My Page

This is a harsh title I know and it is designed to catch your eye, and hopefully your attention as well. We are all aware of the Bush/Cheney Mafia Administration and their lies, destruction of the Constitution, and of course destroying this country's military. In the fire storm of whining by the McSame camp of how the "press favors Obama" and his trip overseas, the media blowups over anything they can find to raise doubts about Obama's suitability to hold office, ole 43 and Trigger Finger Cheney are quietly in the background trying to undo the last safeguards for the American worker in their traditional manner of secrecy and "under the cover of darkness".


In a story today in the Washington Post, it is reported that political appointees in the Department of Labor are;

moving with unusual speed to push through in the final months of the Bush
administration a rule making it tougher to regulate workers' on-the-job exposure
to chemicals and toxins.
The agency did not disclose the proposal, as
required, in public notices of regulatory plans that it filed in December and
May. Instead, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao's intention to push for the rule
first surfaced on July 7, when the White House Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) posted on its Web site that it was reviewing the proposal, identified only
by its nine-word title.
The text of the proposed rule has not been made
public, but according to sources briefed on the change and to an early draft
obtained by The Washington Post, it would call for reexamining the methods used
to measure risks posed by workplace exposure to toxins. The change would address
long-standing complaints from businesses that the government overestimates the
risk posed by job exposure to chemicals.
The rule would also require the
agency to take an extra step before setting new limits on chemicals in the
workplace by allowing an additional round of challenges to agency risk
assessments.
The department's speed in trying to make the regulatory change
contrasts with its reluctance to alter workplace safety rules over the past 7
1/2 years. In that time, the department adopted only one major health rule for a
chemical in the workplace, and it did so under a court order.

Before I go any further, I should offer a bit of disclosure. I have after many years of working in mental health and psychiatry, have switched my area of nursing to Occupational Health nursing. Basically we are nurses who work in the work place and try to ensure worker safety and train and educate employees about various workers safety programs and regulations. We also handle routine medical issues that anyone may experience, and respond to industrial or personal medical emergencies for anyone be it a tourist in the Smithsonian, a printer at the Washington Post, a civilian employee of the Pentagon, or even an excited lucky winner at the slots in Vegas or Atlantic City. (I myself work at the Pentagon, and part time at the Washington Post).

When Bush came into office, one of the first things he did was nullify workplace ergonomic and safety rules President Clinton had signed following the recommendations from scientific groups and OSHA. It was done with little notice except for the employee organizations and labor unions. He offered no explanation except it put too great a burden on employers and would cost Americans their jobs. (Funny how any safety and regulatory measure costs us jobs according to Republicans who then proceed to outsource them anyway).

This current changes the Department of Labor is trying to sneak through in a manner pioneered late last year by the FCC when it "deregulated" even further the broadcast market would also have a severe restrictive impact on what the next President could do to improve worker safety and is seen by many as a last parting gift to industry and big business. What is so foul and dangerous it purposes to change the way exposure risks to toxins are measured, something that is not an administrative function but a medical/scientific function. The Bush cronies of coursed offered up their own BS reasoning for the rule changes.

Last week, the proposal was defended in an opinion piece in the New York Sun
written by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a fellow at the conservative-leaning Hudson
Institute. She wrote that it would bring a "rationalized approach" to risk
assessments and probably move away from the incorrect assumption in current
rules that workers stay in a job, with daily exposure to the same chemicals or
toxins, for as long as 45 years.
Furchtgott-Roth did not mention in the
article that she was one of the consultants who worked with Labor beginning in
September 2007 on a $349,000 outside study of the risk-assessment
process.
The OMB has been trying to address the issue of risk assessment
since 2006, when it attempted to set new standards governing how a host of
federal agencies reach their conclusions. That plan was withdrawn after the
National Academy of Sciences called it "fatally flawed" because it lacked
scientific grounding.
Early this year, Deborah Misir, a political deputy in
Labor's office of the assistant secretary for policy, worked with the OMB to
draft a new risk-assessment rule. A former ethics adviser to Bush, Misir had
complained that the department's assumption of a 45-year working life overstated
the risk of exposure.
This of course has neither pleased union
representatives, workers groups or even those within the DOL. The manner in
which it has been handled has also been called into question.
Charles Gordon,
a recently retired Labor Department lawyer who worked on regulations in OSHA's
solicitor's office for 32 years, said the policy office does not usually take
the lead on rules involving risk assessments. "Normally, issues of health
science like risk assessment are performed by OSHA and MSHA, that have statutory
authority and expertise in the area," Gordon said.
Misir waited until April
to seek comments from the department's experts. They objected to both the
legality and substance of the proposal and recommended that Chao not pursue such
a rule.

Shakespeare in his play Henry VI has a character suggest, "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers." While researching this little quote I came across an interesting article about just that. Only the premise of the statement is not what so many of us seem to think, it's putting lawyers in a hero's role as defenders of law and civility. That may have been true then, but today, after seven and a half years of the Bush Mafia Administration, lawyers are bane of both law and order, and society. I base my argument on the following points. Oh, as in everything concerning humanity, not all lawyers are bad. I for one truly admire and respect Jonathan Turley.

The latest in a long list of issues occurred this week when Attorney General Alberto Gon
Michael Mukasey wrote Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena for FBI transcripts of an interview with Vice President Cheney on the leaking of Valerie Plame's name while she was a covert operative with the CIA. The reason for his refusal, that same tired excuse of "executive privilege". In this case it took the claim of executive privilege to an all new height, in fact it sent it out of orbit of this solar system. Mukasey seems to think he works as Dictator Bush's personal attorney. Mr. Mukasey, I hate to break this to you but you are not Bush's attorney or legal advisor. You do however work for me, since I pay your salary. You were hired to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer and not some sleazy shyster lawyer defending the lowest of the low life criminals, which Bush and Company are. Back to this article's main point.

The Bush Administration has consistently sought to defray responsibility and blame through the use of lawyers. This most notable example of this is John Yoo, author of the infamous torture memo offering up a legal opinion for the justification of torture of "enemy combatants". This amongst many other legal opinions has been designed to provide this Administration with basically the legal equivalent of excuses for their violation of the Constitution, international law, treaties, hell just about everything. When questioned on things, the Bush Administration has reverted to the executive privilege claim on the advise of this attorney or some other attorney. Never since the game of Monopoly has anyone been given such a complete "get out of jail free card", and it's all based upon a legal opinion of some lawyer, or group of lawyers. Even though Bush and his conservative cronies hate lawyers.

The crux of this issue lies in a messy legal system that George Bush's cadre of lawyers know is stacked on their side. Namely the length of time it would take for legal action to work it's way up the courts. After all the continuances, discovery motions, delays in document sharing, etc. our grandchildren would be senior citizens before these cases made it before the Supreme Court. Hence Bush and his lawyers refuse to appear before Congress, ignore subpoenas and do whatever the hell they please. Lawyers, they provide the cover (I did it because John Yoo said I could). The House of Representatives a weighty body supposedly there to represent the citizens, is also chock full of lawyers, and it does nothing despite having the power to do so. That power is to impeach. That power they judiciously hold in reserve for such horrendous crimes of morality like cheating on one's wife.

Historically however, the blanket this Administration is using to justify it's illegal behavior was address after WWII at Nuremburg, when the United States along with it's allies threw out that defense used by Nazi war criminals, stating:

Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Military Code of Uniform Justice made it possible for soldiers to refuse unlawful orders because of the Nuremberg ruling. So what then is the Commander in Chief going to say when hopefully one day he has to appear before the Hague and defend his inhumane actions? "My lawyer made me do it"? Since when, did an attorney supersede the authority of POTUS? Have we abdicated our control over this country to the whims of lawyers who aren't elected, but chosen because of their political views?

If this is the case then ok boys, take your AK-47's that you are allowed to have under the second amendment and fire away. The precedent being set here means no one at all needs to be held responsible. This is better then an insanity plea. I killed my wife because my attorney said if she was alive she'd get the house, car and my puppy! Lawyers, like philosophers can be found to argue for/against any point. The profession that is supposedly there to represent the law is basically nullifying the law by justifying ways around the law. I don't need a lawyer to read the Constitution. It's plain and clear except for that confounded Second Amendment, which is the most poorly written part of the Constitution there is, and hence open to interpretation. Only attorney's who sit on the Supreme Court can make an excuse for such strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, yet argue the meaning and reasons to ignore the rest of the document. I wonder if I can get exempted from the Brady bill and get my gun today since Hell has decided to sue Heaven for discrimination, and has all the lawyers. Somewhere out there there has to be a good lawyer right? Sorry Jonathan but............

In todays fast paced life we see new examples and names beening applied to individuals and organizations daily. Old definitions are not applicable to todays terminology, and many folks fall behind in the fast paced evolution of our English language. Older examples are how wghat was once "cool" evolved into "rad" or "radical". A 9 that used to be a number to be counted, has since in music been changed to mean a handgun. Promises and commitments made while pursuing elected office were mostly remembered at least for the first couple of years.

Medicine is in some ways been fairly constent in it's terminology as many of the medical terms are based in Latin, an ancient and dead language no longer spoken, even in Catholic Mass. However there appears to be a growing redefining of psychological and in some cases medical terms by our leaders, advisors and pundits. Below, after the fold I present a brief list that I will expand on and terms that change with updated definitions.

Whining- known formally as the plaintive plea from children in the back seat of a car often inquiring "are we there yet, cause I gotta pee?" Today it has come to mean the imagined loss of one's house, job and family health care, not to mention income even though you are homeless, jobless, and standing in soup lines.

Mental Recession - this term seems somehow to be coming into use replacing the old term of "delusional". It is used by those wealthy practitioners who cannot believe or see the economic downturn for the bottom 99% of the population are just imagining since of course their economic fortunes have increased because of how they screwed that bottom 99%.

Displaced Veterans - This used to mean homeless vets suffering from a variety of mental health issues, substance abuse and homelessness. Today, through the enlightened teachings of such great scholars as Bill O'Rielly, it known to be a hallucination, as he has shown them not to be real.

Psychological Boost> - Although not an actual psychiatric term, it often was used to describe that good feeling when a person performed a thoughtful action, completed a long trying task. Although today it still today refers to a feeling it more implies a false feeling that something is being done to help others, but in reality there is no benefit or help. Often used by politicians as a way to fool the general public, while benefiting oil companies.

Con - This used to be a slang term implying that someone was being taken advantage of, or in prison terminology, short for the word "convict" referring to an incarcerated felon. Today the word has evolved to the term "neocon" and although parts of the definition remain true and the same(being taken advantage of). The later half now refers to a person who belongs in prison, but because of their political connections, has remained free to commit more criminal acts.

Delusional Disorder - This definition has altered in the sense that it refers to a politician, usually Republican, but can refer to an established Democrat who feels that they are beloved and always right, appearing before a hand selected crowd who drool at the individual's feet reinforcing a false reality. Often times, this can be followed by a major depressive disorder as the individual concerned about their "significance" finds out in reality they are dispised by most.

Pathology - this old term used in medicine to refer to a disease that needs to be removed surgically, or in psychology meant to describe behaviors that are contrary to a healthy interaction with one's enviorment. That definition is now easily interchanged with "right wing conservative" referring to something unhealthy needing immediate removal.

Tumor - a word that meant a swelling and in modern English a neoplasia. It is now used to refer to the current occupant of the Oval Office and the Vice President. The only successful treatment is to excise the growth, if not the damage a tumor can cause an organism/society may become irreversible.

Dementia- The decline of cognitive function due to disease or brain damage. Today that definition seems to be applied to the Congress.

That is all for now, if you have any more please feel free to drop me a line and I will research them and include it my upcoming book, Sexually Transmitted Diseases: A new generation.

As I posted in my article concerning Heads of State and their Democratic enablers, Seymour Hurst made it on NPR's Fresh Air Monday and I diaried about it on the DailyKos. There is a link in that diary to listen to Hersh's interview. It is 45 minutes long, but even more frightening then his article and outlines in more stark terms the Democratic enabling and it's implications for all Americans. You can read the diary with it's link to the interview here.

I still can't stop laughing, as my humble little bit of ravings has found it's way to be cited by one of America's premiere Law Schools for an article I wrote a while back discussing the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that I thought was a conservative's court lack of understanding of the Constitution. When I say as I did above "premiere" I am obviously being fascias. The school in question is Liberty University, you know the school that graduated such legal scholars as Monica Goodling and many others that have made their way into George Bush's law firm called the Justice Department.

I traced back a reference to an article and found it cited on Regent University's web page for blogs about Regent Law School. Granted you have to scroll down a bit to find it but there it is with my blog campaign poster for Obama brightly plastered on their page. The article, which I confess I consider one of my better pieces can be read here, for those interested. As I sober up from my laughter, I now realize could I be on a Conservative Enemy's list? Or was this common man's legal argument so compelling that t even made sense to those evangelical lawyers who think they can appeal their sins away on the road to heaven? Needless to say, I am hopeful that my arguments might awaken some of those wanting in intellect legal scholars to understand that the Constitution not only protects those they disagree with, but it protects them as well.

Since Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson in Virginia Beach, exists to teach religious doctrine and misrepresents the basis for which both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written on, let me refer you to a little none law that exists in Virginia, and is the basis for the First Amendment of that Constitution. It is a little known law, but historic in it's passage, and a law I am sure your law professors at Regent are either ignorant of, or prefer that you not know of since it shatters many of the tenants Regent University and it's Law School were founded on. Oh and did I mention it is on the books in Virginia, the state your university resides in?

I signed on to the Internet this afternoon and of course was immediately taken to my "home page" setting on Internet Explorer. No not here believe it or not, but the Huffington Post. The main head line for this day reached out and slapped me repeatedly. This can't be real can it? Apparently it is as the headlines proclaimed; New Covert Ops Inside Iran! The article is about Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker and it's description of the White House's continuing effort to start a war in Iran. Now hold on there you say, Bush can't do that without Congresses permission so it ain't happening right? Wrong. We all know this administration's track record in interrupting the law, Constitution, or even deny the existence of the law and Constitution.

In an interview on CNN's Late Edition Seymour Hersh more fully explains his story, and the seven page read in the New Yorker is a must. In the end Hersh notes that this current Democratic Congress has gone along with Bush/Cheney on these missions, though very secret in their nature, they have been providing the funding, therefore basically authorizing this Administration's actions. What makes this so concerning is this little note by Hersh:

The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. “The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”
Senior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail differs from the White House’s. One issue has to do with a reference in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran. (In early May, the journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)
The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
“This is a big deal,” the person familiar with the Finding said. “The C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror.” He added, “The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a shade of gray”—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior congressional leadership and those which did not—“but now it’s a shade of mush.”

Why in the world would Congress allow this in light 89% of the American people against the war in Iraq and thinking we are on the wrong track? (Actually it's 89% think the economy is linked to the war. Almost 70% want us out of Iraq). On top of this Bush has claimed he listens, and takes advice from the military commanders in the field, except apparently when they disagree with him. Witness the case of Admiral Fallon, Commander of CENTCOM who was forced out in March of this year reportedly because of his opposition to attacks on Iran. One of Adm. Fallon's biggest problems while head of CENTCOM was the White House and Dick Cheney in particular circumventing the law.

“He was charged with coming up with an over-all coherent strategy for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and, by law, the combatant commander is responsible for all military operations within his A.O.”—area of operations. “That was not happening,” Sheehan said. “When Fallon tried to make sense of all the overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him out.”
The law cited by Sheehan is the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act, known as Goldwater-Nichols, which defined the chain of command: from the President to the Secretary of Defense, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on to the various combatant commanders, who were put in charge of all aspects of military operations, including joint training and logistics. That authority, the act stated, was not to be shared with other echelons of command. But the Bush Administration, as part of its global war on terror, instituted new policies that undercut regional commanders-in-chief; for example, it gave Special Operations teams, at military commands around the world, the highest priority in terms of securing support and equipment. The degradation of the traditional chain of command in the past few years has been a point of tension between the White House and the uniformed military.
“The coherence of military strategy is being eroded because of undue civilian influence and direction of non conventional military operations,” Sheehan said. “If you have small groups planning and conducting military operations outside the knowledge and control of the combatant commander, by default you can’t have a coherent military strategy. You end up with a disaster, like the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.”
Admiral Fallon, who is known as Fox, was aware that he would face special difficulties as the first Navy officer to lead CENTCOM, which had always been headed by a ground commander, one of his military colleagues told me. He was also aware that the Special Operations community would be a concern. “Fox said that there’s a lot of strange stuff going on in Special Ops, and I told him he had to figure out what they were really doing,” Fallon’s colleague said. “The Special Ops guys eventually figured out they needed Fox, and so they began to talk to him. Fox would have won his fight with Special Ops but for Cheney.”

Further down Hersh notes the Administration is back to it's failed tactics of before, funding Sunni terrorist groups that are connected to Al Quaeda to operate inside of Iran. One Pentagon consultant was quoted as saying Fallon went down because he was trying to avoid a war with Iran.

Throughout his article Hersh talks about Dick Cheney interfering with Special Operations and trying to direct their actions, basically in a more aggressive fashion which could in the long run spur open hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. Our Congress, where are they? That infamous "Gang of Eight" that does get the super secret briefings and knows to some extent what goes on. When the Democrats were rung in back in 2006 over sight and accountability were the buzz words used. Yet there has been none, and this Administration continues to operate as a rogue outfit unanswerable to anyone, or any law. Bush has repeatedly stated we need to accomplish a mission, but he has yet to state any clear mission except and "endless war on terror". George Bush and Dick Cheney are two of the most dangerous jihadist in the world today, and the Democratic Congress enables them. That's right I called them jihadists, for they are killing and terrorizing people around the world for some obscure belief. It is not their stated belief though, and since a jihad has religious implications follow my reasoning here.

George W. Bush is a born again Evangelistic christian. His faith and their leaders preach to us with a heavy emphasis on Revelations concerning Armageddon and the Rapture. George Bush believe and has stated he was "chosen to lead by God". Evangelical Christians believe that they should help bring about the Rapture and Armageddon. They also believe it will happen in the Middle East. So why is it not possible that this delusional idiot is doing things that most Americans believe are irresponsible and dangerous, in a manner that suggests his way is the only right way, no matter what the electorate says, no matter what the world says, no matter what the Constitution and laws say? There are three possibilities though two are linked.

1) He's an irresponsible, self centered psychopath who doesn't care about the consequences
of his actions.
2) He is psychotic.
3) He is a religious fanatic that feels he is following God's will.

If you look at this Administration's actions, and compare them to say the actions of Islamic extremists there really isn't that much difference. Both believe unswervingly that they are in the right. That sacrifice and the destruction of infidels is justifiable. That sacrifice is the duty of others rather then themselves is ok. At this moment and time, this Administration is leading us into an expanding conflict that we and they cannot win, and the future picture is one of mutually assured destruction. Who wins? And our Democratic Congress continues to play the fiddle while Rome burns. This madman needs his power arrested quickly as he tries to keep this nation married to a future of permanent conflict. No Nancy impeachment is not off the table. You work for us, "we the People", remember?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin

A lot of people here will be upset with this posting, my response is I am equally or more so upset with the news from this organization that Obama supports the FISA compromise. In my previous post , I spoke of holding those we elect or support accountable to their promises, neve imagining that this day would come. However in this I always in my imperfect way though try to practice what I preach, hence the following.

I have been a small donor and tried in places like my blog, DailyKos, MyDD, HuffPost, and in a few posts in the Washington Post and 1 in the Washington Independent to share Obama's message of change. Your support of the FISA compromise is one of the most gauling examples of "politics as usual", and probably one of the most dangerous inappropriate choices you could make. You, by this vote are supporting the destruction of the fourth Amendment, something often ignored by authorities as they casually violate the rights of people of color.

You Sir, are a Constitutional lawyer and scholar, that bill isn't even legal as it alters the Constitution, which cannot be altered unless done so following the provisions of article V of the Constitution. But here is the rub. I or any of your supporters cannot challenge it because I would have to prove a) I had been harmed by it's use, b)that I have standing before the court, which by the very language of the bill disallows me to do. The government can just swear national security is involved and I am denied as well as the courts the evidence that in any other case would be furnished to me through "discovery".

This is a call to arms for all Americans. Figuratively speaking of course. How so you ask? Remember the old saying "the pen is mightier than the sword". It was a simple line in a play that opened in England in 1839, and though the play is long forgotten, this single line lives on forever. Need a more cogent example, one that holds true for Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist whatever political ideology you might hold? How are you doing right now in meeting your basic needs? That's right, have you lost your house to the sub prime mortgage crisis. Have you been unable to meet the increasing rise in food prices much less gasoline prices? Sure if you are a corporate CEO no problem. The pay inequity in the ten years between 1995 to 2005 saw CEO pay increase 298% compared to 4.3% for the average worker. While as early as February 2007 in an in depth look at the economy TruthBTold shows us how the middle class has truly dwindled.

Now we face an astronomical increase in the price of gasoline. With that price increase comes a huge increase in the cost of everything else, especially food. Oh, did I forget the housing crisis in which daily hundreds to thousands of American families lose their home to foreclosure. Why? Read today's headlines about two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers arrested for their role in the the sub prime mortgage crisis and the FBI's massive nationwide arrests of fraudulent mortgage lenders. At the same time oil companies cry out for tax relief, then report the largest corporate profits in history. Should we seek a little recompense or repayal, what do we get? Threats and distortions of history in advertisements sponsored by the American Petroleum Industry. We all know the law of supply and demand, as well as if the cost of your product goes up your prices may go up but profits remain the same or shrink. Is something magical happening here? Nah, not if you examine the might of the pen. A black hole maybe, in that a few gain wealth and resources while the majority must pay at the expense of their lifestyles, dignity, welfare and ability to survive. Oh and did I tell you the name of that black hole? It's called the Enron loophole. This was the "top secret" energy policy meeting that Cheney at the behest of Ken Lay, former Enron CEO, who by the way it was later found out through criminal trials and investigations did to California while joking about the grandmothers making them rich! In other words for those of you not caring to read this post's links, Enron pulled this same game earlier. The end result? Enron went broke, just like we are going broke.

As the title tells you this is a call to arms. Everyone should be united here as the situation now is not so different from those that spurred the Boston Tea Party in the 1700's and helped spur the birth of this great nation. We hear daily we need to open up everything for the oil companies to exploit to ensure our "energy independence" yet they already have so many acres to explore they can't keep up! Today, as if we hadn't known all along why we were in Iraq, today we got final confirmation. Before typing this sentence I went to my Iraq death toll counter to find 4101 brave Americans had died so ExxonMobil could regain their oil rights. We all see it yet fail due to partisan politics to unify to right this massive eight year wrong. 80% of this nations populace think we are going the wrong way, yet we allow a few corrupt Congressional members to obstruct clear change that might help us extricate ourselves from this growing sink hole. I include Democrats along with the Republicans here. Especially those so afraid that their own complacency in allowing the unlawful spying on Americans will be revealed in court trials they seek to push through a bill that gives criminals immunity from prosecution, so they can CYA.

That's right folks, I'm as American as apple pie and the Republicans brute honesty is too compelling, they have my vote. See why below.



Then again if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their arses would they? Relax dear readers just a bit of snark.

It's Father's Day and for the seventh year now, rather late in life, I have had the pleasure of celebrating this day as the recipient of the good wishes from my wife and kids. I should correct that since one of those "kids" is going to college next fall as an Army ROTC candidate. He hasn't decided his final major but it will be in the life sciences field, possibly in the end a Medical Doctor.

My middle child again is losing the designation of child as he is well into adolescence at 15 and starting the fall, will be a junior in high school. This promises to be a difficult year for him as he will not have his older brother to accompany him to school. In several cases they each shared the same AP class, and of course after school hung out usually in his room alternating the TV, computer, and homework assignments.

Then there is my seven year old daughter. My two sons (and I do claim them as my own even if they are step children), have always been there for her. The younger son is her playmate, confident, excuse for all the evils in her life, patsy, tormentor, and the one person she always seeks things from aside from my wife and myself. Whereas the boys are laid back (sometimes too laid back, but then they are teenagers) Boo or Boo-Boo as I call her could probably solve this nations energy crisis. Her nick name comes from the fact that previously in life during my prior two marriages I had been told I could ever have children, only to be told a month and a half after we were married (and of course didn't need birth control because nature was too afraid of me having kids) by my wife the doctors "lied". Sure enough, two EPT tests later I believed her.

What can I say, there is a special bond between a father and a daughter. My daughter and I have that bond, and although she is constantly at her mother's side, she admits daddy is the one she never wants to fail or disappoint. To this date and I will bet to all future dates she never will disappoint daddy. She's impulsive and timid at the same time. Last night she was so excited about the gift her mother and she had picked out she had a hard time not blurting it out (I had already known what it was as my wife had ask me to hold off buying a digital watch I use with work until Father's Day so my daughter could get it for me). My sons and I play online role play games like Guildwars, and Never Winter Nites together and have great times. My daughter just wants to be hugged and to tell daddy some new piece of knowledge she has learned. Oh, and I am her fact checker anytime anyone in the family tells her anything. Daddy, nightly when he comes home sit's down with her and goes over her homework and checks it for her, no matter how tired I am. My son's, it is sometimes like leading a horse to water that isn't thirsty to get them to do their work, but they both have turned into fine cooks and enjoy coming up with new receipt's for dinner. Should their mother and I need help around the house, they are good helpers though as with any teen need constant reminding about the lawn and garbage.

It is for them that I write my blog idealthoughts. I want them to know and hold dear the values this country was founded on. Yes, my views often if you are to consider reporting as objective, far from objective. It is though, my job to teach those views, and values, it is a task I take seriously and hope they will take to heart as they grow older, wiser and more experienced. I have always regretted I came later in life for my sons, and the period when they were growing up and most needed a father they had none, especially my youngest son. Their mother, a strong, beautiful, intelligent and driven women did well in their upbringing and hopefully later they will come to appreciate the sacrifices she made for them.

That leaves my wife, for whom I owe this day celebration, and to whom all this would not have been possible without. I know many men who feel they can change, exchange or share their love amongst different women. Who think then that as they get older not having a younger woman around them to make them feel like they are young the relationship that has carried them through many problems now weighs like an anchor around their necks, should be cast off so they might sail into new uncharted waters where the sea appears bluer and clearer then some of the muddied waters they have sailed through in the past. I am divorced, however it was not infidelity that resulted in this. In one case it was two immature storybook lovers who thought all tales ended up as happily ever after. In the second.......I have yet to figure that one out, as to why either of us married being so far apart as we were. Thankfully, there were no children produced aforehand.