Ceci's News and Views

The Long, Long Silence

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:51:00 +0000

I haven't said a word in this blog since August. And although this is the case, my blog is not dead. I decided to take a long break in writing due to the fact that there has been too much on my plate this Fall. Unfortunately, that didn't mean that I had delusions of grandeur when it came to dealing with a hectic schedule. Always a hard worker, I thought I could multi-task everything when it came to dealing with my message board, blog and several other endeavors that I had my hands into.

The results of my hubris told me otherwise. Too much had been piled upon me. And if you added my recent dental drama (two root canals and one on the way), I have been swamped in terms of my personal life as well as my writing life.

It's not that I didn't think about world events. I still discuss politics with my father and mother on the phone. I still debate these issues with friends in real life as well as on other forums that have been much more pleasant than past experiences with the the forum that won't be named. And I was able to discuss these issues with a lot of people who have opened my eyes to new horizons.

I also quietly celebrated the fact that one of my dear friends, Niki Aguirre, has finally published a book of her stories and is finishing her novel. I am in awe to know someone who has made their mark in the literary world. And with this news, I send her continued wishes and blessings on her future progress.

But, now, I just have to get my mettle together and get back into the writing thing. There are a lot of things I would like to discuss politically and socially that have been at the top of my plate. Feminism, race, politics and other issues have been gnawing at me to get back to the written word. And after my dental woes are finally out of the way, I might just do that.

But right now, I consider myself in a holding period. I am reading, listening and discussing things with others at this point. And then, when I find something that sparks my passionate discourse, my words will grace this blog once again.

You can bet on it. :)

Reflecting on Hurricane Katrina

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:23:00 +0000

Today is a bittersweet anniversary. Everytime this day rolls by, my mind harkens back to sitting with my family and watching in horror as people who looked like us begged into the camera for food, water and help. I still feel the anger as I remember how the government sat on its hands while people suffered immensely trying to escape the disaster. And still, my lip are pressed in quiet frustration as I remember the constant mentioning in the MSM about the "refugees" who "looted" and did not "find".

As I understand, New Orleans is fighting to survive, yet has a long way to go. While ninth ward continues to be left in the dust, the French Quarter is being rebuilt and tourists are coming back. While the survivors of this horrible occurrence continue to reside in formaldehyde-laced FEMA trailers, the city is becoming more "gentrified". A few has returned. But for the most part, the citizens of the wonderful city has scattered to different parts of the country in order to start their lives over.

When I think about the beauty of New Orleans, I ponder on my grandmother's friends who stayed across from her apartment in Texas. Every time myself and my family would visit, they would come out of their apartment. The wife would embrace me, my father, mother and sister and call us, Cher and Cherie and then proceed to tell us how they talk to my grandmother everyday and keep a watch on her (knowing that she is in her nineties). The wife and the husband would also wear the weariness of the last two years on their faces as they worry about their people back in Louisiana and what they went through on a daily basis since the levees broke.

Their resilience and strength continues to encourage me that despite the hardships that the survivors face in Louisiana, no one gives up. They struggle to continue their lives doing the best that they can. And in light of this, they still face the indignity of an imperial presidency who made fifteen "so-called" visits and have done nothing in terms of improving the condition of the people of the Gulf Coast. What is even worse, in the State of the Union Address, the "imperial" President, didn't even mention their plight or acknowledged them. The most consistent thing he did was do "fly overs" and "photo-ops" just to make people "forget" his quip about "Brownie doing a heckuva job".

Two years later has caused a lot of changes, nevertheless. Michael Chertoff (who was at a conference when the levees broke) is now being considered to replace exiting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. New Orleans has become the "murder capital" of America. FEMA has been absorbed into the Dept. of Homeland Security.

And then, again, a lot of things haven 't changed. Condoleeza Rice still hasn't shown up or spoken about how she felt about what happened in Louisiana. And of course, people are still fighting about what needs to be done to restore the luster back to the old grande dame of a city.

All that I know is that the American government turned its back on her and her citizens. They left her to wallow in her misery. And then, the government rebuked her and placed her people into "disposability" because in the aftermath of the floods, the chaos in front of the small screen revealed to the world how supposedly the "greatest" democracy actually treated its citizens who fell below the radar. In doing so, they not only offended the larger expanse of Americans across the states, they opened the eyes of the world.

I wish the survivors the best as they continue to make their lives better and more fulfilled in light of what happened. Hope lies with them.

Fear and Wisdom

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:32:00 +0000

This is dedicated to all my friends, including Gem, DC Fusion, Harlem Hottie, Duzey, truthseeka, NMaginate, Listener, Bripe, donwhite, Mr. Zedd, Majic, parrhesia, psyopswatcher, maria_stardust, Just Generic, SevenSeal17, and the very literate and witty Niki. :)

It's been quite a while since I've written. But, nevertheless, it has been a time of activity in my own personal life. I've been going through life changes challenging my sanity, let alone my will in order to make it in this world. And, for the countless people online whom I've exchanged insights with day after day, week after week, year after year, they know me as someone who is passionately writing my insights fearlessly throughout the ups and downs of my discursive efforts on the Web. However, what a lot of people don't know is that it takes courage and insight to keep on getting out there even after the pitfalls that have happened to me during my adventures as a blog writer, forum participant and now, an Admnistrator of my own message board.

It also takes the daily practice of working with fear. You see a lot of people online write a plethora of things that produce a variety of reactions to a whole lot of people. Some of us write and produce art that many others read and see because of that love of doing it. And for myself, who has had to deal with shyness, self-doubt and a sometimes wondering if I said the right thing, it takes a lot of work to pick myself up and get out there again. But the fear never leaves sometimes, because you never know how people might react to what you've written and shared. For myself, I've faced the best of times, but equally had some ugly moments in which contentious subjects have brought out the worst of human character.

Like anyone else who has read countless discussion threads on a daily basis, you'd be amazed with what people say--especially in the face of frustration and anger. As I've mentioned in other capacities, I've had people insult my writing, call me names, proclaim that I was "delusional", say that I "didn't have empathy" and much worse. I've also been singled out in many capacities as being "disruptive" and "standing on a soapbox" (of which came from the very big Cheeze Whiz from a forum long, long ago who petulantly challeneged me to go elsewhere to discuss my favorite subjects because it "wasn't what the community wanted".).

And there are some posters who don't hold anything back. They let it fly. And the darkest moments come when they intentionally hurt others just because they can. That has happened through the discourse of social and political discussion. When I've read their insights and comments in such a fashion (after such a barrage of degradation that comes from their words), I wonder how they were able to sleep at night, let alone wake up every morning and go on with their lives.

But, I've realized, that even the worst posters (and bloggers, too) who do share their anger and outrage in such blatant ways, have to deal with fear. That moment of clarity in realizing my own actions on-line, has produce a deeper epiphany with me. With that knowledge, I am able (in the words of Dr. Susan Jeffers), to "feel the fear and do it anyway". ;)

Fear is something that everyone has. But instead of letting it structure my writing and conversations on-line, I see it as a challenge. I took baby steps long ago in saying my take on the pointed subjects of the day. I said very little at first because my overwhelming shyness held limitations that prevented me from saying what I truly think. And then, in the midst of issues that I passionately cared about, I began to blossom. Suffice it to say, the fear was still there. But, I continued to talk and embarked on my oddessy online.

And so far, what a voyage it has been. I've talked with people in all sorts of capacities. People have shared things with me that have opened my mind to different possibilities. I've cried, commisserated, laughed and advised. I've faced down groups of posters, battled with mods, and gone forth to tell the tale. And I've received some very beautiful notes of support along the way in which I keep as a motivation to continue talking, writing and producing my insights for others to read; it is also for me to explore the current events of the day. Along the way, I've learned so many interesting truths about humanity, especially when it is at its darkest. I've also realized that people--no matter what happens--are very resilient. We continue to go on even when embarrassing things happen in the face of the on-line comunity. We continue to create, share our words, nurture friendships and even, impart wisdom from time to time.

So, fear, is a companion to me. It challenges me. It embraces me. It helps me to put myself in the shoes of other people. And, it instills me with the courage to go on even the face of trials that have rocked me. And, of course, it has allowed me to continue to keep on being heard despite the fact that sometimes, I've faced people who didn't like what I've had to say.

But most of all, my challenges have brought me the fruits of satisfaction and wonderful people into my circle of whom I cherish and admire profusely. I thank them for their gifts of friendship they have brought me. And I enjoy their words everyday because they add in my understanding of the world and everything that is in it. They help me continue on this road of writing and conversing about current events. And in my personal life, I'm able to see the world with new eyes.

Fear can be a crippling influence. But when you embrace it, it is a friend and a confidant that can help you do so much more. :)

More political insights coming soon!

Nary An Entry In the Last Two Weeks.....

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:31:00 +0000

I just wanted to let you know that the last few weeks in Real Life has been hectic. I have not abandoned my blog. Nor have I turned my back on politics. After I finish my off-line work, I will be back to fill this illustrious blog with entries once again.

I send my apologies to my new and old readers for the long pause in the face of several momentous events. There will be new material soon once things settle down for me to write like the Dickens. ;)

So hang in there. And I thank you very much for your patronage. :)

Take care,

Ceci:)

Some More Afterthoughts about Impeachment

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:48:00 +0000

As I was writing the previous entry, I looked up a good definition about impeachment. This comes from Alex Thompson's A Glossary of US Politics & Government(2007):

impeachment: The act of charging a public official with misconduct, and determining whether or not they should be removed from office. In the case of federal government employees, it is the US Congress that prosecutes the impeachment process. Proceedings are initiated in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. This body holds hearings on the allegations and then reports to the floor of the House on whether an individual should answer to charges of 'treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours' (Article Three of the US constitution). The House, after debating this report, collectively determines whether impeachment is appropriate with a simple majority vote. If it is deemed that charges are warranted, Articles of Impeachment are drawn up, and passed over to the US Senate.

Senators collectively act as a court to judge the charges brought by the House. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. A guilty verdict requires a two-thirds majority vote. Conviction will result in this official being removed from post, and the Senate may also bar them from future public office. Congress has no power to invoke criminal penalties on those found guilty, although additional legal charges may follow from law enforcement agencies.

[....]

Most famously, President Richard Nixon avoided being impeached by resigning from office in 1974, over the Watergate affair. In Nixon's case, the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary recommended to the floor of the House that Articles of Impeachment be drawn up, but Nixon vacated the White House before a floor vote could confirm impeachment. Congress may not impeach an individual after they have left office.

--Thompson, Alex. A Glossary of US Politics & Government. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2007: 89-90.

These are some things to think about when the notion of impeachment is brought up during this time. After all, these ideas must be seriously contemplated and continued to be debated as we go through these drastic changes in society.

One Important Power of the House

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:50:00 +0000

It is always good to do one's civic duty as an American citizen and sit down to read the Constitutionfrom time to time in order to get a grasp of what the Congress can and cannot do opposed to the Executive Branch. It teaches you the orgins of why the "supreme law of the land" was created. And of course, it humbles you when you read about how the rights were formed in order to give a semblance of freedom and liberty to the people. And, of course, it teaches you that contrary to the current Administration's opinion, that the "Constitution is not just a damn piece of paper." I did just that today. Just a small exercise out of curiousity and for good measure because when you discuss politics with others it helps to revisit the knowledge of all three branches of government and the systems of "checks and balances".

One concept that explicitly fascinated me was the powers of the House of Representatives. And what caused me to think was the power of impeachment. For a member of the House, it is an action not to be taken lightly. From some circles of political thought, it is mainly a political gesture--especially to let the person involved (not just the President) that their behavior was not to be tolerated. Not only that, the said person's behavior ran contrary to the tenets of the Constitutiion in that it jeopardized the stability of the country and the citizens within.

With that being said, it is quite understandable why Rep. Dennis Kucinich had the wherewithal that a lot of his colleagues didn't: to call for impeachment of Vice-President Dick Cheney. It is also understandable why a center was opened on the West Coast in order to examine the tenets of impeachment in terms of the current Administration. For those twenty- percent who "see" nothing wrong with how things are running in Washington, these two acts appear to be empty gestures. But for those of us who care, this begins the cathartic process in which these aspects that have been discussed since the beginning of the Iraq War are finally beginning to be heard by people who matter.

The reason why I have pointed out that Congress had the power not only to impeach the President and Vice-President, but all other members of government (except those within Congress--but that is also dealt with in the Constitution), is the fact that the standing power of the Representatives of the House has been there all along. Instead of the rest of us suffering through constitutional crisis after constitutional crisis, they had the power in their hands to put it to a vote. They don't have to listen to the pundits who say that the "votes aren't there". They don't have to listen to the partisan voices who proclaim that the "American people couldn't handle it." Clearly there are things that need to be investigated. And of course, the supeonas that have been issued of the Executive Branch have gone unanswered. In the midst of frustration, one has to ask, well, what would wake up the Executive Branch in order for them to recognize that the people are being subjected to an imperial rule in which the Constitution is left by the waste side?

The only recourse left is for the House of Representatives is to put it to a vote and make such an offense part of public record so that there is a hearing in the Senate presided over the Chief Justice.

But then again, you say, well with the Supreme Court stacked in the President's favor, well what would this act prove? That the questionable actions taken in the name of the Constitution were being checked out. Not only that, the people who were involved in such a constitutional crisis were to answer for their behavior--as a part of public record. No more dodging. No more ducking supeonas. No more double-speak in the press. Just a simple sit down from the Executive Branch so they could publicly relate before the Senate their interpretation of the Constitutionso the people of the country can hear for the first time how the Executive Branch views and treats the law of the land in the face of all their endeavors. It seems cut and dried, when you look at it.

Of course, in my political discussions on other forums, I have been told that the Executive Branch doesn't have to answer for anything that they've done. It's old hat that the members of such a branch have to take care of things their own way because it is just a matter of course. And after reading such powers of the Congress, isn't it time to put this standard thought of some to a test--especially when it has to deal with the notion that no one man is above the law?

What is relevant to note is that there are issues that need to be explored: 1)the writ of habeas corpus when it comes to those detained at Guantanamo Bay; 2)whether executive signing statements are enough to circumvent basic Constitutional laws; 2)whether the Iraq War was started on Constitutional (whether Congress declared "war" or not); 3)whether certain governmental programs that involved wiretapping and datamining (especially delving into one's endeavors on-line) involved a violation of Fourth Amendment rights; 5) whether America is in a state of emergency due to the War on Terror. These issues, and plenty more need to be put under intense scrutiny by not only Congressional oversight committees; they also have to be examined in terms whether there is grounds for impeachment.

When these things have also been discussed with others on a variety of forums, the basic argument against this is that there was "no wrongdoing". If that is the case, why have there been questions of not only the Democratic side of government, but also from the Republican side? Why are there cases on these grounds that have been sent to the Supreme Court to be heard? Why has the policy speeches been centered on side-stepping these claims in terms of talking points? And most importantly, why has there been such an outcry over these issues in terms of questioning civil liberties opposed to the powers of the state?

These are serious issues that need to be not only debated by Congress, but acted upon for the best interest of the country. If we pretend not to "see" these issues and let our politicians slide in their endeavors with their refusal to cover them, it will set the precedent for future Presidents of the United States (as well as other members of the Executive Branch) to execute what they want as they will without listening to the dissenting voices of not only the citizens but of the Legislative Branch. And if we do just think that it is "all in a day's work", then how better off will we be when these powers are multiplied and used in more nefarious ways against the citizens who voted to put these future politicians in office.

The question here is whether we are truly a beacon of democracy as we say we are, or are we venturing into a more restrictive branch of government in which the needs of the people and our representatives in the Legislative Branch go unheard. One never thinks that things can never get that drastic. However, sometimes there are always small clues that are revealed in such policies that might point to future actions in which restrictions and unchecked governmental powers truly jeopardize our ability to have livelihoods and to receive justice where it is due. That is why impeachment must be considered to finally put these issues in a place where the people can see for themselves how they measure up against constitutional law.

Perhaps, then, in front of the Senate we will get the answers we have waited to hear.

However, these issues must not only be part of Congressional debate--especially in matters of impeachment. This is a national dialogue that must be introduced into the citizenry as well.

Save a Forum! Start to Post!

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:14:00 +0000

While I'm on the bandwagon of discussing forum life, it's time to state something else. Being a forum owner is rather fascinating. From being a longtime poster, when you begin to run your own boards it's like you've stepped over the line into different territory. Sometimes, it is fraught with drama. Other times, it is clear coasting. But it's been a thrill a moment since I've conceived of the idea of extending political talk to forum running. Although there have been other forums that I've known and loved, I think it is a natural evolution because you begin to have the freedom to formulate discussion areas that you have a particular enjoyment in talking about.

However, one of the hardest times in the life of a forum owner is when you have a silent board. Of course, you have many choices out there that one can go to in order to have community, fellowship and friends. There are places in which you hang out because there's always something new to add and a plethora of insights to discover. But then again, when there is a forum where there is a lot of topics that might generate interest and a lot of people "shopping" around, then it gets a little tedious. You ache for action, for at least someone to get the ball rolling in order for the forum to kick off in grand style.

Now, I've never said that running a forum was a bed of roses. For the most part, it is hard work-- and almost like another job if you're serious about it. Sometimes real life coincides with forum life and you have to make choices. You have to construct the content around your site with the capabilities of the host. And of course, you have to watch your forum like a hawk sometimes when there are tedious issues that causes some emotional exchanges. But from what I've learned, one cannot be "rule happy" and they have to learn how to network. Networking has been the single-most thing I've had to do in order to get more people to know about my forum. And I have met some great people along the way. I don't regret one minute of it.

The beautiful thing about the Internet is that it hosts millions of people around the world. There is the potential there for a mixture of drama, intellectual talk and a lot of knowledge-growth. And a good member who posts is worth one's weight in gold. I also understand that there are a lot of people who are very shy like myself who like to lurk and not post, except in key exchanges. I started out that way. And it is hard for the shy types to eventually find their way to a forum that they like where they can get over the anxiety of not being "beating down" by the jerks whose only pleasure is to sadistically excoriate other posters for saying what's on their mind.

What I had hoped is to create a place that can have a great community in which people can discuss the issues without feeling beating down by abrasiveness and rudeness. As a forum poster, it gets tiring to deal with such people on a give basis. Hence (with the little inspiration from a friend) that's where the "real talk without the drama" slogan comes from. I wanted "real talk" without the drama. I know that there are people who exist who mainly want to discuss the issues without being told that their insights are "idiotic" or "stupid" or "garbage". There are people out there who just want to exchange the brass tacks without it being a discursive nightmare. That's what "Ceci's News and Views" is all about. The forum is not for me to post my particular insights without response. It's not a self-centered place for me to have my own sounding board. I want my forum to be a collaborative effort.

For that to happen, my forum needs people. Hell. I cannot say it any other way. My forum needs good posters who like to just hang out and talk without any pressure to engage in the subjects leisurely, politely and kindly. That's the kind of community that I am shooting for. Sure, it's boring for the more aggressive types who spend their on-line time browbeating other people. But brow-beating individuals does not make spirited debate. And it gets debilitating to have to continue to address people like that.

So, if you want to be part of a great community filled with wonderful, creative, intelligent and kind people, you're invited. Pay attention to the title: save a forum! Start to post and make your voice heard!

And yes....forget about the partisanship. We're only trying to have conversations on the board. :)

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:14:00 +0000

Everything You Know Is Wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:19:00 +0000

Let me tell you. Sometimes, discussing politics can be a very dicey business. At times during my tenure of discussing such issues on various boards, I've been called a "liberal boy", a "Kerry-loving" individual, a "liberal", a "leftist touting garbage to clueless users", a "malcontent" and a "disruptive person". And then, you have to deal with the posters who feel they have to tell you about how to "debate properly" as well as "how to frame one's questions".

It takes a lot of fortitude to face posters who feel they have to chide you at every turn of the way.

And then, there are the days in which you feel (after being confronted and bombarded by such insensitive people) that everything you know and have thought about pertaining to these issues are wrong. It is as if all the learning and the reading that you've have done do not mean a damn thing. It even goes down to the point that they seem to make their point across generating fear from others not to cross them while you end up being the "bad guy" for finally saying a thing or two about what you think about a given situation.

I'm sure I'm not the first person who has felt this way even after contentous debates. I'm certainly not the last. But, there are sometimes that you wish that these certain posters would just go to charm school instead of being nasty. But of course, they don't need any lessons in manner. They're abrasive and rude. That's exactly who they are and how they are without any change.

Hell. I may be terse in my writing, but mama didn't raise a wolf. Sometimes, politeness is a cultivated art instead of something that is at least a general wish that everyone has. When you deal with a slew of rude people who feel they need to bully others, it makes you think that everyone is like that--especially in the realm of politics.

It's like what I related in my communications special. There are people who feel they need to announce their credentials in every step of the way. They seem to forget that in politics as well as other subject areas, that a learning curve exists in which people exchange information to develop new insights. And then, I think that sometimes the posters who fall into this realm are just poor listeners with bad people skills. I wonder if this is something that just a part of the Internet because you discuss things with virtual strangers on a given basis. Or, do the people who treat others rudely any given day in a forum do this actually in real life. In fact, it is a scary thought if they do.

However, there is a basic explaination where this behavior comes from. Blame it on how political discourse is framed not only by politicians but the MSM. The politics that is practices in the public eye is one that is confrontational, and often mistaken for true debate. Name-calling and mud-slinging are more the name of the game while true discussion is evaded. From the talk show pundits to the anchors in the media, the only way one can make their points is to shout them. The sad thing about this style of discussing such subject matter is for the public to mimick their abrasive habits whenever they carry these discussions with other people. It is as if to say that no one listens to the points of the other. Instead, one has to be shouted down in order to "win" the argument and the day. And because there is a lack of people in the media who can calmly discuss these issues, there aren't any good examples out there of people who are gracious and polite while exchanging intellectual insights.

It's not to say that there aren't any smart people out there. There are. But unfortunately, they're probably scared off by people who practice this style of discussing politics. And unfortunately, the people who do discuss politics in this way have such an inflated view of themselves that they often think that they determine where the line is drawn.

The main point here is that the subject matter of discussing politics has to be redefined. It's not enough to disguise passionate debate for deliberate abuse while exchanging insights. However, there needs to be a sense of gentility brought back into such discussions in order to make sure that everyone's voice is heard and that these points reach a wider audience without it being silenced.

Now, I know that I am not immune from being part of the "shouting style" of debate. After all, when I started out discussing politics, the first times someone did this to me, I wilted and retreated back. But after a while, one grows jaded and hard after being called names and derided on a general basis. It shouldn't have to be this way. But when you do fight back against the rude posters who don't give a damn, it's usually you that gets into trouble with the moderators while they skate off, smelling like roses.

That's why there are two things I go by whenever I go about my posting duties: 1)Don't mistake kindness for weakness; 2)Be assertive even in the face of being bombarded by these jerks. Their character will eventually affect others.

But then again, it goes back to the statement I've made in one of my first entries here: kindness is a bitch to some people.

It's All in His Gut

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:50:00 +0000

There was the "twinkie defense". And then, there was the "I'm not a role model" defense. And of course, who could forget the "let them eat yellow cake" hubris which marked the "I'm not of the Executive Branch" defense? What seems like the latest in a long line of sayings that defy any logic of the imagination came frome the mouth of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. It's been discussed in the MSM and we might as well put it here for everyone to read: he feels it in his gut that there will be a summertime attack in the United States by al Qaeda.

Now, if there was certain information and evidence that an attack is coming, why would someone--let alone a public official in a high branch of government--say that it "comes from their gut"? Would the public, let alone the politicians allow anyone to present such news as being developed from someone's "gut instinct"? What is very troublesome about this report is that it comes from the wings of the thwarted attacks in the United Kingdom as well as the flaming terminal in Glasgow, Scotland. Knowing that these findings were very unsettling to not only the citizens of that region of the world, but of the general public, a claim using the "gut defense" only seems to be a way to bring back a sense of fear into the American public--especially when the Republicans are defecting from President Bush's proposal to "stay the course" in Iraq.

And it seems that whenever something happens, there are two key indicators from the current Administration that would give a clue: 1) President Bush takes a vacation to Crawford, Texas; 2) there is a major scandal of mass proportions happening on the wings of plummetting approval ratings and hieghtened discontent among the general populace.

I wonder if anyone has asked this yet, but heck. I'll take a stab at it. Does anyone in the Bush White House ever perceive that the public is tired of the emotional blackmail of the past six years? I mean, September eleventh has been milked to the hilt in terms of bonding the country together through loss and grief to the point of voting in conservative candidates who vow that they are the ones to keep the country safe. You'd think that with the corruption and the scandals that have come out of the current Administration, that this is little more than the little boy "crying wolf" (a phrase that I have hated for the longest time, but it seems applicable here). Doesn't the government think that Americans--outside of the twenty percent of blind followers of the "Bush Doctrine"--are tired of this and would like to see the troops come home?

The argument has been made that ever since Mr. Bush has been at the helm of the government that no other terrorist attacks have happened within the United States mainland. This has been a favorite of conservatives who like to think that Mr. Bush was the right choice at the right time to steer the country through the "War on Terror". With even this assertion, would it be fair to also say that the handiwork by the terrorists have caused enough reprocussions on American soil that they really don't need to strike us anymore? After all, our system has been shaken up economically, politically and socially as a result of the "War on Terror". Furthermore, just the mere hint of "fear" and "terrorism" in the same breath by Bush officials has caused the American people to be cowed under and compliant to accept wiretapping, datamining, invasive searches and even purchases of plastic and duct tape in order to keep the "terrorists" out.

After seeing the residue from using Terror Threat Management theory to keep American society in line, the latest polls show that United States citizens as well as the politicians are not having it any more. Surely, it is a serious problem, but what is worth living in the so-called "greatest democracy on earth" if there is no freedom or democracy left under an Imperial Presidency? The sad thing about the legacy of September eleventh is that we still act like Pavlovian dogs every time the terror threat level chart comes on the news. All that needs to be done is to sound the warning bell alarm and then, the American people get played in terms of being receptive of the draconian measures that not only shade our thinking in terms of how we perceive ourselves and our neighbors, but accepting authority without questioning their motives.

Now that more Americans waking up about the past Iraq policy and speaking up about it through their votes, civic participation and dissent, the "feeling in the gut" comes as a way to quell the outcry that has been erupting during the latest events in the Bush White House and Congress. Just think about it. There are still the supeonas that have to be answered. Sara Taylor (via the U.S. District Attorney scandal) is purported to testify. Scooter Libby's sentence was being commuted. Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe has changed her affiliation from Republican to Democrat. Debates about setting a deadline to bring the troops home has formulated the discussion today. There was an Impeachment Center set up on the West Coast to investigate the feasibility of launching impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. So, is it any wonder that Secretary Chertoff would come out and say something that "comes from his gut"?

It's not surprising at all when you think about it.

Michael Moore Has a Point

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:30:00 +0000

Although he's been dragged through the mud by the right wing talk radio hosts and pundits, his latest foray with the press on CNN did produce some validating points on the way the media has covered current events. The usual staid "Situation Room" program (hosted by Wolf Blitzer) got some octane earlier this week when the director of Fahrenheit 911and Sicko came on for the first time in three years. In a passionate discourse worthy of any forum, Mr. Moore didn't mince words when he described the MSM being lax on their job in terms of reporting the truth of what went on in Iraq. Similar to complaints in the past (mostly from Bill Moyers and Walter Cronkite, for starters), he opined that the media spent more time skirting around the issues related to the conflict in the Middle East rather than challenging the current Administration with hard and penetrating questions. With the exception of stalwart and gritty reporter Helen Thomas, the Washington Press corps had appeared during the Bush era of politics to be cowed over by the connections that they have made opposed to doing their job being objective.

And the problem that resulted contributed to the press being more like cheerleaders instead of doing their job. For the highly touted and well-paid anchors who had changed their style from being advocates in the mold of Edward R. Murrow, they in turn have transformed into shills for propaganda--pretty much in the same style as the talk show hosts who are more like entertainers instead of producing more insights into current events.

Say what you want about Mr. Moore (and on the boards I've heard plenty from both sides about him). He has related a very important truth about the lackidasial job of the press. It has been asked elsewhere whether there are any journalists left cut from the cloth of the gonzo reporters and of the Woodward/Bernstein era. The short answer is no. The sad thing is that like the celebrities we follow on the result of who they are dating and how well they look, journalists have spent more time being under the plastic surgery knife than really bringing the news that counts to the people. And if we continue in the trend of reporters going for what is easy instead of more informational things that might exact social change in society, we're going to get nothing but (to put it bluntly) crap with little else.

What the director did in his comments to Mr. Blitzer was a service. Although the host of CNN's "Situation Room" was rather perturbed and flabbergasted by Mr. Moore's bluntness, at least it was put out there for the viewing audience to think about. After all, when has anyone ever had the courage to simply speak their mind without caring whether they become fodder in the next's day reportage? It seems that whenever someone speaks their mind in the MSM, they become instantly reviled for revealing the ugly side of current news. And sometimes, those who are "whistleblowers" (if you think about Ambassador Wilson's editorial piece concerning Iraq policy) end up being punished and automatically labeled as an transgressor to the system if they don't play ball with the system.

That is one thing Mr. Moore is not afraid of. He has always gone by his own rules in terms of telling it like it is. It is a shame that we don't have more people like him that will simply speak instead of being afraid of running counter to the talking points that are automatically formulated into breaking headlines.

Another Day in the Empire

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:04:00 +0000

Despite going about the Fourth of July festivities on Wednesday, I could not help but notice a deep irony when it came to thinking about this holiday: the events within America has caused a deep chasm of mistrust between the people and their leaders. The most glaring example of late is the commuted sentence of "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Cheney's top aide. In a court of law, he was found guilty of obstructing justice. He was about to don his prison stripes to start his sentence while his lawyers began to appeal the case.

And lo and behold, before Mr. Libby was able to cross into the cold confines of prison, a statement was sent from the Bush family home in Maine: the sentence given in light of the charges was "too harsh" and that although it wouldn't erase the charges, the prison time would be wiped away.

Now, you might understand why I wrote at the beginning why there might be a little bit of irony going on here. The big deal is the message it sends to us, the American people. By commuting Mr. Libby's sentence, it sets a definite precedent that anyone with means and money can get off without any form of guilt or remorse for the crime. Now, you never heard a public statement of apology to Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. You never heard a sense of regret for ruining Mrs. Plame Wilson's life in the Central Intelligence Agency. You'd think that the Vice-President and President were so privvy to the most covert of secrets that they might understand why outing her name in the press could jeopardize her life--especially when there has not been an open denial that her position within the agency was secretive in the first place. What is worse, is that an act of revealing the identity of an agent doing the nation's business reflects the worst sort of sedition out there. After all, it is understood that Mrs. Plame Wilson was working for the government. And the act that revealed her name reflected sheer pettiness that would only point to the later drama of the failed search of WMD's and other alleged falsities that spurred on a war with Iraq.

For everyday people, such events might be a slight on our radar. We have to continue to put food on our tables. And of course, we toil on our jobs for gas money and health care--especially under this administration. But Plamegate gave the public an unwitting glance at the ruthlessness and callousness that has taken root in our national leaders. It is rather unsettling to know that dissent is not welcomed--not even by those who have strived to maintain their integrity and truthfulness when trying to point out discrepancies in what would turn out to be a colossal blunder overseas.

Although the story isn't done yet, there are things to ponder upon when trying to make sense of what happened this week. On its most basic point, such an act calls into question on who really does get punished in this country. As I had heard in other circles, there are people in prison for the same charges as Mr. Libby. One has to wonder what happens to those very same people who have done similar crimes and had to go off to jail without such a reprieve. The other thing to think about is the notion that it is just another day in the empire.

I had first heard that term on-line when it was used not only to describe a web site I came across, but on other blogs across the blogosphere when talking about the long list of events that happened under the watch of the Bush White House. In a way, it sort of makes sense. Knowing that now the Executive Branch has prided itself on saying what it "will or won't do" in the terms of Executive signing statements, it truly supercedes in control over the other two branches (as I mentioned previously in yesterday's entry). It is rather interesting that because the Executive Branch has practiced such hubris and arrogance over the determination of who holds the cards in the present government, it seems that the scales of justice are only tipped toward a small number of people leaving the rest of us out of the cold.

One of the things I did yesterday between Independence Day events was listen and read political commentary. Fascinatingly enough, there was one conversation between a commentator and a caller that discussed whether we could truly celebrate Independence day knowing what has been done in our country's name. That is a rather difficult question, because it is a day that all Americans commemorate in terms of recognizing the sacrifices that the Founding Fathers made in terms of giving birth to the nation.

But, in light of that, one has to ask did the system that the Founding Fathers developed really worked? Did they fight for independence so they could get the wealth for themselves instead of the common "sacred myth" of true independence for all men (you see, there were groups of people who still were not free at the end of the Revolutionary War. And for non-white people, this freedom would not come to pass until the Civil Rights Era)? Are the system of checks and balances being re-written in the light of the War on Terror? Do we even believe in the Bill of Rights anymore since there were acts by the government that flirted with undermining our civil liberties?

These questions are rather provocative and thought-provoking because it allows one to reexamine constantly what the country's ideals are for. Let's just say it now. The "Scooter" Libby case makes it very hard for one to even see what ideals we even have left. And when dissent is punished in such a public and graphic way, one also has to wonder what exactly the current Administration is doing in order to present to us, the American people, the values we hold dear. Do they truly care about the basic tenets of the country at all?

It's gotten to the point that we are now at the crossroads in terms of trying to make sense of all these things. And, a blatant repudiation of the law and what it stands for by issuing a commuted sentence doesn't help.

America Needs Your Help

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:49:00 +0000

In the last incarnation of Ceci's News and Views, I made it a point (that since I always talk about politics anyway) that I would write something on July the 4th. For the older readers of my blog, they probably have read the first piece that I had written for this holiday. However, for the newer readers (and the Blogger ones, of course), this would be the first official piece of this blog for this day. And I thought about what I might say in order to not only pay homage to this day, but to offer something to think about as we go to barbecues, attend fireworks shows and of course be with our friends and family.

So here goes: America needs your help.

Right now, we're deep within a crisis in terms of leadership and issues in this country. We have members of the Executive branch who have lied to us, cajoled us and used fear as a way to keep us docile. We have witnessed scandal after scandal in which double-speak serves as an explaination and propaganda reflects the truth. The worst of it is that we are in the midst of an overseas conflict in which the UN had called off one of the only reasons why it was started. What is even more mind-boggling is that we have a problematic situation in which there are some citizens who are more loyal to their party than to the basic values that which make the United States great.

Let this holiday be a turning point. Like the momentum that was generated from the November 2006 elections, we need to find within our hearts the righteous indignation to continue to perservere in fighting for what is right in today's America. It's not only up to our politicians to make the current Administration accountable for their endeavors; it is our responsibility as citizens to do this too. For the Constitution does not only serve the "have-mores" as their way of pushing an agenda. We must go back to these hallowed pages and revisit them in order to give inspiration towards wanting to make our nation better in the face of some contentious issues that our put on the plate next to the potato salad, cole slaw and barbecue shish-ka-bobs.

The beautiful thing about being a citizen of America is the fact that when she needs us, we as a collective body of people pitch in to help her. Her tears motivate us to do the best in our character in order to make her great again especially when she is hurting over the slights to her character as well as the machinations that have dampened her luster in the name of justice, accountability and integrity.

And we must, as we celebrate today with our loved ones, remember what justice, accountability and integrity is like. In the memory of these three ideas, we must find the inspiration to voice our discontent when there are things that tarnish our country. Furthermore, we must also find the courage to speak to our representatives and various other dignitaries when there are matters that cripple the country's reputation overseas as well as within the borders. There are times in which the moment is of the essence. Our hand is tipped. We must do something in order to restore a sense of decorum back within the highest offices in the land.

How do we do that?

By not giving into the threat of fear. After September eleventh, it seems that every policy made in the current Administration has been made on these terms via the media. As citizens, we cannot allow our politicians to use emotional blackmail in order to subdue our right to speak. What is more, it is high time to chagrin such things as the terror threat level. That should not stop us from writing our representatives, talking with our friends, family and neighbors about the issues as well as staying abreast of policy changes that have been bandied about in terms of curbing our civil liberties and instigating a sense of repression. We must not let the words of politicians cow us into believing that our lives are solely theirs to play with in terms of making changes to the American system in order to keep us at bay--especially when they seem to threaten the very Bill of Rights that we hold dear.

Let's face it. Fear is a great motivator. It had motivated us to stick together after the fall of the Twin Towers. It had also brought out the worst in all citizens when we were easily persuaded by the current Administration and the media to ostracize those who contributed dissenting opinons about the state of the country. In this vein, we must cast off those shackles and take matters into our own hands in order to establish new path that America must follow so that our credibility as a country is raised on the world stage. Most of all, we must be skeptical and critical of what is handed us by the government. We must use our civil liberties to question and challenge what has been presented to us. For if we don't, it is as good as having a tyranny in office instead of believing that our tax dollars and votes putting our leaders in Washington to work for our benefit.

It's easy to wave a flag and sing, "God Bless America". It is much harder to work with those principles and constantly strive to make social change in order for our lives to be better. After all, it should be an easy choice when someone asks whether one stands up for their party above their membership. On this day, let it be a rededication of being Americans first above all else. As simply being Americans, we give the vow that we care about our nation above all else instead of letting partisan bickering taint our view of how the system works and doesn't.

So, do little things everyday to prove that you're an American first, and not a slave to your political party. Read the paper. Talk with friends. Write letters to your politicians. Help each other. Don't believe the double speak that has been handed to us as an easy answer. Read the Constitution. Know your history. And work with others in causes that contribute something worthwhile to the health of not only the people of the country, but as the nation as a whole.

When it comes down to it, politicians can say whatever it takes to easily sway us because there is a tradition that we look up to them to help us govern the country. However, in the end, when the politicians can or will not serve the people and look out for their own best interests, it is high time to start gearing toward a new direction in which our needs will be catered to instead of being ignored by the establishment.

So yes, America needs your help badly. This is not a time to rest on the laurels of the past. Nor, is it time to helplessly watch as the politicians decide our future for us. It is high time, we take the fate of the country into our own hands in order to make meaningful and life-affirming changes that will aid us in the future.

Just a little thought on this July 4th. :)

Missy, You Write Like a Man

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:38:00 +0000

I love blogging and forums. And from time to time, I like to write about my experiences on them both because they reveal insights about the human condition. One of the most curious things to happen to me in all my years of writing on-line is one of the general comments that I get on "writing like a man". This is not a rant. Nor, is it bitching about how we treat each other as we discuss daily issues in society in these formats. But, it fascinates me that for women who take issues seriously and discuss them with little or no fanfare, the first thought from some other posters is that we're guys.

I suppose it could be complement. But it reveals a deeper way how intellectual thought and gender conicide. Why is it that women can't be serious in their writing? Why can't they discuss military issues, politics, government and society just like men? Why is there still the feeling on line that most posters are men?

What does it mean to "write like a man"?

Politics is a serious subject. It's been something that I've been raised on since I was little. I've been surrounded by the influences of reading the paper, watching news and discussing it with friends, co-workers and family. And still, from time to time, I get a complement that it is "rare" that a woman speaks about politics and even rarer that women could engage in talks of such depth. When thinking about this, I think that more women should discuss politics and even try their hand in engaging in these conversations because I've learned that not all issues (social, racial or political) are not in the realm of men.

One important issue that needs women badly is abortion. This is an issue that not only affects our reproductive rights, but our sexual freedoms as individuals. And if we sit back and let eight men (five of whom are highly conservative) decide what we do with our bodies, then we're worse off. Another issue that needs women's voices are the politics of jobs and economics. There are not only stay-at home moms who have to grapple with the bills every month; but there are a lot of us that are in the work force. And still wages for women are a fraction of what men earn. Here, if we let men discuss for us how much we earn and how we are treated in the work place, then all women suffer in terms of opportunities and access.

What we must acknowledge the most in the realm of politics are two clear issues that women must speak their minds about: the fact that there is a woman running for President that *might* have a clear shot at winning. Now, I know that there are people who have their opinions about Hillary (and the latest Mason-Dixon poll produces some interesting results), but the marvel of having a woman once again (after all, we must think of Geraldine Ferraro and Shirley Chisholm who paved the way) run for the highest spot in the land produces some intersting talk about how women view themselves politically as members of the society.

The second issue is that we have a Madam Speaker of the House instead of a Mister. It would be an intersting discussion among women if we were to evaluate how having a woman in such an important position in the government changes the fabric of leadership in the future. Furthermore, it also revists the struggles politically women have had to go through in order to be in that position as well as similar situations. It is even more thought-provoking to discuss how Ms. Pelosi is able to manage dealing with the usual "old Boys club" as well as other issues that come up to the plate in the present. After all, if there is still a present belief that "politics" is not a thing that many women speak about, then, more power to her. Just her being there contributes the notion that young girls and women can strive to not only care about our country, but also have the intellectual acumen to work on issues that are still in the realm of men.

The only thing now for women to do is to keep on speaking and sharing their thoughts on society, politics and the world as they see it. If we read the same political books as men and talk about these subjects with our friends, then we do have a voice and can intellectualize our take on how these issues affect us in terms of gender as well as Americans. After all, the present events that are happening in the country, if not the world affect us too. And most of us read the paper, watch the news and go on-line just as men do. It is time for us to speak out more and often to the point that a woman wouldn't have to be called, "Dude, or Sir, or Mate" when they are being referred to after a long, in-depth conversation.

Alas, A Constitutional Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:54:00 +0000

You might have been living under a rock if you haven't heard of Vice-President Cheney's latest defense against answering to the supeonas sent from Congress in order to answer for the firing of the U.S. District Attorneys. But, in case you didn't know, Mr. Cheney's latest statement defies the logic of any American who knows about the Constitution and the state of checks and balances in the United States Government: he is not of the "Executive Branch".

The funny thing about his statement is that it not only defies his position within the government, but also undermines the entire system of leadership in American government. So, if Mr. Cheney is not "part of the Executive Branch", well then, what is his role? Butcher? Baker? Chimney Sweep?

All kidding aside, his reply as well as the rest of the current Administration's refusal to comply with the supeonas from Congress on this stance has placed our system of government into a test for its life. The United States government is built upon a system of checks of balances, developed by the Founding Fathers to ensure that one branch would not supercede the other. However, in the Bush White House, the tenets of the system has been toyed with, especially with the endless Executive signing statements that continue to fill the hopper to deflect any attempts for accountability. And as a result, not only the current Administration has the reputation of being the most secretive; it has also harkened back to what Senator Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) commented as being "Nixonian".

Mr. Leahy, in his "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert, had spoken about even considering taking the Bush White House to court if they don't give up the documents supoenaed by Congress:

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he was ready to go to court if the White House resisted congressional subpoenas for information on the firing of federal prosecutors.

"If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether he would seek a congressional vote on contempt citations if President Bush did not comply. That move would push the matter to court.

"They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation," Leahy said. "The bottom line on this U.S. attorneys investigation is that we have people manipulating law enforcement. Law enforcement can't be partisan."

One would not wish for this to happen, but if there are no comprises about following the law and giving up the goods, then we might as well see our latest Constitutional crisis afoot in the present day.

There is a problem when the President and the Vice-President on Inauguration Day swear to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that they would uphold the Constitution in their duties as members of the highest offices of the land and do exactly the opposite through their manner, action and deed throughout their tenure in office. It becomes even more troublesome when there are alleged attempts against trying to uphold the laws written in the Constitution in order to preserve partisan reasons while ignoring that in the governance of the United States, that these laws are for everyone, not just for one set of people. Instead, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney convey the sense that they are allegedly above the law with their actions and that the very same laws that govern the rest of us as Americans are not for them. And it brings forth a very good question that needs to be considered in all circles in United States public life: should our leaders be held accountable? Do they get "blanket immunity" for their actions while others do not?

The tragic thing about the current Administration is that the wrongdoing and corruption that has happened over the past six years has been long and nebulous, it is hard to know where to begin to straighten out the problems that have been generated because of these past actions. What is more, is that the only thing that seems to be demonstrated from the refusal to comply with the law is the fact that it dictates that there are three different types of justice for people in the country: one for the haves, one for the "have-mores" and of course, one for the "have-nots". And it seems, for the "have-mores", they can use the law and work with it in order to get out of issues of accountability and responsibility. Equally as frustrating, the "have-mores", through their actions, deplete the seriousness and gravity of the law and mock it by simply telling the rest of us (in my old and most repeated phrase from time to time) to "let them eat yellow cake".

Maybe, it will take Mr. Leahy's action of taking the government to court in order to shed light on the reasoning why these prosecutors were fired and who was behind such a measure. Furthermore, it might demonstrate that the law is still taken with integrity even when trying to discern what is right and wrong. After all, the actions of Mr. Bush and his cronies set up a dangerous precedent: heck, if they can thumb their nose at the law, then of course maybe the countless hours and Constitutional conventions spent at the infancy of the American country were done in vain.

Especially, when there are the two leaders in the highest position of the land treating them as if they were not worth the paper it was printed on.

Guantanamo Comes To A Head

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:44:00 +0000

We've been through the reports, the pictures, and the speeches of plausible deniability. In fact, the calls to close Guantanamo surfaced while the Iraq War was heating up. The latest chapter in the saga that has become of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center is from the podium of the Presidency. Friday, there will be an announcement whether the prison will remain open or not. The chatter of the day sided with the fact that American President George W. Bush will consider closing the facility. That, of course, would be a surprise in the long run, because there was such a protracted fight on his part to keep it open to house "enemy combatants".

What was not surprising to me about this move is that I later read this evening that the talk scheduled about finally closing the detention center had suddenly been "dropped" from the schedule. Wonder why? So do I. Here is the latest from the ABC News:

The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move its terror suspects to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Senior administration officials said Thursday a consensus is building for a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where they could face trial.

President Bush's national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay's status is imminent.

"It's no longer on the schedule for tomorrow," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "Senior officials have met on the issue in the past, and I expect they will meet on the issue in the future."

I wonder when.

But, the stink from the detention center has risen to the surface. Furthermore, the stories have been so profuse that one cannot ignore them--especially when they have to do with the United States' unconscienable record of treating prisoners within a thin shade of state-sanctioned torture. There has been suidices, force feedings, the rolling out of prisoners in straight jackets, the denial of prisoner rights especially on the grounds of habeas corpus, indefinite incarcerations without charges as well as the inability to see one's legal advocate behind bars. Add that to the lists of prisoners that were smuggled out by one Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz to a lawyer who specialized in the welfare of human rights law.

We do have to question the humanity of not only our military,but our government when stories such as the "mental torture" of the prisoners come out in plain sight--as related in the BBC News:

A Pakistani-born US resident detained at Guantanamo Bay has said he was "mentally tortured" there, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.

Majid Khan, who has been accused of planning to blow up petrol stations in the US, also described how he tried to commit suicide by chewing on an artery.

Mr Khan presented a Statement of Torture to the US military tribunal reviewing his "enemy combatant" status.

He was among 14 "high-value" detainees moved to Guantanamo Bay in September.

The men were previously held in secret CIA prisons but are now being detained in a maximum security wing at the base in Cuba.

[...]

At the tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on 15 April, Mr Khan denied he had any connection with Islamist militant groups such as al-Qaeda.

There is extensive torture even for the smallest of infractions.

"I am not an enemy combatant," he asserted.

"I am not an extremist."

"I have never been to Afghanistan and I have never met Osama bin Laden."

Afterwards, Mr Khan's personal representative read out a written statement, in which he alleged psychological torture.

"I swear to God this place in some sense worst than CIA jails. I am being mentally torture here," he said.

"There is extensive torture even for the smallest of infractions."

After reading stories such as the one above, it only goes to show that the saga that is Guantanamo Bay is drawn-out from vignettes such as these which generate more questions than getting the answers that are so needed. With the legal cases on the docket that continue to challenge the legality of the Bush Administration in keeping the site open, it is almost inevitable that culpability must come from some where--especially when it deals with the most blatant acts of torture and legal wrongdoing within the prison. What is especially mind-blowing is that after the false assurances and contrition that has come from the lips of assorted officials of the current Administration, the latest news shows that there is a lack of desire to get to the truth and finally close the doors of the notorious place of incarceration. It's as if the government wants to allegedly keep the system in tact without caring how the acts within its gates reflect on the national character outside American shores.

Have they no shame?

Ceci's Communication Special, Pt. IV: The Courage To Try

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:54:00 +0000

Call me terse in my writing. Heck. You can even call me sarcastic at times. But, still, this entry comes from the heart--as my other essays on the blog. And, for you new readers to the blog, every once in a while, I write a little column about communication skills. This was inspired by a poster (who will still remain nameless from a board long, long ago and far away) who blatantly said in her post that "I lacked the communication skills to be on a certain forum"(that will also remain nameless). I dedicate this series to not only her, but to the rest of you who might grapple with your communication skills from time to time when you go on your postings duties like I do.

After all, we all come to logger-heads with other individuals who will misunderstand you know matter what you say. And, of course, we all have engaged in "verbal battles" (I prefer to call them debates) with others who will say things out of their misunderstanding and their lack of trying to create a middle ground in contentious issues.

In my discussions on-line, I have been told that "I lacked empathy" and sought to stir discord with my talks on controversial issues. At the very beginning when I was told these remarks, I thought to myself perhaps that they might have a point. There are times in which highly emotional discussions turn out to be free for alls in which passions take the place of reason. Let me tell you, I have witnessed it warts and all. But, time and wisdom has taught me that it isn't the conversations on-line themselves that cause the problems. It is the attitudes of others who refuse to understand. The refusal to understand another point of view causes frustration.

That's why there needs to be a moment when engaging in tough conversations to take a step back and assess your point of view. Then, you can go on to discuss these matters another day.

Just because someone has a strong opinion about a given topic doesn't mean that they are a brick wall.

Of course, there are those out there who are like "brick walls" who let any amount of facts bounce back without even discerning the difference between their thoughts and yours.

But for the most part, expressing one's opinion takes a tremendous amount of courage that sometimes seems foolhardy and stupid. The simple bravery to engage in tough conversations again and again requires a lot of character and fortitude that even a shy person like myself can't muster all the time.

Engaging in meaningful and contentious conversations has caused me to grow a thick skin over my years of posting. That has required a lot of researching on my part in learning how to properly engage in debates. Most of the time, I have met interesting and fascinating people due to my love of politics. Our talks together has caused me to grow as a person and to become more knowledgable about the world around me. I have learned a breadth of information from these thinkers because they taught me to see the world with new eyes, pretty much in the same way that the talks with my family have done.

And then, there are other times, I have met the type of poster who would lord over the conversation by pronouncing their credentials at every turn of the way. While they are discussing their side of the issue, they would slip in little digs such as, "You ought to go back to school to learn some more history." Or they would pronounce, "I have such and such degrees. That means I am qualified to talk about this while you aren't."

Especially in talks about race, I've gotten the usual, exasperated response, "What do you want?!?" That is even after I have said the aims of my conversation over and over in many posts in the same thread.

In the past, those conversations used to frustrate me because I tried to be as clear in my communication skills as I could possibly be. Even though those times have resulted in different outcomes, I simply discovered I must have courage to try again.

I've realized by now, not everyone will have the patience to discuss an important issue with aplomb and kindness. In fact, I've found out that there are some who are not in the least geniuine or polite about making their points--often going below the belt. Even when I get the short end of the stick in such negative affairs, I gained the insight that it requires a lot of mettle in order to go on even though the other side might portray you as the bad guy (or gal). That means, sticking to what I've presented and not wavering even if a group of posters try to persuade you otherwise.

Having the courage to speak requires not only fortitude; it also demands conscience and sensitivity to see into human character. If anything, discussions on-line have been compelling because there are so many facets to people that I have yet to discover. And as a result, I love engaging in the fun as well as the serious conversations because you learn so much how to relate with others. These very same lessons can be taken back with you into the "real world" when you deal with classmates, professors, bosses and co-workers.

The most important and revelant thing about having the courage to speak is to discover that not everyone in the world thinks like you do. You also develop the grace to acknowledge that everyone has their special fount of knowledge in which they pride themselves on. But to be a true conversant in a discussion is to be the student instead of the teacher, contribute where you can to widen the conversation, and to always have the resolve to speak your mind with a sense of strength even though others might not agree with you.

It is natural to fear the unknown when you participate in discussions that are rife with emotion. Out of that fear comes wisdom enough to know what your limits are. Furthermore, you begin to learn what you are able to express. It takes baby steps. In the end, it is worth it to have the special privilege to discuss a variety of things with various people. It is noteworthy to be able to have those conversations and to see how much further you can stretch yourself in terms of gaining knowledge and exchanging information.

With Lots of Love To My Father

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:54:00 +0000

Just as my mom is a wonderful, witty, elegant woman, my father is also quite a character in many ways. On the outset, he looks rather dour and quiet with purpose. However, when you get beyond the surface, you find a man who is soulful, passionate, resilient and stalwart when it comes to the causes that he supports and talks about. As my mother gave me the gift of conversing about important and serious subjects, my dad bestowed upon me a sense of compassion and conscience when it comes to humanity.

Ever since I could remember, my Dad has always told me to think about the implications of my actions for good and for ill. His quiet words has created a sense of depth for watching the world at large as well as acting within it. That in turn has helped me to especially become a passionate person in terms of caring about society. He, along with my mother, have helped the homeless, organized food drives, and other types of service that pointed out that we are all connected together. He especially made the point that we must be empathetic, hard-working individuals who are responsible for our actions.

What I love best about my dad is his plain-speaking nature. In talks about politics around the dinner table, my father and I would get into these great talks from time to time about the nature of society. Sometimes when the spaghetti was being served out or the beverages were being poured, he would start out with a question (mind you, this was while the nightly news was on in the background on the kitchen table). Some of these questions were about everyday matters that he had experienced. Others were about the issues of the day. From that start, we would sit there and discuss these matters with depth and frankness which I have always enjoyed--even today when we still discuss them daily.

Even though he could be reserved, there are times that he would have a warm sense of humor that would compliment his outlook on the world. When thinking back about it, I must have developed my sense of irony from him. He especially use irony when thinking about how things turn out in the world. It would especially provide the punctuation point after a long drawn out discussion on the phone or over dinner--even when things became rather heated in the midst of passionate debate. The funny thing about it was the fact that he was just say it and then there would be silence. He would smile and the rest of us would laugh. And that would spell the end of some great family time especially when the gravity of events would weigh us down.

For my dad, the personal was political. He makes no bones about class and race when he discusses politics. Because of his honesty, he made discussing these issues all right instead of something to fear. On this account, I consider myself lucky because I've realized that in a lot of ways class and race are sensitive issues that really are hard for people to express themselves about. I was even luckier to grow up around his world view of loving everyone--regardless of race, class, sexual orientation or religion. Because of his (and my mother's) kindness and generosity within my hometown, he (and my mom) had a lot of friends from all types of backgrounds.

And here too, I am fortunate because I was able to hear the voices and experiences of so many different people at an early age to the present. I owe him a debt of gratitude for exposing me to different cultures in the name of diversity. This was especially punctuated in developing early a sense of traveling and meeting all sorts of people.

One of the things that impacted me the most when realizing the gifts that my father gave me in order to become a more, well-rounded individual is strength and dignity especially when things are at their worst. He would always tell me, "Well, Ceci, you've hit the bottom. Now, all you have to do is go up." It was that saying, along with, "Strike while the iron is hot," that got me through a lot of challenges in my life. I still think about them today as I face new adventures in real life as well as on-line. Most of all, the ability to face things with the frame of mind filled with purpose and resolve has really given me the knowledge in the midst of the struggle, you know more about yourself than you possibly ever could.

That is why he too has played a part in my writing and sense of political discussion. His influences helped me develop a deeper part of myself especially when researching and looking into issues that affect us all. His wisdom and kindness has made an impact especially on those writings--whether by essay or by post. And I love him for it because everyday, he still wakes up with a view that there is still more of the world left to discover. And that too, has instilled me a sense of curiosity and love of learning. He never gets tired of delving into things and always encourages us to do the same.

And that is one lesson that has proven invaluable time and time again in many circumstances, even now. :)

Happy Father's Day with lots of love, Dad. :)

Law And The Struggle For America's Soul

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:40:00 +0000

The current cycle of legal news has placed American society in a fascinating light not only within the nation, but across the world in many ways. The outcry surrounding heiress Paris Hilton's early release and subsequent house confinement had opened the doors on social disparity and access when it has to do with class and race. It was further punctuated today when an appeals court had overturned the decision regarding the confinement of Genarlow Wilson, incarcerated for having consensual sex as a seventeen-year old with a fifteen year-old female. Before his mother and lawyer could even celebrate the turn of events, the Georgia Attorney General decided to appeal the ruling.

How quickly, the bottom drops out.

Before one could catch their breath, then there was the no-confidence vote on U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Marked as a show of no support for his office, it was well known that even some Republicans disapproved of the tactics that Mr. Gonzales employed during his tenure. But, as partisan politics always shows (in the name of conventional wisdom), the Republicans blocked the vote and the action within the Senate failed.

As news of this came down, there came the decision in an appellate court that barred the U.S. Government's attempts to hold a detainee indefinitely without charges. The Washington Post explains this succinctly:

The decision by U.S. military judges on Monday to dismiss the war crimes charges against two detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has reignited a debate over how to try those accused of terrorism, prompting members of Congress to challenge the Bush administration over a legal system that they say denies proper rights to detainees and has yet to bring a single case to trial.

In dismissing the charges against detainees from Canada and Yemen, the judges ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 lacked jurisdiction because that law limits cases to those who are deemed "unlawful enemy combatants." Because a tribunal had officially deemed both men "enemy combatants," the letter of the law did not allow the detainees to go to trial, the judges determined. Prosecutors say they hope to try about 80 of the 380 detainees at Guantanamo, but all such cases are now on hold -- one more setback in a five-year effort to bring even one case to trial.

This was in conjunction to Congress entertaining a habeas corpus proposal to allow detainees in Guantanamo Bay to fight their charges in American courts:

Members of Congress who have opposed the hastily written commissions act renewed their calls yesterday for a new system, demanding that detainees be moved to U.S. federal courts or that the law be rewritten to grant them important rights, such as habeas corpus.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an outspoken opponent of the Military Commissions Act, said yesterday that legislation he and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have sponsored to restore habeas corpus rights will be taken up by the committee this week. Both senators have argued that the law is dangerous because it suspended habeas corpus, or the right of detainees at Guantanamo to challenge their detention in federal courts.

"These court decisions underscore that, far from being beyond reproach, the system set up by this administration in the weeks before the last election is not adequate and cannot be trusted with the liberties of millions of people," Leahy said. He called Monday's decisions "the latest rebukes" of the "legally suspect systems for addressing detainees."

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said legislation restoring habeas corpus rights will be brought to the Senate floor, possibly this month.

What does this mean?

Americans are experiencing the growing pains of searching for the soul lost by the current Administration. Just think of it. After 9/11, people were afraid to speak because they didn't want to be called "unpatriotric". We quietly witnessed "Shock and Awe" in Baghdad while enduring problematic issues afforded to civil liberties at home. And then, the anger started to rise when the pictures were released showing the flag-draped coffins of the war dead. In November, the fury hit a fever pitch when the United States populace turned out the old Congress and ushered in new politicians to make meaningful changes overturning the drastic actions taken by the Bush White House.

The anger continued to swell as the body-count continued to rise at the cost of war. Now, we've gotten to the point of caring about how legal issues affect us in the face of the War on Terror. It put us all on a path to question how societal views us legally and socially through viewing thought-provoking and compelling cases which challenge our perceptions and ideas. Furthermore, such events that depicts an unbalanced legal system often introduce issues that we need to explore when scrutinizing the people we vote for office. In that way, if there are people in office that would allow the unbalanced scale of justice to continue, why should they continue to serve the people--especially if they are not looking out for them?

It's strange to say so, but when the public outcry occurred as a result of Ms. Hilton's early release, it showed that the public could not be hoodwinked into the meaningless propaganda of the past. We were sick of Enron. We were sick of the oil companies profiting. We were tired of seeing all the Executive Statements pass. And the best of it, we were beginning to question how our country treats us legally opposed to others who existed in upper one-percentile of wealth. It was infuriating to see yet another rich person get away with facing the law.

With the news of Mr. Wilson, this righteous anger is carried on in an examination of what is right and wrong in society, especially when questioning our own societal positioning. And painfully, it revealed that the legal system is broken in many ways and needs fixing--especially when it comes down to partisan attempts to steer the law one way or another in terms of governmental policy.

The news about the jurisdiction of courts, detainees and Guantanamo Bay take these issues to an even deeper level. If the government imprisons "enemy combatants" without just cause, what could happen if the scales of justice were turned on us? Disturbing to think about, yes, but rather meaningful in trying to reflect upon how unequal things are in terms of social positioning and politics. And then, it might go into further territory when one questions whether partisan politics is responsible for tailoring our civil liberties and treatment under the law. Out of that, one might start the question why was our privacy undermined in the practices of wiretapping and datamining.

What it comes down to is that the current interest in the latest legal issues of the day shows that people are beginning to question themselves and society in the wake of 9/11 culture. We're not acting like sitting ducks anymore. The best thing is that the righteous indignation from the United States populace is forcing our politicians to look at their own actions when making decisions to affect us. There is more to go on this aspect, but when people began to struggle to find themselves after such dark times, they begin to launch social movements which challenge the way things are in small ways. You never know. It might even introduce new faces on the political landscape who will work for meaningful change and for earnest attempts in trying to employ the law in a balanced light.

In the end, this is a time to be hopeful.

Why We Ought to Care

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:20:00 +0000

It's not sexy reading, but I took a part of my Sunday to delve into The Conyers Report (2006). I found the book (subtitled George W. Bush versus The U.S. Constitution)to be eye-opening in many ways. It not only presented the research into the problematic nature of the current Administration; the text started me thinking about a most dire and pertinent issue that we cannot ignore: The Supreme Court.

I know thinking about The Supreme Court is not high on a lot of people's lists, but you have to think about this fact: there are two Justices that are nearing eighty years old and about to retire. President George W. Bush, a known conservative, is in office. He has already replaced two past positions with Chief Justice John Roberts (replacing William Renquist) and Samuel Alito (replacing Sandra Day O'Connor) who reflect the views of the current White House. Furthermore, both new officials in the highest court in the land will slant the ideological leanings toward the Right.

Some might not have a problem with that. However, others might be troubled with the future of rulings that might affect our nation's way of governing our civil liberties. This is especially the case when it comes to civil rights and abortion. In theory, the Supreme Court is to be non-partisan in its approach to rule on cases that might have lasting effects legally and socially on American citizens. However, if the current President of the United States is willing to fill the bench with partisan representatives, there might not be a fair hearing on such cases; let alone the fact that draconian measures might be entertained and accepted without hearing the other side of the matter.

There's one thing when it comes to discussing issues with others not only offline in our circle of family and friends or on-line on different forums. There's another thing when the vital issues of the day (such as stem cell research and the separation of church and state) are ruled upon without any argument coming from another point of view. Unfortunately, what you get is a court that is reflective of tyrranical decision making instead of a fair balanced body that would adequately serve as one of the "checks and balances" that our Founding Fathers had created in the first place.

And if we do have Justices that are put there to serve conservative causes, let alone the bidding of the current Administration, what exactly does justice represent? This is especially pertinent when it comes to questioning torture methods in Guantanamo Bay or whether the practice of wiretapping and datamining of everyday Americans is legal. With a slanted court, how will we be able to judge whether our Constitutional rights will be treated fairly when certain measures are brought up on the Supreme Court docket?

Problematic questions, I'm sure, but very notable to think about.

We saw the future of the highest court of the land, when it had ruled in the favor of George W. Bush after the 2000 Presidential elections. In that ruling, one could surmise that it was partisan politics without the proper hearing of the issues that had outlined the election: the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida; the problematic issues with electronic voting machines; the popular vote vs. the electoral vote. One could question whether the ruling was fair at all. Or was it an attempt to just quash the dissent that fomented out of the outrageousness in Florida?

It's not water under the bridge when one thinks about the civil liberties of the citizens in Broward county who didn't get to voice their votes fairly. It almost seemed, at the time, that not only the Voters Rights Act of 1965 was ignored, but the 15th Amendment was thrown by the wasteside as well.

Before we get jaded and think that the stacking of the court is business as usual, it is highly relevant and compelling that we take a moment to stop and think about the future of the nation in terms of the Constitution and what it stands for. Do we just go about our daily lives and let these rulings happen? Or will we write our Congresspeople when one Justice retires and inquire of them to be very vigilant when it comes to a fair hearing of our rights?

This is not an issue that will go off into the dead of night. We must care who is part of the Supreme Court because these rulings, in their small way, affect everything thing we not only stand for, but how we live. And for some of us, their rulings affect how much access we will get within American society opposed to others.

So, take the time and consider these things whenever there is news about the Supreme Court. Yes, it's not like American Idol, but nevertheless it is much more substantial than you think.

When Things Look Bad, Always "Change Course"

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:23:00 +0000

At this point in time, the Bush Administration will go down in history of making the most changes in personnel than any other administration in the record of the American Presidency. The latest change in personnel came Friday when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that General Peter Pace (one of the officials who was there since the beginning) would have to step down from his Joint Chiefs of staff position. General Pace was known to have been one of those who planned the United States policy for Afghanistan and Iraq. He suggested that former, late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be contained. And, of course, the military official had weathered the many storms that brewed around Iraq policy--even before "Shock and Awe".

What was surprising about this move is that the Bush White House accepted this decision without a fight. Unlike the stir around Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in which Mr. Bush and company challenged the move for a no-confidence vote with full guns blazing, Gen. Pace's forced outing occurred with nary a whimper. Instead, the current Administration had seen the mess that was made out of Iraq. They allegedly have their eyes open to the potential brouhaha that Turkey might bring to the place with its hostilities against the Kurds on the Northern border of Iraq. And of course, they cannot truly ignore the outcry that the American pubic has raised over wanting the troops home and ending the war overseas that has virtually become unwinnable.

Although the official reason is that Defense head Gates did not want a "divisive ordeal" occurring in the Senate when reviewing the record in retaining General Pace, this decision comes when foreign policy in the Middle East has become too much of a hot potato for America to handle. Instead of following the mantra of "staying the course", they decided--in this case--to "cut and run" (something that conservatives have openly taunted Dems of doing).

It will be interesting to see what the change of leadership has to offer, especially when events--in the wake of the G8 conference--has forced the United States to have a long, cold, hard look in the mirror of world events.

The Saga of the Poor Little Rich Girl

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:18:00 +0000

And Lo! The blonde celebutante allegedy cried out as they dragged her away in handcuffs and tears, "Mom! Mom, it isn't fair!"

She's been talked about in many circles. A million cameras have flashed her picture as she hawked her CD, fragrance or her reality show. But, Paris Hilton must take comfort in knowing that her latest exploit had even eclipsed news of the replacement of General Pace and the tummy trouble of President Bush. Friday, the cameras followed her as she hugged her mother in front of her plush, Hollywood Hills home to the cold confines of L.A. Superior Court in police car 865. The melodrama had hit a high point as court drawings had depicted the hotel heiress sobbing as the judge lowered the gavel on her attempts to circumvent the law. The judge wasn't having it. He finally had lost his patience. After being sent to house arrest after a short, two-day stint in jail, Ms. Hilton was going back to stew in the cold, hard confines of another prison cell.

However, she will get treated for her alleged "medical issues" first. In the press, some aliments ranged from "a nervous breakdown" to a "rash". Even Ms. Hilton ought to realize that there are prisoners within the confines of lock-up who have worse problems than hers. Why couldn't the medical staff in her first place of incarceration step in instead of her own personal doctor and therapist? In the hoi polloi of the prison population, any prisoner who gets sick gets sent to the prison doctor. If they have mental illness, the prison psychological staff would be sent to see them.

Well, Ms. Hilton, what was wrong with seeing the medical help on the taxpayers' dime? I bet they are just as qualified as the fancy doctors that you pay for!

But, the most interesting thing in the saga of the poor, little rich girl is the world outrage against her house confinement. Not even in the case of Martha Stewart, had I ever seen such fury being vented by the hands of the public. As I talked about this with my mom and dad(and they watched the O.J. trial in full, too), they admitted that they were shocked at the outcry of the public when they found out Ms. Hilton was whisked away from her first incarceration point to stay within the confines of her mansion. To them, it was worse than the "country club prisons" one would often hear about when white collar, corporate convicts are sent away to pay for their penalties.

What especially fascinated my dad was the response of Nicole Richie. "I mean, David Letterman asked her how she was going to face her own DUI charges and she just laughed," he told me. "Would anyone else laugh at the gravity of such charges?"

Well, Dad, Ms. Hilton isn't laughing.

The astonishment and anger coming from the public is probably because they recognize that there is really a separate justice not only racially, but also in terms of class. Let's face it. Ms. Hilton is the victim of the American economy. Everyone is tired of seeing the rich get off of offenses that the commonplace United States citizen has had to be incarcerated over. The question has been asked over and over about what would happen to the any of us if we had to face the same charges as the heiress. Especially among Black folk, we wonder what would happen if any one of us were in front of the same judge. Would he have sentenced any of us to ten to twenty years in prison and be sent to the worst prison L.A. County has to offer?

Perish the thought.

We would have been quickly ushered among the nearly two million prison population in America without any way to appeal the case. The prison doors would slam in our faces mercilessly without any tsk tsking from the public at large. It's a sad, but true fact that if we were the ones in Ms. Hilton's Jimmy Choo shoes, we would have been
"just another statistic", without any money to hire a compentent lawyer to help us get out of it.

Ms. Hilton, who is now part of that same population, still has lots of money to fight her case without going into bankrupcy. For the rest of us, we would probably have to sell everything that we own to fight the charges that would be a drop in the bucket for the idle rich.

The famous? Well that differs in a way. When we think about celebrities of color (most notably O.J. Simpson), most have had to see the inside of jail cell. In the case of O.J. alone, he had to be incarcerated in prison for at least a year. The likes of Lindsday Lohan, Britney Spears and the rest of the bubble-gum, Hollywood crowd should be so lucky( in the case of Ms. Lohan, she was caught as being underage while under the influence by the authorities after her car crash).

And that's the problem. The outrage of seeing the rich get off of charges over the years has taken their toll.

We've had to witness high-profile client after high-profile client being let off while the everyday people we know or have read about in the crime digest pages of our local papers languishing in jail without anyone caring about their welfare. The outrage comes from the common knowledge that in a nation in which jobs are hard to come by while the oil companies profit, Ms. Hilton is another example of corporate greed representative of the one-percent of the uber-rich. What is worse, the American people are also tired of watching executive statements and the underlying falsities attached to them being used as a way to skirt away from wrongdoing. For that air of rareification, only the law has to be changed in order for the person in question to get away with it.

So, Ms. Hilton should take comfort. She's being treated in the medical ward now just like everyone else. She might be out in eighteen days due to good behavior. She's lucky in a way. People care about her. But would she be able to sleep at night knowing that there are other prisoners among her than no one cares about, let alone not getting the same preferential treatment as she does?

Candidates A-Go-Go

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:58:00 +0000

We're into the election season early. For the first time I could remember, there have been debates from the candidates from both sides, trying to sell themselves in terms of what they can offer to the American people. I have to admit, there are still questions that I have about what each person running for office (declared and undeclared) has to offer. After all, we're in contentious times here.

We're in an unwinnable war in which President George W. Bush has envisioned as a South Korea model. In fact, the American leader wants troops to be a presence in Iraq for more than fifty years. That's right. You heard me. Fifty years. And with the candidates that are on the table now who want the highest job in the land, it is very important to hear from them how they are going to deal with the presence there. In fact, I have not heard one refer to the war in Iraq as an occupation. That is an important point to note in terms of voting someone into office.

Furthermore, both sides have been rather coy in trying to describe what they would do in terms of bettering the United States landscape in terms of jobs, health care and reducing the national debt. Still those are very interesting aspects that need to be brought forth because they affect us in a daily basis. Especially notable is what they are going to do about education. After all, there are plenty of young people who are graduating in May and June seeking jobs. And if the economy is bent on outsourcing and downsizing its workforce, where does it leave them?

To note, the only candidate who has especially worked on the aspects of poverty, jobs and health care has been John Edwards. Mr. Edwards, a former running mate of Massachussetts Senator John Kerry, has been very vocal about combatting poverty in the United States. In fact, he had set up a center just to do that. It is one of the most important things that we have to look into in order to have a society that is not predicated on crime and frictional unemployment. When you think about it, when people have jobs and are able to make a living for their families, they don't think about unsavory ways to make money. This was a fact during the Clinton years and it could be that way again--if he's on the right track regarding this measure.

The other important thing has to do with the likability as well as the intelligence of the candidate. Surely within the crop of political hopefuls that have been on camera during the debates, there are charismatic people who could draw a crowd by their message. Unfortunately, charisma is something. But when it is tied to intellect, then we have something here. Let's face it. We have suffered with the gaffes and the missteps of an ineffectual leader for six years. The American people deserve better in their hopes for a national leader. We have to have someone who can not only have a common touch with the working man and woman, but also someone who can use their smarts for good in terms of domestic and national policy.

What is even more, but underreported in terms of candidate eligibility is the notion of one's intolerance for cruelty. Mr. Bush, allegedly through several books (most notably Dr. Justin Frank's Bush on the Couch [2002]), has been known to lack empathy--especially when it came to the plight of the underserved in society. One highly publicized emphasis on this was during Hurricane Katrina in which the President of the United States stayed on vacation while people suffered on rooftops waiting for aid. And how some New Orleaneans put it now is that he flew over the devestated area and landed elsewhere instead of getting in touch with the people. And their neglect continues especially with the latest news of trailers that were constructed with formaldahyde. That alone has caused not only the adult residents in the FEMA structures health problems; their children have suffered immensely from this constructional flaw. The second notable aspect is the lack of feeling for the innocent civilians who have died during the "occupation". Mr. Bush has said few words about their plight in wartorn Iraq. Instead, he and his cohorts focus on democracy without any cultural or historical understanding of the region nor its peoples.

It is about time we elect someone with a conscience who can treat all people with dignity. I know I'm not the only one, but isn't it about time we look past someone who can just look good in photo-op that says the right things, but does not convey any feeling behind it? We need someone who is actually genuine that can sit in the chair of the Presidency.

The other aspect is the "secrecy" and the undoing of civil liberties in American society. Not one candidate has has the gumpton to speak about the wiretapping and datamining that has occurred as a result of the NSA program. It would be entirely helpful if a debate was set up on this fact. Furthermore, what has been trouble some is the corruption that has occurred within the Bush White House. I know that the candidates are walking on eggshells to please everyone right now, but if one would be vocal about this and show that there would be changes in place to protect our rights in America, it would be far better than just waiting around and watching people vote with their feet instead of with their heads on this issue.

The only thing now is to sit and wait to see how this unfolds. I'm not going to kid you. The next President of the United States will have a long row to tow in terms of trying to rebuild America in terms of its foreign policy and domestic issues. Yes, terrorism is a problem as well, but I think that there are other situations on the plate that have to be looked at instead of using fear as a tactic in order to get votes. So, keep your eyes people and your minds keen. We've got to scrutinize every candidate and their voting record like there's no tomorrow. Our society depends on it.

CNV Forum News

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:29:00 +0000

In case you've been wondering what has happened to me between the last post and now it has been because I've taken a little time off (in between RL obligations) to promote Ceci's News and View Forum. It's been rather hard, but two months have taught me quite a deal about the forum running business. Between networking and trying to gain more members, it's been a wild ride. We've got a lot of things planned for the community in terms of podcasts and a CNV blog showcasing our member's talents.

Furthermore, I've been also involved in site promotion and advertising as well. Along with CNV, I've started Publicity Junction as a place for forum runners to promote the content of their message boards. Included are the advertising of other blogs in the blogosphere (in case any blog writers are interested, please click on my sister site Publicity Junction for details). I find that for forums to be a success, there needs to be a community of administrators and blog writers who will get together in order to exchange observances and work toward each other's success. I know that some might think that it is a dog-eat-dog business in which forum runners and blog writers actively compete against each other, but in the end, one needs to build allies in terms of promotional ideas for the betterment of all. So, please do stop by the sister forum and see some of our forums we advertise there.

However, the most important news for CNV is the fact that we're changing hosts. We've enjoyed our run on Proboards. And now, it is time to find a place that will help with the growing community. So, we're at a new home. It is: http://z7.invisionfree.com/cecinews/. Hopefully there, we will be able to attract more people to become a part of our community as well as engage in some very fascinating topical discussions. So don't be left out. Join the fray and contribute your two cents. We need you. :)

What Do We Do About the Dems?

noreply@blogger.com (Ceci) — Thu, 24 May 2007 05:18:00 +0000

I know that everyday Dems have been rather saddened by the news of the "compromise" of the spending bill. In fact, on talk radio last night, I had heard phone calls saying that they were so incensed at what happened that they wanted to change their voter affiliation to "Decline to State" as a show of no-confidence in the Democratic leaning Congress.

However, I tend to have a different view on the turn of events. Yes, in my heart of hearts, I wish that there were more Dems in the mold of Sen. Feingold, Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Dennis Kucinich who would stand up and voice their opinions anyway despite the Republican stranglehold that seems to be over government these days. It is true that I would like the Dems to gain a little backbone and fight back beyond a mere exchange of words. I would like for them to be more consolidated in terms of building efforts to gain support among the American populace because this is certainly a time in which the government does not have our best interests at heart.

But, I think that the Dems shouldn't have given in to let President Bush get what he wants: no time-table in terms of pulling the troops out of Iraq. When I heard last night that the latest version of the bill would not have this stipulation included, I just shook my head. Boy, I ask, what other political commentators have inquired throughout the day: "In this concession, what did the Dems get out of it?" Heck. It seemed that President Bush and his cronies didn't lose a damned thing in the fight to bring the troops home. It seemed as if he had gotten things his way without even giving in anything on his part to do so.

I would wish that Speaker of the House Pelosi would finally put her foot down and tear up the latest version of the bill. It would be a show of force to just tell President Bush, "Too bad" and keep on rolling with the past version. Mr. Bush could scream and yell. He, as well as the Karl Rove, could send out Republican talking points to the news outlets ad nauseum with special beatdowns by Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews and the rest.

But the point would have been made. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and the rest of the Dems would have said no to Mr. Bush and his demands because the majority of the American people do not want this war in Iraq to go on. And if they, among a group of others in their platform, would have faced the camera and said exactly that, it would be seen as a position of strength that goes beyond compromises.

This is the time not to worry about the effects such a decision might have in Election 2008. The bill is representative of an issue that has torn the nation, if not the world, at the seams. And there needs to be movement against "staying the course" and pouring more funds into a situation that hasn't made any progress since it has started. It should say something when Mr. Bush's own party, the GOP, had demanded a show of progress "or else" (and we still don't know to this day what the "or else" means).

Ignore the Rovian talking points. Stop believing the hype about the fear campaign that is used to keep us in line. It's time for the people to compel the Dems to have courage in their fight against the President in order to set things right and bring our troops home.