It started out a fairly typical local crime story. There was a car-jacking at the Grand Canyon. Later it was learned that this was on the heels of an apparent failed suicide attempt by driving into the Canyon. Two days and a cross state police chase later two men were dead.
Then the human side of the tragedy came out. It was collateral damage from the war in Iraq. Former Marine Staff Sergeant Travis N. "T-Bo" Twiggs was one of the dead. Shaun Mullen at Kiko's House (http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/) has the details:

   

Twiggs went AWOL from his job at a Marine Corps laboratory in Quantico, Virginia.
    He and his beloved brother, Willard, 38, drove to the Grand Canyon, where their car was found hung up in a tree in what appeared to be a failed attempt to drive into the chasm.

    The brothers then carjacked a vehicle. They ended up several hundred miles away at a southwestern Arizona border checkpoint on May 14 and took off when they were asked to pull into an inspection area. Eighty miles later, the car was sighted on the Tohono O'odham Native American reservation, its tires wrecked by spike strips.

    As tribal police and Border Patrol agents closed in, Twiggs apparently fatally shot his brother and then killed himself.

His PTSD was diagnosed, but not effectively treated. He had even met with shrub on behalf of veterans:

   

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) -- Last month, Marine Staff Sgt. Travis N. "T-Bo" Twiggs went to the White House with a group of Iraq war veterans called the Wounded Warriors Regiment and met the president.

    Twiggs had been through four tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan and months of therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in which he said he was on up to 12 different medications.

    "He said, `Sir, I've served over there many times, and I would serve for you any time,' and he grabbed the president and gave him a big hug," said Kellee Twiggs, his widow.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hD0tzsn2RZuCtbFu5SdtwUgYZevgD90NGBP81

Making the case even more tragic is that Sgt. Twiggs was trying to get treatment, but the system is inadequate.

   

"All this violent behavior, him killing his brother, that was not my husband. If the PTSD would have been handled in a correct manner, none of this would have happened," she said in a telephone interview from Stafford, Va.

    Travis Twiggs, who enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1993 and held the combat action ribbon, wrote about his efforts to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder in the January issue of the Marine Corps Gazette.

    The symptoms would disappear when he began each tour, he said, but came back stronger than ever when he came home.

    He wrote that his life began to "spiral downward" after the tour in which two Marines from his platoon died.

    "I cannot describe what a leader feels when he does not bring everyone home," he wrote. "To make matters even worse, I arrived at the welcome home site only to find that those two Marines' families were waiting to greet me as well. I remember thinking, 'Why are they here?'"

    Weeks later, Twiggs "saw a physician's assistant who said that was the severest case of PTSD she'd seen in her life," his widow said.

    He began receiving treatment, but the Marine wrote that he mixed his medications with alcohol and that his symptoms didn't go away until he started his final tour in Iraq.

    When he came home, "All of my symptoms were back, and now I was in the process of destroying my family," he wrote. "My only regrets are how I let my command down after they had put so much trust in me and how I let my family down by pushing them away."

    Kellee Twiggs said her husband was "very, very different, angry, agitated, isolated and so forth," upon his return. "He was just doing crazy things."

    She said her husband was treated in the psychiatric ward of Bethesda Naval Medical Center and then sent to a Veterans Administration facility for four months.

    Most recently, Travis Twiggs was assigned to the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory at Quantico, a job he said helped him "get my life back on track."

    "Every day is a better day now," he wrote in the Marine Corps Gazette. "...Looking back, I don't believe anyone is to blame for my craziness, but I do think we can do better."

    Twiggs urged others suffering from similar problems to seek help. "PTSD is not a weakness. It is a normal reaction to a very violent situation," he wrote.

    Kellee Twiggs said she can't understand why her husband was not sent to a specialized PTSD clinic in New Jersey.

    "They let him out. He was OK for a while and then it all started over again," she said.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hD0tzsn2RZuCtbFu5SdtwUgYZevgD90NGBP81

This is only one of many tragedies resulting from shrub's Iraq disaster, but one that is growing rapidly. We have more soldiers coming home in need of treatment, but the system is woefully unprepared to meet their needs. Shaun ends his post with a call for volunteers:

   

If you are not in denial and have some time to spare, there are opportunities to help
    returning and troubled veterans at your local VA hospital or military base, or through church and community organizations.

    These opportunities include helping fill out paperwork, finding lost forms, acting as a driver for doctors' appointments, and just visiting and listening. Connecting with the right people can be a multi-layered process, so be patient. A good start is to ask for Volunteer Services.

While I support Shaun's call for public help, I strongly believe that it is the Federal Governments responsibility to provide proper treatment to those who've served. It's going to be expensive, but Congress needs to fund PTSD treatment at an unprecedented level. Shrub's misguided war is creating new victims every day. We, as a civilized society, need to help these people in order to prevent future tragedies.

So Ralph Nader has launched an exploratory website, looking at the possibility of running another vanity campaign. Ralph, please don't. As much as I'm disappointed in the choices left for president, another Nader campaign will only help the Republican candidate.
I would love to have a viable progressive third party candidate, but Nader isn't one. My view might be different if Nader spent the years between elections building a party or supporting a movement. Instead, he only shows up in time for the election touting his activism from decades ago. There's no hard work, only a very large ego looking to be stroked.
Here's the basic problem with a third party candidate in a two party system: they usually draw votes away from the more popular candidate, and help the less popular candidate. This presidential election will be (I'm afraid) much closer than many people seem to think. The Democrats are not a sure thing, no matter how it looks right now. Nader's entry will only help the Republicans.
Don't do it, Ralph! (I've sent him that message, and I hope you will too).

Some of the presidential candidates are running on "populism", putting people ahead of corporations. But don't worry, the corporations are ready to fight back:

   

WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

    "We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

    The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue.

    Reacting to what it sees as a potentially hostile political climate, Donohue said, the chamber will seek to punish candidates who target business interests with their rhetoric or policy proposals, including congressional and state-level candidates.

    Although Donohue shied away from precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle. That approaches the spending levels planned by the largest labor unions.

    The chamber president is scheduled to announce the broad outlines of the organization's plans for the 2008 election and beyond at a news conference here today. Donohue also plans to fire a rhetorical warning shot across the bow of candidates considered unfriendly to business.

    "I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber8jan08,1,398255,print.story?ctrack=2& ;cset=true

Well, at least he's honest about his plan. Remember who owns the media that will inform a lot of the voters. The corporations aren't going to give up their power without a fight, as John Edwards has said many times. Look for the phrase "anti-business" to be used in ads attacking the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.
Government "of the people, by the people, for the people" has been perverted into government "of the rich, by the media, for the corporations."
(cross posted at http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia)

Today's the official opening day of the 2008 election season, with the first game being played in Iowa. I confess to being a political junkie, and I'll be taking a hit off of the "caucus" tonight. But it really is a silly game that's being played. First, the "rules" for a caucus are completely different from the "rules" for the rest of the "season". Second, the "game" will be played in Iowa, which is really a minor league state at best. Third, the "umpires" in the media have already decided what the final score should be, and they will spin the numbers to fit their narrative.
The population of Iowa is a small percentage of the country, and only a small percentage of them go to the caucus. Then, there are the arcane rules which are different for Democrats than they are for Republicans. The Democrats have the equivalent of the "designated hitter" rule, where if your candidate does poorly, you get to substitute a more successful one.
For sheer entertainment value, you can't beat the "umpires". Those "unbiased" media pundits who will be keeping score and declaring the "winners". They've already decided who will be the "stars", and what constitutes a "good game" or "bad game" for those chosen stars. The players who are not chosen "stars" will be ignored, no matter how well they play the game.
Most of the audience will only see the box score and hear the pundits reports of who had a good game. Only the political junkies will dig deeper into the play-by-play. The pundits will do their best to claim that this is "the most meaningful game of the season", but as I wrote a few days ago in "On A Limb", I have a feeling that this season could be much longer.
It is a ridiculous system, but as a junkie, I'll say "play ball."

With the Iowa caucus coming this week, all the political pundits are busy explaining "if X wins, Y is out" and pointing to various past elections as examples of why their "wisdom" is so "wise". There are a brazillion different polls the pundits point to, to "prove" that their "wisdom" is truly "wise."
I think they're wrong.
This election cycle has a very different dynamic that the traditional blowhards appear to be ignoring: the schedule.
In previous election cycles, the primaries and caucuses stretch out over months, and early momentum was the deciding factor. But the schedule has changed, with 20 primaries on February 5th. This creates a very different dynamic, where any lead from Iowa or New Hampshire can be overcome (this is true for both parties). The "main" candidates merely need to survive the early states with a semblence of credibility to focus on the larger states of their choice on "mega-super-Tuesday", where the nominations are truly at stake. Money will certainly be a factor, but the application choices of that money could be a deciding factor. The candidates who do the best job of targeting their strong states could end up in the lead.
I'm not going to attempt to predict who the new dynamic favors, but I'm tired of the beltway pundits trying to declare the winner after the first inning (or quarter, depending on your choice of sports metaphor). Looking at all the polls, what stands out to me is not who leads which poll, but that in each party no candidate has a clear lead. Which means that a majority of voters in each party will be making a second choice as the field narrows. That is where it will get interesting. The delegate split after Feb. 5th will either reveal a clear nominee for each party, or if it's still close a scramble during the later primaries.
As I said, I'm not going to predict who this favors. But I will predict that the vast majority of beltway pundits will be proven wrong. Not that they'll admit it.

My congressional candidate, Howard Shanker, has a nice statement about his position as an outsider. The regional Democratic party has chosen to throw their money behind an insider, so he's facing an uphill battle:

   

My campaign is generating tremendous grass roots support from concerned citizens across the country. With wage earners and laborers digging into their pockets to donate $15-$50 during tough economic times and a holiday season. The fact is, the people need a voice in Congress. My goal is to be that voice. My only agenda is to do what is best for the Country and the District. My agenda, however, does not appear to be in line with the plans of Democratic party insiders who have "anointed" an "insider" candidate for the seat. The "anointed" candidate was a state legislator who apparently "paid her dues to the Party." I invite readers to review this former state legislator's record and compare it to my accomplishments as a private attorney. She quit mid-term to run for Congress. She has yet to provide any substantive positions on important issues -- her people are "working on her policy statements." I have clear positions posted on my website. If there is an issue not addressed call or email me and I will address it.

    Even without substance, however, the Party's heir apparent has raised approximately $400,000. My goal is not to bad mouth or demean my opponent. Indeed, she appears to be very pleasant. I do, however, question the very fundamentals of our Party and our processes. These times call for candidates with vision, as well as the ability and willingness to oppose the status quo. Yet we elect good fund raisers, not leaders. We complain when our elected officials pander to deep pockets. Both the Republican and the Democratic parties understand this lapse in our collective sanity and take full advantage of it to promote their own. Whether out of some misguided sense of loyalty or simply political sinecure, make no mistake, they do have "their own."

    We are mired in an unjust war of our own making with no concerted effort to
    implement an exit strategy. As a nation, we are borrowing money from Saudi Arabia so we can buy oil from, for example, Saudi Arabia. We are faced with a national health care crises -- we don't have coverage. Our population is aging without adequate savings at the same time we have floundering Social Security and Medicare systems. Our government is rife with corruption -- already infamous for selling off essential government functions on a no bid contract basis. We do not have adequate infrastructure or services in place to meet the needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our elected officials continue to talk about global warming as if it is a political issue, rather than a scientific fact. We even have a viable Presidential candidate who rejects the theory of evolution. The list goes on. The system is broken. We need people to fix it, not to be part of it.

    The question is, "Do the political insiders have a strangle hold on power?" The answer is, "Only if we let them." The problems facing our country are too important to hand off to political machines whose wheels are greased by cronyism. We need leaders with vision and the ability to stand up for what is right in the face of overwhelming odds. That is what I have to offer. Help me bring democracy back to the Democratic party. If you have read all the way through this message -- Thank you. I invite you to Google me, "Howard Shanker". Even better, check out my website at www.Shanker2008.com . Please contact me with your suggestions and thoughts. I have a proven track record of standing up against the federal government and big corporate interests to protect communities, families, the environment, and the freedoms we all hold dear. Help me give the people a voice that doesn't march in
    lock step with party politics as usual. I hope you all have a good holiday season.

    Howard Shanker

    http://www.howardshankerforcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=21 &Itemid=76

I have made no secret of my support of Howard, as I see him as a refreshingly honest candidate who will represent the people, has honest principles, and expresses strong, intelligent positions on the most important issues. I'm looking forward to some serious grassroots campaigning in the coming year. (cross posted at http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/ Pygalgia

On the issue of torture, Gov. Bill Richardson says exactly what all the candidates should be saying:

   

We learned this week that the CIA destroyed tapes of American officials committing torture. The American people deserve to know whether laws were violated and whether the President was directly involved in illegal activities. Torture is a black and white moral issue. A failure to act decisively in this case will be an unacceptable failure of leadership.

    Torture is un-American, it violates international law, and it is wrong. And when I am President, I will make sure that those who are responsible for torture are held accountable for their actions.

    When I have secured the release of people held in captivity overseas, I have seen the fear in the eyes of captured men and women, and I have spoken with their scared families. To them, the Geneva Convention is not "quaint" or outdated; it is the bedrock institution guaranteeing that no one -- no matter how powerful -- is above the law.

    And yet, in the thirteen months since winning back the House and Senate, Democrats in Congress have done too little to force this administration to stop torturing.

    Perhaps one reason that Bush and Cheney have been so comfortable with torture is that they feel they will never be held accountable for their actions.

    Indeed, despite consistently stating that they can't accomplish anything because they lack a filibuster-proof majority, Senate Democrats failed even to block an Attorney General who equivocated on torture.

    They have taken no action on the International Criminal Court.

    They have failed to appoint a Special Prosecutor to provide for high-level accountability.

    They failed to restore habeas corpus.

    They have done nothing to enforce the Constitution or any of our laws against torture.

    This must change. If Congress won't act, then our next President must.

    The next President must be clearly and unequivocally committed to changing our country's stand on torture, and that is exactly what I pledge to do. Strong leaders are not afraid to be held accountable, nor are they afraid to hold others accountable for acts that we all know are wrong.

    As soon I am inaugurated, I will order investigations to find out who is responsible for torture -- those who allowed it, those who sanctioned it, and those who carried it out. We can and will find out who is responsible.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/torture-leadership-requi_b_76768.html

Richardson's chances of winning are extremely slim, but he's right on so many issues. With the media circus focusing on Clinton/Obama trivia, this statement by Richardson will not get the notice it deserves. But I, for one, will say "Bravo, Bill."
(cross posted at http://pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia)

When I read this story, I almost could not believe it. This is a total outrage:

   WASHINGTON -- In a nondescript conference room at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside listened last week as an Army prosecutor outlined the criminal case against her. The charges: attempting suicide and endangering the life of another soldier while serving in Iraq.

    Her hands trembled as Maj. Stefan Wolfe, the prosecutor, argued that Whiteside, now a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed, should be court-martialed. After seven years of exemplary service, the Army reservist faces the possibility of life in prison if she is tried and convicted.

    Military psychiatrists at Walter Reed who examined Whiteside, 25, after she recovered from her self-inflicted gun wound diagnosed her with a severe mental disorder, possibly triggered by the stresses of a war zone. But Whiteside's superiors considered her mental illness "an excuse" for criminal conduct, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

    At the hearing, Wolfe, who had warned Whiteside's lawyer of the risk of using a "psychobabble" defense, pressed a senior psychiatrist at Walter Reed to justify his diagnosis.

    "I'm not here to play legal games," Col. George Brandt, chief of Behavioral Health Services in Walter Reed's Department of Psychiatry, responded angrily, according to a recording of the hearing. "I am here out of the genuine concern for a human being that's breaking and that is broken. She has a severe and significant illness. Let's treat her as a human being, for Christ's sake!"

    In recent months, prodded by outrage over poor conditions at Walter Reed, the Army has made a highly publicized effort to improve treatment of Iraq veterans and change a culture that stigmatizes mental illness. The Pentagon has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to new research and to care for soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder. On Friday, it said it had opened a new center for psychological health in Arlington, Va.

    But outside the Pentagon, the military still largely deals with mental-health problems in an ad-hoc way, often relying on the judgment of combat-hardened commanders whose understanding of mental illness is vague or misinformed.

    The stigma around psychological wounds can be seen in the smallest of Army policies. While family members of soldiers recovering at Walter Reed from physical injuries are provided free lodging and a per diem to care for loved ones, families of psychiatric outpatients usually have to pay their own way.

    Wolfe suggested the military court might not buy the mental-illness defense. "Who doesn't find psychobabble unclear ... how many people out there believe that insanity should never be a defense, that it is just ... an 'excuse.' "

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004047625_reed02.html

A soul broken down by war attempting to take her own life is a tragedy. To prosecute her is flat out cruel and inhumane. I've got a piece of "psychobabble" for you, prosecutor Wolfe: Sociopathic sadistic fucks like you are an offense to the honor of America's veterans.

Please, contact your congressperson and senators and demand better treatment for mentally-ill vets.
Cross posted at http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia

One of the major environmental issues in this region is the contamination left from uranium mining. When the mines shut down in the late 80's, there was no clean up of the radioactive tailing's, and the result has been an estimated 3500 deaths from lung disease. Now, Howard Shanker (http://www.howardshankerforcongress.com/) is trying to get congress to act:

    <block>

Many of you have read about the testimony in recent Congressional hearings presented to Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, regarding the legacy of uranium contamination on Navajo land. For decades, the Navajo Nation and many grass roots organizations have been trying to address this human tragedy in real terms -- with only marginal success.

    Hopefully, one of the defining moments of this struggle took place last week. As one of the attorneys representing the Navajo Nation on the uranium contamination issue, I had the privilege of working with the Navajo delegation to help prepare them for this hearing. I was also honored to attend the hearing in Washington, D.C. and to monitor the testimony and questions first hand. In spite of ongoing discussions with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), the Department of Energy ("DOE"), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and limited clean up of specific areas, this was the first sense I had that something meaningful may actually be accomplished-that this tragic legacy of contamination may eventually be addressed on a large scale.

    An L.A. Times article from November 2006 first alerted Chairman Waxman to the plight of the Navajo - not the fact that the federal government had utterly failed to
    address this mess for decades. As outlined in the L.A. Times article, "from 1944 to 1986, 3.9 million tons of uranium ore were chiseled and blasted from the mountains and plains. The mines provided uranium for the Manhattan project, the top-secret effort to develop an atomic bomb . . . private companies operated the mines, but the U.S. government was the sole customer. . . . As the Cold War threat gradually diminished over the next two decades, more than 1,000 mines and four processing mills on tribal land shut down." The radioactive waste and debris from these operations, however, largely remains. People live in and around uranium-contaminated areas. Livestock grazes and children play amongst radioactive waste and debris. There is a palpable threat of radioactive contamination to the ground water in many areas.

    At the hearing, Edith Hood, while choking back tears, talked about the mining waste near her home in the Church Rock area, and the sickness and illnesses that plagued her and her family. These sentiments were echoed by Larry King and Ray Manygoats. Phil Harrison, although a Navajo Nation Council Delegate, testified as to his personal experience with uranium contamination. George Arthur, also a Council
    Delegate, testified in his capacity as the Chairman of the Navajo Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Arthur made it clear to the Committee that enough study has been done. It was now time for the federal government to take action to address this ongoing human tragedy. Stephen Etsity, the head of the Navajo EPA, managed to bring Navajo soil (from the Tuba City area) into the hearing chambers, where he used a device to demonstrate the existence of gamma radiation.

    It was, however, the Committee's questioning of government officials following the Navajo testimony that truly shed light on the process. Chairman Waxman led the charge, berating officials from EPA, DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"), Indian Health Services ("IHS"), and BIA. Waxman asked what these agencies needed to make this situation right. He also commanded that the parties come back before the Committee on December 12 to discuss what, if any, progress has been made. I must add, however, that I was also impressed with the passion and questioning of Congressman Udall from New Mexico -- as he pressed the head of the BIA as to his understanding of the government's trust responsibility to the tribes. Congresswoman McCollum from Minnesota was also among the representatives who presented a strong showing of support for the Navajo Nation.

    Although skepticism in matters such as these is usually the rule, I left the hearing with a feeling of hope. I am hopeful that Congress will follow through on the journey it has apparently committed to beginning. As a candidate for Arizona's Congressional District 1, not just an attorney helping to represent the Navajo Nation, one of my priorities has been and will continue to be to address this ongoing human tragedy on the Navajo Nation.</block>

Regular readers know that I'm supporting Mr. Shanker here in AZ-01, both because of his stance on a wide variety of issues and his overall integrity, and I'm glad he's standing up for the Navajo Nation on the uranium issue. In light of the current push for increased nuclear power, it's important to address the problems from past uranium mining to ensure that we don't repeat past mistakes.
I am once again reminded why I think Howard would be a damn good representative in congress. (cross posted at http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/ Pygalgia)

The whole "will Gore run?" discussion got me thinking "why the hell should he?". The level of our current political discourse is so demeaning that I can't see how any reasonably sane person would want to run for president. A few days back, I posted about the "sound bite" media that is motivated by corporate commercialism. But that is only one factor in the decline of our discourse. Another is that our media is increasingly personality driven. So many of the major pundits are famous for being famous, not for any wisdom they may have. They get a lot of attention for sounding "pithy", so they look for lines that have "buzz". So we get to hear about Hillary's laugh or Edwards' hair. Because a serious policy debate would take time, and they have to cut to a commercial every few minutes. Why would Gore want to put himself through it?
Which brings me to another major problem with our current political discourse: Professional politicians. It's not a Democratic vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative issue. In the current climate of attack politics, the only people who enter the arena are motivated by a desire for power and money. They have no desire or motivation to truly represent the "people". The "people" aren't funding the campaigns that keep them in office. And in national politics, the campaign never ends. To remain in office, they're constantly running for office. Thus the "Professional Politician".
What a fornicating mess we have, where government "of the people, by the people, for the people" is no longer possible. No wonder the people hate politics.
(cross-posted at http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia)

I've been trying to write a post on Iran that would compare the rhetoric with the reality, but I haven't been having much success in making it coherent. Now I see that Scott Ritter has written what I meant to say:

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran's nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran's support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments
    presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980's when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.

    The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting "intelligence operatives" who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific evidence.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18521.htm

Ritter is one of the people who said that the Iraqi WMD claims were lies, based on his time as a U.N. weapons inspector, and he was right. He was attacked by the right-wing, but some of us knew he was telling the truth. Now, as the drums are beating for war with Iran, we need to listen to him. Please read the whole thing.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) , "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, "Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement" (Nation Books, April 2007).
(cross posted at http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia

Happy 83'd birthday to President Jimmy Carter:

    "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the
    world, this administration has been the worst in history...The overt
    reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations,
    including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and
    others, has been the most disturbing to me."

    President Jimmy Carter
    Born October 1, 1924

I found Carter to be possibly the most interesting president in my lifetime. He was someone who you inherently trusted to be trying to do good. His energy and environmental policies have proven prophetic, and looking at the problems in the world today, I wonder how much better off we would have been had he succeeded in getting them implemented. Carter tried to do what was right for the long term, so of course he failed. America always looks for the "quick fix" regardless of the long term consequences. Carter was also very bright, and understood subtlety and nuance, but he was lousy at the "in the trenches" political fight. He got beaten up badly in the media, and never rallied enough support in congress to achieve any long term impact.
In the years since leaving office, Carter's humanitarian work has been awe inspiring. He's been a major force for almost every good cause in the world, and he has a level of international respect among American ex-Presidents that only Bill Clinton can rival.
On a personal note, I got to meet Mr. Carter in the mid-'80's through his wife Rosalyn, who is a strong mental health advocate. Both struck me as warm, brilliant, and deeply caring people.
With the benefit of hindsight, I wish that Jimmy Carter had been a more successful President.
Happy Birthday, sir.
(cross-posted at my place:http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia)

One interesting side of the SCHIP bill is its funding source (yeah, shrub plans to veto it, so this post is mostly irrelevant). The bill would pay for children's health care by raising the tax on cigarettes by $.61 per pack, which makes me wonder if this would be a stable source of funding.
Allow me to throw out a personal perspective: I'm a smoker. While I've tried to quit multiple times, I'm still a nicotine addict. My state sees taxing cigarettes as a politically safe way to raise revenues, as a tax on "sin". But here's where it gets problematic: every time the tax goes up, I cut down my smoking. The tax increase is actually good for me, as I damage my health less for financial savings, but it doesn't help the state's revenue.
I don't have a problem with raising the cigarette tax (heck, if they raise it enough, I might actually quit), but I question it as a reliable source of funds. The percentage of smokers in the population has been steadily dropping, and the remaining smokers are (like myself) smoking less. It's an interesting conundrum.
(cross-posted at my place: http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia)

Last night I flat out had fun while working toward a "better" Democrat. The event was "Rock the Peaks" for congressional candidate Howard Shanker (http://www.howardshankerforcongress.com/
http://www.howardshankerforcongress.com/) with music by Blackfire (http://www.blackfire.net/index2.shtml
http://www.blackfire.net/index2.shtml), and it was a blast.
There are two reasons that this was such a great campaign event. First, the candidate: Howard Shanker is a really warm, sharp guy who enjoys interacting with people. He enjoys talking more than making speeches, and spent the evening talking and listening with folks. Second, the music: Blackfire flat out rocks (if you haven't heard them, go to the link above; you'll be glad you did), and the dance floor was packed.
This was grassroots community politics at it's finest. Just a couple hundred people talking about issues, having a beer, and dancing. Judging by the people I talked to Howard did quite well. I literally talked to dozens who came with "no opinion" (most folks were there to see the band), and ended up saying "he's got my vote-that's the kind of representative I want in Washington".
I have no idea how successful the event was as a fund raiser, as I'm more of a technical organizer and support guy, but the place was packed and t-shirt sales were brisk. I also got to play MC, doing introductions and announcements, so I may be biased. But I do think that this is the kind of thing we need more of in our politics. Make it a fun event, generate community interaction, and give people a reason to care about voting. Put the "party" back into politics.
(More at my place: http://www.pygalgia.blogspot.com/
Pygalgia)