BLOG.BRYANGALT.US

Help The Sea Shepherd

2010-01-14T12:51:00Z

If there is one thing that I cannot tolerate its the abusive relationship humans have with the animals that share the planet with us. Recently, I watched the documentary "The Cove" which is a film about the annual dolphin hunt in Japan. In the movie, the Japanese government's representatives to the International Whaling Commission tried to justify the continued slaughter of whales and dolphins for a variety of reasons including:

1. Whales and dolphins eat fish that we like to catch.
2. Whales and dolphins are a nuisance species.
3. We have always hunted these animals so it is a cultural custom.
4. It's only being done for scientific research

And on and on they go. The movie mentions the real reason this is happening, and you may or may not be surprised to hear it (spoiler: it involves the US).

I have also been watching the show "Whale Wars" on Animal Planet. The show follows the whale activist vessel Sea Shepherd as they follow a fleet of Japanese whaling ships that hunt and kill over 1,000 whales each year in the Antarctic Circle. The Japanese consider them to be sea going terrorists but I think that they are true heroes. The team on board the Sea Shepherd is almost completely made up of volunteers who are out there risking their lives to save a species that humans hunted to the brink of extinction.

Scientist have also discovered recently that humans have brain functions that whales have, such as dreaming, communication, self-awareness, etc. I say that we have brain functions like theirs because whales have been here millions of years longer than we have. Their survival strategy has been brilliant throughout the years: live in harmony within your environment. That worked really well up until the time humans discovered how to hunt them.

So, I recommend that you watch the program and rent the DVD "The Cove" so that you can see how much we need to put an end to whaling and the slaughter of the dolphins.

I also strongly urge you to donate money, any amount of money to the Sea Shepherd to help support their cause, which is not just about saving the whales, its about saving ourselves.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE

2009-12-17T11:08:00Z

This question, posed by Shakespeare way back when, can be applied to more than just literary ideas. In fact, one area that is always in need of more support is Gay Rights. Recently, the government of Uganda has proposed a law that basically states if you are found to be gay, you will be arrested and then executed. If you are found to have known someone is gay and didn't turn them in, you will be arrested and sent to prison for three years.

Wow.

Do you see how support of intolerance leads to hatred towards others? Can you imagine living in a country that would support such actions against a group of people? The fact of the matter is, you are born gay, just like you are born straight. I know because I am gay. Since my first crush, I have known.

There have been several of my friends who have suggested the following reasons for why they believe I am gay:

I was raised without a father (he was killed in an accident when I was four years old).
I was raised around my aunts and not around other men (I never saw them with their boyfriends as I recall).
I was just telling my mom this to piss her off (that was my Granny's theory).
I was molested by another male at some point and decided that I liked it enough to stick with it (seriously?).
I was afraid of women for an undefined reason, so I chose the "easy" way out (wtf?).
I am confused and haven't figured it out yet.

As I was growing up, being gay was not as tolerated as it is now. In fact, when I came out at age 16 to my mom, she flipped out and declared that I had just "ruined her life" and that I was a disgrace. She called up my grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, and cried to them how horrible it was for her. Then, they all arrived to comfort her during this distressing period!

They also methodically went through our house and removed every prescription bottle, knife, gun, tool or whatever they thought could be used by me to commit suicide, because in their mind, I was bound to be suicidal now that I had stated I was gay! My grandparents (on my mom's side) stayed with us for two weeks.

I was grounded and not allowed to speak to anyone outside of the house. Ultimately, she told me that I was not allowed to have any friends over while she wasn't home, and under no circumstances was I to be allowed to have any male friends come over.

The pressure was so intense for next two years or so that we could hardly stand the site of each other. Eventually, I began to use denial as a way to survive the onslaught of hatred I was experiencing. I also looked at every option to escape from my mom-so I ended up joining the Navy.

These were the years before "don't ask, don't tell" and I didn't tell either way. They didn't ask about preferences when I joined, they only asked if I had ever had sex with a man before, which I could answer truthfully as no. That was good enough for them so it was "anchors away" and off to San Diego.

However, after nearly a year away from home, and living in a major metropolitan area like San Diego, I was able to jettison the burdens put onto me by my mother and I did make some connections with other males. This made me realize that I wasn't the monster in the equation as some had suggested, but it also made me realize that the Navy wasn't going to be the place for me either. I decided that I would tell them that I realized my true identity, and that it was up to them what would happen from there.

I was accused of fraud by my Department Chief Petty Officer. He said that there was no way I could not have known I was gay when I signed up. I was given sympathy by the Department Lt. and he gave me a discharge rating of "Honorable" so that I wouldn't be burdened by yet another label in life (such as "other than Honorable" or worse).

I underwent years of being told I was a disgrace, that I had ruined my family and so much more before I found my freedom in San Diego. But, even though I had actually said that I was gay to another person outside of my family (and it was three years later), I still didn't feel comfortable revealing that to anyone who didn't know me for at least a year-for many, many more years to come. That was how much fear and even subliminal loathing had been pumped into my head by my family, by society and even by me.

But that didn't prevent me from stumbling through relationships and having casual "friends with benefits" over the years. It just took me a lot longer to get into one of them because of my defensive walls that prevented me from being myself to anyone I didn't know very well.

Does this sound like I chose the "easy way out" or that I was making a "lifestyle choice" to be gay rather than straight? Was I choosing not to be straight just to piss off someone? It would certainly be one of the longest and hardest methods of proving a point if that where the case.

I have finally come to terms with my sexuality enough to write it down here in a publically viewable format, and it only took 24 years to get here. The fact that society has grown up enough to accept that gay people aren't agents of Satan has helped in my transition as much as anything else has.

But, regardless of the progress made so far, we still have a way to go. The fact that there are still large enough numbers of people out there who believe that gay people should be treated with less respect and with fewer rights than straight people still leads to gay hate crimes and to proposed laws such as the Ugandan travesty, and that must come to a halt. The citizens of the United States should take a closer look at their history-because it is filled with people who came to the New World to escape the persecution of those that they were leaving behind.

For this reason, we should be the beacon's of tolerance and we should be the sentinals of justice for those who would be persecuted because of their race, color, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin. We should demand sanctions against Uganda in the U.N. We should look around the room and ask ourselves if we would support a law to execute someone because they have diabetes, or freckles, or cancer, or because they are Methodist, or Muslim, or gay.

And then we should think about what makes us human beings. You see, I know that I am a human being even though I am gay. I would never support any law anywhere that demands arresting, imprisoning or executing anyone for being born to the human race. That's what their proposed law is saying-those people who are born gay, born human nonetheless, are not worthy of life because they don't fit an ideal of what a human is in the eyes of the ruling government.

Didn't Hitler and the Nazi's think the same way? Can American's become monsters too? Look around the room and let me know.

The Path of Least Resistance

2009-08-17T17:15:00Z

It seems that the road most traveled in this country is the one that has the greatest ability to keep anyone from getting anything constructive done. The latest casualty is health care reform, which thanks to the health care industry, the ignorant people who make up the public, the Republican slander machine and a dimwitted hick from Alaska who thinks she's clever by popping out zingers against Obama, we will probably be stuck in a third world status for the majority of those same ignorant people who will still have no health care.

What I find most interesting is that the Democrats and particularly Obama have completely made the issue of health care reform into a firestorm by not taking effective, swift and non-partisan action to get the correct message out before the Republican's could fire up the ovens and start turning out angry 'country cupcakes' to attend townhall meetings. Why cupcakes you ask? Well, they are baked at a high temperature, they are full of things that are bad for you and it would seem that everyone loves to eat them up.

It doesn't matter if these folks live in a city or not, they are just as downright out of their senses and once that happens, no amount of reasoning will make them come back to whatever reality they existed in to begin with. This has always been the secret weapon of the Republicans and it has always been the Achilles heal of the Democrats.

The right wing elements of our media, press and corporate structure have no problem at all using the ignorant to act in a manner that goes against their own best interests. Just as the Pied Piper played his tune and caused all the children to follow him away, the Republicans do the same with the loud, obnoxious, uncouth, hostile, dangerous, and ill-informed amongst us and they too follow along in a trance, happily skipping their way to their own destruction.

So what's new about this happening within any governmental structure? Nothing at all. This was used by the Nazi's, the Communists, the Czars, the British, the Romans, the Sumerians, and it can probably be traced back to the original groups of humans as they struggled to determine who would be in charge of hunting down dinner that night.

I guess this is really where the heart of the matter is showing it's weak spot. What it looks like from here is that Obama, for all his educational pedigree, for all his smooth talking and intelligent sound bites in speeches and Op-Eds, has turned out to be as intelligent, or even perhaps a little less so, that George W. Bush.

Yes, that seems like it couldn't be possible. But, if you look at it objectively, it looks like Obama hasn't been able to bring one of his cornerstone policy initiatives to fruition for a couple of reasons that wouldn't have hampered GW:

1. Obama's insistence on a bi-partisan health care reform bill was the equivalent of waving the red flag in the bull ring for Republicans. When or where did GW ever say "if I could only get those pesky Democrats to get on board I could do big things here..."?

2. The White House staying out of the drafting of the health care bill said to the political machine that Obama wasn't really all that serious to begin with and since he left his project in the hands of the very people that don't have the political will to make something this easy happen, so they gummed it up to the point that even they are confused about what it says. GW would have slapped the health care bill with a 'Threat Level Red' and made anyone who appeared to be against it afraid of their own shadows if they voted no!

When GW wanted something passed like the Patriot Act, the enhanced Foreign Surveillance or the authorization to screw everyone, anywhere, anytime, Congress didn't go on a break first. The Republicans and the chickens in the Democrats voted for anything he wanted. If they argued about it at all, they would be virtually run out of town as anti-American and supporters of terrorists!

When Obama wants something he believes in, he doesn't come across as determined enough or sincere enough to make it happen. He doesn't seem willing to fight for what he thinks is right, even if what he wants is something morally and ethically sound, such as universal health care for all. All it takes is the slightest amount of pushback to get him to stop the car and apologize for having been so inconsiderate to not think about the feelings of the nutcases out there trying to derail something that they don't even understand enough to have an informed opinion on. I'm not suggesting that the President pitch a fit to get his way, but I am suggesting that he act with a more forceful stature and put some wind onto his tongue to rachet up the tone to a more determined sounding level.

When you consider how legally wrong others have been when fighting for their wish lists, you know, like his predecessor, who attacked another country for no good reason, imprisoned people without charge or possibility of release, tortured and killed people in the name of our security, etc. it would seem that what he wants shouldn't even break a sweat to make happen. You would think that anyway....

I was thinking that how's this for irony: if we look at Obama's performance to date, I would suggest that if he were the President in 1861, the South may have been able to secede successfully with his blessings. I am not sure he would he have committed the Northern States to fight the decision of the Southern States to leave the Union, one that they no longer felt served their common desires and goals. He would have tried his best oratory to convince them of their terrible decisons and hey, maybe he would tell them that we need to look forward not back, so whatever you did to your slaves was okay! After all, they were just property still. Maybe his enticement would have been to offer up a plan to pay off the debts of big plantations perhaps!

But fight for the Union to stay together? Wow, that sounds like it could have involved alot of arguing and stuff. That wasn't why I wanted to be President. If I have to make a stand, someone will say something mean...

The following items are policy issues and decisions where Obama has simply failed to follow through on his campaign positions or has chosen to just follow in the footsteps of Bush:

1. Iraq & Afghanistan-why are we still fighting a war that everyone, even the right wing nuts that helped start it, has said they should be wound down and ended. We are up to our eyeballs in debt and yet we are still spending hundreds of billions more on these disasters.

2. Gitmo and military prisons in Iraq/Afghanistan: How does a constitutional lawyer find the courage to look in the mirror knowing that he is allowing American soldiers, mercinaries and intelligence agencies to KIDNAP men and boys who will be held without charge, subjected to torture, rape, sexual abuse, assaulte and murder while in our custody. His promise to shut down Gitmo and other prisons we operate just like it has fallen flat on its face.

3. Immigration-what is the deal with making some kind of headway on this issue too? People are still being treated like cattle in the Southwest and West. Racial tensions against Hispanic Americans is at an all-time high because of dumb-asses like Glenn Beck and Fox. Where is Obama? He's punting to next year naturally.

4. Health Care Reform: This was the Grand PooBah of issues for Obama and he didn't seem like he could give a rat's anus about the development or debate on the issue until the flutes were shrieking so loudly from the Republican Pipers and their media counterparts that Obama had no choice but to make some sort of statement on the matter. But, as usual, his half-hearted explanation was too weak, leaving too many to believe once again that he isn't being forthright on the matter.

5. Prosecutions of War Criminals within the US: AG Eric Holder is appointing a Special Prosecutor to investigate possible violations of federal and international laws when it comes to the issue of torture, but the AG doesn't want the Prosecutor to actually arrest anyone unless they went seriously over the authorized tortures that the Justice Dept. memos from John Yu and Co. describe in 2002.

Pay no attention to the fact that an interdepartmental memo is not a newly written law that has passed the Congress and been signed by the President, so it should be cut and dry you would imagine. Anyone that participated in, decided upon or authorized the use of illegal techniques which are banned by international law and US law should be arrested and prosecuted, up to and including the President of the United States.

Obama's preachy message on this matter trying to tell everyone we need to look forward instead of back is ridiculous. With that argument, every defense attorney in the US should be able to prevent their client from going to jail for any and every offense they are charged with. In fact, there shouldn't be any arrests for any crimes at all as long as you committed that crime between 2001 and 2008, right Mr. President? What's the criteria for getting out of jail free-just claim that someone killed the immigrant family in Arizona because they needed the money for the MinuteMan program and all is forgiven right? They were only selling meth to keep paying for more fencing so that the terrorists who live next door can be kept at bay right? Forgive them too right?

6. The Bailouts of the Banks: While these bailouts were no doubt necessary, what is more irritating than their complicity in creating the financial crisis is their use of that bailout money to continue to enrich themselves and consolidate their positions within the financial industry by buying more banks.

What about the people all over America who were still losing their homes by the tens of thousands every month? What about the fact that the banks were using money that could have been used to help those folks so that they could pay out outrageous sums of money in bonuses and buyouts? Mr. Obama didn't seem to care as much about the fact that there was a way to make it possible to keep people in their homes while saving the vampires in the financial system as well, although it may still turn out to be the wrong decision, but only time will tell...

7. The War on Drugs: If there has ever been a bigger, more intense policy failure than this one, I don't know what it is. The USA has spent nearly $10 Trillion since this idea hit the law books courtesy of Richard Nixon. That's more than we have spent on all of our wars, including the current debacles combined. It's enough money to buy South America outright and Afghanistan too and destroy every drug producing crop in both locations. But, that was never really what the 'war on drugs' was about. In the tapes made by Nixon, he discusses the reasons for the Controlled Substances Act-with particular emphasis on marijuana. Mr. Nixon was highly vexed at that time at the protestors who were giving him grief over Vietnam. To him, they were nothing but a bunch of pot-head hippies that he needed to sweep out of the way. However, Freedom of Speech was guaranteed (dammit), so he had to find another way to make the masses move. So, he insisted, against the advice of his medical panel, that marijuana be added to the top classification of dangerous drugs so that he could then use federal agencies, such as the newly formed DEA to arrest, harass and divide the protest movements.

Candidate Obama acknowledged that something had to change with this policy, however President Obama has made scoffing remarks about any real changes. He has failed to see the history of this picture as well. It was a policy set up not to save American's from drugs, but to save a Republican administration from protestors. They needed a boogey man, and it was born out of a marijuana plant. Since then, America has become the country with the highest number of citizen's in jail, the country with the highest number of drug arrests, the highest costs for the prosecution of the war on drugs from its burden on governments from the local to the federal levels, yet Mr. Obama is cool with that.

After all, who wants to argue with the Prison Guard Union? Or discuss folding the DEA up into the FBI? Or take responsibility for the fact that the government has been caught multiple times selling drugs, importing drugs and distributing drugs so that the profits could be used for black ops or politically sensitive ops that Congress would balk at funding? Yep, these are the real reasons aren't they?

In conclusion, is Obama a socialist or a socialite? Is Obama a President in the mold of those who came before him? Well, perhaps Mr. Carter, who was also very book smart, but not too good at managing politics. Some of my close friends have suggested that maybe I'm being too harsh on Mr. Obama, that he has a full plate and a large agenda to accomplish. Well, that may be true, but think of it this way: If Mr. Obama used the same kind of zealousness that GW used in 2002 to sell Iraq as the boogeyman, but instead used it to fix the problems noted above, then he might get my respect, and perhaps even my vote in 2012. I believe he and American's can fix anything, but we have to want to don't we?

I must suggest that Mr. Obama watch "The Simpson's Movie" which has a classic scene with President Schwarzenegger making a big decision. He gets five "unthinkable" program choices placed on his desk and told he has to pick one. The Prez immediately says "#3." The Secretary says "Aren't you going to read them first?" and the Prez says "I'm paid TO LEAD not to READ."

We were hoping that Obama could do both.

Being An "Illegal Immigrant" Doesn't Mean A Person of No Value

2009-08-11T06:10:00Z

MIGRANTS NO MORE

I came across this article while looking for stats on how many of the farmworkers in America are considered to be here illegally. In this search, I've read article after article that details the prejudice, the inhumanity and the outright ignorance of those who would proclaim themselves "better people" because they have U.S. Citizenship. Well, the comments found here are proof that where you are born has nothing to do with the level of class or humanity you will have as you mature.

As an American and a Native American descendant, I understand all too well the implications of unchecked immigration. In 1850 when California became a state, the government offered a reward of $25 for the head of any Native American that was brought in (more for children). California reduced the Native population by 177,000 men, women and children that first year.

Those events, while seemingly centuries apart from today, are still being called for by the same mentality that was prevailant in the 1850's--the idea that the white people who where swarming the gold fields were superior somehow, more deserving of life. Are we not all human beings, regardless of our origin, our color, our race, our religion, our orientation? Are we not all the children of somebody's God?

The Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses who yearn to be free." That statue is a world-wide icon for America, given to us by France. If you truly are an American, then you know that to be an American means more than showing your birth certificate at the local KKK rally, it means adhering to a higher ideal of what it means to be a member of a civilation that honors the lowest worker, the poorest immigrant and the achievements that they may yet provide to the common good, if only given the chance to thrive as your forefathers were allowed to do so many years ago

A Special Comment On Health Care

2009-08-11T01:32:00Z

Ken Olberman has something to say about the Health Care issues that should shine a light on the whole topic. If you aren't able to see why the health care reform package is falling apart, this special report should help you to take a new look at it.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Also, look at what I wrote to the White House on this issue...

An Excerpt From A Letter To A Friend

2009-08-11T01:18:00Z

In today’s paranoid society anything can happen. It’s truly a historic opportunity in some ways to monitor and observe how a society can feed upon its own ignorance and then convince itself that acting against their own interests will have the best results.

I can only imagine that this was the way that every large Empire finally collapsed, spurred on by the elite rich bastards in their contemporary social settings causing more and more of the money to vanish into thin air, while those at the bottom manage to get dumber and dumber until a point is reached when the rich cannot pile the money hill any higher and the dumb figure out how to use a guillotine!

Ah, history thus repeated over and over thanks to our inherent and unapologetic defect that insists we must not learn from our past mistakes, instead we must make them grander the next time!

If you’re wondering what the fuck I’m babbling on about, then you are in good company. Most of America and the world for that matter seem to be in a grey haze of denial, but reality is coming to a world near you (and me too) as nature lets us know who is really the boss around here!

Until then, I must watch with unending amazement and disbelief as our nation tries is hardest to prove how stupid American’s are while the entire world watches on the Net.

A NOTE TO THE WHITE HOUSE

2009-08-11T01:12:00Z

Hello to the folks running the White House:
As you sit back and watch how the Republicans are running circles around you guys on the health care issue, it must strike some of you as something that seems out of place. If you take into account the wide majority that the Democrats hold in the House, then look at the Senate with a filibuster breaking 60 votes, you would think that these issues would be a breeze to get past.

Well, how come that isn't the case? It comes down to a simple fact of life that you folks running the White House haven't come to terms with yet. What you have here is a case of Mr. Obama having some very good educational credentials (book smarts) but very little political skills (street smarts).

Since Mr. Obama has taken office, he seemed to be starting off on the right foot, but as time has passed, his lack of political skills are starting to show like white socks on at a formal affair. What is going to happen if this isn't dealt with immediately? What is going to happen in the long run?

The message coming from you all who advise Mr. Obama should be to start acting like a President that had a 60% + approval rating instead of like a kid asking for a dime on the street corner. You may not see this from where you are at, but American's are the type that like a strong hand at the helm, even when they aren't too sure that the course being taken is the right one.

You can look back at Bush & Co. to see that the public, even though they didn't like him by the end still didn't outright despise him because in his dopey, quarky and dimwitted way he still stuck to his guns and made some people feel that he was in charge.

Mr. Obama is going to be single term President at the rate he is going, not because he isn't a good man, but because he isn't standing out as a good President. He needs to lobby the Representatives and Senators DIRECTLY that are holding up his agenda. He needs to be seen as taking this issue by the horns and wrestling it under his control by the public, no matter how many town halls are disrupted by the health care lobbyists.

He needs to show us that he is a leader, not just a negotiator.

And it's up to you folks that run the White House and advise the President to start telling him so.

If You Are Unemployed, You Aren't Being Looked After

2009-07-25T20:22:00Z

I had the unfortunate luck of becoming unemployed in October 2006 when I was working for my Tribe's casino in Coarsegold California. As fate and fortune would have it, with a strong dose of politics, greed, corruption and finger-pointing to boot, I was fired within two weeks of being disenrolled from the Tribe. The disenrollments had been gearing up for the year before I was given the "thanks for stopping by" treatment, but being forced out of work on top of it was horrific.

I lucked out and was able to collect unemployment right away because the Casino management team knew what was going on. They could have tried the usual tricks by stating that I had been fired for some obscure rule violation which would have automatically placed my claim into an appeal process that usually takes several months to finish. I was lucky on that point.

However, those 26 weeks went by in a blur in retrospect. I sent out resume's, I talked to people in person and yet I just didn't seem to get anywhere. By October of 2007, I had only one interview and that was over the phone. I also had to collect food stamps for the first time in my life during the summer. It was something that took me two weeks to actually go to do because I was so embarrassed by the predicament I was in.

Anyone who feels that people who are getting a helping hand from the "welfare" system is nothing better than a bum has never had to experience the humiliation that the people in the county assistance office put our group through. For $129 in food stamps and $200 in cash aid, you were expected to make three job applications a day, regardless of whether you had transportation or where you live in the county. If you didn't have a car, they would provide bus passes. If you didn't live near the bus lines, that's your problem.

And, naturally, you didn't get the cash aid until it was approved at a follow up appointment in two weeks to see if you had applied to 45 jobs by then.

So, on the day of my appointment, I brought in my paperwork showing where I had applied to. Fortunately for me, I still had my internet connection paid for by relatives so I applied online to 45 different companies whether they had jobs posted or not. However, the county employee told me that making these applications in that manner was unacceptable and that she would have no choice but to deny me any aid, including food stamps.

Here is where the irony rubs the keyboard--the majority of the places that I applied to were provided within the paperwork that I was given the first day I applied for help. In fact, one of the requirements of continued participation (which means eligibility) was that I be registered through an online service for employment. Now, here was this women shouting at me telling me that I was just being lazy and that I was trying to bend the rules and she wouldn't have it.

I, as politely as I could muster, told her that I followed the rules as outlined in my guide, and that I would not be treated like a beggar at the back door, and that she could stuff those papers somewhere....well, you get the idea. I went home feeling like I had been kicked in the nuts while crawling to shore from a shipwreck. I drafted a four page letter detailing what had transpired and sent it to the County supervisor, who surprisingly enough, actually acted on it. I got one check and one food stamp month. I didn't reapply because I just would not let myself be subjected to any further episodes such as the one I had already experienced.

It was sometime in mid-2008 when Congress and the rest of the system started to realize that financial meltdowns weren't just happening at the banker's house, they were happening everywhere. By this time, I had already lost my car, I had already cashed out my 401K (now I owe the fed's $10K in penalties so I didn't have to move to the street corner), and I had sold everything that I thought I could live without, just short of my dignity (which was starting to waiver considerably by then).

Thus the first of three extensions became available, with their payments broken up over the next year or more. I am on the third extension and this one, like the county aid program, requires a work search record be submitted with each claim form. This isn't too difficult to manage, but finding someone who is hiring certainly is. In a job market where there is one job for every six unemployed persons nationally, or in one like Fresno, CA where that is more like one job for every eleven people unemployed, its a serious challenge to find a nibble out there.

Well, after a long haul, I got a nibble from Olive Garden's management recruiter. We had an interview on July 11, 2009. I wrote down on my job search that I had an interview (which is requested under the "results" tab), and sent in my claim form. When the check came, it was 50% less than it was supposed to be with no explanation on it. There was also no continued claim form attached. I started to get a little ancy about this, you know...what could be wrong here?

I tried calling the EDD offices, but I am pretty sure that I would have a better chance of connecting with Obama before I got them on the line. However, I didn't have to wait long to find out what happened. I got another claim form in the mail with a note that said I was scheduled for a phone interview on August 17th, 2009 to determine further eligibility. This would be one month from the date that I got my last check. It said to read the back for more information.

As it turns out, the questions are concerning whether I turned down the job I interviewed for, if I was told the conditions of the job, and why I would have turned in down. Hmmm, I know that state employee's have pretty secure jobs once they pass their probationary periods, so whoever thought that having an interview equates to getting hired has obviously not been out looking for a job in quite some time.

In fact, I have yet to hear any word from the recruiter either good, bad or otherwise. This company has a relatively lengthy hiring process so that they are sure that they are hiring the right people. I worked for them before in 2000 and it took over six weeks, two interviews and a 300 question test to get hired!

So, here I am in the meantime, cut off from funds for the next six weeks so that the EDD can ask me why I didn't take a job I wasn't offered.

I guess if I had a bank in my name, I wouldn't be waiting for the money to come in now would I?

It's too bad that America treats American's so poorly, especially when we've been kicked in the gut by the financial system's irresponsible behavior, yet the care seems to still favor the fools don't they.

Legalize Marijuana Now-Open Letter to California's Senators

2009-07-25T20:12:00Z

This was my letter to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, after I joined the Drup Policy Alliance Network. Honestly folks, it's time we stopped this bullshit and started focusing on what works-and arresting people isn't the answer that the law enforcement community has been selling to us all these years.

I urge you to join the Drug Policy Alliance Network also by clicking on the link after the letter!

Senator:

I am writing to you today to urge you to do something for the people you represent that is desperately overdue. I understand that there are two bills now running around in the system that would make marijuana use by cancer patients a protected activity and for personal use by adults a legal activity as well.

Ma'am, I always voted for you in each election since you ran for the Senate and the times you ran for re-election. I also voted for your counterpart Miss Boxer. What I have trouble understanding is how the two of you, who I believe to be intelligent individuals (which means that I believe you have more under the hood than just political moxie) have failed to grasp just how impossible it is to regulate the behavior of human beings, especially when it comes to items such as drug use, alcohol use, tobacco--heck, even porn.

There has never been a successful challenge to the prevention of any of the aforementioned items in human history. And, we are spending tens of billions RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT proving that fact to be correct even as I write these words.

Ma'am, if the threat of burning in hell for eternity cannot scare these behaviors out of humans, then the threat of jail isn't going to do it either. Why is it that the government didn't bring the lessons learned from Prohibition forward into the drug policies?

Of the top three reasons noted as to why marijuana is actually illegal-(1) because it was associated with illegal or migrant workers; (2) Hearst Corp. owned paper-mills and large tracts of forest waiting to be processed and didn't want the competition for paper production and (3) BIG PHARMA hasn't figured out how to make a synthetic version of the natural cannaboids yet, so they haven't been able to slap a patent on it, I think #3 holds the most water.

Frankly, this country should be ashamed and embarrassed at the way we pursue the almighty dollar. We look like a bunch of dogs chasing around the ever desired, always in heat bottom line. Well, in the case of marijuana, it's time to bring this chapter of American injustice to a close. It's time to put some DEA agents into new units investigating crimes that really do matter such as FINANCIAL CRIMES BY CORPORATIONS, CRIMES BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH LEADING US TO TRILLION DOLLAR WARS, and so on.

It's time to shut down the 50% of our prisons that are holding our fellow citizen's because they have been convicted of a MINOR DRUG OFFENSE! Doesn't it ever cross the minds of the men and women in the US Congress just how much money this country is wasting on a pursuit that can never be won?

I heard an estimate of $10 Trillion has been spent since the war on drugs began in 1973. What has all that money bought us? We could have purchased South America in total by now! The annual budget for drug interdiction is higher than the amount of estimated illegal purchases, which means, in a sense, that if the government was really, truly exercising this war for the benefit of the citizens, then it would be cheaper and more efficient to simply purchase the entire supply of illegal drugs outright, thus preventing them from reaching their markets (with cocaine and heroine). But, that wasn't what this has been all about-it's all about money, jobs, power, and abuses (need I mention Iran-Contra).

Ma'am, there is one more thing that I believe that you need to do for California. Right now, several people are in federal prisons for LEGALLY DISTRIBUTING marijuana under California laws to persons with prescriptions from medical doctors. These folks have been given unbelievable sentences of 20 years or more! As one of the representatives of the People of California at the federal level, I implore you to either introduce legislation that would release these people or speak on behalf of your fellow Californian's to Obama to get a pardon set up for all of them.

When I read that the Assembly was considering legalization of personal use and sales in retail outlets, I was stunned. We haven't even helped the people we have allowed to go to jail that helping CANCER PATIENTS for heaven's sake! And now they are considering adding more of our citizen's to the federal pen?

Just think about that last example ma'am. Don't you see how ludicrous it is that the federal government is preventing the sovereign states and the people within them from exercising their rights as an informed and intelligent citizen to determine whether or not to allow the cultivation, sales and use of a PLANT that has been used throughout our nation's history, even by the Founding Fathers?

I apologize if I am sounding a little preaching. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder how our nation has gotten itself onto such a wrong path-where war against its own citizens is looked at with such nonchalance and unconcern from our elected leaders and our own neighbors as well.

I hope that you can see fit to help to turn the tide before your service is over ma'am. As this nation becomes more and more polarized, I fear that making choices because they are just and because they help to heal us are going to become harder to accomplish as the 'din of the dumb' overwhelms everyone, as they pound their drums on the radio and the cable...

Thank you.

JOIN THE DRUG POLICY NETWORK NOW

MR OBAMA, YOU ARE WRONG NOT TO PROSECUTE

2009-06-08T11:10:00Z

Mr. Obama, you are wrong not to prosecute the Bush officials that lied about everything while they were in office, leading us the most expensive wars ever fought, thousands of American dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani dead, and our reputation as a country of justice cut to shreds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30877373#30254996

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Native Americans Have Only Small Representation

2009-03-11T12:22:00Z

Do you think you know what really goes on inside a Tribe? Think again. Read the linking articles to get a better picture of how the gaming system has decimated the Tribes like never before.

Incredible Shrinking Chukchansi

Resolution Proposal From Democrats

Resolution Adoption by Native Caucus

Severed Bloodlines From the Bee

HUNDREDS EXPELLED FROM CHUKCHANSI TRIBE

2009-03-02T03:28:00Z

This story from The Fresno Bee is accurate and timely. Please read it and make comments at www.fresnobee.com.

Saturday, Feb. 28, 2009

By Chris Collins / The Fresno Bee

With millions of dollars flowing into the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino near Coarsegold each month, the Indians of the Picayune Rancheria have tapped into a source of wealth they hope will end decades of poverty.

But not everyone gets to share the bounty.

Over the last several years, the tribe has expelled about half its members, stripping them of their Native American heritage, former members say.

Hundreds have been cut from the rolls even though many could clearly document their Chukchansi descent, they said. Some had been tribal leaders. Even two of the last 10 people who speak the tribe's language were removed, one former member said.

Those who were kicked out of the tribe, including the jobless or elderly, lost health-care benefits, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. subsidies, college scholarships and any hope for a share of casino profits.

Those who remain could receive significantly larger payouts from the casino now that membership has been slashed, former members say.

"What better way to get more money in the future than to whittle down your tribe?" asked Mary Chapman, a 71-year-old retired Fresno County worker who says she was expelled after she questioned the disenrollments.

Tribal Chairman Morris Reid says the disenrollments were necessary to correct past membership mistakes and had nothing to do with increasing the wealth of remaining tribal members.

"We had to find out if they were qualified Chukchansi," he said. "It was a process and procedure that had to be followed."

But some who have been expelled say the move contradicts the original purpose of Indian gaming: to draw a long-suffering people out of poverty and unite them in prosperity.

"It's really a sad day when your people are engaging in the theft of your identity to line their pockets," said Cathy Cory, a special-education teacher in Porterville who was disenrolled along with 41 members of her family.

The Chukchansi tribe had 23 members two decades ago after it was officially recognized by the federal government. The tribe boosted membership to more than 1,500 by the late 1990s, in part to increase federal aid, tribal leaders later said.

Then, as the sparkling casino doors swung open in 2003, the seven-member tribal council decided it had enrolled too many people. It ordered a membership audit and, according to former members, kicked out more than 500 members in 2006. It had already expelled more than 200 members years earlier.

Those disenrolled include retirees and children, teachers and college students -- some in the Valley and others scattered across the country. The tribal council voted to kick out members who had served on tribal committees and on the tribal council, and booted at least one sitting council member. Others were removed from the tribe even though their blood relatives were allowed to stay.

The federal government hasn't recorded membership since 2005, but former members say the tribe has about 760 people. Reid, the chairman, estimated membership at 900 to 1,100, but said he did not have an exact count.

Reid said more Chukchansi Indians will be enrolled in the coming years, but did not offer specifics.

Because Indian tribes are considered sovereign nations, the federal government and U.S. courts have no say in tribal disputes. Much of the information about the disenrollments comes from former casino managers and former tribal members -- some of whom were in leadership positions -- and copies of internal tribal documents they provided. Reid gave a brief phone interview, but did not return later calls. Attorneys for the tribe did not return calls.

Disenrollments by casino-owning tribes have made headlines across the country for years. The epicenter of the debate is in California, where the 57 Indian gaming tribes bring in more than $7 billion a year.

In the last decade, about 2,500 people have been kicked out of 14 California tribes, almost all of them gaming tribes, said Laura Wass, the Central California director for the American Indian Movement and a leading advocate for disenrolled Indians. Chukchansi has been the most ambitious, accounting for about one-third of the disenrollments, said Wass, who has worked closely with expelled Chukchansi Indians and members disenrolled from other tribes.

In 2005, about a year before the Chukchansi disenrollments, the tribe's membership overwhelmingly voted to stop the disenrollments, said Bryan Galt, a former chairman of the tribe's enrollment committee. But the tribal council decided the vote was invalid because some members who voted had pending disenrollment hearings.

A similar measure was put to a vote in December 2008. By then, more than 500 members had been expelled -- almost half the tribe -- and the amendment failed by a slim margin.

Former members fear that those with political clout in the tribe will likely interpret the vote as a signal that they can plow ahead with more disenrollments.

Jeff Livingston, who was the casino's CEO from 2005 until early 2008 and is not a member of any tribe, said tribal members and even tribal leaders constantly worry about whether they will be the next to be expelled.

"To this day, everybody's looking over their shoulder. The trust is gone," said Livingston, who said he was fired from his job after getting into a dispute with tribal leaders. "There are people in there and on the board who will slim it down until they're satisfied."

Big money: $1.5m a day

According to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 28% of the tribe was unemployed in 2005, even before the recession.

But prosperity seems to be just around the corner for those who remain.

The tribe's $180 million, 300,000-square-foot casino off Highway 41 has 1,800 slot machines, 48 card tables, and seven restaurants. In 2005, it issued a $310 million bond to pay off debt, expand the casino and build an 11-story hotel tower.

Galt, who was a manager at the casino until shortly after his disenrollment in September 2006, said the casino's revenue is staggering -- even though it has been curbed by the economic downturn.

Before the recession, up to 15,000 people would walk through the doors every day, forking over about $1.5 million every 24 hours. Average monthly revenue was $12 million in 2007, Galt said.

"People don't understand how much money we made," he said. "Every six weeks, we had the equivalent of the city of Fresno visit the casino."

Most of that money has gone toward casino expansion and paying down debt, Galt said. The tribe also promised the Grizzlies $16 million to name Fresno's ballpark and spent millions more on police and fire protection in Madera County.

In December 2007 -- less than a year after the disenrollments -- each of the remaining members got a $7,000 stipend, courtesy of casino profits, former and current members said. Since then, members have received $300-per-month payouts.

That is a pittance compared to what some tiny gaming tribes pay members: up to $20,000 a month. Disenrolled Chukchansi members and other critics say the tribe is hoarding casino profits, waiting for the economy to recover and the tribe to shrink further before spreading the wealth among the fortunate few.

"There is only one reason you disenroll people -- you disenroll people for greed," said Livingston, the former casino CEO.

More members, more funds

The U.S. government has decided to let tribes decide for themselves who should be a member. But years of shifting government policies, diluted blood lines and lost records have made it difficult to determine who is Chukchansi and who isn't.

In an attempt to force Indians to assimilate into American society, the U.S. government "terminated" many California tribal reservations in the 1950s and 1960s -- including the Picayune Rancheria, home to the Chukchansi. Decades later, a lawsuit forced the government to rerecognize the tribe.

In 1988, the Chukchansi drafted a constitution and, like many newly recognized tribes at the time, sought out distant relatives scattered across the country. It didn't matter how much Chukchansi blood they had -- the tribe wanted them in.

Years later, tribal leaders would admit that the effort was at least partly motivated by money.

"We enrolled members over time because it 'served our interest,' " the tribal council wrote in a February 2005 newsletter, explaining why it was cutting back membership. "The greater our membership numbers, the more dollars we received from the BIA."

Livingston said the larger membership also helped legitimize the tribe in the eyes of investors -- making it easier for the tribe to secure a loan to build a casino.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs still provides the tribe with assistance -- about $260,000 this fiscal year -- on top of funding from other federal government agencies for housing subsidies and other welfare programs.

There is, however, no evidence that any of the federal funding has been used to build the casino or fund its operations.

Hearings process 'a joke'

By the late 1990s, the future casino was on everyone's mind. A Sacramento management company called Cascade Entertainment Group was trying to secure a deal with the tribe. But the tribal chairwoman at the time, Daisy Liedkie, believed the company was driving too hard a bargain.

Liedkie said that tribal leaders who supported the Cascade deal turned on her. She said that one day in June 1999, about 20 people showed up at the tribal office, yelled and spat at her, and told her to leave. Madera County sheriff's deputies who arrived at the scene described it in a report as "some sort of insurrection by Indian subjects."

According to Bureau of Indian Affairs records, the upheaval prompted the BIA to send the tribe a letter threatening to suspend federal recognition if it didn't "eliminate the influence of political factions."

Within months, Liedkie said, she and more than 200 relatives and supporters had been expelled from the tribe. The next year, California voters approved Proposition 1A, which allowed Las Vegas-style gambling on Indian land.

As construction was under way on the casino in early 2003, tribal leaders began discussions about "auditing" its membership. Reid, the tribal chairman, insists the timing was a coincidence.

He said that the tribe didn't have the resources to do a necessary audit until the casino was built.

By 2005, the disenrollment debate had reached a fever pitch.

There were screaming matches during hours-long tribal council meetings, say those who were in attendance. People would openly challenge committee members and council members, yelling, "You don't belong here!"

At one marathon meeting that lasted until midnight, some members in favor of disenrollments brought sleeping bags and threatened to stay until they got their way.

The new enrollment committee soon came up with a list of more than 500 people who should be expelled.

Disenrollment hearings began in May 2006 and lasted into early 2007. At first, the hearings lasted 45 minutes. But soon the tribal council only allowed 20-minute hearings, said Wass, who represented more than 100 members at the hearings.

She said the members often brought documents that recorded their Native American heritage. But most of the time, the tribal council didn't dispute that the disenrollees were of Chukchansi descent. Instead, they insisted the members had failed to meet other criteria, like applying for membership before an April 1990 cutoff date. But because membership records had been stolen a decade earlier, it was sometimes impossible to prove otherwise.

"The process was a joke," said Cory, the special-education teacher. "At the hearing, everything was timed. I had a written request to tape the hearing, but [the chairman] ordered me to take the recorder out of the room.

"I represented myself and my four children, but only one person could speak. That was the rule. If you had an attorney, only the attorney could speak. If you didn't show up to the hearing, they would disenroll you on the spot."

The tribal council members, meanwhile, were paid to run the approximately 30 hearings. At a July 8, 2006, meeting that was held without notice, the council members voted to give themselves $250 each for every disenrollment hearing, said Cory, who was at that meeting.

The tribe defended the hearings in a statement to Capitol Weekly, a Sacramento newspaper, in August 2007. The tribe said it took "the necessary time to ensure the process was accurate" and made sure that "every individual was given due process under the tribe's law."

But those who were disenrolled had no recourse. The Bureau of Indian Affairs says it tries to stay out of any membership arguments and the tribal council's decisions were final.

Galt also was disenrolled. He has century-old documents that indicate his ancestors received an allotment of land from the federal government. The tribe's constitution states that any Chukchansi who is a descendant of an allottee can apply to be a member at any time.

The tribal council conceded that Galt was Chukchansi, but said his ancestor had received a homestead allotment, which it said was different from other allotments, and therefore Galt should never have been enrolled in the tribe in the first place, according to a letter the tribe sent Galt.

A surreptitious recording of the hearing captures council member Harold Hammond Sr. at the end of the meeting bluntly telling Galt: "You're not native no more."

More disenrollments in the future?

When the dust settled, the tribe didn't look anything like it had only a few years earlier. In 2005, tribal officials told the BIA it had 1,234 members. Livingston said that at a meeting in June 2007, a council member announced that the tribe had 691 members.

Current and former members worry about what will happen next.

"I expect more disenrollments to follow," said Chapman, the retiree. "It may not be right away, but it will happen."

The reporter can be reached at ccollins@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6412.

OBAMA WAFFLING ON SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

2009-01-13T13:55:00Z

On several televised appearances this past week, President Elect Obama has been asked questions that the public has listed as one of their top concerns. One of the top questions that has been on many peoples minds is the appointment of a special prosecutor to examine the illegal policies of the Bush Administration as it acted with arrogance and impunity to wage their version of the "war on terror."

Mr. Obama has been evasive about whether he will appoint someone, or even if he supports the idea to to take on the outgoing administration's many, many transgressions. This is not what we have come to expect or believe what Obama is about. During his interviews, he touted the need to follow the law and expressed his belief that everyone should follow the law, but he also stated that he was more concerned about moving forward rather than looking back.

The fact that this is total crap coming from him is an understatement. I am embarrassed for him and I can only hope that he can see that bringing justice to those who deserve it isn't going to hold up the progress that still needs to be made in the economy and in every other disaster being left on his plate, nor will it undermine our national security.
On the other hand, if Obama doesn't make the call to investigate and prosecute those persons responsible for illegal activities against American citizens, illegal activities under the War Crimes Act, the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights, and who knows what other laws that have been broken, then he is in fact creating a situation that will endanger our national security and our standing in the world community. He is also doing one more thing that maybe hasn't crossed his mind just yet-he is aiding and abetting people guilty of multiple felonies, which is a felony itself.
Is this the way he wants to start what was supposed to be the era of change? If he allows the sins of the Bush administration to go unchallenged and unpunished, he is setting this country on a collision course with itself. There can never be any excuse for allowing anyone, including a President, to so blatantly violate the laws of this country and of the international community. If Obama decides that Mr. Bush and company should not be prosecuted because we need to look forward and not look back, then by extension everyone who has committed any crimes during the past eight years should be entitled to that same courtesy, everyone.
In a democracy, every human is supposed to have the same rights, protections and responsibilities as their friends, family and fellow countrymen. If Bush's illegal policies are going to be swept under the rug, then lets pass around the kool-aid everywhere and forgive every son-of-a-bitch who's ever done anything wrong as too. They would be just as entitled to this forgiveness.
I am encouraging anyone that reads this to visit the web site Change.org to sign a petition to demand that Obama support the appointment of a special prosecutor. It's a sad moment for me to have to even ask others to tell Obama to DO THE RIGHT THING before he even get's going.
Shame, shame, shame.

NASHVILLE, XENOPHOBIA AND THE AMERICAN DREAM

2009-01-11T12:17:00Z

After reading the article on Nashville Metropolitan Council Member Eric Crafton’s drive to purge languages other than English from Nashville, it makes me ponder what kind of people feel that it is appropriate to squeeze non-English verbalization out of the public and private lives of our fellow citizens. Now, some of the citizens in Nashville seem to believe that spending money on translations each year is a waste. No one in Nashville seems to be looking at one pile of wasted money: the Nashville Metropolitan Council. According to their web site, the Council has 40 Council members and a Vice Mayor/President to operate a city of 600,000. By comparison: LA has 15 Council/3.7million. NY has 50/7.5million. Fresno CA has 7 Council/450K.

So, what’s up with Nashville? I am challenging Mr. Crafton and those who are think in this fashion to prove to me and to any other reasonable thinker out there how making English the official and only legally used communication from the government will benefit the people that the government is chartered to serve. Please show us some type of decade long study prepared by a group of Nobel Peace Prize winning smarty-pants that proves xenophobic isolation through language suppression is good for business, good for society and good for human kind. The true irony of these English Only crusaders is their complete lack of vision for the future and their utter lack of understanding of the past.

This country was built on the backs and with the blood, sweat and tears of millions of immigrants that did not speak English when they arrived, and in some cases may have lived out their remaining lives never having learned it either. But, that didn’t prevent them from contributing to the greatest accumulation of knowledge and wealth ever compiled under the government of a single country in the history of the human race. Yes, it wasn’t just English speaking people that made America great, it was that proverbial melting pot of cultures, races, languages and beliefs that brought the spark of freedom given to us by the Nation’s Founders and allowed it to turn into a beautiful beacon that beckons to people from around the world even now.

It is this diversity that has given us Barack Obama as the symbol of just what America is supposed to be: diverse and glad for it. Mr. Crafton’s stated goal is to bring this kind of Dark Ages thinking to as many places as possible around the country. I can only hope that the voters of Nashville are smarter than their leaders and that they see this initiative for what is really is: our leaders using an issue to create anxiety about something that is trivial for the sole purpose of making themselves feel smarter, more powerful and more dedicated to their agenda of ignorance and intolerance.

I find myself asking this question with alarming frequency lately: “Where have the true leaders of America gone to? Where are those men and women that would stand at the front of the line to speak out against this kind of intolerance and rally those who believe in the American Dream? Is the legacy of America going to become lost to those who will follow us today?”

I have my bet on you my fellow American’s, even if it takes you a little longer to stand up to rally each other than it did in years gone by, only you can make the changes and face the challenges that lie ahead. We collectively come from families with the pioneering spirit, and the will to see it through. Let’s put an end to intolerance once and for all. Let’s stop the hate and instead celebrate our common thread: we are all human no matter where we are from or what language we speak. We are all in America to make it a better place for each other, not just for ourselves.

The Pentagon and The Constitution

2008-12-22T22:56:00Z

In a recent Washington Post submission, former Air Force officer and high ranking Bush Administration official Thomas Schweich makes an important observation concerning the Department of Defense and their anaconda-like grip on the national agenda. The DOD is slowly taking over this country right in front of everyone's eyes (see Washington_Post)

The big question is what do we as citizens do about this situation. For starters, you need to start looking at the way you vote. Yes, the best thing to do is check out how your Congressmen and women are voting to see if they are part of the problem. In many instances, the DOD is being given way too much leeway in the budget and they are also getting way too many of the requests they make, and in some cases, requests that they didn't!

If you see that your Congressman or woman isn't voting in a manner that is consistent with keeping the military under civilian control, then perhaps its time for a new Congressman or woman. That's the first step.

The next step is to make sure that the military and the government are clear on what you think about the potential for the military to have too much say so in the way things are done in this country. The best way to do this (after the first step above that is) is to write letters to the editor, to make noise and to get people to notice what the problem is so that we can have maximum citizen participation in taking back the government from these interlopers!

It's our country, lets not let it go to those who respect it least by their actions to take over the government.

How Climate Change Is Killing Our Oceans

2008-11-28T05:52:00Z

The most pressing example of climate change's impact is not monster hurricanes, retreating glaciers or water wars. It's the humble swimming sea snail.

The tiny pteropod has difficulty growing a shell in a warmer planet's acidified ocean waters. Given the snails' role at the base of the cold-water food chain, its struggle threatens the entire polar ecosystem, through salmon to seals and whales.

The problem is one of many associated with ocean acidification. That change is well underway -- a consequence of warming that has already happened and fossil-fuel emissions that have long since been dumped into the atmosphere.

In absorbing those emissions the oceans have buffered humanity from the worst effects of climate change. But in doing so ocean chemistry has changed, acidifying to levels not seen in 800,000 years.

The result, according to a new report issued by Oceana, is that today's ocean chemistry is already hostile for many creatures fundamental to the marine food web. The world's oceans -- for so long a neat and invisible sink for humanity's carbon dioxide emissions -- are about to extract a price for all that waste.

The effects are not local: Entire ecosystems threaten to literally crumble away as critters relying on calcium carbonate for a home -- from corals to mollusks to the sea snail -- have a harder time manufacturing their shells. Corals shelter millions of species worldwide, while sea snails account for upwards of 45 percent of the diet of pink salmon.

To avoid the most serious problems associated with acidification, Oceana and other scientists warn, society must hold atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 350 parts-per-million, roughly 25 percent higher than the pre-industrial mark.

The rub is that the globe has already passed 385 ppm. And many economists and climatologists figure the peak will lie somewhere north of 570 ppm before society figures out how to curb emissions.

Click here to read the full article on Alternet.org

From the Fresno Bee

2008-11-28T03:10:00Z

THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS FROM A USER GENERATED CONVERSATION AT THE FRESNO BEE'S WEBSITE. I POSTED MY RESPONSE IN THE CORRECT ORDER THAT IT WOULD HAVE APPEARED ON THE BEE'S WEBSITE. DUE TO THE NUMBER OF LINKS ON MY RESPONSE, THEIR SERVER WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BE POSTED:

Misrepresenting the Al qaeda-Iraq Connection
From New American by Thomas R. Eddlem 2-9-04

Colin Powell's recent admission that the Bush administration had no "concrete evidence" tying Saddam Hussein's regime to al-Qaeda was a full reversal of his statement to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003. In that speech, Powell stated: "Iraq officials deny accusations of ties with al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible."
More importantly, the specifics cited by Bush and Powell were--at best--deceptive. For example, when Mr. Bush stated in his February 8, 2003 radio address that a "terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner ... runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq," he failed to mention that the area in question was in Kurdish-held territory, outside Saddam Hussein's control.

Bush on 9-27-02: “The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq,” Bush said Thursday after a meeting with House members to promote a congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq.

MAKING THE TIES TO AL QAEDA

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent," the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

THE FAKE IRAQI THREAT

Council on Foreign Relations March/April 2006
The greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned not WMD (there was indeed a broad consensus that such programs existed), but the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.

FROM CNN REPORT:
Bush and top aides publicly made 935 false statements about security risk posed by Iraq. Bush made 232 false statements, including 28 about Iraq's links to alqaeda.

The War Crimes Act and Hamden vs Rumsfeld
The Bush Administration knew that it was violating this Act along with the Geneva Conventions. In their argument that members of Al qaeda didn't qualify for Geneva protections, they were forced to acknowledge that there had been instances wherein captured individuals had been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation, which is the buzzword for torture.
Thanks to precedent set by the United States, Russia, France and Brittain after WW2, the leaders of a nation that condone and authorize the use of unlawful tactics towards human beings can be held criminally liable for the actions of their subordinates, which is what happened following the Nuremburg trials.
BUSH IS SEEKING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

The Bush administration is fully aware of these facts and has been working diligently to find any available loophole, even to the point of issuing a pardon for himself, so that he can avoid US prosecution for his actions. That pardon does not prevent The Hague from pursuing further actions, or governments of the countries that had citizens arrested by the US and tortured.
US EMBASSY BRIEF ON TORTURE

Bush Authorizes Illegal Strikes into other Countries

Click here for story

Obstruction of Justice
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today that President Bush personally halted an internal Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales and other senior department officials acted within the law in approving and overseeing the administration's domestic surveillance program.
FROM NATIONAL JOURNAL

RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE LIVES OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND OTHER LIVES
Soldiers Killed: 4136
Wounded: 30182

Number of Iraqi's Killed: from 655,000 to 1.2 million (from military actions, civil infighting and sectarian violence) since invasion.
FROM CNN REPORTS

Reference Documentaries: "Taxi to the Dark Side" : "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" : "Uncovered: The War on Iraq"--Each documents war crimes, cover ups and more. If you can watch these documentaries and still make excuses for what has transpired, then you must seek counseling immediately!

Cat's got your tongue Bryan?
Gary Callaway | 11.26.08 - 10:03 pm | #

Bryan,

No can you list in detail the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam violated prior to Gulf War II in 2003 with the same "legal pulpit" in mind?
Sid | 11.24.08 - 9:57 pm | #

Ah crap Bryan. I posted a response to you but I think it got lost in the ether.

Let me try again:

I honestly appreciate all your effort, but here's my problem:

You provide the text of a few laws, but you fail to provide specific examples of the Bush Administration violating them.

"9/11 linked to Iraq". WHEN? I've been paying attention and I've NEVER heard this stated by Bush or his people. I don't know anyone who thinks this. Guide me to the text of a speech or document that makes this claim.

Outright lie: "Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in". He sure jerked 'em around though.

Reckless disregard: "Iraq is a grave and gathering threat". Can't you remember the Clinton's, Albright, Cohen, Feinstein saying the same thing? Should we hang 'em all?

War crimes. What war crimes Bill? GITMO? The actions of a few rogue soldiers, who were prosecuted for their offenses?

Obstruction of justice? Show me the evidence. PLEASE provide me with something more than your feelings, Bill.

Bring it on. I'm waiting.
Gary Callaway | 11.24.08 - 9:29 pm | #

Well done Bryan. Lots of effort. But here's my problem.

You provide the text of a few laws that you believe the Bush Admin violated, but you leave out specific examples of the violations.

Provide me with a specific example of the Administration linking 9/11 to Saddam or Iraq. I've payed attention and I've NEVER heard this connection being put forth. Lead me to the text of a speech or document that makes this claim.

"Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in". You claim this is a lie?Certainly you will remember how the inspectors were being jerked around by Iraqi officials.

Reckless disregard: "Iraq is a grave and gathering threat". Bryan, I remember those words being coming from Bill and Hillary clinton, Diane Feinstein, Madeline Albright,etc. Lets hang 'em all shall we.

War crimes? What are you talking about? GITMO? A few out of control individuals who were prosecuted for their offenses.

Obstruction of justice? Bring it on. Prove it. Give me some verifyable examples.

If bush, Cheney, or anyone in their admin could be proven to have violated the law, BELIEVE ME, there'd be a pack of lawyers jumping on it.

So come on. Give me something more than your feelings.

I'm waiting.
Gary Callaway | 11.24.08 - 8:40 pm | #

I will give you a couple of examples:
Title 18, USC 371:
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is a specific federal crime prohibited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Put simply, it is an agreement to use deceit and misrepresentation to "obstruct or impair" the normal functioning of government. It has been charged numerous times, including against defendants in the Watergate case and the Iran/contra scandal.

What are some examples of Bush's and Cheney's misrepresentations?
Bush, Cheney and their top aides made hundreds of misrepresentations to deceitfully convince people to accept their plan. Here are a few examples:

Deliberate Misrepresentation- The linking of Iraq and 9/11

Outright Lie- "Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in."

Reckless Disregard - "Iraq is a Grave and Gathering Danger"

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

Bush is on record lying several hundred times to get us into the war.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Prohibited conduct listed under this code includes:
Cruel or inhumane treatment
Torture
murder
sexual assault or abuse (abu graib)
intentially inflicting bodily harm
rape.

Title 18
Obstruction of Justice
§ 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

I will continue to compile the full list of over 32 federal violations, of which 4 carried the death penalty for someone found guilty under them because their actions have caused the death of American forces and loss of US assets.

This isn't a witch hunt, it's federal law. I didn't write them and I didn't break them. But, as a society that claims to be interested in "Justice for All" then no one can be above the law, especially our President.
Bryan Galt | Homepage | 11.23.08 - 9:35 pm | #

To Brian
Your disrespect, ingratitude, and disloyalty of our military men and women is blaring loud in your statement:
"I don't think that just because they gave a half-hearted effort to protect America."

I'd like to see you say that face to face, to one of our soldies and/or their families who have sacrificed so much to protect our country, and our Constitution.

Its people like you who spin lies about other people lieing, then suggest we shoot our President. Sick, really sick.
redpeach | 11.23.08 - 5:44 pm | #

Question for Bryan Galt. What laws did Bush break, specifically.
Gary Callaway | 11.23.08 - 3:49 pm | #

Thanks for the feedback Arch.

I've had lots of co-workers and neighbors respond positively to my letter and I've even recieved a phone call from a woman who says she's going to cut it out and save it.

I've learned to ignore partisan spin and instead simply look at facts. I'm stunned at the separate reality that many liberals exist in. Whatever they imagine, exists to them. Fortunately, their credibility suffers in the bargain.

With only 200 words available, I had to leave out Bush's legacy of record low unemployment, steady GDP growth, rising wages, lower taxes (which contrary to the "separate reality", have shifted the tax burden even more onto upper income earners), higher student test scores resulting from "No Child Left Behind" (fact), etc. Maybe I'll have to write a sequel.

The recent economic downturn is being blamed on Bush, but any honest look at the lead up to these events, puts the blame squarely on liberal action designed to increase low income and minority home ownership. Again, Bush warned early in his term that we were headed for a train wreck, but he was ignored.

If you'll recall, also Bush tryed to set the stage for Social Security reform, but was stifled. Watch the Democrats try to blame it on him when it gets to a crisis stage.

Anyway, that's all history now, it's now time to resist the slide into repressive socialism. Hang in their friend.
Gary Callaway | 11.23.08 - 10:16 am | #

redpeach, if you can find any reference to our countryman, our soldiers or our country in my statement, then youo have some incredible reading abilities.

It wasn't all that long ago that attacking the Constitution or even threatening to do so would be consider treason.

I suggest that loyalty to the government is not the same thing as loyalty to its foundations, which is the Constitution.

Without it, we have nothing.
bryan galt | 11.22.08 - 7:06 pm | #

Arch,
Thank you for bringing to light these truths. Do not give the post by bryan gult an oz of consideration. He is a willing victim of the Hate-Bush syndrome that has affected so many Americans. It is an absolute national shame, radicals like Galt think and say about our leaders, our countryman, our soldiers, and our country. His statement saying Bush should be shot is example of how far he has fallen off the ledge into hatred, and shows his absolute lack of loyalty to his country.
redpeach | 11.22.08 - 10:48 am | #

If anyone truly feels that Bush did well enough to get a pass on all the things that he botched, or broke the laws on, then we are required as a moral and just society to open the gates of every prison in America and let those people out too.

Frankly, I am willing to bet that there are plenty of good people who made bad decisions in there, even people who were doing "good" in the eyes of their friends, family and communities.

But, in America we rarely let the good in someone's heart get greater value than even a single illegal act, much less the monumental and ongoing acts of crimes that Bush has committed.

Just for the record, I believe that any President who has attacked the constitution in the manner that Bush has removed from office and maybe even shot, even if the he/she was someone that I originally respected or admired.

I don't think that just because they gave a half-hearted effort to protect America cannot and must not allow them to escape getting justice for their actions.
bryan galt | 11.22.08 - 5:04 am | #

Misrepresenting the Al qaeda-Iraq Connection
From New American by Thomas R. Eddlem 2-9-04
Colin Powell's recent admission that the Bush administration had no "concrete evidence" tying Saddam Hussein's regime to al-Qaeda was a full reversal of his statement to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003. In that speech, Powell stated: "Iraq officials deny accusations of ties with al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible."
More importantly, the specifics cited by Bush and Powell were--at best--deceptive. For example, when Mr. Bush stated in his February 8, 2003 radio address that a "terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner ... runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq," he failed to mention that the area in question was in Kurdish-held territory, outside Saddam Hussein's control.
Bush on 9-27-02: “The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq,” Bush said Thursday after a meeting with House members to promote a congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq.
<a href="
<a href="www.alternet.org href? "%20originalAttribute='"href"%20originalPath="%3CA%20href="'> Iraq Threat</a>

Council on Foreign Relations March/April 2006
The greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned not WMD (there was indeed a broad consensus that such programs existed), but the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.
<a href="< >CNN<>>
Bush">www.cnn.com>CNNhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?iref=newssearch">CNN</a>
Bush and top aides publicly made 935 false statements about security risk posed by Iraq. Bush made 232 false statements, including 28 about Iraq's links to alqaeda.

RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE LIVES OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND OTHER LIVES
Soldiers Killed: 4136
Wounded: 30182
Number of Iraqi's Killed: from 655,000 to 1.2 million (from military actions, civil infighting and sectarian violence) since invasion.
<a href="www.cnn.com href? iraq.deaths 11 10 meast WORLD 2006 "%20originalAttribute='"href"%20originalPath="%3CA%20href="'>>
Reference Documentaries: "Taxi to the Dark Side" : "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" : "Uncovered: The War on Iraq"--Each documents war crimes, cover ups and more.

Customer Service Doesn't Always Translate Across Cultures

2008-11-19T11:45:00Z

THE DINNER HOUR IS ON THE WAY

On Monday this week, my family decided to try out a Chinese food place based upon a junk mail menu and coupon. The restaurant, BEI JING Chinese Restaurant in Fresno was touting its grand opening, and they had free delivery with orders of $20 or more.

With gas prices being what they have been, and everyone too busy to go pick it up, the decision was made and the order was placed. The next hour went by with some of us claiming to be starving to the point of eating the chihuahua, but he was saved by the door bell and our food delivery!

The relief of the delivery was quickly replaced by puzzled looks as the boxes were opened and we got to check out the food. Our order seemed to be reasonably straight forward: chow mein, sweet and sour chicken, egg foo young, pan fried rice and bbq pork. This was the worst looking Chinese food I have ever seen is all I could think. We had just paid $33.00 for this food plus a tip to the driver and I couldn't bring myself to take more than a nibble.

However, three of the family members felt that they were too hungry to not at least try to eat the gruel, and so they placed limited portions on their plates. It's a brave and hungry soul that will eat something that our dogs wouldn't eat. The bbq pork for instance did not have a drop of bbq on it. It looked like it was dipped in sweet and sour sauce and tasted like a hybrid of cardboard and styrofoam. The chow mein was made from spaghetti noodles and did not have any flavor. The worst dish was the fried rice-made that way because the rice had obviously not been fried. It was white with some scrambled eggs mixed in and so starchy and sticky it could have been used as a glue backing.

FOOD HAS TO BE GOOD, PERIOD

I couldn't let this go like this. For $33, I had the expectation of edible and tasty food. I collected up what I could from the various plates and combined it with the food that wasn't eaten and called the restaurant. The lady that answered at BEI JING claimed that she didn't understand English enough to speak to me about any problems with a food order. She took my number and I waited for someone to call back.

In about five minutes, an employee of the restaurant called to ask what was wrong. I told her what I felt was wrong with the food. At first, she claimed that she didn't understand what I meant by calling and claiming the food wasn't good. I explained it to her again, and told her that I wanted to give the food back for a refund of my money. She didn't like this idea and told me so. She said that they had to pay for the food to cook for me and that they shouldn't have to refund anything.

I countered with the argument that no one should have to pay for food isn't prepared properly and isn't edible. She seemed to agree to this idea and offered to give me 50% of my money back as long as I bring the food back myself. Apparently she felt that they had enough money invested in delivery to us so the return would have to be on my dime.

I went with my associate Raul Martinez and we took the food back to the restaurant. When we arrived, the place was pretty much empty. We stopped at the register where an elderly Asian lady was standing and told her we were the people returning the order. This is where the order return went awry.

GUEST SERVICE TRAINING WAS CANCELED THAT DAY

She motioned to another employee to come over to the register with her to help out with the return and suddenly, we were surrounded by their entire staff of five. I'm guessing that two of them were the cooks, one the server, one the owner and one the utility person. What their role was to be in this return was unknown to me as a restaurant manager. I was trained to handle guest services without calling out my staff for moral support.

The elderly lady opened up all the boxes that we brought back and immediately began to argue that too much of the ood had been eaten already for her to consider any type of refund. She and several others started muttering that the food looked fine to them and that they had never had any complaints before. Raul tried to explain that several of us had tried to eat the food even under the circumstances, and this meant about half of the total order was eaten by four people (which was very little of the food).

The elderly lady then stated "Of course, people like you always do." I was surprised and somewhat aggravated at her comment. Was she making a statement about my race, my weight or about what? My response was "excuse me?" The group once again burst into chatter, this time in their native language and they sounded riled up. I decided that this was never going to be resolved in a civil and professional matter, so I agreed to accept $8 for the sweet and sour chicken box, since it had the most returned.

The elderly lady handed me the money and continued to defend her position that it would cost her money to refund my order and that no one else ever complained so why were we? I countered to her that as a professional manager, I was trained to not assign the blame for poor food served by my restaurant on the paying customers. I explained that there will always be times when an order isn't prepared satisfactorily in the eyes of a guest, and that it doesn't matter if the cooks, the servers or the manager believes that the food was prepared correctly-it only matters what the guest thinks.

IN THE END, EVERYONE LOSES ESPECIALLY THE BUSINESS

In this case, the guest was told to take a hike and not look back. After all she said, I am the only one complaining. Well, that won't be the case forever if this restaurant doesn't learn the fundamentals of food presentation and preparation and couple that with a decidedly better disposition towards their guests when something is brought back to them. The restaurant staff acted as if the food return was either a scam on my part for not bringing back every bite, or that I was attacking them personally for bringing the food back.

But the bottom line is simple-it never pays to treat a guest like they are trying to steal from you with a food return. Even if that is truly what was happening, attacking a guest in front of the entire staff and then keeping it up while another guest was waiting to be seated sends the wrong messages to everyone. And, after 20 years in food service, I can tell you from first hand experience that there is no reason to think that a food return is an attack on you personally. The guest doesn't know you and they aren't blaming you in person (usually anyway).

Here is my recommendation for future potential guests of BEI JING Chinese Restaurant located at 1414 E. Shaw Avenue, Fresno CA 93710:

To the Manager/Owner: You need to think about the fact that you are in an intensive guest service oriented environment when you operate a food service facility. Your business depends on two major factors-service and food quality. If you can deliver on those two items with class and distinction, you will minimize complaints and have carte blanche on menu selections and menu pricing. If you feel that the guest is only a means to an end so that you can make the mortgage, you are doomed to business failure and rightly so.

To Potential Guests: I strongly recommend that you skip this place at all costs. If you are looking for a good meal, go to Kowloon Kitchen down the street at the intersection of Clovis Ave and Shaw. They have been in business for 30 years and they know how to make a good plate for the right price.

And, they don't make you feel like an ass for not eating their food.

America's Descent Into Becoming An International Gangster

2008-11-10T10:54:00Z

Today, in an article of the New York Times, it is revealed that the Bush Administration had secretly authorized the use of American military units to attack "suspected" Qaeda targets in countries that are not involved with the "war on terror."

"Bush administration officials have shown a determination to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provides a legal rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent."

The details of one of those aborted operations, in early 2005, were reported by The New York Times last June. In that case, an operation to send a team of the Navy Seals and the Army Rangers into Pakistan to capture Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, was aborted at the last minute.

Mr. Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting in Bajaur, in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command hastily put together a plan to capture him. There were strong disagreements inside the Pentagon and the C.I.A. about the quality of the intelligence, however, and some in the military expressed concern that the mission was unnecessarily risky.

Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director at the time, urged the military to carry out the mission, and some in the C.I.A. even wanted to execute it without informing Ryan C. Crocker, then the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Rumsfeld ultimately refused to authorize the mission.

Last month, I sent an email to my Representative, Devin Nunes (R) CA-21 and in that email, I noted that from a historical perspective, we are going to be remembered as the "most dangerous country to ever exist." This observation managed to inflame Mr. Nunes to the point that he sent me a letter telling me that I was welcome to move to North Korea if I didn't like it here.

Today's revelation about secret raids and Executive Orders authorizing murders around the world inside the borders of sovereign nations just makes this point so much clearer. The Times articles mentions that these missions are well thought out so that the Administration will have a cover story ready in case something goes wrong.

It also states what has to be the most revealing part of the story: the Administration has vetoed several missions because they felt that the political fallout wasn't worth the risk of a particular operation if it was to go sour. Translated, this means that Mr. Bush and his cronies are all very aware of the immorality and questionable legality of what they are doing. They make sure that the only targets that are approved are located in some backwater location that no one is likely to ever hear about.

What is the most disturbing of all is that the American government is going around the world killing people that it believes to be Queda members or operatives. Can someone tell me when the government has gotten that information right before? How many innocent people have been lingering in Gitmo, or some other legal black hole location thanks to the government's determination that they were enemies of the state? This is the same group now approving assassinations in foreign countries?

What it doesn't make a bigger issue out of is the fact that these murders by the military are not being handled like a firing squad execution. In societies that are concerned about justice, these targets would be arrested, and then given a fair trial before they got their fine executions.

What are these folks thinking? Can they honestly say that killing people because of their "suspected" affiliation with a particular group is justification for violation of US and International laws? We need to make mention that the moral foundations upon which America likes to claim it sits upon is being undermined as well.

We are collectively in deep trouble America. We have taken a minor threat against this country and coupled it with our anger over 9-11, thus allowing our response become a dangerous beast in our desire to lash out at the invisible terrorist groups that the government claims to be hiding everywhere.

In the documentary "Taxi to the Darkside", Mr. Bush makes the claim that the Geneva Convention is too vague for him to determine what is a violation of human dignity. If he isn't sure, perhaps Mr. Bush should endure some himself, such as being forced to masturbate in front of soldiers, being handcuffed while naked to the ceiling of your cell and left there for up to 40 hours or perhaps Mr. Bush would like to have a dog collar on his neck with a leash leading to his "handler" while he is forced to act like his is sodomizing a fellow human.

The fact that he claims to be a "Christian" and that so many people followed him and voted for him based upon this claim doesn't say much for Christianity. If Jesus was to say that he couldn't determine what is the difference between right and wrong, he would probably be more likely to have been considered the Devil. After all, even someone as dumb as George Bush knows that being stripped naked and sexually battered is a violation of not only the Geneva Convention, its also a violation of Christian dogma.