BUSH'S TORTURE POLICY TARNISHED AMERICA'S MORAL STANDING

(BEGIN ITAL)"The terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 civilians! They behead their prisoners! They send suicide bombers into markets, mosques and police stations! What's so bad about waterboarding them?"(END ITAL)

It's impossible to have a public discussion of the Bush administration's decision to use torture on suspected terrorists without hearing a defense that relies on a comparison of inherent evil: (BEGIN ITAL)"What the terrorists do is so much worse. We only used 'enhanced interrogation techniques' to keep Americans safe."(END ITAL)

Let's set aside for now the question of whether torture is effective in extracting information. Though "24's" (fictional) Jack Bauer is a notable exception, many real-life experts say the near-drowning of detainees or slamming them into walls or shackling them to the ceiling is much more likely to produce false confessions than important clues about future attacks. Even interrogations of criminal suspects by civilian police produce more false confessions than you might think.

Under severe duress, a human being will often say whatever his interrogators want to hear, just to stop the pain. But since it seems quite likely that intelligence operatives privy to interrogations, whether using "enhanced" techniques or lawful methods, will continue to weigh in on their effectiveness (For example, Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who helped interrogate high-ranking terrorist Abu Zubaydah, wrote an essay in The New York Times last week in which he denounced "false claims magnifying the effectiveness of ... techniques like waterboarding."), let's move on.

Let's also not get bogged down in a debate over whether the word "torture" is justified for tactics that include waterboarding a detainee, whether one time or 183 times. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who knows a thing or two about interrogation of prisoners, says waterboarding is "torture. Period." I take his word for it.

For now, let's just stick to the "we're the good guys" argument.

If we Americans are the good guys, if we're going to go around the world as the champions of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, if we're going to demand punishment for pirates, tyrants and Pol Pots, don't we have to actually practice what we preach? If we're the "shining city upon a hill," "the last, best hope of earth," aren't we required to inhabit a higher moral plane than homicidal theo-fascists?

When President Bush could no longer use fear of WMDs or al-Qaida connections to justify ousting Saddam Hussein, the president settled on the "spread of democratic values" to the region as his rationale. At the very least, then, Bush should have insisted that the U.S. conduct itself in a manner that made clear we take those values very seriously. Among our fundamental precepts are respect for human rights, adherence to international law and a respect for the rules of war as recognized by civilized nations. When Bush sacrificed those to expediency -- or zealotry -- he lost his remaining rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

Even in the harrowing months that followed the atrocities of 9/11, there was no excuse for violating the Geneva Conventions. While Bush defenders point to a climate in which the White House feared other attacks might be imminent, al-Qaida at its worst has never represented an existential threat to the United States. If American leaders resisted elevating torture to official policy in World War II, when the Axis might well have won the war, surely Bush and Dick Cheney could have done the same.

Of course, al-Qaida and its ilk are savage and brutal, killing indiscriminately. Their beliefs in no way represent mainstream Islam; indeed, their barbarism finally succeeded in alienating them from fellow Muslims in parts of Iraq, a turning point that helped U.S. troops quell the violence.

When the U.S. engages in torture, we blur the distinctions between us and them. We alienate our allies and give comfort to our enemies. We lose the moral authority to sit in judgment of countries where human rights are routinely trampled and detainees regularly mistreated.

According to many accounts, there were officers in the intelligence services who were sickened by the abuse of prisoners and wanted nothing to do with it. They represented the United States at its best. They actually believed in the values they were willing to give their lives to defend.

That's more than can be said for the man who was then serving as their commander-in-chief.

Saturday, we had no internet access at the library. Apparently, a storm--and a combination of scattered power *failures* across the county--had wiped out internet access for much of Snohomish County.

I spent the weekend recuperating, but the bleeding has yet to stop--making me wonder if the doc hadn't nicked something internally when he pulled out the stent.

The pain in my side comes and goes, but I'm trying to deal with it the best I can. I've tried resuming my *normal* activities, but things are a bit slower than I would've liked.

I've resumed my writing again--Chapter 5--and feel I'm off to a good start there.

Nothing on the agent front. I doubt that I'll get in--but it was fun to enter the contest.

We are planning on moving all our stuff from the 5x5 this weekend--after we move into our new apartment--but we've had some discussions over what is going to stay and what isn't.

The usual debates--which haven't touched off any serious arguments in under a few weeks.

The GAU program which I'm on has been *saved* from the latest rounds of budget cuts in Washington state--but my wife's coverage through Basic Health may be at risk of termination.

60,000 people are going to lose their coverage and nobody will say *who* is going to get the axe.

But my main problem (prescription drug coverage), has yet to materialize. I made a pretty good argument about keeping the system intact--while urging the governor to *not* make draconian cuts into our coverage plans.

Because I just suddenly realized--yesterday--that my combative mother-in-law is also at *risk* of losing access to her prescription drug coverage as well. (A point I tried to make to her--while we were discussing my health problems--but she didn't want to her my opinion on the matter.

So I dropped it.

What else could I do?

Specter to Switch Parties!

The Nation -- That's the word from CNN. Specter, of course has had to bend further and further right to protect his right flank from primary challenger Pat Toomey. Apparently he realized that was a dead end. The GOP base, which makes up primary voters is getting more and more right-wing. So he's decided to switch parties and become a Democrat, hoping to preserve his political future. He stresses in his statement that:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

It's possible, indeed likely, that this is merely a semantic shift. Specter will retain his own politics, vote the way he was before and have a D in front of his name instead of an R. He's hoping he'll have a clear path to re-election as a Democrat in a blue state.

But, it's also hard not to think that Democrats are in a much better position than they were 24 hours ago. It also occurs to me that the increasingly right-wing, out of step GOP base really is on its way to further destroying what's left of the party.

In Obama's First 100 Days, GOP Transitions to Super-Minority

On January 27, the day before House Republicans unanimously opposed the House version of the economic stimulus package, President Barack Obama visited the Capitol to discuss the bill with Republicans in both chambers. It was an attempt by the president to build both bipartisan support for the current bill, as well as goodwill with the opposing party for future legislation.

As House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence recalled on Monday, Obama continued to imply during the hour-long meeting with GOP House members that negotiations on the bill had taken place between the two parties.

"Toward the end of the meeting, I said: Mr. President, you’ve used the phrase 'the bill negotiated in the House,' but I hate to say to you, with the greatest respect, there was no bill negotiated in the House."

Such has been the ongoing argument of congressional Republicans during Obama’s first 100 days in office. After two dreadful election cycles in the House and Senate, and a loss of the White House by 7 points in the popular vote and 192 electoral votes, Republicans have aggressively -- if not successfully -- sought legislative influence their party no longer has.

For the first time since 1994, Republicans are the minority party in Congress while a Democrat runs the White House, and the transition has not been easy. Despite a mostly-unified party on both sides of the Capitol, Republicans’ message of fiscal restraint and bipartisanship amidst a flurry of government spending over the last three months has not resonated with the general public.

Along with Obama’s 62.1 percent RealClearPolitics Job Approval Average, a recent Gallup survey found that 66 percent of Americans think Obama is making a sincere effort to work with members of the opposing party to find bipartisan solutions, while just 38 percent believe Republicans in Congress are doing the same.

Similarly, an Associated Press-GfK survey found that 53 percent believe Obama is doing about the right amount to cooperate with Republicans to solve the country’s economic problems, while 65 percent said Republicans are not doing enough.

While Pence and other Republicans argue that the reality is actually opposite (Pence said “bi-partisanship means more than stopping by” and that there is a “total lack of bipartisanship by Democrats in the House and Senate”) they would probably agree that Republicans suffer from a message-delivery disadvantage.

"The presidency is a force of nature, and President Obama is a gifted communicator," Pence said. "And so it should come as no surprise that what the president has said about working with Republicans has reached the American people."

The president’s message is apparently reaching the American people across the political spectrum, while Republicans in Congress are having trouble reaching once-reliable voters in their own party.

Tellingly, a recent CBS News-New York Times poll found that seven in 10 think Republicans opposed the economic stimulus bill for mostly political reasons. Along with most of the Democrats polled, this total included two-thirds of independents and nearly half of Republicans surveyed.

With a new administration and facing an economic crisis, Congress was remarkably active over the last three months, despite a lack of bipartisan cooperation. With little Republican support, and little need for it, Democrats passed a $787 billion economic stimulus package, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, and this week will likely give final approval to a $3.5 trillion budget.

The lack of GOP support on these bills is a sign of the "undeniable" polarization among the parties in Congress, said Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution congressional scholar, during a speech last week.

"Obama’s overtures to the opposition party have been unsuccessful to date because Republicans reject the central components of his agenda, including his economic recovery program,” Mann said. “In less polarized times, the seriousness of the crisis and decisive nature of the Democratic electoral victory would have produced a significant number of Republican votes for the fiscal stimulus."

Other bills moved through Congress that Obama has signed include the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program; the Omnibus Public Lands Act; and the Serve America Act, which expands the size of AmeriCorps and promotes volunteering around the country.

"This is, I think, the most active Congress that I have served in in the first 100 days," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said yesterday. "I don't think any Congress, in my service, has acted so decisively in the first 100 days of an administration."

For Republicans, the near future appears as dim as the present. In the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans currently trail Democrats by 6 points in polls tracking the generic congressional vote, according to the RealClearPolitics average. In the Senate, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection yesterday to the Democratic Party adds one more seat to the lot likely to switch next year.

Republicans in the meantime are hoping to increase their influence on legislation over the next 100 days, and say they remain willing to work with both Obama and congressional Democrats.

"I hope the president redoubles his efforts to reach out," said Pence. "Because as I said, the door is always open at the House Republican Conference."

Beyond Specter, Republicans have a steep hill to climb

Claremont, Calif. – Arlen Specter is out of the GOP, Democrats are up on Capitol Hill, and Republicans are down in the dumps. What happened, and what can the GOP do about it?

The problem is not that Senate Republicans mistreated him – far from it.

In 2004, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help him beat a conservative primary challenger. Then his colleagues gave him the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee despite his liberal views on abortion and other issues in the committee's jurisdiction. And in recent weeks, he got the NRSC chairman's endorsement and $10,000 from Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's political committee.

But Senator Specter made a calculation. Next year's GOP primary and general election looked very difficult for him. And even if he cleared both hurdles, he would still be in the minority party. As a Democrat, he would have a better chance of retaining his seat and regaining some power. He chose self-interest over gratitude, earning a chapter in "Profiles in Something Less Than Courage."

Most Republicans feel a sense of betrayal, which is understandable. But some feel a sense of joy, which is unwise.

"This is ultimately good," said Rush Limbaugh. "I mean this is winnowing out the people that end up misdefining or preventing the party from having a singular identity."

Such comments recall a line from the 1939 comedy Ninotchka: "The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians." Although having fewer but better Republicans may make El Rushbo feel good, it's a very strange way to win majorities.

Specter's switch highlights a huge problem for the GOP: large swatches of the country are becoming "off limits." There are 12 Eastern states north of Virginia, and five more states bordering the Pacific. Of the 34 senators from these regions, only 4 are Republicans.

The picture in the House is just as grim. Many years ago, Republicans had a stronghold in New England, and they still had a toehold as late as the 1990s. But in 2008, they lost their last seat in the region: The score is now 22-0. Next door, New York State once had a thriving GOP that could win at every level. Those days are gone: Republicans hold no statewide offices, and only three of the state's 29 House districts. In a recent special election, they failed to recapture an upstate seat they had held for decades before 2006.

Republicans have just one of the 31 districts that are at least 40 percent African American and only seven of the 42 districts that are at least 40 percent Hispanic. More than 100 Democratic districts fall into one or more of the following categories: black, Hispanic, New England, New York. Without these seats, the GOP has to take about two-thirds of the rest in order to regain a majority. In the Senate, likewise, writing off the Democratic seats of the East and Pacific West means that they must win 71 percent of the remainder.

It is hard to see how Republicans could pull off that feat, especially since Democrats have become skillful in invading GOP territory. In the South and Mountain West, Democrats have won key Senate elections and picked up some very Republican House seats. Last year, they mounted stiff challenges to Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, as well as other red-state Republican lawmakers who had previously counted on easy reelection.

In much of the country, grassroots GOP organizations have withered. Facing a similar situation a few years ago, Democratic national chairman Howard Dean crafted a "50-state strategy" to rebuild his party's structure. Though his approach caused shouting matches within the party leadership, it contributed a great deal to the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. Something like a 50-state strategy is essential to Republican survival.

To compete in Democratic areas, Republicans must obviously reach beyond their base.

Such an approach does not mean that all Republicans must renounce their positions on social issues. Indeed, it would make no sense to ditch religious conservatives and gun owners, who make up much of the party's dwindling corps of volunteers. But Republicans do have to cast their principles in language with broader appeal, and show how their policies can solve the problems that concern voters.

Notwithstanding his poorly-received response to the president's address to Congress, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal provides an example of effective conservative governance. He has championed ethics reform and stood up to special interests. (Among other things, he signed legislation requiring insurance companies to cover autism.)

A resurgent GOP will remain conservative – but it cannot be monolithic. Some of their candidates and new supporters will take different positions on certain issues. In 1990, before he became Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich put it well:

"We have to recognize that we have to get used to fighting ourselves at times and we have to recognize that we are in the business of conflict management. We are not in the business of conflict resolution. You only resolve conflicts by kicking people out and that means you become a minority. So, if you intend to be a majority, you have to be willing to live with a lot of conflict because that is the nature of a majority."

Edited by author 05-01-2009 01:48 PM
I'm so zonked from the pain pills yesterday--after 11 hours of chronic pain.

It wasn't as bad as the *first* time, but I was so unhappy and miserable throughout and out.

No stones, but more of the same blood clots--leading me to wonder if I'm starting to clot inside my right kidney instead of my legs now?

I don't know if such a case is medically possible, but I plan on asking my urologist today about that.

Moving day is tomorrow--as we have secured our new apartment. But I doubt I'll be doing much lifting; seeing how I was so pasted yesterday.

Today, I'm going to take it easy and just go with the flow.

It may be a few days before I can post again. I plan on getting Clearwire this coming month.

Torture and Accountability

Are political activists losing their ability to distinguish between policy disputes and mistakes and criminal behavior? The distinction is crucial, and it has apparently has been lost on those who demand that the authors of the Bush administration's infamous torture memos be prosecuted for breaking the law.

The activist group MoveOn, for example, is calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. There's more than a little irony here. After all, MoveOn was born in reaction to a partisan attempt by Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton for his dalliance with a young White House intern. The effort foundered because most Americans could tell the difference between poor judgment and the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard that impeachment requires.

There's no doubt public officials should be held accountable for their mistakes, but it is dangerous to conflate policy differences with crimes. For one thing, it will likely boomerang by inviting partisan retribution once your opponents come to power. The prospect of being hauled into court will surely constrain bold and decisive action by government officials. At a more basic level, those clamoring for "justice" overestimate the law's ability to provide policymakers with fixed and unambiguous guides to action. In fact, our laws are always open to varying interpretations - that's why we have a whole third branch of government to adjudicate among them.

After President Bush declared his "war on terror," Justice Department lawyers came under pressure from the White House to produce legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques for terrorist suspects. They obliged, essentially by defining waterboarding and other forms of physical abuse as falling short of torture, which is banned under U.S. and international law.

Fulfilling his campaign pledge, President Obama has overridden the Bush policy and made the torture memos public for good measure. Now some activist groups want heads to roll. But whose?

The President has ruled out prosecutions of CIA interrogators, who had no standing to challenge the legal guidance they received. So the prosecution lobby has looked up the chain of command, to the memo's authors. But why stop there? The real architects of U.S. interrogation policies were President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who staunchly defends them as necessary to save American lives.

And it turns out that key Congressional leaders in both parties were briefed on these coercive interrogation methods in the anxious years after 9/11. They can't escape complicity in the policy and for that matter neither can the voters who reelected them. Even now polls show Americans remain closely divided on whether to use torture to prevent imminent terrorist attacks.

In this sense, the impulse to criminalize differences over policy and presidential prerogative is corrosive to democracy. More than legal accountability, we need political accountability. Elections are the best way to stop bad policies. When it comes to judging any administration's actions, there should be a strong presumption in favor of letting the voters decide, rather than the courts.

Barack Obama won the election and, quite rightly in my view, banned waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques as violating Americans' creedal belief in the inalienable rights and dignity of the individual. But that doesn't end the matter. There is still the question of whether torture is the only way to get information that can prevent attacks and save American lives.

That's the real reason for a bipartisan, 9/11 commission to examine the whole episode. It should critically assess the claims of Cheney and other top officials that torture is indispensible to Americans' safety. Many professional interrogators deny such claims, saying there are better ways to get suspects to talk and that, in any case, information gained through torture is often unreliable.

Progressives ought not to demand prosecutions that will inevitably look to many Americans like a partisan vendetta. Instead, we should get the truth about torture out and let this case be tried in the court of public opinion.

Combating Epidemic Ignorance

Creators Syndicate – In the turbulent imagination of the hard-core conservative, American foreign policy should be about telling off the rest of the planet. According to the right-wing mind-set, a manly foreign policy would curtail any effort at seeking influence abroad, cut off assistance to developing countries, forget about improving our global image and, above all, withdraw from the existing international organizations, especially the United Nations, which is nothing more than a gargantuan waste of money and a hive of parasitic bureaucrats. Only if we brusquely and even violently dismiss the obnoxious foreigners who annoy us can we vindicate our political and moral superiority.

Then there is the real world, where we regularly encounter threats like swine flu — and where we must depend on the other people who live in this world to help protect our nation and our families. Certainly that is the outlook of America's new presidency, confirmed with profound urgency after 100 days by the sudden prospect of pandemic disease.

Every day, reactionary bluster is exploited for theatrical purposes by radio and television personalities, rustic politicians, frothing bloggers and all the other clownish extremists who regale us with parodies of conservatism. For simple minds, that's entertainment. But for the past several years, powerful officials in the United States applied the right's bombastic prescriptions to policy, most disastrously on matters of war and peace and international cooperation. The last administration actually sent an ambassador to the United Nations who had publicly disparaged its existence.

So it is unsurprising that the open mind and extended hand of Barack Obama would infuriate the same figures who once applauded John Bolton and cheered for war with mouths full of "freedom fries." They cannot comprehend why the new president would take immediate steps toward repairing our reputation and our alliances. They would rather look for scapegoats than solutions.

In the case of swine flu, that means attempting to blame immigrants from Mexico, who conveniently symbolize right-wing fears of a global future. At the first news of the flu outbreak, all of the usual loudmouths on Fox News Channel and the Internet immediately started to spread panic and blame — including rumors that this illness could represent a bioterror attack launched from across the border. "Could our dear friends in the radical Islamic countries have concocted this virus and planted it in Mexico?" asked one of the more demented radio yakkers. One well-known blogger, an offspring of immigrants, seized the opportunity to warn of "the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration."

As these commentators ought to know, the vector of swine flu into the United States had nothing to do with immigrants from any country, who so far have shown no sign of illness, and everything to do with ordinary travel and commerce. A group of high-school students from New York City went to Cancún on spring vacation and on their return carried home the virus — which has traveled as far as Spain, Scotland, Israel and New Zealand via similar pathways.

At moments of actual peril, such as now, it is important to remember that the World Health Organization (WHO) is humanity's bulwark against catastrophe. Many Americans may not even be aware that the WHO, which has succeeded in protecting us, eradicating disease and reducing suffering for more than six decades, is an agency of the United Nations. As the worldwide coordinator for public health officials in every country when a pandemic looms, the agency plays an essential role — analogous to the Centers for Disease Control in the United States — that simply would not be performed otherwise. Without the WHO, this planet would be far sicker, poorer and more dangerous.

The same cannot be said of the demagogues who inhabit so much of the airwaves and cyberspace. On a planet where human survival will demand cooperation, tolerance, honesty and generosity, their persistent idiocy is not just embarrassing but potentially lethal.

We moved into our new apartment a few days ago, but the transition was a little more *difficult* than I would've liked.

I've been irritable, grouchy, and mopey lately--with borderline depression and anxiety.

I was only able to get a single chapter to THE VAMPIRESS HUNTER done over the past couple of days, but I'm still unable to concentrate or focus on my work.

The pain in my right side, passing clots, and other injuries to myself--have kept me distracted from what needs to be done.

I plan on making an appointment to see a shrink today--while dumping my paperwork at DSHS later on.

Then I plan on heading home.

Edited by author 05-07-2009 07:42 PM
Things are finally coming together, but it's been a slow and *painful* process.

I'm still experiencing pain in my right side--forcing me to take a half Vicadin last night. (This time, a nauseating experience.)

But both me and April have been oversleeping by leaps and bounds--since we've been moving stuff back and forth.

The 5x5 unit's been eliminated, but the 10x10 could use some shrinking down. My MIL wants to completely clean house on the subject and I keep telling her: "Fine. But you're replacing everything I can't replace."

I can stand her impulsiveness on the matter, but she has *no* idea what we have in there. I do know that we have too many things--a point that I made to April this past weekend (as we cleaned out the 5x5)--but it isn't something we can simply *do* at the drop of a hat.

April's been diagnosed with tennis elbow and I still haven't fully recovered from surgery yet.

The other thing is that we've been trying to avoid contact with her parents since we left--seeing how we BOTH need time away from each other.

The 1-bedroom is coming along nicely, but April and I are still plagued by the clutter and the disarray that comes with moving into a new environment.

On the writing front, I've been hacking away at my main novels--seeing how I'm just going to leave the 35-pages alone on THE PRICE OF FREEDOM. The plus side to this is that--even when I'm done--I can come back and make any changes to the book. :0)

Emily Jordan's finally come to terms with her past and she's ready to rejoin her peers and try to make new friends while she still can.

I haven't touched base on the third STORIES OF THE DEAD EARTH novel yet. I plan on working on that this week.

Anyways...

I better take off. I have to catch up with April and then head back home. I'm only using my first hour today at the Lake Stevens Library because I woke up late today.

I didn't sleep well at all last night. I remember passing out from the pain and then waking up several hours later--in agony. I rocked myself back to sleep ten minutes later and found out that I was in no pain when I finally woke up the second time.

But I'm trying to wean myself of the pain pills. Vicadin gives me that "brain in the fog" experience that turns me painfully sluggish and unresponsive to any outside stimuli.

It takes me forever to connect the dots on many things and I don't like the feeling of being a zombie to the rest of the world--or whomever I happen to run into.

Drug addiction is for the birds. I'm just not thrilled with the side effects I get from mine.

But I bear it because I have to--if I want to get better, that is.

There's *some* progress on my books to report, but nothing substancial. I'm thinking about torpedoing the last 40 or 50 pages on THE PRICE OF FREEDOM and giving that part of the novel a whole new makeover.

Just as I did with STARCHILD DUEL--over the past weekend. I couldn't make sense of the first *three* supplement chapters I tried to pen in and had to dump them all--because I was rambling on and two...?

Adding information that was detrimental to the book's health.

It's going to be awhile before I can get myself back up to snuff in the literary department.

These past 8 months have had me more rattled than I wanted to admit, and it's caused a lot of problems writing wise.

So, I'm taking things slow and not pushing it.

Write when I feel like it, game when I want to. (Xenosaga: Episode II to be precise.)

Home life remains chaotic. We're still trying to make our 623-foot apartment into our own home. We had the fridge replaced yesterday--because the old HOTPOINT fridge was dying out and flooding everything inside and out.

Our dishwasher is of the same brand and we have to watch that religously. It likes to take 12 whole hours to wash a single load and never *stops*. (lol)

Outside of that...?

Our sleep cycle has been messed up as well. We're going to bed rather late and sleeping in--wrecking whatever plans we had for the day. (chuckles.)

No TV at all. Even with our boosted attenae leads, we're still getting crap for what passes for reception.

Getting cable is a no-show. Not when Comcast is asking for $60-$70 for basic service after three months of low installments of $29.99.

Besides, we can't affort it as is. And to be honest, we haven't had the need.

While at our in-laws, I quickly discovered that watching cable was more passe than not. There just isn't a whole lot good on these days.

Even on the Cartoon Network.

It seems as though the writers for many of these channel subsidaries have somehow gotten one massive brain fart and decided that sub-par programming was better than none at all.

Oh, I'll get the ocassional good show or something, but a lot's changed in the past 10 years--that makes me nostalgic for the good ol' days. :0)

Dick Cheney's Cynical Bet

What motivates Dick Cheney?

It's not what people think, though Mr. Cheney should be worried about his role in U.S. torture policy, even if he'll likely never be held to account. So, it's not that. Though we may get the "holy grail" evidence Cheney keeps talking about soon. What Cheney, Dick or Liz, won't talk about is the detainee who gave false information (under Egyptian torture) that sent us to war in Iraq, and disgraced Colin Powell. Because Al-Libi just committed suicide in a Libyan prison.

If we get hit again it's going to be blamed on torture, Rush said on his show yesterday.

So why is Dick Cheney on this media tour?

Mr. Cheney wants to draw a line in the sand where Pres. Obama began dismantling the torture policies of Bush-Cheney, which Cheney postulates is making us "less safe."

"That means, in the future, we will not have the same safeguards..." - Vice President Dick Cheney

Cheney knows that we will be hit at some moment in the future, something experts have said is inevitable, whether it's before Obama is out of office or not isn't the issue. Cheney's bet is that when this happens the legacy of Bush-Cheney must be solidified as the Administration who after 9/11 "kept us safe." He wants Americans to remember the moment those policies were dismantled. It happened on the Democrats' watch.

Mr. Cheney along with his fan club, headed by Rush Limbaugh, is betting that the American people need to be reminded of who kept us safe and when those safety policies were destroyed, believing that Americans won't care about torture anymore when the next attack lands.

Nothing Dick Cheney does is by accident. This is a calculated plan to weave a narrative before it happens into the political blood stream, with the attempt of casting blame in advance. Call it preemptive marketing.

It's the same tactic with a new twist, with Cheney finding a new line of attack on the old standard that Democrats are weak on national security. Considering what Bush-Cheney has cost us internationally this takes incredible gall. But when you think of how low Dick Cheney is thought of in this country, what has he got to lose? Since the Obama administration doesn't have the stomach to do anything about what has gone before, the answer is nothing. Considering the Cheneys are the strongest advocates on TV today for a policy that should have us all hanging our heads in shame, it makes you wonder who's really in power.

So, even as Cheney draws a line that he believes will eventually lead the Republicans back to power, Cheney's cynical bet that Obama and the Democrats will be blamed is one he's more than willing to let ride.

Social Conservative Leaders Feel Scapegoated

There is a brooding sense within top social conservative circles that they have become the revolving scapegoat of the Republican Party. Many of the longtime leaders of the Christian right, from Richard Land to Tony Perkins to Gary Bauer, expressed resentment in extended interviews with a singular theme: that the most loyal GOP bloc has been so quickly thrown under many critics' bus.

"There are powerful interest groups in the party and in the country that are trying to scapegoat social conservatives," Land said, who has long served as a bridge between Southern Baptists' political concerns and GOP leadership. "It's people who have no problem ignoring facts."
Social conservatives have proven perhaps the most loyal Republicans. The September 15th economic crisis brought Democrats to new ground across red America. States from Indiana to Florida to North Carolina shifted to Barack Obama after the market crash. In this last chapter of the campaign Obama made inroads with GOP strongholds like white men.

But social conservatives did not budge. Only 29 percent of whites who attend church weekly backed Obama. That is the precise portion who voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. Half of all Americans who voted for John McCain were weekly church attendees. White evangelicals or born-again Christians comprised 42 percent of the GOP vote, according to exit polls.

Despite their loyalty to the GOP, traditionally, after national losses, social conservatives feel like the whipping boy of GOP critics.

"The party alienated too many Americans by allowing social conservatives to dominate," read one New York Times article shortly after Bill Clinton won in 1992. To win, "we're going to have to take on the religious nuts," argued a GOP strategist after Clinton's reelection four years later.

"That's the pattern that has emerged over the last couple of decades," said Perkins, who heads the Family Research Council. "People want to find an easy excuse for the GOP's failures and they try to point to the social conservative issues and by extension social conservatives."

Today, many social conservatives believe that this pointing is more pervasive.

There was Chris Matthews recently grilling Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, over whether he believes in creationism.

There was the first gathering of top Republicans this month to talk about the future of the GOP. Notably absent from the conversation led by Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, a top House Republican, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, was talk of cultural issues like abortion.

At an April gathering of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP organization, McCain's 2008 campaign manager Steve Schmidt urged Republicans to support gay marriage. Schmidt's speech was a widely publicized break with one of social conservatives two primary political concerns.

"The Republicans deserve to lose elections under the rule of 'too-stupid-to-govern' if they choose the Log Cabin constituency over social conservatives," Land said of Schmidt's speech.

Social conservatives also contend with Schmidt's, among others, broader inference that the GOP is becoming a fundamentalist religious party.

"You put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," Schmidt said in his speech.

Conservative Christian leaders argue that they don't tout veto power over the GOP. McCain was not their top choice in the 2008 Republican primaries, they note.

"Social conservatives are not the gatekeeper of the Republican party," Bauer said, a longtime Christian conservative leader who served as Ronald Reagan's chief domestic policy adviser.

At the same time, social conservatives face a cultural hurdle with younger voters. Voters under age 30 are slightly more conservative on the abortion issue than earlier generations. But young people are more liberal on gay rights issues.

McCain's daughter, Meghan, personifies this generational tension. "I am a pro-life, pro-gay-marriage Republican," she describes herself.

Voters under age 30 are more likely to believe abortion should be illegal than voters age 30 to 64, by a margin of 48 to 41 percent, according to the April poll by the Pew Research Center--a trend Pew polling also found in 2008. Pew polling in recent years has also shown that younger voters are less likely to oppose gay marriage.

Still, overall, it does seem peculiar that in this year, of all years, discussion of the GOP's minority status has centered mostly on moving away from cultural conservatives.

Not since 1980 has the economy so dominated a presidential campaign, based on the portion of voters who selected it as their primary issue in exit polls. Sixty-three percent of voters said the economy was their top issue. A Pew post-election media report found that social issues--like abortion or gay marriage--constituted less than one percentage point of all campaign news, surely a low since the beginning of the Reagan era.

On Election Day, in one of the few metrics of national cultural debates, a majority of voters in California, Arizona and Florida approved bans on same-sex marriage.

More recently, Pew polling found in late April that the American public has actually become slightly more conservative on cultural issues like abortion and gun control. Other polls show the public view of abortion remaining steady. At minimum, it's clear Americans are as divided as ever on the issue.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that by a margin of 49 to 45 percent, the public considers itself more "pro-choice" than "pro-life." Though significantly, amid talk of cultural moderation, two-thirds of Republicans said they were "pro life" in the poll.

The same-sex marriage debate particularly poses a regional cultural hurdle for the GOP. Rhode Island may soon be the sole New England state where same-sex marriage is not legal. Legislators in Maine and New Hampshire recently voted to legalize gay marriage.

Washington D.C. legislators also recently voted to recognize same-sex marriages in other states. Gay marriage advocates have gained ground perhaps nowhere more visibly than in Iowa. An Iowa Supreme Court ruling in April made Iowa the first state in the nation's heartland to allow same-sex marriage.

Many conservative Christian leaders do acknowledge that in more socially liberal regions of the country like New England, the GOP cannot have a strict cultural litmus test on social issues.

"Republicans in those moderate districts have to choose the Republicans that most represent their views," Land said, when asked by me if Republicans running in more culturally left-leaning constituencies should be opposed by cultural conservatives.

Debate over gay marriage has particularly placed cultural conservatives in an awkward position. They bristle at assertions that their opposition is comparable to opposition to blacks' civil rights in the sixties or that their position is radical.

The CNN poll shows that a majority of voters, including a majority of independents, believe same-sex marriages should not be legal. Yet in the sixties, a majority of Americans also opposed the pace of civil rights reforms.

Social conservatives emphasize however that their opposition to same-sex marriage is shared by Obama, as well as other top Democrats like Hillary Clinton.

Cultural conservatives were especially riled recently by the debate over whether California's Carrie Prejean was denied the national crown in the Miss USA pageant because she said, when asked, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"I have not been able to find a difference between Barack Obama's position and Miss California's position," Bauer said. "But Miss California is being smeared and Barack Obama is seen as a hero by that community."

The coming Senate hearings over the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice will likely further ratchet up the cultural debate.

There is some chatter in circles of moderate Republican strategists that the GOP should stay with cultural conservatives on rhetoric but shy away on policy. If that occurs, Land said, "Republicans delude themselves to thinking that social conservatives will have no where else to go."

In the end, the GOP leadership will likely not move away from social conservatives anytime soon. They are aware of the coalition math. A divorce between the Christian right and the GOP would leave Republicans in ruin.

This is why, despite the heightened rhetoric today, Bauer is skeptical of any divide between the GOP and its largest bloc.

"I'm not concerned that they could actually be that stupid," Bauer said. "There are whole areas of the country where the only reason the Republicans are competitive are because of values and social issues."

US drops a ball in Iraq

US and Iraqi officials are blaming Al Qaeda in Iraq for a disturbing spike in suicide bombings. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the US military commander in Iraq, says the attacks over the last month are intended to "garner attention and spark sectarian discord" as US troops ready to withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30.

Indeed, the bombings have been carried out by Sunni insurgents who are targeting Shiite neighborhoods – but not all of the insurgents are acting on behalf of Al Qaeda, which is also made up of Sunnis.

That, at least, is how an Anglican priest in Baghdad is reading the surge in violence. Some of the attacks are also a sign of anger that the new Obama administration is not listening to Sunni religious leaders: "We've been told that the violence will get worse until the Americans wake up to the fact that the religious leaders will be listened to," says Canon Andrew White, of St. George's Church in Baghdad.

This is not idle chatter. Mr. White is one of the most trusted figures in Iraq, having served there for 11 years. Since the fall of Baghdad in 2003, he's worked quietly behind the scenes to bring together Sunni, Shiite, Christian, and other religious leaders – as well as Kurds – in this country of deep sectarian and ethnic division.

When Gen. David Petraeus commanded US forces in Iraq, he asked the "vicar of Baghdad" to enlist the help of an influential Sunni religious leader in turning Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda. White's hours of explanation of the general's plans to the Sunni sheikh paid off.

Last year, White succeeded in facilitating the first joint Iraqi Shiite-Sunni fatwa denouncing violence and condemning suicide bombing. The religious ruling backed by both of these Muslim sects has been aired on broadcasts and invoked at Friday prayers, helping to reduce the recruiting base for suicide bombers.

So when White says that some of the bombings are a call for more US (and Iraqi government) attention – as he did in a visit with the Monitor this week – he should be heeded.

White goes on to explain that an important ball has been dropped in the changeover from the Bush to Obama administrations. Under Bush, the Pentagon financially supported White's reconciliation work and he had personal access to General Petraeus. This kind of involvement was unusual for the Department of Defense – but politically astute, given the important role of religion in Iraqi society.

The dollars and top access have vanished since the change in US administrations, apparently due to the gaps that accompany a new administration coming up to speed. The Sunnis – the minority sect that once enjoyed favor and power under Saddam Hussein – are not reacting well to the sudden void. The Americans may be on the way out, but they're still perceived as having power, says White.

Ultimately, Sunnis are looking for some restoration of their loss of money, property, and political influence. The Sunni militias that turned against Al Qaeda have yet to be absorbed into the Iraqi military as planned. Sunni integration remains a serious challenge for the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The mix of religion and politics in Iraq is a tricky one. Voters in January's provincial elections rejected religious parties and showed a clear preference for a secular political direction. And yet religious leaders still retain tremendous influence over their followers – and over politics.

Indeed, if White's reconciliation process continued, it could tackle other serious issues facing Iraq. Imagine a fatwa against the spectacular and pervasive corruption that is now corroding the country.

And if White can herd bitterly opposed Shiite and Sunni leaders onto a small bus where they suddenly join to sing each other's religious songs, what might such joining do to bridge the Arab-Kurdish divide? That Shiite militias have refrained from retaliatory attacks on Sunnis is further proof of progress.

Whether it is the Pentagon or State Department that reconnects with Iraq's religious leaders and White's reconciliation effort, the connection needs to be made. In an era of conflict in which religion plays such a critical role, Team Obama should pick up this dropped ball.

I'm exhausted and tired today and small wonder why: My INR is an astonishing 6.8.

And I have *no* idea why.

To make matters worse, DSHS is terminating my medical and cash benefits because of inconclusive medical evidence.

And THAT has left me in a complete state of shock and disbelief.

How can that BE--with what they already have on file???

We *just* got into our apartment 15 days ago and now we may have to leave...because we have no money?!

Gods!

I feared this would happen--don't ask me how I know. I just did. I have these kinds of premonitions and usually they end up being more accurate than your average crystal ball.

Monday, both me and April are going to have to go down to DSHS and get this matter straightened out.

I need our benefits as badly as the next guy in line. Especially since my medical problems with my Factor Five will be fatal to me unless I continue getting treatment.

I just cannot believe this is happening so soon. And right *after* we move in!

We've already signed up for a year at our new place and we have no where else to go just in case.

I'm sorry, but I just don't know what to do--outside of asking for a hearing...which is ironic since I'm still waiting on the decision from the Appeals Council.

To top that off, I've just started writing again--havinf fixed the 40 pages from THE PRICE OF FREEDOM.

But this news has me rattled.

After taking one thing out, I'm at Chapter 200 for the first time *ever*.

I'm just a little upset right now and shaking my head.

Today's been a crazy day--to say the least.

Our new washer came in--replacing the old HOTPOINT model.

April went down to the DSHS place to pick up my application paperwork so that we can get--what they want--a second opinion.

And another signature.

I'm hoping that this will work and my benefits will be restored soon.

I just don't very much like the run-around the state gives me from time to time, because I don't have the energy to keep up anymore.

Keeping pace has become a real chore these days too.

Lately, I've been choosing what I can do and what I can't.

I'm already pooped from all the running around I've done today. My INR was a low 2.1 today, but neither Rosaline nor I could ever figure out why last week's reading went through the roof.

So I am resuming my Coumadin tonight.

I'm in some pain because of the smaller clots forming in both legs--and I'm glad I have a cane to use to get around when I can.

Still no word on what's going to happen with our prescription drug policy.

There was nothing in the Everett Herald about it.

Maybe tomorrow?

Work on THE PRICE OF FREEDOM is progressing. I've hit 202 chapters already and only 9000 words away from 350,000.

It's taken me 13 years to break the mold on this front. None of my current novels have even *reached* 200 chapters.

So I'm pretty happy about this accomplishment. :0)