Nearly 200 students and alumni from the UC-Berkley Boalt School of Law denounced Prof. John Yoo who co-wrote a legal memo in 2002 that laid out reasons the United States did not have to comply with the Geneva Convention and other international treaties governing the treatment of prisoners. Yoo was a top government lawyer at the time.

The students and alumni signed a petition asking Yoo to repudiate the memo, declare his opposition to torture and to call on the Bush administration to comply with the Geneva Convention. Failing that, he should resign.

Newsweek has extensive coverage of the memo and related items from 2002.

The thing that has never made sense to me about the Yoo memo and others is that the Taliban were the defacto government of Afghanistan. Just because they didn't wear western style military uniforms or adhere to western style military doctrine made them no less the sovereign government's military. Yet Yoo and others argued that the Taliban, along with Al Queda, simply didn't meet the definitions of the Geneva Convention. That's an absurd assertion in my view.

This week Senator John McCain talked about his thoughts regarding war and what it means to sacrifice, "Throughout our history, wartime has been a time of sacrifice. ... What have we sacrificed?" "I don't remember ever in the history of warfare when we cut taxes."

His colleague in the House, Dennis Hastert disagreed with McCain's assessment:

"If you want to see sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women" recovering from their wounds at local military hospitals. "There's the sacrifice in this country," "We're trying to make sure that they have the ability to fight this war. ... At the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong not only militarily but economically."

In my opinion few people understand "sacrifice" in a time of war better than John McCain who has most know was captured in Vietnam and spent five years at the Hanoi Hilton. When the Vietnamese found out McCain's father was an Admiral...they offered to send him home. McCain chose to stay with the other prisoners refusing special treatment.

That said I wonder what the average American should be doing or could be doing to demonstrate sacrifice during this time?

Hey...there's some freaks out there that don't live in Texas!

Illinois: A DUI for a lawn mower driver

Florida: Boy vs Alligator

Germany: Traffic makes em horny

Germany pt 2: Talking toilets

In the January/February edition of The Atlantic MonthlyJames Fallows has an article entitled Blind Into Baghdad. In my opinion this is probably the one important must read piece about the Iraq occupation.

Fallows writes in the piece about an interview he conducted with Douglas Feith. Feith is the undersecretary for defense policy. His position is just under that of Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz is directly answerable to Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.

Fallows quotes Feith as saying, "You will not find a single piece of paper ... If anybody ever went through all of our records—and someday some people will, presumably—nobody will find a single piece of paper that says, 'Mr. Secretary or Mr. President, let us tell you what postwar Iraq is going to look like, and here is what we need plans for.' If you tried that, you would get thrown out of Rumsfeld's office so fast—if you ever went in there and said, 'Let me tell you what something's going to look like in the future,' you wouldn't get to your next sentence!"

"This is an important point," he (Feith) said, "because of this issue of What did we believe? ... The common line is, nobody planned for security because Ahmed Chalabi told us that everything was going to be swell."

Fallows goes on to quote Feith further:

"So we predicted that everything was going to be swell, and we didn't plan for things not being swell."

"Can you believe it?" expression. "I mean—one would really have to be a simpleton. And whatever people think of me, how can anybody think that Don Rumsfeld is that dumb? He's so evidently not that dumb, that how can people write things like that?"

Apparently Feith doesn't get out much. Or at least he isn't doing his bedside table reading. According to Fallows, "Almost everything, good and bad, that has happened in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime was the subject of extensive pre-war discussion and analysis. This is particularly true of what have proved to be the harshest realities for the United States since the fall of Baghdad: that occupying the country is much more difficult than conquering it; that a breakdown in public order can jeopardize every other goal; that the ambition of patiently nurturing a new democracy is at odds with the desire to turn control over to the Iraqis quickly and get U.S. troops out; that the Sunni center of the country is the main security problem; that with each passing day Americans risk being seen less as liberators and more as occupiers, and targets.

Which organizations or persons made such extensive analysis? Fallows says, "the CIA, the State Department, the Army and the Marine Corps, the United States Agency for International Development, and a wide variety of other groups inside and outside the government are underappreciated by the public. The one pre-war effort that has received substantial recent attention, the State Department's Future of Iraq project, produced thousands of pages of findings, barely one paragraph of which has until now been quoted in the press.",


One could probably understand if there were a few memos floating around Washington outlining such problems for post-invasion Iraq. After all, thousands of reports are generated and floating around up there. But wouldn't one want to make sure one had read everything one could about the potential problems of occupation before one invades and occupies? Especially when it's from a major intelligence branch, the State Department and two branches of the military?

In this week's Boston Globe , David F. D'Alessandro (CEO of John Hancock Financial Services)writes about the realites of his child and George W Bush's children not having to fight the war in Iraq "...because they don't want to, they don't have to and George W and I won't let them."

The final paragraph of D'Alessandro's eloquent piece sums up his point so beautifully:

That's why the president is able to press on: All he has at risk personally is his presidency, not his children. That's why I am not organizing protests and why the rest of us are not outraged at every turn. This war has no personal consequences for most of us who as '60s peaceniks changed the world. Shame on us, both of us -- all of us.

This is a very interesting point. This hasn't reached the threshold of Vietnam yet because we haven't really felt the pain of the loss the same way. There hasn't been a draft. These are the volunteer military or those who chose the military for their way of life. Are the lives of these who've died so much less because they're not conscripted? Would it change things if the children of prominent or wealthy citizens had to give their lives?

Being new at this blogging thing...Kev and I are still working out the kinks on what's best for posting and comments and content.

If you stopped by last evening you'd have noticed that there were three posts up on the health care series. After some thought...we decided that was a bit much to chew on all at once. So in the interest of getting some good debate going...I removed two of the posts. I'll repost part two on Monday, May 24 and part three on Monday, May 31. This topic is way too big to try and deal with that all at once.

Also..we're considering moving from our current blog interface to a different one. We really want this blog to be a quality place where people will exchange ideas and get informed. We're hopeful that a better format is out there for us to make it easier for you to do that through us.

And finally...the suggestion box is open. Please send ideas or comments to kevin@preemptivekarma.com or carla@preemptivekarma.com. Also..please spread the word about us. We want to hear from conservatives, liberals,moderates,Republicans,Democrats,Reformists,Libertarians,Greens,Purples,Oranges....whomever.

Thanks.

Okay...if you live in Texas and you don't like that title or this blog entry please forward all complaints and threats to Kevin@preemptivekarma.com. This has been a public service announcement.

Seriously though....what the in the HELL is wrong with this woman?

Denying Unitarians tax exempt status because "does not have one system of belief"?????

Lessee....we can execute the mentally ill but we can't treat Unitarians as a church because we don't understand how they believe.

What a bunch of freaks.

The General Accounting Office issued a report today that "bluntly" criticized the agency that runs Medicare.

The GAO concluded that the advertisements run on about 40 television stations throughout the US to "analyze" the new Medicare laws were tantamount to "improper use of funds for 'publicity and propaganda'".

There are also accusations that the Bush Administration threatened to fire the Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster if he gave data to Congress outlining the costs of the proposed bill which was a controversial piece of legislation.

This is the "honor and integrity" crowd, folks.

This week, the Cato Institute released a statement agreeing with Senate Democrats that President Bush should release oil from the Strategic Oil Reserves.

Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute Director of national resource studies gave the following statement:

"The Democrats are right -- with gasoline and world crude prices surging, it only makes sense to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to the greatest extent possible. The SPR is an expensive insurance policy against a very low probability event -- a catastrophic interruption in U.S. crude imports. While the case for an SPR is dubious because private insurance is easily available (if anyone wants to insure against such an event, the petroleum futures market is always there), if we're going to have an SPR, we should manage it to maximize its returns to the taxpayer. And that means making the SPR available during more likely events such as the temporary but very real price surge we're experiencing at the moment."

I know... this isn't about politics. But, having just turned 40 a few weeks ago I just had to post this.

Randy "The Big Unit" Johnson pitched his first perfect game last night in Atlanta at the ripe old age of 40 - the oldest person to have ever achieved this rare feat.

Over at another blog...the topic of Kerry advocating for a universal health care system came up. The argument against it was that it would be hugely expensive and unwieldy. The Republican/Conservative argument against it includes those things as well as "socialism" and a massive government program that won't work.

I'm going to post a series of pieces here with some of my comments on this topic. I'm an advocate of a single payer universal health care program. I'd like to see some good debate on this topic.

It seems to me that we already have a hugely expensive and unwieldy system right now. It's ineffective in many ways and very inequitable.

The American Medical Students Association has put out a fact sheet on this topic. Here are some of the highlights:

MYTH: It would cost too much money.

FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.

The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.

MYTH: Americans would pay more.

FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.

MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.

FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.

MYTH: Americans would have trouble getting in to see a doctor.

FACT: Canadians, who live in a single-payer system, see their primary care physicians more often than Americans do now. There are more doctors per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. Yet the cost of physician services in Canada is one-third less than it is in the United States. About half the cost savings in Canada comes not from offering less care but by reducing insurance overhead and paperwork. The rest of the savings comes from allocating money to pay for expensive equipment so there is less excess capacity and duplication. Ninety-six percent of Canadians prefer their health-care system to the U.S. model.

MYTH: The United States has the best health care in the world.

FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.


There's more "fact/myth" at the ACSA website.

Richard Morrison is challenging Tom DeLay in Texas' 22nd Congressional District. Morrison is one of the Dean Dozen progressive candidates that Howard Dean is supporting and campaigning for. On a side note, I have donated money to a grand total of two political campaigns in my life - Howard Dean's last year and Richard Morrison's this year.

I first heard about Morrison several weeks ago when he was a guest on the Ed Schultz Show, which is broadcast on our local Air America radio station, but is not actually part of Air America - Schultz is syndicated by the Jones Radio Network.

Morrison also runs a blog called Taking on Tom DeLay and is pretty interesting. It was just a website. The blog is actually pretty new and is still building up a base of commentary. But, it's interesting reading for those of us who love to loath Tom DeLay.

Here's just one small example of why I loath Tom DeLay: GOP Teaches Telemarketers a Few Tricks.

John Kerry and Howard Dean had a
well-attended rallyin Portland, OR last evening.

Kevin and I made plans to attend the rally. We met up downtown after work and walked to Pioneer Courthouse Square where the rally was being held. We arrived only to find that the line to get into the Square was wrapping around the block and the Square was already pretty full. Apparently the fire marshall cut off allowing more of the crowd to come in when the number in the Square reached 4,000. There was at least as many outside the Square as there was inside. Needless to say, we didn't make it inside.

When it became clear to us that we weren't going to get in we decided to walk around and find a place to stand outside where we could at least hear what they were saying if not see them. The best place we found to stand just happened to be in front of the 20-25 Bush protesters that were in attendance.

Now I will admit my bias against Bush...but these protesters were truely lame. Besides the regular Bush/Cheney signs, they had some homemade signs as well. Several examples:

"Have you ever been to Taxachusetts"?
(Like Kerry has control of the state taxes in Massachusetts...not to mention the governor of Mass has been Republican for at least a decade. And the guy holding the sign didn't even know that the Governor of Mass is a GOPer. Lordy.)

"Who would Osama vote for"?
(LOL he'd vote for Bush cuz he's the greatest recruiting posterboy for Al Qaida imaginable)


"Kerry is a flip-flopper held by a guy in a dolphin suit (which was funny, I'll admit)
(But when you give examples of Bush flip flopping on stuff...they just shrug their shoulders).

Kevin noted to me how interesting it was that these guys have nothing to say about Bush's record when you talk to them. It's all about how Kerry is just so very bad. Further the stuff they say about Kerry is either distortions or outright lies. They haven't got any material. We talked with them and disputed what they were saying right to their faces. Kevin got a special kick out of shouting them down when they said, "Four more years!". Kevin and the crowd were yelling "Six more months!". It was a riot.

After I debate with them tho..I always offer my hand to shake hands with them. One guy in particular that I did this with pulled his hand back when I offered mine. But I took it anyway and made him shake hands with me. I think it's important to remember that even though we don't agree...we're all Americans.

The Army Times weighs in on the Abu Grahib/Iraqi Prisoner Torture Scandal

This final paragraph sums up the piece....

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

First it was the scream speech....where media outlets have admitted they overplayed it and some indicate that the way the speech audio and video was done (and shown) greatly mischaracterized the speech.

Now it's the sealing of Dean's gubernatiorial papers. The sealing of some of Dean's papers for 10 years was a major issue for his campaign. The New York Times reports that a record keeping error vastly inflated the number of boxes of material that Dean had sealed. In fact it turns out that he sealed less of his papers than his predecessors.

This is one of the reasons it really irritates me the way that the primaries are handled. Dean had other problems (like the handling of finances) to be sure. But if the primaries were handled better and the media was more careful with these sorts of stories, the Democrats might have a better candidate: Howard Dean.

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth recently launched their PR campaign against presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry. The organization says,"numerous questions have been raised concerning Mr. Kerry’s service in Vietnam and concerning his subsequent antiwar activities. Our mission is to provide solid factual information relating to Mr. Kerry’s abbreviated tour of duty as a member of Coastal Division 14 and Coastal Division 11."

Joe Conason of Salon.com has recently written a series of pieces on this organization. Most recently, Conason has written about the organizations relationshipswith longstanding Republican operatives.

Conason details a connection with the group with Gannon International which has lucrative business ties in Vietnam. Conason asserts that the Swift Boat Veterans' website is registered at Gannon's information technology manager, Lewis Waterman. Conason also names the individuals connected with Gannon that have been sponsoring the Swift Boat Veterans organization.

While some may have legitimate questions about Kerry's service in Vietnam and his subsequent antiwar activism...The Swift Boat veterans seem to be rather flagrantly tied to Republicans interested in submarining John Kerry's campaign.