses are now fully activated.

Gore completely side-stepped any truly controversial issue over the past couple of years.   He is opposed to the war in Iraq but he is not forced to say what precisely he would do instead or how he would get us out.   He can criticize the homeland security effort without being particularly specific.   He was free to criticize the federal response to Katrina but not forced to explain how he would have handled it differently.   He has been able to establish that "he would have done almost everything differently" without coming off like a jack-ass as John Kerry did.   He is at once the anti-Bush, leading liberal, totally green candidate for the 2008 presidential election.   And as liberals begin to be worried, very worried, about Hillary, he is the odds-on favorite for Democrat nomination in 2008.

Gore has also found a way to solidify the liberal base without getting particularly involved with politics.   His movie, IT, has endeared him with environmentalists throughout the world.   Many voters haven't dug in deeply enough yet to understand what the implications of Gore becoming a true green are.   That is especially true for those voters who fit neatly into traditional Democrat base categories like organized labor.   Labor is likely to take the hardest hits of all in a green policy shift.   It is labor who must decide for themselves precisely what is gained and lost if Gore becomes President with a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress.   A likely outcome is ratification of a Kyoto-on-steroids treaty which, when coupled with other green policy, will be economically disastrous in terms of lost industrial jobs.   The whole country will feel the pain but nobody will come even close to the pain labor will feel.

That argument assumes he will win the presidency.   That's hardly a given.   Democrats believe it unlikely Gore will lose even one of the votes he received in 2000 and they hope he will gain just a few more.   But that ignores the fact that he is entirely a different candidate today than he was 6-plus years ago.   When he won more popular votes than Bush, he was Vice President in a time of great economic prosperity.   He was able to be associated with that prosperity without ever dipping a hand in any real policy choices.   Because he came out of the Clinton scandals as one who was totally clean, who didn't play with interns, who was not involved in any questionable land deals, he was able to claim participation in all successes without being associated with any failures.   But that's ancient history now.   Gore is a new candidate who doesn't have the backdrop of the Clinton presidency.   Those who voted for him in 2000 will not automatically choose him because they're happy with their financial situation.

Gore's absence from the political mainstage for the past several years has some side benefits.   He is untarnished by any association with Abramoff.   He cannot be directly associated with any particular position on the trying issues of the past 6 years.   Let's face it, he doesn't have the baggage which comes with voting for or against the Iraq war or having been in the information loop on any of the NSA stuff.   He is clean, almost pristine.

But Gore's relative absence will leave us no other criteria by which to judge him other than his past Congressional voting record and his current embrace of environmentalism.   Every speech he has made during his absence from politics will be pulled out, analyzed and placed before the American voter.   Since much of it involves green policy, Republicans are likely to get started now disecting precisely how his environmental views will translate into policy and what the economic impact of those policies will be.

The next presidential election will be focused on green policy.   A lot of bull is going to be thrown about.   The running of the green bull will be fascinating to watch.   Somebody is going to get Gored.   Which party will it be?

Doctors at the US CDC has done a quicky study of hospital visits connected with ADHD drugs and, based on a statistical sample, extrapolate that there are thousands of hospital visits each year.

One doctor in New Jersey interviewed about the findings said, "The numbers (of side effects) are puny compared to the numbers of stimulant prescriptions per year.   I'm not alarmed."

Nobody asked the doctor if he was alarmed.   Actually nobody particularly cares whether he is or is not alarmed.   The good doctor did not say, "my kids take it and I'm not worried."   He did imply that us silly little people shouldn't care because he is not alarmed.   He has calculated his own risk factor by dividing the "puny" number of hospital visits by the number of perscriptions without regard to the number of patients.

There are about 4 million people taking ADHD drugs.   Thousands of hospital visits is not an acceptable risk factor for 4 million patients.   If we were talking about some food item like hamburger or ketchup, the incidence of hospitalizations would cause the product to be immediately pulled from the store shelf.   Victims would sue the food companies into the ground.   We would not accept this rate of problems.   The same thing would happen if this were a brand of aspirin.

So what makes this issue different?   NOTHING!   I am alarmed.   I am very alarmed.   I believe you should be too.   At the very LEAST, what this study shows in a clear, unequivocal way is that MUCH MORE STUDY MUST BE PERFORMED.

The Tennessean reports a rally supporting Hillary Clinton in 2008 and, by being held in Nashville, meant to demonstrate that Democrats can win in the South, drew "critics of President Bush, nonpartisan voters looking for a strong leader, and people who want to elect a female president."   It just didn't draw very many of them.   Organizers hoped to have 200 people there but only 20 showed.   They expressed their disappointed but said, they "are not focused on numbers."   I suppose they'd be in trouble if they were focused on numbers.   But nobody happened to ask or report how many of the twenty were among the organizers.   To me, if you draw 20 people to anything, what you have is the makings of a small BBQ or birthday party.

One attendee said, "I've been fired up about her for a long time.   I think she can get things done.   I admire what she's done in upstate New York.   If she can win over New Yorkers, she can win over anybody."

Who said Democrats are not optimists?   Will somebody please find this lady and explain to her that Hillary is Senator of the entire state of New York, not upstate, and lives very much "downstate."   Also please inform her that Yasir Arafat could win in NY provided he ran on the Democrat ticket, regardless of whether he is dead or alive.   And while you are instructing the woman, could you please get some clarification on what exactly Hillary has ever done for upstate New York.   It's not readily apparent from her record.

Louisiana is conducting a two day drill in order to be better prepared than they were last year when Katrina hit.   But the Associated Press reports, if anything they are less well prepared.   I can't say it any better than this news piece did:

Hurricane Drill in Louisiana Canceled

The BBC has a news article discussing the opinions of Sir Tim Berners-Lee regarding the future of the world wide web.   I agree with the man's opinions but the BBC describes him as the "British scientist (who) developed the web in 1989 as an academic tool to allow scientists to share data."   That's a bit presumptuous.

While Al Gore claims himself as the inventor of the Internet, Wikipedia notes that "the Internet and the World Wide Web are not synonymous: the Internet is a collection of interconnected computer networks ... the Web is a collection of interconnected documents, linked by hyperlinks and URLs, and is accessible using the Internet."   Wiki's history of the internet and world wide web show how complicated a thing this is.   It shows how long it took to evolve into what it is today, not to mention the large number of very bright people involved.

Sir Tim is certainly an important, perhaps the most important, individual person involved in the creation of the WWW, but it would be improper to ascribe the term "inventor of the WWW" to anyone.   He even coined the phrase "world wide web."   But calling any one particular person the inventor of the web is like calling Amazon the inventor of e-commerce.   Funny how the media NEEDS always to have one person it can hold up as a hero.

I think I have successfully made the argument that a national language is necessary to create a cohesive society.   It is time to vote.   Some may disagree with me so I'll provide an appropriate alternative and nobody will be left out.   Vote for one, please:

1) English language is recognized as the national language of the United States.

A vote exclusively for English means every public document and official item including road signs, voting ballots, etc. are to be in English language only.   There are no bilingual studies to be provided to anyone, regardless of nation of origin or native tongue.   To be a citizen of the US, one must be able to read, write and speak English.

2) Spanish language is recognized as the national language of the United States.

A vote exclusively for Spanish means every public document and official item including road signs, voting ballots, etc. are to be in Spanish language only.   There are no bilingual studies to be provided to anyone, regardless of nation of origin or native tongue.   To be a citizen of the US, one must be able to read, write and speak Spanish.

3) English and Spanish are recognized as the two national languages of the United States.

A vote for both English and Spanish recognies the multi-cultural origins of the peoples of the United States and gives due respect to each.   Every public document and official item including road signs, voting ballots, etc. are to be in both English and Spanish language.   Every newspaper is required to print English on one side of the paper and Spanish on the other, while alternating between the two - one day English on page one and Soanish on page 2, the next reverse that.   Every person educated by public schools must be fluent in both languages.   In order to graduate from public school students must pass proficiency tests in both languages.   On non-language tests, questions will be nformulated alternately in each language.   All books and other written materials made in the US must be in both languages.   It is not enough to simply release different versions in each langauge.   Every publication must be in both.   All television programming must likewise be produced in a combination of Spanish and English.   The newly formed federal agency for the promotion of two natives tongues will issue rulings on how this requirement will be met.

Are there really any other choices?   Which one will you vote for?

A lot of skeptics are converted over to the human induced global warming point of view.   That's OK with me.   The number of people convinced to one side of an argument doesn't make that argument right.   But what disturbs me is the number of people who were converted by the damage done by Hurricane Katrina.   If the temperature of a single year is not indicative of climate change, and it isn't, then the average temperature for one month is certainly not.   The climate may very well be heating up but you cannot walk out of your house one day and say, "wow, it's hot out, must be global warming" anymore than you can say "geeze, it's cold out, I think we've solved the problem."   So it is with individual hurricane seasons and so it is with individual storms like Katrina.

Nobody in the scientific community is still saying Katrina and her damage are directly attributable to a 1 degree average temperature increase.   They have said that it is inevitable for a city beneath sea level with substandard flood control mechanism to flood due to a storm.   They have said that the development in at risk areas will eventually lead to larger and larger disasters.   But nobody with any credibility is claiming today that Katrina was caused by anything more than a normal cycle.   If water temperatures were slightly higher than they would have been anyway and this is due to global warming, then perhaps Katrina was slightly enhanced by global warming, whatever its cause.   But the leading science on tropical cyclones cannot say with any degree of certainty that 90 degree water will produce a more severe cyclone than 89 degree water.   In fact, absent certain conditions which have never been linked to global warming, cyclones don't even form.   Without the right mix of high and low pressure systems, an otherwise category 5 storm might never even exceed tropical depression status.   The difference between a heavy ocean rainstorm and a hurricane has more to do with happenstance than it does with water temperatures.

Even Kerry Emanuel, the MIT scientist who became the darling of the media when he claimed there was direct correlation between hurricane incidence and intensity said, "It is tempting to ascribe Katrina, Rita and now Wilma to global warming effects, but I am not sure that would pass statistical muster."   He also said, "What has everybody in my profession so concerned -- and we've been concerned for decades -- is the confluence of a huge upsurge in the coastal population with a natural upswing in the number of storms in the Atlantic." [emphasis added]

Emanuel went a bit further in an interview with "Democracy Now" in which he said, "So if you look at just the Atlantic, and everyone's always focused on the Atlantic, which has only 11% of the total number of storms in the world, what you see is a dominance of perfectly natural cycles that tend to last a few decades.   So, unfortunately in the 1970s and 1980s, we were in a lull, and during that lull, the population of the coastline in the U.S. increased quite a bit, and a lot of construction went on very close to the coastline.   Those natural signals very much dominate any signal you would see from global warming.   So, of course, it's tempting.   We have had this very active last ten years, along the U.S. and gulf coasts to blame that on global warming, but looking at it statistically, that's a very difficult connection to make.   I think what you are seeing mostly is a natural cycle in this case."

So it is with scientists.   They work very hard to understand entire systems and shy away from ascribing individual events to global phenomenon.   Well they should since the two, while connected, cannot be directly correlated.   That's the whole impetus for the development of chaos theory.   We simply cannot trace weather events to a single source.

Yet many of the converts are citing Katrina as the watershed mark in their conversion.   David Attenborough, published in the "Independent", announced his conversion and said, "The most dramatic evidence I have seen was New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina.   Was that climate-change induced, out of the ordinary?   Certainly so."

Al Gore said, "You can only create your own reality for so long.   Mother Nature has joined this debate with a strong voice; Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call."

The Boston Globe said, "The Hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming."

The voices of scientists who live in the world of hurricanes, who eat it, breath it, spend their lives exclusively devoted to the study of the phenomenon, do not claim Katrina as support for global warming.   So many others, however do.   And they make the second leap from "Katrina is evidence of global warming" to "Katrina is directly attributable to mankind's burning of fossil fuels" rather easily.   It is precisely this ease which makes me uneasy.   Katrina ought to be left out of the global warming debate, if there still is a debate.   It weakens the argument.

Here's some facts for the mind-numbed, brainwashed masses.   Recycling costs more than landfill.   Everything in a landfill will eventually decompose.   Some products which we routinely recycle are cleaner, cheaper, and safer for the environment to produce anew rather than recycling.   The pollution generated, the energy used, the human effort expended in recycling is largely a waste of resources, energy, time, etc.

If you simply accept recycling policy as beneficial, you are a member of the mind-numbed, brainwashed mass of humanity who is too stupid to question authority.   If you doubt me, do some research.   It isn't hard to uncover the truth.

If you believe me, revolt!   Simply cut down the amount you recycle.   Start with newspaper.   Newspaper recycling generates water pollution and costs more than creating fresh new paper.   Don't worry about the trees.   Trees for newspaper are grown specifically for the purpose.   No old growth forests are chopped down to bring you the morning paper.

And don't worry about running out of space for landfills.   Landfills are under-utilized in this country thanks to the recycling madness.   And your trash does not take up a lot of space.   If the entire United States' "throw away society" as currently comprised were to eschew recycling and pile up all its trash for 1,000 years, it would occupy a space 20 miles by 20 miles and about 250 feet deep.   We could easily dig a hole and manage our waste in a single location for the next 1,000 years after which most of what we put in there would have completely broken down.

Fight back against idiocy.   Question authority.   Stop believing everything you are told by the 60s generation who control the media.

Bill Clinton may be horny but Hillary is corny.   She wants America to become corny too!   That's her solution to the petroleum crunch - make more ethanol.   As we have continually pointed out, ethanol might be helpful but it has its limits since we would basically have to learn to eat petroleum if we wanted to produce enough corn to make fuel for the country.   There would be no place left to grow food.   isn't that a typical Clinton solution?   Say something nuanced which when refuted, you can ignore bcause the subject matter is just too complex to hold the attention of your constituency.   Say something which sounds good but is entirely unworkable.   That's the Clinton answer to everything.

The liberal blogosphere was abuzz with the "testimony" of one Jessie MacBeth, supposed former US Army Ranger, who says he served in Iraq for 16 months before being wounded.   MacBeth was said to blow the lid off the story of atrocities committed by US military personnel.   The lefties claimed him as the next Cindy Sheehan since his story was just enough more on point, just enough more relevant because he was "actually there" and claimed to have taken part in atrocities ordered by those "higher up the chain of command."   There's only one problem with Jessie MacBeth.   He never served in the military.   He's just a dirt bag in a poorly crafted Halloween costume telling a fabricated story.   But his lies and the cottage industry which has sprung up to promote them raise huge questions: Why does the left need to lie about Iraq?   Perhaps more importantly, how many other lies have been told and not discovered?

The New York Times is running an in depth article on page one today about the Clinton marriage.   And if you like puff pieces, this is a doozy.   But how is this news?   Why is it important at all, let alone now?   And are we really supposed to believe the Clintons spend their time together gardening and playing scrabble?

The paper recognizes that the Clinton marriage had troubles after the Lewinsky scandal.   But the jist of the piece is to show that they're past that now.   After all, the couple has a "complex relationship" which is understandable since they are very complex and very busy people.   What about Bill's other marital indiscretions?   If you can describe the Clinton marriage simply by calling it complex, I suppose you'd have to do the same for the Sopranos!   Oh wait, that's fictional.   The Clinton's marriage is real!

"I'm so grateful to you, Bill, wherever you are."

By all accounts, Al Gore's blockbuster, "An Inconvenient Truth" (IT) is an excellent film.   IT may very well be the best work of fiction on the large screen this year!   IT probably will win many awards.   Go see IT and enjoy IT but don't read the book unless you want the film to be ruined for you.

Good movies, like other art forms, take you out of your everyday life and transport you to some other place you've never been.   They take your mind off your problems for a couple hours by showing you fantastic places with fantastic scenery.   IT has many shots of beautiful natural scenery, such as the polar regions of Earth, filled with fantastic animals like polar bears.   IT has shots of our planet taken from satellites positioned in outer space.   They're a lot better than the shots we see on the evening news or the Discovery Channel.   All these shots are far better viewed on the big screen than they are on our TV sets.   That alone probably makes IT worth viewing.

Good films show you varying aspects of life juxtaposed with philosophical concepts you might not otherwise contemplate as you trudge through your workaday world.   Scenes are carefully crafted to present a particular theme and tell you the author's point of view which is meant to cause you to contemplate, if not necessarily agree with, the ultimate message.   I suppose IT does that.

Filmmakers shoot a lot more footage than eventually makes it into the released version of the film.   Producers spend a good portion of their time reviewing what has been shot and deciding whether it should be included.   Scenes which don't fit or detract from the intended message are cut and discarded.   Good filmmaking requires herculean effort to keep the finished product on point.   And so it is with IT.

IT is a film which takes you from your life, brings you to some fantastic places, shows you interesting scenery and points of view, and makes you think about some things you might not otherwise contemplate.   IT is quite a polished finished product.   But once you leave the theatre having been totally entertained for a couple hours, don't confuse the film with non-fiction.

Like all good films, IT contains elements of truth.   But other truths which did not fit into the polished finished product or detract from the overall message the author wants to entertain you with were left on the cutting room floor.   For example, Mr. Narrator, Al Gore, tells you how enamored he is with the scientific work of one Roger Revelle.   He does not, however, quote anything Mr. Revelle has written over the years which tends to tell a different story.   For example Revelle once wrote:

"The data are ambiguous to say the least."

"It is therefore fair to say that we haven't seen the huge greenhouse warming, of between 0.7 degrees and 2.5 degrees C, expected from the conventional theories."

"If cooling is bad, then warming should be good, it would seem provided the warming is slow enough so that adjustment is easy and relatively cost-free.   Even though crop varieties are available that can benefit from higher temperatures with either more or less moisture, the soils themselves may not be able to adjust that quickly.   But agriculturalists, like Sherwood Idso of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Yale professor William Reifsnyder, generally expect that with increased atmospheric CO2 which is, after all, plant food plants will grow faster and need less water.   The warmer night temperatures suggested by Patrick Michaels, using the data of Thomas Karl, translate to longer growing seasons and fewer frosts.   Increased global precipitation should also be beneficial to plant growth."

"Keep in mind also that year-to-year changes at any location are far greater and more rapid than what might be expected from greenhouse warming; and nature, crops and people are already adapted to such changes.   It is the extreme climate events that cause the great ecological and economic problems: Crippling winters, persistent droughts, extreme heat spells, killer hurricanes and the like.   But there is no indication from modeling or from actual experience that such extreme events would become more frequent if greenhouse warming becomes appreciable.   The exception might be tropical cyclones, which Balling and Randall Cerveney argue would be more frequent but weaker, would cool vast areas of the ocean surface and increase annual rainfall.   In sum, climate models predict that global precipitation should increase by 10 to 15 percent, and polar temperatures should warm the most, thus reducing the driving force for severe winter-weather events."

"Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral--steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective.   Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.   Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that ". . . those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits. . . ."   It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act.   'Look before you leap' may still be good advice."

These statements by Gore's chief mentor are a bit invonvenient.   They don't fit into IT's theme.   But that shouldn't lessen your enjoyment of this fictional film.   It has been a while since anything worth viewing has come out of Hollywood.   This one has promise.   Go see IT even knowing that all you are doing is funding Al Gore's next political campaign.

Japanese scientists have finished their modeling and concluded that the hole in the ozone layer above Earth, while at its largest right now, is likely to begin contracting by 2020 and close completely by 2050.   CFC levels have been "declining since 1990 due to international efforts" to reduce their use or ban them outright.

So, why am I writing about this?   The lifespan of CFCs has always been said to be at least one hundred years and sometimes longerm sometimes hundreds of years.   If the hole in the ozone layer is closing in 2050, that means CFC use would have had to decline around 1950, right when their use was increasing like the proverbial hockey stick.   Kind of makes you wonder if somebody is pulling our collective leg!

So what's wrong with formally declaring the national language of the United States to be English?   Some of the recent debate regarding immigration reform has centered on this question.   News reports concerning it are quick to remind us that there are already a number of legal provisions supporting languages besides English.   Bilingual ballots are required under the Voting Rights Act.   New Mexico's constitution prohibits discrimination on basis of inability to speak, read or write English or Spanish.   Yada, yada, yada.   But a country without a common language is destined to be splintered.

France never became a cohesive entity until a common language was established, taught and promoted by the government run by Napoleon.   Prior to this mandate of a unifying language, numerous political splits occurred.   Much of what culturally seperates Germany from France has to do with language.   In China where there are multiple dialects, there remains significant distrust between groups speaking each and cohesiveness is accomplished largely by successive totalitarian regimes.   Though more and more the Chinese are united around a common language, English!   Similarly, India is a cohesive country as the language of choice is, yet again, English.   People who want to travel between Indian provinces should know it is not possible without a working knowledge of English.   In the history of the world, there is no example of a cohesive society in which multiple dialects, let alone multiple distinct languages have prevailed.   If we want to remain the United States, we simply must have a united language.

English has always been the unofficial language of this country.   Sure the Dutch, French and others have had control over significant pieces but ultimately every official document and every other aspect of public life has been conducted in English.   All of our laws originate in the English language.   Sure some of them are translated to help the poor unfortunate only generation to not learn the language.   But everything originates in English.

I have no bone to pick with anyone who comes here and has to struggle to learn the language but they are hardly the first.   At least one of my ancestors was unable to learn the language after she arrived here.   And in the town where she lived in Pennsylvania, languages other than English are frequently heard.   But it wasn't the country's fault she and others never learned it.   And her children learned it and thereafter refused to allow anyone in the family to speak the prior native tongue.   Nobody suffered harm from having to learn English.   Instead they embraced it.

Language is necessary to maintain a nation's cohesiveness.   History demonstrates that it is as necessary to a successful society as anything else.   It is neither racist nor elitist to require that English is the official language of the country.   If anything, it is way too late to formally declare such.   Anybody who stands up against such a proposal is ignorant of history or has ulterior motives.   If you want to be a citizen of the US, you should be required to be at least functional in the language.   And if there is debate about that, perhaps it would be best resolved within the forum of a Constitutional Amendment.

Are homosexuals banned from attending the "ordinary" graduation ceremonies held at colleges and universities around the country?   They must be since USA Today reports a number of schools are holding "lavender graduations" exclusively to "honor gay and lesbian students."   If this continues, once heterosexuals become the minority ideology on campus (projected to occur sometime around 2020), will it then become acceptable to hold non-gay ceremonies?   Do those youngsters who remain virgins in college get to have their own "white ceremony" since they are already a decided minority?

Do we ever look into the mirror, other than to see how much prettier and younger-for-our-age we are when compared ot our parents, and recognize how silly our entire society has become?

Victor Manuel Caballero, Mexican National, is an illegal immigrant who, five months after he entered the country, was injured in a car accident.   The driver, Ricardo Martinez, had an uninsured, unregistered vehicle.   He fell asleep and drove it into a parked tractor trailer.   After the accident, Martinez fled to avoid numerous motor vehicle citations.

Caballero underwent several medical procedures which running up a bill of almost $40,000 which he had no money to pay nor insurance to cover.   The bills were paid by charity.   But Caballero had to pay for his own prescriptions and he sought compensation through the courts for his pain and suffering by suing a privately run fund set up to cover claims resulting from uninsured drivers.

Trial and appeals courts turned him down on the basis of his not being a bona fide resident of the state.   Initially he "came to New Jersey to work for at least five years to save money to help his family."   The trial court noted that "Caballero had not brought significant belongings with him to New Jersey, registered for school or attempted to apply for resident alien status" and "without the legal ability or authority to remain in the state, plaintiff was incapable of reasonably forming the requisite intent to remain for any length of time."   Caballero appealed claiming that the lower courts ruling would permit no undocumented alien to be a "resident" and this violated his "equal protection rights."   Caballero won his case at state Supreme Court.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A-8-05.pdf

The Asbury Park Press, a New Jersey newspaper, quotes Caballero's attorney, Victor Covelli, as calling the state Supreme Court's decision a "great victory for a lot of individuals that are underrepresented in the United States just because they're here illegally."   Covelli also said "it's a great victory for auto accident victims who have no insurance."   Covelli and another attorney, Martin Perez, president of the Latino Leadership Alliance said they have other clients with similar claims.   Perez further noted that the illegal immigrant "victims" are "saddled with enormous amounts of medical bills."   That flies in the face of the fact that Mr. Caballero's and most illegal immigrants' medical bills are footed by "charities" and other means, the money for which typically comes from the taxpayer.   The story did not comment on whether Mrs. Covelli or Perez reduced their fees which undoubtedly are in the 33% - 50% range PLUS EXPENSES.

The Asbury Park Press injects its opinionated wisdom into this news story by noting that the organization from which money is likely to be recovered by Mr. Caballero is funded only in part by "insured motorists" who "generally pay a surcharge of $1 to $4 a year toward the fund."   Well, guess what?   Not only do insured motorists give the insurance companies the remainder of the funding when they pay their insurance bills, the amount of the minimal surcharge discussed by the Press is about to go up!

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.   Specifically, it says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.   No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added]   The 14th Amendment followed the abolition of slavery via the 13th Amendment and was crafted so as to prevent states of the Confederacy from enacting "Black codes" which would otherwise make emancipated slaves non-citizens.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) notes that at the time of ratification of the 14th Amendment, "the United States had no immigration policy, and thus the authors saw no need to state that explicitly.   The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude" from the benefits of the Amendment "American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.   In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship."

The New Jersey Supreme Court ignored the history and meaning of the 14th Amendment in crafting its decision and extending benefits of US citizenship to illegal immigrants who have no allegiance to the US or New Jersey and who are here exclusively to earn money to send back to their native country.   The New Jersey Supreme Court has extended its jurisdiction to exceed that of the authority of the US Constitution.   It has declared itself a law onto itself.

We are no longer a representative democracy.   We are now fully under the control of a judicial oligarchy which decides for itself what is fair and right.   The US Constitution is out and whatever judges determine is in.   Democracy was nice while we lived under it.   Perhaps one day democracy will rise again as an important form of government.

Everytime you buy gasoline from a CITGO station, you're putting money into the hands of Hugo Chavez, the Grand Wizard of Venezuela. His country owns the company that owns CITGO.

This from CITGO's website...

The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Chavez, along with his buddies Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, Harry Belafonte, and Fidel Castro have vowed to bring down the USA, because our country is too big and evil.

So I suggest we help him understand, by boycotting his stuff, and stop buying gas from his CITGO stations.

No need to keep putting money into his hands.

Cindy, start selling your shares of CITGO.

Pat Robertson is at it again.   It wasn't enough for him to come in after the fact and claim that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution.   Now he's predicting hurricanes and tsunamis.   What if he's right?   He said God recently told him storms and possibly a tsunami will lash the US coast this year.   Storms and sometimes tsunamis have lashed the US coast every year since the beginning of recorded time.   So I'm willing to go out on a limb and predict that Pat Robertson's predictions will come true.   It doesn't take a clairvoyant.

In the interests of multiculturalism and respect for our Iranian Muslim brothers, I thought I would share with you some of the leading religious scholarship from the mouth of the supreme leader:

"If the number of days of the woman's menstrual period is divided by three, a husband who has intercourse with her during the first two days must pay equivalent of 18 nokhods (each nokhod is about 3 grams) of gold to the poor; if he has it on the third or fourth days the equivalent of 9 nokhods; and if he has it during the last two days, the equivalent of 41/2 nokhods.   Sodomizing a menstruating woman does not require such payment."

Ayatollah Khomeini (Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution)

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.   However, he should not penetrate.   If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.   This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives.   The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

Ayatollah Khomeini (Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution) in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom

And you thought Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said some strange things!

People Try To Put Us D-D-Down
Just Because We G-G-Get Around

Talkin' Bout My G-G-Generation


The 60's generation, that group of kids who dropped out, turned on and brought us mass demonstrations against anything in the 200 year established history of our society, and then for an encore, brought us the first example of drug addiction on a mass scale, is angry.   They protested the war.   They protested the government.   They protested anything and everything their parents stood for.   They eschewed any sort of productive work in favor of drugs and rock and roll.   They didn't listen to their parents when they told them nothing good would come of abusing these drugs.   Now their retired parents are repaying them the favor.   Reuters reports drug abuse is at epidemic proportions in the generation which comprises the parents of the sixties hippies!


Hope I die before I get old!

Mexican military officials suggested they may sue in American courts if US National Guard troops apprehend illegal Mexican immigrants trying to cross the border.   When questioned about the basis of any potential lawsuits, Mexican officials claimed economic loss.   One suggested that Mexican troops usually supplement their incomes by stopping border crossers and stealing most of their possessions.   He said, "if we stop them and take all their money, then American troops stop them and send them back, eventually they'll stop trying to cross the border.   If that happens, how are our men in uniform supposed to earn a living?"

Al Gore's cinematic thriller "A Poltically-Correct 'Truth'" is receiving the green carpet treatment from Hollywood.   All the big stars with really big hearts are out in force to help him promote his film debut.   Even got Olympic Gold Medal Snowboarder, Flying Tomato, Shaun White, is promoting the film.   White is testing the Altruistic waters instead of just being another self-absorbed, drug-impaired, otherwise unemployed snowboarder.   He feels the Earth's pain.   Said White, "The lower elevation mountains are not getting as much snow" and as a result "you can't go to your local mountain and ride."   White, from Carlsbad, San Diego, California, most likely has to drive his SUV north to get to his "local mountain" since most of the best snow in southern California is in the mountains around Los Angeles and high desert, urban sprawl, Palmdale.   There snowboarders and skiers frequently enjoy white powder well into the summer!

The television reality show "Survivor" is, according to some reports, looking at the possibility of filming one of next season's contests from a part of Alaska heavily effected by human induced global warming.   According to Jeff Probst, the show's host, "the air is temperate, the ice is gone, water and food plentiful, and there is no particularly dangerous wildlife since the last polar bear drowned."   There remains the possibility that Grizzly - Polar Bear Hybrids might upset contestants but this new species has been observed primarily eating vegetation since the climate changes occurred.   Even caribou aren't very frightened by the presence of bears.   The two species have been seen grazing in the same fields and sometimes even playing with each other.   Producers of the show are a bit hesitant to film in Alaska, however, because the living conditions seem almost "too cushy" when compared to some of the environs they have chosen in the past.

It used to be that Hollywood made movies which were the most popular in the world. *nbsp; Maybe they can still generate decent box office revenues but the dominance of the US film making industry is falling fast.   European critics were at best amused by the Da Vinci Code at Cannes.   While "foreign films" have not made serious inroads here, it won't be long before they do.   The product coming from America is substandard, consisting chiefly of remakes of old films and some really bad writing.   Americans crave entertainment.   It is too bad domestic product can't satisfy that hunger.

How can we on one hand say medical marijuana is a myth and on the other hand permit pharmaceutical companies to market it as a prescription drug?   Today the FDA approved essentially synthetic marijuana for use by those undergoing chemotherapy.   Now I don't know what the prescription form of the drug costs.   But isn't it at least somewhat hypocritical to say one cheap, homegrown version of the drug is totally invalid while permitting drug companies to profit on a manufactured version?   There are obvious drawbacks to pot smoking which have nothing to do with the effects of THC.   But on the other hand, it has to be cheaper to the average person and more readily available than the synthetic version.

Ward Churchill is in the news today.   A review board investigating him is recommending that he be terminated or at least suspended without pay for years.   They did not examine his comments about 9-11 or his raving criticisms of American society.   rather they looked at the credibility of his academic work and found Churchill's "misconduct was deliberate and not a matter of an occasional careless error."   They found Churchill plagiarized, fabricated and falsified material.   With all the questions surrounding Churchill's unsubstantiated claims of native American heritage, they also found he was disrespectful of American Indian traditions his writings.

Put another way, Ward Churchill is a fraud, a phony, a pretender who should never have risen to the level of University Professor.   He belongs at some old smoky bar, puffing on his cigarettes, sucking on cheap beer, and ranting his particular brand of utopian psycho-babble to the other two patrons at the bar.   Perhaps he'll yet get what he deserves.

The New York Times, in an editorial with no author's name attached, referred to the President as "Minuteman in chief" and called the stop-gap plan to temporarily place National Guardsmen on the nation's border with Mexico "a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate."   What did the Times call President John F. Kennedy when he ordered the National Guard to enforce a court decision permitting black students to the University of Alabama?   What exactly is the difference?

On one hand we have a President ordering military folks to enforce a law which officials in place are unable or unwilling to enforce.   On the other hand, we have ....

But Kennedy, the most popular President to ever get less than 50.3% of the popular vote, had good liberal intentions in mind when he ordered the military to shove aside duly elected Democrat Alabama Governor George C. Wallace as he tried to physically block an action required by law.   Bush is an evil conservative so anything he does should be made to look as stupid as possible.

The Times refers to Bush's action as "Rather than standing up for truth."   What is the truth, unnamed Times editorialist?   The truth is millions cross this nation's borders illegally with the assistance of international organized crime.   The truth is the net value to this country's economy is not a positive.   Sure there are illegals who are hard working but the two terms are not synonymous.   There are more illegals in this country who work very little, some not at all, than there are those who work hard.   They are a drain on our system.   But that's not even at issue.   What is at issue is all of our personal safety.   Open borders mean open to all, whatever their intentions, whatever their affiliation with terrorist organizations.

The Times also would like us to think that the situation will be resolved by "Democrats and moderate Republicans" who must "hold firm to protect the fragile flame of good sense against the deter-and-deport crowd."   Not all of us "fringe" lunatics want deportation but most Americans want deterrence.   Screw the Democrats and moderate Republicans!   They've had more than ample time to deal with this issue.   It didn't pop yesterday, you know.   All you members of Congress working on "comprehensive immigration reform" get off your asses and get something done if you value your jobs.   And unnamed Times editorialists, shut up unless you have something of substance to say!   Either stop bashing every conservative at every turn or call yourselves the "New Liberal Times."

Last night BEFORE the start of Bush's Oval Office speech, CNN broadcast the President's rehearsal.   Does anyone not look stupid while rehearsing?   Does watching someone rehearse make his message seem more or less honest?

Wolf Blitzer claimed it was an inadvertent mistake.   Right, just like placing an X over Cheney's face was a mistake!   We believe you, CNN!   You just made a little mistake.   Funny how those little inadvertent mistakes always go in one direction!   What are the odds of that?

The circus is coming to town!   The circus is coming to town!

The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas is laying in wait for the next Iraq War military funeral in New Jersey.   They've chosen New Jersey because of a bill advancing in the state legislature which would restrict protests at funerals to no closer than 500 feet.   The group protests the military's toleration of homosexuals by forming a picket line at funerals for fallen soldiers.

But they're not in Kansas anymore.   Let's give them a real New Jersey welcome.   As soon as I can find exactly where they're going to be protesting, I'll post it here.   Hopefully we can arrange to greet this group as respectfully as they treat our fallen heroes.   New Jersey is not Kansas.   Let's show that to these out-of-staters.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the clenched fist that is about to hit your own eye?

The term "profession" or "professional" is probably over used in our society.   Wikipedia.org defines "profession" as "an occupation that requires extensive training and the study and mastery of specialized knowledge, and usually has a professional association, ethical code and process of certification or licensing."   That's accurate but a bit limited.   When I studied accountancy in college, we spent quite a long time discussing the meaning of the term profession and its ramifications to our conduct.   One of the underlying concepts was a duty to serve the general public and to do so independently and objectively.   This is a very broad concept but a necessary concept as the entire purpose of raising a vocation up to the level of "profession" is an acknowledgement of a public interest in the conduct of its work.   Often the creation of a formal profession occurs because some event or series of events demonstrates the need for a more formal certification and governance of those who otherwise would claim to be members of the profession.   Such is the case today with "Journalism."

One of the important underpinnings of the democratic form of government is a "free press" which exists specifically to inform the public so they can make sound voting decisions and keep track of their elected officials.   We, the people, provide Journalists a certain degree of freedom and certain benefits not generally afforded the public at large in order to facilitate their conduct in our collective interest.   We require, for example, our government, its agencies and even the military to provide a level of access to information not typically available to any other persons.   We allow Journalists to ask questions of people who are not usually made available to the public in any forum.   We do this in order to protect our democracy and the rights it confers upon each of us against those who would bring it down or encumber it with governmental control.   Journalists are provided access to information not otherwise available in order to serve the public interest.

In return for the freedoms and benefits we confer upon Journalists, we expect them to report the truth dispassionately, independently, and free from any hidden agendas.   We do not permit attorneys to represent clients against a large corporate entity in one case while representing that same corporate entity in all other matters.   We recognize the conflict of interest this presents.   It is patently obvious to us that an attorney cannot act in his client's interest in one case while earning most of his living hired by his opponent.   This is so obvious to us that we codify our opposition to such relationships.   Similarly, we have a reasonable expectation that Journalists will not vote one party's line, contribute funds toward it or otherwise hold the views of one party against all others.

Independence in professions is often as important as education and formal licensing requirements.   In accounting and other professions this independence must be manifested not only in fact but also in appearance.   I recall my days working for the international public accounting firm, known at the time as Coopers & Lybrand, during which one accountant was required to divest himself of 100 shares of nearly worthless stock in order to preserve the firm's "appearance of independence."   The stock had much emotional value to him because his grandfather had made a gift of the stock upon his high school graduation.   The company had faltered and its stock become almost worthless but he retained the shares because the gift from his grandfather was intrinsically valuable to him regardless of its extrinsic value.   This fellow never worked on any SEC filings for that company.   In fact, our entire office didn't do any work for that company.   The truth is this fellow never worked on any SEC filings because he was a consultant who specialized in a narrow field which had nothing to do with public disclosures.   But the company was a publicly traded entity for whom the company performed attestation services (financial disclosure audits).   Our employer required him to give up the shares and give them up he did as a condition of continued employment.

When Ronald Reagan ran for President, much was made of him being a movie star and little discussed of his abilities as an executive.   Few in the media expected him to actually win the job.   After he was making sound economic decisions which reversed the catastrophic tailspin which had gripped our country, much time was spent reporting the reasons why his programs were not the reason the economy was able to jump out of the abyss.   When George Bush opposed Clinton, economic bad news led the headlines and the public ultimately called for a change, any change, because they believed Bush was to blame.   The press reinforced this belief despite the fact that Bush had made no specific changes which might have caused the cycle to turn downwards, as boom cycles always do.   Little if anything was published about the economic status of Arkansas which Clinton had governed for a very long time.   Very little about how the state was one of the poorest in the nation with a largely uneducated workforce and little real economic activity outside of agriculture controlled by large corporate entities was ever reported.   When Gore opposed Bush Jr., nothing factual about Gore's radical environmental agenda was discussed but much (mostly negative) was made of Bush's performance as governor of large, economically complex and successful Texas.   No time at all was spent discussing Kyoto, Gore's involvement in it and the entire Senate's (regardless of party affiliation) abject refusal to even consider it.   Even-handed, independent, objective reportage did not occur.

Since the Presidency of the United States as well as control of the country's legislative body has been held by the Republican party, we have seen a plethora of examples of biased reporting by Journalists.   After the 9-11 shock wore off, the "independent" press engaged in all sorts of Republican bashing at every turn.   We had the Abu Ghraib prison photographs, there were several important intelligence leaks including the NSA's surveillance of phone calls originating or ending in al Qaeda-land, as well as the recent revelation of ongoing data-gathering of phone records, the Joe Wilson - Valerie Plame thing, and finally, the report of secret CIA prisons in Europe on the eve of Condoleezza Rice's visit to European allies in the War on Terror.   Subsequent events show that all of these reports served no other purpose than to weaken Bush and the Republican party.

Abu Ghraib was a bad instance in which individuals treated detainees inhumanely.   Investigations show no systemic crisis in this regard and the individual perpetrators have been dealt with appropriately.   The NSA's eavesdropping barely makes the news any more because Americans mostly agree the program is proper, legal and necessary.   The phone record data-gathering thing hasn't finished playing out but considering that this sort of program started back in Carter's days, the American people are not particularly interested.   Plamegate continues although not on the level originally anticipated.   Secret European prisons seems to have lost interest since nobody has been able to prove this is more than conjecture.

But these events are worth examining for other reasons more relevant to the current discussion.   They are worth examining because the reports published by Journalists were not objective, were not reported dispassionately and independently, and not issued in service of the public's interests unless the public includes members of one political party looking for opportunities to regain power.   When the press reported Plamegate, they discussed Wilson's reports as the absolute gospel with respect to whether Iraq was trying to obtain Uranium of a sort suitable for producing nuclear arms.   They failed to even mention the fact that Nigeria is notable economically only as a source of Uranium.   They didn't mention that Iraq had no valid business purpose for sending emissaries to the country other than to seek Uranium.   They didn't present a balanced report because it did not suit their political agenda.

With respect to the secret prisons, nobody, not the press, not the Europeans themselves, has ever found one shred of evidence supporting this report.   Accuracy in Media lays bare the fact that its author, Dana Priest, was politically motivated.   Her source for the report was a Democrat partisan who worked closely with the John Kerry Campaign foreign policy team.   Priest's husband is one William Goodfellow, a far-left political activist who is an advocate of Communism and Communist governments, and current executive director of the leftist Center for International Policy (CIP).   Priest does not even possess the appearance of independence I suggest to you is at the core of any legitimate profession.   Yet she is considered a Journalism professional and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for her work of fiction.

We have witnessed a failure of the institution of Journalism.   This institution is a necessary underpinning of our representative democracy.   Because of its importance to the general public, we provide it access and many other benefits not provided the general public.   It is time to demand something in return.   It is time to raise the vocation of Journalist to a new standard, that of a true profession.   Journalists should be required to demonstrate independence in fact and independence in appearance as all other professions are required.   Only licensed Journalists meeting professional standards and living up to a rigid professional code of conduct and ethics should be permitted access to the Whitehouse and the governmental agencies of this country.   Journalists have a duty to ser