If we can't stop attacks in our own airspace, how can we stop North Korea?

North Korea continues to talk tough as it waves its nukes at the U.S. and the world.

Meantime, we've sent a warship described as a top-of-the-line guided missile destroyer to Japan. If that kind of posturing isn't provocative (particularly considering Bush's reputation as a bring-'em-on bully), what is?

Now, as someone pointed out to me recently, if our military couldn't even intercept some hijacked planes on 9/11, how can we have any confidence in their ability to intercept any North Korean missiles that might be headed our way?

Yesterday's coincidence

Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the London subway bombings. I vividly remember that day, and how I spent the morning trying to verify that my London-based acquaintances were all safe. (They were.) Those London bombings made it clear that the English-speaking world is still vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Coincidentally (?), on the same day that we were observing the anniversary of the London bombings, the media went wild with the news that authorities had thwarted a plot to bomb some New York City tunnels and flood lower Manhattan's financial district. [Read story.] Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff stepped up to give himself credit for the accomplishment. He wants us all to know that he's keeping us safe (even as our ports and cargo holds remain unsecured almost five years after the 9/11 attacks).

It's also interesting to note that this plot was uncovered by the FBI's monitorinig of Internet chat rooms, not by warrantless wiretaps or monitoring of the financial transactions of ordinary Americans.

But, lest I appear overly cynical, I do want to thank everyone involved with uncovering and thwarting the tunnel-bombing plot. It's not enough, but it does count.

Bush vs. the Axis of Evil: He doesn't care about WMDs, only oil

When George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union Address in January of 2002, we were already at war in Afghanistan, rightfully seeking justice against al-Qaeda, and the Taliban who harbored them, in retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. Good. We were on the right track. We were going to get Osama and his deputies, break up al-Qaeda, and take out their financing and other support systems. Cool. Kick ass.

But anyone who was really paying attention to that State of the Union speech had to have seen it coming. This was the speech in which Bush defined his new "axis of evil" -- North Korea, Iran, and Iraq -- who, he told us, were seeking weapons of mass destruction and posed "a grave and growing danger"! Oh my!

He told this to an American public still numb over the 9/11 attacks. America was too shell-shocked to think it through. So they trusted their president.

He took that trust and look what he did with it.

He diverted troops from their noble mission in Afghanistan and sent them into Iraq instead. It didn't matter that the U.N. weapons inspectors had found no WMDs there. We were told that Iraq had them anyway, damn it, and Rumsfeld knew exactly where they were located ("in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat")! Trust us.

And what a mess we've made there! We've got a raging insurgency and civil war, and the American troops caught up in it are dying at an alarming rate. The innocent Iraqi civilians still don't have more than a few hours of electricity per day, and they're lucky if they have clean water. Many are still unemployed, having lost their livelihoods when Bush started bombing more than three years ago. And they cannot feel safe when they leave their homes. Yep, that's George W. Bush, self-proclaimed "Compassionate Conservative". (Would someone please give him a dictionary?)

So, like a spoiled child who trashes one toy and then moves on to another, Bush now sets his sights on Iran. Iran also has no WMDs. In fact, sources say that Iran is at least 10 years away from developing nuclear weapons. But that doesn't stop Bush from warning them that "all options are on the table".

Whoa there, tough guy.

In the meantime, North Korea has been waving nukes at us -- nukes that could potentially reach U.S. soil. Bush responds with gratuitous rhetoric, but it's clear that North Korea -- the one nation in his "axis of evil" that really does have WMDs -- isn't so high on his list of priorities.

Could it be that tough-guy Bush is afraid to deal with real WMDs?

Or could it be that North Korea isn't sitting on quite enough oil?

The war on terror is over. Bush cuts and runs.

For years, Karl Rove's propaganda machine has been working overtime at brainwashing the intellectually lazy American sheep into believing that Iraq was behind 9/11, it appears that Bush and the CIA have fallen for their own disinformation. They closed the CIA unit that was searching for uber-terrorist Osama bin Laden. [Read story.]

Ironically, as pointed out in Capitol Hill Blue, the news comes as the widow of Iraq al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zargawi claims his own organization sold him out in exchange for a U.S. promise to ease up on the hunt for Osama bin Laden." [Read more.]

But I'm no conspiracy theorist, and it really doesn't matter to me very much whether or not it was part of a deal.

What it boils down to is this:

Sorry, suckers, but Bush isn't interested in fighting a real war on terror or keeping us safe. His fear-based campaign rhetoric was, of course, a smokescreen.

Instead of keeping up the hunt for bin Laden in 2003, Bush decided to divert our resources and go after Saddam instead, although Saddam and Iraq posed no imminent terroristic threat to the U.S.

And now he's thinking about nuking Iran, which poses no imminent terroristic threat to the U.S.

The war on terrorism is dead, and has been for some time. Apparently, it has morphed into a war on any country that Bush might identify as a threat to the free flow of oil into his bank accounts and the accounts of his cronies.

Bush is, in fact, keeping us less safe.

And he rests knowing that the red-state sheep are all impressed by the fact that Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and al-Zarqawi are dead. Nice trophies, George. Osama is impressed.

Barring impeachment, we'll have to endure 2+ more years of this.

Rumsfeld subpoenaed in Abu Ghraib whistleblower investigation

The story goes that an Army whistleblower in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal faced retribution in a typical Bush administration shoot-the-messenger exercise.

Then, when a Congressional committee investigating the matter sent a letter to Rumsfeld seeking information about the case, Rumsfeld chose to ignore it. In other words, the U.S. Secretary of Defense deliberately failed to cooperate with an official investigation by the U.S. Congress on a very important matter of national interest in the "war on terror".

Rumsfeld wouldn't even take a few minutes to return a phone call.

So, given no other choice, a subpoena has been issued. [Read story.]

Will Rumsfeld comply now?

Or will he still somehow manage to evade all accountability?

America the senile

America is 230 years old today. And, as sometimes happens with age, it looks like dementia has set in.

Gone is the bold idealism of her youth. This 230-year-old America has lost her way.

She has lost sight of her history and the values that made her great. She forgets who she is and what she stands for.

She doesn't acknowledge the true patriots who love her, but submits to the selfish agenda of her caretakers.

We need an antidote quickly, lest she die.

Execution and America's culture of death

Yesterday, 02 July 2006, was the 30th anniversary of Gregg v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court essentially reinstated the death penalty in this country.

Most of the western world has abolished the death penalty. Not us, however. In fact, the United States, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia currently account for over 80% of the executions recorded by Amnesty International.

Great company, huh?

I've written in the past about why the U.S. should join the rest of the civilized world and abolish the barbaric practice of execution. And I've met enough exonerated death row prisoners to know that we cannot risk executing an innocent person.

All these things considered, how can our state and federal governments still propagate this practice?

I'm not talking about freeing death row inmates. I'm talking about life in prison with no parole.

Why do we instead insist on killing people to show that killing people is wrong?

As Gandhi so wisely said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

To read an Amnesty International statement for the 30th anniversary of Gregg v. Georgia, and for links to more info on why we must abolish the death penalty, click here.

"W" stands for hubris and hypocrisy

Yesterday, in his weekly radio address, George W. Bush stated the following:

-----
"As we celebrate the 4th, we also remember that the promises of liberty contained in our Declaration apply to all people. Because Americans believe that freedom is an unalienable right, we value the freedom of every person in every nation. And because we are committed to the God-given worth of every life, we strive to promote respect for human dignity."
-----

Wait a minute.

Of course Americans believe that freedom is an unalienable right. We don't need George to tell us that. But why does he dangle it in front of our faces even as his warrantless spying programs and other policies are chipping away at those freedoms? So the sheep will fall prey to the mantra and still believe that we're free even in Bush's Amerika?

And how cute that he's trying to convince us that "we" strive to promote respect for human dignity. His torture policies hardly demonstrate a respect for human dignity.

Talk is cheap, Mr. President.

What would Jefferson think?

With the upcoming July 4th holiday, patriotic Americans everywhere will likely spend some time reflecting on the values upon which this nation was founded.

Here in Philadelphia, more than 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers created this wonderful experiment called democracy - a government of, by, and for We The People, in which all are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.

They created a Constitution designed to grow as our democracy grows, and as new necessary freedoms are identified.

And they implemented a system of checks and balances to distribute the power amongst three branches of government, to prevent the tyranny that they knew could result if all power were concentrated in too few hands.

It was great while it lasted.

Today, the Bush administration seems set on an agenda to systematically dismantle our rights and freedoms, one by one, and take this nation from a democracy of the people to a tyranny of greed. What would our Founding Fathers think?

Our Founding Fathers carefully enacted the Fourth Amendment to ensure our privacy and to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure. What would they think of Bush's policy of spying on the American people without the required judicial oversight to ensure reasonable cause?

Our Founding Fathers, believing that religion is a private matter which, as Jefferson wrote "lies solely between man & his god," deliberately built a wall of separation between church and state. What would they think of today's immense influence of the so-called Religious Right in American politics, or pastors instructing their congregations on how to vote?

Our Founding Fathers wrote that "all men are created equal." That's ALL men, not just straight men. What would they think of efforts to write inequality into the Constitution via an official decree that all heterosexuals are created equal, but that gays are second-class citizens?

Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of a free press, with the understanding that a democracy requires an informed populace. What would they think of the White House's habit of paying "journalists" under the table to tout the administration's policies?

Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of international intelligence gathering in national defense. They created the Committee of Correspondence, which was quickly renamed the Committee of Secret Correspondence, underscoring the importance of protecting covert overseas operations. What would they think of senior White House officials deliberately leaking the name of a covert CIA operative to the press in order to punish and discredit her husband, who had publicly challenged their justifications for war?

Our Founding Fathers established the right to due process via the Fifth Amendment, which states that "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." What would they think of the Bush administration's policy of holding suspects in the "war on terror" indefinitely without charge and with no means of challenging their detention in a court of law?

Our Founding Fathers established the Eighth Amendment, which declares that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment." What would they think of Abu Ghraib, or of George W. Bush's decision to weaken the McCain anti-torture amendment with a signing statement reserving for himself the "right" to torture people?

It's time to stop this insanity and take our country back.

The more we allow them to erode our rights, the harder it will be to get them back, and the longer it will take. It's time to draw the line.

This July 4th, as we celebrate the birth of American democracy, I call on all patriotic citizens of this nation to stand up for the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers. Contact your elected officials and tell them it's time to end this un-American madness.

Let's make our Founding Fathers proud.

Supreme Court rules Gitmo tribunals invalid

It turns out that Bush doesn't have the Supreme Court totally wrapped around his little finger after all.

Yesterday, in a stunning victory for human rights and the rule of law, the Supreme Court decided that the military commissions/tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, which are being used to try some detainees, are invalid. The Court found that commission rules violate due process provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [Read story.]

To read Amnesty International's official statement regarding this decision, click here.

But don't pop the champagne corks just yet. Bush is already looking for loopholes. He has indicated that "[t]o the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so." So apparently he will now try to get his lapdog Congress to legally authorize his kangaroo-court tribunals.

This would be something we must fight.

The leak that wasn't

When the New York Times broke the news last Friday that the Bush administration had been tracking bank records, I remember thinking that it's really not news. Heck, even the lowest-level bank employees receive training these days on how to recognize potentially suspecious banking activity, and how to report it.

So why did the Bush administration appear so outraged that the New York Times wrote about it?

Apparently, I was not the only person with that question in mind. In a column yesterday at Capital Hill Blue, Martin Schram expands on the issue, and also points out how Bush himself, on 24 September 2001 "announced the first of a series of measures that made clear international bankers were cooperating to track al Qaeda's funding." [Read it.]

Cute, huh?

Military fails some widows over benefits

An article in yesterday's New York Times outlines how the widows of some soldiers killed in Iraq are having to jump through proverbial hoops to collect the survivor benefits to which they are entitled. [Read story.]

According to the article, "[s]ometimes it is simply the Pentagon's massive bureaucracy that poses the problem. In other cases, laws exclude widows whose husbands died too early in the war or were killed in training rather than in combat. The result is that scores of families — it is impossible to know how many — lose out on money and benefits that they expected to receive or believed they were owed, say widows, advocates and legislators."

Meantime, Halliburton gets richer from this war.

This is horrendous.

These widows and their families paid an enormous price for this country. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars funding a bureaucracy so inefficient that it causes them further suffering beyond their already enormous loss.

Whether we approve of this war or not (and I do not), we cannot neglect the needs of our troops or the families they might leave behind. It's not the troops who made the decision to wage a war of choice on Iraq.

Supreme Court will hear global warming case

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine whether the Bush administration should be required to regulate carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming. [Read story.]

A representative from the other side, an economist with the American Petroleum Institute, responded by denying that CO2 is a pollutant. (Yeah, and the earth is flat.)

So will the Supreme Court do what's right for the earth and for our future generations? Or will they choose instead not to inconvenience big business with pesky regulations?

Can we please require that all the Supreme Court Justices see Al Gore's global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth before they consider this case?

Bush cracks down on Congress's inappropriate spending

This past Saturday, in his weekly radio address, George W. Bush told us how strong our economy is, and how more people are now prospering under his leadership. (Sure, they're prospering if they're the billionnaires who benefit from his reverse-Robin-Hood tax cuts.)

Then George W. "Spend-Like-a-Drunken-Sailor" Bush told us how Congress needs to show some restraint in their spending bills, and that some new legislation granting him line-item-veto authority is just what the doctor ordered.

Now Bush can keep those costs in check by reining in those foolhardy expenditures on frivolous things like education, health care, and securing our ports. Let's direct the money to where we really need it -- Iraq and Halliburton.

Yep, let's learn some fiscal responsibility, from the guy who transformed a record surplus into a record deficit in just a few years.

But you have to appreciate the comic relief.

Because sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity. Otherwise, you just have to cry.

Bringing the troops home - just in time for the mid-term elections

A story in today's New York Times quotes the top American commander in Iraq as projecting "sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September." [Read story.]

In other words, they're going to soon cut and run. (Oh, never mind, only Democrats cut and run.)

Now the Republican candidates in November's elections can tell us how the Bush administration won the war and are now bringing the victorious troops home.

Heaven help us if their Democratic challengers aren't strong enough to shine a big enough spotlight on the hypocrisy.

New York Times and Los Angeles Times are aiding the terrorists, says Bush

The American mainstream media (well, some of them) are starting to wake up from their 5-year coma.

The latest sign is a story published Friday in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times exposing the fact that the government is now also looking at our banking records.

In response, of course, the Bush adminstration is once again blaming the messenger. They say that these newspapers are helping terrorists, by leaking info about the government's classified anti-terrorism methods.

Do they really believe that the terrorists are that stupid? Do they really believe that we are that stupid? (Never mind, of course they do.)

According to the Bush administration, we should all just remain blissfully ignorant. Just trust the government to take care of us.

Uh-huh.

Well, it worked in the red states. And look where that has gotten us.

The rest of us had better hope that the media will continue to get back to doing some real journalism.

Fox News lied about human rights groups

On the June 21 edition of the Fox News show The Big Story with John Gibson, Gibson alleged that human rights groups remained silent about the recent torture and killing of two U.S. troops in Iraq. He tried to make it appear that the human rights groups are quick to speak out against torture committed by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc., but that we remain silent when Americans are the victims.

Gibson clearly forgot to do his homework.

As a matter of fact, Amnesty International had issued a press release that same day containing the following statement by Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, condeming the killing and torture of those two U.S. soldiers:
-----
"Amnesty International, first and foremost, extends its sincerest condolences to the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker for their tragic loss. We are deeply disturbed by reports that these two soldiers were brutally tortured. These reports, if proven true, may rise to the level of war crimes.

Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty.

Amnesty International again calls on armed groups in Iraq to immediately cease all executions, torture or ill-treatment of people. Armed groups, like other parties to the conflict in Iraq, are required to comply strictly with international law and remain accountable for their actions."
-----
[Read the entire release on the Amnesty website.]

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch had also weighed in the matter.

Many thanks to Media Matters for America for bring this deception to my attention.

Russ Feingold kicks butt (but the Republicans keep their heads in the sand)

Earlier this week, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) made some very powerful speeches on the senate floor promoting the Kerry-Feingold Amendment for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.

He made some very good points which, unfortunately but predictably, were ignored by the Republicans who chose politics over reason.

Nevertheless, everyone should read and consider Feingold's words. Here are links to the transcripts posted on his website:

• 21 June: Feingold's statement presenting the Kerry-Feingold Amendment (a must-read)

• 22 June: Feingold's statement prior to the vote on the Kerry-Feingold Amendment

Unfortunately (but, again, predictably), the amendment was defeated. And an alarming number of ordinary Americans, like too many of those senators, keep talking as though Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Those senators who voted against the amendment are simply putting all of us, and especially our troops, in more and more danger. Disdain for America continues to grow throughout the world each day that we remain in Iraq. Nobody wants us there, especially the Iraqis. The only people who want us in Iraq are the oil-thirsty neocons and their apologists.

Will America wake up in time to make a difference in November?

Seven marines and one sailor to be charged with murder of Iraqi civilian

No, this is not about the cold-blooded Haditha massacre. This is about yet another Iraq war scandal -- the cold-blooded murder of an innocent, unarmed Iraqi man, who was dragged from his home and killed by some marines with an attitude who were "letting off steam". [Read story.]

They had planted props to try to make it appear that the victim was a violent terrorist. Fortunately, the investigation saw through the elaborate hoax.

It is good that these troops will be held accountable for their disgusting violation of the Geneva Conventions. War crimes must not be tolerated.

So now, in the interest of avoiding a double standard, will we also hold George W. Bush responsible for his own violations of the Geneva Conventions? (I know, I know. He's above the law. It's a rhetorical question. But not really.)

How things really are in Iraq

George W. Bush keeps telling us about how we've liberated the Iraqi people, given them the right to vote, set up a free democracy, and made their lives so much better.

Heck, he's an eyewitness. He was there just last week, right smack in the heart of the Green Zone. So, yep, he knows.

And then there's reality.

3+ years ago we did our "Shock and Awe" thing and bombed Iraq to bits. But so far we've done no significant rebuilding. Apparently that would be too much work, even for Halliburton.

But, of course, we reserve all rights to the rebuilding efforts. Bush-crony-owned companies only. No local workers need apply. The Iraqis shouldn't expect actual employment in addition to the privilege of living in the "liberated" Iraq of George W. Bush.

And unemployment isn't the only problem, nor is the daily violence.

In this Bushian wonderland, Iraqis still don't have reliable electric power. Imagine living in the desert with temperatures well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit each day with only an hour or two of electricity. Room air conditioning takes a back seat when you're trying to keep your family's food from spoiling.

And then there's the small matter of Iraq's rapid transformation from Saddam's secular government into an Islamic theocracy.

Iraqi women are having a particularly hard time. Modern professional Iraqi women are now facing repression that they've never experienced before -- pressure to wear the veil and otherwise conform to conservative Islamic rules. Kinda like the American religious right's efforts to put women in their place here in this country. Coincidence?

A leaked memo to the Washington Post from the Iraqi embassy outlines the grim details. [Read more.]

Nice "liberation", George.

Torture is not a one-way street

I am saddened by the news that the two missing U.S. soldiers in Iraq were found dead. [Read story.]

And I am sickened by the revelation that their bodies showed signs of torture.

Sickened, but not surprised.

We torture our detainees, and Bush and Gonzales jump through hoops with semantics and signing statements to "justify" it. Why should we expect our own soldiers to be treated any differently by their captors?

If anything, our own use of torture would give the enemy more reason to torture any American that they can capture -- as retaliation for the way we treat their captured brethren.

Way to go, Mr. President. Way to set an example for the world.

Gitmo suicides -- U.S. reputation goes down another notch or two

Just after the attacks of 9/11, the world was on our side. There were all those television commercials featuring people from around the globe saying "I am an American." The world identified with us. The world wept for us. The world stood by us.

But then George W. Bush squandered that momentum. He squandered that love. He squandered that support.

We had gone into Afghanistan, which was good, because Afghanistan had supported al-Qaeda, who were probably behind 9/11. But then, just when we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, Bush said "never mind," switched gears, and shifted all our attention and resources to Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush invaded Iraq illegally, in defiance of the UN Security Council's determination that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to do their job.

Forget the UN weapons inspectors! They couldn't be relied on to find those darned weapons of mass destruction!

And forget the wussy United Nations! We don't eat French Fries, we eat Freedom Fries, dammit!

So we invaded Iraq. This swaggering lawless cowboy arrogance brought us down a notch in the eyes of the world. And justifiably so.

Then Bush decided that we needed to torture people. He had Alberto Gonzales and his other goons rewrite the dictionary and semantically tapdance around the Geneva Conventions so that we could perform on our detainees the same kinds of torture that we cited as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. And we even used the same prison that Saddam used for his own torture -- Abu Ghraib.

Cute.

Brought us down another notch or two in the eyes of the world. And justifiably so.

But that still wasn't enough.

We blamed it all on "a few bad apples", threw Lynndie England in jail, and proceeded to continue the torture at Abu Ghraib and also at Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and reportedly in secret prisons all around the globe. And since we're so into torture that we don't even have enough staff to do it all ourselves, we started sending our detainees to Syria, Egypt, and other countries who would do the torturing for us.

Down another notch. And justifiably so.

We denied it all despite clear evidence.

Another notch southward. And so on.

And now our detainees -- held indefinitely without charge and with no means to challenge their detention in a court of law -- are committing suicide. They are hanging themselves in their stuffy little prison cells, in an act of hopeless desperation.

Can you blame them?

I can't, but Bush does.

The administration says it's a PR move.

The administration says it's an act of war. (Huh?!)

It's no wonder that a recent Harris survey of Europeans indicated that the respondents consider George W. Bush to be the single greatest threat to global stability.

We had the whole world on our side.

We trashed it.

For oil. For greed. For vengeance. For Halliburton. And for George W. Bush's ego.

The Bush administration lends a whole new meaning to the term "ugly American".

How long will it take to recover?

Mayor Street, please sign the bill for a smoke-free Philly

They had been talking about it for years. But, finally last week, Philadelphia City Council passed a bill that would ban smoking in most public places, including restaurants and most bars. [Read story.]

It's about time. It would be nice to meet a friend for cocktails downtown and not come home smelling like a dirty, nasty ashtray.

But I was surprised to learn that Mayor John Street hasn't said for sure whether he will sign the bill.

Mayor Street is a health advocate, a vegetarian, and a teetotaler. A few years ago, he launched a huge, successful initiative to inspire Philadelphians to cut back on the cheesesteaks, lose weight, work out, and get fit.

Why then would he not want to take the city's health to the next level by protecting us from second-hand smoke?

Smokers speak out against the bill by telling us that they have a right to smoke. But their right to smoke ends where the next person's airspace begins. Smokers do NOT have the right to force nonsmokers to breathe in their toxic second-hand tar and nicotine.

Cities have laws protecting us from our neightbors' noise and our neighbors' fists. We also need laws protecting us from our neighbors' deadly and disgusting smoke.

Please sign the bill, Mr. Mayor. It's the healthy and responsible thing to do.

United Police States of America

It's not enough that the Bush administration is spying on Americans and collecting our phone records and other personal facts without judicial oversight.

That apparently just doesn't do enough damage to our so-called rights.

So, to take it a step further, Bush's buddies on the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that police no longer have to knock before busting down your door and searching your home. [Read story.]

What's next? The end of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Oh, wait, that's already gone, as evidenced by the hundreds of detainees in the "war on terror" who are being held arbitrarily and indefinitely and without due process.

The Constitution was really good while it lasted.

God bless America.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is now in more theaters. See it.

When I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" a couple weeks ago, it was in limited release, showing mostly at urban art-house theaters.

But it's catching on, and this week it's showing in a lot of suburban cineplexes and in smaller towns around the country.

Everyone needs to see this film, in which Al Gore makes a very strong case for the need to take immediate action to stop global warming. Now that this movie is easier to find, there's absolutely no excuse not to see it.

Visit the movie's official website here to find a theater near you, view the trailer, read reviews, etc.

Then see it as soon as possible. Take all your friends with you. I think you'll be impressed. And shocked. And angered. An inspired.

The Senate wants more dead U.S. troops (as long as they're someone else's kids, of course)

Yesterday, the Pentagon announced that the the U.S. military death toll in Iraq had reached 2,500.

So the U.S. Senate promptly responded by rejecting a proposal to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by year's end. [Read story.]

Huh???!!!

Shame on them!

Before long, the number of dead U.S. troops from this Iraq war will exceed the number of Americans killed in the 9/11 attacks. And, despite what too many people still seem to believe, Iraq didn't even have anything to do with 9/11.

This is gross irresponsibility on the part of our senators.

And this is a hideous misuse of my tax dollars and yours.

Note to the pro-war folks: If this war is so necessary, why are Barb and Jenna Bush not serving on the front lines? Ditto all the 20-something children of all those senators? If this war is so necessary, why are their own kids above it all?

Breaking news: U.S. military death toll in Iraq war reaches 2,500

We have reached a very sad milestone. The Pentagon has just announced that the U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,500.

18,490 have been wounded.

[Read story.]

How many more must be killed or maimed in Bush's illegal war of aggression?

More crackdowns on freedom of the press: What is Rumsfeld hiding at Gitmo?

Just when it seems as though the American mainstream media might be waking up from their 5-year coma, Donald Rumsfeld throws up another roadblock to freedom of the press and the American public's right to know.

The admiral in charge of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay had invited journalists to come on down and cover the recent suicides of three detainees.

But, yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rescinded the invitation and expelled all reporters from Guantanamo. [Read story.]

What is he hiding?

Priority check

Great bumper sticker spotted yesterday in the Philadelphia suburbs:

"It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

Philadelphia's latest embarrassment

Anti-immigrant sentiments have reared their ugly head here in Philadelphia.

The owner of Geno's Steaks, one of the city's most popular purveyors of the Philly cheesesteak, has put up a sign that reads: "This is America. When Ordering, Speak English."

I guess his business is doing so well that he doesn't need the business of Philadelphia's many non-English-speaking tourists.

But now the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations has filed a complaint, indicating that Geno's message is so unwelcoming, it may actually violate a Philadelphia civil rights / fair practices ordinance. [Read story.]

On one hand, I feel that it might be his First Amendment right to hang that disturbing sign in his store. And I hope that it costs him millions of dollars in lost business.

On the other hand, given that his shop has become a major tourist attraction over the past several decades, I find it a huge embarrassment.

Yo, Geno's: Philadelphia is supposed to be the City of Brotherly Love, not the City of Xenophobic Bigotry.