Cover-up documentary

Around 20 years ago, one of Hollywood's warmest and smartest stars - pop culture icons, narrated a revealing and chilling documentary that is as relevant today as it was in the late 80's. Here's a link to a cover up.
Irancontra documentary

What does the Hair Say?

Although North Carolina's John Edwards has proven to be one of the most substantial, visionary, formidable and "policy specific"of the current crop of Democratic Presidential candidates, the hair has led to a lot of airplay, big laughs for comedians as well as Republican taunts. But, in addition, some interesting analysis has grown from what could easily be called, excessive pampering . Edwards, who is a product of the mill working class of the rural south, has obviously shined in his career and done well financially for himself. Below find a very interesting, funny but critical look at Edward's seeming inability to 'really' "get his feet muddy" and do some real 'politickin'. It is written by a hometown (Birmingham) writer.

From Birmingham Weekly

Time To Charge Automobiles A Fee To Drive In Manhattan

BY CODY LYON

The sun was bright, the air was warm and pedestrians, cyclists, joggers and pets galore were walking New York City’s streets on Earth Day 2007. In Manhattan’s finely tuned Hudson River waterfront piers and parks, the dawn of Spring was in high evidence as the mosaic that is New York began its thawing process. And, on the Upper West Side at The American Museum of Natural History, Mayor Michael Bloomberg was setting the stage for an even newer season for the city as he went public with a proposal for a visionary but controversial effort to reduce the number of automobiles that come into the crowded streets of Manhattan each day.

If implemented, the market based theory would impose a system whereby motorists pay an $8 fee to enter streets south of 86^th Street in Manhattan. Commonly called congestion pricing, the proposal has been floated around New York for quiet a while by a cross section of concerned New Yorkers, environmentalists, alternative transit advocates and even a few well moneyed organizations and individuals including The Partnership for New York City.

Manhattan’s 35 square miles provide the estimated 850 thousand cars that fill its streets daily with an inarguably disproportionate amount square footage in comparison to green space, bike lanes and other human being friendly land for its millions of residents and daily workers. By prioritizing the reduction of automobile traffic, there is the potential to also reduce pollution, improve quality of life, increase safety, conserve energy, reduce noise and introduce a new steady revenue stream that can be used to improve and expand mass transit, especially in areas where commuters into Manhattan may have felt compelled to drive into the city.

The advocacy organization Transportation Alternatives says only 5 percent of daily commuters from Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Staten Island drive a car into the Central Business District, the streets where the fee would be imposed.

According to most reports, New York’s plan would be similar to the same system set up by London Mayor Ken Livingstone in that city back in 2003. In London, motorists are charged a fee to enter the Central district from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Taxicabs, cars used by the disabled, mortorscoters, alternative fuel vehicles, buses and emergency vehicles don’t pay the fee.

As Alan Shurmer of Transport for London said of his city in my 2006 “West Side Spirit” article about a proposed NYC Congestion Pricing system, “less congestion means less traffic, less pollution and fewer accidents, making London a nicer place to work, live and visit.”

Apparently, most New Yorkers do believe if automobile traffic were reduced, their overall quality of life would be better.

In fact, according to a 2004 survey conducted by the nonprofit group Citizens for NYC in cooperation with Baruch College, the problem of street noise and dangerous intersections remains the greatest quality of life issue facing New Yorkers.

With a reduction of traffic and a new revenue stream, the hope is that among other changes, sidewalks might be expanded, more buses and express bus lanes added, bike lanes that are kept clear of parked cars and trucks would become the norm all across town. Perhaps too, New York City will serve as an example for other cities seeking to reduce the ills produced by automobiles.

All of this and more, but, one should keep in mind that this proposal is not just an environmentalist’s dream but a potential solution to a very serious threat. Traffic in New York City is more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists than for the drivers of automobiles. At countless intersections, human beings dodge automobiles as drivers, often anxious to get to their destination, often forget the power and strength, size, weight and power of the machine they are driving. Children and the elderly, often shorter than others, are especially at risk of the chaos that often defines a busy Manhattan intersection during times of increased traffic.

In 2006, 170 pedestrians were killed and thousands more injured in New York City streets according to Transportation Alternatives. That’s a seven percent increase over 2005.

In the same 2006 “West Side Spirit” article about Congestion Pricing, Transportation Alternative’s Kit Hodge said she didn’t think most New Yorkers were connecting the dots with the “real” human problems that traffic congestion poses to city residents. She believes in the end, if New Yorkers understood the impact traffic has on our health and lives and even the city’s economy, more people would be on board for a congestion pricing system.

In the end, the city must do something to address its traffic problem. A fee on automobile drivers is a minor inconvenience compared to the serious health, economic and quality of life tolls that traffic congestion imposes on city residents. Ultimately, it is time for city residents to educate themselves on this issue, and understand what this tremendous undertaking could mean for its future. And, the city should make and keep a promise, that any revenues provided by such a scheme will be channeled into more efficient mass transit for residents, especially those in the outer boroughs who may feel cheated by such a plan.

Hopefully, if city leaders do arrive at a working consensus that reduces automobile traffic in crowded Manhattan streets, more people will enjoy the renewal and beauty of Spring, not just on the waterfront, but out among the architectural wonders of Manhattan, in its streets, crossing at intersections that are less chaotic, or riding a bicycle on a safe wide bike lane, and in the end, living in a healthier body within an even healthier city .

FRONTLINE'S "GANGS OF IRAQ"

PBS FRONTLINE’S “Gangs of Iraq”, part of the network’s “America at a Crossroads” series, reveals in gripping detail the complicated turmoil and horror that defines much of what Iraq has become today. With remarkable honesty, meticulous detail and stunning imagery and sounds, questions are raised about an exit strategy dependent on the training of Iraqi security forces.

As the program’s website notes of the plan: “But despite a four-year training effort -- costing $15 billion and producing more than 300,000 Iraqi soldiers and national police -- the violence in Iraq has only intensified.”

Simply put, this is a very important window into the conflict in Iraq that all Americans should watch closely. Fortunately, one can watch the entire series online at the PBS.ORG website. Here’s a link below:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gangsofiraq

DON IMUS-CAN WE ALL PLEASE SAY NEW ORLEANS?

By Cody Lyon

Don Imus crossed a line when he belched out hurtful, sexist and racist comments that hurt a lot of innocent people. But, truth be told, this cantankerous old school shock jock is a symptom, of much deeper lying infections that still plague the United States, racism and sexism.

But does the removal of Imus from his pulpit attack the source of these infections, or does it simply place a band aid on one of its symptoms, inappropriate or vile language?

If Imus has truly realized the gravity of his sins, and seen the lights of redemption, could he not serve the greater good, by going back to his flock, talking his talk and serving as a catalyst of change among his listeners using his potentially new found sensitivity and enlightened ways, to educate his listeners that what he said was wrong and that he is truly sorry for the pain he caused.

Obviously, Imus made a very serious mistake and he should not be allowed to get away with it, but, if he came out of the uproar with a more enlightened attitude, and was returned to the airwaves, is there not a strong possibility that he might influence folks in his audience to perhaps do a little soul searching of their own?

True soul searching is challenging, but isn’t that what we as a nation need to be doing more often when it comes to our attitudes about race and gender?

In a way, the Imus incident and the ensuing media hysteria takes a portion of the discussion about race further away from a group of people who actually need to be talking and perhaps challenged. Instead, the firing of Imus has led to truckloads of hyperbole providing media outlets a colorful lightning rod that is more about Imus and rhetoric than the sins of racism. Some are saying the finger will now point at what many call the prevalence of misogynistic lyrics by hip hop artists while others raise more fingers at the Ann Coulter's of the world. The problem is that it's always easier to point a finger at the attention mongering character of the day, diverting attention from the deeper issue. What we seem to forget and hardly ever fully address, is that these high paid opinionaters speak words they think that their audiences will approve of, in fact, they and the people who pay them probably subscribe to the theory that they speak words their audience want to hear.

The fact that the Don Imus's, Ann Coulters, artists who objectify women along with numerous other high paid figures and gadflys of entertainment, politics and media play upon the inappropriate assumption that Americans will accept, laugh at or subscribe to such antics says a lot. But, by simply decapitating one of them verses "calling them out" and encouraging "reform", the real problems don't go away, instead they go elsewhere, perhaps less visible but still there.

Don Imus commanded a large, loyal daily audience, but by firing him, a potential forum of the often prickly and uncomfortable discussion of race in America has been lost. It could be said that the Imus firing pushes an opportunity for greater awareness further into the underground of denial and hypocrisy. Sure, on the surface, there may appear to be increased discourse on race flowing over the nations airwaves, as the cable news networks, and other outlets showcase shrill pundits who argue and scream over what is appropriate to say on the air or in public. But, there are much deeper, more important issues still raising their heads up from the putrid smells of racism. Many of these issues impact people's lives every day. Hopefully, in the future, more energy will be expended on public debates that seek solutions to real problems like inequities in economic opportunity and the system of insufficient funding of urban public education systems, among others . Most of these inequities are the direct result of a legacy of racism and the injustice it has wreaked. And while reading that same page, one doesn't have to dig to deep to find plenty of examples that illustrate the legacies of sexism and homophobia within our society and culture. Both these society sins manifest themselves in laws, policy and attitudes about marriage throughout the country.

One thing is certain, America has a long road to travel when it comes to dismantling a hard wired system, in this case a system polluted with the poison that is indeed racism, need we say New Orleans?

What Does Iraq's New Hydrocarbon Law say About the War?

BY CODY LYON (note: also published in April at OH MY NEWS INTERNATIONAL)

On May 28th, Amman Jordan is set to play host to a 3 day economic trade show, a corporate meet and greet between powerful, well moneyed investors and those who the guard the gates of vital decision making government ministries in the perilous but oil rich place called Iraq.

On its website, ‘The Iraq Development Program’, loosely defined organizers, call the Jordan gathering “historic” and “landmark”. Officially titled an Oil, Gas, Petrochemical & Electricity Summit, the three days of face to face meetings could impact Iraq’s economic future for years to come.

Efforts to contact IDP directly and understand the origin of their funding and purpose were not successful, but the group’s stated mission is to “aid Iraq as an economic force.”

The Iraq Development Program’s web page says ‘following declaration of new foreign investment laws for the extractive industries, noting that the government is now finalizing its new hydrocarbon laws’ to which promoters of the event say “the timing of this summit could not be better.

Iraq’s new oil- hydrocarbon law, and the push to see it quickly passed, has begun to raise serious questions among observers and critics.

The Iraqi cabinet approved the hydrocarbon law on February 26^th and sent it on to Parliament where it now sits. If fully approved, Iraq’s oil reserves would be opened to investment from foreign multinational oil companies. The current legislation would also provide oil companies the option for long term contracts of up to 30 years. The laws would set up a Profit Sharing Agreements or PSA’s arrangement, where revenue is based on the profit after oil companies’ deduct their production costs. Reportedly, remaining profits would then be divided among the Iraqi provinces.

Critics charge the law offers excessive and unfair profits to the oil companies

.Others worry that since Iraq is now a country experiencing horrific turmoil, the time is not right to debate such important economic legislation..

Supporters of the oil law disagree. They say the regulatory, legal and tax structure the oil law sets up, will invite the necessary outside investment the country needs to jump start its economy. They see the law as an enabler of market based economic infrastructure that will produce streams of revenue, helping restore stability and prosperity for the Iraqi people.

In the background, outspoken opponents of the war, say the push for such a law is evidence that that the war had more to do with gaining access to oil than what the public was told.

“This story raises so many more questions than it answer” said Dr. Louay Bahry, Adjunct scholar of Public Policy at the non partisan Middle East Institute in Washington D.C.

“As I read it, these foreign companies are fighting to get to Iraqi oil” said Dr. Bahry noting such practices would be new.

On Background, oil company representatives were clear about hopes to enter Iraq but stressed security, democracy and an oil law that included investment incentives are necessary.

PSA’s are a primary incentive of the oil laws.. According to the International Energy Agency, 12 percent of the world’s oil reserves are subject to Profit Sharing Agreements.

“This would completely break from normal practice in the region where all the major oil producing industries are in the public sector” said Greg Mutitt, co director of the British research and watchdog organization, Platform London. Mutitt said Iraq would be the only major Middle Eastern oil producing nation where production is controlled by foreign companies.

Platform London’s “Unraveling the Carbon Web” project states that it seeks to reduce the environmental and social impact of oil corporations and help citizens gain a say in decisions that affect them.

According to Muttit, oil companies have been lobbying hard to get what they want in Iraq by working with both the US and UK governments, and through the International Tax and Investment Center.

Mutitt, who authored a chapter in a new book called “A Game as Old as the Empire” says that ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total and ENI funded ITIC’s efforts at influencing the oil legislation in Iraq..

Founded in 1993, after the fall of the former Soviet Union, The International Tax and Investment Center is a Washington D.C non profit research and education foundation with some of the world’s largest corporations as sponsors. Co chair’s of the organization are former Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and The Rt. Hon Lord Walker, MBE, PC, former UK Secretary of Trade and Industry.

“Our purpose is to improve tax and investment regimes” said Daniel Witt, President of the ITIC in Washington DC. The organization works with economies in transition and according to Witt, Iraq fit that profile perfectly.

Witt says the challenge in Iraq was, how to attract investment where there is no stable economic infrastructure? In Iraq, ITIC commissioned a number of experts and looked at contract and fiscal options in the petroleum sector.

“Make no mistake, donor money is important in transition periods” said Witt.

But, he says both the oil companies and the people of Iraq, stand to benefit from ITIC’s recommendations.

In 2004 ITIC published its Petroleum and Iraq’s Future: Fiscal Options and Challenges report that said every $1 increase in oil sales may translate into an extra $2 for the country’s Gross Domestic Product. The report said the Iraqi government should write legislation that will create a framework where resources, rent and risk are shared between the investor, consistent with underlying economic potential and drawing on current industry norms and best practice.

The study says that profits based systems tend to align parties toward common objectives.

Beyond rebuilding the country, oil company representatives say Iraqi oil plays another necessary role, meeting the world’s energy demands.

“Given the scale of Iraq’s resources and ambitions, we find it hard to see a future in which production of these resources will not play a significant role in meeting the global energy challenge” said a representative from Shell International in London this past March 29th.

But a number of critics worry the Iraqi people will be short changed. Some Iraqis see the oil companies as trying to gain partial ownership of the country’s primary source of revenue.

“These laws give these foreign oil companies the right to actually have shared ownership of the oil” said Raed Jarrar, Iraq Project Consultant with The American Friends Committee.

Jarrar says that since the laws do not set any limits of the percentage shared, over the next 30 years or so, the PSAs could cost Iraq billions of dollars.

Privatization proponents disagree, arguing that Iraqis will maintain ultimate control over their reserves of oil while benefiting from world market trends.

According to Daniel Witt at International Tax and Investment Center, “as oil prices go up or down, you have these dynamics in the contracts but Iraq is not surrendering sovereign rights” over the oil he said.

In 1972, Iraq nationalized all assets of the country’s private oil consortium, the Iraq Petroleum Company, or IPC, after years of disagreements over revenue. In the past, Iraq relied on oil for up to 90 percent of foreign exchange earnings.

According to a CIA memo that same year, Iraq’s move to nationalize was the result of 11 years of tensions that resulted from the IPC’s refusal to satisfy Iraq’s demands for back payments it claimed the consortium owed.

The Iraq Petroleum Company, or IPC, included French, Dutch, British and United States oil firms including British Petroleum, Shell, Mobil, Standard and Compagnie Francaise des Petroles.

Nationalization meant that one hundred percent of oil revenues went directly to the central government, a move that many in the Middle East saw as a move towards greater economic self determination, a step that stood to benefit the Iraqi people directly through social programs, healthcare an education.

Nationalization set’s up a system whereby foreign oil companies buy oil from the state, under the state’s terms.

The move set the stage whereby Western oil companies, and the powerful economies they supply, found themselves in even more vulnerable positions, subject to the whims of oil rich countries.

The Central Intelligence Agency 1972 memo expressed its displeasure calling the move “sudden and dramatic.”

Some say that multi national oil interests have been anxious to get back to Iraq ever since.

Public debate over the law, both in Iraq and the United States, has remained hidden beneath front pages filled with daily death and destruction.

According to Greg Muttit at Platform London the majority of Iraq’s citizens have no idea that this important law is being discussed.

“Most Iraqi’s would be extremely angry about this if anyone had bothered to tell them this was being done” he said.

He says that those who are, MPs, trade unions and oil experts, are actively organizing against it.

“The oil companies and governments are planning to take advantage of the occupation and the general weak position of Iraqi state institutions to push through deals on highly profitable terms, at the expense of the Iraqi people” said Muttit.

A few Iraqi political leaders have raised opposition.

A March 13^th, “Voices of Iraq” report said Iraqi National Slate Party member Hussein al-Fallui was arguing that it was not the right time to be dealing with the issue.

“Socio-political and security circumstances do not allow such a step now, as the draft would allow investment companies to re-wield power over Iraqi oil” Falluji told Parliament according to the “VOI” report.

ITIC’S Daniel Witt disagrees, saying the time is right to invite new investment that will re start the stalled economy.

“Given the lack of infrastructure needed to jump start the economy, and get investment in now, verses waiting 10 or 15 years so they (the Iraqis) can debate these laws til kingdom come” he said.

But some have questioned whether the law takes into account Iraq’s reality on the ground.. They worry about tensions that might arise between the various, deeply divided provinces once the market system is in place.

Dr. Louay Bahry says there is a great deal of opposition from both the sunnis and shite regarding the law. He says the Kurds, who apparently offer the most support, would prefer total freedom, and see revenue from their region go directly to them.

“When it comes to revenue sharing, the law is not clear how exactly that is going to happen” said Dr. Louday Bahryl.

He says that 80 percent of the country’s oil specialists have fled the country.

“We have so many oil specialists from Iraq, but they are no longer there” he said.

Raed Jarrar goes further, saying the law will exacerbate those divisions. He calls the law a marriage of convenience between the Bush Administration and Iraqi separatists who are monopolizing power within the Iraqi government.

“The oil law threatens the concept of a unified Iraq’s existence” because the law “decentralizes” most of the important authority of signing oil contracts he said.

The recent surge by American troops has raised eyebrows as some ask whether the increase is an attempt to buy time so outside oil interests can have a chance to gain a greater foothold over the direction of the fragile economy.

An April 5^th analysis report in “Iraq Updates” by UPI’s Pamela Hess, said US officials are planning “a range of options to maintain the troop increase, from late summer through early spring 2008” whereby the hope is to quell the violence long enough in Iraq for the nascent government to address some of the ‘underlying causes of the conflict, including the oil wealth sharing law.

Supporters of Iraq’s current hydrocarbon law cross both sides of the American political spectrum. They see the law as not only as business friendly, but a chance to bring Iraq into the world marketplace which they believe will foster democracy.

“The only way to fuel economic growth is through an engine of private sector investment” and “the sad part is, advocating state run equals slower economic growth which also equals slower improvement in quality of life” said Daniel Witt.

Recommendations 62 and 63 of Baker/Hamilton Iraqi Study Group recommends that the United States assist the Iraqi in drafting an oil law that helps privatize the industry and encourages investment.

One of the Study Group’s members, Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta plugged the law in an April 4^th “New York Times” op-ed.

In the article, Panetta listed the eventual approval of Iraq’s oil law as one of a number of steps the Iraqis could take to encourage democracy and achieve national reconciliation.

In his April 3^rd Rose Garden Press conference, President Bush told reporters he had spoken to Iraq’s Prime Minister about the ‘oil law’ earlier.

In a March 27^th speech to the Washington Institute’s Public Policy forum, David Satterfield, a Senior Advisor to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, called the national hydrocarbon law part of the Bush Administration’s “New Way Forward” in Iraq.

On March 3, 2007, US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad wrote in the "Washington Post" that the national hydrocarbon law “is a significant achievement for Iraqi’s national reconciliation.”

The Bush Administration appears to have been interested in an oil law friendly to foreign investment since the invasion began in 2003. But, some have pointed to clues that a push to gain easy access to Iraq’s oil has been underway for years.

In 1999, Vice President Dick Cheney, while still CEO of Halliburton, said in a speech to the Institute of Petroleum that the “Middle East, with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

In 2003, four months after the March invasion had begun, The US Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded Mc Lean Virginia consulting firm Bearing Point, a nine million dollar contract to support activities and policies undertaken by the Coalition Provisional Authority, designed to create a competitive private sector.

Platform London’s Carbon Web wrote in July 2006, that the US government had hired advisers from Bearing Point to help in drafting the oil law.

Bearing Point spokesperson Steve Lunceford said the firm was doing what it has done in the past in places like Kosovoand Poland, providing assistance in the review of a number of economic policy efforts.

“This included providing a single expert that consulted to the government on its oil industry” said Lunceford this past week.

“Note, this does not equal ‘drafting’ the proposed hydrocarbon law” he wrote in an email message.

Some Invasion opponents see Bearing Point’s role in helping draft the law, as part of a bridge of suggestive evidence that crosses over to the controversial period before the war, when talk of how to gain control over Iraq’s oil was quietly bubbling in pockets around the world, primarily the United States and Britan

In his 2002 “American Prospect” profile of Ahmed Chalabi, America’s original choice for a high leadership position in a new Iraq, Robert Dreyfus offers a snapshot of alleged oil ambition playing a role in an eventual invasion.

Dreyfus’ story quotes former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James E. Akins as saying conservative think tanks and multinationals have denationalization in mind, and the parceling of “Iraqi oil out to American oil companies.”

Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi National Congress, had allegedly met with US oil company officials and guaranteed lucrative contracts if the US overthrew Saddam Hussein.

According to the “American Prospect” 2002 story, when asked about such meetings one US oil executive said “I can’t discuss that, even on background.”

Later, in a July 2003 interview with PBS television program FRONTLINE, Chalabi admitted being “close” to Bush Administration members Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith confirming he’d had easy access to Vice President Cheney’s office.

When confronted by FRONTLINE with a direct quote from the “London Observer” where he assured US oil companies lucrative contracts for removing Saddam, Chalabi said “no, that’s not true” arguing he’d said Iraq’s oil needed investment to increase production.

Leading back to present day, where a number of observers and invasion opponents allege that the hydrocarbon law, and the contracts it encourages, lend evidence to the “blood for oil” charge as Green Party Chairman Jim Coplen did in a March 5^th press release.

The hydrocarbon law’s supporters caution against making such allegations.

Of those who attempt to draw correlations between the new hydrocarbon law and the motive for the invasion, Daniel Witt at ITIC says “they are trying to connect dots that aren’t there” arguing such controversial theory provides a platform to advance their long stated objectives.

“They have a fundamentally different view of the world than me” but “history has proven that people are better off with economic growth.”

PODCAST LINK-TIME TO SPREAD THE PAIN (OMNI)

"OH MY NEWS INTERNATIONAL'S" PODCAST OF "TIME TO SPREAD THE PAIN" (OPINION ITEM) from 2/2007

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.