One Grain at a Time

Have you ever held a single dry soybean in your hand? What do you think it weighs: one gram? Imagine holding a soybean in your palm and see if you can get a sense of the weight of it. It’s very, very light – hardly noticeable. And yet, this year, somewhere in the Midwest, it is very likely that someone will probably die from the weight of soybeans.

At a grain silo, grain in the silo drains into several openings in the floor, then into an underground tunnel and onto a conveyor belt. The grain occasionally will hang up and not flow through those openings. When it hangs up, too often someone will enter the silo to move the grain. And too often, that someone will not make it out of the grain silo alive. It is too common an occurrence. Sometimes the person who enters the silo places their face too close to the grain, where there is a layer of carbon dioxide and they die from a lack of oxygen, but just as often the person suffocates by an avalanche of the grain inside. One tiny grain is very light, but when a man is under thousands of grains, they can take his life.

I don’t know what it’s like to suffer such a fate and I would not compare anything I’ve experienced to the suffering of the families of such a farmer, but I will say I know what it’s like to have thousands and thousands of tiny weights lying on top of me until I can hardly breathe. Every day tiny infractions of our rights as citizens, every human right and civil liberty that is violated, stack on us like so much grain, unnoticed and unimportant at first, until it is too late.

Today the news media reported that a deal has been struck for sharing oil revenue in all of the Iraqi provinces equally. This is good news, right? I should feel relieved, right? But then I found out that the dark side of the story went mostly unreported. It seems that big oil companies are being given absolute control over Iraqi oil, and it feels like another grain has fallen on top of me. A federal appeals court said it was fine to indefinitely hold prisoners without charge. “Tic,” goes the sound of one tiny grain striking my arm. Dick Cheney is saber-rattling with Iran. Tic. The Bush Administration continues to spy on us. Tic, tic, tic.

The horrible thing about imagining oneself suffocated in a grain bin is that you observe the phenomenon from within the tragedy. This is not like sitting in your car and watching a careening truck coming your way. You have no sense of dispassionate detachment. You are inside the tragedy as it happens grain by grain. As a citizen, I sit within the US and watch this imperial presidency implode upon itself and there is nothing I can do about it. Tic, tic, tic go the grains and I just can’t seem to get ahead of them. Soon their weight is alarming, but by the time I realize this, it’s almost too late.

All we can do is struggle. We must struggle for the oxygen of freedom, for overcoming the weight that besets us. We must struggle against imperialism and hubris; against the military-industrial complex. We must struggle against violations of human rights and civil liberties wherever they occur. If we do not struggle, then one grain at a time, we will be overcome. Struggle on!

High Temperature in the Body Politic

I wish my email inbox had a thermometer. You should feel the heat of the mail I’ve received lately. What did I do to bring on this wrath? I helped organize an event called “Congress is the Decider.”

The intention of this event was to remind Congress that the voters want to end the war in Iraq and to call for Congress to bring our troops home.

Although invigorated with new blood, Congress is still feeling its way toward consensus on a new Iraq strategy. But in order to do that they must overcome three obstacles.

First, there are the obstructionist Congressmen who want to “stay the course” or “increase speed on the old course” or anything else that will allow the President to save face.

There’s also a lack of a cohesive front in Congress. It’s hard enough to get 431 Representatives and 100 Senators to agree on much of anything, but with so many Senators running for the office of President, there are many Iraq plans to choose from.

Finally, Congress must navigate the unrealistic expectations of the American voters. It seems that many voters unrealistically believed that 48 hours after they cast their ballot the troops would be on their way home, the President would stop making ill-advised decisions, and we would all have universal healthcare. Even with the comparative lightning speed of the first 10 bills to make it through the House of Representatives, America does not seem impressed.

With a perceived lack of progress in Washington anger seeps into all things political. As voters, we are starting to turn our anger on one another. Even brilliant Presidential candidates, who should be saving their venom for a rogue administration, have turned instead to tearing each other apart. The few in Congress who could champion our cause for peace are being pasted with the same broad brush of anger which should be reserved for the real scoundrels. The body politic is so hot with rage that it’s beginning to break down.

Which brings me back to the temperature of my email inbox. On the morning of the event I sent out an email asking people if they would join me at the demonstration and rally in front of Rep. Dave Loebsack’s (D IA-02) office. In the email I mentioned that Rep. Loebsack has hit the ground running. He has co-sponsored no less than 3 bills to end the war in Iraq. He has worked closely with the House leadership to craft a unified strategy. He has co-sponsored bills in favor of universal healthcare, energy independence and a livable minimum wage. In fact, for almost every issue that the voters spoke to last November, he has co-sponsored a bill. You can see a list of the bills he has co-sponsored here.

The responses to this email caused my inbox to boil at a fever pitch. I was accused of being a corporate stooge, of being on Rep. Loebsack’s payroll, or worse…maybe I was really a Republican!

At first I was dumbfounded at the level of anger in my inbox; especially since it came from people who agreed with me on the goal of exiting Iraq. All I had done was to suggest that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But then I thought about what people were really angry about. They’re ready for change and they’re finished hearing excuses about it. And you know, I’m right there with them.

Here’s my one piece of advice for my fellow disgruntled voters. Let’s continue to find constructive uses for our anger. Let’s find ways to take the heat to the neo-conservative establishment in Washington instead of turning our rage on one another. A body that is filled with rage will eventually begin to break down. If the rising temperature of my email inbox is any indication of the health of the body politic, I think we’re about to reach that point.

Who Really Supports the Troops?

In Congress representatives position themselves as supporting the troops while painting the other side as not supporting the troops. This verbal skirmish is just heating up. Between now and March 19th, the fourth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq the rhetoric will grow ever more shrill. Every word, every vote, every speech on the House or Senate floor is considered for how it will play in the next election advertisement. Energy is being spent on positioning the message while the troops are in the position of being in harms way.

Here’s one idea we can all agree on: The war in Iraq is a disaster. What has the Bush Administration told us about the War in Iraq?

• Our administration said the war would cost $50 billion dollars. So far it has cost over $365 billion and we’re adding billions more every month, even without an escalation of the war.
  
• They said there was an Al Qaeda connection with Iraq prior to 9-11. That was not true.
  
• The President said repeatedly that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We did not.
  
• The administration promised us we would have victory in 3 – 4 months and we would be out of Iraq in less than a year. On May 3, 2003, less than 2 months after the invasion of Iraq, President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under a banner that declared “Mission Accomplished.” In fact, on March 19th, the US will mark the dark milestone of the 4th anniversary of the war in Iraq.
  
• We were told we would be greeted as liberators. More than 3,100 of our young men and women have died in Iraq. Another 23,417 have been physically wounded and thousands more suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Furthermore, according to Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA):

• The average weekly attacks [by insurgents in Iraq] have grown from 430 in July 2005 to well over 1000 today.
  
• Iraqi casualties have increased from 63 per day in October 2005 to over 127 per day.
  
• 91 percent of Sunni Iraqis and 74 percent of Shia Iraqis want the U.S. forces out of Iraq.
  
• In January 2006, 47 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. When the same polling question was asked just 8 months later, 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S-led forces.
  
• Less than 30 percent of Americans support the war and only 11 percent support the President’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.
  
• A February 2006 poll showed that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq believed U.S. should exit Iraq within the year and 42 percent said their mission was unclear.

Now I have to admit that I’ve never served in the military and my voice might not mean as much. But here’s an interesting fellow, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. His credentials include a stint as the Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Regan. He was also a combat Marine in Vietnam where he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. You would think he has a perspective that most of us don’t when it comes to the argument about supporting our troops. So, what does he make of all of these non-binding resolutions and the debates over whether or not to debate?

"I know what that's like when you're sitting out on an infantry unit and seeing what you're doing interpreted politically. But ... it's an inverted political logic for people to basically say that we have to continue doing this for the good of the troops. We are not continuing this war for the troops. The troops are fighting this war on our behalf because we're continuing it. That's a vital distinction in the debate here."

The President has asked for $100 billion for Iraq on top of the $70 billion he has already requested for this year. He also asked for $145 billion for next year. All of this on top of the 11% increase he is seeking for the Pentagon, raising their budget to $481.4 billion.

Well, with money on the line, let’s see who really wants to support the troops. Murtha has said he wants to approve the funding the president has requested, but he wants to put some conditions on the funds. For example he has said:

1. You can’t send troops into battle until they have the equipment and the training that is required to do their jobs.
   
2. You can’t continue to extend troops overseas if they have been there more than 1 year. And when they do come home, he would like to allow them to stay home for a minimum of one year. Traditionally soldiers are allowed to stay home for two years, but in the current situation many troops are rotating back to battle after only six or seven months at home.
   
3. He wants to end the “stop loss” practice that allows the military to keep people in harms way even after their enlistment is over.
   
4. He does not want any of the funds spent to build permanent bases. A permanent base is a multi-decade commitment to support staffing and infrastructure. If Congress is going to appropriate funds, they should go to the troops.

If I were him, I would call this the “Troop Protection Act of 2007.” Keep in mind that there are no more troops to “surge,” so if we’re going to add 21,500 more troops to the theater, we’re going to have to extend the stay of those going over and we’re going to have to shorten the leave of those who are coming home. Also, you can’t add 21,500 troops without adding more support personnel. According to the Congressional Budget Office the actual surge will be more like 48,000 troops.

It seems to me that the proposal by Congressman Murtha is the best way to show support for the troops. If the president wants to surge, that’s fine. He’s the commander in chief, but he should not expect Congress to roll over and rubber stamp his proposal.

In essence, the President has asked us to trust him again and again. As for me, my trust bank account has been overdrawn by the current administration. It’s time for Congress to grow some backbone and to stand up for our troops. Let’s put some real conditions on funding that will show unwavering support for the troops.

Saving the World one Olive at a Time

It’s the little things that mean a lot. I don’t know if it’s an urban legend or if it is true, but I understand that in 1987 American Airlines decided to eliminate one olive from each salad that it served, and in the process saved $40,000 per year. Similarly, in 1999 Singapore airlines looked at the cost to butterfly the prawns for a proposed appetizer and found it would cost $750,000 per year. And, in 2005 Northwest Airlines stopped handing out a half-ounce bag of braided pretzel sticks, achieving a savings of $2 million per year.

No, this is not an article about the slow degradation of airline service. The point here is that your small actions can be added to hundreds of thousands of other small actions by other people, and make a tremendous impact on the world. Let’s apply this principle to energy security and global warming.

Before we look at the specific actions you can take, let’s talk about why addressing global warming is important. First, the numbers we’re dealing with are staggering. The United States consumes more oil than any other nation, 20,030,000 barrels of oil per day. That is greater than the consumption of China, Japan, Russia and India combined.

The US is also the world’s worst emitter of CO2 gases, emitting 5,762,050,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, which is approximately the same amount of CO2 emitted by China, Russia and Germany combined. That’s nearly 20 metric tons of CO2 for each man, woman and child in the United States. In the US, 45.6% were emitted in the generation of electricity and heat. That does not include manufacturing and construction (11.1%). 30.9% of CO2 emissions came from “transportation” sources.

These numbers might be huge, but remember the lesson of removing a single olive from a salad. A small action can have a huge impact. For example, Hewlett-Packard just redesigned the packaging for its printer cartridges and in the process eliminated 37 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.

Over half of the oil we use is imported (58%), and that number just keeps going up. US officials project that by 2025, we will import 68 percent of our oil to meet demand. So, if, as we said earlier the US consumes 20,030,000 barrels of oil per day, and if 58% of that oil is imported, assuming a price of $58/barrel, the US sends $673,809,200 to foreign countries every day to pay for our oil habit. When the price is at $75/barrel, as is has been recently, the amount of money we export per day increases to over $871 billion per day! While much of this oil is currently imported from our friends in Canada, some of this money goes to countries that, quite frankly hate us. The more oil we consume, the more we import and the more dollars we send overseas, the less secure we are as a nation.

We’ve been talking about some very large numbers here. I’d like to go back to the analogy we used at the beginning, the analogy of a big impact a small olive can have. Here are ten small steps that can add up to have an enormous impact.

10 Small Actions to make a Big Impact

1. If you want to make a big difference with a small action, start by showing the movie An Inconvenient Truth in your home. It’s very easy. Go to BraveNewTheaters.com and sign up, buy the movie, invite your friends and pop the popcorn. The movie will make a big impact on your friends. Then ask your neighbors to host the movie in their house and to invite their friends. That way you keep the wave of influence going.

2. You can write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Tell the paper why you care about global warming. Tell them why it is important to you, in your town. Make the letter about the local impact of this global phenomenon.

3. While you’ve got your paper and pen (or laptop) out write to your Senators to ask them to support S.309, Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. This Act: requires that the U.S. reduce its emissions between 2010 and 2020 to 1990 levels and by 2050, to a level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels.

4. If there is no way you can get your Senators to support S.309, ask him or her to sign on to S.280, Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. While this bill accomplishes some of the same goals as S.309, it also, unfortunately, provides massive subsidies for nuclear energy. Be sure to let your Senators know you don’t like that portion of the bill.

5. In their 2003 book, You Can Prevent Global Warming, Jeffrey Langholz and Kelly Turner provide 51 easy ideas to save energy (and money) while saving the earth. Here is one of their simple ideas: replace a burned out bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb. "If every household in the United States replaced its next burned-out light bulb with a compact fluorescent, we would prevent more than 13 billion pounds of carbon dioxide being emitted—that's equivalent to taking 1.2 million cars off the road for an entire year." If you don’t want to buy new bulbs, you can simply turn off unneeded lights, or bring natural sunlight into your home eliminating the need for lights.

6. Your car emits just as much greenhouse gas as your home does. So, obviously when you can it’s best to use alternative means of transportation such as mass transit, car pooling, bicycling, and telecommuting. If you leave your car at home two days a week, you can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds per year.

7. If you must drive, then try to drive a car that gets better gas mileage. That doesn’t mean you have to go out and buy a new car. You might be able to get better gas mileage from the car you have. Fixing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test can improve its gas mileage by an average of 4 percent. Replacing a clogged air filter can improve your car's gas mileage by as much as 10 percent. You might be able to improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure and by 1-2 percent by using the manufacturer's recommended grade of motor oil.

8. Also, the way you drive makes a big difference. Gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas. You can reduce oil consumption in the US simply by slowing down.

9. If you can afford a new car, then obviously a hybrid car is great for the environment (I drive a Prius), however you can go with a more conventional car and still achieve great gas mileage. For example the Toyota Yaris and the Honda Civic are both rated at 40 MPG on the highway. Or for the really adventuresome, take a look at the Smart Car.

10. Educate yourself about global warming and what you can do about it. Look at information from Global Green, GreenHomeBuilding.com, US Green Building Council, and the National Resources Defense Council.

So, there you have it – ten small actions that can add up to make a huge difference, just like removing the olive from one salad can have an enormous impact. If you’re the overachiever type and you’d like bonus points, then email this blog to five other people. If they take just one of these actions, just think what an impact you will have.

What does Barack Obama have to say?

Here is Barack Obama in his own words. First, he is talking about what it is that he’s trying to accomplish with this campaign. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iDfAVbOcpw



You can also see him talk about the importance of citizen involvement in the process. He explains the importance of staying involved in the process, overcoming cynicism and holding special interests at bay through your activities. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHg95YPlIiY



Enjoy the videos.

What exactly is a "conversation," anyway?

Barack Obama looked right at me and said, “I want to have a conversation.” This might have been a heart-stopping moment for any political junkie, but of course, he was also looking at 2,500 other people packed into the gymnasium at Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, IA.

It's a nice sentiment to think that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be in my living room for a "conversation" - a two-way give and take - asking real questions and getting short answers. But as far as I can see, that's just not going to happen.

The term “rock star” candidate has been used excessively to describe Senator Obama. That’s shorthand for someone who can pack a large venue and still appeal to the crowd. When it comes to the music of politics, there are accessible candidates like Tom Vilsack and John Edwards, and then there are "stadium bands," like Hillary and Obama.

Since people are being fast and loose with their comparisons of Senator Obama, comparing him to John F. Kennedy, let’s try another analogy, the Rolling Stones. Hey, if he’s a rock star, then this might not be a bad comparison. The Rolling Stones have rabid fans, the same as Senator Obama. They can pack a stadium anywhere in the world, anytime they wish. At this point, Senator Obama can do the same. The challenge for both the Rolling Stones and Senator Obama is, just because it works in the stadium, does not mean it will work in your living room.

The Rolling Stones have been able to bring their large stadium show to more intimate settings, for example playing the Aragon Ball Room in Chicago in 2002. More importantly, the Stones have infiltrated our most intimate moments by being the soundtrack to our lives. We hear certain songs and we connect.

Senator Obama is trying the same thing with his web site, which by the way is very well done. I can go onto Senator Obama’s web site and use social networking tools similar to Facebook and MySpace, but that does not really connect me with Senator Obama. It might connect me with other fans of Senator Obama, but not with Obama himself. With the bus loads of journalists, the satellite trucks and the rabid fans, it is hard to see how Senator Obama will be able to make it to anyone’s living room. So, here’s a suggestion.

The answer to the “rock star” challenge might be as old as Socrates. If candidates like Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are serious about a “conversation,” then let’s have more sincere and sustained question and answer time. I’m sure the people at Kennedy High School would have stayed late into the night asking questions and listening to the answers.

Steve Sovern did an admirable job of being the gracious host of the event in Cedar Rapids, and as such pitched the Senator some nice softballs. The five questions from the audience were well worded, showing a sophisticated level of political understanding. But Senator Obama's answers were so verbose there was little time for the pretense of a conversation.

If candidates are sincere about having a conversation, then let’s have a conversation. As the people on the campaign stops, let’s do our homework and ask great questions. Candidates, answer the question and then shut up. That gives us time for more questions. Here in the heartland, that’s what a real conversation looks like.

Who Counts?

According to an article on MSNBC, in his proposed 2008 budget, President “Bush has asked for an additional $100 billion for Iraq and the global war on terrorism this year, on top of $70 billion already sought…the Pentagon is scheduled to get a hefty increase in spending authority of 11 percent, pushing its 2008 budget to $481.4 billion.” Now, get this. We’re talking about $170 billion, plus $481.4 billion for a total of $651.4 billion. Maybe it’s just me, but this seems like a lot of money. As Senator Everett Dirksen is reported to have said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

Since these numbers are a little hard to comprehend, let’s see if we can gain some perspective by doing a little bit of counting. If we counted $1 per second around the clock, it would take us 31.69 years to count $1 Billion. If we counted $1 per second, how long would it take us to count $651.4 Billion? It would take us 20,641 years. Even if we cheated and counted $100 bills, it would still take us over 200 years of around-the-clock counting to reach the combined defense and war budget.

So, the President wants us to hand over to the Department of Defense so much money that it would take over 20,000 years to count it at $1 per second. Of course, that’s not all. There is also a lot of additional military spending that falls outside of the Department of Defense. For example, did you know that the Department of Energy spends around $7 billion a year on nuclear weapons projects maintaining nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads?

If we’re going to understand President Bush’s priorities, we need to compare the Defense Department numbers to spending in other areas. For example, according to Reuters, Bush has asked for $56 billion for Education. Is the President saying that education is less than one tenth of the priority of defense and war? The Education budget is 8.6% of the combined defense and war budgets. So, despite brave rhetoric from President Bush about the importance of education, in the Bush budget kids don’t count.

How about the poor and seniors? Do they count? President Bush proposes cutting $78 billion for Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years. No, they don’t count either.

With the recently released report on global warming, you would think that the Environmental Protection Agency could count on a boost in funding, right? Guess again. The EPA will actually see its budget reduced. I guess in the world that President Bush occupies, the earth doesn’t count.

It seems that defense contractors and war profiteers are the only ones who can count on George W. Bush. The New York Times reports that spending on government contractors has nearly doubled from $207 billion in 2000 to $400 billion last year.

As President Eisenhower said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Isn’t it time that we have a government we can count on?

You’re Only as Sick as Your Secrets

Alcoholics Anonymous has a saying - You’re only as sick as your secrets. Over the past six years the Bush Administration has exploited it’s authority by using “state’s secrets,” in order to cover its abuse of power in the name of the so-called “war on terror.” Two examples of the use of the government secrecy to shield its actions can be seen in the warrantless NSA spying program and in the act of “extraordinary rendition.”

If you want a primer on the Bush Administrations’ inconceivable use of secrecy, simply look at the case of Oregon charity, al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. This case is related to the NSA’s illegal warrantless spying program. Click here for my mid-2006 analysis of the constitutionality and legality of the NSA warrantless spying program.

A recent New York Times/International Herald Tribune article provides surreal examples of government secrecy. For example, one government lawyer declined to divulge whether he had a particular security clearance, saying information about the clearance was classified. Other revelations from this article include:

• Judges have to make an appointment to review the government’s filing in the case and then cannot keep a copy. Lawyers for the plaintiffs cannot see the government’s filings at all. I’m no lawyer, but I would imagine it difficult to mount a counter-offence to a document that you cannot view.
  
• Judges have been told to use only Justice Department computers to write their decisions. The Justice Department asked to inspect and delete files from the computers on which lawyers for the plaintiffs had prepared their legal filings.
  
• The Justice Department has filed legal papers, not with the court but by placing them in a room at the Department of Justice. As the article says, “They have filed papers, in other words, with themselves.”

Despite the Bush Administration’s concerted efforts to keep the details of warrantless domestic surveillance secret, details are leaking out. Because of pressure from the public and the newly-elected Democratic majority in Congress, the Justice Department has begrudgingly “allowed” judges from the FISA court to review the NSA warrantless spying program (which they have been legally required to do all along). They also have decided to allow select members of Congress to view documents related to the program. Public pressure and Congressional oversight is slowly shedding light on the secret NSA Spying program.

A second example of how the US uses States Secrets to cover up its misdeeds is in the area of “extraordinary rendition,” the practice of capturing private citizens off of the street and sending them off to a country such as Syria or Egypt to be tortured. Two names that you may already be familiar with are Khaled el-Masri and Maher Arar. El-Masri is a German citizen, who was on his way to family vacation when he was picked up in Macedonia in December, 2003. He was beaten, stripped naked, and drugged. He was then flown to a CIA interrogation center in Afghanistan where he continued to be beaten and interrogated. Despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence, the CIA continued to hold El-Masri until May, 2005, at which time they released him without charge, without apology and without comment. When El-Masri tried to sue the US, the Bush Administration claimed “states secrets” and asked for the case to be dismissed. The case was thrown out on May 16, 2006.

Similarly, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen was picked up in the United States in September, 2002. The US Government sent Arar to Syria where he was routinely tortured until his release in October, 2003. Again, the US government was sued and again, the Bush Administration appealed to the courts using the argument of State’s Secrets. In February 2006, a judge ruled in favor of the Bush Administration, saying that rendition of Arar was a matter of national security.

Both of these would be very sad cases indeed if they were allowed to remain shrouded in the secrecy of the Bush Administration. However, moves from the Democrats in Congress are promising to shed light on the dark secrets of the extraordinary rendition program. Senator Patrick Leahy, the new Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has insisted that US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales share all documentation on the rendition of Arar.

Outside of the US, the pressure continues to mount over the Bush Administrations’ extraordinary rendition program. In Canada, the Prime Minister has issued a formal apology to Maher Arar. The Canadian government has also agreed to pay Arar $8.9 million. This increases the pressure on the US government to come clean in it’s involvement in the Arar case in particular and in extraordinary rendition in general. In Germany, prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents involved in the rendition of El-Masri. In another case, in Italy, a Judge is deciding whether to put 26 CIA agents on trial for the 2003 rendition of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr. Nasr, who is also known as Abu Omar, was taken from Milan, Italy to Egypt where he was tortured and beaten. Once again, the power of public opinion is working to shed light on the cover of darkness required for the Bush Administration to carry on its unconstitutional and illegal activities.

There’s another saying about secrets – If you name the secret, you get its power. For the last six years the Bush Administration has held all of the power in the NSA spying and the practice of extraordinary rendition. Now we citizens have a chance to take back the power. Transparency in government is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without transparency, we are not citizens of a democracy but are instead prisoners in a totalitarian state. It is up to us, the citizens of the United States to insist on transparency in government. It is vital to our freedom that we demand the truth on warrantless spying and on extraordinary rendition. Only by demanding the truth can we heal the sickness of the Bush Administration’s secrets.

Can a Political Speech Make you Cry?

Can a political speech make you cry? This one did. God, I hope this man means what he says. Let’s hope our next president comes within 10% of this rhetoric. We would all be well served to think about what John Edwards has to say and then go out and act…today. Don’t wait for the next election. Join One Corps and get started today.

See George W. Bush get SPANKED by a 12-year-old

What can a 12-year-old teach the President of the United States? It turns out she can teach him a lot! On January 27, 2007, Moriah Arnold, 12-year-old sixth grader from Harvard, MA gave an address to the March on Washington. Take a look at this video. It gives you hope for the youth of America.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wpAyM83NAo

Five Questions for Sam Brownback

On January 30, 2007 Sam Brownback was nice enough to give me 8 minutes of his time. Senator Brownback named as his top priorities:

1. A flat tax
   
2. Privatizing Social Security
   
3. A culture of life - i.e., pro-life
   
4. Supporting marriage – against gay marriage
   
5. Curing cancer in the next 10 years

I also asked about Extraordinary Rendition and the death penalty. You can see the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UazlxBIdYUY