4/27/2005:   The GOP is resorting to flat out lies to get the rules changed so they can stomp the crap out of the Democrats. One of the house leaders said that 100% of Clinton's judicial appointees were approved. That is a flat out lie. 65 of Clinton's appointees did not get approved. Of those, half were held up in committee by Tom DeLay. The other half were rejected. This is a matter of public record. And the Democrats at the time, as Senators have for 200 years, did not make a public spectacle out of it, they just delivered the news to that candidate and went on to the next nominee.

But the Republicans, in a heat to change the world and remake it in the image of foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives and freaks that would take the Bible and pervert its message to one of hate and discrimination are using the judicial nominee issue to destroy the filibuster rule that both parties have used to turn away the most onerous of laws and office appointees that the majority of the time put forth.

George W. Bush has had 205 judicial nominations approved. Of the ten that haven't gone through, it was either because they did not get solid "qualified" ratings from the Bar Association (seven) or they have written decision or other papers that expressed positions that ignore the Constitution on issues that religious groups have taken issue with (the remaining three). Again, this is a matter of public record.

Read that last paragraph again because I worded it to be factually succinct. The simple fact is that, in spite of the GOP's shrill protests and the regurgitated lies of the right wing political punditry, Bush has a better than average percentage for getting nominees appointed. The numbers don't lie, and the GOP does. Period. This is not about religion so much as qualification and the upholding and protection of the Constitution of the United States and the rights outlined therein.

And lastly, the GOP's lies are another clear indication that they assume that the American public has no memory and no political education. They honestly believe that they can tell you at any moment how history played out, that the stories will be carried on Rupert Murdoch's various media outlets, and you will simply believe it because you vote on what you're told to vote on, you move on issues you are told to move on, and you will not believe anything your team tells you not to believe. They are counting on you to be lemmings.

To the millions that put Bush back in office: Congradulations. With the exception of Rupert Murdoch, these are the guys you voted into power. They will lie to your face about anything in order to increase their own personal power. You should be ashamed, but you probably aren't, because Fox News Channel tells you you are patriotic for rooting for people that are tearing the Constitution apart. (heavy sigh....)

4/27/2005:   President Bush will unveil new energy initiatives Wednesday, senior administration officials said, including plans to simplify nuclear power regulations (making it easier for power companies to build nuclear plants over the protests of those that would have to live near the plant or be affected by fall-out and nuclear waste) , encourage clean-burning diesel cars (by subsidizing car companies rather than letting them do the research and development that other companies have to pay for themselves when designing new products) and build new oil refineries on former military sites (thereby making it possible for refineries to be built next to neighborhoods, schools, and businesses that sprang up around the military base but that will now be subjected to the same environmental issues that Richmond, California enjoys with the Chevron refinery there) .

When George Bush, Sr. was in office, if this kind of initiative had come up, I wouldn't have flinched. At that time I trusted my leaders, including the elder Bush, to have the nation's best interests at heart when introducing energy legislation. But the MFFB has demonstrated time and again that his only priorities are self advancement and, by way of furthering that agenda, advancing those he views as his "base", the uber-elite of America, those that are rich beyond need or want, highly politically empowered, and yet driven to further enrich themselves at any cost. The fact that the price is paid by our children is known, assumed, and frankly ignored. None of the people that will be enriched by this initiative will be affected by the negative fall-out.

4/27/2005:   House Speaker Dennis Hastert, leading a Republican retreat, said Wednesday he stands ready to "step back" on new ethics rules that Democrats charge are designed to shelter embattled GOP leader Tom DeLay. The GOP changed ethics rules in order to allow DeLay to get away with ethics violations including, but not limited to, huge expenditures on trips and gifts for family and friends and funnelling illegal corporate contributions into campaign funds. But the GOP didn't count on the problem not going away. Instead, it has gotten more and more attention, and now DeLay is politically dead and dragging the GOP down by virtue of those same rule changes, so much so that the GOP leadership is eating crow trying to backpedal their way out of the mess.

("If I can screw you over, why can't Tom?")
And yet Gee MFFB Dubya is defending his old pal. During a speech in Galveston, Texas, to pitch his proposal to add private investment accounts to Social Security, Bush said, "I appreciate the leadership of Congressman Tom DeLay in working on important issues that matter to the country." Like illegally accepting corporate special interest funds. The president also took care to note that he had talked privately backstage with DeLay, "who kindly joined us today." Then he gave DeLay a ride on Air Force One. What a pal, huh?

A sage example from the leader of our Armed Forces: Keep your friends close, keep the friends that know too much about your political dealings closer....

4/25/2005:   The other day, a young lady wrote me to point out the distinction between "sex offenders" and "sexual predators." She wrote, "Most, roughly 80%, are sexual offenders, meaning people who committed other crimes of sexual nature but who did not have victim contact or, in some cases, the "victim" is determined by age alone (statutory rape)." And for the most part she was right, and I'm even sure a clear line can be drawn in legalese to define the difference.

But the young lady was splitting hairs. The core problem of sexual crime is unavoidable today. It was reported that the 3 year boy and 2 year old girl that were missing from their home were found in a scum covered pond a mile from their home. As of yet, police can find no evidence of foul play, but this comes close on the heels of the abduction, rape, and murder of two unrelated young girls, one of whom was apparently killed by live burial.

There are certainly some people that cannot be rehabilitated and cannot be tolerated. Again, pedophilia is not purely a choice so much as a defect in the cranial wiring, one which may or may not be controlled by the afflicted individual. There may be pedophiles that seek help in controlling those urges. But there are some who, even after repeatedly being caught, incarcerated, treated, and released, continue to seek out sexual contact with children. At some point they want so badly to avoid jail that they kill their victims in hopes of escaping punishment. It's time we gave them a different way to handle their predicament.

Perhaps I'm too kind. I dunno. But these are people who have urges that they can't control. I believe it would be enough to give them an alternative life that was less like jail and more like communal living, but without the ability to travel outside the confines of the commune. And once they go in, they never leave. This is key. A humane approach to warehousing these people, we should recognize that nothing short of death with truly stop these people, but killing someone who can't help themselves is beneath us as a society. We can do better, and in the process perhaps provide a desirable, life-long exit from society rather than a punishment that has them killing our children to cover up their crimes.

4/25/2005:   I've been listening to a bit of Fox radio and TV, and I've got two keen, if bloody obvious, observations to make:

Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Phyllis Schlafly, Brit Hume, Hugh Hewitt... What a bunch of idiots. Sean Hannity made the mistake of playing Hillary Clinton's speech on his show in which she challenged the Republicans to match the accomplishments of Bill Clinton during his tenure. And I call it a bald mistake because when it was done, he had NO COMMENT! It was laughable! He sat there for a couple of seconds, and then went to a caller. No comment. No logic. No evidentiary rebuke, reposte, or even reply. The man went completely flat! I laughed so hard I'm sure the guy in the car next to me must have thought I had lost my mind. And the funny part is, the caller said point blank, when he asked, that she would vote for Hillary over Bush in a heartbeat. Two strikes! He went to commercial, and I switched the channel because I despise car commercials, but make no mistake, when you pin Sean Hannity down, the man has no substance at all.

And, y'know, it's not like I don't have some small measure of respect for Hannity. He seems like he's got a functional brain. It's just that more often than not he leaves the keys to it at home when he goes to work and all he's got left is emotional diatribes. Or, more pointedly, he clearly gets paid to leave clear-headed thinking out of his show and instead entertain people by telling them what they wouldn't say out loud unless a bigger sheep said it first.

Michael Savage, on the other hand, is an ass. Plain and simple.

4/25/2005:   "Making [John Bolton] a U.N. ambassador would be like putting Phyllis Schlafly in charge of a Planned Parenthood clinic."

4/21/2005:   Julian Casto, Democratic politician from San Antonio, Texas, had a scheduling conflict. In keeping one appointment, he was unable to join his brother, Joaqiun Castro, to make an appearance on a float in a parade. No big deal, right? Except that they're twins, and everyone thought, when they were waving to Joaquin, that they were actually waving at Julian.

Igoring the obvious political grandstanding by humor impaired Republicans, I think we've hit on the perfect solution for our Presidential woes. We can elect Julian Castro! Then Joaquin can help with the myriad situations that leave the President short handed:

4/19/2005:   Tom DeLay in a nutshell:

He's a Constitutional threat, he's immoral and unethical, the power base that got him the House Majority Speaker position has eroded under the recent limelight, and he'll never recover. Get rid of him.

4/19/2005:   Career diplomat John Bolton has been nominated by the MFFB as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the equivalent of putting the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in charge of negotiating Affirmative Action with the NAACP. Bolton has been highly critical of the very existence of the United Nations. The logic coming down from Bush is that, if John Bolton says the U.N. deserves support on some issue, well then they must *really* need that support. This, according to official explanations, will give the U.N. much needed validation.

But there's a problem. It seems that back in 1994, John Bolton flew off the handle during a disagreement with an aid worker and starting chasing her down the halls of The Russian Hotel, screaming at her, throwing things, threatening her, and generally "behaving like a madman."

First blush, these are certainly not the actions of a career diplomat, at least not one anyone would want to hire. Secondly, do we really want to embarrass ourselves with news reports of Mr. Bolton chasing the ambassador of New Guinea down the halls of the U.N. because that ambassador disagrees with Mr. Bolton over the quality of the coffee served during U.N. meetings? Do we want him throwing things at Poland's ambassador when they announce they've almost completed withdrawing troops from Iraq? Can you picture him starting a brawl at a diplomatic party over whether the Scotch being served is top shelf or not?

If this guy can't conduct himself in a manner becoming a gentleman, then he doesn't have the grace and poise to represent our country.

4/19/2005:   Occasionally something comes up that twists my tail enough for me to write the various newspapers in my area and around the country. Here's the latest:

At no time in history have our rights been so threatened, first by the Patriot Act, then by the various attempts at an amendment to the Constitution to discriminate against homosexuals that wish to marry, and now by ultra-conservative Republicans in Congress who see the opportunity to stack the courts with like-minded judges slipping away as Democrats use the only tool left in their arsenal, the filibuster, to prevent those judicial appointments.

I'm not referring to the average citizen registered as a Republican. I'm not even talking about the average Republican Congressman. I'm talking about the ultra-right-wing, ultra-conservative, uber-corporate extremist that has high-jacked the Republican party to carry out changes from which our Constitution was framed to protect the American people. And this group is driving hard to change the make-up of the Supreme Court to satisfy their warped need to express their hatred for those who aren't like them, and their consummate greed. The judges in question are not interested in upholding the law so much as reinterpreting it to suit the ideologies of their sponsors.

These extremist use terms like "un-Constitutional" and "obstructionist" to refer to tactics they themselves used during the Clinton administration to block the confirmation of several judicial appointees. In fact, filibustering is Constitutional and expressly supported by Congressional rules. As for obstructionism, the Democrats have only blocked 10 of Bush's 52 appeals court nominations through filibuster threats, while allowing the confirmation of 34 others. In all, 204 of Bush's first-term judicial nominees have been confirmed.

The Democrats are not against all of Bush's appointees and have been reasonable about debating the merits of the nominees that have come before Congress. But there are some that cannot be tolerated, and now Bush is attempting to shove 7 of those 10 back through Congress, counting on the Republican majority and the charisma of the extremists to overwhelm his opposers with a maneuver many are calling "The Nuclear Option." His once-burned judicial hopefuls include:

William Myers, nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected because for his poor record on civil rights, privacy, labor, health, disability, and environmental protections.

Terrance Boyle, nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by George's father. More revenge for Daddy?

Brett Kavanaugh, nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, as a former aid to Kenneth Starr in the Office of Independent Counsel, he has no judicial experience whatsoever.

Thomas Griffith, nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he has been a strident opponent of equal educational opportunities for girls and women and he is strongly against women's rights.

Susan Bieke Neilson, nominated to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, she is a former Federalist Society attorney representing insurance companies, large corporations and hospitals in negligence, medical malpractice, products liability and corporate malfeasance cases. Many of her opinions siding with corporate interests and against consumers or people with disabilities were reversed.

Janice Rodgers Brown, nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. She is against the most basic protections for workers. She follows a radical judicial philosophy, (often called "Constitution in Exile") that says courts have a duty to block Congress from interfering with a corporation's "right" to profitably pollute, or an employer's "right" to demand unlimited hours at any wage from their employees. But extremist Republicans serve corporate interests, the same interests that restructured bankruptcy in favor of credit card companies while ignoring the plight of those that fall on hard times due to illness or death in the family.

William J. "Jim" Haynes, nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. With his thin resume, Haynes quite likely would not have been confirmed, but he also gave blase treatment to questions regarding the torture of prisoners held in Iraq. Then Abu Ghraib happened. Some postulate that putting Haynes back in front of Congress is a way to deflect the focus of TortureGate onto a sacrificial lamb, namely onto the current general counsel of the Department of Defense, Jim Haynes, thrust in front of Congress as a return appointee but really as a target. Regardless, this candidate is just plain unqualified and his moral compass is skewed at best.

The list goes on, but the theme is the same: there are good solid reasons for rejecting these nominees. If they are qualified at all, they represent extreme fundamentalism or extreme corporatism to the exclusion of legal and sometimes even Constitutional considerations.

And lest you think that the extremists who have hijacked the Republican part hold complete sway, know this: more than a dozen GOP members have expressed solid refusal to support changes in the Congressional rules to affect filibustering. Filibusters are an important part of our legislative process, and the Democrats, regardless of the shrill complaints of the ultra-conservative bloc, are using this tool with careful forethought and lack of malice. They are trying their best to protect this country from hatred and greed.

If you love your country, if you love the freedoms that our military is dying right now to protect, write your Congressman and tell him in no uncertain terms to lay off and leave filibustering alone.

4/19/2005:   For some time now -- about the last 20 years? -- I've been trying to locate a friend of mine by the name of Roger Baker. His sister got in touch with me once, but only to tell me that she wasn't sure where he was either. Not that I've conducted an intensive manhunt or anything, but periodically I'll call around, search the web, and see if I can figure out where he went to.

Roger and I were best friends in high school. Roger wasn't the coolest, biggest, most popular kid in school, but he was certainly the most loyal friend I had. The kind of friend where, even though they seem so very different from you, you just click. We hung out a lot, and we had a lot of good times.

After high school, I moved to a different state, went to college, got married, got the degree, got a full-time job. On the other hand, Roger, at least from my perspective, seemed to drift a bit. He got married, then divorced. He tried out the Air Force but that didn't pan out. He traveled a bit, and surprised me with a visit a couple of times. And the last time I saw him, I gave him what I thought was good advice. In a nutshell, I tried to tell him that he seemed directionless, and that he was too smart and too talented to just waste it all. I was hoping he would reflect, then decide on a way to make his mark in the world.

I got a couple of letters from Roger after that. Then nothing.

It's been roughly 17 years since I last heard from Roger. I worry about him. He was a great guy, but he also had a bit of a dark side to him. He fancied himself as something of a bad boy, and had a knack for getting himself into trouble. And for that reason, I wonder if something bad happened to him. As with all self-described bad boys, there's the possibility that he ran afoul of the law and is in jail. He may even have gotten himself killed. And that's what troubles me.

Like I said, I searched the web and this is what I came up with:

So obviously the web is of little help. Yeah, I tried out those "Find Out Everything On Anyone" sites, but do you have any idea how many Roger Bakers there are in the world?

So I've put out feelers, but nothing ever comes of it. Roger, if you're out there, why don't you drop me a line sometime? Just click on the link at the bottom of the page.

(Side note: If there are any "people locator" services out there that can find the Roger Baker I'm looking for, I'll advertise your site on my site with a free banner for the life of this site. I currently get a 160,000 hits a month. Not bad for an opinion page.)

4/11/2005:   Sometimes it feels good to be vindicated. George Tenet is flatly denying that high level CIA managers contacted him about the credibility of the data they were receiving from the source codenamed "Curveball". George says he never got that midnight call. Either big George is going to fry little George over this or little George will hang on by the skin of his teeth because he knows too much for big George to piss him off.

This is getting good. Maybe the Dems will FINALLY get off their butts and do something to stop Bush. A little late, but better than never....

4/11/2005:   And the recipient of the very first Todd's Views Gag Award goes to: Phyllis Schlafly! Mrs. Schlafly has been a source of irritation to me for many years. A syndicated gadfly, she spouts some of the most moronic tripe in print today. Like Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, she is not informative so much as right wing entertainment. Her greatest pet peeve is the courts. Anytime the court system doesn't interpret the law such that it rules against gays, abortion, or any of her other Constitution-violating and discriminatory idiosyncracies, she's spews groundless invective and vitriol, accusing the courts of legislating rather than adjudicating.

Case in point...

She feels that the courts "purposely humiliated Congress in the Terri Schiavo case." That's not true. Congress passed a law forcing the Supreme Court to hear the Schiavo case. The courts ruled that Congress had no authority to force them to hear a case. Mrs. Schlafly is in the wrong when she takes the stand that Congress has such power. (Phyllis, pay attention, you may learn something you failed to learn in high school government class.) Constitutionally, the judicial arm of our government is separate from the legislative branch and does not answer to them in regards to its function, and that function is to interpret the law, not create it. Judgements that go outside the bounds of the law are readily overturned -- the purpose of the appellate system.

Eleventh Circuit Judge Stanley Birch was correct when he asserted that the Congress' actions in the Schiavo case unconstitutionally "invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle." Those of us that didn't flunk U.S. Government class saw this coming from a mile away. But not Mrs. Schlafly.

Mrs. Schlafly writes that she has had to endure "years of judges legislating from the bench, rewriting our Constitution, distorting our history, assaulting our morals, saving vicious criminals from their just punishment, raising taxes and inflicting us with foreign laws." Apparently Mrs. Schlafly wants to turn her blunt wit against the court system rather than attack her ultra-conservative heroes in Congress for not passing laws that reflect her warped sense of how the world should work.

Mrs. Schlafly: Please take note of the following:

But like so many public, foaming-at-the-mouth, ultra right wing conservatives, she is not informative or educational in any way. No, if you too are an ultra conservative, then here's the function that Phyllis, Sean, Rush, Ann, and Michael serve:

The truth: the courts didn't force Terri to be starved, they stopped forcing the doctors to feed her. The doctors knew that the human body lying in that bed would never be Terri again. Her husband knew that she would never have wanted to continue existing in that state. But her parents appealed to the courts and got an injunction forcing the feeding tubes to remain in place. Phyllis says that "any judge that allows an adulterer with a live-in girlfriend..." Stop. That's enough right there. The judicial system doesn't pass moral judgements, Phyllis. You've been watching too much Judge Judy. And even Judge Judy's hands are tied here: cases are decided on the law, not on the merits of the litigants. God forbid we ever decide that because a man has, after a decade alone and the knowledge that his wife is brain dead, decided to pursue loving companionship, that he no longer deserves justice. May God have mercy on all our souls when we begin arrogantly casting stones in our courts.

And one last thing: she's ugly, inside and out. Geez, lady, update your hair or something. Get a life. Read the Bible you like to wave around so much and start living it instead of lying about it. Be nice to people, will ya? And let God do the judging, because if your column is any indication, you are poorly suited to do the job yourself.

4/1/2005:   So now the Bush administration is claiming that the CIA gave them bad advice. What crap. Two top level CIA managers were quit over the use of faulty intelligence reports to convince Congress to go to war BEFORE Powell gave his speech to the U.N., and now Bush has decided that perhaps the info was bad. In May of 2003, CNN ran an article that described how the intelligence community was trying to get the word out to the media and to the Democrats that Bush had leaned on intelligence departments to deliver the desired picture of Iraq rather than the truth. And now the lack of evidence is coming up as an issue. I guarantee you this is no surprise to Bush. He'll just keep putting on that "Dumber Than Dirt" monkey boy face and saying, "We're going to find out the truth and then we're going to clean house!"

What a crock. Don't you think it's terribly convenient that we go rid of the office of Special Prosecutor right after Clinton's ZipperGate and just before Bush's WMDGate? Yeah, that's definitely just a coincidence. And it's not like no one has brought this up before. John W. Dean, in the article linked above, waxed indignant about the obvious lies that were foisted on Congress, the U.N., and the people of the world about Iraq, but the Democrats have yet to show the spine required to hold Bush accountable. And history will remember them for their temerity.

4/1/2005:   I'm not going to waste a lot of time and typing on this subject. Two key points:

Kudos to Terri's husband for sticking it out long enough to see her find the end she desired. And up Bush's keester for pontificating his "Culture Of Life" using Terri as a political prop. Dork.

4/1/2005:   I have long held the belief that people should be allowed to choose their own ending. If I found myself being decimated by some incurable wasting disease and wished to save my family the emotional devastation and financial ruin as well as saving myself from a painful and undignified end, I would hope that someone would give me a way out. I've seen people who were dying and in great pain, and I have no doubt they would have finished the job immediately given the opportunity. It's just sad that we haven't grown as a society enough to not require that our citizens sneak off with a shotgun to spray their brains out or a huge bottle of pills to cause massive organ failure just so they can find peace in a dignified and honorable end.

4/1/2005:   A while back an acquaintance said that he was angry with God because a friend of his died. He said with great feeling. And I gently pointed out to him that he couldn't be angry with God. Either he believed in God and an afterlife, in which case his friend had gone on to his final reward and still existed and was just fine, or he didn't believe in God, in which case the loss of his friend was forever, but there was no one to be angry with.

The confusion on his face mixed with his determination to remain angry. The anger won. You just can't talk to some people...

But I can't help but wonder why people cry over the death of Pope John Paul II. Surely one of the most inspiring, charismatic, and awesome figures of our generation. He did so much for so many. If you're Catholic, surely you believe he got put on the Heaven Express. He didn't have to wait in line at the Pearly Gates -- he had a golden VIP pass and was on the guest list, baby. So why mourn? Rejoice! It's a great loss to us here, but he's gone on to his final reward.

If, on the other, you don't believe in God... Well, he was a great guy, and we'll miss him. But you don't see any atheists crying about it. It's mostly Catholics. It just doesn't make sense to me....

4/1/2005:   If you're up on your Nostradamos, you know that he predicted that there would be a certain number of popes, and that the last one would be called "The Black Pope." No explanation of what "black" referred to, though.

But it's interesting that the lead candidate is Pope Jean Paul's closest friend and advisor, Cardinal Francis Arinze. He's been in the Vatican for 20 years, he's a dead center conservative, and he's got the kind of personality you'd want in a pontiff. He's essentially a Jean Paul III.

And he's black.

Oooooo.... I'm getting goosebumps....