State of the State Address

Governor Napolitano gave her state of the state address today.

And it reminded me of how lucky we are to have her as the Governor of this fine state.

The State of Arizona is strong and growing stronger. I stand before you today, proud of the ground we have covered together, proud of the work we are doing. I am determined to build on our work, not rest on it – to make Arizona stronger still.

She didn't come right out and say it, but I will-- Janet Napolitano is the primary reason for this remarkable story. Because we don't have to go very far back to realize what a change she has wrought.

Just remember three years ago, when she first took office, and we were staring into the face of a billion dollar budget hole? A hole that represented nearly one fifth of the entire state budget? A hole made worse by Republican corruption and incomptence behind former Gov. Jane Hull and Speaker Jeff Groscost (aptly named) who lost the state millions by buying speaker Jeff's friends cars via the 'alt-fuels' tax credit? Remember how Gov. Napolitano's opponent in the 2002 election, Matt Salmon, wanted to balance the budget by slashing spending for schools and other institutions across the state? Never mind how Arizona's K-12 teachers are just above being the lowest paid in the nation, Matt Salmon still figured he could spend less on schools.

And when Janet Napolitano did win, she faced a hostile legislature, one that would have been much more willing to come up with a budget like Matt Salmon wanted than one that she could sign onto. And they did try to give her a budget that looked like Salmon's.

So Janet Napolitano said no. And when Janet Napolitano says no, then 'no' is the answer. She vetoed that budget, and has vetoed every attempt since then by the legislature to steal funds from the poor, the children, the elderly, and every other person in the state who depends on those funds.

Together – to raise up children who are healthy and wise.

Together – to grow our economy and expand the circle of prosperity by pursuing breakthroughs in science and technology that will transform us into a nerve center of new ideas.

We have a Governor who not only talks about these things, but she does these things. Intel chose the Phoenix area for it's newest plant-- largely because of the Governor's leadership in innovation and supporting technology growth. And we will soon have a top tier medical school in Arizona. That's because Governor Napolitano held her ground with a legislature which tries to do everything as cheaply as possible. When they tried to cut funding for higher education and research, she said no and by that time they knew better than to ask twice.

One of the great joys that accompanies the privilege of being governor is the chance to travel across our state, to meet the people that make Arizona what it is, and to hear directly from you about what kind of future you want to build.

I have a nine year old daughter who has talked to the Governor three times. Because she does get around and talk to people. And she is as much interested in what a nine year old has to say as she is in what anyone who can vote for her has to say.

To make us safer, I will propose a comprehensive, $100 million border security package that provides state and local law enforcement with the resources they need to uphold the rule of law at our border.

Unfortunately, the Federal government has abrogated its responsibility. And armed gangs, mostly dealing in drugs, have run rampant in the area. We've also discussed immigration on this blog. Immigration reform will require a comprehensive plan, and no one understands that better than Janet Napolitano. But as long as we have coyotes who lead people into the desert on 120 degree days and then leave them alone to die out there, we need to patrol the border and try and stop them. And again, this is an example of a place where George W. Bush huffs, Russell Pierce, Randy Graf and the rest of the wacko anti-immigrant crowd puffs, and Janet Napolitano quietly goes about the job of making things work, even when it should be someone else's job and they aren't doing it.

In addition, I will propose tough but fair measures to help parents protect their children from sexual offenders and to help law enforcement crack down on methamphetamine manufacture and distribution. And I will propose a plan to begin to offer safe harbor – finally – to all those who suffer the effects of domestic violence.

Governor Napolitano has always made protecting children her priority. The Republican legislature didn't even 'discover' the issue of CPS reform until she made it a priority. And then, my own (worthless) state rep (now Senator), Jake Flake, whose idea of 'reforming' a state agency is to give them a budget cut, did everything in his power to frustrate her designs. But Janet Napolitano is a bit smarter than Jake Flake, so she got CPS reformed anyway (although there remains work to do).

Arizona already has pretty good sex offender laws (although there are always better ideas out there). But laws are only as good as far as they are enforced. And the Governor, since her days as Attorney General, has always done everything she could to give law enforcement the tools to do their jobs. What really strikes me about this line in her speech is her focus on meth labs. These labs are what amounts to toxic waste dumps spread out all over the state. Children are often exposed to the chemicals (both hazardous in the long term, due to exposure, and the short term, due to risk of explosions). So last year, the legislature tried to limit the sale of pseudoephedrine, a key precursor to meth, by requiring that it be sold in a locking cabinet by a pharmacist (you know, where they already sell stuff like stop smoking patches and pregnancy testing kits; so there is precedent for it). A similar program in Oklahoma has cut production of meth in that state by over 70%. And it looked like the bipartisan bill would pass. But then the pharmaceutical industry got their pointwoman in the legislature, Barbara Leff (R-Scottsdale) to kill it. So a number of cities around the state got disgusted with her obstructionism and began banning it themselves. So the bill will be reintroduced sometime this year. And I'm glad that the Governor sees it as important. Because it is (some of you may know that even though I don't use it, I've endorsed the legalization of marijuana, including its production, transport and sale; Methamphetamine is a completely different beast-- and a beast it is. Several years ago I was living in Moriarty, NM when a man driving through on the highway got high on meth, imagined his teenage son was the devil, and cut his son's head off and threw it out onto the highway. That told me everything I needed to know about meth.)

To make us stronger, we will take bold steps to give our children a world-class education, up to and including a university degree. We will take up the challenge of accessible and affordable health care. We will urge new initiatives to meet the demands of our current rate of growth including transportation and water.

My two nine year old twins have already decided where they want to go to college. Harvard Medical School for one, and Princeton for the other. But with the importance that Governor Napolitano is putting on higher education, maybe they will be able to stay in Arizona and learn everything they would learn there. Health care. Yeah, I've gotten to learn just a bit about it lately. We have the best healthcare system in the world if you can afford it. But if you can't-- it's like going to a car rental place and find out that all they have available are limousines. Most people are on a 'Chevrolet budget' and can't afford a 'Cadillac' health care system. The fact that any parent should have to be afraid to take their sick child to the doctor is an abomination. That we as a society even consider tolerating that is sadistic, cruel and wicked. (If that isn't blunt enough...)

I'm lucky. I live in a part of Arizona that has a low population (so no major traffic problems) and an adequate supply of water. But only about 10% of the state doesn't have problems with traffic or water supply and is unlikely to encounter them any time within the next few years. And our Governor realizes this, she realizes that we need plans for dealing with these issues, and she has some plans, or is willing to work with other people who have plans, but she knows that we need some.

We all know that the future of Arizona ultimately depends on the reach and grasp of our children – the reach of their imaginations and the grasp of their abilities.
Nothing is more important to a child’s future than his or her parents. But great schools can make an enormous difference.

Better-educated children dream bigger dreams and get better jobs. Better thinkers and more qualified workers attract better and more profitable businesses. The standard of living goes up across the state, our ability to offer the very best to our children grows, and the payoff continues for generations. Strong families, strong children, strong schools, strong state.

To make our education system the very best it can be, I call on the Legislature to do four things:
• Expand voluntary all-day kindergarten so it is available to every parent who wants it for his or her children;

• Increase teacher compensation, so that we begin to pay teachers at a competitive rate for the critical work we ask them to do;

• Provide professional development and ongoing training to keep our best teachers in the classroom; and

• Support increased funding for our community colleges and universities, including increased student aid, so that all Arizonans – young people and people already working who need new skills – have access to world-class higher education.

Parents have demanded voluntary full-day kindergarten. Two years ago, you approved it. This year – let’s complete it. Young minds are hungry for information and develop quickly – the more they learn, the more they can learn. Let’s offer voluntary full-day kindergarten to every parent who wants it, and let’s do it this year....

But we cannot expect the best from our teachers as long as we continue to pay them a paltry sum....

I offer you this challenge today: let’s give a pay raise to every teacher in Arizona.

YES! We have a legislature which (since our K-12 teacher pay is second from the bottom) still thinks there is room to cut education. The aforementioned Senator of mine has even said that he feels that teachers can 'spend the summer putting up ranch fences' if they want to earn any more money. But our governor realizes that it is a travesty that we expect to hire degreed professionals to teach our children and prepare them to go to college, and then we don't pay them enough to even send their own kids to college.

She goes on into a number of specific proposals. One that really jumps out at me is to index vehicle licensing taxes to the gas mileage that vehicles get. The better the mileage, the lower the tax. A vehicle that gets outstandingly good mileage to the gallon would have to pay nothing to get licensed. Save at the pump, save at the MVD. Innovative, creative, progressive and practical. Like Janet Napolitano.

Alito will be confirmed-- but he won't uphold the Constitution.

Today, the Samuel Alito hearings began.

To begin with, the outcome is a foregone conclusion: Because Republicans won 55 seats in the Senate, they have the votes to confirm Mr. Alito, and unless he makes a major gaffe on the stand a la Bork's 'intellectual feast' remark (and he is smart enough to avoid that, and further has been prepped to an unprecedented degree in order to avoid it), they will vote to confirm him. Just in case anyone forgot, I was fully in favor of a hearing for Harriet Miers, and this is one reason why.

Alito's past leaning (and it is not a unanimous lean, to be sure, but a most-of-the-time lean) has been to support restrictions on individual rights, and a strengthening of the powers of the state and especially the executive branch. This is a serious concern, especially coming just at the moment when we see an unprecedented assault on individual rights by the state through such mechanisms as the Padilla case (remember that in theory if they can hold US citizen Padilla indefinitely without charges, as they were until a few weeks ago, then they can do the same to you-- a label like 'enemy combatant' means whatever the administration in power at any given time decides it means), and the recent revelations that they are monitoring many, many telephone calls and opening the private mail even of people who have no ties to terrorists. It is hard to imagine that Alito will be anything other than a vote to greatly expand Federal power.

Conservatives like to claim that they are 'strict constructionists' in explaining, for example, opposition to abortion rights, the right to privacy and other rights not specifically listed in the Constitution. They claim that if it isn't listed there, then it is not a right. It seems, however, that some of them haven't read the Constitution all the way through. Probably the least well known article in the Bill of Rights, the IX amendment, states quite clearly that:

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, it is very true that the Constitution doesn't specify a right of privacy (which there was hardly a need for in the days of the founding fathers, where even a President like James Madison, when he first moved to Washington, could go out and buy household goods and generally was not recognized unless his more social wife was with him.) But the IX Amendment means that the lack of a specifically written right of privacy should NOT BE CONSTRUED (Websters: 'construed' means 'interpreted') as meaning that there is none. The idea that because it isn't there allows an unprecedented assault on your privacy is exactly what the ninth amendment was designed to protect against (what else would you call someone from the Homeland Security Department thumbing through your personal mail (and 'papers' ARE mentioned in the IV amendment as not to be searched except for probable cause, by the way.)

It is amazing how conservatives are willing to cite the Constitution as the basis for their argument and then avoid actually following it.

What is really frightening is this: With Alito joining Scalia, Thomas and new chief justice Roberts on the Supreme Court, the back-and-forth unpredictability of Anthony Kennedy, and the health of Stevens' heart, is all that stands between the conservatives and their gaining ultimate control over the last branch of government that they haven't yet. If there is one silver lining to the Alito confirmation it is this-- most people, even a lot of Republicans, aren't completely comfortable with neo-cons having 100% control over the whole government. If you are like me and live in a state with a Senate race, you may want to take advantage of the fact and point out that the results of the 2006 Senate elections will be crucial in this matter-- Bush may very well get to name another nominee, but Democrats control (or at least gain working control) over the Senate, then it won't be another Alito.

It is time now to start asking the hard questions.

Six of the coal miners were buried yesterday. The rest will be buried early this week.

I resisted the temptation to put up a post on this after that horrible night last week. It was appropriate to allow the families and small rural communities to bury their dead in peace. And I didn't want to get into, in the words of one blogger I sometimes read, 'Katrina-izing' the tragedy, and jumping to conclusions (we saw enough of where doing that can lead in the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday.)

Now, however, as the dead are finally being buried, it is time to begin asking some questions. Questions that will be answered, hopefully by the probe. And no, what happened with the miscommunication isn't one of the questions-- in a day when everyone is wired and has a cell phone, and everyone was desperate for any hint of information, what happened was tragic, but almost predictable. And ultimately, the bizarre horror of that night killed no one.

What did kill twelve men was an explosion. The explosion itself appears to have killed only one of the men, but it trapped the rest deep under ground in a space with limited oxygen, while filling the air with lethal amounts of carbon monoxide. Initial reports say it was caused by lightning. I have to admit that I am a little skeptical about that, the more I think about it. I have only been across the West Virginia panhandle, and that was at night on a bus, so I don't know a great deal about the weather there. But the explosion happened at around six thirty in the morning as crews were re-entering the mine after the long holiday weekend. Now, I suppose that it is possible that there could be a lightning strike at six thirty in the morning, but I've never lived anywhere that happens very often, especially in the winter. And even if it did, the problem is that the gases and coal dust that ignited had been allowed to accumulate in the mine to the point where they could explode.

Now that raises the first question: In the year 2005, why isn't there a monitoring system in place that can alert people to potentially unsafe levels of gases or coal dust before anyone goes in? They were able to monitor the levels of these gases before sending in rescuers an agonizing 11 hours after the explosion (a time frame that is bitterly ironic now that we know that the rescuers were taking their first steps inside just about the same time that the last miners were losing consciousness). So why couldn't the same equipment be used before the explosion to determine technologically that an explosion was possible?

A bigger issue is this: The mine in question has been cited numerous times for safety violations. Although it changed hands in November, there is no indication that any action was taken to address this ongoing record of citations. This raises three questions:

1. Why was action not taken by the owners of the mine to bring it into compliance? We all heard the CEO of the mining company, Bennett Hatfield, give what was clearly a sincere statement of regret and sorrow over the loss of the employees. But he had a chance to possibly avoid it by fixing the safety violations, and he did not.

2. Why, after violation after violation after violation, did the government not take action to close down the mine? What good are citations if no one follows up on them, or action happens so rarely and after so long an interval, that no one fears the penalty? I've blogged recently about how the lack of accountability on the part of employers leads to more and more hiring of undocumented workers, and this situation is no different.

3. The mine was a non-union operation. Would a union have helped prevent this? You bet your sweet patootie they would have. Unions go to court and fight aggressively to have regulations enforced and safety improvements made, and the 'penalty' problem I mentioned in the second question doesn't exist, because employers fear legal action by the union and/or strikes much more than they fear the relative inaction by the government. Three years ago, the union in Pennsylvania (remember that?) pushed for everything from a speedy rescue operation to overtime pay for the trapped men.

As I said, there will be plenty of time to investigate this, but now that the men are being buried, the best service the rest of us can do (in addition to continuing to pray for the community, and for Randall McCloy) is to speak out as often as necessary to make sure that a full investigation is forthcoming and that nothing is swept under the rug.

The Hammer gets Nailed

Yesterday, I blogged on the mutiny within Republican ranks against suspended, indicted and joined-at-the-hip-to-Jack-Abramoff Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Make that former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Today, the man who can count votes as well as anyone, resigned his post, apparently after concluding that the mutineers had the votes to fire him.

There are three points which need to be made though.

The first one is this: Yesterday, I pointed out that these same House Republicans had backed DeLay through all the many years of unethical behavior and months of gathering trouble. True, there were a handful of Republicans who were saying that DeLay had to go months ago (primarily Chris Shays, R-CT and Jeff Flake, R-AZ), but it is worth noting that the rest of the House Republicans supported him until the polls out this week that I posted on yesterday. So it seems that ethics matters less to these guys than their re-election prospects. We need to continue to allude to these polls and the Abramoff plea agreement in explaining the sudden shift against DeLay. If House Republicans were interested in ethical leadership, they could have done what they did this week a long time ago (I think his second or third reprimand by the ethics committee-- I'm even a guy who is willing to give people a second chance-- would be good enough notice that he wasn't the kind of guy that they would want in a leadership position).

The second point to be made is this: Keep a close watch on the race to be named permanent majority leader. The immediate leading candidate is Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Majority Whip who has been acting as Majority Leader since DeLay had to step aside. But I blogged on Blunt when he took the position: A second chance to elect honest leadership and they still blow it. Blunt is DeLay without the attitude. His ties to Mr. DeLay are well known, and his kickback scheme that involved DeLay's charity as well as his own is highly questionable. We will see what happens, but if Republicans elect Roy Blunt to replace Tom DeLay then it will be clear that their 'move to remove' was motivated by polls only, not by any ethical considerations. Replacing Tom DeLay with Roy Blunt would literally be a move to replace Tweedle Dee with Tweedle Dum.

The third point that needs to be made is this: Regardless of the fate of Tom DeLay, the money he raised, and it now is becoming more and more clear, unethically and in many cases illegally in his fanatical quest to 1) create a Republican majority in Texas, and 2) maintain a Republican majority in Congress, has reached into nearly every district in the country at some level. I doubt if these Republicans will resign their seats, but as Democrats we need to continue to make the point in local races that many Congressmen had their seats bought and paid for by DeLay/Abramoff money.

NOTE: IF you read the preceding post, be aware that a couple of commenters pointed out a pair of errors in it. In keeping with our 'You-find-an-error-then-get-a-public-retraction-and-credit' policy here at Deep Thought, the error has been identified and retracted publically, and the people who pointed it out have been given credit. On the other hand, this is the third and fourth time I've had to do this on over 200 posts on Deep Thought so I am willing to continue to stand by a record of accuracy.

Republicans in the House may bury the hatchet Hammer.

The Republicans in the house may have decided they've had enough of Tom DeLay. They are circulating a petition to force a vote to remove him permanently as Majority Leader. No, they never voted against him when he had all those annoying little reprimands from the ethics committee, or when he fixed the ethics committee by stacking it with his guys to make sure he would avoid getting any more of those, or even over the last few months of continual scandal. No, what moved them to action was a language that speaks even louder than DeLay's bullying or his big money-- polling data showing things have taken a turn to the worse for the prospects of their re-election.

A new AP-Ipsos poll out today showed that Democrats, who were ahead by 8-10% in the four generic polls out in December, have opened up a thirteen point lead in generic congressional polling. While there is a long time before the election, other polling and events this week make things more problematical for Republicans than just being behind in a generic poll (although, we are into 2006 now, and poor polling numbers become a bigger problem than they would have been last year, since fundraising dollars tend to follow the poll numbers).

Specifically, another poll out shows that 49% of Americans believe that most members of Congress are corrupt. Since it came out before the Abramoff plea deal, there was only a three point bulge (47%-44%) in the total percentage of respondents who said many or most Republicans in Congress were corrupt as opposed to Democrats (of course, Republicans were rated better on that question as recently as last year), but with the new revelations about Abramoff (in a time frame reflected in the AP-Ipsos poll but not the CNN poll) it is likely that that bulge will grow. In fact, the GOP tried to portray the scandal as a bipartisan scandal but was inadvertently tripped up by a White House action that shifted the focus in a way that hurts only Republicans. Specifically, the Bush-Cheney campaign (I guess they must still have an office somewhere) hurt the GOP's attempts to spread the blame by donating only $6,000 of the well over $100,000 they had gotten from Abramoff's fundraising machine because the $6,000 represented only the share of the money given to the Bush-Cheney campaign that was personally donated by Abramoff, his wife and a tribe which he bilked. What this did was to take the focus off of all the money he raised and focus it on the personal contributions of Abramoff, and it turns out that Jack Abramoff personally gave only to Republicans (well, other than his very first donation, which went to a candidate from the National Taxpayers Party). This hurt the Republican line that the scandal was bipartisan by 1) distracting from it just as it looked like they might get some traction (even though the huge majority of Abramoff money went to Republicans anyway), and 2) giving Democrats a very specific list they can use which contains only the names of Republicans, and it is a substantial list which includes 39 current U.S. house members and 19 current U.S. Senators (including John Sununu and Tom Coburn when they were in the house), who have over the years gotten contributions from Abramoff. The story out today that Abramoff agreed to cooperate with Federal prosecutors ahead of his plea deal will only raise the angst on Capital Hill-- especially among those who may now realize that they might have sealed their own fate when they last spoke to Abramoff.

Which brings us to the king of fundraisers, who not only had ties to Abramoff but who bent all rules and did everything he could to raise big money to elect Republicans in any way that he could, and that is of course Tom DeLay. And Republicans know that, as long as DeLay is around, this scandal will continue to be their baby. So DeLay is suddenly facing a mutiny. That could be dangerous in itself--one of his opponents once said that DeLay didn't stab people in the back-- he stabs you in the front instead and you see it coming but can't stop it. Maybe, but even a hammer gets rusty after awhile.

CORRECTION: The last sentence of paragraph three originally said that Abramoff wore a wire to help investigators. That is not true, so I edited the sentence to make it accurate. Two commenters, Tom Zuzelo and Indyvoter, pointed out that it was former Congressman Duke Cunningham, who resigned after pleading guilty to bribery, not Abramoff, who wore the wire. Abramoff agreed to cooperate with Federal prosecutors (which should still make a lot of Congressmen nervous) but never wore a wire (it wouldn't make much sense for Abramoff to wear a wire anyway since these guys have been avoiding contact with him like he was a boatload of sick chickens from Asia).

ANOTHER CORRECTION: Cold Hearted Truth points out that I was incorrect in saying that Republicans were within a point or two in previous generic polling. I thought I had read that somewhere but in four polls taken on that in December, the spread was very consistent at 8-10 points. So thirteen points is a widening of the margin, but not a large widening.

White House legal foundation washed out.

In a story out just within the past few hours, a Congressional Service has undercut the Bush administration's legal argument in favor of domestic spying.

WASHINGTON - A memorandum from two congressional legal analysts concludes that the administration's justification for the monitoring of certain domestic communications may not be as solid as President Bush and his top aides have argued.

The Congressional Research Service, which advises lawmakers on a wide range of matters, said a final determination about the issue is impossible without a deeper understanding of the program and Bush's authorization, "which are for the most part classified."

Yet two attorneys in the organization's legislative law division, Elizabeth Bazan and Jennifer Elsea, say the justification that the Justice Department laid out in a Dec. 22 analysis for the House and Senate intelligence committees "does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests."

This is significant for two reasons. The first is that the Congressional Research Service, after over a decade of GOP control of the house, can hardly be written off as some kind of 'liberal' organization. During the past few weeks, as the water has been muddied by partisan sniping over the issue, there has not been a clear voice disputing the White House position which was not immediately attacked (usually inaccurately) as being biased towards the left. But this report has to be taken seriously by conservatives simply because they can't just dismiss the messenger as having a 'liberal bias,' without looking like inept fools themselves.

The second is that as we learn every day more and more about the widespread surveillance, for example learning today that The Department of Homeland Security has been opening and reading private mail, including some that both originate and end with people who have no connection to terrorism (as in the case profiled in the story), the legal basis for all of these acts is called into question.

The best defense conservatives can come up with is to point to statements like this (from the first story):

Ken Bass, a Carter administration Justice Department official and an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, said the issue of the president's inherent power has remained unresolved for decades.

The White House's analysis of presidential power is consistent with previous administrations, Bass said. But he said he didn't know of an administration that had asserted authority for four years, as in the monitoring program, to delegate decisions normally requiring court orders to midlevel intelligence officials.

OK, it is an unresolved issue (and Bass suggests that warrantless surveillance on the scale that is happening now has never been done). That is not to say it is legal, but instead that it hasn't been tested in court. And if it were-- (from the first article):

But the memo concludes: "It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has ... authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion."

So then it would come down to an executive order. Well, the right was quick to jump up and claim that the White House was covered by Clinton and Carter executive orders. One problem with that-- they ARE NOT. Carter did issue a number of directives authorizing various types of surveillance, but those were actually issued during an era when the nation was wrestling with the question of how to conduct surveillance at all in the complete absence of any rules (or at least any that had been kept)-- remember the country had just awoken from the Richard Nixon/J. Edgar Hoover nightmare, and expanding surveillance powers was not at all on Jimmy Carter's priority list-- spelling out in English what could and could not be done was. And there is NO Carter executive order authorizing warrantless surveillance of Americans. None.

Now, Clinton did push for (but didn't get Congress to agree with him on) increased use of warrantless surveillance. He did not issue an executive order that expanded the powers granted by Reagan order 12333 (which allows warrantless surveillance against 'foreign agents.') 12333 was signed at the height of the Cold War when the concern was keeping tabs on Soviet spies, however I am willing to concede that in the context of today's world, 'known or suspected terrorists' could probably be substituted for 'foreign agents,' and no reasonable person would object to 12333 being applied. To be honest, the fact that the right has not referred to 12333, instead ambiguously saying 'Carter and Clinton' orders (which ones? They won't give you order numbers because there AREN'T any that would justify White House spying, and by being vague they can get away with it for awhile-- but they are running out of rope as no one has yet cited which order) tells you one thing right away: they are going BEYOND persons known or suspected of terrorism, and so in this context, the language of 12333 becomes a limitation instead of a support.

The most humorous part of this has been to watch the Republicans tie themselves up in knots about spying by the Clinton administration. A few weeks ago they were saying that Clinton was too cautious and set up too many hurdles to effective surveillance in their quest to protect civil liberties (remember the Curt Weldon allegations), but today they are claiming that whatever Bush is doing, Clinton did it first. My Gosh, even Clinton himself couldn't change his color as quickly as the GOP is about this.

Specifically, in NO PLACE in any Carter or Clinton order, or Reagan executive order 12333 for that matter, does it allow for data mining, surveillance against persons for whom there is no probable cause to claim they are terrorists, or the type of profiling that we see when they simply open every piece of mail which comes from the Philippines (in fact, I have two friends in the Philippines on a religious mission right now, I wonder if I write them whether the Department of Homeland Security will rip open the letter and read it.)

And the real troubling point is this: Any search of a terror suspect, including surveillance, could be accomplished easily and within minutes by, GETTING A WARRANT. Everything that has been done, if it was about watching terror suspects, could have been done without any of this beating around in the bushes. So one has to conclude that the reason that this White House is going to such extraordinary measures to push their warrantless surveillance is precisely because they are going beyond 'terror suspects,' and that that is part of their plan.

For too long, this administration has pursued a 'legal by assertion' strategy on this, claiming that if it didn't say it was illegal, therefore it was legal. It's about time someone with unquestioned credibility called them on it.

The latest word from Reverend Pat: God is punishing Ariel Sharon for Gaza pullout

It's been a few weeks since the last time Pat Robertson said something stupid (then it was about how residents of the town of Dover, Pennsylvania shouldn't pray to God when he destroys their town for voting out the school board that backed 'Intelligent Design,' and before that, it was about how black voters, 88% of whom voted for John Kerry, wouldn't vote for a Democrat who wasn't named Bubba, and before that, it was about assassinating Hugo Chavez), so this bit of oral flatulence was pretty much right on schedule.

Today, Robertson in effect said that Ariel Sharon was being punished by God for evacuating Israeli settlements in Gaza.

NORFOLK, Va. — Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for "dividing God's land."

"God considers this land to be his," Robertson said on his TV program "The 700 Club." "You read the Bible and he says `This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, `No, this is mine.'"

Sharon, who ordered Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last year, suffered a severe stroke on Wednesday...

[Robertson] also said, however, that in the Bible, the prophet Joel "makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who 'divide my land.'"

Sharon "was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America," Robertson said.

In discussing what he said was God's insistence that Israel not be divided, Robertson also referred to the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who had sought to achieve peace by giving land to the Palestinians. "It was a terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless he was dead," he said.

So, according to Robertson, God punished Rabin and Sharon for attempting to make peace. Reverend Pat seems to prefer war. It is almost chilling to contemplate what he would do if he were somehow to be named Prime Minister of Israel. (Hint: the Lord commands Joshua in the old testament to smite unto complete and utter destruction the ancient occupants of the land, and to spare neither man nor woman nor child nor domestic beast).

This guy would be easy to dismiss as a charismatic but loopy nutcase, except that he has millions of people who listen to him and hang on his word every day, send him millions of dollars, and vote the way Rev. Pat tells them to (which has been straight ticket Republican for at least twenty years). In that context, he is genuinely frightening.

The point of no return.

With the revelations of what is going on involving disgraced fundraiser Jack Abramoff, there has been a rush of sorts, of politicians returning Abramoff's money. ('Return' is technically not a correct characterization, it is being donated to charity.)

Only, that seems to be the extent of it, Abramoff's money. For example, the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign (apparently they still have an office somewhere) gave back $6,000-- representing two checks for the legal limit on individual contributions ($2,000), written by Abramoff and his wife, and another $2,000 on behalf of one of the tribes that Abramoff bilked.) Other Washington congressmen and Senators caught up in the rapidly growing scandal have swiftly followed suit, returning or donating the money that Abramoff personally has donated to them.

Of course, this is a token donation, so they can claim to have returned Mr. Abramoff's money. Abramoff, for example, was named a Bush 'Pioneer,' for having raised $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney campaign, and in fact he earned that title during 2003, indicating that it is likely that he ended up raising quite a bit more than that. His fundraising prowess extended to members of Congress too. So the portion of the funds that came from his own personal bank account is relatively small (and for that matter, Abramoff himself gave only to Republican candidates and some special interests.) The real issue is that he raised quite a lot of money, with much of it coming from, as we have been blogging on a lot lately, questionable sources or was raised by questionable methods or under false pretenses.

With the revelations going on that so much money connected to Abramoff is tainted, it seems that these politicians have their eye on the bottom line. They want the cash, so they will keep it no matter how it was raised, and are only giving away that small part which Mr. Abramoff himself pitched in so they can sanctimoniously claim that they have come clean.

White House Press Secretary's Mom bolts and torpedoes Republicans

As a general rule, I haven't put up a large number of posts discussing specific political races, but this one is interesting, because it involves a potential split in the President's party, in his own home state, and involving a family member (specifically the mother of) a key member of his own staff.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn turned her back on the Republican Party and announced Monday she will run for governor as an independent.

The move allows Strayhorn to escape a potentially ugly primary battle against Gov. Rick Perry. The GOP primary is set for March 7.

Strayhorn, who calls herself "One Tough Grandma," has been a harsh critic of Perry's leadership over the past couple of years. Monday's announcement all but guarantees Perry will be the Republican candidate on the November ballot.

"I am a Republican," she said. "But I know we must set partisan politics aside and do what's best for Texas. That is why I am running for governor as a Texas independent."

Strayhorn is the mother of Presidential Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

Strayhorn said of Perry: "He has given us higher property taxes, bigger government, higher insurance rates, toll roads, has abandoned our border and ignored our broken schools."

Not disagreeing about the schools especially, although I used to live in Texas for a year, and most of the problems in the school system were already there under the governor who preceded Perry (some guy named George.) But Perry has done nothing at all about fixing the problems of the school system.

Even in Texas, Democrats have still managed to draw about 45% in the past few statewide races for state offices. And it could be the one state where the effect of the Katrina evacuations are significant politically and could make it more Democratic (with 150,000 former residents of Louisiana who had to flee Katrina now living in and establishing new lives in Texas, and they being overwhelmingly Democratic; even in a state the size of Texas, a hundred thousand new voters will have an impact.) So a split in GOP ranks in the governors race could be an enormous opportunity for Democrats.

Don't blame the military for the President's misuse of it.

Every so often it comes up that I will put up a post that may provoke some disagreement among regular readers and this is one of those.

Friday, John Murtha was asked point-blank if he would join the military today, and he said, 'No.' Obviously the context was whether a young person should join, it was not whether he personally (being on the other side of sixty) would join.

Now, I have a great deal of respect for Congressman Murtha, and he was right a couple of months ago when he dared to state the obvious-- our troops in Iraq are, by their presence, creating more opportunities of all kinds for terrorists than they are taking away, and that the poorly defined and continually changing 'mission' has sapped strength from our military, with only 54% of active duty military personnel even willing to say that they approve of the way the President is handling Iraq (according to the latest military times poll (link credit to ea Prez). He was right to call for us to get out of what appears to be an endless war in Iraq. However, I disagree with his premise in his statement Friday.

I will say this. I was in High School ROTC for four years (and learned a great deal there, from first aid to how to find my way out of the woods if I get lost). I applied to go to school on a Naval ROTC scholarship (I failed the physical due to flat feet, but I did make an honest effort to serve this country). I admire the men and women who are willing to give three or four years of their lives to serve the rest of us, and that includes both friends and family of mine. So I am not at all anti-military.

I also did help (I won't say I was the only one involved) convince a young man I know last year not to join the Marines. The reason why was this: he had a two year old son over whom he had custody (his son's mother is somewhere drunk out in the hills). The point I made was very straightforward: his son needs him now, will need him to be around later in life, and has no other parent who deserves the name. Under the circumstances, it would have been irresponsible for him to join the military, and after thinking it through he agreed with those of us who made that point to him. And I fully support those who educate young people about the dangers involved in going to Iraq, so that they know when they join 1) that the chances are pretty good that they will go there, and 2) what the risks are if they do.

All that said, Congressman Murtha is wrong in suggesting that the answer should be, 'no' for every young person who is contemplating joining the military (regardless of their situation). We need the U.S. military for 1) defense (our country is blessed with an abundance of natural and industrial resources, and there are certainly plenty on this earth who are jealous enough to want to kill Americans in America if we let them-- Sept. 11 was proof of that), 2) to deter aggressive acts by regional powers, against us or our allies, and 3) to prosecute wars where they are justified-- we may or may not have committed enough troops to hunt for Mr. bin Laden, but hunt for him we must, and we need an effective, well funded and fully manned military to do that.

What we see today is a military that is strained, because it has been misused and in some cases outright abused. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki advised Bush and Donald Rumsfeld that 400,000 troops would be necessary to prevent an insurgency from establishing itself during the occupation period in Iraq. They wanted to do it with 100,000 to save a few bucks (Gen. Casey managed to talk them up to 150,000) and Shinseki was drummed out of the army. Then they became aware of the inadequate armor that our soldiers were provided with, and still were skinflints on sending the armor that was needed. They tried to cut combat pay, did cut the VA, and when my brother in law's Colorado national guard unit got to come home for a couple of weeks, the military dumped them off on the east coast and they had to buy commercial flights home and back (after their families were already struggling since they left their jobs behind). Well, that is what happens when you trust Republicans to fund a war. Say what you will about Johnson and the many political mistakes that he made, but underfunding for the 500,000 troops we had there wasn't one of them. The soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere have done everything-- and more-- than has been asked of them. It is their leadership, especially in the White House, that has failed them.

Even in situations like Abu Graib, too much of the blame has been placed on the nineteen year old national guardmsen involved. Not that they don't deserve the sentences that they got, but ultimately it comes down to a lack of supervision and a lack of leadership (as it did all those years ago with another batch of nineteen year old guardsmen at Kent State). It is also what makes the Senate anti-torture bill (which Bush resisted until he couldn't any longer) so important. Even if we accept the administration at its word that torture was not being practiced and that it was wanting to reserve the option for extraordinary circumstances, without a clear statement against it, nineteen year olds left to try and figure out the rules of war on their own will sooner or later make the wrong call.

So let's remember to point the finger where it belongs. At the muffed opportunities and planning by the White House. Not at the soldiers in the field (who continue do do an extraordinary job). And if you are considering becoming one of them, then think about it very carefully. Learn the facts. Think through what the impact could be on those whose lives depend on you, especially children. Be aware that you may be sent to battle under a leader that has failed to lead. But also be aware that your country needs a lot more good people in the military, and if you believe that you can be one of them, then do what you believe is right.

A view of how chaotic our healthcare system is-- from the inside

One week ago, I put up a blog on the fun time I had with the healthcare system when my wife had to go to the ER (and generated 26 comments, the most I've ever gotten on a topic on Deep Thought). But, for a better view of how much our healthcare system needs an overhaul (or maybe a wrecking ball and reconstruction), check out this post by Shrimplate, a nurse from somewhere down in the urban part of this state.

The car driver had smashed into him while he was motorcycling, circled around to view the damage, then sped away leaving the patient down on the street. The sharp ends of fragmented tibia and fibula sprouted like long nasty thorns from his pulpy lower leg.

It is amazing that people like the driver of this car even exist. But as often as hit-and-runs occur, it is a sad commentary. I've hit a car that was parked and no one was around, so I could have driven off and gotten away with it, but not being irresponsible, I tracked down the owner and showed him, and paid for the damage. But that was only a car. I can't even imagine someone who would treat a person like this.

Then he discusses another patient.

I rushed to call their pharmacy while the spouse hurried over there, only to find out when the pharmacist called back that the medication was not covered. The patient was your basic charity case who probably had been surviving on doctor's office medicine samples and mercy care for quite some time...

Trouble. This would be a hassle. Lovenox is so pricey that there was no way they could purchase it out-of-pocket...

The resident called in the meantime and gave me orders to hold the discharge on Lovenox lady, because without it she would be at risk for tossing a clot. She had a history of having done that before, hence her lack of toes on one foot. Both feet, actually, but it was just the one that had no toes at all...

the patient ended up staying.

Another night in the hospital probably goes for a good grand. Half that would pay for the Lovenox she needed. Oh well. It's the best health care system in the world.

Another outstanding example of how come in the U.S. we pay over 15% of our GDP for healthcare while in countries with universal healthcare, they pay around 9-12% of theirs. And while we are at it, since the lady won't be able to afford the stay, the hospital, after ruining her credit rating, will probably sell her account at a loss to a bill collector (who will make sure to hound her until she regrets ever going to the hospital in the first place) and recoup their loss by raising what they charge the rest of us when we have to go there (and you wonder why your health insurance premiums jump every year).

And people suggested in 1994 that Universal Healthcare would be a nightmare. The nightmare is here alright, mainly because it didn't get passed.

Lack of energy conservation has a price-- and it is paid in lives.

Funny (or in this case, tragic) how the timing of certain events seems to coincide to bring an issue into perspective. In today's Arizona Republic, there was an article on the tripling in the price of Uranium over the past few years and the crippling legacy of past Uranium mining on the Navajo reservation.

FLAGSTAFF - The price of uranium has tripled in the past two years, bringing with it the possibility of another uranium rush in Arizona, the state with the richest deposits of the ore and, along with New Mexico, the worst legacy associated with its mining.

Last year, 700 mining claims were filed and 100 test holes were bored into the wild, remote high desert in northern Arizona...

Secondary supplies of uranium on the world market have virtually dried up, and China, India and Japan are clamoring for uranium for their burgeoning domestic nuclear-power industries. Uranium now fetches $36 a pound on the spot market. Four years ago, it was going for just over $7 a pound.

But not everyone is happy about the search for new mine sites. Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., stirred to action by the memory of how dangerous uranium mining can be, issued an executive order in November banning negotiations with uranium companies or uranium exploration on the three-state Navajo Nation, which was engulfed by a public health tragedy after the first wave of uranium mining began on its reservation in the 1950s. Dozens of premature deaths of Navajo miners and passed-on genetic defects have been attributed to uranium exposure.

"You look around the reservation and see so many elderly people who are crippled and can barely breathe," said Robert Stewart Sr.of Tuba City, a Navajo who worked for fiveyears in a mine in the mid- to late 1950s."This pretty much devastated much of a generation."

Joe Shirley is one of a vanishing brand of true leaders-- those who are willing to turn away the big bucks because the health and wellbeing of the people who they lead is more important. Of course, Mr. Shirley's authority ends at the borders of the reservation and as the article makes clear, the focus will now shift to lands just to the west of it. Uranium is dangerous. Whether in getting it out of the ground, processing it, using it in reactors, using it in 'depleted Uranium' shells, or figuring out which patch of earth to dispose of it in after use, it is just not a safe material to be around. Period.

But Uranium mines aren't the only dangerous endeavors associated with our continual thirst for energy. Today, we are watching the continuing drama unfolding in West Virginia, where an explosion ripped through a coal mine, with thirteen men missing at this hour. Three years ago, we watched and witnessed a true miracle when nine men were hauled out of the ground after another coal mining accident in Pennsylvania. We can only pray tonight for the safety and safe rescue of the thirteen men who may be trapped as far as a mile into a coal mine and 260 feet under ground in West Virginia. And we well know that coal produces pollution, although with modern technology, the level of pollutants produced by burning coal has been reduced to a fraction of what it once was. A fraction, however, is not zero, and coal pollution continues to be a problem. Further, new standards set by the Bush administration under the double-speak 'Clear skies act,' actually increased the allowable levels for a number of pollutants produced by burning coal.

Some years ago, I went to school at a school with a premier department of Petroleum Engineering, and met a number of men who had worked as a 'rough-necks' in oilfields. Several of them were missing fingers, and they told me quite a bit about the hazards involved in getting oil out of the ground. And oil produces a lot of the same pollutants as coal burning-- these fossil fuels together are responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming.

Now, I will say that there is no such thing as a completely safe energy source. And since as a society, we aren't willing to go without modern energy and live in the early colonial lifestyle that the development of the steam engine swept away, we accept that there will be some danger associated with obtaining it. We should always work to make mines, oil rigs and power stations as safe as possible both for those who work there and those who live nearby (as I do, with a coal fired electric plant less than two miles from my house, and employing a lot of my neighbors), but realistically there will always be some level of danger involved.

But, as today's headlines should make clear, shouldn't we do more in terms of energy conservation? Not only because it makes good financial sense for individuals, nations and the world, in fact everyone except energy execs, but in the long run conservation-- reducing the demand for energy by means of increased efficiency and less waste, will save lives. There won't be as much need for mines, so less mines and ergo less accidents or mining related diseases. Asking people to go get fuels for energy that will be used well is one thing, but asking them to get more of it just to cover the energy that is wasted is something else entirely.

More on immigration

As a follow up on the last post, I do applaud the efforts of people who work to make sure that people who would otherwise die in the desert are saved.

Now, let me address the whole topic of immigration in some more detail:

First of all, I am not advocating that we ignore illegal immigration. And some bills right now in front of Congress, notably the McCain bill, propose realistic solutions. I have long maintained that as long as businesspeople were not given any more than a slap on the wrist for hiring illegal workers (like the $11 million that Wal-Mart agreed last year to 'donate' to programs discouraging illegal immigration in order to settle a court case), there would be a supply of jobs, and people would come (according to free market principals, in which they have labor to 'sell,') and most bills (finally) are starting to address that.

The hang up though has to do with immigration quotas and the people who are already here. The 10-20 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States (no one is sure of the number) is the accumulated total going back until 1923 (the year, as Isaac Asimov once wrote, that Emma Lazarus' 'golden door' slammed shut) of the differences between the legal immigration quota (what Congress wished for) and the actual number of immigrants (what the laws of supply and demand in the labor market dictated). Bills like the Cornyn bill do nothing to address this, and by requiring that all of them go back to where they came from and apply legally, become laughable (does anyone really think that any of them at all will follow that law?)-- but it makes good 'tough-sounding' political rhetoric in an election year. And the fact is, that ultimately we need them here. The number of working illegals in America is several times the unemployment rate. Even with my wife still being unemployed, I can see that booting all illegals (or even half of them) out of the country would cause severe economic disruption. Additionally, we heard last year about all the problems with Social Security. Illegal immigrants don't generally pay Social Security taxes (since their employers don't readily admit that they exist in the first place), but their demographic-- overwhelmingly young, with large families, would-- if they were given some type of legal status (which would involve starting payroll taxes), go a long way towards solving the projected problems with Social Security.

Beyond that, the best plan for controlling the flow of immigration is one where the economy itself determines the number of immigrants. Suppose we did the following: 1) implemented severe penalties for employers (including jail time) who knowingly or by intentional negligence hired persons who were not legally eligible to work in the United States. 2) Allow people who are not U.S. citizens to buy a work permit as often as they needed to, for say $1000 up front (after which, as long as they passed background checks designed to look for terrorists) they could enter the country and find a job. Each year, they could pay $250 to reauthorize their work permit (no limit on how many years) and their employer would have to go to a website and verify that this was done. Under this kind of system, once the job market was full, it would not be profitable for more foreigners to pay just to come here and be unemployed, but until then, they would pay (since it would be foolish for someone to risk going to prison when as many workers as needed would be available).

Take a moment to support two unsung heroes

On July 9, 2005 two No More Deaths volunteers, Shanti Sellz and Daniel Strauss, were arrested by the United States Border Patrol while medically evacuating 3 people in distress from the desert near Arivaca, Arizona. Shanti and Daniel go on trial December 20, and are facing charges that could land them in prison for fifteen years.

Join with border activists, humanitarians, faith-based groups, and others who are supporting Shanti and Daniel in saying Humanitarian Aid is Never a Crime by posting this message on your Web site, journal, or blog.

Get a copy of this message here.

And, to get an idea of what kind of guy some on the other side of this (including Arnold Schwarzenegger) are holding up as an example, Minuteman founder Chris Simcox, the Tucson Citizen has a pretty good article on what kind of guy he is: paranoid, child abuser (both of his ex wives said pretty much the same thing), bigot, nut.

(credit to Tedski on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion for the link).

Being opposed to monitoring people who have not committed a crime does not contradict supporting it for people who have committed one.

I recently got an email from someone who has been a reader (though infrequent commentor) on 'Deep Thought' since it began. The email asked about three posts in particular: My post from July 7, advocating electronic tracking of high level sex offenders, (follow up on August 3), then about a post I made on October 15, The prison which follows prison (discussing the lack of societal support for convicted felons who leave prison and want to succeed in society), and the post I made this past Thursday about RFID chips along with other statements I have made opposing the right of the government to spy on you. The reader asked whether these three posts taken together were contradictory.

My answer is, 'no, not at all.' First of all, I continue to oppose searches which violate the fourth amendment (such as surveillance without a warrant) and consider it a fundamental Constitutional right to not feel the weight of government snooping in your life.

At the same time, convicted felons surrender many of their Constitutional rights upon conviction. Some of these rights are restored over time, but in other cases they are not. An obvious example is the second amendment. I am in fact a full supporter of the second amendment and completely support the right to buy any make or model of firearm. However, we deny this right to convicted felons, and it is done so because of the increased risk, based on past behavior, that that person in particular is more likely than other people to use a gun to hurt someone else. That is a reasonable restriction. And does it prevent felons from getting guns? No, it does not. But we maintain the right as a civilized society to nevertheless put these sorts of restrictions in place, against those people who have demonstrated that they are capable of committing a crime against someone else. Now, I don't universally support restricting all Constitutional rights for felons, only those that demonstrably could allow them, by abusing it, to harm someone else (since they have already shown a propensity to do so). For example, the right to allow felons to vote is a complete mosaic over the states: Maine and Vermont allow them to vote even while they are in prison. Four southern states never allow them to vote, no matter what the felony was or how long they have been out of prison or off probation without committing a crime. The other 44 states range everywhere in between. Unlike the gun restriction, there is no uniformity in this case, and since it is hard to see how allowing someone to vote would demonstrably harm society, that restriction makes no sense. I don't have a problem with not allowing someone in prison or on probation to vote, but once they have paid their debt to society, this is not a right it makes sense to continue to restrict.

So, we come to the question of tracking devices. Now, as I said above, I consider that we should be able to go through our lives without the government snooping on us. However, in the case of some convicted felons, they are in fact on parole, which depending on its terms, can require regular meetings with a probation officer, detailed accounting of where someone has been and with whom, or other restrictions on privacy. There are also provisions for 'house arrest,' in which case a person's whereabouts can be electronically monitored 24/7 (which is what happened to Martha Stewart). These are both completely warranted sentences given within the criminal justice system, and are a humane and cheaper alternative to longer prison sentences. There is no right to privacy assumed within the criminal justice system, nor should there be.

Now, in the case of sex offenders, they have special laws that pertain to their status as sex offenders. The reason for these laws is very simple-- it has been shown in study after study that sex offenders, especially pedophiles, are unable to change their sexual appetites, and as such will remain a menace to society as long as they are on this earth. Recognizing this to be the case, there are two strategies which we can and should pursue: the first is that while we can't get rid of the compulsion to have inappropriate sex, we can and should treat it with ongoing counseling (no, this is not a waste of money, and even if it were, we have an obligation to ourselves to try). The second is the enforcement side. Right now, sex offenders are required to register. But that is often not enough. Some of them don't register, some of them move (as we saw last year in Florida, where a man was living several miles from where he was registered and murdered a nine year old girl), and in some cases other events happen (for example, right now authorities are hunting over 2000 registered sex offenders who fled the Gulf coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.) Now, the requirement to register already has been upheld in court as a reasonable measure that can be applied to these particular felons. So putting a tracking device (whether it be similar to the one put on Martha Stewart or an RFID chip) on them is not likely to run into constitutional problems. What it would do would be to save many lives. Even if we assume that people like Joseph Edward Duncan III would still have committed their crimes, it would make it much quicker for police to pick up the scent and catch them before they could kill the children they took with them. And ideally, knowing that this was the case, the offender would not commit the crime (very few commit a crime in the belief that they will be caught). If they moved from where they were registered, that would also show up quickly. And in the case of those who simply chose to not register at their new addresses or evacuees, tracking down where they are now would be much easier. And, essentially, it would mean that the penalty for rape or pedophilia would be a sort of 'life on parole.' That is not unreasonable when we consider that for murder, people can receive a sentence of 'life in prison,' and rape and pedophilia are only one step below murder on the crime scale (and no question that they should be), more serious than either armed robbery or assault.

On the third topic here, whatever specific actions we take to make society safer from people who pose a hazard (this category also includes, for example, chronic drunk drivers and career criminals), we do have an obligation to remember that the 'corrections' department is to correct behavior. And no matter what rate of success we have with rehabilitation programs, cutting funding for them, as has been done over and over, is a mistake. We have to try, so that those who genuinely want to reform themselves, have some option other than a return to crime. Failing that, we will continue to cycle the same group of people in and out of jail, as they enter society and are unable to find legal work. If we are not having success with rehab programs, the answer is not to give up and eliminate them, the answer is to study them and find out WHY we are not being successful and WHAT we can do differently to change that outcome.

Taking common sense measures to protect yourself against the potential excesses of someone and working to make things better for that person are not mutually exclusive.

More Troubles Rubles for DeLay

Today, there was another of the almost weekly new reports linking Tom DeLay's fundraising machine to GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Hardly even news anymore, except....

it seems to cross yet another new frontier in the annals of DeLay, Abramoff and their willful brushing aside of campaign finance laws and ethics in DeLay's maniacal quest to create a lasting GOP majority in Congress by whatever means he could.

And WHAT was done?

Tom DeLay apparently benefitted from contributions from a foreign source.

The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners will not identify the money's origins.

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay.

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.

The article then goes on through more information on the donors to the fund and the help they received from DeLay, and includes this little tidbit:

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law...

While DeLay's wife drew a monthly salary from the lobbying firm, she did not work at its offices in the townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to former Buckham associates.

Neither the House nor the Federal Election Commission bars the payment of corporate funds to spouses through consulting firms or political action committees, but the spouses must perform real work for reasonable wages.

He didn't receive a direct financial benefit but they hired his wife for $3,200 per month to pass on some lists (some people drop dead while working for less than that). Sounds like a pretty direct financial benefit to me (I don't mean to presume anything about the financial structure of the DeLay household, but I would think that money paid to his wife would constitute a direct financial benefit to him; My wife has been unable to find permanent employment for three years and it certainly has affected our household income, in the opposite manner from DeLay's).

So the next question is, given that the money was from a foreign source (and was therefore illegal), WHAT was it used FOR? Well, the article also delves into that.

Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."

DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee.

It was used for attack ads, and to raise more money.

The only question I have, is how much money did it eventually turn into, and which Congressmen benefitted (because we know where ARMPAC money went-- to GOP Congressmen and Congressional candidates all across the country.)

And keep in mind that Tom DeLay is STILL the Majority Leader (only temporarily suspended) of these same Congressmen.

Funny how a million dollars of foreign money can go so far in America these days.

Then, there is a question of WHO were these Russians?

Three sources familiar with Abramoff's activities on their behalf say that the two Russians -- who knew the head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom and had invested heavily in that firm -- partly wanted just to be seen with a prominent American politician as a way of bolstering their credibility with the Russian government and their safety on Moscow's streets. The Russian oil and gas business at the time had a Wild West character, and its executives worried about extortion and kidnapping threats. The anxieties of Nevskaya and Koulakovsky were not hidden; like many other business people, they traveled in Moscow with guards armed with machine guns.

Tom DeLay's kind of people, living in Tom DeLay's kind of society, in other words.

There is also the question of HOW the donation was to be made.

A former Abramoff associate said the two executives "wanted to contribute to DeLay" and clearly had the resources to do it. At one point, Koulakovsky asked during a dinner in Moscow "what would happen if the DeLays woke up one morning" and found a luxury car in their front driveway, the former associate said. They were told the DeLays "would go to jail and you would go to jail."

The tax form states that the $1 million came by check on June 25, 1998, from "Nations Corp, James & Sarch co." The Washington Post checked with the listed executives of Texas and Florida firms that have names similar to Nations Corp, and they said they had no connection to any such payment.

James & Sarch Co. was dissolved in May 2000, but two former partners said they recalled hearing the names of the Russians at their office. Asked if the firm represented them, former partner Philip McGuirk at first said "it may ring a bell," but later he faxed a statement that he could say no more because confidentiality practices prevent him "from disclosing any information regarding the affairs of a client (or former client)."

Nevskaya said in the e-mail yesterday, however, that "neither Naftasib nor the principals you mentioned have ever been represented by a London law firm that you name as James & Sarch Co." She also said that Naftasib and its principals did not pay $1 million to the firm, and denied knowing about the transaction.

Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.

A Rolls would be too obvious, and cash would be too messy, so hence the check.

And WHY did they want to give money to DeLay?

One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network's director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay's vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.

"Ed told me, 'This is the way things work in Washington,' " Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group's fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details.

Now, it was meant to 'influence' DeLay's 'vote.' Of course, one of 435 Congressmen is very unlikely to be the single deciding vote, but in DeLay's case, as Majority Leader, his 'vote' was more like his 'House.' I have blogged before on some of the tactics that Tom DeLay has used in the House to make sure that he gets legislation passed that he supports.

And he delivered in this case: (read on):

The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 -- just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm -- that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.

House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.

On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on "Fox News Sunday" on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds "unfortunate" because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. "They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That's just outrageous," DeLay said...

In the end, the Russian legislature refused to raise taxes, the IMF agreed to lend the money anyway, and DeLay voted on Sept. 17, 1998, for a foreign aid bill containing new funds to replenish the IMF account. DeLay's spokesman said the lawmaker "makes decisions and sets legislative priorities based on good policy and what is best for his constituents and the country." He added: "Mr. DeLay has very firm beliefs, and he fights very hard for them."

So, the Russians got their legislation to fund the IMF for bailing out the Russian economy while apparently still using their domestic leverage to avoid a tax hike. My only question is this: If 'Mr. DeLay has very firm beliefs, and he fights very hard for them,' then why did the Russian oilmen feel it was necessary to give him a nickel? I mean, if you try for a moment (I know it's a stretch) to put yourself in the shoes of a corrupt Russian oilman, wouldn't you try to bribe people whose help you actually needed? Ergo, they needed his help. It is just a 'coincidence' that he spoke up on their behalf and that members of Mr. DeLay's own party in the house were overridden and forced to vote for a bill they had taken a stance against.

Yeah, a lot like the 'coincidence' we mentioned earlier that the original cover group, after presumably interviewing many qualified candidates, just 'happened' to decide that Christine DeLay was the right person for their position.

Now, there is a question about the fact that the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits foreign nationals from making any contribution to candidates or parties, but this organization was able to skirt the act.

No legal bar exists to a $1 million donation by a foreign entity to a group such as the U.S. Family Network, according to Marcus Owens, a Washington lawyer who directed the IRS's office of tax-exempt organizations from 1990 to 2000 and who reviewed, at The Post's request, the tax returns filed by the U.S. Family Network.

So that's the secret then. Give it to a 'public interest group,' and it's legal. But certainly unethical. And ultimately that should be illegal as well. But with Tom DeLay writing the laws, that won't happen any time soon.

What is worse than the spying that we know that George Bush has done? How about what he could be doing.

This is kind of spooky, especially in light of the news we have seen the past few days involving the Bush administration's penchant for circumventing normal legal channels to spy on people.

Bar codes on products are going the way of the horse-drawn carriage, and being replaced so called RFID chips (short for Radio Frequency Identification), which look like small square patches with wires. And scanning the item at the checkout counter is only the first thing they are good for.

To the industry that makes and markets RFID, it's simply the next logical step from bar codes: providing a cheap, easy way to keep products on the shelves, consumers happy and companies making money.

But to many privacy-rights advocates, RFID tags could be the forerunner to nightmare scenarios in which RFID technology is the Trojan horse that brings Big Brother into your home, snooping through your medicine cabinets, fridge and underwear drawer to find out what you do, buy and believe, and, ultimately, what you are.

This small tag has, so far, largely flown under the radar of consumers and the mainstream press. But in early October, privacy-rights advocates Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre published a book, "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID," that has RFID proponents on the defensive....

And the federal government plans to put RFID tags in passports, prescription medications and perhaps driver's licenses and postage stamps. One day, the "Spychips" authors fear, the tiny tags could be on everything from candy bars to dollar bills, compromising both privacy and personal security.

The wires and microcircuitry in RFID chips allow the movement of the chip, and even its orientation, to be tracked by anyone who has the inclination to do so. And since they are putting these chips in everything from cassette tapes to underwear labels, it is already possible to track every single person. But if the government is successful in integrating it into, for example, driver's licences, then it is safe to say that any kind of personal freedom will be severely restricted.

I won't be around the blogosphere for a couple of days; I get to spend some time in Albuquerque with my kids (well, plus what I'm sure will just be a complete blast of a fun afternoon at the dentist). My wife is insisting that I go as planned, probably because she needs a break. But you see, I chose to tell you that. I also could have not told you that. I value the freedom to tell or not tell. I don't want some government employed spook somewhere punching up my name on a computer and gets a picture perfect view of everything I see, courtesy of some innocuous looking tag on my belt.

Just remember-- Managed Care was the Republican alternative

Yesterday, I had the 'opportunity' to examine America's healthcare system (and don't forget-- we now have the Republican system of 'managed care,' -- HMO's, PPO's, and other 'choices' that they pushed for in 1994 as an alternative to Universal Healthcare) from the inside. My wife had to go the emergency room. We got there at about 12:00 noon. We got out just before 7:00. And the majority of that time was spent in the waiting room (not fun since we had a nine year old with us).

Now, I don't begrudge the hospital for the wait, since just like you I would prefer that they do it right rather than quickly, but just a rhetorical question: When arguing against universal healthcare in 1994, didn't Republicans argue that it would produce long waiting lines in hospitals (at least we were in Flagstaff-- there have been reports of people coming into emergency rooms in large cities and waiting fourteen hours to be seen)? So it looks like they've got that one down.

They also argued back then that Universal Healthcare would restrict your choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. Well, speak again-- as one who has been forced to change providers at least once rather than 'go outside the system,' and pay an arm and a leg. And we haven't even gotten to what happens if you need a prescription which is not in the formulary-- a prescription which I need is not covered, so I pay over $80 for a month's supply-- and that's a bargain relative to what some people have to pay, for drugs that cost hundreds of dollars a month. Looks like they nailed 'restricting your choice' down with their system just fine.

Then, there was an argument that a bureaucrat, rather than a doctor, would decide whether to approve a procedure. Hmmm, my wife was denied a procedure (under our old healthcare plan) several years ago, by a bureaucrat, not a doctor, which contributed to her being in the emergency room yesterday. And in other cases, people have been denied care that led directly to their deaths--- so Congress and President Bush, in their infinite wisdom, 'fixed' that problem-- by fixing what few loopholes there were in existing legislation that protects your HMO from the consequences if they make that kind of decision (remember the President preferred a 'Texas plan,' but then never sent a bill to Congress to rectify the problem after the 'Texas plan' was thrown out in court). So, if you are denied coverage, you can appeal their own decision to your HMO (that'll be a fair unbiased review, won't it) and then that is the end of the line. Yes, they've nailed down the worst nightmare scenario under their opposition to Universal Healthcare, we have that today too.

And then, there was the question of cost. I posted some on this here, but the fact is that our healthcare system, far from saving money, is now the most expensive in the world, where we spent 15.3% of our Gross Domestic Product on healthcare in 2003 (the most recent year for which figures are available) and it is increasing at a double digit clip, while countries with Universal Healthcare systems spent substantially less (under 10% in a number of countries, including France and not much over it in places like Canada and Germany) in the same year, with lower rates of growth. So the idea that it would cost more, well you see what happened to that one (just wondering, their governments are not running it to make a profit, while our system is managed by for-profit companies, you don't suppose that might have something to do with why it costs more?)

Oh, yes. And taxes. Well, right now, I pay the full premiums for my wife and kids (my own is paid by my employer). This amounts to about 16% I pay and about 6% my employer pays of my contract (i.e. gross, not counting overtime, which is unpredictable), including health, dental and vision. So overall, that comes out to 22% of my contract (and that doesn't even take into account even a penny of co-pays, deductibles or percentages of payments). You will note above that healthcare costs 15.3% of the GDP of the U.S. and generally about 9-13% in countries, so it is hard to argue that Universal Healthcare would make taxes go up more than what we are already paying (by local standards here, I make more than most people). Very likely the overall combination of taxation, health premiums and other payments to providers would go down, way down for most people.

Finally, there is quality. They have argued that we had the finest healthcare system in the world. And it is true, that IF you can afford it, you can get it here. However, even that is changing-- recently we saw the first face transplant in France. Now, the point isn't that it happened in France, but that it did not happen in America-- it used to be that the first ANYTHING technological was done in America (especially involving medicine). And as far as healthcare for ordinary people-- well, if the system is so bad in places like Canada and western European countries, then why do they live longer than we do? Maybe it's the balmy climate? Or is it that people go to the doctor when they need to, instead of when they can afford to?

Maybe it's time to give another look at Universal Healthcare. Because every argument they bring up, we will have a great response: That is what we have now.

UPDATE: Dorsano over at Night Bird's Fountain put up a great post on The Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition.

Abraham had two sons.

In all of the posts on Deep Thought, I have at most only made passing reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is the most vexing and intractable conflict in the world, and I don't pretend to have an answer to the myriad of problems facing two nations of millions of people, all fighting over a piece of land the size of Vermont.

To Israelis, it represents their historical homeland. A place that was promised to Abraham for his seed to live there, and they trace their lineage to Abraham through his son, Isaac. A place they were exiled from thousands of years ago, but never gave up hope for a return. A place where generations of hard earned pennies were put aside into a 'tzedakah' box to buy land, and then independence was gained at the price of blood. A place where a dream, ages old, has finally come to reality. A reality that has to be defended every day from people who want to destroy the entire country. They believe their holiest city is Jerusalem, and it is the capital of their country.

To Palestinians, it represents their historical homeland. A place that was promised to Abraham for his seed to live there, and they trace their lineage to Abraham through his son, Ishmael. A place where their ancestors fought with a succession of invaders to defend their land, including the Israelites, as well as the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Abbasids, the Crusaders, the Mongols, the Turks and the British. So now they see the Israelites back again as occupiers. And they will fight for their freedom and independence as they always have. They believe their holiest city is Jerusalem, and it is the capital of their country.

So, you see why this is intractable. Both sides can say, with much justification, that they are right.

Now, today I was reading the news and found this article on Christmas this year in Bethlehem.

BETHLEHEM, WEST BANK - The meticulously followed Christmas ritual dates back to Ottoman times.

Every year on the morning of Dec. 25, the Latin Patriarch and a host of Church dignitaries head southward from Jerusalem via an ancient road to Bethlehem. But this year, the procession will pass through a metal gate topped with rolls of barbed wire, normally closed but opened briefly so as not to impede the tradition.

Flanking the gate are sections of 28-ft. high slabs of concrete that have made the northern approach of Bethlehem into a walled city. Half encircled by Israel's barrier, residents in the city where Jesus was born worry that the obstacle will slow a renewed stream of pilgrims as well as sever Bethlehem's historic link to Jerusalem.

"Going to Jerusalem is now like going to Jordan," complains Ali Jubran, a construction worker from Bethlehem, as he puts finishing touches on a new checkpoint terminal. "If you want to pray [at the mosque], you have to present a passport."

Creeping gradually southward through the West Bank, Israel has completed about half of the 411-mile matrix of concrete wall, electric fence, and patrol roads. Israel says it is necessary to keep suicide bombers from reaching its shopping malls and buses, but a United Nations court ruled in an advisory opinion last year that it violated international law.

On the outskirts of one of Christianity's holiest cities, the barrier snakes through the hills, almost entirely closing off nearby Jerusalem. Israeli security officials have charged that Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem has served as the base for militants who have carried out deadly attacks in Jerusalem....

Back near the entrance of Bethlehem, the neighborhood around Rachel's Tomb - the traditional burial spot of the Old Testament matriarch - has become a ghost town. Once bustling with markets and restaurants, Bethlehem's gateway district has been carved up by a cement wall corridor that allows Jewish worshippers to visit the holy site without being exposed to sniper fire.

Now, I don't like the West Bank wall, but any honest discussion of it has to include the fact that the Palestinians brought it on themselves (as they have brought much misery on themselves). It is hardly reasonable to ask that a nation would simply ignore a steady stream of suicide bombers climbing onto buses in Tel Aviv as they were just three or four years ago and detonating themselves. Proportionate to the population, it would be as if we in the U.S. had a Sept. 11 or Oklahoma City bombing attack every other week. People would demand that the government do something about it, and they would. The wall has cut the rate of uncontrolled (meaning not searched) passage of people into Israel (and corresponding number of suicide attacks) to almost zero, and as that is what it was designed to do, it has been a success in that regard. Had the Palestinians not decided to launch their 'intifada' after the Barak-Arafat peace accord had broken down (a decision that was Arafat's, to go with a lifetime of poor decisions on his part) then today there would be no wall. And until the Palestinian authority takes action to restrain groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, even if it means using force to enforce their rules (like the stated position opposing attacks on Israel), there will always be more radical groups sending more bombers and launching more rocket attacks. Keep in mind that many Palestinians still consider that all of the territory is theirs (see this site, and if necessary click on their map link),, so simply evacuating the West Bank and declaring a Palestinian state would not end attacks on Israel.

At the same time, the vision of a nation that is so petrified that they build a wall around themselves, once used as a matter of sarcasm, is what we see with Israel today (and is now being pushed by some loonies as a method to control illegal immigration along our own southern border). The fence, however, doesn't just go around Israel. It also encloses enclaves of Israeli settlements (most of which were built simply by bulldozing whatever structures west bank Palestinians had on the land with little or no compensation and in some cases literally minutes to get out) which have exacerbated tensions. These settlers are often the most fanatical of zionists, who believe that all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza should be part of Israel and that all Palestinians should simply leave the country and move somewhere else. One has to question the wisdom of the Israeli government in not only building the settlements (only to later evacuate them at a political price and a waste of money, as we saw recently in Gaza), but in then populating them with the most fanatical of Israelis, those most likely to be involved in tense relations with their Palestinian neighbors (such as Allan Goodman, a settler who in 1982 entered the al-Aqsa mosque during midday prayers and sprayed the crowd with machine gun fire, killing dozens, and inspiring a new terrorist group, the 'al-Aqsa martyrs brigade'.) And the wall has been built on yet more Palestinian land. This has certainly helped feed radical Islamist groups, since people who have been displaced personally by settlements or by the wall are much more likely to become radicalized and take up arms against Israel. When the PLO was founded in 1964 (three years before Israel took over the West Bank, by the way), their main source of recruits were people who had owned land in Israel and been forced off of the land in 1948 (although there are arabs living peacefully inside Israel today, so to some extent it was those who believed that the five arab states then attacking Israel would prevail, and who were then not allowed back in when Israel won that war). Today, one of their main sources of recruits are Palestinians who have, or who know someone who has, been forced off of land in the West Bank. Another source (particularly for Hamas) are Palestinians, especially in Gaza, who have suffered from the periodic border closures which Israel enforced. This meant that some who lived there could not get to their jobs in Israel. And with no money coming in (the Gaza strip is not much bigger than the city of Washington D.C. and is literally packed with people, so the need for money coming in from outside is great), people were hungry, and hungry people with no hope are easy prey for someone with a message.

What we see then, is that the distrust and by now hatred of each side towards the other has caused each side to take actions that only provoke more actions against them by the other side. Then these actions justify and amplify their hatred.

Ultimately, I do see some hope here-- but probably not for many, many years-- and then only if it is backed by enough cash investment, particularly in Palestinian areas, to create a viable economy (for example, the largest employer in the West Bank is Coca-Cola. Their bottling plant in Ramallah employs over 20,000 Palestinians, and pays very good wages by local standards. This is one reason why the Palestinian authority chose Ramallah as their temporary 'capital,'-- it is one of the few success stories there). Only when Palestinians can find something better than Jihadism, can we expect to defeat the Jihadists. And the international community will have to contribute to that future. If Israel saw a Palestinian authority that had both the power and the willpower to crack down on terrorists in their midst (as in put them in prison, just as you or I would go to prison if, for example, we decided to sneak across the border and attack people in Mexico), then they would likely feel secure enough to tear down the wall. The settlements in the West Bank could in theory be evacuated and torn down, but only if the Palestinians not only recognized Israel in word, but also in deed (sites promoting tourism, like the one I linked to, would have to fix their maps.) Palestinian schoolchildren as well as Israeli schoolchildren would have to be taught the boundaries of their respective nations. The practice on the part of Palestinian politicians of speaking about peace while speaking in English while imploring the destruction of Israel while speaking Arabic will have to end. With the long list of people who have been involved with bloody acts, there would also likely have to be something similar to Nelson Mandela's 'truth and reconciliation commission,' where people can confess their crimes, renounce them, and as long as they live by that renunciation not face any consequences. Jerusalem will still be a sticking point. However, if all of the preceding are done, I suspect that something could be arranged (one thought that springs to mind, probably because it would be equally and totally unacceptable to both sides would be to establish a Jewish capital in the new city, which would be entirely under the control of Israel, a Palestinian capital in a portion of the old city, but not all of it, and the area around the Temple mount, the Mosque of Omar and the Wailing Wall an international holy place under the control of the United Nations).

However, with thousands of years of personal, religious, ethnic and national hatred, it will be a long, slow road.