Politics Verses True Moral Leadership

BY CODY LYON

During a rousing March 13th sermon marking 20 years of the group he founded, ACT UP, 71 year old author and gay rights leader Larry Kramer argued that the current crop of Presidential candidates did not deserve gay votes. Kramer said they, the candidates, would all “sell us down the river given half a chance.”

Singling out Democrat Hillary Clinton, the candidate he predicts to win, Kramer said “the woman does not even know how to make simple declarative statements that involve definite details.”

Kramer couldn’t have planned the next day’s news cycle better himself. An answer Senator Clinton gave ABC News in response to a question about gay people suggested that Larry Kramer owns a mystical political crystal ball.

Clinton was asked whether or not homosexuality was immoral, to which she said “I’ll leave that to others to conclude.”

Showing traits of a real politician, the Senator did avoid declaratives and instead demurred, obviously hoping to avoid controversy from certain constituencies in America’s vast voting block. A few days later, after a great deal of uproar from some of her own core constituents, Clinton did step up and made it clear, that she does not think homosexuality is immoral.

In the first place, Clinton probably wouldn’t have been posed such a heavy handed question had it not been for highly publicized comments by the nation’s top military commander. When asked about gay’s openly serving in the military Joint Chief of Staff Marine General Peter Pace told the “Chicago Tribune” on the Monday before Kramer’s speech that the “United States is not well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way.” After Pace went on, likening homosexuality to adultery, he attributed his views in part to his personal upbringing where he said he was taught certain kinds of behavior were indeed, immoral.

Because of his position, General Pace’s comments trickle down into the courts of public opinion on gay people. To some, General Pace’s words further legitimize negative views towards homosexuality. Politically engaged, self serving Right Wing groups can point to his assertions as evidence that morality justifies policy, even if that policy clearly includes discrimination. Pace shares a background similar to that of millions of other Americans. But, his words have the potential to give pause to millions of socially moderate Americans struggling to overcome and move beyond clearly narrow interpretations of morality that lead to prejudices, stereotypes and ultimately the condemnation of entire groups of people’s ways of life.

To delve into the roots and definitions of morality would take hours, but there is no doubt, that over time, American’s views on what is moral and immoral has evolved. Many of these evolutions have resulted in elimination of policy and socially acceptable practices that enslaved, denied, separated and even paid less for the same labor, all which at one time or another, was justified by codes of conduct rooted in society’s interpretation of morality.

But there are countless examples where, with the help of strong and un-compromised leadership, oppressed people have stood up, and in the end, enlightened and affected the American moral compass in ways that have led to numerous examples of a more just and fair society.

That is why it was so disappointing that Hillary didn’t just say “no” the first time when asked whether or not she found homosexuality immoral.

Activist Larry Kramer is right about Senator Hillary Clinton’s chance at becoming the first woman President of the United States of America. Not to long ago, the idea of a woman President, believe it or not, may have been seen as immoral to some. American society subjected African Americans to second class citizenship and justified the slavery of human beings through narrow self serving interpretations of morality. Obviously, interpretations of what is moral have evolved and with that, society and its rules of conduct have changed. But those changes have involved difficult collective self examination and constant struggles to arrive at consensus. It has taken strong and brave leadership to make any headway to the more just and fair society of today, a fundament of true moral values.

One hopes that Larry Kramer is wrong about all the candidates selling gays down the river for political gain, and that in these days of competing interests and attempts at avoiding political minefields, reason and enlightenment, with the help of strong resolute leaders can help steer the nation to a more just society, for all people, including those who happen to be gay.

Although many on the Right point to interpretations of biblical based codes of morality as justification for much of Evagelical America's anti-gay sentiment, there is a passage in the bible that appears to rise above those condemnations and specific restrictions on behaviors deemed wrong by man. It is said to be a golden rule and it instructs God's children to “do unto others, as you would do unto yourself.”

Larry Kramer Tells it Like it Is (EDGE STORY)

The Man who founded HIV/AIDS activist group ACT-UP tells it like it is 20 years after that group's founding.
Read the piece at EDGENEWYORK

Who is Bob Perry and Why Should Voters Care?

RE POST FROM 11/2006 BLOG Also Published at OH MY NEWS INTERNATIONAL
What Bob Perry's Politicking Says About Campaign Finance Rules In America
BY CODY LYON

What Bob Perry's Politicking Says About Campaign Finance Rules In America
BY CODY LYON
Those who follow Texas politics might call Houston homebuilder Bob Perry a modern day kingmaker. Although Perry avoids the usual pomp, circumstance and other high profile antics associated with kingmakers past and present, the man who runs ‘Perry Homes’ commands formidable political influence in Lone Star State politics.

On one hand a generous philanthropist, the other, a shrewd highly successful businessman, running a privately held company that reported revenues of around $420 million in 2003. For years, Perry has turned part of that wealth into political influence through hefty campaign contributions at the state level.

Perry’s role as a major political player has been acknowledged, discussed and debated by the watchdogs of Texas state politics for quiet a while now. But, in 2004 a $4.4 million dollar donation to an unregulated, tax exempt, political group known as a federal 527 regulated PAC, caught the eyes of American voters beyond Texas.

Perry wrote and signed the check for one of the most controversial moments in the 2004 Presidential campaign. A highly contentious, controversial yet memorable television ad questioning Democratic Presidential candidate and Vietnam Veteran John Kerry's accounts of combat in Southeast Asia introduced most Americans to Bob Perry.

A number of critics saw the ad as just one more reason for more regulation of the 527s that engaged primarily in negative attacks on candidate’s ethics, morals and character.

But Perry’s direct role in the group 'Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth' thrust Perry along with his efforts and motives for politicking in front of a national political spotlight, a spotlight that has led to greater scrutiny, criticism and a number of questions about his intentions.

Perry’s money has shown up in the current election cycle through even heftier donations to 527 groups and candidates across the nation. Evidence of his influence has shown up in states like Idaho, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

There are a number of observers who think Bob Perry hopes to influence voters away from politicians that don’t share his conservative and strict pro business values, albeit perfectly legal, but controversial behavior under current campaign finance laws.

Back in Texas, Perry’s more recent efforts appear to have paid off with state legislation that directly impact his business interests. And, suggestive evidence shows that Perry may be hoping to export some of that Texas style influence to political contests and subsequent legislation beyond the lone star state's borders.


Andrew Wheat is Research Director for the Austin Think Tank and watchdog organization, Texan’s for Public Justice. He says Bob Perry and President Bush come out of the Texas Political system, a political culture devoid of donation limits, and large donations often appear to be rewarded with influence during the policy making process.

“Year after year, Bob Perry is Texas’s single largest political donor” said Wheat.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, Bob Perry has earned the title of “largest political donor in the United States” for the current election cycle.


Perry has spent around $9 million during this cycle alone, to fund 527 electioneering communication groups responsible for a number of attack ads on Democratic Party candidates. 527 groups with names like Economic Freedom Fund, Americans for Honesty in Issues have all been bankrolled by Perry money.

In addition to media ads, in some states, thousands of homes received phone calls, and a recorded voice claimed survey, but in truth, the calls were what is called a "push poll" ,”robocalls” These, according to analysts, attempt to plant seeds of doubt about a particular candidate , thousands were made, all paid for by Perry through the guise of a 527 group called Freeeats.com

Perry also funded The Free Enterprise Fund, a PAC seeking to directly counter the liberal messages of the well-financed and influential MoveOn.org.

Bob Perry's support for President Bush’s conservative agenda goes without question, which in part explains his efforts during the last Presidential election. Current campaign finance rules allow such participation.

Still, Perry’s specific motivation for attempting to influence the current crop of political contests in the Congressional and Senate elections are not entirely clear.

Ultimately, like many special interests or individuals with business interests, his desire to impact policy is probably related to the Pocketbook, which might offer at least one solid nugget of insight into the Developer's motives.

In Texas, Bob Perry has been a strong supporter of tort reform and legislation that is friendly to the homebuilder industry. And in that state, Perry's campaign donations coupled with aggressive industry lobbying efforts has resulted in Texas tort reform legislation and other changes tangibly favorable to the homebuilder industry.

It is no secret that the homebuilder industry would like to see similar homebuilder/buyer relationship reforms, especially those of a judicial nature, implemented on a national scale. Some fiscal conservatives and business interests argue that civil courts in buyer/builder disputes are biased, tending to rule in favor of the consumer/buyer. They attribute this, in large part, to the fact that jury members can easily identify and sympathize with fellow consumers. Supporters of tort reforms point to “frivolous lawsuits” and high profile outrageous financial awards that over the years have cost business interests millions of dollars.

In Texas, Bob Perry's political money and subsequent influence played a key role in reining what many of the tort reform advocates say was an out of control civil court system in that state.

But critics of the Texas overhauls say those changes have led to results that include a court system less friendly, even hostile, to consumer concerns. In particular some point to a chilling of legal recourse options for homebuyers seeking reparation for allegedly shoddy workmanship in new home purchases.



But is Perry's pumping of of cash into the Iowa, Colorado, Indiana and Tennessee campaigns, among others, an effort to encourage judicial reforms?.

Tennessee’s Democratic Party Chairman says he thinks that Bob Perry’s funding of an especially negative ad attacking Democrat Harold Ford’s Armani suits and expensive cigars is really simple, that it’s a shared Republican desire for power and protections of their interests.

“They (Republicans) need to control Congress to prevent investigations into Republican wrongdoing” said Bob Tuke, the state’s Democratic Party Chair.

In an apparent jab at Democratic Senate Candidate Harold Ford's opponent, Tuke called Republican Bob Corker "just one of theirs."

Coincidentally, Chattanooga's Bob Corker, like Bob Perry, made a great deal of his fortune in the building and real estate industry. And, many of the Tennessee Republican candidate's biggest supporters are members of the real estate and building industry.

The homebuilder industry has expressed enthusiastic support for national judicial reforms. The National Association of Homebuilders said in a 2004 press release that reforming the civil justice system has become, and will continue to be a priority for its interests.

That release went on to argue that trial lawyers, under the guise of consumer advocacy, are subjecting homebuilders to costly and unfair litigation fees.

In Texas, Bob Perry’s company has been no stranger to lawsuits.

According to a 2003 "Dallas Morning News" article, Perry's company has been sued 20 times since 1985. But it was a lawsuit called the Brio case that garnered the most attention. 1700 plaintiffs brought suit against Perry, other developers and a chemical company for their roles in the construction of a massive housing development in suburban Houston. The homes had been built over a toxic waste dump. The plaintiffs eventually settled for $200 million.

Still, some tort reform advocates see the Brio case as another example of what they call an epidemic of frivolous and unfair lawsuits.

Indeed, The American Tort Reform Association says according to its research, the American Judicial system is the most expensive in the industrialized world, costing $246 billion annually.

Often homebuyers sue homebuilders or developers over “lemon” conditions, shoddy construction or allegations of unfulfilled contract obligations. Tort reform advocates argue those disputes can be settled outside of court, and that in the end, large cash rewards to plaintiffs get passed onto consumers, including future home-buyers.

But on the other side, reform critics argue that "limiting" consumer's access to courtroom conducted legal procedures not only takes away an important safety net, in the end, such reforms could lead to a chilling of lawsuits that have exposed business and corporate misconduct, which also trickles down to consumer pockebooks.

Regardless, Bob Perry has had tort reform high on his agenda since the Brio case was resolved in 1992.

Any speculation over Bob Perry's behind the scenes national politicking requires a closer glance at his actions in Texas, and the potential role he and the powerful industry he’s a part of could play in the creation of policy on a national scale.

Janet Ahmed recalls a day in 2003 when she and other homeowner activists were at the Texas legislature in Austin promoting a Home- Lemon Law-bill that would offer protections to homebuyers in that state in a similar fashion that lemon car laws protect new car buyers. On this particular trip to the capital, Ahmed, the President of The Homeowners for Better Building organization says she couldn’t help but notice the large number of women, mostly elderly, that were dutifully shuffling about the State House. When quizzed by Ahmed, a few of the women said they were in town to talk to legislators about all those “"awful frivolous lawsuits” in Texas that were costing consumers so much money. According to Ahmed, the army of elderly women lobbyist were under the impression that everyday consumer pocketbooks were being impacted by a rash of frivolous lawsuits in throughout the State.


But, Ahmed says she thinks the busloads of elderly lobbyist were in fact brought in, fed breakfast as well as slanted information, educated, by Pro court reform coaches connected to the Texas homebuilder industry about the so-called frivolous lawsuits, in what Ahmed believes was a clear case of smoke and mirrors politics meant to promote tort reform specifically favorable to home builders and developers.

Ahmed says the Austin tort reform blitz was organized by the group Texas For Lawsuit Reform (TLR), run by Richard Weekly. Richard Weekly is the brother of another Texas homebuilder/developer, David Weekly. Ahmed and others have also said that the Texas Tort reform efforts were bankrolled by Developer Perry and Weekly's generous financial support for homebuilder friendly legislative, gubernatorial and judicial candidates.

In fact, from 1997 through 2002, The Weekly family, the Perry Family and the TLR organization gave over $5 million to various state races, including judicial races across Texas.



Back before George W. Bush was elected Governor of Texas, the state's homebuilder lobby had won passage of the Residential Construction Liability Act. The RCLA gave builders the “right to repair” a construction defect, before the consumer could take the homebuilder to court.

According some homeowner advocates like Janet Ahmed, the right to repair act quickly became the right to delay leaving homebuyers at the mercy of the homebuilders.

By the time Bob Perry campaign contribution benefactor Governor Rick Perry assumed his office, Legislation was passed placing limits on the amount of money that could be awarded to a homebuyer in a legal dispute, regardless of a builder's determined level of negligence. Later legislation went further, making it more difficult for homebuyers to prove damage or structural flaws may have been caused during the original construction process.

A 2004 "Los Angeles Times" article reported that it was also during that period, builders were starting to add arbitration clauses to their contracts forcing un happy homeowners to take complaints before private arbitrators, rather than a judge and jury. The "Times" noted that in 2003, the state legislature formed a new nine member "Residential Construction Commission" made up of inspectors, affiliated with or members of the homebuilder industry.

Much of the “RCC” legislation language was crafted by John Krugh. John Krugh is the lawyer for (Bob) Perry Homes. Krugh was later appointed by Governor Perry to serve on the RCC panel.

In Texas, Binding Arbitration clauses drove unhappy homebuyers out of the public courts and into an Arbitration system that homebuyer advocates say is lengthy, less regulated since disputes are no longer open for public scrutiny.

“Everybody has to go to binding arbitration, even if your roof is leaking or your wall cracking, and sometimes it takes months to resolve” noted Janet Ahmed who went on to say if the situation is unlivable, and the homebuyer decides to fix the problem themselves, they then forfeit their warranty and future repairs become the sole responsibility of the homeowner.

At Ahmed’s organization’s web site HOBB.ORG, countless horror stories offer details of American Dreams turned nightmare, stories where new homeowners discover defects like toxic mold or shoddy structural construction, tangible threats to what most Americans agree is their most important material investment, a house. HOBB also highlights frustration over new roadblocks in the Texas legal system.

Andrew Wheat has written that groups like Public Citizen, Consumers Union and Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings who've dealt with arbitration say it amounts to a Kangaroo court.

It was Wheat and members of his watchdog organization, Texans for Public Justice who dug and found information suggesting that former House Leader Tom Delay’s Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee might have been engaged in improper and illegal misuse of corporate campaign money. Wheat's tireless efforts, sparked events that led to Delay’s eventual indictment on conspiracy and money laundering charges and a snowball of charges that led to his eventual ouster from Congress.

The largest donor to Tom Delay's PAC "Texans for A Republican Majority was developer Bob Perry.

Wheat, deciphers Perry's Texas political motives with ease, noting his organization has followed Bob Perry’s long money trails for years.

In Texas “He’s motivated by a push to limit damages from homeowner lawsuits”

Perry's tremendous campaign contributions in Texas helped lead to legislation friendly to the homebuilder industry in that state. Some wonder if Perry and the homebuilder industry harbor similar aspirations for other states as well.

Observers of political players like Perry worry that voters aren't paying attention to powerful money interests and how cash given to politicians can turn into influence and tangible policy that affects people's lives.

For example, during a recent interview with West Virginia Public Radio, Jake Bernstein, Editor of “The Texas Observer, said “people don’t’ pay enough attention to who’s paying for campaigns.”

He noted that in the world of Texas Politics, there has not been the sort of open debate over campaign finance reform that there should have been, because so many members of the Texas Republican controlled legislature, the Governor and others including judges have all greatly benefited from money like Bob Perry's.

Theories still swirl beyond Texas over Perry's potential intentions to impact policy in the current political cycle?

Janet Ahmed at HOBB subscribes to the theory of Bob Perry wanting to share his Texas successes and influence with the rest of the country. Ahmed says campaign contributions provided Bob Perry and his allies influence over the leaders who quickly passed legislation she argues is now responsible for regulating the home buying public and not the home builder industry. She and other homeowner advocates point to a powerful lobby that hinders homebuyers from seeking legitimate reparations. Ahmed warns that what happened in Texas is coming to the rest of the country, especially if voters don't pay attention to the motives of behind the scenes political players like Bob Perry.


“If the wealthy Texas based homebuilders are able to limit liability in Texas then they are also going to try and influence the political arena in other states to do the same thing” she said.

Still, most observers outside Texas are cautious about drawing specific, more defined conclusions on Perry's national motives pointing out his strong ideologically conservative allegiance. Like millions of other Americans, Bob Perry's support for Republican candidates could be based in the same principals that anyone else who expresses an affinity for policies and issues that some Republican candidates support.

But, Perry's dalliances in other state's election through his bankrolling of the controversial 527 organizations and subsequent controversial television and radio commercials have warranted greater scrutiny.

Perhaps more importantly, scrutiny of Bob Perry has also raised deeper questions about the way political campaigns are financed in the United States and whether the shadowy unregulated nature of 527s needs more attention from lawmakers.

One concern is fairly certain, without greater campaign finance reform that plug up loopholes, money will continue to flow in to states from sources that in many cases, is not easily traced to source be it a special interest or well moneyed kingmaker. And, there is a prevailing assumption held by much of the electorate, that huge political donations corrupt the integrity of the system and allow well monied interests to buy political access and ultimately, influence over policy, which in many eyes, has become an grudgingly accepted part of the modern political process. In fact, some say the current 527 Pandora's box has opened up the door to antics like Perry's furthering a sort of stealth infiltration into the political ballgame.

Of Perry, one observer in Tennessee noted, there are clear political associations one can assume, and voters can draw their own conclusions.


Of Bob Perry's financing attack ads against Democrat Harrold Ford in Al Gore's home state, the widely known conservative Knoxville columnist Frank Cagle mused in an email note that "a Texas developer probably knows Karl Rove.”

ADDENDUM on BOB PERRY STORY

By Cody Lyon
On Election Day November 7th, The Associated Press reported in “The York Dispatch” that Pennsylvania Republican Gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann received $100 thousand from Houston homebuilder Bob Perry during the final two weeks of the state's Governor's campaign.

Swann's opponent, current Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, had vetoed legislation this past March, that would have implemented legal procedures similar to those in Texas that now send homebuyer/homebuilder disputes into Arbitration instead of civil courts.

In March, “The Philadelphia Inquirer” had reported that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett thought the vetoed bill was unconstitutional since it set limits on damages for defective workmanship and that it intruded on the state’s Supreme Court.

The Bill had been strongly supported by the Pennsylvania Builders Association.

TOLD YOU SO

By CODY LYON
Things are heating up at the Department of Justice. First, eight US District Attorneys, once proudly paraded as patriotic bells of goodness, were mysteriously ousted, and now the agency once run by a man named Hoover has admited that it engaged in improprieties that will probably send countless shivers down the spines of Americans who value privacy.

Some might think they’re hearing a collective “told you so” being articulated across the country as those who warned the Patriot Act, would chip away at safety nets of oversight and regulation at the FBI and Department Justice, believe there predictions are playing out. In fact, clear examples, evidence that some of those fears have come to fruition are illustrated in a new report from DOJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

In his report, the Inspector General found the FBI misused Patriot Act powers to obtain information about US citizens and residents through “National Security Letters” or NSLs.

NSL’S are administrative subpoenas that allow the FBI to obtain content of transactions, like bank records, phone records or Internet providers.


They are controversial for a number of reasons, more notably, unlike a warrant or subpoena, no approval is necessary from a judge. In fact, an NSL only needs approval from the agent in charge at a local FBI office. Recipients of the letters are instructed to ‘keep quiet’ or risk the wrath of the law.

According to the ACLU, since the USA Patriot Act was authorized in 2001, the FBI has seen a one hundred fold increase to over 30,000 NSL’s each year.

That compares to just 8,500 NSLS in 2000.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero told the "New York Times" "this confirms some of our worst suspicions."

The Inspector General report found the FBI underreported its use of NSL’s to Congress by 20%.

Worries of abuse by FBI agents sans judicial oversight had been one of the biggest fears expressed by civil libertarians opposing the patriot act. Warnings of warrant-less wiretapping, data mining and the misuse of electronic surveillance of citizens across the country ripped at the country’s soul as fears of terrorism competed with fears of big brother.

In prepared remarks to the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Summit posted on the DOJ website, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales noted that Inspector General Fine had acknowledged that NSL’s are a valuable tool in the fight against terror.

But he also acknowledged the FBI did not have “sufficient controls” and that “insufficient guidance and training” was partly to blame, as well as “some confusion in the field about the rules” regarding the misuses spelled out in the report.

Current FBI head, Robert Mueller, called the current lapses “procedural errors” and not malicious intent.

One thing is certain, many of the fears expressed by those who questioned the Patriot Acts far reaching powers, have been confirmed. And, perhaps we as a nation are probably feeling a sense of shared nausea knowing that many of these alleged abuses have, and may continue to occur. What does this sort of revelation say about our shared values as a free republic? Even the ousted US Attorneys must be having second thoughts about their applause of the Patriot Act's free reign, considering, it was a provision in that legislation that allows the Attorney General to bypass a meticulous procedure and easily fire and replace the Attorneys, even though, originally, they were nominated by the President, and confirmed by the full Senate.


A graphic example of the FBI NSL relationship is available in the November 6, 2005 edition of the “Washington Post” with Barton Gilman’s piece on the Windsor Conn., librarians who eventually challenged the FBI’s NSL practices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

Now That Scooter Libby's Name Is "Patsy"

by CODY LYON

Now that Scooter Libby’s name change to “Patsy” is complete, the perfect opportunity has arisen for Democrats to wake up, take a shot of testosterone, and open a real, binding investigation as to why the United States was led into the quagmire of Iraq.

Mr. Libby’s guilty verdict on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice is certainly good to see. Hopefully Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson will sleep better at night now that it’s clear Libby was carrying out dirty deeds for higher ups in the White House. But ultimately, Libby’s trial will probably go down in history as a simplistic, un-ambitious but certainly entertaining Washington soap opera. Players from journalists to lower level White House officials stole this show, as the focus of the event changed quicker than the day’s top stories at CNN. Unfortunately, the trial of Scooter Libby was a diversion from where the real digging should have been taking place, which is in the halls of Congress, a dig for real truths about what has proven to be a tragic turn of events, on view for all Americans to see.

The Libby trial was a diversion from the more serious questions that still need to be answered and aired before the public. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, was the White House angry that its intelligence assessment was being challenged, and if so, why?

Today, Congress, a body with subpoena power, has a wide opening of noble but difficult opportunity. Members on both sides of the aisle could eat humble pie, take a deep breath and dive right into what could prove to be a national epiphany. A complete investigation of the actions by players in the White House, could turn out to be a very valuable lesson for the most important players of all, the American people. But, understandably, a number of those in Congress continue to wallow and whine in a sea of denial, blame and embarrassment tainted by self-serving politics regarding the decision to follow the Pied Piper to Iraq.

As it stands now, come January 2008, Libby will get his pardon, and the current crew in the White House will scurry off into their private financially secure lives, leaving behind the mess they led us to in Iraq. And, the administration also leaves behind, several thousand maimed, blinded, limbless souls, another several thousand dead sons and daughters, who, God only knows, what they may have contributed to this world, had they lived and not been sacrificed in a war that was based on arrogance, manipulated intelligence and fear, sold to a people shattered from an attack carried out by individuals who had absolutely no connection to the country called Iraq.

Scooter Libby’s trial spelled out the obvious, that Vice President Cheney was upset the Bush Administration message of fear was being challenged. Without fear, the White House didn’t have a case for the invasion of Iraq. Congress, afraid of constituent reaction for challenging a popular White House, fell for, or at least went along with the message, as did a large portion of the media, and hence, the public, the rest is history.

But painful as it may be, it would be nothing short of sinful for Congressional leaders, here and now, to not seek out all facts and come clean on the allegedly lie filled road to Iraq. In the same way that individuals learn from their mistakes, so too do governments.

And, Congress has a duty to the men and women of our armed forces to prove that the system of checks and balances has more meaning than a simple sound bite. Sticking one’s head in the sand and carrying on as if looking back and airing the truth stifles progress or corrupts morale, will in the end, only grow the putrid distrust that many Americans now feel about Washington.

The Nightmare of Bullying at School

From Edge New York/Boston/Philadelphia/Providence/Provincetown
By the time L.W., who lives in the tony New York suburb of Toms River, N.J., reached high school, taunts of "fag" and "homo" had turned into physical harassment. According to family members’ statements to various news media, the formerly happy young man became depressed, withdrawn and fearful. Eventually he felt forced to transfer out of the city’s 19,000-student public school system entirely.

GO TO LINK BELOW FOR MY ANALYSIS STORY AT WWW.EDGENEWYORK.COM


http://www.edgenewyork.com/index.php?ci=120&ch=
news&sc=national&sc2=news&sc3=&id=18539

The Importance of A Little Follow Up

The Importance Of A Little Follow-Up
(On Verification)
BY CODY LYON

Years ago, in a tiny Alabama town, Little Billy and his friend Jack, would play together for hours on end when they weren’t at school. Typical country kids, running bare foot and wild when allowed, but on the whole, well behaved with only minor brushes with mischief, until one day, Little Jack, showed his mean streak and approached Billy with a deceptive proposition for trouble.

“Hey, let’s go over and cut some of Ms Jackson’s roses from her bushes,” he said with a wild eyed look on his long red haired, freckled face.

Billy, the more clean cut, tall, sensitive and reserved of the two, knew Ms Jackson’s roses, like her famous corn bread, were a source of pride and joy for the widow. She grew them each year, paying close attention to every detail and once bloomed, the roses were a sight for everyone to behold.

Besides that, Ms Jackson was also a big stout no-nonsense Southern woman who was known to stand on her back porch and shoot at the crows on her muscadine vines. But Jack, always certain and self cofident, was sure they’d get away with some roses, and he used his cocksureness to twist, turn, and in the end, convince Billy that all was okay, and thatin fact, Ms Jackson herself, had once said she didn’t mind if people took her roses.

Unfortunately for everyone, Billy was about to take Jack at his word and follow his foolish pied piper friend into trouble. Truth be told, Jack hadn't told Billy the entire story. Ms Jackson never said, she didn’t care if people cut her roses. Instead, Jack had overheard Ms Jackson tell his Mother that she was happy everyone enjoyed her roses. But, in what was clearly a self-serving and selfish move, Jack convincingly manipulated her words to justify this future mission of mischief to his friend.

So, one afternoon, after a little bit of planning, the two eight year olds, took a pair Jack’s Mother’s sewing scissors, snuck in through a thicket of pine trees, and with stealth determination, ran up to the bushes and began cutting a few of the roses. But, Jack, who was the shorter of the two, stuck his finger with a thorn, and when he shrieked in pain, it signaled nosy Ms Jones across the street, who came to her window, saw the boys in the bushes, and promptly called Ms Jackson, letting her know of the theft in her midst.

Ms Jackson, stormed onto her front porch, yelled at the boys, then rushed back inside and called their Mothers. The two rose thieves, guilty and caught, ran like the wind, with Billy feeling a sense of doom, for what may lay in store.

Beyond the screams and tears, time restricted to his room, the belt his father would wield, the most difficult punishment was yet to come. Billy’s Mother would insist that he apologize. She told him he would have to march over to Ms Jackson’s, knock on her door, look her in the face, and say, how sorry he was for cutting her prized roses.

It would take every ounce of courage, every brave bone in his body, the burying of all his fears to go and face Ms Jackson. But, the day after the crime, Billy, mustered up the determination, filled with resolve and regret, marched over to Ms Jackson’s, knocked on the door, and faced the woman who’s roses he’d violated. Billy looked Ms Jackson in the face, and said, I’m sorry.

But, then, Ms. Jackson said something that made Billy regret what he’d done even more. She told Billy that he should have just asked her permission before cutting her roses. Truth be told, if Billy had followed up and verified Jack's word's with Ms Jackson, she would have given him the okay to cut a few of her flowers.

'Boy, would you believe Jack if he told you the firechief said set the school on fire" said Ms Jackson, insisting one should always ask the reported source of information for such serious matters.

Billy realized his apology was not so much for the lost roses, but instead for not exerting enough effort and respect to ask Ms Jackson’s permission. If Billy had simply not taken Jack’s word at face value in a matter of such importance, especially where Ms Jackson was concerned, he might have avoided what turned out to be a painful chain of events.

In the end, his apology was largely symbolic, apeasing his Mother, but also instilling some character in him through an important lesson learned.

Lesson Learned?

A little following up and verification is always important and can often lead to completely different outcomes.

Beating An Old Horse Named Tragedy

Beating an Old Horse Named Tragedy
By Cody Lyon



Calling the findings of a new Pentagon Inspector General report on Pre Iraqi invasion intelligence, a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, charged what many war opponents have held as truth. Intelligence used to justify an invasion of Iraq, was manipulated.

In response to the dramatic language Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia countered, saying he was “still trying to figure out why we’re here” arguing that “we’re beating this horse one more time” said Chambliss.

This coming from a man who whipped the same horse for his own political gain, back when he blasted decency from the Georgia Senate race in 2002. As you may recall, Chambliss ran television attack ads filled with suggestive simultaneous images of Saddam, Osama and his Democratic opponent, Max Cleland, a US war vet who lost limbs in Vietnam, but as a Senator, happened to be critical of Bush Administration policy.

Regardless, Chambliss’ question is legitimate. What purpose does it serve for the Senate to beat this sore old horse one more time and study and air the findings of Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble?

The answer is simple.

The American people deserve to know if their trust was violated. What could be wrong with finding out whether arrogance and reckless cherry picking of key intelligence was used to sell fear, subsequent foreign policy and military action. Beating this horse once again might lead all Americans to some conclusive, probably painful, but necessary answers about how we arrived at our latest tragedy, Iraq.

The dots continue to be confirmed and connected.

Think back to a 2002 "CBS News" report by correspondent David Martin that reported just hours after the planes of 9/11 had struck New York and the Pentagon Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s began instructing aides to find links between Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

According to the cited notes taken by Don Rumsfeld’s aides, the Defense Secretary said he wanted the “best information fast” that would “judge whether good enough to hit Saddam Hussein”.

“Go massive” and “Sweep it all up. Things related and not” said Rumsfeld in the notes according to the CBS.

The new Gimble report shows how those instructions might have shot down the chain of command to then Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. According to the report, Wolfowitz then instructed Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith to access links between Al Queda and Iraq.

The group went to work, digging for links.

According to the “Washington Post”, in July 2002, the Feith led group then put together a position paper that was later transformed into a briefing.

But red flags were raised about the report/briefing’s contents, accuracy and verifiability.

The CIA was warning that portions of the briefing were flawed, the most high profile nugget of information being the highly publicized story that there had been contacts between 9/11 hijacker-terrorist Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents.

Gimble said, when the Feith report was complete, the CIA called the ‘Atta’ part of the report “contradictory at best”.

In fact, according to the “Los Angeles Times”, Gimble’s Inspection says analysts from the CIA and other agencies actually disagreed with “more than 50% of 26 findings the Feith Pentagon team laid out in its eventual position paper”

But the team forged ahead turning the requested information over to high-level members of the Bush Administration.

Armed with what now appears to have been flawed evidence, the stage was set for one of the most deceptive, misleading, spook based sales campaigns ever offered to a 9/11 tragedy soaked, traumatized and confused nation.

The Administration led a PR offensive intent on implying links between 9/11 and Iraq, a campaign that manifest itself in speeches, television appearances and press conferences.

From the 2001 “Meet the Press” Cheney quote where he said it was “pretty well confirmed” that Atta met with a senior Iraqi agent to his later assertion that “the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Queda stretching back through most of the of the 90’s” the Vice President was in sell mode.

And the President was close behind.

During a March 2003 prime time news conference President Bush himself mentioned September 11th eight times as he appeared to ‘justify’ Iraqi war plans with the American people. The President mentioned Saddam Hussein several more times than that, often in the same sentence that he spoke of September 11th. And, then there is a certain passage within the State of the Union speech, now flagged as flawed.

In what could be seen as one of the more exploitive moments in American history, the Republicans decided to co-opt tragedy for political gain and use the city where much of the events of 9/11 took place, as a vivid backdrop of tragedy, a shameless launching pad for what now appears as justification for why more tragedy was on the way.

Unfortunately, much of the press and doubtful politicians were neutered or intimidated, and in the end, the selling of tragedy was a smashing success, as much of a bruised nation bought flawed, un-tested merchandise. This is a sale that eventually led to the violent quandary that has now cost thousands of American lives, thousands more innocent Iraqis, taxed our defense forces, cost billions of dollars and divided our own people.

So, as Americans hear and read subtle suggestion of justification for future conflict, how critical should we be of rhetoric coming from tragedy and fear salespeople, politicians like the Senator from Georgia who now complains of beating horses?

Keep in mind, that in November 2001, Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss once told emergency responders in Valdosta Georgia that the sheriff “should arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line.”

JUDGE MOORE SPREADS THE LOVE

BY CODY LYON
He’s so full of love that he just keeps on sharing the hate. Not to be cliché, but Right wing poster man, former ten commandments waving, former Alabama state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has written an op ed piece that’s so far to the right it’s just plain wrong. Published in “WorldNetDaily”, Moore decries Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas’ and her H.R. 254, a bill that proposes to extend federal hate crimes law protections to lesbian and gay people across the country. In his short “federalist club” inspired sermon, Moore points out legal and historical justifications for his opposition to such protections. But then the ten-commandments judge man broke one and told what some would call a lie.

“Hate crime legislation today is being used in our own country and around the world to prohibit Christians from expressing their beliefs” said Moore in his “What’s not to Love about Hate Crimes” column.

Don’t those Fred Phelps ministry people prove that argument false? Those are the folks who show up at funerals of gay people, and more recently, that is until they were chased off by the government, military members funerals. When they show up, not only do they express their beliefs, they hold signs and harass family members of the dead about their loved ones burning in hell. If that doesn’t show you that the First Amendment is alive and well, nothing will.

Judge Moore, an obvious attention monger, is the former boxer, former Etowah County Judge, former Governors candidate, who earned fame by installing a giant washing machine size replica of the ten commandments in the state’s Supreme Court building. When he was ordered to get rid of it, he refused, and soon, the Alabama Supreme Court building became a mecca for right wing disciples who came to the steps to pray, cry and sing, a vigil of sorts, in a state that has seen more political showdowns than Jerusalem. In the end, Moore’s challenge to the constitution failed, he was ousted from his office, and the now famous washing machine size concrete holy tablets were placed inside a giant janitorial closet. And, if Moore had his way, all the gays would be in there with it.

But, the gays are out and on the move. And it’s not hard to find somebody who would like to whip up on there heads. And, although Moore and those who subscribe to his beliefs would like to think violence that is motivated by the hatred of those who are different, including gay people, is not a serious problem, they are wrong.

In 2001, The National coalition of Anti Violence Programs, using data from just 25 cities or other jurisdictions from across the country, reported 1,965 incidents of hate bias crimes that were motivated by sexual orientation. But, a 2005 report compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that analyzed over three years of statistics from the biannual National Crime Victimization Survey found that the level of hate crimes runs between 19 and 31 times higher than the actual numbers reported. One of the reasons hate crimes are underreported, has been linked to a lack of national uniform in the reporting process.

What Judge Moore fails to understand as he speaks his love the sinner hate the sin message, is that hate crimes laws also raise awareness, and serve as statements to the public including potential hate crime perpetrators, that people who are different from the majority, are worthy citizens, just like Roy Moore is, and that they are entitled to the same protections offered by the law. Unfortunately, in every corner of this nation, including a big city like New York, there are individuals who feel they can get away with inflicting violence upon those they feel are not worthy of those protections. Thousands of Lesbian and Gay people know this all to well. This is an unfortunate legacy and part of the baggage that comes with being gay in many societies, including America.

Judge Moore, while you may say that you are fighting for the right to “speak out in love” or as you analogized, that hate crimes legislation lead to an Orwellian mind control system, it appears more likely that you have a problem with homosexuality, and the very idea of sexual orientation being singled out as worthy of any legal protection, even protection from violence, all of this probably makes you very uncomfortable. On the other side, when the passions, reactions and whatever Politically correct finger pointing is checked at the door, and one has a closer look at your arguments, an even more baffling and disturbing picture emerges. Judge Moore, a devout Christian, is opposed to a bill that may, just might, prevent or at least cause an individual to think twice before he carries out an act of violence against a person that he thinks may be gay or lesbian. Judge Moore, who placed the largest model of ten-commandments, a book of laws handed down from God to Moses as he led his people to the promised land, is going to say that people should have the right to “speak out” against entire classes of people as you call it. Speaking out, my fellow Alabamian, was responsible for some of the most notorious hate motivated crimes in the civil rights movement, much of which took place in the heart of dixie. A number of people have would probably agree, that although he repented, George Wallace went to his grave with blood-stains on his lips from his speaking out during the early 1960’s, as he gave a verbal wink and a nod, to violence.

So Judge Moore, please re think your loving argument, and realize, that no one is asking you to accept anyone’s lifestyle, they are only asking that every citizen have the same dignity and with that dignity, a message to the community, that violence motivated by hate, is especially wrong.

SPREAD THE PAIN MR PRESIDENT

On Shared National Sacrifice
Just don’t Watch The Evening News?
Cody Lyon
(OPINION)

During an interview this week with PBS’s “Newshour” journalist Jim Lehrer, United States President George Bush was asked if the struggle in Iraq is so “important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as President of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something?”

Lehrer, himself a former US marine, noted that the only Americans actually sacrificing anything at this point were voluntary military members and their families.

The President responded that he thought Americans “sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night, I mean, we’ve got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.”

True, much of the sadness Americans feel about Iraq is based on what we read, see or hear in the media. But, our bout with the blues is a minor inconvenience when compared to the pain and sacrifice of American military families.

Face it, Americans can choose to tune in, or out and avoid news about the war if we want to. For many, Iraq is viewed as just another current event that may or may not spark political passions.

Keeping us safely on the sidelines is that word “volunteer” which appears to absolve many politicians of real guilt, responsibility and an understanding of the gravity of what war is, especially when these things are in the planning stages.

In further response to Lehrer’s question, the President was quick to defend tax cuts, saying that raising them was not an option.

That means the one percent of Americans who earn 16.9% of all income in the United States will continue to enjoy peace of mind if they don’t watch the news. These are the same individuals who, according to the Economic Policy Institute, control 42.2% of all net financial assets in America. Apparently the President believes that asking these individuals for financial sacrifice through higher taxes, might “hurt” our growing economy.

But, the real tearjerker is the fact that we are sending the financial sacrifice to our children. Our current national debt is $8.6 trillion a figure that tacks on another estimated $200 billion in war costs each year.

Could it be time for a little soul searching when it comes to spreading the pain of this national debacle?

Is it moral to ask military families to make the tremendous sacrifices they are making, while not asking wealthy Americans to make financial sacrifices during a time of war?

During the PBS interview, of our national psychology the President told Lehrer he wanted to make sure people feel like “life’s moving on, that they’re able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table.”

Compare this to the collective psychology surrounding World War Two and the days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Roosevelt, with his dramatic, what today might be called radical 1942 “Call for Sacrifice” said, “indeed in these days when every affordable dollar should go to the war effort, I do not think any American citizen should have a net income in excess of $25 thousand per year after taxes, which translates into about $313 thousand in the inflation adjusted dollars of 2005.

That would surely send shivers down the spine of Student Loan Company Sallie Mae (SLM) CEO Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, who earned $39 million in 2006.

But, that leads back to Jim Lehrer’s simple question. If the struggle in Iraq is so important, why have all Americans not been asked to sacrifice something?

While no one can measure an entire nation’s psychology with any real degree of certainty, if all Americans, regardless of wealth, were required to “sacrifice” say for instance, a year or so of their lives to public service, rest assured, the collective level of engagement would rise when it comes to issues that lead to military actions. And, that’s nothing to say, of the positive shared experiences and connectivity.

As for now, according to the President, the shared sacrifice is occurring during the evening news. My how we’ve changed.

Roosevelt said in 1942, the price of civilization must be paid in hard work, sorrow and blood.

Apparently, Roosevelt and his generation believed that war is fought through the real and tangible sacrifice of all its citizens, including the wealthy. And, Roosevelt, along with his generation, understood that war is a last resort.

Our current President appears to be more concerned with the impact of powerful images, that this rash of negative public relations and journalism coming from Iraq is our shared sacrifice. He continues his arrogant spin, to try and spook us with false threats, in order to justify the images, the stories, the truth, a truth that is America’s biggest foreign policy mistake in decades.

So, in this, what has become a time of crisis, where is the call for shared national sacrifice Mr. President. Why have you not asked all of us, as another President did some 20 years after Roosevelt, to ask ourselves, what we can do for our country?

TIME TO ESCORT THE PRESIDENT OUT OF THE CASINO

_Twenty Minutes for Twenty Thousand more troops
OPINION*
by CODY LYON



Desperate times call for desperate measures. Anyone who has spent time on a casino floor has probably witnessed a black jack or roulette junkie on a losing streak. But, he keep’s on gambling, saying to his wife or friends, all I need is one more chance, I’m hot, I can feel it this time, I know I can still win. Eventually, if he’s lucky, his friends drag him out of the casino, cutting his losses. Compare that to the President of the world’s most powerful nation, who is pushing for permission to gamble with 21 thousand more of his own people’s lives. This, despite cautious expert tea-leaves provided by a bi partisan Iraq Study Group, the President claims he’s hot. But, sobering words like those of Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel warning that the President’s plan would be the “most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam ” are sending sobering messages that will hopefully result in an efficient, none to soon exit. Ultimately, it will be up to leaders in the Congress, to decide who plays the next hand in what has turned out to be one our nation’s most horrific mistakes, Iraq.



The President’s “twenty minutes for twenty thousand” speech was a controversial, frustrating but extremely important moment in American history. We knew what President Bush was going to say in advance, so pundits were left to critique his delivery style and discuss reactions from Senators and other leaders who issued statements for, or against the plan. It would appear, many Americans are allowing themselves to honestly contemplate what the likely effects of President Bush’s proposed course of action would turn out to be. But, the groundswell of opinion appears to be not only against any upsurge of troops, but a growing number are saying pull them all out as quickly as possible. Regardless, it is worth asking, will the additional manpower in Iraq make us safer here at home? Will the knocking on thousands of doors in Baghdad result in the rounding up of insurgents and other militants in what is clearly an urban, guerilla civil war that has passions going back hundreds of years, somehow result in a more stable Iraq? Will this “surge” or escalation simply add 20 thousand new American targets to an unfamiliar terrain that many argue we should have never invaded in the first place? If the past four years are any indication of what’s to come, this President needs to be quickly and firmly escorted out of the casino.


Republican Senator John McCain said that if you cut funding, then you assume the consequences of failure. But, does that mean, if you continue to fund and sacrifice human lives, and yet you still fail, you absolve yourself of responsibility of what was clearly un-wise policy and direction? According to the National Priorities Project, Congressional appropriations for the Iraq effort will reach around $348 billion dollars this March. The price increases by about $200 million each day. But, that’s just the cash. The ultimate price being the human toll, which in American lives, is now over the number killed on 9/11. And, who can put a price on Cindy Burn’s pain, who sat crying at Ft Benning Georgia during a BBC interview, as her husband prepares for another tour of duty in Iraq? Of the troop increase she asks whose victory, his (The President) or ours? And, there’s the under reported Iraqi human toll which is almost too painful to contemplate. Estimates say between 50 to 150 thousand human beings have died since the invasion. Some put that number much higher. In addition, Iraq is seeing a massive brain pool hemorrhage as intellectuals and those with the means, exit the country in massive numbers. In fact, 3.5 million Iraqi citizens have fled their homes since the war began, with an additional 50 thousand fleeing daily. Truly, it is hard to imagine things becoming any worse in Iraq. The inheritance of failed consequences appears to be here now, with most Iraqi’s begging for the simple things in life, like days without fear and violence, even a steady source of power and food. While all Americans have the utmost faith in our armed forces, the very idea that 20 thousand more troops will turn this disaster around is foolish.

Why have this President and his team, chosen to ignore one of the most important recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group? That recommendation involves a Diplomatic Offensive that would reach out to big players in the region, Iran and Syria? The President’s new policy smells of arrogance and stubborn certitude that ignore the complicated web of regional sectarian interests and cultures that are at play in Iraq and the surrounding lands. And, with that arrogance, it snubs a nose at our nation’s most fundamentally important issue, our national security.

With his Texas swagger checked, the President delivered a somber speech to the nation on Wednesday night arguing that he now had the assurances of full cooperation from the Malaki government as well as a new strategy for establishing order in Baghdad. But, President Malaki can’t even conduct a professional hanging, how is he going to assure the cooperation of thousands of his soldiers in a larger operation with our troops? Sadly, this course of action, if carried out, threatens to further prolong clearly un-wise, poorly planned policy, leaving the next President to inherit the current’s losses. In his speech, the President called the Iraqi elections of 2005 a stunning achievement. But, there were stunning elections in 2006 right here in the United States that some say sent a clear message to this White House. One can only wait and see, if this President will soon be escorted out of the casino.

Why Tuesday is the Best Night For Television

TUESDAY NIGHT TV
by CODY LYON

Tuesday Evenings from 9 until 11 pm EST offers two hours of wickedly smart, informative and entertaining television, yes TV. The first hour is filled with something that is sorely lacking in most television news programming. Unfortunately, most TV news, especially cable, long ago went the way of flashy graphics, loud music and catchy headlines that oftens asks lazy or reactionary questions that fail to go the much needed extra step. Along with those flashy extras, we’ve gotten hooked on stories that focus on individuals who disappear in the woods or celebrities who adopt kids in foreign lands verses well researched evidence that explains corruption and finds hidden facts that could reveal a truth that affects us all. But, thanks to the PBS series FRONTLINE, there is still a source of meticulous reporting and connected dots that tell intelligent and compelling stories which reveal deeper truths behind public policy or society itself.

Fortunately, FRONTLINE earns viewers from both sides of the American political fence by striving for objectivity, but always digging deeper on a lead. If a viewer misses an episode of FRONTLINE at the 9 o clock hour, PBS.ORG offers most episodes free with a click of the keyboard. Another reason most networks and cable avoid the sort of reporting that FRONTLINE engages in, is that each episode takes time and tremendous effort to produce, waters that commercial networks sometimes, but rarely tread in.

If anyone doubts FRONTLINE’s commitment to a story, this past week’s (1/9) episode, which also ran this past October, demonstrates that dedication.

FRONTLINE’s “Return of the Taliban” is a revealing and graphic investigation of Taliban and Al Queda members who escaped from Afghanistan into Pakistan, away from American troop’s reach. The report also reveals a disturbing money trail to Al Queda, a bit of news that will chill the souls of anyone watching. The story is filled with remarkable footage including work from contributing reporter Hayat Ullah Khan. Unfortunately, after Khan took photographs showing that a U.S. missile had been used to kill an Al Qaeda operative which contradicted the Pakistani military's official account of the operative’s death, Khan disappeared, and was later found dead.



This film like much of the carefully reported work from FRONTLINE, provides important insight into a world that has been sadly underreported by most news outlets. It’s worth viewing online. In fact, one could argue that the work FRONTLINE is doing is important to all Americans, especially now.

But, Tuesdays are also home to a new adult TV series that is a way over the top and certainly not in the same ship as FRONTLINE, but still sharp as blades and completely entertaining. DIRT the new FX series created by fellow Birmingham native Courtney Cox and her husband David Arquette is providing a much needed gush of provocative entertainment that might even cause some tabloid readers and publishers to question, what they consider important and what the American people find interesting.

In this week’s episode, DIRT MAGAZINE Editor Lucy, played by Cox, confronts her publisher and basically asks whether or not he realizes the power his magazines have over American culture.

The publisher, as he holds a copy of the magazine replies sure, but is this what we want for our culture? On the cover of that magazine was a picture of a celebrity who had overdosed on drugs, in her casket. The ironic message, intended or not, of "what sells" in journalism was intense.

Regardless, one thing is certain, Tuesday nights are a night when time is “well spent” watching television, yes TV.

CHRISTMAS LIGHTS

CHRISTMAS LIGHTS
By CODY LYON

In the weeks leading up to Christmas, New York City evenings begin, and soon arrive at, their annual ritual of taking on an extra-added electric glow. The added hues and shades of light announce to residents and visitors alike, the holiday season has arrived. New York’s extravagant Christmas lights and decorations provide visual coaxing for what is meant to be a festive time of year in an American city that never sleeps, and loves to shop. Tourists, children and many residents, look at the lights in awe as Department store districts like those in Midtown transform into a Christmas wonderland, where shoppers scurry about like busy elves getting ready for a certain really big night.


From Rockefeller Center and the famous, tall, sculpted and not a spot missed lit tree, to the giant crystal snowflake at 57th and Fifth Avenue, the city is polished and ready for Santa, North Pole bound, almost to the point of perfection in its decoration. Even down in the fashion district new, modern lights, single color snowflakes and stars line the streets, one right after the other in almost accurate order presenting a city that at first glance, appears to have been enrolled in an exterior decorating class. Parts of Manhattan present a polished Christmas, a scene out of a modern “Miracle on 34th Street” where all is planned and occasionally one gets caught up in the brightness of it all. But, sometimes, one stumbles upon an electric display that doesn’t shine as bright as those in Midtown, instead its lights twinkle, and for some unknown reason, it brings back memories, touching on that nostalgic nerve that provides a key to the spirit of Christmas.

According to Mary Bellis at “About.com”, Inventor Edward Johnson was responsible for the first string of Christmas lights back in the late 1890’s. By 1900, Department stores had started using the lights for displays. Later, Albert Sadacca came up with “safe” Christmas lights and eventually started mass producing the brightly colored bulbs through a company called NOMA electric company. Soon enough, cities found themselves taking on the added glow of Christmas displays from coast to coast.

This year in New York, the Christmas lights began appearing as early as Halloween. There was barely time to enjoy Thanksgiving when what would appear but strands of giant green garland across Eighth Street and white stars in the Financial district. Then, at some point, a series of random older Christmas displays were being strung across the streets of the East Village. And, it was in the East Village on 7th Street, near Avenue A, that one display brought back memories of living in a small town in Alabama, when the annual appearance of Christmas decorations in Wilsonville made a small boy thrilled that the season had arrived.

It was in this small town of less than one thousand, usually the day after Thanksgiving, that the boy would ride his bike down to the road, and watch and eagerly wait as men installed the lights, some shaped like canes with bells, others with Santa Clauses faces, others with candles. Hanging from power poles that were normally dark except for an occasional passing car, now were lit with greens, reds and pink. The displays weren’t that polished, instead they twinkled in the wind, almost mystical in nature, to a child, the perfect visual pill of warmth, comfort and hope that Christmas, back then, meant to him. And suddenly, here in New York, amid the hectic brightness of the nation’s largest city, he found that memory in a vintage Christmas display hanging across the street in his busy East Village neighborhood.

There it was, garland lit by lit by pinkish bells hanging in poetic curves that came to point in the middle, framed by a red ribbon. What imperfection, what history, who could say how many Christmases this display had seen? How much had New York changed? How much had the world? One wonders where it’s stored throughout the year. All the New Yorker knew was that he had to pause, to stare, to wonder at its beauty, and its sense of comfort and the fact that it was, unlike so many of the other beautiful displays, a simple key to what the season truly meant. That beauty and hope is everywhere, perhaps even locked inside a memory that only an old Christmas light could set free.

New York's Eastern Bloc

A Night in New York's East Village leads to the Iron Curtain
by Cody Lyon

The streets of New York’s East Village appear unusually quiet as those on the out, quickly return in, on this, the city’s first truly bone chilling Saturday night. Even the usual clusters of smokers who’ve been seen braving colder nights than this, appear smaller in numbers and more inconvenienced than usual.

But on Sixth Street, just beyond Avenue A, a cacophony of animated sounds escapes through a non descript red cinderblock wall to the cold sidewalk outside luring passersby with what sounds like warm and fun allure. Behind this iron curtain, lies the Eastern Bloc, a fun den of drinks and laughter, what could pass as the urban equivalent of a red-lit gay American roadhouse.

From wall to wall, heads sway to rhythm while others talk or stare as a muscled, tattooed go go dancer swirls around a bronze poll, surrounded by portraits of Soviet style art. Alongside Stalin, there’s a wild boar, over the bar a zebra’s head is crowned with a red star decorated military officer’s hat while in the back of the long, narrow space, sits a stuffed chicken, all part of the bar’s eclectic taxidermy and pulp fiction motif. Television screens flicker with obscure Japanese animation and vintage erotica as laughter, random shouts and catchy tunes from Beyonce to Zeppelin punctuate random conversations and flirtation.

On December 14th, Eastern Bloc Bar marks one year in business. The venture was built, and is owned and operated, by three first time entrepreneurs who learned the nightlife business where it teaches it’s best lessons, behind the bar.

“Excuse me” a man with a low riding red hat shouts with slow elongated vowels to the bartender working his way through customers, at least three thick.

Behind the bar, two of three owners, both shirtless and bulging with muscle, mix, fill and charge money for drinks ordered by the rambunctious Saturday night crowd.

“On the rocks” the man with the red hat says as the bartender raises a hand to his ear and shakes his head, “On the rocks!” he repeats more loudly as a barman’s tease earns them both some chuckles.

The third owner, also shirtless and the tallest of the three, spins music next to the chicken in the elevated DJ space at the rear of the room, keeping an eye on the crowd, as a cocktail of sound, booze and cruise keeps the night’s clientele crowing.

New York City’s Eastern Bloc Bar, is a creation of Benjamin Maisani of Paris, Darren Dryden of Portland Oregon and Gabriel Beaton from Portland Maine. Arriving in New York at separate moments, the three came together as co-workers while bartending at the Barracuda bar, a wildly successful space in Chelsea. After great soul searching and personal financial assessment they decided to strike out on their own.

The three pooled resources and secured the former Wonder Bar space on Sixth Street, then, all pretty much on their own, began the long arduous days and nights of general carpentry, painting and design of their new bar.

“The bar was in shambles” said Sixth Street resident, current New York City Public School teacher as well as Eastern Bloc’s moonlighting weekend coat check attendent, John Grauwiler. He said the restoration and design was no small challenge for the do it yourself contractors, and their carpentry savvy friends.

But even greater challenges lay ahead.

For one, competition and how to keep the bar filled with patrons. The three’s labor of love would be joining about 60 other Manhattan bars that cater primarily to the LGBT community according to figures compiled from the available listings of a local gay nightlife magazine. And the East Village is home to one of the city’s higher concentrations of gay bars.

But, the three welcomed healthy competition.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge facing the three owners was a name, and subsequently the bar’s unique concept.

“That was the biggest struggle so far” said co owner Gabriel Beaton, known as Gabe, while accepting deliveries and recalling their business adventure with the other two owners a few days before the cold Saturday night.

“We originally wanted to call it Revolver” he said as the three got laughed about a name already taken by a bar in LA no less.

Eastern Bloc became a clever all encompassing play on words that appreciates geography, but also historical symbolism.

“It’s in the East Village, and it’s an old Polish and Russian neighborhood, it wasn’t silly or obnoxious, it just kept coming back to us” said Darren Dryden, the Oregonian.

And, there’s no denying the historical irony and unspoken sense of triumph over the oppression and drabness that much of the Eastern Bloc once represented. In fact, from 1934 to 1986, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality, considering it to be a product of western decadence, landing thousands of gays in gulags.

Inside this 2006 New York City version of the Eastern Bloc, a little decadence was acceptable, perhaps encouraged.

“We want people to have fun” and that’s why “we play music that’s fun, that the crowd likes” said Dryden who often swaps out DJ duties with Beaton.

“People come here and they do have fun” chirps in Maisani in a still distinct French accent.

Maisani and the other two bartenders appear not only business wise, but strikingly smart. For example, each discusses politics, art and history with confidence and ease, obviously armed with knowledge, facts and insight. Maisani, who’s first language is French, received highest academic honors when he graduated New York’s Hunter College in 1999 where he majored in art history.

“I fell into bars totally by chance” he said.

“I was working 9-5 at a museum and then discovered I liked these (bar) hours and the freedom it afforded me” said Maisani who noted that the most popular liquor in the bar, like Russia, is Vodka.

So, besides selling booze and making money, what’s the measure of a successful bar for these three bartenders slash owners?

“Sometimes, people come here and they leave with fun, hopefully interesting, stories” noted Gabe Beaton, the youngest of the trio.

And apparently, it is fun they are having on any given night inside the Eastern Bloc Bar, an interesting place that is the antithesis of drab or oppressed. So far, the young new funky nightspot is not only earning and maintaining a solid regular clientele, they’ve succeeded in becoming a spot on the East Village drinking trail, a cherished position in an area saturated by nightlife.

So, on a cold Saturday night as temperatures plunged and the wind blew, the iron curtain that descended over the East Village just over a year ago, kept revelers warm inside its triumphant, decadent and party filled borders. Rest assured, some really interesting stories would be told later that week.

The Uncomfortable Truth of a Mandatory Draft

The Uncomfortable Truth of a Mandatory Draft
By Cody Lyon


No, No said incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California as she quietly but firmly shook her head at a reporter. She spoke the firm no’s this past Monday, during what appeared to be a smile filled photo session that concluded a meeting between her and incoming House Majority leader Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland.

While cameras flashed and she and Hoyer small talked, the reporter asked Pelosi, point blank, if she would support a proposal by New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel, to re-introduce a mandatory military draft in the United States.

Rangel first introduced similar legislation back in June 2003.

Although she spoke softly, the O’s in Pelosi’s no’s were clearly enunciated.

Representative Pelosi knows that a mandatory draft in the United States would be the political equivalent of selling bacon wrapped beef filet to customers at a vegan restaurant. Polls show that less than 20 percent of the American people support a draft. And, both Pelosi and Rangel acknowledge that reinstatement of a mandatory draft is about as likely as Hillary not running for President.

Silly comparisons aside, on Monday, Pelosi was careful to pay accolades to the greater message in Rangel’s draft proposal calling it a “good way to make a point.”

“It’s not about a draft, its about shared sacrifice in our country” Pelosi told reporters earlier that day.

By proposing a highly controversial draft, Rangel, a purple heart, bronze star veteran of the Korean war is asking tough, soul searching, fear provoking questions of the American people. Make note of Rangel’s observation of the obvious in May 2005.

“In my own view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harms way were children of the White House officials, member of congress or CEO’s in board rooms” said Rangel in a press release that year.

Most CEO, White House and Congressional offspring do not choose the cash bonuses and promises of free education available at the local military recruitment office.

But, that’s not to say that the draft would serve as some sort of military equalizer.

The Vietnam War demonstrated that the rich, famous and well connected in America have ways of avoiding military conflict. Allegedly, our own President avoided seeing combat in Vietnam by utilizing high-end contacts that instead resulted in service with the Alabama National Guard.

If the draft were still mandatory, in particular, if it were during this war, people with power would probably find ways to avoid going.

But by going to the trouble of avoiding one’s call to duty, a citizen is forced into an examination of conscience, and in America’s current case, a deeper quest to understand the facts behind what your nation is fighting for.

Without a mandatory draft, the United State’s collective conscience can remain somewhat comforted by the knowledge that recruits sign up by choice, and are compensated by money, the promise of a free education or the honor of serving one’s country at will. The lack of the draft provides an almost uncanny convenience to not truly digest the seriousness and potential loss of what war presents on a sincerely personal level.

Currently, the United States, a country of 300 million, has about 2.7 million members in its all-volunteer armed forces. Mandatory military service has become a foreign concept. For most of us, this has led to at least one degree of separation from the frightening reality that military service can lead to. Truth be told, most American civilians are not that worried about getting called up and told they must serve.

In fact, most Americans do not experience the gut wrenching pain and fear associated with a child, spouse or parent that is seeing combat. Nor do a majority of American teenagers live with the fear that they may be shipped off to fight in war. Draft cards stopped arriving in American mailboxes over 30 years ago and Americans no longer see images of them being burned in protest.

Instead, we debate the war, and its policy, from a somewhat safe place.

With uncertain talk of troop increases in Iraq, military recruiters, under great pressure from higher ups, go out, look for and find young people to fill ranks in the nation’s armed forces. They offer college tuition, increased sign up bonuses and a salary along with the chance to defend one’s country. Some critics of the all-volunteer force say, in harsh terms, the reality is that we are willing to pay people to die for us during war-time.

Proponents of the volunteer force point to our highly skilled and efficient forces. But, one can rest assured, that military recruiters are more common in Rangel’s Harlem than Pelosi’s district in San Francisco.

As families gather and celebrate our Thanksgiving Holiday in the United States, one hopes for a wealth of thanks and blessings for the men and women placed in harm’s way by its leaders. But, one also gives thanks to gravely voiced Rep. Charles Rangel. This Harlem Democrat brought a provocative covered side dish of truth, to go with the turkey being served this year at thanksgiving tables across America. One hopes that all Americans will at least give the truth a taste.

ADDENDUM on BOB PERRY STORY (below)

Addendum on (Below) Bob Perry Story
By Cody Lyon

On Election Day November 7th, The Associated Press reported in “The York Dispatch” that Pennsylvania Republican Gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann received $100 thousand from Houston homebuilder Bob Perry during the final two weeks of the state's Governor's campaign.

Swann's opponent, current Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, had vetoed legislation this past March, that would have implemented legal procedures similar to those in Texas that now send homebuyer/homebuilder disputes into Arbitration instead of civil courts.

In March, “The Philadelphia Inquirer” had reported that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett thought the vetoed bill was unconstitutional since it set limits on damages for defective workmanship and that it intruded on the state’s Supreme Court.

The Bill had been strongly supported by the Pennsylvania Builders Association.

Cyclists Battle for Space on New York City Streets

The Battle for Space on New York City's Streets (opinion)
By Cody Lyon


New York City, unlike most American urban areas, offers numerous transportation alternatives beyond the private automobile. Walking is wonderful and the extensive 24-hour mass transit system is certainly quick and convenient. But nothing is more exhilarating, efficient and enjoyable than getting on a bicycle zipping through the crowded streets of New York City, provided the rider does not mind assuming the role of transit pioneer and cycling soldier.

New York City has made great attempts to accommodate cycling commuters and recreational riders on its streets. The city maintains about 400 miles of bike paths and greenways. The March 2006 issue of “Bicycling Magazine” said New York City is the third best cycling city in the United States. The city’s Department of Planning printed and distributed over 200 thousand copies of its map of city greenways and recommended street routes this year. One of the goals of the map is to “recognize bikes as a legitimate mode of transportation” according to the Department of Planning.

But, truth be told, there is a daily battle occurring on the streets of New York City between automobiles and bicycles. Automobiles, whose weight is measured in tons and speeds capable of triple digits, maintain the clear safety advantage over the pedaling human eggshells called cyclists. Cyclists glide through streets on two wheels all the while dodging arrogant SUVÂ’s, cumbersome bullying busses and manic trucks on deadlines making deliveries to homes and businesses across the five boroughs. Yellow Cabs race for fare paying customers, phantom looking black sedans zip through lanes ignoring all around them and lost or intoxicated commuters attempt to pass, cut in front of or compete for parking in the chaotic, poorly policed traffic choked streets of New York City.

In addition to the unpredictable cars, cyclists must be on the lookout for the thousands of Carries and Bills, who while frantically discussing the evening’s plans or an earlier lunchtime meeting on their cell phone, tend to jaywalk, wonder aimlessly into a crosswalk or bike lane, disregarding traffic signals or worse yet, completely ignoring the moving human on the bike headed right for them. Perhaps they’re on the phone chatting with the countless car drivers who forgot that there is a law that “prohibits” cell phone use while driving. And then, there is the inconsiderate cab passenger who insists on not looking back for the approaching bike, instead hurling the car door open, bags in tow, as if he or she meant scare the stranger on the bike. Of course this careless but common New York move has the ability to send a cyclist flying head first directly into a serious head or back injury or even death. And, Lord knows, riding a bike at night in New York is a crapshoot all its own. While cyclists are slightly safer with a headlight, there is no protection from the masculine challenged hot rod types who seek to impress passengers and pedestrians on the sidewalk with high-speed antics, burnt rubber and deafening music that ignores any sense of the ongoing crowded reality of life carrying on around them. And, there’s no ignoring Little Lucy Hummer girl, who drives with blinds through the streets of Soho , feeling safe in her tank, but wreaking havoc on the young woman with flowers in the basket of her bike, as she tries to make it home for dinner.

It is true that some pedal power types are less than angelic, sometimes brazen. Some bikers embody what it means to be a menace. Nothing is more infuriating than an errant biker, running against the signal through traffic lights, those who go the incorrect direction on one way streets, those who terrorize elderly folks by jumping up on the sidewalks and displaying what appears the cyclistÂ’s version of inconsiderate dangerous transportation arrogance. Often this behavior is remedied by a good New York tongue -lashing. But in reality, the menace that bikes present to pedestrians pales in comparison to the real dangers that cyclists face on city streets.

Cyclists are in a psychological, political and legal battle for acceptance of biking as a legitimate mode of transit in New York City. The battle has led to competing visions of what urban life in the Big Apple and other cities can and should be. It is still risky to pedal to a destination in the city.

According to a Joint Report prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, The Parks and Recreation Department, Transportation Department and the NYPD the battle for acceptance on the street continues to take a significant toll. 3,462 cyclists were seriously injured in crashes with motor vehicles between 1995 and 2003 and unfortunately, between 1996 and 2005, 225 cyclists were killed in crashes. Eleven cyclists have died in crashes so far this year.

New York’s Transportation Alternatives, a non profit organization that advocates for safer walking, bicycling and sensible transportation, notes that New York has the highest number of pedestrian and cycling deaths in the U.S. The majority of all traffic fatalities in New York City are cyclist and pedestrian deaths. Cyclists were 12 times more likely than car occupants to get killed than car occupants in traffic accidents according to a study by Professor John Pucher PhD and Lewis Dijkstra PhD that was published in the “American Journal of Public Health” in 2003. That same study noted that per km per trip cycled, American bicyclists are twice as likely to get killed as German cyclists and over three times as likely to get killed as Dutch cyclists.

Dutch envy is in order when one considers that from 1978 to 1996, Holland more than doubled its already extensive network of bike paths. In addition, there are increasing numbers of “bike streets” in both Holland and Germany. On those streets, cars are “permitted” but cyclists have the right of
way over the entire breadth of the roadway. One wonders what the results of such an urban refuge on Broadway, Fifth Avenue or any busy street in an American city would be. The results might show up in lower obesity rates and slightly decreased levels of car exhaust. Maybe too, American cities, like New York, would find that individuals who ride a bike to get around, are in better spirits thanks to the raised levels of endorphins that exercise like cycling has been proven to increase.

New York’s Transportation Alternative’s roots are in bicycling. The organization, with its extensive cache of cycling data, attributes a great deal of the dangers that pedestrians and cyclists face to automobile driver’s “widespread speeding and a general disrespect for cyclists and pedestrians. In spite of increasing environmental concerns, gas prices and the general frustration of commuting by automobile, we continue to invest heavily in the endless cycle of road infrastructure and highway expansion. Plain and simple, the car is still king on the streets of America.

Despite the carÂ’s dominance, an estimated 120 thousand New Yorkers put their legs, lungs and hearts through an exhilarating but often nerve racking work out by hopping on bikes, pedaling from Point AÂ’s to BÂ’s throughout the busy Big Apple streets each day. In spite of real dangers, it is still the fastest way to get around the city. Riding through the streets of New York offers amazing views, smells and sounds real connections to the souls of each passing block and neighborhood, experiences that the protected bubble of an automobile denies. But, bikers must share the road with the up to one million automobiles that enter the crowded streets each day as well. In spite of the formidable overwhelmingly vast army of gas guzzling, road hogging sometimes erratically driven horn honking machines, the bikers pedal on.

This year, the city promised that it was going to move forward with the addition of 200 miles in new bike lanes. Hopefully, in the future, these bike lanes will be more than marks on the road that some cars tend to ignore. Bike lanes in New York are usually sandwiched between parked cars on one side and moving cars on the other. They are certainly not the most ideal solution, but they are better than nothing at all.

Cycling advocates should continue the fight for safer biking conditions and greater road space in New York and other cities. Those on the frontlines of the battle, the cyclists themselves, should try to ride safely by the rules while encouraging friends to join them for a recreational ride or a trip to another neighborhood for dinner or a movie. Businesses and other institutions would be well served to provide facilities for changing and showering so that employees can cycle to work. Cyclists should remember what the automobile figured out years ago when they took over the roads and seized power in government, that there is power in numbers.