Ceci's News and Views

The Long, Long Silence

2007-11-19T22:51:00.000-08:00

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

2007-08-29T19:23:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-22T15:32:00.000-07:00

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.....

2007-08-03T01:31:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-14T18:48:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-14T17:50:00.001-07:00

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!

2007-07-13T14:14:00.000-07:00

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. :)

2007-07-12T14:14:00.001-07:00

Everything You Know Is Wrong

2007-07-12T13:19:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-11T16:50:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-10T16:30:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-05T07:04:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-04T11:49:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-02T00:38:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-01T23:54:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-21T22:44:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-18T20:54:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-17T23:54:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-11T23:40:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-10T00:20:00.000-07:00

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"

2007-06-09T15:23:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-08T14:18:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-05T18:58:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-04T19:29:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-05-23T22:18:00.001-07:00

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.

A Small Note About My Mother

2007-05-13T22:23:00.000-07:00

Mother's Day, of course, is a time in which we pay homage to our mothers for doing the things that they do in order to make our lives better through love and nurturing. It is also a time to think deeply about why they work so hard to help us in the name of love.

And, I'd like to share a little bit about my own mom.

I think about my own mother, who is an intelligent, beautiful, witty and elegant woman. She always has a kind word to say about everyone while being tough as nails. She donates her time to worthy causes, especially with the homeless. And, knowing that she is a strong lady who carries herself with the utmost dignity, she has taught me to do the same even when times are difficult.

She has always influenced my sister and myself that life had a lot of possibilities for us. When we were little, she took us to the library three times a week. And she would always read to us before we went to bed. What was especially neat is that she would discuss what we were reading with us. That simple act led us on to bigger and better things, especially when staying aware of what was affecting us in terms of culture, society and politics.

My mom wouldn't call herself a political animal by any stretch of the imagination. However, she would always watch the news, listen to the radio and read a paper everyday. It was because of those simple habits, that she encouraged us to do the same. For my sister and myself, doing such things weren't boring. Because she and my father had told us early in life that events in society and politics affected us personally, that we had to stay aware of what was happening. As a result, she also had a part in introducing political talk around the dinner table every night until I left home to pursue higher education. Our dinner table was never silent. While pork chops or spaghetti was put on the plate, my mother would start out many a night by saying, "Did you guys hear about.....". Before we knew it, it would be a full fledged conversation not only of the things that happened in our lives, but how they extended into politics and culture.

Ever since I could remember, she would always encourage us to read and watch the news. In fact, it wasn't an assignment for myself or my sister. We'd do it because it would produce some of the most lively and interesting discussions around the dinner table. And although she wasn't as vocal as my dad and myself, she would make sure that her side was heard. And that was an important lesson for me. As you already know, I have always said that I am a very shy person. On-line, I have learned how to speak up for myself more. Sometimes, it has caused me to take part of some very controversial discussions. But, her act had taught me to speak up and never feel ashamed about my opinion. And it is that very lesson in which I am grateful to her for because without it, I wouldn't have the courage to write a blog, participate in a forum or even have a forum of my own.

She also taught me that even though we don't win every debate or get our feelings fully expressed in every conversation, we pick ourselves up and continue talking. It has been that wise stance that has also carried me through when things got a little contentious in discussing the latest issues that have caused our country much strife.

Even today, we still have those talks on the phone about politics, current news and culture. As we get older, she has revealed to me more and more about how she feels regarding the conditions of society. But, it is always based on the same premise of having the courage and conviction of expressing one's opinion about the world with conscience and erudition.

I thank her for that. Her small lessons in simply reading, conversing and watching the news has made me a more consciously aware adult now.

Happy Mother's Day, Mom, with a lot of love. :)

Difficult Choices For the Long Haul

2007-05-09T01:58:00.000-07:00

Although forum duties and real life has made everything a bit busy on the home front for me, it has never escaped my mind to think about what America has gotten itself into when it comes to Iraq.

We're at the point in which some very deep choices have to be made. It is time to realize that the body count is getting higher, civil war is breaking out and the policies that the current Administration has pushed are not working. It is even getting to the point that the GOP (led by Minority Whip Trent Lott) is demanding that the Bush White House show some marked improvement or "else"(they never mentioned what the "else" constituted in the news, but it makes you wonder what they have up their sleeves).

Many times I have written on the state of America's soul as a nation. And I think that how we have conducted ourselves overseas can be a pretty good indicator of how dark it is right now. Of course, there will be people with a conscience trying to settle matters as amicably as they could. But in the end, there needs to be a face put on the "collateral damage" that Rumsfeld had glibly put early on in the Iraqi War.

Too many people have died. Too much rubble is in the streets. Iraq still is in the midst of a water and energy shortage. Their police force and army still needs to be built up. And there is still a movement to get America out of the country because damage has ensued.

It is hard to fathom, but there are still a small group of people who still think that we are doing things altruistically over there. In their minds, the United States is bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq. However, I wonder if they had read the Iraq Study Report made last year or actually view some of the documentaries on the state of things overseas. I even wonder if PNAC, the Downing Street Memos or the oil and defense industries making money over there mean a thing to them.

For the rest of us who do and can wade through the propaganda steadily coming through the pipeline of the MSM, we see the drastic effects of a failed policy that resulted in an insurmountable war. There are even more of us that voted our conscience last November when we got the politicians out who was contributing to this terrible policy and were instrumental in leading us as a country down the wrong path.

And seven years later, we still have not had any answers in terms of the "Terror Threat Management" theory that has been cast over the national populace. There are no answers for the torture that happened in Abu Graib or in Guantanamo Bay. No explainations are coming for "staying the course" over there, even with the protestations that George Tenet had spoken of in the press as of late.

We are still in a quagmire that continues to grow. Hope continues that a brave memberof Congress will force the issue of finally getting the truth out there so the American people can actually see what went wrong. And hopefully, there will be wise politicians finally starting to put together an exit strategy so that the men and women of our armed forces finally come home.

But the terrible realisation still is coming when viewing the repercussions of what had happened in the Middle East. America has ruined its good standing on the world stage. It has caused a lot of countries to question our mindset when choosing national leaders to govern the nation. And of course, we have still have to deal with reparing these politics in terms of foreign diplomacy.

It's time for Congress and the current Administration to finally stop the shenanigans and put an end to this dark mark in history so that things can change for the better.

Are Americans Too Soft?

2007-05-02T22:53:00.000-07:00

Whenever the call has been made to get to the truth of the Iraq War and to impeach the President of the United States, there has always been the rejoinder, "We wouldn't want to put the American people through a long trial". I've always wondered why, after all the descriptions of American "rugged individualism", "outspokeness" and "liberty", do dignitaries think that we cannot handle the truth coming out in a Congressional oversight committee or an independent hearing. Is it the fact that after being citizens of a "Super Power" in which we are "number one", that we wilt when we see our national leaders sit and squirm while they tell us what we've wanted to know after this time?

Perish the thought. Americans are more hardier than that. We don't sip mint juleps on the veranda and have a fainting spell at the slightest offense. It's all about keeping the cold, hard facts from the people and letting them sift through seven years of double-speak and talking points put forth by the MSM. It's a shame, too. Because there are answers to be had--especially after America entered the war with Iraq. We need to know about the torture that happened at the detention centers at home and abroad. We also need to find out why after all the UN fact checking that it just couldn't be taken as gospel that there were on WMD's in Iraq.

We also need to see some demonstration of holding our national leaders accountable for what has happened in Iraq. It doesn't need to be a polite, genteel proceeding like the ones you usually see when the Senate and the House is in session. There shouldn't be, "I'll yield three minutes to the Gentleman from so-and-so" and "I respectfully yield my time". No, nyet, nada.

There are sometimes that civility needs to be done away with in order to get to the truth. Sometimes, that viability has to be hard to hear. But for historical purposes, it needs to be done. The justification that the Congress is the "people's house" has to be restored. As I had spoken to someone earlier, it is the fact that we pay taxes. As a result, the salaries and elections of our politicians are in our hands. We ought to know what they are doing. And one must get tired of hearing scandal after scandal, whatever-gate after whatever-gate. Don't you think after so many years of flubs, side-stepping and denials, that someone ought to come clean and tell us the straight dope?

It is apropro to bring up another one of my common motifs in my entries: that America has to find its soul. Yes, our soul has been tattered and torn during the years of the current Administration. Our spirit has been tested through trials of fear, terrorism and words only meant to soothe temporary wounds. But the salve will not just work anymore. There needs to be some major surgery in order for our country to heal and get better.

Part of that has to be a call for courage and conscience in the government. Judging from the November 2006 elections, the citizens voted for a change in the way that business is done. Don't you think that someone might have the bravery to speak out and get the ball rolling before we sink any deeper in these dark times in which secrecy is held supreme and truth is duplicitous?

Let's hope so.

Mission Accomplished?

2007-05-01T16:25:00.000-07:00

One cannot forget when the President of the United States stood upon a battleship dressed in a flight uniform and pronounced to a rapt crowd, "Mission Accomplished". The euphoria of that day denoted that the conflict in Iraq was over. The "Shock and Awe" that rained bombs upon Baghdad in a firey display had demonstrated the power of American supremacy. In the perception of the past, Mr. Bush and Co. thought it was going to be easy. It was as good as taking the oil and running away with giving another country some much needed "democracy" to boot.

Boy, he was wrong. What the past proclamation did was awaken a "sleeping giant". If you fast forward today, recruitment for Al Qaeda is higher. The Iraqi people are in the midst of civil war between the different religious sects in their own country. And the "insurgents" began to wage a war against the occupation that has decimated their country.

Mr. Bush--allegedly in the height of the "We're number one!" business--didn't perceive that acts of aggression have real effects. Not everyone is going to take what America is going to give hook, line and sinker. Due to foreign policies that flew in the face of the diplomacy in the past, we are not "number one" in the eyes of the world. In fact, a lot of people overseas question the judgement of the American people for voting in such a man and adopting his policies.

For the rest of us who question the policies that were laid out from the "Mission Accomplished" stance, we also had to put up with the calls of being "liberal" and "unpatriotic". After all, anyone who would feel a little put off from the orgiastic display of that day, would not be for America, right?

Six years down the road and four years of warfare in Iraq have slowly bubbled to the surface. It seems that the evidence, propaganda and testaments to the "good we're doing over there" has run false. It's not so much to say that "we told you so." But now come the time that we've got to work from the the legacy of what happened in order to repair our reputation and end the conflicts that have done so much damage overseas.

It has been said here over the past few months that we need oversight committees. We definitely do. We need investigations into the reasons of the Iraq war, especially concentrating on the evidence and how it was allegedly falsified. It needs to be put into the national record so that citizens in the future can read how not to trust the fate of the nation into the hands of those who don't have our best interests at heart. Furthermore, these records would stand as a testament of a dark time in American society, in which the soul of the nation was lost to the corporation.

The money that was spent on a war based on lies could only show us that we need to urge Congress to keep on threatening to cut off the money. Congress, not the President, has the power of the purse. And even though Mr. Bush is going to veto this bill, they have to have the courage to keep on pushing it. If one would think back a little further about the circumstances that ended the Vietnam War, it was Congressional power of the purse that provided one of the causes to end the fighting.

Despite the current Administration's push toward Executive Privilege, Congress still has a few Aces in their pockets. Play them and relieve the rest of us from enduring the aftermath of bad leadership.

America Needs to Face the Past on Slavery

2007-04-30T16:43:00.000-07:00

There are always those that tell African-Americans who want to discuss the legacy of slavery to "get responsibility" and that "it is a thing of the past". But, when one petulantly tells non-white people to do this, they are missing the boat entirely. What they don't see is that the effects of slavery still occur on a daily basis--right down to how different races treat each other on a daily basis.

They don't see that slavery was built upon the "privileges" of skin color that still exist today. They don't see the unearned benefits that have resulted from the notion of "superiority" that allows certain access to some while others get left behind. The naysayers do not even notice that when they tell a non-white person to "take responsbility", that they are never clear on what needs to be done. Nor, it is not noticed that the people of color to whom this is addressed to have "taken responsibility" in their own lives and work very hard to make themselves a productive member in society.

All in all, this is done as a way of "shutting up the opposition". By using catchphrases that demean the experiences and words of the non-white people, it is as if the very essence of legacies that have marked our nation do not matter. The sad part of this is that when people do not want to have an honest talk about slavery, they are perpetuating what other people in the dominant culture in the past has done. In essence, they are continuing the same vicious cycle of burying one's head in the sand hoping that it will go away.

Slavery can not be "dealt with" by just "getting over it". As an descendant of slaves who have had to experience the brutal effects at the hands of their overseers, fellow citizens and Masters, their experiences and lives are a part of my family heritage. I can't sweep their life stories and contributions to America under the rug like those who would say that other non-white people "ought to". In fact, if I did try to take their advice and "sweep it under the rug", that would be just as good as ignoring that they exist as a part of my lineage. It would also mean that I would have been complicit in dehumanizing them as those who want others to "take responsibility" would have done.

In that light, it is highly important that slavery is dealt with honestly instead of resorting to the words of political pundits who have no identification with the life experiences belonging to the decendant of slaves. As long as they continue to spread their issues of lack of identification with the experiences of non-white people to their audiences, we will continue to have the problems with discussing race as we do today. Or else, if race is to be discussed in terms of slavery, it would have to be done on their terms and no one else's.

Maybe we should take responsibility in trying to have a true discussion on the repercussions of slavery. For those who favor responsibility, they have to take it among themselves to not shy away from the brutality of the system and address the decendents of slaves honestly by explaining themselves when they say such denigrating terms as "crying about race" or "getting over it". What they don't understand is that not everyone operates in the same way they do when sweeping the contributions and histories of their ancestors under the rug and stoically going on.

Some of us value our families more than others. And for those of us who truly want to give a life-affirming value to our relatives who have worked and lived under extreme circumstances, we owe it to them to tell their stories and to work with others to make a society that understands each other historically, socially and economically. This is especially the case when their legacies still haunt and affect us still. It's not so much about "getting over it". It is about being clear about how they have shaped American history and life. Furthermore, we must use their legacy to postively change how we relate with others in the future.

The Fuss About George Tenet

2007-04-27T23:10:00.000-07:00

In the middle of the week, former CIA chief George Tenet came out with explosive words regarding the early evidence leading up to the Iraq War. The moment of contention occurred when he was mentioned in Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack of the evidence being a "slam dunk". In the words of the current Administration, he had allegedly spoken as if he was sure of the "proof" that would be enough to prove Iraq was a threat to the United States.

But that was water under the bridge. Six years later, Mr. Tenet allegedly spoke that the mere mentioning of that phrase had brought him down a peg or two. This was especially so when the Downing Street memos came out as well as the assertions from Hans Blix and Scott Ritter that there were no WMD's to be found.

He wrote of these awarenesses in an upcoming book. One could say that it was his way of telling the world his side of the story as the casualties mount up. And it even seems quite metaphorical especially when walls are a part of the policy of dealing with the civil unrest that happens daily on the streets of Iraq.

Looking back at all that has happened, it is hard to say that it was a "slam dunk"--even when looking at how our soldiers have been treated overseas and at home. Worse, it is hardly a score when for the sake of allegedly falsified evidence the citizens at home have to deal with their civil liberties taken away for the "War on Terror".

The scary thing is the fact that some Americans actually believe "for the sake of safety", that believing everything that the government said was a good thing. And in the in the end, all it amounted to was a campaign built upon fear which is constantly played up even in the MSM today.

It has been said that we would finally know the story years later when the books start to be written. Perhaps Mr. Tenet's book is the first of a long line of texts which try to explain to us what exactly happened despite the tight-lipped arrogance of the Bush White House.

Iraq Takes Center Stage Once Again

2007-04-26T00:42:00.000-07:00

To most people, CSPAN is this place where an unblinking camera eye focuses on the events in Washington calmly. A soft voice over announces the events of the day while this unfettered view of governmental events is sprinkled with calls from citizens all over the country.

And then, there are days like this one in which watching CSPAN is akin to viewing the "Friday Night Fights". The bill of contention calls attention toward changing the Iraq War policy. And believe you me. The talk expressed today did not strive to put anyone asleep. There were strong words to be had on both sides of the aisle. And from the various arguments, one could see the emotional sides of the debate streaming through in terms of what to do with this conflict overseas.

There were several speeches standing out during today's proceedings about the Additional 2007 Spending Conference Report. And from what was viewed, both sides were not happy. Not in the least.

Rep. James Moran (D.-Va) had some sharp words that echoed some of the sentiments against what happened in terms of the dealings in Iraq. He did not stand idly by. Calling the government "corrupt", he found it ironic that for a White House allegedly declaring that Iraq was a lot safer in the past, not one dignitary ventured out of the highly touted "green zone" (supposedly the safest part of the country). He tersely called into question the government's priorities when it came to the soldiers, especially those killed or injured. His words especially reminded one of the deplorable conditions in the Walter Reed Center, where the living casualties from the conflict dealt with moldy walls and shoddy treatment.

However, the Republicans did not stay silent after stinging commentary. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R.-Ga), felt that these latest arguments from the Dems stemmed from special interests. Of course, it did not escape him to mention the insinuation that "Moveon.Org and other liberal organizations" had a hand in pushing this legislation. Of course, one forgets the special interest groups that helped push Republican legislation over the past six years, but we've got to forget that. Now, he allegedly felt that there was a reason behind this and a "liberal conspiracy" was not far behind. Unfortunately, he connected this with the same diatribe of Democrats not "giving victory a chance". One could tell that this was yet another criticism of Sen. Harry Reid's (D.-Nev.)words that this was an unwinnable war.

Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D.-Tx) could not let that pass with yet another glowing moment in the talks that were held today. She announced that there was "no white flag on this side of the aisle". She clearly explained the issues in the bill being pushed in Congress. It was to put a check on the President and it also put money towards veterans hospitals, especially those which dealt with traumatic brain injuries. She also did not sit down before thanking those who served, especially the nine soldiers who lost their lives earlier this month.

The other notable comment came from Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill). Always outspoken and to the point, he called the Iraq war policy, "the worst national security crisis". He also added that there was "no real plan for success" there. His statements hit it all home because he alluded to the White House and the Republicans always asking and doing the same thing without any change in the circumstances in the Middle East. He alone called it out in terms of disastrous actions that will have terrible repercussions for years to come.

What to make of this?

Read this from the Baltimore Sun:

Defiant and unified last night in the face of a promised presidential veto, House Democrats pushed through an emergency war spending bill that orders President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by this fall.

The 218-208 vote, largely along party lines, is expected to be followed today by Senate approval of the same measure.

The president has promised to veto the bill early next week.

The $124 billion measure funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the year and provides billions for veterans' health care and other nonmilitary programs.

Missing the suspense of congressional war debates earlier this year, yesterday's vote is merely one act in a largely scripted political drama unfolding in Washington as congressional Democrats intent on challenging the president push ahead with a bill they know will never become law.

The punchline to the entire thing has to do with accountability. In the past, the current Administration has participated in their actions afforded to the Iraq War while deflecting any sort of criticism that calls into question the ethics and the truth behind this conflict. The sad thing is that without taking any sort of responsibility, what you get is nothing but a fettered mess in which more people are dying daily without any sort of true empathy about their passing at the hands of battle.

What you get is a lot of questions without any depth of answer from the current Administration. And if the Democrats and others do not investigate the reasons behind the conflict, who will?

The Dems need to stick to their guns despite the veto. The people need to know the reasons behind why we're over there. And most importantly, we must take care of our men and women overseas while showing concern for the civilians caught in the crossfire. There are no boundaries in war. Instead, what happens is that all sides are affected desperately. And without any insight to the policy, casualties and propaganda are all we get.

Two Weeks That Will Live in Infamy

2007-04-22T20:34:00.000-07:00

One only needs to be frank here. The past two weeks had raised not only issues that need to be discussed in America; the past fortnight reminded us all how vunerable we truly are in terms of understanding humanity. It seems that sometimes there are events that are out of our control. No matter how we want to have everything nicely ordered, there are chaotic occurrences that seem to bring matters that are seemingly swept under the rug back into the national spotlight.

Race is something that is emotional to a lot people. But what the Don Imus event and the shooting at Virginia Tech taught is that America not only needs to deal with its multiculturalism; it needs to discuss how citizens treat the disenfranchised in the nation.

Cho Seung Hui, I reiterate, was deeply troubled. As his writings and videologs demonstrated, he had deep seated feelings concerning how he viewed the world and how the world treated him. Unfortunately, he took his angst and rage out against his classmates and faculty which resulted in 32 lost lives, making himself the 33rd one. In the midst of this tragedy, one has to take a step back and continue to research the issues why. Although CNN (with small dabblings from Soledad O'Brien and Anderson Cooper) tried to delve into the cultural angle, there still needs to be more work done in this area because it would probably say much more about his attitudes and motivations than the usual forensic explaination that paints the "school shooter".

One of the things that stood out about Mr. Cho was the fact that he was bullied in High School and College. And as CNN noted in their special report this evening, the alleged gunman left secondary school without any friends. He ceased to know his own personality to the point of referring to himself as a question mark. Others refused to understand him. Since, he did not get any help in trying to personally find himself, he imploded. His implosion sadly caused a tragedy that will never be erased in the minds of the victims of this terrible happening as well as the viewers who watched it. He died leaving more questions instead of answers.

What was especially relevant about the last week is the fact that there was plenty of rage to spread around. This rage was especially punctuated when NBC and other news outlets tried to air the writings and videolog of Mr. Cho. The outcry of the public was so fierce that it resulted in the media pulling back their coverage to suit the temperment of those who were grieving. When you are thinking in terms of the media mindset, one has to ask whether it was the right thing to do.

Knowing that uncovering the motivations of Mr. Cho was a story itself (despite the remarks from some of the audience who said his side of the story was a "non-issue because they didn't want to know), it probably was a stab at rare decency that the news organizations decided not to delve into this aspect of the story more than that one day. But for those people in the audience who truly wanted to know why Mr. Cho did what he did, this act only served to prove that sometimes special interests get in the way of objectivity--especially when it comes down to the public's right to know.

Amongst all this, his race was a non-issue. Part of this reason was because that still a lot of the viewing public do not "see" race. They would rather be "color-blind". When race is usually dealt with in the news, it is done in the perspective of the dominant culture with few other interpretations.

Say what you will, but Mr. Cho's posthumous presence on the small screen disturbingly brought up not only matters which had to do with stereotype (especially when commented upon by clinicians and criminologists from the dominant culture). His aura alone challenged and reinforced stereotypes that people had about non-white people. And despite the fact that the news outlets tried to write off this aspect, even they were ill equipped to deal with this phenomenon except to resort to the tried and true interpretations of the "school shooter": a "loner"; "always persecuted"; "tried to fit in"; "vented his rage in writings and songs (Collective Soul)". But with the cultural issue held out at the surface, one thing the media will not discuss is the phenomenon of bullying--especially when it has to do with non-white people in education. There is a lot to be said here, but then again, it brings up another issue about culture and society: the aftermath of Don Imus' words.

Mr. Imus was fired from his job for calling the Women's Basketball team from Rutgers University, "nappy headed ho's". For some people commenting on Mr. Imus' phrase, they felt that too much was made out of this notion. And of course, they vented the blame on civil rights dignitaries Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. The problem that both Mr. Cho and Mr. Imus' case presents is that there is always a pass when it comes to derogatory things said by the dominant culture. And when they are spoken in reference to a person of color, it is usually referred to "as a joke". The speaker "didn't mean anything by it". Or, there is an expressed obliviousness to the meaning of the "derogatory speech", no matter how hurtful it is to the people of color involved.

During the coverage of the tragedy of Virginia Tech, much was made out of the fact that Cho somehow defied the stereotypes of the "model minority". It was as if he went down the wrong path because he "didn't try to work toward the American Dream" and that "he couldn't fit in and work really hard". But yet, he was "silent" and "reserved". But no one noticed how much the stereotypes weighed upon him. His underlying anger in defiance of these stereotypes came out unfortunately in his works. And for the people of color who found offence from being called "nappy-headed", such phrases resort from the dominant gaze marking the presence of non-white people in society. Added with the constant ridiculing of the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, the same stereotypes weighed heavily on Black people because in the dominant culture, they "didn't get over it" and "screamed about race again". Not only that, they "attacked Mr. Imus' rights of free speech". No sooner after that, Mr. Imus was turned into an "embattled" person who was being used as a "scapegoat" as a result of a "non-issue" that made "too much fuss".

But what people don't understand about both cases is that these stereotypes exist. And there are people who are from the dominant culture that participate in this type of denigrating speech--if not in whispers, but also in a public venue. And there has been too many times, the dominant culture has told non-white people to "get over it" and to "stop crying about it" in order to force them to be complicit with the things said. And when situations arise that results from all this inverted anger, still the pieces are left for the public to ask why instead of trying to discuss the issue honestly.

Most importantly, in the dominant gaze, one expects a non-white person to "sweep cultural issues" under the rug like one does. But when these things are in a person of color's face day in and out, how can one hold it in and remain silent? A non-white person cannot, especially when time after time pundits like Mr. Imus and the rest of the media engage in this descriptive talk without any criticism back. And when there is an outcry over the denigrating language, it suddenly becomes bothersome, so much so, that spokespersons from the dominant culture turn against people of color for bringing it up. And there is no idea how much it affects non-white people when this happens. Instead, there are calls from the dominant public to "join American culture" and "stop being a victim".

The problem with this is the fact that such talk does no good. And when it is echoed in the media over and over, it only seems to reinforce the type of behavior that forces non-white people to hold in their feelings in fear that their experiences might be dismissed. When people of color do bring these things up amongst themselves, there is always someone from the "peanut gallery" who will call for them to "take responsbility" and "stop bringing up these things and treat people like all humans regardless of color". Unfortunately, this talk does not reveal the awareness that despite the fact that we are all "human beings", there are differences between us that has caused institutional racism as a result of history, politics and society.

Instead, there are some who would like the rest of us to think that "nothing happened". And some will blatantly and petulantly announce in discussions about culture, "There's nothing to see here".

But there is something to see here. These two issues reveal that there is much more to be said before the healing takes place in America. After all, America has to not only deal with its recent past in terms of disparaging treatment towards some of its cultural groups; it has to come to terms with itself in recognizing what has happened to groups outside of the dominant culture, especially when dealing with feelings and experiences that are rendered different.

'Real Talk' About a Senstive Issue

2007-04-18T23:04:00.000-07:00

Today's focus on the tragic events on Virginia Tech's campus dwelled on trying to define the personality of the alleged gunman, Cho Seung Hui. I have no doubt because of what he did, his name will probably be famous enough to feed America's fascination with the perpetrators of violence. Of course, his face, actions and writings have been plastered on every media outlet since it has been discovered that he sent a package to NBC before his final descent into a VT building.

Throughout the day, the surrealness of his message posthumously aired as pundits, politicians, criminologists and the like gave their two cents about why he might have done it. As riveting as these investigative stories were, there is quite another sensitive issue revealed when looking at the media-objectification of the 23-year-old man.

There is no doubt that Mr. Cho was a very troubled, mentally unstable, young man who needed help on many levels. When celebrated poetess and VT professor Nikki Giovanni even told her department heads that if they didn't do something about him she'd quit, you know that something must have been up during this long descent towards the terrible events of this week.

While the FBI criminologists tried to sort this out, I delved into the views of other people of color like myself who are trying to make sense out of this. I had to read their words to help formulate a fuller picture of this sad occurrence.

As a person of color, one really sees how the media treats non-white people--whether they are good or bad. In the case of Mr. Cho, it was rather eye-opening to watch the politicians, pundits and clinicians from the dominant culture try to be "as racially neutral" in their statements in a "colorblind" way. However, the words and the images truly speak for themselves, especially when other issues quietly wend their way into the discourse of the tragedy at Viriginia Tech.

Some of the broadcast items on the air conveyed that Mr. Cho's act coincides with "illegal immigration". He was a legal resident of America. However, that even came a close second to what was used in conjunction with this first description. When one reporter had said he was an "legalized alien", the descriptions of Mr. Cho's criminality took an entirely different turn.

When I heard these definitions about Mr. Cho's personality, I wondered whether the broadcast journalist who brought up these descriptive, negative terms, thought any differently about this statement in comparison to the other perjorative term, "illegal". What was worse (and subtly done, I might add as in the Imus case) is that the media outlets trotted out the "token" people of color in order to show that there wasn't any disparities in the reportage. While this was happening, it did not escape me that a high percentage of interviewees who received face-time on cable about their pain and suffering belonged to the dominant culture.

Now, that does not take away from the fact that all people suffered from this horrible happening. And it shouldn't. But, in the media, perceptions are the key--whether it is someone saying that a group of young women are "nappy-headed ho's" or whether a 23-year old man was thought of as barely "saying two words in class" and "persecuted by rich kids".

The underlying motif that seemed to play under the narrative of trying to define Mr. Cho continued with the usual stereotypes of being "quiet" and "unassuming". Even the early assumptions about him were weighed on the fact that "he might have gotten a bad grade and retaliated because of it". Blatantly, these aspects might go unnoticed by some of the viewing public. But to others, this stereotypically points to the myth of the "model minority", that somehow Mr. Cho was an "anomaly" among other Asians in the guise that he "acted out" while others stoically "hold it in and try to work hard to make it in America".

I could only wonder how the media would have done it if a Black man was found to be the shooter instead of a Asian man. One could only speculate now, but I know that it would even be a little bit uglier--if you take the media-objectification of Colin Ferguson and the D.C. Snipers into mind.

I only wish that someone would break ranks in the MSM and invite someone who could provide a cultural perspective on this issue. It would be helpful in order to not only continue breaking the silence and stigma surrounding race in America; but also to provide a different take on these events that go beyond the usual explainations that come out of the cable talk shows and the network investigative shows. If this were to happen, it might make this issue more broad and encompassing than the usual "loner, delusional, persecuted" explaination that continues to be peddled.

I wonder if anyone tried to ask the question why Mr. Cho felt persecuted instead of writing it off as solely delusional? Did it not occur to some of the journalists that in college, a lot of students of color have to face institutional racism in terms of education?

These things are a factor of life for a lot people of color on a daily basis, but especially in higher education. But the question still remains silent and unspoken.

In that light, there are few investigative journalists and pundits of color who are given a chance to give their perspective on major events. And of course, when crime happens, few clinicians and criminologists of color are even invited to weigh in and give meaning to what happened. Unfortunately, this does not happen on a regular basis. And when extraordinary events occur such as this one, they are quite non-existent.

But until news departments try to make changes in their coverage, all we'll get is the same old song and dance--unless there is an audience committed enough to write them and force them to adjust their narrowed view.

In the Midst of Tragedy, We Cannot Forget the Shenanigans at the Capital and Issues in American Society

2007-04-17T22:56:00.000-07:00

This is almost a heresy during this week to bring it up. This tragedy is terrible, but we cannot forget that there are several hot-button issues that up on the plate in Washington.

For starters, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is still in the hot-seat due to the firings of the eight U.S. District Attorneys. Yes, he has a lot to answer for. Although he got a reprieve recently due to current events, he can't stay away forever. He has to answer for his part in this drama. And, the oversight committee that is looking into this matter has to stay on their job and get to the bottom of this because it points to further corruption that has been going on in the current Administration.

And then, there is the voting rights issue for the District of Washington. The citizens of this area are Americans who deserve a full and equal voice in the federal government as much as anyone else in the United States. They need to have more than a representative in Congress. They need to have one with voting rights in federal business that counts.

Clearly and succinctly, DC Fusion delves into this aspect on his blog, "Scripted Musings for No one in Particular". Find out more about this pertinent issue by reading his entries. He has written two very good, recent pieces on this subject that points out the issues intelligently of why the citizens of DC deserve equal representation in government.

Lest we forget the conflict in Iraq and the war drums toward Iran. This is something that is very pertinent in terms of national and foreign policy. Yes, Mr. Bush had gone "out of his way" to show compassion to the fallen this week. However, that does not excuse him and the rest of his cronies in office for what they have done in terms of whittling away civil liberties and concocting a war based on fabrication. They still need to be asked about these matters. And most of all, the Congress must work to bring a change in the policies of the Middle East and work on bringing our men and women home.

Last but not least, the Don Imus occurrence last week must not be forgotten. Sure, he's fired from his job. And, he might potentially be rehired again. But his words have uncovered a deeper issue within the social fabric of American society that goes beyond First Amendment rights. It's not about having the freedom to say whatever you want. It's about what you use with that freedom of speech, especially when it has to do with respect and conscience. The problem here is that the past event with the talk show host has revealed that America has to be serious about discussing social disparity and race in the United States. People cannot remain silent and brush it off with convenient, but inocuous "catch phrases" meant to dismiss experiences and demean the speakers. We need to settle down and start trying to heal the rifts that have occurred due to culture and social awareness.

When Dealing With What Happened at Virginia Tech, Please Don't Bring Up the "Victim Mentality"

2007-04-17T22:06:00.000-07:00

The "victim mentality". These two words have been thrown around not only by political pundits, but in popular culture. As I had written earlier in my entry about "empathy", there seems to be a trend that equates victims with opportunism. This aspect seems to be detrimental to those who suffered and calls for the silence of their experiences. And, after these two melancholy days, it is hoped that there aren't pundits or politicians out there who will not accuse the people, families and community who has endured this terrible tragedy of being part of a "victim culture" or having the "victim mentality".

When this attitude is taken when accusing people who suffer of "whining" about their experiences, it points out how indifferent and callous some could be to avoid getting in touch with connecting with others. It further points out how detrimental silence could be when trying to shun those who have experience tremendous, chaotic circumstances. And especially when those two phrases are used, it points to this fact.

Would anyone dare accuse the students, staff, families and faculty of being part of a "victim culture", that they were "crying about their circumstances" and possessing a "victim mentality"? It would not only be a faux pas. It would also revisit the stance of punishing those who need comfort and care. Worse, it would be even more terrible if the same self-centered stances would be applied to bully them into "holding it all inside", so that others could not hear first hand of the pain.

One of the main problems that arises from the accusation of having the "victim mentality" or being part of a "victim culture", is that this stance--along with a complicity with violence--is celebrated in American culture. Because no one has tried to counter the mentality of those who go around penalizing the victims in society, it seems all right to say this right in the face of those who have bad experiences in their lives. And instead of just sitting down and listening to their pain and insights, the callousness results into belitting and pigeon-holing them into shame. And that should not happen. There is nothing shameful about sharing one's pain.

But what does have a mark of shame is when people blatantly flaunt their inability to care and hide it in the guise of "strength" and "self-actualization". What is even more irrephrensible is that those who accuse others of the "victim mentality", use this as a way of "not talking about pain" and "wanting to let the experiences die so that they don't want to come up again."

Things have to change. Holding things in has never been very good. What happens when one does hold things in is that there is an implosion without any outlet to release one's feelings. This is especially detrimental when one wants others to listen and eventually has to face another's back turned to them.

One has to wonder how Americans will treat the survivors of this terrible happening this week. Will they allow those who endured tremendous loss and pain to speak and be comforted? Or will the people of the United States suddenly tire of this and then descend into the repetitious tripe that punishes the victims instead of comforting them?

After all, there will be other headlines. And the current story will fade into the sunset with another item that will take its place. But the victims of Virginia Tech will still have to face not only their grief, fear and experiences of the traumatic event. And, they will still need others to reach out to in order for compassion in this time of need. Just like the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, they too deserve care.

While we continue to ask why it happened, let us not forget those who suffer. Treat them with open arms. Do not dismiss their experiences. Listen attentively and kindly without any judgment. By taking action through being caring and showing a sense of connection, we won't need to use such terms as the "victim culture" and "victim mentality" again.

Let those two phrases go the way of the dodo.

Keep the Faculty Members In Your Thoughts Too

2007-04-16T22:24:00.000-07:00

Although the shooting at Virginia Tech University has a devestating impact on students, there has been word that faculty members were also part of the casualties today. And, for the most part, the media had streams of students they interviewed interlaced with professional opinions by criminologists and psychologists. The story is not done here by any means. But while it is being sorted out, the faculty cannot be forgotten in the flurry of coverage in the next few days.

Faculty members have a tough job in today's universities. Not only do they have to write articles; they also have to sit on committees, conduct classes and engage in other duties that fill their time leading up to tenured security. Tenure is much harder to obtain these days. The hoops they have to jump through seem almost insurmountable, especially when dealing with the politics within departments.

And with papers to grade, they have a lot on their plate under the "perish or publish" threat that seems to occur semester after semester, year in and year out.

Students sometimes do not think about how hard their professors have to work. And in times like what happened today, the faculty have had to not only deal with their own emotions on this terrible day, they also have to face the residual effects of what has happened to their students. They suffer just as much as their students do. In fact, they might suffer more as people who are responsible for molding the future workforce and leaders of tomorrow.

The sad thing is the fact that sometimes students view their professors as the "bad guy" because of a decision about a paper, test or final. Because the faculty is responsible for making hard decisions that might have drastic effects on their students, they in turn have to deal with the repercussions and often wonder about them. This is also mixed in with the pressure to be a good "role model" for those under their tutledge.

In the guise of the student, it is not easy for them to think along these lines about their professor--especially if they run things in a strict manner. But, they are people too. They suffered today as well as the students did. Some of the stories that came out today demonstrated that some tried to protect their students from the alleged gunman. And although none had been interviewed--as of yet--they took on a yeoman's task today in order to keep their students safe in the name of survival.

So, it is best to take a little time and think about the faculty today in the midst of the headlines. They do a hard job every day. And today, they had to do an exceptional job under tough circumstances.

"It Couldn't Happen Here"

2007-04-16T20:41:00.000-07:00

I don't know what it is about the week of April the 15th. The Oklahoma City Bombing happened this week. The shootings at Columbine occurred during this week. And unfortunately before this week could pass by peacefully another year, there is the terrible event at Virginia Tech University. Again, it devestatingly marked itself on the calendar today and took its place among the chaotic, unspeakable events that boggle the mind.

With the media, it took its usual, "When it bleeds, it leads" type of stance in covering the events of the day. From the crack of dawn, the unblinking camera-eye focused on the drama and trama of fear, grief and questioning as the press conferences were conducted amidst the vigils to mourn such a tremendous loss. Even on Larry King, Dr. Phil made his usual visit with his insights into why it happened.

But even he does not have all the pieces together. In that, the answers, like in Columbine, are a long time coming. Instead, the visceral is closely watched as descriptions and tears flowed equally to the rapt attention of the audience. And in the course of daily events, we still did not come any closer to solving why it happened. But, the occurences today continued to be marked with a sense of sadness and regret of how situations like the one at Virginia Tech could have been avoided.

It is easy to say that our culture has been built on violence and continues to be marked by violence--from the top on down. You could even say with the same facility that it is celebrated in our culture.

The impact is still the same when one views the sad faces and the bewildered looks on television. The flowing of compassion for those who were affected by this terrible happening still comes through. The event has been marked. The investigations have begun. But, it still doesn't erase the quiet knowledge that this week has impacted the lives of everyday Americans and citizens across the globe before.

And in a roundabout way, there are still these questions among all others, "Why this week? Why today?"

What Ever Happened to Empathy?

2007-04-15T01:48:00.000-07:00

In the post-September 11th world, a growing trend resounds: the absence of empathy. People who have endured extraordinary circumstances and have survived them are victims. However, the new guise that has been bandied about in the media as well as political circles is the fact that a "victim" is less than fashionable. In essence, the "victim" is equated with "the opportunist".

Problematically, by signifying the victim as almost a persecutor on the public's emotions, empathy seems almost at a standstill. In my discussions about this, it has amazed me how quick it is to accuse someone who has suffered with "whining" about their plight. It is as if that no one wants to hear about stories of survival against the odds anymore--especially when they have to do with highlighting social disparity.

Many explainations try to elaborate why there is such a lack of empathy exists in America. One attributes this aspect to an almost encouragement by our national leaders, pundits and other spokespersons to revile and demonizing the victim because he or she would reveal flaws in "the system". Another goes forth to purport that Americans are almost urged to be "self-oriented" and "cool", being praised for not letting their emotions show. If one cries or spills forth their story, then it is a show of vunerability that does not deserve any comfort or assurances. Still, another one equates victimhood to purity. According to theorist Alyson Cole, the victim has to shown to be above amorality before the public sympathizes with him or her.

It is as if the attack on victimhood has to do with a backlash of the "confessional culture" of the nineties. Everyone from the former President on down the line spilled their guts about what ailed them. Talk shows such as Geraldo, Donahue, Oprah, Jenny Jones and Rikki Lake were at their height. Victims had become the spectacle for good ratings as they shared their stories with others across the television audience.

After September 11th, the tide changed. Pundits became more like official spokespersons, especially if they followed the usual "talking points". And if certain groups that didn't fit within the "system" spoke out, they were instantly shouted down because they were part of a larger "victim culture". Especially, the recipients of this unwarranted chastising would be members of the disenfranchised. Their stories and experiences against the "system" were now taken to be drivel because they did not embrace a sense of "individuality". Furthermore, breaking the silence of what they experienced in terms of social disparity was not "taking responsibility" for "one's self".

This is part and parcel of an individual-oriented society. When one is taught to solely focus on one's concerns, they feel no outer connectedness to others--whether it is in the same group or outside of it. With self-oriented thinking comes a lesser need to reach out to get to know others because there is no since of identification. Lack of connectiveness leads to little empathy, not by any shape of the imagination. Even worse, when citizens are praised for their individualism without accounting for a sense of community, then there is sort of a suspicion about other people who are connected to a group.

Some of the greatest books, such as George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World were predicated on the evils of group thinking. And if you get down to recent Star Trek Lore, then you have the Borg--who only want others to join the group and think along a singular line.

Individuality tends to be more indicative of democracy and freedom. Yet, when one looks under the surface, individuality also causes loneliness as well. With so much love for one's self, then one does not look outward to see how they are part of a larger society of people, let alone care about their welfare. In this manner, there is no way to see how one might be connected in the chain of others in society. And without any way to discern how being part of larger community works, then there seems to be no allegiance--except to one's self.

To break it all down, there is nothing wrong with personal individuality. Each person possesses their own traits that make them unique. That is important. But when it gets in the way of caring for others and identifying with them, then self-oriented thinking transforms into self-centeredness. Without thinking about "the community", then there is no greater sense of history or culture. What is even more, there isn't a sense of feeling when there are others of the same society who have experienced extreme hardship.

Emotional exhaustion against those who suffer exist instead.

A lack of sympathetic demonstration for those who suffer subtlely indicates how our society is in a sorry state. It is especially sad that this is punctuated by continuing the trauma of the victim by either dismissing or denouncing the message--especially when it has to do with something contrary to a set of given beliefs. Perhaps the reason why a lack of empathy is so successful is that it is easier to maintain and implement than actually trying to practice the manner of caring.

Perhaps, it is time we relearn how to care and connect with our fellow citizens instead of putting them in the midst of accusation.

About Those Missing Five Million E-mails....

2007-04-14T23:31:00.000-07:00

Let's just face it. Drama is part of the current Administration. First, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has to deal with his own lawyer resigning. And now, there is another story growing legs in the press. It has to do with the violation of the federal Presidential Records Act of 1978:

Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:

* Defines and states public ownership of the records.

* Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

* Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.

* Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

* Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents.

* Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

But wait. There was an Executive Order signed by President of the United States George Bush as an "amendment" to the act. You know he had to do something about this one way or another. Let's just get to the juiciest part, shall we:

(d) Concurrent with or after the former President's review of the records, the incumbent President or his designee may also review the records in question, or may utilize whatever other procedures the incumbent President deems appropriate to decide whether to concur in the former President's decision to request withholding of or authorize access to the records.

(1)When the former President has requested withholding of the records: (i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President's decision to request withholding of records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. The Archivist shall not permit access to those records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order. [[Page 56027]] (ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to request withholding of the records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. Because the former President independently retains the right to assert constitutionally based privileges, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

(2) When the former President has authorized access to the records: (i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the Archivist shall permit access to the records by the requester. (ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the incumbent President may independently order the Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Before we get to the main point, it seems from the look of things that another executive privilege has been asserted: that instead of making all records of the President and Vice-President public, the choice is being reverted back to the former and incumbent leader of America to withhold certain papers unless there is a court decision that overturns the request.

With that being said, this further points to the current Presidency being more secretive than any other in history. Think about it. The entire Bush Administration has been built around secrecy. The past leaders of the United States had increasingly been generous to the public's right to know since the years of Watergate. This was in conjunction with the Freedom of Information Act. However, some of those same governmental papers are being reverted back to classified status. And with this latest story, this aspect becomes even more murkier when it has been found that Mr. Rove allegedly has been found involved in destroying e-mails between the years of 2003 and 2005.

I know some might ask what's the big problem with this. After all, people destroy their e-mails on a daily basis. The punchline is that with the Presidential Records Act, those e-mails fall under the jurisdiction of public records--especially if they have to do with alleged "official business" It probably wouldn't have been discovered unless the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington didn't make this public with their report about the disappearing electronic notes over a given period.

After some hemming and hawing, the White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino cut to the chase. Read the lowdown on CNN's site. But for the purposes here, there is a key excerpt of the story:

Millions of White House e-mails may be missing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino acknowledged Friday.

"I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million e-mails lost," Perino told reporters.

[...]

Perino's disclosure about the White House e-mail comes a day after she admitted that the White House "screwed up" by not requiring e-mails from Republican Party and campaign accounts to be saved and was also trying to recover those e-mails.

Perino said 22 aides in the political arm of the president's office use party or campaign e-mail accounts, which were issued to separate official business from political work. Some of those accounts were used to discuss the December firings of eight federal prosecutors, a shake-up that has triggered a spreading controversy on Capitol Hill.

Congressional investigators have questioned whether White House aides used e-mail accounts from the Republican Party and President Bush's re-election campaign for official government business to avoid scrutiny of those dealings.

It gets even uglier. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy connected this finding with the canning of the eight U.S. District Attorneys. He even went as far as to connect the missing computer missives to what happened during the Nixon era.

What it comes down to is the fact that we need either an Independent or Congressional oversight committee to find out whether this has been the case. And since Ms. Perino hinted at it by allegedly saying that the White House "screwed up", well then it is time to get the ball rolling.

I don't know about you. But, I wonder how much more of this the American public has to take before they demand accountability from the White House. After six years of stories relating to the public's right to know verses the secrecy of the Administration, something has to give. During the Nixon years, there was an essential mistrust of the government due to Watergate.

Currently, the die-hard supporters of the Presidency still remain. Suffice it to say, their ranks are thinning out by the day. And knowing that impropriety after impropriety continues to happen, when will the straw break the camel's back here? What will it take before the public--in righteous indignation--finally call for our Congress to do something about this. At first, explaining away things might have worked in light of 9/11. But, now, when there is more and more trickling out about the Administration, there has to be questions asked and investigated.

With this news, one cannot go blindly into the night and believe that all is well. We must make sure that our leaders receive letters and e-mail to make them care about finding this out. If not, it will be the same old business as usual--especially in light of executive privilege and the slow eradication of citizens' rights in supposedly "The Free World".

One must question whether we are truly living in the "land of the free" when we find out that our government has not been entirely honest with us--especially when to hide facts that could shed light on important matters.

Kurt Vonnegut, American Original

2007-04-13T15:31:00.000-07:00

In the midst of the Duke Lacrosse case outcome and the furor over Don Imus, very sad news has arrived over the wires. An endearing and important icon of American writing, Kurt Vonnegut, has passed away. He was 84 years old. The literary master wrote such timeless and enduring novels as Slaughterhouse Five, The Sirens of Titan, Breakfast of Champions, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, Deadeye Dick, and Mother Night. He also wrote such classic short story compilations as Welcome to the Monkey House.

I started reading Mr. Vonnegut's works in high school. At the time, my AP English Teacher compelled us to read Slaughterhouse Five. It was an eye opening experience to me because in the past, we always read the classic works such as Shakespeare, Donne, Broker, Shelley, Fielding, and Wharton, among others. His writing presented a dose of fresh air because it was different and it paved the way for my delving into Post-World War II writers and their insights they brought in their work.

After discussing the works of Vonnegut back in high school, I became a life-long fan of his writing. It did, in its own way, discuss conditions in American society in terms of class, gender, race, society and history.

One specific book that had an impact on me was Breakfast of Champions (1973). This book discussed the irony and impact of the American dream, especially when it had to do everyday Americans in extraordinary circumstances. There were many aspects of the book that influenced me significantly. However, one excerpt that explains conditions in American society still even to this day. In gathering my thoughts for this entry, I re-read the same words once again:

The motto of Dwayne Hoover's and Kilgore Trout's nation was this, which meant in a language nobody spoke anymore, Out of Many, One: "E pluribus unum."

The undippable flag was a beauty, and the anthem and the vacant motto might not have mattered much, if it weren't for this: a lot of citizens were so ignored and cheated and insulted that they thought they might be in the wrong country, or even on the wrong planet, that some terrible mistake had been made. It might have comforted them some if their anthem and their motto had mentioned fairness or brotherhood or hope or happiness, had somehow welcomed them to the society and its real estate.

--Vonnegut, Kurt. Breakfast of Champions. New York: Dell Publishing, 1973: 9.

This relevant passage alerts one to the apparent disparities in the United States. Then, it opened my eyes to the notion that not everything was equal and fair. It also highlighted some aspects that are sorely needed for the nation to heal after a long history of conflict, competition and self-oriented thinking. What was especially important is that Mr. Vonnegut wrote with an empathetic view discussing the disenfranchised and the displaced as a result of the "American Dream".

What is especially noteworthy is that in his striving to be "impolite" in his writing, he specifically wrote with clarity in a no-holds barred fashion. His sense of irony and humor about describing the effects of national culture enlightened readers, like myself, to not ignore the conditions of society. Furthermore, his works invited his audience to discuss them by displaying particular points of view that would in the Bush 43 era of politics seem blasphemous and unpatriotic.

Make no mistake. Mr. Vonnegut served his country. He watched first hand how war devestates societies. Not to mention, he was a long witness to what occurred at home as well. His characters personify his delvings into these important issues and brings them out in the open by mixing the everyday with science fiction. His experiences in the war often outline some of the themes in his novel. As a result, they made excellent fiction that opened a lot of eyes.

Heck, you'd even think that the happenings now occurring during the last six years of the current Administration was more like the trips that Billy Pilgrim took. However, The Manchurian Candidate--another important landmark in American popular culture is a little bit more apropo about this present age.

Mr. Vonnegut's work influenced me as a writer to express myself by using, in terms of the Foucaultian manner, "truth to power". By simply writing creatively about social conditions and its effects on people, one was resisting the way things are by search for different realities. What was especially relevant was the fact that his writings conveyed that it was okay to express one's self by just simply calling things as "one sees it". There is no need to sugar-coat it. All one had to do is to simply call the shots and run with it. That knowledge brought me closer to the power of the written word.

For a shy lady from a plain-speaking family, this was an important note in not only writing what one knows, but to express it clearly through breaking the barriers in terms of thought. He also conveyed that in "breaking the barriers" a writer could use anything in his or her arsenal: humor, anecdotes, irony, among other things. It was okay to mix the personal with the political. And, it encourages a person to make sense of their past and present by discussing how they define a sense of themselves within the larger culture.

That is why I am very sorry that Mr. Vonnegut died. I know that he lived a long and fascinating life. I extend my condolences to his family for their loss. We need more writers like Mr. Vonnegut in today's society in order to keep on deconstructing American culture and putting thoughtful questions of its impact in the minds of the public. His works are another reason why we need not be silent and take things in a complacent light. Through personal expression, we free ourselves from the ties that bind in order to put the truth out there for others to carry on and change the aspects that rip at the fabric of national culture and ideology.

----------------------------

For another excellent essay on Mr. Vonnegut's passing, step on over to Bripe Klmun's blog. His essay, "RIP Kurt Vonnegut" also sheds light on the writer's work, life and impact.

The Residue that Don Imus Left Behind

2007-04-12T04:27:00.000-07:00

I have something to say later about the passing of an American original, Kurt Vonnegut. But, I would like to closely discuss the legacy of another individual--especially when his words affect the temper of the times. A lot has been said about Don Imus' comments on the air last week. The last post (hastily and tiredly written after listening to the press conference) covered one aspect of what happened.

There is a residual effect that opens a issue that is sorely needed to be discussed in American society. The words mentioned by the radio show host reveal a lot about how diversity is treated in America. Although there has been progress since the days of the Civil Rights era, still there is a problem discussing social disparity due to skin color. The sensitivity around the subject matter leaves it to be swept under the rug instead of confronting the hard issues surrounding it.

Sadly enough, it usually takes a highly explosive situation before the citizens of the United States can see the disparity occurring before their own eyes. For most of the time, it is "whispered about" in the guise of being hidden. There are even moves to distance one's self from empathizing true acts of racism because it reveals the flaws of society. It is never accepted that there are various ways to discuss diversity. Instead, one side usually gets endorsed to the point that some are so sick of it that they want conversations of race to disappear with silence.

In the present day, silence has caused detrimental effects on social relations and belief systems. Because some citizens would like to ignore what is happening, they aid in perpetuating the indifference and the lack of empathy towards due to institutional racism. Even worse, the silent complicity of hiding from a discussion about race continues to reinforce the attitudes built up around certain groups of people. Due to that inactivity, a blind eye and silent mouth toward wrongdoing only leads to yet another public figure "speaking their mind" about non-white people and women. Once these words have been spoken, no one can say that "we're all the same" and that "we're human beings". Frustratingly enough, phrases like Mr. Imus' "joking" on the air reveal the hierarchy of race that is constantly put forth in society. It is almost an anti-climax for a portion of citizens to feign surprise when events such as these occur--especially when they have stuck their head in the sand before.

What Mr. Imus' occurence demonstrates is that we cannot afford to let silence overtake the discussion of diversity in America. Understanding amongst various heritages and culture is highly important in this day and age. It also means coming to grips with our past to make sense of the present. If we don't confront this fact, the same old things will happen with similar results.

There is a lot more to be said about the entire incident with Mr. Imus. However, this aspect deserves to be examined thoughtfully so that discussions about diversity do happen on the American landscape. The most important part is that these conversations must be handled without fear and trepidation so that intolerance can be recognized and addressed.

Did Mr. Imus Cross the Line?

2007-04-10T09:30:00.000-07:00

This morning, I caught the press conference in which the President, Coach and women's basketball team from Rutger's University was interviewed. The way that the young women handled themselves in light of Mr. Imus' remarks were astounding. Through well-spoken, reasonable answers, they calmly faced the inquiries of the press as they would on the court.

There is something to be said about the dignity of people. And Mr. Imus' remarks reflected no such honor last week about the Rutgers' women's basketball team. Although he has interviewed celebrities, politicians and other dignitaries in society, he could not understand that ten young ladies deserved the same amount of respect that he has given other notable people in society. What is worse about this situation is that it highlights a pressing issue in society that goes beyond the simple privilege of having the freedom of speech.

It is having the ability to wield these words with a sense of empathy and respect.

Before my ex-communication from that forum, I discussed an issue similar to this one when dealing with the notion of "phrases in race-related talk". Weeks before Mr. Imus' comments, I was told that this was almost a "non-issue" and that there was no meaning to be had in examining what was said in race-related discussion.

I told them that I begged to differ because the phrases (for example, "Why do you people whine and cry about race all the time?" or "You're playing the race card!") are said all the time. I wondered aloud whether the people uttering these phrases ever thought about why they said them when engaging in discussions that discussed diversity and cultural awareness.

The obliviousness that I received from making this inquiry was astounding. In fact, some of the conversants would either try to attack my methodolgy. Or, they would deny that such words would have such an impact at all. The worst of it was centered around downplaying the phrases. In fact, the majority of persons within the talk were trying to talk around the obvious: that these phrases were used to dismiss not only the experiences being conveyed in race-related talk; but they were also used to dehumanize people to the point of infantilization("whining" and "screaming", etc.).

In this light, Mr. Imus' comments convey an uncomfortable aspect of today's society: when does freedom of speech cross the line?

Freedom of speech is important. I would fight for the right for all to express themselves. But this First Amendment right does not give one carte blanche to say things willy nilly without any consequences. For example, you cannot shout, "Fire" in a crowded building. After all, once one does, one could cause a riot.

It would be pretty sick for an individual (after seeing that people have been trampled upon once the shout of "Fire" was uttered) just to say that it was his or her opinion after such words have caused harm. Opinions, no matter the freedom given to them, have repercussions for good or ill. In Mr. Imus' case, his words conveyed ill will toward the achievements of the young women of Rutgers' basketball team, not only racially, but in terms of gender.

His remarks are not any different than the ones uttered by comedian Michael Richards not too long ago. What usually happens is that the speaker says what's on his mind about another group of people and says "it's a joke". Because of the "old boys club" of celebrity and the press, those comments are taken as gospel and often discounted in the name of political incorrectness. But, Mr. Imus probably received more hell than he could bargain for when the words he uttered caused an uproar across the country.

A two week suspension is not going to teach him the error of his ways no matter how much he defends his right to say his comments publicly. Mr. Imus, during that two week hiatus, has to take a crash course of empathy and identification with people outside of his race and gender. It might sensitize him to the hurt and despair one often feels when these insensitive remarks are often overlooked and erased by some of the public. Maybe he might notice when one is especially hurt, the supporters of the "said comment" often turn it around by stating something equally hurtful to dismiss the impact to nothingness.

It would take a miracle for him to realize this.

After all the times he's apologized, he repeated the same old pattern of disparagement on his show. What is one more time going to teach him--if there are not any hard lessons learned here?

I think that sometimes when people utter these phrases--whether the words reflect "nappy headed ho's" to "people whining and screaming about race"--it has to do with a lack of identification with the targeted group. Through distancing one's self from others who are different than they are, a person puts up a barrier against learning about diverse customs, histories and social norms.

For some, it is far easier to not care about these aspects at all and rather ignore them. This corresponds with the occurences of social and institutional disparities. People who don't want to connect with 'the Other' deny such actions take place. The reason why they deny that social disparities happen is because it occurs out of their sight and experience. When it does occur, people complicit with the system remain silent in such dreadful occurrences because it would betray that there is something wrong with how they live as a part of an accepted group in society. To keep such a system in place, it is far easier to deny such events wreak havoc on the social structure of a society. A far nefarious matter is when there is not an ounce of feeling by such persons as a result of the disparaging treatment. They most commonly want to "disprove" such events happen while chiding the person who describes them as being "delusional". And of course, the vicious circle repeats itself.

All of this points to a few conclusions. Race-relations is not often dealt with adequately in today's society. "Political correctness" is played up to be such a dirty term. Unfortunately, such desensitization continues against social groups outside of the dominant culture. As long as there is a no outstanding response to contradict and deconstruct such hurtful phrases, then the same patterns continue without abandon.

The sad thing about Mr. Imus' comments is that they are all too common not only in the press and public life, but also within our communities. Because a lack of empathy is so encouraged in American life, we reap what we sow. Since people do not want to think about the repercussions of their words, they lack the vision to realize what they say can hurt others.

People complain about sensitivity and 'being soft'. From siding with the principle of treating people with dignity and respect, I've learned that being empathetic and respectful of others is a very hard road to walk. It's sad, but a lot of people today do not have the capacity to care about others. And most often, those that 'don't care' often save their most vicious remarks for those who do. When they say them to the more sensitive and the caring, the vicious are often praised for their hardness and lack of vunerability.

And it is more of the same when it comes down to the problems created by Mr. Imus' words. It is even more exacerbated with his lukewarm response in terms of contriteness.

Mr. Imus is at a fork in the road now. He can truly try to relearn his attitudes and treat all people with dignity and respect. Or, he can just return to his job and continue down the same path of dehumanizing the people he chooses not to identify with.

It's all in his hands now.

Forum News

2007-04-08T15:31:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

It's been a few days since the Ceci's News and Views forum has been set up. Now there are categories. I am still working on a mission statement for the board. I am also working on a "cultural awareness" policy that the forum will work on and continue to develop as well.

But, the latest category is for all my beloved patrons of the blog. There is a new section for members to discuss issues brought up here if they like. Join The Ceci's News and Views Forum and talk away! There are other categories that span interesting topics that members can be involved in as well. As stated there, we are a welcoming board that respects and celebrates diversity. It's no soap box, but it'll be a place where everyone is welcome and invited to share their constructive and intelligent views on current events society and politics. Or, if they like gaming or entertainment, they can converse there as well.

It's been a little over a year for the start of Ceci's News and Views. It evolved slowly over time. But, things are getting better and brighter for the little, shy lady of this blog. Join the fun and share the adventure!

Take good care,

Ceci :)

P.S. If you have any questions or comments about the forum or blog, please do email me at ceci.news@yahoo.com. As always, all that I ask is that you don't send spam.

Speaker Pelosi Should Not Be Condemned

2007-04-08T14:45:00.000-07:00

In the midst of the my own personal drama, I have been following another type of brouhaha--of the national kind. It seems that Madame Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been under fire for visiting with Syrian President Basshar Assad last week. With a contingent of Congress, Ms. Pelosi went there to promote the policies of the United States and engage in talks with the country.

However, on right wing radio, cable and television news, the pundits have been sounding off. The Vice-President Dick Cheney even chided the California Congresswoman for "stepping out of turn" in her trip to the Middle East.

With all the scuttlebutt knocking her around these past few days, she should be cut a little slack. Ms. Pelosi is doing her job. She is trying to make inroads where the present Administration will not: to engage in diplomacy instead of having a "scorched earth" policy. She's taking the right tactic. After all, Mr. Bush and his cronies have not been rather forthright about solving things diplomatically these days. What is especially unfortunate, is that they have continued to beat the drum on stirring things up with Iran in an adversarial manner.

But, it all comes down to this: Ms. Pelosi is the first woman Speaker of the House. She has elevated herself to a position that has been historically populated by males. She is a pioneer. But, it's not to say that her position is very easy. Because she has taken very hard stands that reflect her new leadership status, she has been knocked about by the men of Congress. Unfortunately, the old boy's club of Washington is still getting used to having a woman (and a liberal one at that) wield power and politics without being beholden to the "puppet strings" of PNAC cronies and old right wing war hawks.

What about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, you say? She's a woman. She's in a powerful position. Right you are. But, the difference between Ms. Pelosi and Dr. Rice is that the Secretary of State still does unquestionably the bidding of the President. She has not gone forth on her own to do anything different. In fact, her power is being held on a string. And when she does "speak out of turn", she retreats and defers to Mr. Bush and Co.

Ms. Pelosi does not do that. She is able to not only promote the best that America has to offer; she tries to be her own woman.

And she doesn't have to mistakenly call the President, "her husband" to do it. ;)

Looking On to Brighter Pastures

2007-04-07T01:20:00.000-07:00

For the last two days, I have received e-mail from caring friends who expressed their shock over what had happened at that forum. I would like to extend a heartfelt and loving thanks for their notes of support after what seemed to be a protracted attempt to ask for a small request to the forum only to be punished for it.

I've spent these two last days soul searching over what had happened. I talked to family and friends. I've even consulted my tarot cards on the matter. But, the answer seemed to be plain and clear: as much as I loved being there and support its primary mission, the forum and myself were a match made in hell.

It's okay to say it. For anyone else reading my posts on the forum who didn't know me, they'd think I was a monster. And because of the controversial stands and contentious discussions I participated in, I wouldn't be surprised if the newer members thought of me as such. I am a very skilled and hard-nosed debator. That is a gift that I do not feel sorry for. But in the pursuit of passionate talk and exchange of information, I realize that perhaps that my tactics there were probably a bit too hard-nosed for the more sensitive amongst the members. And for that, I am very sorry. Because I prided myself on being precise and opinionated, I think that even my most controversial statements blew those who cared about me away.

During debate, I could not be the kinder, gentler Ceci. Because I'm used to exchanging my insights on a professional front with some real hard-nosed guys, I'm used to the terseness and the questions. I'm also used to people picking apart my awarenesses as much as they are used to me doing the same. In those exchanges, I am used to the school of hard knocks. But outside of that arena, it might seem shocking and rather impersonal. Especially, when I am used to treating social issues--that are usually emotional to everyone else--as research problems.

Some members at the forum did not get that and accused me of not knowing about "empathy". Or, being on a "soap box".

In fact, the harshest criticism came from one big cheese whiz who said, "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE, GET YOUR OWN FORUM!" before he punished me for the sin of simple inquiry (don't you love my use of CAPS? I hate doing so, but that's how angry HE was). Without fighting my case, I was ex-communicated, so to speak.

If he had gotten off of his high perch for just a little while, he'd see that I did. ;)

And furthermore, the grand poobah over there never did ask me whether I did like his board or not. He just assumed that I didn't. Talk about insincerity and ego-centric behavior.

What I can say about myself is that I don't get on soap boxes. I just try to fight hard to make my case. I think in a court of law a defendant could not ask for less of their advocate. I believe in trying to do my best to prove my own side. I consider the other side. I even try to make inroads toward a middle ground. But when there are too many factors that get in the way, then there is no meeting of the minds.

The tears still come sometimes because there are some people that I will miss dearly on the board. My heart still goes out to them and they have my thanks for their care and support. I certainly hope that by accident or by word of mouth they find me here and reconnect with me. I guess when you get "ex-communicated" by the big cheeze whiz at the forum, you undergo a bit of separation anxiety. And yes, it is very hard not to click on the site just to read what others have said for the day. It is also hard not to sift through my notes from friends and read their kind remarks as well as some Applauses for good work I've done.

But, one bad experience does not turn me away from forum life. I've been on forums before I came to that one, and I'll get on a few more. It is just that this experience was really unusual because I have never been badly treated at a forum before from some members to some of the staff. I've always been considered a respectful and polite person who is a good member, especially when making suggestions. But I guess, ego and intolerance stirs up a strange concoction of potent bromide--especially when it comes from people you would consider a little bit more refined.

I know in the next few days on the forum there will be those who will say that I "lacked communication skills" and that I had "discipline problems". There will probably be those who will send one another e-mail silently slapping each other on the back for my banning since I was such a "disruptive force" on an impersonal and obtuse board. It's okay. They can even call me the worst of names and continue to spread the negative aspects of my character if they want.

But, my heart is still with my friends there. I am still exceedingly loyal. And, quietly, I have moved on without a fight. I'm sad that I won't have my cup of Green Tea while reading some of the threads that suit my fancy, but I've got other things on the plate.

And yes, I'll have my cup of Green Tea again reading the posts of endeared friends and members once again--on a new forum.

(Don't you love product placement?) ;)

I'm going to be okay. And I'll be back writing about politics soon enough here too--once real life becomes more managable.

Sorry for the religious overtones, but, this is a day of resurrection. That's why I love Easter so much. It's a time to start anew with a clean slate and put the past behind you. Let's just say, that I am doing that for the good of my well-being.

Happy Easter.

I have a Board!!!!!

2007-04-06T23:03:00.000-07:00

Hey guys,

Unfortunately, I parted ways with the that forum once again. And now, I decided to create my own community based on politics and current events. If you guys are interested, please do post there and share your ideas!

The board is: The Ceci's News and Views Forum.

It will take a while to get started. And in a while there will be categories for people to post in. But, please do drop by and say hello.

Whew! It's weird being an Administrator. But, hopefully, I'll have moderators and posters. If not, it'll be a place for friends to discuss the events of the day without the drama.

And no, there will be no bully pulpit there. It'll just be real talk without the drama.

I've posted my e-mail in this blog, so please do e-mail me if you have any questions.

Other than that, I'll be back at the blogging thing soon. Unfortunately, I took too much time to integrate myself in a place that didn't welcome me as much as I like. And, now, I realize that the forum is not the place for me. I need to be around life-affirming people and engage in real talk from now on.

I'm not hurt by it. And, it is not that unfortunate. But, consider it the best.

But, I still love my forum family and will remember them fondly for their kindness and sincerity there. I am just sorry that I was misunderstood by other members outsides of my close-knit friends. For all the talk about tolerance, the members outside of my group of friends could not tolerate me or my ideas. Instead, they had to condemn me. And what is worse, they could not even address cultural awareness on the board. They could not even part their lips about it. In fact, they treated it with disdain. That is the saddest thing of all.

That is neither here nor there. I'm moving on and am very happy for it!

Springtime for "Scooter" Libby

2007-03-08T12:51:00.000-08:00

While the dramas of my own life have been rising to an ebb, there is yet another story that seems to eclipse the political landscape in America. You know what it is. Mr. Libby, the right-hand man of Vice-President Dick Cheney, was found guilty by a jury of his peers. As the story leaks out, it seems that the conviction brings to light a lot of issues that cannot be swept under the rug.

For Valerie Plame and her husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the verdict only seems to buttress their lawsuit. Rightfully so, Ms. Plame did not deserve to be outed as a result of what allegedly seems like a vendetta in the making. Her name printed in a column by journalist Robert Novak, seemed to highlight the bonds the present Administration has with the press built out of fear and power. Instead of having a fourth estate who is objective and scrutinizing, there are the those in the Washington Press core who have given up their values of being balanced for the sake of being within the realm of the know. It is not so much to have valuable sources to make Pulitzer Prize winning stories; unfortunately, the highlight here has to do with how far reporters have sunk in order to keep their jobs for the sake of not going after the hard news items which can do a service for the public.

Mr. Libby's verdict seems to be the latest salvo fired in an already convoluted territory of scandal and wrongdoing that has filled the public eye for six years. What the jury did was not only bring the shenanigans of the present Administration to the fore-front; they punctuated a long way from some in America for justice to be served.

Now the question still hangs in the balance whether Congress will have the fortitude to have an oversight committee investigating the reasons behind the Plame outing. For that, we can only wait and see. But for now, we--as the public--cannot rest on our laurels with this small victory. We must continue to watch and wait, follow with aplomb, and question our national leaders when they have done wrong. And, perhaps, everyday Americans must embody what today's press cannot do: we must weigh each aspect of behavior with a jaundiced eye and discuss amongst ourselves whether the people have been served. After all, we are the ones who are the most affected by what happens behind the scenes. And our verdict will occur at the voting box when finally the mind-set of United States citizens evolve to the fact that we will not take the ineptitude of our politicians any longer. If we work in the name of justice, perhaps we have a chance to show the press that Americans will do the work that they will not: highlighting the bad, praising the good and working for change.

Let the verdict of Mr. Libby inspire us to do more.

Intolerance, Pt II

2007-02-18T21:31:00.000-08:00

Even though there are probably more noteworthy events to discuss, I would like to say a few words about forums and intolerance. Let's just say that this is a little story for other people fighting intolerance to follow.

The last few weeks were spent trying to be acclimated back to board life. And of course, old feelings die hard when it comes to a group of posters who are hell-bent making the worst out of a board experience. It is sad to say so, but unfortunately, their efforts and relentless use of "complaining" has shut down threads on diversity because they will not make the effort or time to understand the other side of things.

In the midst of this, words were said. And of course, the person who made the thread on diversity got punished because the culturally insensitive had gotten their way without any questioning of their behavior.

Because of the fact that the "cabal" got off Scot free from their nastiness (and the fact that I came across this story), there is nothing but pessimism when it comes to healing and social progress. When hearing this story, I could just think to myself and think that the intolerant have the loudest voices while the sensitive and the erudite continue to get pounded.

You could almost guess the punchline of the story.

They come away, smug and happy that they shut down a thread of diversity because it attacked everything that they held dear. But who actually wins? No one. For a thread about diversity is there to educate people and to generate conversation with those who are genuine in their approach to bring all people together. And its closure only conveys the point that we have so far to go in trying heal the cultural divide in America, if not the world. That is the saddest of all.

The only thing about vendettas is the fact that they are only temporary. But for those involved, they are probably happy that their interests are safe and secure while others suffer at the yoke of intolerance.

There's no one to blame. And there's no one to complain to. Just chalk this up to a lesson well learned in the midst of viewing the heavy-handed tactics of some who don't want to entertain things outside of their comfort zone.

---------------------------

Despite my absence, there is more to come soon. I have lots to talk about and yes, election season is here. So, stay tuned and keep reading. I apologize for the length of absence between the last post and the latest. I thank you very much for your patronage over the months.

...And Then, There Was "The State of the Union"

2007-01-25T00:00:00.000-08:00

This is a "Ceci's News and Views" Special Report:

Gone was the "Bring Them On" rhetoric along with the constant mention of Saddam Hussein. After all, for the last few years, Mr. Saddam was the cornerstone of President George W. Bush's speeches, especially when he was preaching to the choir about the events in Iraq. However, a notable absence from his words last night was to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. The rebuilding of their city was left behind in the dust. Even more apparent is the lack of mention afforded to the outcome of the NSA program. That alone affected a lot of Americans.

And still, his platitudes reeked of California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger's actions before the November 2006 elections. In short, Mr. Bush appropriated liberal causes only to save his derriere from the fryer when having a low approval rating of 28 per-cent.

Oh yes, his remarks were expedient, to be sure. Being quick is nice. However, sincerity and inspiring is better. Unfortunately for the President of the United States, the speech did not display the latter. It was the same, bland, "deer-in-the-headlights" wording that we have put up with for the last six years. The only thing that was "self-evident" reflected when the pandering was going to stop.

But that wasn't all reflected in Mr. Bush's words. Oh, yes, my friends, the State of the Union Address was something more, much more. Shall we see?

Cutting the Budget Deficit

Here are his words from the State of the Union Address:

First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause.) We can do so without raising taxes. (Applause.) What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget.

This is a very big statement to make when a plethora of money has been poured into the War on Terrorism, the conflicts abroad as well as the large tax breaks given to corporations. Unfortunately, his proposal is rather a "pie in the sky" approach. He spent the surplus left by President Clinton's Administration. This is also hard to believe knowing the hints thrown at us in speeches related to an escalation of hostilities with Iran. Frankly, simply cutting programs (and especially those that help the Middle, working classes and the poor) will not work to achieve this end.

It would take a miracle to halve the deficit. Knowing how much money America is in the hole, we are right now treading toward a "debtor status" if we are not there already. The frustrating thing is that it sounds good when it is spoken in its attempts to draw back the disaffected. In the end, we will all feel it when it hits us in the pocketbook, regardless of political platform. Sadly, the people who will probably feel the worst hurt from his tight-fisted tactics are those who voted against their best interests in the past elections.

What is also critically important to note about his policies regarding the economy is this tidbit from Op-Ed News.com. They are rather interesting points to consider when weighing style and substance:

Continuing Bush's economic policies would do little to stimulate growth and would worsen the country's fiscal health.

BUSH'S TAX CUTS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO BUDGET DEFICITS: Tax cuts "have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits." The Congressional Budget Office reports that tax cuts enacted from 2001 to 2006 were responsible for 51 percent of the deterioration in the budget. "Between 2001 and 2006, the passage of the Bush tax cuts without the offsetting savings have cost $1.2 trillion in lost revenues, or more than 80 percent of the cumulative deficit during this period."

Only a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending.

DEFICITS HAVE MUSHROOMED UNDER BUSH: Bush has "never proposed a balanced budget since it went into deficit, never vetoed a spending bill when Republicans controlled Congress and offered little sustained objection to earmarks until the issue gained political traction last year." Bush and Congress took an inherited surplus and have transformed it into a mountain of debt -- the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports that legislation enacted over the last six years increased the national debt by $2.3 trillion, including $633 billion in interest payments alone. "The budget outlook for the period 2002 to 2011 deteriorated by $8.5 trillion from 2001 to 2006 and for 2006, it decreased by $753 billion."

When you factor in all the money Mr. Bush spent over the last years, it is virtually impossible to take his assurances as affirmative. What it accounts for is that the American President raised the level of debt so high for the sake of his policies, there is no way that he can set out what he proposed in the State of the Union. Instead, he had set in motion the slow descent of financial drudgery due to poor policies, both foreign and domestic resulting in the lack of consideration and foresight.

More Woes for Health Care

Again, from the State of the Union address:

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. (Applause.) When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. (Applause.) But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

The problem with his ideas about health care is that the Middle Class ends up paying the costs for the uninsured:

First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

The nature of this proposal is the fact that instead of going to the rich (after all, aren't they paying taxes too?), he tries to take money out of the pockets of those who need their money the most. Instead of providing relief, he is robbing Peter to pay Paul. This suggestion in the State of the Union is rather poor policy, even though it might sound good to the Americans who need it the most. He could have proposed socialized health care, which is sponsored by the government. However, he is taking it out of the hands of the government and placing it on the people's hands to insure citizens who are unable to afford health care.

What is important to note is that with all the money spent on defense while building up the deficit, some of that funding could have been diverted to set up a very good system in this country. It is already bad that the lack of jobs has caused a plethora of Americans to be unemployed and unable to pay for their daily expenses. It is worse when he pits the Middle Class against the Working poor while the rich come off unscathed. So, are you convinced that he was only speaking to the "haves" and the "have mores"?

Op Ed News seems to think so:

Bush's health care plan fails to help the nearly 47 million Americans without health insurance, will cause employers to drop health coverage without any real alternative, and put health care out of reach for millions of Americans.

UNINSURED AMERICANS WILL RECEIVE LITTLE HELP AND MUST TURN TO EXPENSIVE COVERAGE: This scheme would replace one regressive, flawed tax deduction with another -- and since most uninsured Americans pay low or no taxes, they would receive little help from this plan.

In addition, Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University researcher who co-authored a 2001 study on the individual health-insurance market for the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that people who aren't in perfect health are largely unable to buy individual health insurance.

In her study, Pollitz found that "roughly 90% of applicants in what's known as less-than-perfect health were unable to buy individual policies at standard rates, while 37% were rejected outright." Individual health insurers may deny coverage to people based on their medial history, or put them in "a high-risk category that it makes health coverage too expensive."

BUSH'S PLAN WILL DISCOURAGE EMPLOYERS FROM OFFERING QUALITY COVERAGE: Sixty-one percent of companies offer at least some of their employees health insurance, a drop of 8 percentage points since 2000.

Once you read the analysis presented by OpEdNews.com, the sadder it seems. There is more of a lack of empathy than people seem to think if the policies regarding health care are truly enforced. This would create a system in which the winners continue to be people who are stil on top.

Iraq And All That Stuff

Most of the meat of his speech centered on the War on Terror, Iran and Iraq. Afghanistan was hardly mentioned. And of course, there was the same obligatory nods toward a specific soldier and his family (while they sit behind the beaming Mrs. Bush). These things are good to be noted. However, this "feel good" tactic does not seem to help the drastic situation made more caustic by ineptitude and negligence when it comes to foregin diplomacy. Clearly, Mr. Bush will not "cut and run" from his policy of not listening to the American people as well as Congress. The sad thing is that no matter how many "no confidence" resolutions our politicians pass, the American President is dead set on adding more troops overseas. Unfortunately, there will be a plethora of tears to be shed as a result of the escalating casualties.

Even more cumbersome is the continued harping on issues that solicit the fear and ire of the American people. In the past, terror and national security has always been Mr. Bush's bread and butter. When all of his other policies fell short in the eyes of United States citizens, one mention of "terrorism" and everyone snaps back into obeyance. The problem with this approach is that people are tired of being scared. Some even want to be ensconsced in normality. It is unfortunate when terrorism is mentioned, immigration is also included in the same breath. That alone presents a tiresome, but necessary lean toward the nostalgia relegated to the nationalistic residue inflicted by September 11, 2001.

And while the fear and terror has been stirred up to a gigantic crescendo, there is this little nugget to note along with the plea for more troops:

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

This proposal conveys two things. First, it seems as if the "Civilian Reserve Corps" reflects an armed mercenary group. Secondly, the proposal glosses over the fact that military is already filled with people who volunteered. With that being said, one has to wonder what he meant with this suggestion. Are the civilians supposed to be like the Peace Corps? Or, are they more like a militia to help in the fighting? Or, is this the next step toward conscription?

The scary notion also derived from such a stance is the fact that if hostilities spread toward Iran, the "Civilian Reserve Corps" paves a way toward a draft as a possibility. It is horrible that even the National Guard has to undergo more tours overseas than necessary. Unfortunately, with troops being strained already in two places of war (Iraq and Afghanistan), one more would set things to a head.

With the casual mentions of Iran within the rhetoric of building support for the war, there is a constant foreshadowing of a wider theater of conflict America cannot afford (monetarily and humanistically) to fight. Iran is a bigger fish in the Middle East with a fully equipped army. If Mr. Bush proposes that Iran might be brought into the larger scale of conflict in that region in the world, a draft would be definitely brought into the realm of reality. Yet, even he must remember the times during the Vietnam era what the draft did to tear the country apart. With that being said, his promise at the beginning of his run in the 2000 election of being a "Uniter" ends up being thrown out the window. That is neither here, nor there by now. Because of his widespread rhetoric of fear and terror, one could only propose he forgets the emotionalism and protests over the draft. Thus, such a policy of dealing with Iran in a state of war must be tailored carefully enough that tensions could be solved diplomatically instead of "carrying a big stick".

Mr. Bush's words, nevertheless, was truly shameful on this accord. It is frustrating that he would bring up Iran in the same breath as Afghanistan and Iraq. He has already bitten off more than he can chew with a conflict brought about by his own doing. Surely, the President of the United States must have overestimated what might happen in the Middle East by America's insertion there. What makes him think that bringing more troops in the Middle East will make things more secure, let alone lower the growing sectarian violence there? Civilians will not tip the scale in this accord. Instead, their involvement would only bring further proof that the United States is operating an "occupation". In this stance, war is never humanitarian. The price of democracy cannot be bought by the waving of a gun.

Where We Are In Light of the State of the Union

All in all, Mr. Bush's words only provided a smoke screen over the larger problems festering at the surface abroad and within the nation. Hearing how the President did not mention a lot of the difficulties that Americans are experiencing, the State of the Union right now dims in comparison to the United States leader has provided last night. It is not easy to say this because the message brought about by such a speech is to keep citizens abreast on how the country is doing. The worst of it all, what it did was reinforce the lie that everything between the borders of the East and West coast was all right.

That made his words rather hard to hear, especially in light what the public already knows through the stories reported about the present Administration. It has even gotten to the point that even though the media cheerleaders still exist, there are items daily that seem to dim the glow of the "rah rah" atmosphere. When especially there are people we know in our daily life who are serving overseas, suffering due to lack of employment and health care, and loved ones struggling to make ends meet, his words fall false.

It's not to say that Mr. Bush's words were laughable. They weren't. It is simply the fact that the speech fell flat on the matters most important to the nation. Instead, the text focused upon pipe dreams that are hard to make into reality. Consquently, the State of the Union appeared on television to be little more than a dog and pony show in which the false belief applies to the notion that when the President speaks, people will applaud. Those claps are wasted because they only serve to heighten the irony that juxstaposes itself against the realities brought about by the policies of the current Administration.

The only thing to take heart is the fact that Mr. Bush's words, highly scrutinized to be sure, can only help Americans to be more cautious and intelligent about choosing their next national leadership next year. Let the lesson be learned that the choices we pick can not only affects us politically and fiscally, but in terms of sustaining our nation in times of distress and crisis. The other thing hopefully learned is that the people of the United States (if not the world) will not be fooled.

We have already been there and done that.

Good News

2007-01-24T21:33:00.000-08:00

Some exciting news has come to pass during the last week. I am among my ATS family once again. My "absence" has been lifted. It has been wonderful to be back with my friends and to catch up on the news going on. I am especially thankful for all the well wishes sent to me upon my return. The e-mails, comments and posts sent to me made my day. :)

With the kind notes from the people I care about on ATS and off, I believe that the best part of being part of something important is not posting; it is the marvelous friends that I have made over my tenure there. It is their support, kindness and well wishes that have brought me the upmost happiness. And during my "absence", their words had brought me comfort and care when I was down. It is their words that I cherish.

Both here and the "blog from X-mas past" (hopefully present), their ideas, ruminances and assurances have brought me hope, comfort, inspiration and courage. And I thank them for their interest and friendship. I definitely thrilled to be among them once again.

That leaves some news about the coming changes on this blog and my activity on that forum.

For now, I am mainly focusing on blog writing when I can due to work and real life. As for the posting? That will be in a little while. As much as I relish a good debate with others on the forum, I would much quietly settle back and take things slow for now. No fistacuffs for a while--a *long* while.

What does that mean for the blog here? This blog will still be written because there is still a lot of writing to be done here. I enjoy talking about politics and society. And of course, I have many things to discuss, especially with the aftermath of the State of the Union address last night.

So, don't think for a minute that this blog will be abandoned. It will not. It is now that my life has widened up for a bit on-line and off. And it is time to put everything into focus.

One thing is very certain: I enjoy writing and conversing with others thoughtfully on the events of the day. I will continue to do so.

Please continue to visit here and post your comments. I enjoy them and will try to write back when I can. Sometimes, my work makes it hard to respond to you right away, but I always make an effort to try and post my comments back to you because you took the time to leave interesting and fascinating remarks here from time to time.

And yes, when the spirit moves me, I'll will become very long winded. But I assure you that I will put as much effort into it as I can to produce meaningful and meticulous think pieces in order to generate discussion and thought.

And remember, if you have something you would like to contact me in regards of the blog or if you would like to say hi, send an e-mail to:

ceci.news@yahoo.com.

And again, the only thing I don't like is spam.

Other than that, I thank you all for reading the blog these past months.

Now, it's time to dig deep into the issues of the day! :)

Take good care,

Ceci :)

Thoughts About Sen. Hillary Clinton As Democratic Presidential Candidate

2007-01-21T03:09:00.000-08:00

Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) announced on her website that she is setting up an exploratory committee for her candidacy as President of the United States Saturday. As soon as she said the word, the news unleashed a flurry of mixed emotions inside and out of the Democratic party.

Okay. We know what the Republicans are saying about Sen. Clinton. In fact, I'm sure that some of the Right Wing Pundits are grinding their axes at this moment. They're probably thirsting for a little tidbit to spin into the slightest controversy as a way to produce another weapon of mass distraction.

As if the reportage on the lost boys were enough.

After a day of thinking about it, there are definite feelings about whether Sen. Clinton clinches the Dems nominee for President. Answers from the callers of my favorite talk show (progressive, of course) revealed that some would not vote for the New York Senator because she represents a "professional politician" (whatever that means). The criticism also went forth that if she were to be elected, it would be more of the same old thing. After all, the last twelve years were capitalized by two dynasties: the Clintons and the Bushes. A vote for her would surely be beating the same drum instead of producing someone different. And of course, the fundraising from Rupert Murdoch doesn't help her case.

On the positive side, there are Dems who think she is a strong choice and representative of future trends in the United States. Instead of an office which has historically elected men, a strong woman would be apropo to usher in change. She is definitely a political survivor who has stood up for what she believed in as First Lady. She also took charge whenever she sat in hearings. However, other Dems are rather distressed by her lack of a stand on the second Iraqi War. Not to mention her absence on several important issues that begged for one politician on the left to speak up.

Well, Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio) spoke up at key times at the risk of their reputation and standing in Congress. Mr. Feingold, with a few other colleagues, pressed for a Censure for President Bush. Mr. Kucinich has constantly questioned the financial benefits that oil corporations received while the working class were stiffled by the constant rise in gas prices. Rep. Barbara Lee (D.-Calif.) took a stand at the very beginning of the Iraqi War by refusing to endorse her support for a conflict she still had questions on.

But, some ask, where was Hillary?

And now, she presents a message announcing her interest in being the President of the United States, if elected.

Very timely, to be sure. Her message to her constituents and supports happened nearly a week after Senator Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) announced plans to explore his options for running for the top job in the land.

Sen. Clinton would be formidable opponent to be sure. She possess the savvy and the insight to work the wheels beyond the Beltway. She would not wilt from the criticism thrown at her. However, the misgivings of those Dems who are not so willing to have her run might be the lynchpin. One would have to wait and see whether she can win over this percentage of the party who still levy questions toward her positions and political alliances in the past.

No doubt, the elections in November 2008 will be very important for the entire country. After all, the current Administration has set a precendent what not to look for a leader. With the choices out there putting their hats in the ring, it is understandable that the American citizens are rather gunshy right now. After all, what is needed is some who can lead, mop up the messes overseas and can bring our troops home. What is also needed is someone who is very charismatic and inspiring. Unfortunately for the last eight years, that was sorely missed even when the United States had fallen into dire straits due to terrorism and conflict abroad.

If anything, there has been the whispering whether Former Vice-President Al Gore would run. Let's face it: Mr. Gore recieved a bum deal in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled in the matter propelling Mr. Bush into office. Since then, the Vice-President had quietly retreated (much to the chagrin of some) and worked toward the cause of global warming. His participation in the film, An Inconvenient Truth(2006), brought him to the forefront once again. Especially on the talk show I had listened yesterday evening, there are still calls from some wishing that he would run. It showed that people do not forget what happened in 2000. And of course, some might even wonder whether we would be better off in America if he was President instead of the current one.

The nominees, in any stretch, must be chosen carefully. Whether it is Sen. John McCain (R.-Arizonia) or Rudolf Guilliani (R.-New York) or even Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, people have to realize that the person chosen must be able to work with foreign governments in a diplomatic and intelligent manner, to restore civility and politeness back to government, not to mention return professionalism and tact back to the White House.

As Americans, we cannot afford to have another politician in office who does not appreciate the gravity of their station as President of the United States. Furthermore, we need someone who works toward national security peacefully through smart negotiation and demonstration of knowledge regarding cultural sensitivity when dealing with international matters. What is most important is someone who can proactively work with building our domestic issues back so that United States citizens can benefit instead of suffer.

We'll just have to see how these early candidates pan out. And then, there will be definite picture which way the citizens of America want to go with their leadership.

Ready For A Little Trivia?

2007-01-19T04:28:00.000-08:00

Bizarre as it is, I came across the line of (American)Presidential succession in an interesting book by Ben Schott called Schott's Original Miscellany (2002). Since this is always discussed in political circles, I thought it would be appropriate to post it here as a part of trivia. Read them and see what you think. Without further ado, here they are:

Presidential Succession:

Vice-President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs

Schott, Ben. Schott's Original Miscellany. New York: Bloomsbury, 2002: 132.

Fascinating, to say the least.

What Should We Pay Attention To?

2007-01-18T23:48:00.000-08:00

While the country is fascinated by two lost boys, a curtain is lowered over the investigations occurring about warrantless wiretapping, the second Iraqi War and its implications on the American people. But never mind. News stories about losing weight and news pilots saving deers are quite more important than the public's right to know about what the House and the Senate are going to do about getting to the truth.

America is in the midst of a crisis. Not only are our civil liberties still being played with and swept under the rug; the United States citizen's right to know is also being played with by the release of more propaganda which seems to sugar coat the mess created overseas. There isn't any attempt to mend fences with other countries. Instead, we have a national leader who continues to ignore advice and beat the hawkish drums when it comes to dealing with the chaotic nature of the Middle East.

What is even more appalling are the answers coming from Mr. Bush's colleagues while they are in the Congressional hot seat. Although it is doubtful that anyone was surprised by the answers given by Mr. Gates, Dr. Rice and others, still their replies leave more questions than the bland assurances that everything is going all right--along with the need for 20,000 more troops.

(Does anyone hear echoes of Dr. Strangelove?)

The attention paid toward Iran is equally troubling. That is one conflict that America does not need, nor want. It is frustrating that diplomacy or other methods of easing tensions in an already heightened situation are not applied. Instead, what we have is more tough talk, not to mention shutting out the advice of the wise and the prudent. Speculation instead of proof has taken over. It is frightening how far such speculation will go in order to make things worse.

The pushing of the doomsday clock to five minutes before midnight reflects the dire need for Americans to pay attention to what our government is doing. It also dictates a yearning that we the people have to respond to such changes in foreign policy before it gets too late.

Right now, it is high time to be concerned about the domestic and foreign policies affecting the nation because eventually they will spill over into our personal lives. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to what is going on. Instead, the news urges us to be more vigilant--especially when it is our loved ones, friends and family going overseas to fight the wars of those comfortably ensconsced in office.

Bush, Gonzales Catching Up to Critics About Wiretapping Program

2007-01-18T15:19:00.000-08:00

Believe it or not, the elections of November 2006 propelled changes going beyond a new Congress. The domestic wiretapping program, a cornerstone of the NSA, will slowly die a quiet death. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the use of the program in a hearing Thursday. Suffice it to say, he did all he could to paint a happy face on such an open misuse of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.

Even he could realize that the winds of change have taken over the government. After all, the investigations due to oversight committees are beginning. "Scooter" Libby is now on trial (which alone sets precedents enabling sitting national leaders to testify). I need not say this again, but I must: the chickens are definitely coming home to roost. Watch the feathers fly in the coming days.

It won't be pretty. Feast your eyes on this short blurb from Reuters UK:

(I've included the juicy parts for your viewing pleasure on the blog)

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fended off lawmakers on Thursday who demanded to know why the administration took more than five years to obtain court approval of its war-time domestic spying.

"I somewhat take issue ... with (Republican) Senator Arlen Specter's innuendo that this is something we could have pulled off the shelf and done in a matter of days or weeks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "This is a very complicated application. We worked on it a long time."

[...]

Critics have charged that President George W. Bush overstepped his authority after the Sept. 11 attacks with the domestic spying program as well as other measures such as holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges, and interrogations that some said amounted to torture.

Gonzales said the Justice Department had recently reached an agreement with a secret court, which gives out warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that would allow swift approval to monitor international communications.

[...]

Gonzales was noncommital, prompting Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, to ask: "Are you saying you might object to the court giving us decisions that you've publicly announced?"

Gonzales said, "There's going to be information about operational details about how we're doing this that we want to keep confidential."

[...]

Bush insisted he had inherent war-time presidential powers to order the spying program. However, Gonzales said the Justice Department stepped up efforts to bring it under FISA.

In a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday, Gonzales said the program would not be renewed. Instead electronic surveillance would be subject to approval from the secret but independent FISA court, as demanded by critics.

Although the non-renewal of the program seems to be an attempt of contriteness on the part of appeasing the critics of the program, still Mr. Gonzales' statements did nothing to reassure the fact that the lesson has been learned about the overstepping of Executive Privilege. It is appalling that no one thought of going to the FISA court in 2001 when trying to implement this program. Instead, it seemed as if it was full steam ahead in terms of asserting power over the American people.

Mr. Gonzales' testimony today did nothing to resolve the conflict proposed by the need for an "Imperial Presidency" during wartime. Knowing his law credentials, even he has to realize that the system of Checks and Balances were there in order to place the President in check regarding matters such as this one. Unfortunately, hind-sight is 20/20. And now, closing the program is not going to sweep the past under the rug. The cases of Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(2006) saw to that.

This is yet another attempt to justify a program that clearly raised Constitutional questions about the rights of American citizens. In fact, to try and put a good side on wiretapping easily conveys a sense of dictatorship. That alone flies in the face of a democracy. In light of this, one has to wonder whether the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves with all the handiwork done regarding this program.

There isn't a sense of guilt over what has been done in the past. And judging from the comments, there wasn't nary a regret over questions regarding the program's uses and applications. Highlighting this issue only conveys that the dark days of the past cannot be erased so easily.

Does Mr. Bush's Comments Come Too Late?

2007-01-16T23:10:00.000-08:00

I don't know whether Mr. Bush's comments on the recent executions in Iraq were meant to soothe tensions overseas or in America, but they are quite curious. They are interesting because of the history involved between American and Iraq. No matter how it might look, read the comments of the President of the United States and see what you think. This comes from the Associated Press and CBS News.

The President's remarks come from his interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS. It aired Tuesday on the "News Hour With Jim Lehrer" show:

President Bush said Tuesday the unruly execution of Saddam Hussein "looked like it was kind of a revenge killing," making it harder to persuade a skeptical U.S. public that Iraq's government will keep promises central to Bush's plan for a troop increase.

[...]

Mr. Bush criticized the circumstances of Saddam's hanging last month, as well as Monday's execution of two top aides, including Saddam's half brother.

"I was disappointed and felt like they fumbled the — particularly the Saddam Hussein execution," the president told Lehrer.

A cell phone video of Saddam's Dec. 30 hanging showed the deposed Iraqi leader being taunted as he stood on the gallows with a noose around his neck. An official video of the execution of Saddam's half brother showed that the hangman's noose decapitated him. Both hangings provoked outrage around the world, but particularly among Saddam's fellow Sunnis in Iraq.

Mr. Bush said he had expressed his displeasure about the way Saddam's execution was handled to al-Maliki. The president announced what he called a new strategy for the war last week, with much of it hinging on his trust in al-Maliki's government to make radical changes.

"It basically says to people, 'Look, you conducted a trial and gave Saddam justice that he didn't give to others. But then, when it came to execute him, it looked like it was kind of a revenge killing,"' the president said.

"It makes it harder for me to make the case to the American people that this is a government that does want to unify the country and move forward," Mr. Bush said. "And it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do."

Although there is more to say about this matter later, I just wanted to post the excerpts of this story for you to read the latest comments from the American leader. Opinion-wise, there is a lot of underlying irony involved. After all, Mr. Bush's recent words mark a departure from his earlier sentiments of "bringing it on". However, this "change of heart" is only meant to sell a platform that doesn't resemble any sort of cogent plan. Instead, it further dictates a policy of virtually ignoring the findings and research made on U.S. foreign policy and its involvement in the Middle East. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Is This The Final Chapter for Mr. Castro?

2007-01-16T00:28:00.000-08:00

As I was doing my late night reading on-line, I came across this report revealing the grave condition of Cuban leader, Fidel Castro. The Boston Globe has something to say on this matter:

Cuban leader Fidel Castro is in serious condition after three failed operations on his large intestine for diverticulitis complicated by infection, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported.

Castro, 80, suffered a serious infection that worsened to peritonitis, the newspaper said in today's editions. It cited two medical sources at the Madrid hospital where a surgeon who visited Castro in December works.

Castro's prognosis is "very serious" and he is being fed intravenously, the paper said.

Diverticulitis is the inflammation of pouch-like bulges in the intestinal wall. Peritonitis is an infection of the lining of the abdominal cavity.

A first operation to extract part of Castro's large intestine and reconnect the colon was a failure and the link broke, releasing feces into the abdomen that caused another peritonitis, the newspaper reported.

A second operation to clean and drain the infected area and perform a colostomy also failed, the paper said. Castro underwent a third operation to implant a Korean-made prosthesis, but it did not work and was replaced by one brought from Spain.

I guess you have to treat this as a "watch" or "wait" type of story. There have been many changes in the health of Mr. Castro lately that if one report has him knocking on death's door, there is another that has him completely fine with pictures. A lot can be said about the Cuban leader. However, you can say that he is probably the the most resilient person who has survived many obstacles during his long career (exploding cigars notwithstanding).

Whatever one might say is that time is slowly letting the curtain lower on one particular part of history. This is definitely a new era that is coming about. The leaders of the past are slowly going away from us. And, now, history has yet to unleash newer and a different brand of leadership that will propel the story of the earth and its peoples to another level.

It makes you wonder what kind of people will take the helm of our nations in the future. Will we get more into the realm of "Big Brother"? Or will someone step up with a lot of intelligence and courage that will help the world instead of hurt it?

Who knows? But, we are in for exciting and very noteworthy days which chaotically reveal the pathways to the future.

Ceci's Special, Part II: Communication As A Form of Courage

2007-01-15T03:40:00.000-08:00

Along with the thoughts about MLK day, I reflected deeply about what it means to speak your mind thoughtfully and courageously. In my past incarnation as a poster on a forum, I had undergone a transformation. At first, I was really shy and quiet because I didn't know what to say. As time went on, I began to express myself about politics and society. It was slow at first because I had always been very careful and conscientious about others.

In many ways, I still hold fast to the ideals of meticulousness and thoughtfulness when it comes to discussing pertinent issues. Other times, I began to get bolder and throw caution to the wind. Some of that got me into trouble--especially in bitter debates that left both pro and con sides scathed. It is hard trying to discuss issues sometimes with people who are set in their ways. It is even harder conversing with those who want to pull the rug right from under you just for their personal entertainment.

In some debates that I have had in the past, everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at me. Sometimes, the words expressed by my opponents in a topic were rather harsh and uncalled for. But I grew a thick skin and defended myself--sometimes, to no avail. It was here that I discovered a small kernel of wisdom about discussing politics: it is dirty and rather personal when you've mentioned something that rubs the other conversant raw. And then, the accusations fly. It always ends with scorched earth, one way or another.

There had been many times in conversations like these I felt like washing my hands over and over. But that is because I have a conscience. I have discovered that there are people in the world who don't care how dirty their hands get because they just don't give a damn. In fact, it even soils their entire attitude. In that sort of brutality, I've learned that sometimes, I've got to let it go despite what my opponents in a debate think about me and my opnions. However, that lesson is a tough and long one coming. I had to fall into the trap many times before the realization struck me.

And then, there are people who misunderstand or intentionally ignore what you are trying to say. You try to explain it over and over, just hoping once that it would get through their minds. But even then in the midst of heated discourse, there are just some people who don't want to get it and will not. In fact, they will do whatever they can not to understand your side of things. They opt instead to try and bring personality into it. And when you express an opinion that doesn't jibe with their world view, suddenly, you are painted with mental or behavioral disorders, let alone other pathological accoutrements that they will not only convince themselves or others that you have.

That is why I've come to the point that having conversations on tough topics not only requires a tough skin; it also is a mark of courage and bravery in the face of unwinnable odds.

It takes courage to hold your ground and continue to discuss things despite the fact that you might be alone in your beliefs about a given issue. Believe you me. It is not for the faint of heart, not by any means. When one finds one's self against others who refuse to understand a particular subject, you have to have nerves of steel. It requires more tact and communication skill than what is being let on. If you ever find yourself at the tail end of a fight, don't be convinced that you are the one who lacks "communication skills".

After talking about this notion with others, I've found out that those who are willing to throw out accusations such as that one are far more mired in their own inability to express themselves than you. They also lack the tenacity to face their convictions, opting for the easy road of taunting and accusations instead. And when it comes to courage, they have none if they can't open their minds enough to converse about the issue without resorting to the underhanded tactics.

However, no one is free of playing dirty. Sometimes you have to do it simply to defend yourself. Here too, it is apt to note that some people do not like someone who is at the tail end of their criticism to do just that. It is far easier to give up and to walk away.

If you feel the strength of your convictions and are willing to go with it in the end, then you will hold all the marbles. However, one cannot let themselves become crystallized in their position. Having good communication skills is possessing open-mindedness even when it gets hard. One always has to see the other side of things and hear the other side out.

The most courageous thing to do, I have realized, is to retain that open-mindedness even when debates and discussions get dirty. Even in the worst of circumstances, I find myself researching the other side in order to have a well-rounded perspective on the topic. It is a lot to ask that the other side to do the same.

In the end, you must sometimes deal with your own manner of communicating and not let others rail-road you into thinking that your positions or sentiments are wrong.

There is more to say about this later, perhaps in part 3. But, to make a long story short, courage is a powerful and redeeming force if one uses its potential while taking the higher road.

MLK Day Should Be Used to Promote Tolerance and Brotherhood

2007-01-14T17:08:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is the federal holiday in America to celebrate the legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. To some, it is a day off of work. To others, it is time to deeply think about where we've come as a country and how much further we have to go to eradicate intolerance.

This past year, more than most, I have been thinking and dealing with the issues surrounding diversity and tolerance because they have affected me in intimate ways on-line and in the "real world". In this search for more understanding between individuals, it is appropriate to use the MLK holiday as a time to read his speeches and think about how one can use his words to increase respect among all individuals.

Rev. King's acts during his lifetime not only helped African-Americans self-actualize and further integrate themselves within American society; his teachings promoted the tenets of peace in a troubled world. We, as Americans, have a debt to pay to the civil rights leader, especially when the events of 9/11 has brought to the forefront increasingly uncomfortable issues that the United States still hasn't dealt with.

In the present day, we still have to deal with the negativity attached to nationalism and patriotism openly promoted by the Bush Presidency. Single-handedly, the policies endorsed by the current Administration did more to hurt and divide the country than anything else. By using the theory of Terror Threat Management and fear, Americans are often found looking over their shoulder and scrutinizing their neighbors in every little way. It has even gotten to the point that due to issues of "national safety", anyone is suspect.

This is not how America ought to be. It should be remembered that all of us, no matter what heritage or background, should be treated decently and humanely. However, the increasing lack of respect and civility that has been fostered due to social and political opinions has become the order of the day. This ill will should be stopped. Efforts must be made to learn about each other and to begin employing strategies to stop the utter ignorance that intolerance brings.

It's been said in a lot of ways, but I'll repeat it here: change begins with us as individuals.

That means using MLK Day as a time to get to know your neighbors, to ask about what you can do to promote peace and understanding as well as to work on healing a nation rife with misunderstanding when it comes to different cultures. It also conveys that one should not stay silent when it comes to intolerance; it is time to break past crystallized attitudes and rewrite the thought patterns that have unwittingly undermined togetherness.

Some might think that to stop talking about the issues of intolerance will eradicate it. That is precisely the problem. If people are not willing to confront their own attitudes on a daily basis, then we are in definite trouble. The silence must be stopped. Instead, discussions--no matter how emotional--must continue. I believe that conversations about the state of society when it comes to diversity have to be approached even when it hard to speak about. Because it is so personal and emotional, talks about the legacy of civil rights and diversity are often excitable.

(Heck, I ought to know from my past experiences as a poster.)

However, when trying to be more understanding of others, one must be brave. Rev. King took that first step. We should also summon our courage and reach out. If we don't, we build walls instead of tear them down.

If anything, this is a critical time to take a stand. America is in dire need for people to be concerned about one another. We cannot afford to be cynical or tired of discussing diversity when it continues to shape the policies in our nation and the rest of the world.

Nail Biter at the New Galen Center

2007-01-13T14:04:00.000-08:00

Funny. While I was writing the latest political ramblings, I watched the UCLA Bruins battle the USC Trojans in the new Galen Center (the new facility in which the "other" team plays basketball). *Sigh*. It was hard to type while sitting on the edge of my seat. During the majority of the game, UCLA was behind ten points. After last week's loss to the University of Oregon and their plummet from number one to four, I thought, "When it rains, it pours".

But, you have to hand it to my team. With utter determination, the Bruins bounced back and rallied to win against their mid-town rivals. All starters played great despite the constant droning of the hated Trojan fight song. Darren Collison, of course, was sensational. Aaron Aflalo and Lorenzo Mata weren't bad either. Mata surprised me. He did a spectacular job with making it to the hoops with ease.

But, the Bruins have to work with their first quarter sluggishness. If they play lackidasial in the first half, they reap what they sow when they trail behind the other team (case in point with their last game against Oregon). However, I was pleased with the free throws made by UCLA.

Conventional wisdom always says that free throws are what eventually wins the game. You can always say the three-pointers help things along, but it always comes down to the charity strike. In this area, my team keeps on improving.

In the end, I was impressed with their ability to be resilient when the chips are against them. They don't call UCLA the "gutty little Bruins" for nothing. ;)

Mr. Bush and His "Legacy"

2007-01-13T13:03:00.000-08:00

A lot of talk has gone on in the media about Mr. Bush's legacy. In fact, The New York Times recently had a very fascinating article about how the Republicans have to grapple with this legacy when it comes to the 2008 elections. The item put it bluntly that with no appointed successor from the current President of the United States, the Republicans have to deal with the increasing unpopularity of the war as well as their stance against the current Administration's policies:

On the Hill, meanwhile, even those who did support the president’s plan in Iraq offered less than the hearty endorsements of the troop surge. Some, like Mr. Warner, said they needed more information before they committed to any increase. At an Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday, Mr. Warner asked the Pentagon to provide results of the war game analyses it has done to evaluate the results of adding more troops.

In the House, as fierce a partisan as Representative Jack Kingston said he was not ready to lend full support, but looked forward to hearings on the plan.

Other Republicans supported the president but emphasized that the commitment in Iraq must not be open-ended — a Democratic refrain. And they argued for the need for benchmarks to evaluate the success of the increase, all of which leaves room for them to peel away from the president if the war does not show more success soon.

Heading toward 2008, Republicans are no longer expecting the kind of party discipline on the war that they expected in 2006. Instead, party leaders say members must speak their consciences.

To the most cynical, it might seem that the rats are trying to jump from the sinking ship. Believe it or not, GOP candidates will have to make a decision: to either save themselves or to continue in blind allegiance to the current administration despite the widespread criticism from America's foreign policy. Strangely enough, the article mentions something that is central to this decision: the fact that they might have to find their consciences in order to survive politically.

When Mr. Bush and his policies were bandied about in the press and in his speeches, there was no question of whether his colleagues would have a conscience or not. Especially before the November 2006 elections, empathy seemed miles away when it came to questions regarding America's participation in Iraq. Despite pertinent questions about the President's policies overseas, they staunchly stood behind their leader without question. It seemed at times that their denial of the wrongs committed during the "occupation" seemed rather stifling.

The shoe had to drop when the scandals started to seep over the surface. As if the problems of former Representative Tom Delay wasn't enough, the Foley and Abramoff scandals were the tip of the iceberg. By November 2006, these stories along with the realisation of the increasing casualties of war had brought about a sense of disgust--along with sentiment overseas.

Talk about "cutting and running". By all indications of this article, it seems that "cutting and running" is precisely what GOP candidates are doing to ensure their own political survival.

And survival is what exactly what they are focusing on when considering the endeavors of Mr. Bush and his stance toward Iraq.

They say politics is a fickle business. When popularity of a party or a policy sweeps the citizenry, the national leaders embrace it with all their fervor. And then, when bottom falls out, those astute enough to see the winds of change distance themselves enough to stay out of the fray. To make a long story short, siding with the President right now is a tricky business due to the fact that the public has gotten wind of the ineptitude and the sheer arrogance when dealing with national and international policy. It is to the point that no matter how much propaganda is being pushed toward nationalism and supporting the troops, not even blindness will turn away the criticism that has erupted over the troubled policies that Mr. Bush has embraced.

This is a time of reckoning for both the Dems and the GOP. For the GOP, they have to embark upon their own soul searching efforts in order to stay buoyant in rocky political times. The Dems have to see this fact and use it to their own advantage. Not only do they have to stay faithful to their "First 100 hours" policy (of which they have made good on), but also they have to use this time to introduce civility and a search for the truth to satiate five years of inquiries posed by those who have scrutinized the actions of the current Administration.

All in all, yes, Mr. Bush has to be very concerned about how historians will treat him. But, one might suppose that his so-called "legacy" might be out of his hands if his own party begins to question his actions.

Oversight Committees Are Needed To Correct Goverment

2007-01-12T21:14:00.000-08:00

On the political front, there is a lot of news regarding the hearing which placed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others into the hot seat. While there, her pained, but cool demeanor tried to dampen the rising criticism about the Iraqi war. However, it all seemed to only deflect the issue. Not only that, it highlighted the desperate need for investigations to happen in order to get answers to the most dire issues that is affecting all of us.

There seems to be the train of thought that the American people cannot take seeing their leaders prosecuted for the wrongs they committed in government. This idea was especially communicated during the funeral of former President Gerald R. Ford. The problem with this idea is that our politicians are under the perception that we as citizens faint at the sight of any governmental bloodletting that seems to happen. This idea also seems to convey the lack of faith in our understanding of events, let alone the absorption of the gravity that investigations might reveal.

Yes, Americans are slowly starting to wake up about the travesty their country is in. The events that have painted the last five years have finally come to the surface because there is a growing tiredness about being led around and around without any stoppage. To put it more bluntly, people are sick and tired of the BS that is being fed to them from the media and the propaganda that seems to hide the realities of a government that is troubled and fractured, to say the least.

It is eye-opening that despite it might hurt, some Republicans have even faced facts and criticized the handling of America's foreign policy. The party that seemed to be formed by Tom "The Hammer" Delay and propagandized by Karl Rove seems to be trying to change their spots. It might be the fact that some are politically astute to how the temper of the American people can change with the times. After all, the November 2006 elections were one in which frustration had bubbled over and people started to see their consciences when it came to wanting to get the goverment back to serving its constituents.

Contrary to the fear that the American people "might not take what comes out", investigations are good when they aren't used for petty partisan tactics. There are facts about our current situation in the world that need to be known. In the past, certain documents had come to light (such as the Dowling Street documents) to alert the public about how the need for war has been created. Mr. Bush's speech this week also gave some warning signals about why a search for the truth needs to be done.

When it is all said and done, it would be nice if historians would say that depsite the dark ages of America during the Bush era that there were responsible politicians who looked past the media fluffery and punditry to try and set things right. A public accounting can start to find the soul of the United States. We've had it up to here with denial. And denial can only resolve to cloud the issue and make things worse than it already is.

When putting national and international events into perspective, there needs to be some accounting and admittance of what went wrong. For future leaders, this time can turn into one that could teach them what and what not to do when leading the people. For the rest of us, this time can teach us not to turn to denial when seeing the writing on the wall and to be more responsive when our national leaders do not do what we sent them to the Capital for.

For the future journalists out there, these times can also teach them a thing or two about not being hushed into silence when approaching the subject matter that affects all of us. The Fourth Estate also needs to clean house. It becomes increasingly tiresome to hear the cheerleading of certain individuals who are cowed into silence and preventing the public's right to know. Furthermore, those in the media not only have to be competitive for stories, but to also stand by their colleagues when one of them is penalized regarding their freedom of speech.

Most of all, the tenets of the Constitution should be reconsidered, especially when they have been toyed with by the passage of past laws that restrict civil liberties. 9/11 was a horrible and unspeakable event, for sure. But one thing must come to mind when considering this fact: a democracy ceases to exist if we leave our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in hands of the selfish who do nothing but abuse it. To root out the abuse, this is more than relevant.

The beauty of such committees is the fact that like Watergate and the Iran-Contra Scandals it will be publicized on television. Although the media is more centrally corporate than it has been in the past, this step must be taken in order for us to get to what we desire to know, warts and all.

And believe it or not, the warts are exactly what is needed.

Some News about the Blog

2007-01-12T20:04:00.000-08:00

Hello all,

Before I write more about the realm of society and politics, I would like to announce a contact e-mail for Ceci's News and Views. If you would like to contact me about the blog or drop a note to say hello, here it is:

ceci.news@yahoo.com

It is there for you to send your comments and suggestions as well as other matters that might need to come to my attention. :)

All I ask is that you do not send spam.

In the new year, there is more to come from the blog, so stay tuned and continue reading!

Take good care,

Ceci :)

Tarnished Tinsel and Political Waves

2007-01-11T03:30:00.000-08:00

My holiday was quite all right for the most part. I got a chance to see family and friends, not to mention travel a little in order to get away from it all. I reveled in bowl and basketball games (although I'm quite saddened over the Bruins' loss to Oregon last week :( ). However, it wasn't so bright enough to cover the little ripples of change coming over Washington D.C. and the rest of the nation.

It was sad to hear about the deaths of James Brown (who I still remember Mr. Brown performing "Living in America" in the "Rocky" movies.) and Yvonne De Carlo (the most fascinating "Munster" of them all). The melancholy nature of the passing of President Ford also clouded the holiday season because no matter what political stripe you are, it is a solemn and rather reflectful experience in seeing a former national leader pass.

During the televising of the entire event of Former President Ford's Funeral activities, it was quite interesting and impressive to hear the memories of my older family members--especially when it came down to their perception of the people who attended the ceremonies. It was also fascinating to hear them recall how they perceived the record of Mr. Ford's work in office, especially when it came down to his pardoning of Mr. Nixon. And still, the most interesting thoughts came about when they watched and commented on Mr. Ford's widow, Betty Ford.

For the most part, the consensus came that she held herself up pretty well until the internment. The weight of his passing seemed to take a toll on her. Even here, despite the political differences, one can feel a sense of sadness to see her small frame lean against her military escort as she was led to the final resting place of the President. Apart of the drama and cinematic fervor of the Reagan funeral (not to mention Mrs. Reagan in her large sunglasses behind the family in the National Cathedral), Mrs. Ford and her family were stoic and rather melancholy as they followed Mr. Ford on his final journey to his Presidential library in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It was quiet and rather sad to note that the past has gone on.

The only ironic and rather amusing thing about the entire event was seeing the dignitaries such as Vice-President Cheney, the past Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and even the ever ubiquitous Henry Kissenger try to pray and sing the hymns (well, rather mouthing the words). It was hard not to notice that only former President Clinton actually sang and closed his eyes when he prayed while the others only seemed to go through the routine--in a sense of an opinion.

(It's up to you to figure out that conundrum.)

Now, as the curtains closed on one era, still yet another very present one hovers at the surface.

While facing the defeat regarding the (American) football teams of Michigan (in the Rose bowl) and UCLA (in the Emerald Bowl) and watching the vibrant proposal between Boise St. player Ian Johnson and his girlfriend (the head cheerleader), the news of Saddam Hussein's execution came to the fore. That too, was a startling event. It is hard to believe that after all these years the Iraqi leader was dead. There is yet more to be said about this event. But to make a long story short, his death (and the capturing of it on-line and television) marks the beginning of more contentious times in Iraq.

Mr. Saddam's death has caused a lot of controversy, to say the least. And it becomes more marked in the speech given by the current Present of the United States, George W. Bush. Mr. Bush's speech today was rather hard to hear despite his usual look of a "deer in the headlights". When thinking about the Iraqi leader's execution and putting it into perspective, the call for more troops seems to exacerbate a situation already brimming over the surface. Mr. Bush still didn't believe that Iraq was in the midst of a civil war. Yet, it seems rather futile to send more American lives over to the Middle East to try and clean up a situation all of his doing.

For the most part, he was doing his part to stop the bleeding that has already occurred since the bombs fell on Baghdad in 2003. His "take" on Iraq was more of the same old thing. After all, his catch phrases were words we've all heard before in so many speeches--especially when trying tie the war in Iraq to 9/11.

I guess, it is cynicism on my part to note that his speech did nothing to shed light on the problems occurring from the "occupation" and the disaster it produced afterward. His words did nothing to console the lives already lost, nor did it provide any ample growth from a sort of understanding of the weight of his decisions. Instead, it sounded false. It also conveyed a sense of not really feeling the weight of responsibility regarding what the President and his colleagues had done to another country.

His words were probably those considered when "preaching to the choir": a group of Americans who still stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the realities of what this conflict has done not only to the nation, but the world. To them, it probably sounded reassuring.

To the rest of us, however, it only meant the same old song and dance in a continuous loop.

The good thing about this time is that a lot of us know this, especially after a law came on the books regarding the President having the power to read people's mail.

The frightening thing is the mention of turning the war drums toward Iran. I wonder if anyone has attempted to ask our national leader if he has bitten off more than he can chew?

Over The Mountains and Through the Woods....

2006-12-21T13:37:00.000-08:00

I am off to be with family, friends and loved ones for the holiday. During this time while watching basketball and bowl games, I'll also be reflecting quite a lot about what to do next when I come back.

It's been three months (!?!) since the blog has been started. And in the midst of work and life, I've tried to write and keep up with the latest developments of the day. However, I also explored some other issues as "think pieces" such as communication skills, not to mention my forays into sports. Politics, of course, is heating up. When we return from the Christmas dinners and the good tidings, a new Congress will be installed. A close scrutiny will be made upon the first hundred hours to see if Rep. Pelosi (now Madame Speaker of the House) will deliver as promised in restoring domestic issues back to America.

It will be also interesting to note how the situation in Iraq will be dealt with. After all, there are still ideas afoot in Washington that there isn't a civil war. Although others can see it, it doesn't mean that this harsh fact has sunk into all circles. After all, to admit the civil war is happening is to admit defeat. This too will be watched with certain aplomb especially when the new Secretary of Defense gives his recommendations about what to do about our overseas situation.

But now, it's time for the Emerald Bowl, Holiday Bowl (and begrudgingly, of course,) the Rose Bowl (Go Michigan!!!!). Not to mention, the Fiesta Bowl, the Sugar Bowl and the Orange Bowl....as well as all of those other bowls in between! ;-)

I send my love and holiday wishes to all of you, but especially (in no particular order):

Gemwolf, Duzey, DCFusion, Just Generic, HarlemHottie, donwhite, maria_stardust, Nikelbee, Yarium, whaaa, Bripe Kimun, ZeddicusZulZorander, truthseeka, Ngydan and psyopswatcher.

If I forgot you, I am sorry. But, I wish you too a very, merry holiday and the best during this festive, wonderous season.

As Vincent D'Onofrio says in The Player, "See you in the next reel!" :)

A Very Merry Holiday

2006-12-18T23:13:00.000-08:00

Before I forget, I would like to send out a happy holidays to all of you near and far. It is wished that you experience the best of times. Please stay safe and well during the last two weeks of the year. It is also my hope that it is special and fantastic time had by all.

I am especially grateful for those of you who have stuck by me and continue to be patrons of my blog. Although the last two months have been very busy, you all have my continued appreciation and respect for your interest and care. From all of you, I have learned courage and tenacity in the midst of changes of fortune. And believe me, y'all, I have experienced all spectrums of it recently.

The good thing about the holidays is that it allows us time to reflect where we've been throughout the year as well as where we might want to be headed. And, I feel especially blessed that I have exchanged comments from thoughtful and gracious people who have taken the time to share their opinions and comments about many events of the day. Their words have caused me to think deeply about many issues far more than I would have ever done. Furthermore, their input has given me the art of expression. I still have a lot to learn, but it is great every step of the way.

Please enjoy yourselves and have a lovely time. And of course, spend a little time to reflect on those who need compassion and kindness during these two weeks as well. The least of us are also in great need during the holidays. They also deserve comfort and care as well. :)

Desperate Times for Desperate People

2006-12-13T23:26:00.000-08:00

The other thing that is troubling during this time is the gap between the classes in America. Historically speaking, the United States has always been perceived as a "classless society", one that does not reflect the Old World and its attachment to one's station in life. However, the Gilded Age of the 19th and early 20th Century changed that. Today's society lends further evidence that the "haves and the have mores" possess more of the pie than the rest of us.

During the present Administration, we are more separated by class possibly than in the past. The ultra rich have made stupendous amounts of money during this age while the middle and working class has floundered due to the shifts in the economy. And the poor? As a quip that has ironically been said from time to time, let them eat yellow cake. After all, the poor (as evidenced from the disaster of Hurricane Katrina) remain invisible in a society increasingly being convinced that the government has no role in trying to help them.

As a result, there are a rash of stories coming out in the news of people doing desperate things in the name of money. Everyday, there seems to be story on identity theft or hacking into a system of personal information. Since we have become an increasingly electronic society in which cash and personal information have become more valuable to make transactions, desperate acts become more and more apparent only to exist.

Just like the eighties, money has been the sole part of being acknowledged and accepted in society. It almost seems that the "morals" that have been constantly thrown at us equate "godliness" with being an "acceptable member" of society through how much is owned. This is a shame that the present value system of American society relating these ideals has been increasingly noticable in entertainment, speeches and news. However, when you see the rich doing what they want without any ethical compass to guide them while people like you and myself getting caught on the smallest offenses, one can see that desperate measures come from desperate times.

When national leaders constantly talk and ignore their way out of culpability, what kind of example does it set for the rest of us? Not a very good one. And if politicans don't care, then should the rest of us care? That answer requires a lot of thought for some while for others it doesn't take a New York minute for the answer. It only shows that we are not an egalitarian society--not for one second.

Desperation has become a signifier of the post-9/11 society, it seems. There seems to be a hurried, expectant nature to get the results required. Whether it is vanquishing terrorists or trying to put a lid on the latest scandal, people demand things to be done quickly and succinctly without any second thoughts. As a result, the sense of right and wrong seems to be ignored without any sense of empathy.

Still here, there is more to be said in searching for the reasons why. When it comes to the state of America, one needs to come back to the notion of a country trying to search for its soul once again.

We are definitely lost in many ways. We won't be found again until we listen to the pleas of our citizens and work on getting better wages for everyone while narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. People must definitely stop voting against their best interests. Instead, justice and fairness must be explored again in order to set right the inequalities that the difference in classes convey.

There's Still Work to be Done

2006-12-13T23:11:00.000-08:00

In our usual talks over the phone, my father told me something that I didn't find out until the late night news: that the Dems control over the Senate might be in jeopardy.

Knowing my forays into the cyberspace world, Dad told me, "Read it on the Internet. They probably have something more to say on this matter."

A quick glance over the daily news (apart from the sad news about actor Peter Boyle's passing :( )revealed what he was telling me earlier this evening:

This comes from the Houston Chronicle:

Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was hospitalized Wednesday with the symptoms of a stroke and underwent surgery several hours later, officials said.

There was no word on the nature of the surgery, which lasted past midnight, or on Johnson's condition.

Apart from the risk to his health, Johnson's illness carried political ramifications. Democrats emerged from last month's elections with a 51-49 Senate majority. If he is forced to relinquish his seat, a replacement would be named by South Dakota's GOP Gov. Mike Rounds.

A Republican appointee would create at 50-50 tie, and allow the GOP to retain Senate control.

It is amazing how the winds of fortune can change in the blink of an eye. It is definitely serious if there is brain surgery. And at this time, all best wishes go to the Senator's family in this time of dire need.

The thing that comes up with news like this is whether the GOP would be callous enough to treat this sad incident as roadkill and name the appointee before it is said and done. This is not to be said lightly. The present Administration is not that hospitable to "the enemy"--the opposing party. For the acts that have happened (like putting Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich) in a basement room of the White House to hold a press conference or the skewering of former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney by the passage of a resolution), it is not surprising that the lack of empathy and candor which would otherwise be held by those more thoughtful would not be practiced in this case.

However, even the most tactful of those in the GOP might notice that if such an act were to take place, it might reflect badly in their stance to quickly tip the scales of power. One would hope that the notion of humanity would appeal to some. It is hoped that someone of the elephant party would have a sense of civility in this matter.

Politics is a cutthroat business not for the faint of heart. Keep your eyes peeled and your senses keen. Things will probably happen that will never cease to surprise you.

Oh, The Places We Will Go

2006-12-11T17:01:00.000-08:00

After reading dcfusion's entry on his wonderful blog, Scripted Musings for No One in Particular, I found out that ATS now has a great look from the last time I saw it. It only gets better for those who continue to stay with and nurture its growth. It was amazing to see the changes that have come forth. Let us hope that with its transformation, a plethora of empathetic and wise voices come forth to help it blossom. Let them continue to carry on the fight for knowledge and compassion for the least of us. And, I certainly hope that in such a place for the fruition of information, that the wise are given a platform to speak especially in difficult and controversial topics.

To those that carry on this action, I give my utmost blessings and hopes. I wish them the best. :)

P.S. For those of you still in contact with Harlem Hottie and donwhite, please give them a warm hello, happy holidays and my best regards. I miss them very much and certainly hope that they know that I think about them often--especially on days like this. And...encourage those two to start blogs!!!!!!! :)

Thank God for the Rebel Rousers

2006-12-11T09:55:00.000-08:00

A pearl of wisdom from my sister made me also reflect on the state of things. She told me, "Thank God for the rebel rousers for they open our eyes to what isn't there."

At first, this saying might seem odd or even obtruse. Thinking about it, a lot of pioneers have been troublemakers in their own right because they challenged what has been accepted and taken as gospel. They openly questioned the state of things and fought for the rights of all opposed to some. They introduced ideas that were revolutionary, but not taken very well by those well adjusted to the status quo. And they were not being "disruptive" perse; instead, they were just doing their duty to wake up the consciousness of the asleep. And those who are asleep mainly say that they "didn't see anything" or that "nothing happened".

At first, in the eyes of the status quo the "rebel rouser" might be seen as tilting at windmills and making pictures out of the clouds. But to those who are deeply sensitive to the actions of some against others, the actions of the "disruptive ones" awaken them to the inequalities and degredation that often happens under the surface. Sadly enough, it costs less to be amongst the conventional who cross every t and dot every i. Making a difference costs more.

And for the number of people who try to make a difference in their lives, there are those who angrily fight back because silencing dissent is part of their modus operandi. When the questions refused be acknowledged and answered, it might seem good. But in the end, it creates another wall against learning and knowledge that might cause a new aspect of social change.

Social change, I gather, is not for the weak-willed or the followers of society. Those that are willing to root out their neighbors and sell them down the river pretty much given up their freedom of thought and action. But for those who are willing to embrace the aspect of inquiry and the search for making things better in society has the world in their hands.

This time more than ever, people are searching for answers. They are hungry for change. The last election showed that a lot of citizens were sick and tired of business as usual. It even caused some heads to roll. Most notably, Mr. Rumsfeld was sent his walking papers due to the disgust of the people over the outcome of the second Iraqi war.

Of course, the quest for "bipartisanship" is a smoke screen. The GOP has no interest in working with the Democrats to make government better. However, it is a time for those who are willing to suggest changes that will make the United States better domestically and internationally. That means mending fences at home and abroad. It also defines the aspect of helping Americans through making their quality of life better.

So, the government, right now, needs rebel rousers. They need the ballsy, disruptive types to get things done in the face of turmoil. These are the people who are brave enough to withstand the pogroms and shout down the loud voices sent to impede social progress in the face of a dire time. It is time that we get courageous, intelligent and tactful leaders who are willing to stick their neck out in the effort to take our country back from the hands of those who have attacked its principles and derailed its efforts against liberty.

Liberty does not always mean what it does because it is turned into a soundbyte or a solemn reminder of an act of aggression. It also stands for freedom of speech, civil rights and the ability to question our government when it is doing things that are detrimental to the progress of its station here and overseas. Liberty also calls for those who are just in their attempts in using the tenets of the Constitution instead of dismantling them for the petty needs of a few.

And it is the rebel rouser who will hold those petty needs in check in the effort progress the civility and gentility of the many who honestly believe that the tenets which made America great should be bestowed to everyone.

Beginning To Search For the Soul Under the Surface

2006-12-11T09:33:00.000-08:00

A couple of posts back, Gemwolf had written some interesting and thought-provoking things on the state of America. Glancing at his words once again, I began to think deeply about what he had spoken. Is America truly at the precipice of decline?

After much thinking, this is my answer to him.

I suppose that it is a view very much in the eye of the beholder. However, I tend to think that every country has a moment of its rise and fall. The United States is in the midst of a nadir of influence. It is fraying at the edges and even coming apart at the seams. But, I tend to agree with the view of others that we have returned back to the Vietnam era. America had sent its young off to die. It isn't the rich and the privileged who is fighting in the front lines; it is poor and the middle class who feels they must serve their country in this matter. Some, unfortunately, have returned in body bags with a lot of fan fare and little explaination. That expository notion regarding the reasons of the war had been hashed over by a committee. But still the President of the United States pooh-poohed the findings and decided to go off on his own in the next two weeks to come up with his "own recommendations".

But that does nothing to decrease the decline of the country or eliminate the suffering caused by occupation. It still goes on. And our young people continue to get injured or killed. When they get sent home, the public is not supposed to see them except for carefully constructed news reports to minimalize the horror that this conflict has brought to the world.

All of these things contribute to the decline. We have turned into a nation of denial being led by the "Denier in Chief". We are constantly led by the media and entertainment to not really believe what we are seeing and hearing. The only thing we must repeat are patriotic words used to promote nationalism above our own misgivings and feelings. And when the truth silently floats to the surface of the mire we call "public information", the loudest of us all practice very well what our leaders taught us: deny, deny, deny.

And while all this flag-waving and nationalist action is taking part, America domestically falls to shambles. We constantly ignore our economic and health situation. We do not notice crime--unless it has to do with being searched in the airport or "rooting out terrorists". We are given free license, due to our nationalism, to insult and openly deride efforts to increase diversity and brotherhood. Instead, the pundits help this action along by telling us it is alright to shout down the opponent instead of engage in thoughtful and much needed discussion. Authority, in the end, has gained superiority because for those who feel that the country is "less moral" and "Godless" have taken over and surrendered their free will to people who don't have their best interests at heart.

Sad at it seems, fear has also caused the rest of us to do the same.

So, the question still stands: is the United States at a decline? Yes. Have we reached rock bottom? We're heading there. Do we have the power to change our situation? Heck yeah. More than we know.

The solution here is to turn a deaf ear to the deniers. They have caused too much damage to the fragile state of things without thinking about the welfare of the rest of us. For five years, we have had to suffer their attitudes and ignorance afforded to sticking their head in the sand and only repeating what the national leaders have told them. It is about time, we embrace the truth and begin to practice it by taking our country back and making it better.

I truly believe that America, in her largesse, has a soul buried under the mire of denial. It takes the courageous, the earnest and the intelligent to find it and to make it shine like a beacon again.

The Second Fall of Troy!!!!!!!!!

2006-12-02T16:56:00.000-08:00

Okay, folks. Do the eight-clap with me. My gutty little Bruins defeated the Trojans today. However, one has to feel sorry for Pete Carroll. The coach stunned, there is no way USC will meet Ohio now. Yes, Virginia, there is a Christmas. It was made at the Rose Bowl!

U-C-L-A Fight, fight fight!!!!

When I simmer down after Sunday (Bruin Basketball plays tomorrow afternoon), there will be more entries on politics. But right now, I am simply elated. It is the coolest feeling seeing your team triumph over adversity. Now, it's time for the Emerald Bowl and Florida State!

Back To The Drawing Board

2006-11-28T22:35:00.000-08:00

During the time off, I have had a lot to think about. First, there was the news of comedian Michael Richards' insults to some of his patrons during his show. And then, there was the fifty gunshots to a bridegroom in New York on the eve of his wedding. Of course, we cannot forget the utter denial that is taking place by Mr. Bush and his colleagues regarding whether or not there is a "civil war" taking place in Iraq. The rest of the world (and part of the MSM) thinks so. But he doesn't. And, he continues to say so in his policy speeches across the globe. It seems while we are embarking into this season of Christmas cheer, the same old game is being played.

The old hawks in government refuse to see the light of the mess that they made. And at home on the domestic front, the chickens have come home to roost.

Sigh. Did they not learn from the mid-term elections that the people do not want to take this mess anymore?

Hell no. It's business as usual. As the GOP continues to flail in the political game trying to save face, there are the hard core supporters who blindly believe that we are doing the right thing overseas when the rest of the world sees things as they are.

Reality is rather hard to take. And the pain that comes from the discovery of reality is much harder, due to the fact that the writing is on the wall.

A lot of people have had plenty to say about what Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D.-NY) proclaimed as a call back to the draft. I respect Mr. Rangel on many counts. When I first heard what he had said, I had to think to myself whether he had taken the fork in the road toward the most hawkish of the war supporters. Come on, now. A draft!?!

However, I have a different take on his comments. Although I am clearly against any draft, I think that he makes a few valid points. When a draft is made (taking from the example of Vietnam), the first people that were sent off to war were the Middle Class and the Poor. The rich, somehow (and not immune to our President) got their children off to serve in "safer" ways or with deferrments.

Mr. Rangel's point of view is that with a draft,the rich as well as the poor would have to serve, with no exceptions. It was quite interesting how all of these politicians who had blindly believed in the Iraqi War turned tail against him and started to denounce his call for a draft. Pretty ironic, especially if it is your kid (deep within the bowels of private school) being pulled out to be cannon fodder for the "insurgents". Wow. The only way to protect the offspring of the rich would be to say that Mr. Rangel's words were either posturing or crazy talk. But, if it wasn't their child serving and in the offspring's place a poor kid had to go overseas, I guess to the rich the draft would be all right. It would satiate their need to slowly eliminate welfare to those who need it while preserving their birthright of class and money. After all, with those in lower income groups serving and dying in a war of no discernable reason there would be no need to complain about the "begging for a social handout from the government".

And so the rich and the conservative would hope.

But, that might be perceived as crazy talk too. After all, who really wants a draft to be embarked upon? Ask anyone. I'd be hard pressed to see a raising of hands.

With all of these things, the current news uncomfortably raises issues related to class, culture and diversity. During Thanksgiving, the talks that I've had stemmed on such subject matter when it has to do with America after 9/11. I know I keep harping on this fact entry to entry, but I truly do believe that there had been a deficit in gentility, respect and civility after 9/11. Not only has these things affected the way we talk about politics currently; they also affect how people refer and treat each other on the basis of conscience and kindness.

We have been given novacaine the last five years because the drama that continues to ensue on the national and world stage has been quite hard to take. Now we don't know who is the enemy. And, we have been taught to fear each other due to the fact that almost anyone could be a "terrorist". This trickles down to the epipthets, the discussions and the way we perceive how world events are going. The notion of togetherness is not talked about anymore. It is only "Us vs. Them".

The problem with this is the fact that I think that a lot people know that these things are happening, but are unwilling to take the time to discuss why. It is easier to wave the flag and nod yes everytime the government tells us something new. But if it were your son sent off to war against his will, or your son being shot fifty times by the police, what would you say then? Would you continue to wave the flag? Or would you start to wonder what kind of society are we in?

Tough questions, with no easy answers.

That is why this is a time of reflection concerning the course our country has to go. Although Christmas is an altruistic time that brings out the warmth in a whole lot of people, it is also important to ponder what this year brought to us. It is also time to think about what next year will bring in terms of social, national and international progress.

We took a large leap during the mid-term elections. Now, we have to take that leap of faith and continue the push toward progress that helps not only ourselves, but our fellow people in the cause of the just. After all, the time of denial is over. Now we must began to assess the damage and then move positively toward healing.

How will you take that first step toward progress?

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

2006-11-23T22:16:00.000-08:00

First, let me apologize to you all for my brief hiatus due to Thanksgiving preparations and busywork. After the end of the festivities, I'll be back with new entries and a lot to say.

I give my thanks to you all for replying on my blog these first, few months here. As I have always said, it makes me happy and thankful to exchange a dialogue with fascinating and erudite voices on any given day. In fact, it encourages me to continue to search for thought-provoking issues (even when serving up the ol' "Ceci's Special, from time to time).

Furthermore, when we give our thanks on this day for our loved ones near and far, let us not forget those who are less fortunate and going through hard circumstances. It doesn't take much to pause away from the touch football or the Alaska Shootout in order to think and reflect of not only being in the warmth radiated by those we care for, but to have compassion for those who need a little bit of care and love during the holidays.

May these holidays be bright and wonderous for you and yours as we kick off this festive season. And of course, never rest on your laurels when working to try and make the world better for all.

Take good care,

Ceci :)

Ceci's Special: Communication Skills, Pt. 1

2006-11-15T23:16:00.000-08:00

Another new thing that will be featured from time to time (along with books, issues related to the post-9/11 culture, politics and society), will be the examination of communication. This is especially dedicated to those who complain about a "lack of communication skills" because they have shed light on something that we all have to learn about from time to time. For those who say this about another, they must remember that forgiveness is a virtue, but not innate. After all, no one is perfect. We all need a refresher on how to relate to other people. And, after reading an interesting book called, People Skills (1979), there is a list of "communication enders" that is important for everyone to read. See if these things have come up in your talks with people on a daily basis:

1)criticizing: Making a negative evaluation of the other person, her actions, or attitudes.

2)Name-calling:"Putting down" or stereotyping the other person.

3)Diagnosing: Analyzing why a person is behaving as she is, playing amateur analyst.

4)Praising Evaluatively: Making a positive judgement of the other person, her actions and attitudes.

5)Ordering: Commanding the other person to do what you want to have done.

6)Threatening: Trying to control the other's actions by warning of negative consequences that you will instigate.

7)Moralizing: Telling another person what she should do.

8)Excessive/Inappropriate Questioning: Closed-ended questions are often barriers to a relationship; these are those that can be usually answered in a few words--often a simple yes or no.

9)Advising: Giving the other person a solution to her problems.

10)Diverting: Pushing the other's problems aside through distraction.

11)Logical argument: Attempting to convince the other with an appeal to facts or logic, without consideration of the emotional factors involved.

12)Reassuring: Trying to stop the other person from feeling the negative emotions she is experiencing.

--From Bolton, Robert. People Skills. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1979: 15-16.

In forums as well as in life, we all come across situations sometimes in which these things are done. I think that it is so deeply ingrained into our psyche that sometimes, we don't realize that we are doing these things. After reading the pages of this amazing text, it is fascinating to discover that not a lot of time is taken to teach how people express their emotions and thoughts to one another. Instead, it is far easier to just say things willy nilly without any idea of how the other person might feel. Well, it is always important to evaluate how you relate to others at least in your own communication circle.

Some might write this off. For the rest of us, these points are rather important because it would make the conversations we have so much better in the long run.

But then again, critical thinking skills are something that people ought to learn along with effective communication. Difficult people exist everywhere. Some are plainly difficult because they prefer to be that way. Others are difficult because they haven't adequately dealt with their own personal demons. And then, there are those who simply feel that they have to be the voice of authority in telling others how they should act or how they should feel in regards to a certain topic. Some of the worst offenders are those who openly criticize how others might approach a certain topic without thinking or examining their own ways of relating to others in the first place--especially when highlighting issues related to "control".

In light of this, perhaps it is best to say that for a person to mention how another "lacks personal communication skills", they should take a long look in the mirror at themselves and their problems. When they face the dark abyss that surrounds their own behavior (and perhaps force themselves to feel what little guilt they have over their own wayward approach to others), then, they might be a little more humbled and less arrogant in making such claims.

Other than that, communication skills, must simply be reevaluated from time to time. The lack of adequate training for relating to others has to be recognized. Perhaps, we might have a better society if all of us took the time to rediscover ourselves and how we view others in an empathetic and humane light.

I personally hope that this is a great message that everyone can take away with them because it is so sorely needed.

It's Basketball Season Again!!!!! :)

2006-11-15T22:44:00.000-08:00

Mostly on Ceci's News and Views, there is a serious buckling down on politics and society, especially after 9/11. I put my nose on the grindstone and churn out "think pieces" on a regular basis without stoppage--when the time permits. And of course, it is mostly serious, serious, serious around here.

Well, all work and no play makes Ceci a dull girl. ;)

However, it's college basketball season. Although more know me for my devotion to politics, a little known fact about me is my love for (American) football and college basketball. Those are two sports that I follow devotedly year after year. Ever since I was "knee high to a grasshopper", my mother and father would take my sister and myself to professional and college games year after year, season after season. Believe me, I've witnessed a lot of sports events. And while others are slinging the turkey back and forth across the table during Thanksgiving, we all camp out with sweet potato pie in hand and watch not only some of the football games on the telly, but of course the Maui Invitational and the pre-season NIT tournament. With all those things coming very soon, it seems that Christmas has come early! :)

But tonight, my UCLA Bruins kicked off their season. They beat BYU tonight. Jordan Farmar is gone (off to the Lakers, of course), but Aaron Afflalo and Darren Collison took his place immensely. But don't count out Lorenzo Mata and "The Prince", Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. They played superbly tonight as they beat BYU. Heck. They may be ranked numero cinco this year, but we will see how things turn out. It is still early yet. And since they are going to be in the Maui Invitational this year, I'll be watching with bells on to see whether they can stay in the top ten.

(Okay, do the 8-clap with me) ;)

Speaking of staying in the top ten, if you are a basketball fan, like I am, were you just puzzled how Oral Roberts University beat number three ranked Kansas tonight? Now that's a real conspiracy. ;)

Notes To A Young Woman Who Vicariously Lives The Anger of Her Father

2006-11-15T07:19:00.000-08:00

I showed a post with the phrase above to two friends in the "real world" whom I regularly discuss the issues of the day with. It was on another site somewhere in the cyberspace universe, but still the words were rather fascinating to both of them.

One blurted out, "What intolerant people they are!"

The other shook her head and just said, "Wow".

Since I am practicing kindness (a last admonition from my days as a poster), I merely said nothing. In fact, saying nothing in this case does a world of good in the long run. But, the comments (referring to a thread about diversity) deserved a small entry in which I could express some remarks of wisdom for others who try to build bridges where there isn't one. Hopefully, that will do some good in light of the bitterness expressed during the post referring to the thread in queston.

So, here they are.

People who want to discuss diversity must never give up in the hope that their words will reach someone who is kind and responsive to changing societal attitudes toward all aspects of difference. It is about awareness and education. It is about trying to walk in another's shoes and understanding the plight of people who are different from you.

Well, some of us can't ignore conversations about difference. We live in the realm of diversity and difference throughout all our lives. Instead, it is much better to be courageous and continue the conversation because there is always hope that people exist who have compassion and understanding. Furthermore, it is of the highest yearning that there are people out there who will shut off the messages of anger and intolerance to learn something new about people who aren't like them. It is persons like these that one must have hope for. They would simply listen, ask questions and make observances.

Then, a conversation such as the one referred to would be productive and more sincere.

Right now, we all have to realize that we're all in this together. And if we don't learn about each other, it is as good as living in a house divided. And like Former President Abraham Lincoln quipped once, "A House divided cannot stand".

So for those who are ready to conquer the brave new territory of understanding others, they must keep their head up and continue to strive. Unfortunately, there are others who have not even gotten out of the gate. They too easily believe the hype and wallow in propaganda quicksand. But, those who do manage to unlock the fence and step forward are the ones who benefit in the end. :)

A Short Message About Intolerance

2006-11-14T23:18:00.000-08:00

For those of you who know how long-winded I am, this will be a change. Of course, I will always write my long entries about the conditions of the world because they deserve the space and time devoted to dissecting the issues.

However, I would like to put in a short note about intolerance. Intolerance came to me in a very abrupt way in my past incarnation as a poster. And when you deal with others who practice this notion because of mean-spiritedness or the fact that they disguise their lack of tolerance by using "intelligence", discussions on controversial subjects only get worse instead of better.

It is sad that people exist who are unwilling to hear the other side of things. Instead, they use other machinations to prove the speaker should not be heard. In hindsight, it is also heart-breaking that there are people who are easily convinced to not listen instead of asking questions and trying to make connections. It has nothing to do with "intellectual dishonesty" or a "lack of communication skills". It does have to do with being humane and empathetic.

But, from what I read in some circles, it is easier to talk about hate and omission instead of facing the problems head on and discussing them as they are. That is also truly a tragic notion. It is ironic, in noting that when talking about the nature of hate, noone fought! Maybe there are communication skills one should have when dealing with intolerant people. However, the examples are too far and in between. I guess, when it comes to some topics, it is easier to join in with the intolerant crowd instead of providing a different perspective.

Yes. Walk a mile in my high heels. To quote a character on the show, CSI, they do hurt an awful lot.

Which Way is Left?

2006-11-13T22:29:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot said regarding the aftermath of last Tuesday's mid-term elections. Some things appear quite obvious, such as the conservatives and the GOP are pretty sore losers. However, at the same time, they know how to cut their losses in order to appeal to their base. Not to mention the fact that they are pretty handy at using propaganda in order to convince some of us that if we don't "believe in them", then we are "going to hell" or that "we're not moral". On the blog from X-mas past, I had gotten a few comments from individuals that told me that I embraced a "Leftist point of view".

I couldn't be someone who just talks about politics. Oh no. But, I could be someone who is leftist and liberal. And not only that. I was told in my past incarnation in forum fare from time to time that I was a Kerry-loving liberal. If it weren't so viciously flung, I would have had to laugh. Believe me I would. Being insulted for one's principles in a virtual Petrie dish of ideas seems so absurd in a Beckett-like way.

But, this lets on to a point that was brought up today on some news venues about the difference between electing "conservative Democrats" and "Democrats in general". In the opinion of some, the only Dems that were elected last week were centrist in nature and that Americans in general were more "conservative" now. In fact, the citizens of the United States, some opinions blared, openly embrace "conservative ideals" more.

By participating in certain sectors and forums on-line, you might think that this was the case. In my past experience, if you've dealt with a bunch of loud voices who support Mr. Bush no matter what. Furthermore, if they follow you from thread to thread discussing the same pro-neocon drivel when it comes to social and international issues, then perhaps it is easier to believe that there are people like this in droves willing to shout down anybody who adopts a caring, open-minded or empathetic stance. It might even be the case if there are a whole bunch of people who even insert their feelings about culture, diversity and politics in a conservative light by casually mentioning "those people getting 'social handouts" or 'giveaways'" and not even getting a slap on the wrist or a chiding for it. After all, since others think like them, then it is naturally opined that there are a whole bunch of neocons out there and you're the only progressive with an open-minded point of view.

However, it is good to note that a lot of people out there disband this notion by voting their conscience on last Tuesday. It is further refreshing to know that there are people who actually are sensitive to others and would discuss the plight of their fellow man. They also voted last Tuesday. What is even more, is that if the world was only one political entity opposed to another, it would be a pretty bland world. Don't these neocons get this?

Probably not. Knowing some good friends who are conservative (but very lucid, the last time I looked), they garner certain beliefs partially because of class and because of the way the wind blows politically. In fact, one told me that despite anything Mr. Bush did, he would still be considered a "great President". I asked, would historians be willing to throw out the questions of torture, habeas corpus, and of course the Posse Comitatus laws?

My friend looked at me cluelessly. "Just liberal double-speak, C," he told me. "Mr. Bush wasn't responsible for any of that. After all, that's just another lie cooked up by the liberal media."

Yeah, right. Just like the lie that there actually is a liberal media. In fact, there hasn't been one is quite a long time, and especially since 9/11.

The example conveyed by the statement from my friend is that there are people out there who think that anything leftist is dangerous. For older people who think this way, they equate leftism with communism. The sad thing about a nation embracing democratic ideals is the fact that it doesn't really let its citizens embrace their ideals openly. It seems that if you believe in anything different, and see those goals supported by some politicians in government, the world--by the neocons--is seen as going to Hell in a handbasket. Nothing can ever be balanced or inclusive. There is is only one way or the highway. And even when one who embraces this point of view sees his or her values repudiated by the majority in an election, the beliefs are contiunally embraced--even when the light has been shown on the machinations of this government.

In the past, I did write extensively on society after 9/11. On this blog, I will not leave this vital and important research out because it is still important. Certain attitudes, I've discovered are still crystallized in the voting patterns, attitudes and nuances of the American populace. And if you aren't reading George Lakoff and his studies, then one has to begin to understand why this is so. The notion of being leftist is a part of this. Somehow, since the eighties the notion of being leftist was wrong. My personal opinion leans on the fact that it is the right's way to criticize and nullify the strides made in sexual orientation, civil rights and the women's movement. By accusing those who embrace liberal ideals as being "wrong" and even "loopy" in their approach to the world, it puts all the progress made to bring people together into the trash bin. It also brings back the "olden days" of the way it used to be.

As I mentioned before in the past, the "olden days" is something that not all of us would like to return to--not even if the lottery sweepstakes were attached to it. The present, no matter how screwed up it is, is still worth fighting for. It needs people from all walks of life to contribute their two cents into this battle. In this struggle to make society better, one also has to realize that "morality" does not sit on one side of the fence. There isn't a certain political platform that embraces morality in totality. We all are capable of being good and moral in our approach. And we also have the power within ourselves to dictate our own moral standards to view the world.

But in the same way, it is our conscience, morality and empathy that will make things better in the long run. It is not the certain embrace of a political platform that will make us better or even greater individuals. In the end, it is the ability to see the big picture and have a sort of vision of how things might be better for not only one person, but for all of us in the world.

It is a shame that some are too narrow-minded and pigeon-holed by ideology to simply care.

...And The Heads Rolled

2006-11-12T11:39:00.000-08:00

Last week, one has to admit, was momentuous. Leading up to election day, one got the sense that things were not going to change in America. In fact, the climate inside the United States conveyed that it was going to be same old thing, complete with the machinations of the Diebold voting machines to boot. However, even a jaded and perhaps cynical person like myself can be changed by the outlook that was presented in the aftermath of results. The GOP (including some of its figureheads that played into the elections of 2000 and 2004) was voted out. Americans had demonstrated their disgust. They elected Democrats in their midst, some of which came from once was considered Republican districts.

What even might have seemed poetic justice to those disenfranchised during the 2000 and 2004 elections, Mr. Blackwell (R.-Ohio) and Ms. Harris (R.-Fla.) were voted out of office. They both figured heavily in the elections process of their party. In the end, they found out that their constituents were not blind to what had happened in the past. They were sent packing unmercifully in what was seen as a "repudiation" of the policies of the past, especially when it had to do with the present Administration.

The most interesting aspect in the aftermath of the elections is that it was a time of milestones. In Congress, we get to have our first elected Muslim member in the history of America. In that same path, we get to also witness our first lady Speaker of the House, the third in line to the Presidency. Ms. Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) is regarded by many in her party as being a hard-working, pragmatic individual. In fact, she diplomatically engaged in talks with the President and his colleagues soon after the post-mortems of the voting process conveyed it said and done.

But, what seemed the most "constructive" avenue that was taken was that the heads started rolling. Like any good soap opera (and I know the ladies (and some guys too) like to watch their stories), the narrative of what happened when the people had spoken included a few casualties. Say goodbye to Mr. Rumsfeld. Rummy was the first to fall on the sword of change. Long reviled as well as praised for his "tough as nails" style, it seemed that his stance on torture proved to be too much. Mr. Bush, who only recently stated that he would keep the former Secretary of Defense to the end, reneged. Rummy had to go. And sent packing he was. Word had it that Mr. Hastert, soon-to-be ex-Speaker of the House (taking up the reins after Tom "The Hammer" DeLay unceremoniously left in a cloud of accusations regarding corruption), would be stepping down and out. Not far behind him would be the resignation of Ken Mehlman, in January.

And like famed author Kurt Vonnegut would say in his wonderful book, Slaughterhouse Five, "And so it goes".

After listening to Air America as well as progressive talk radio during the last few days, it would seem that the callers expressing their content and joy were released from the Gulag. They spoke of their hopes and fears with a newly elected Democratic Senate and House. They also mentioned their opinions about how the Dems would have to put up or shut up on their promises--especially when it came to raising minimum wage and having oversight committees to root out the corruption that had taken hold in government. This was not time for one to rest on their laurels. It was time to work and to put their money were their mouth was. After all, a portion of the American people had to endure the strife that was placed upon them since 2000. Furthermore, after the elections nearly six years ago, there was no way to vent anger or dissent. Some of us in America had to grin and bear it.

Grin and bear it we did until the day of reckoning. For those of us who did express dissent from time to time, quietly watched and waited as those who fell into party line chided, ridiculed and taunted "the whining liberals". After all, those "whining liberals" were "godless" in their approach of bringing "bad morals" and "terrorists" in America. Some of us who did speak out are not quite so convinced that those in lockstep actually changed their spots after Tuesday's revelations of discontent and disgust at the policies that had really broken the back of foreign as well as domestic policy.

But those who opposed those "whining liberals" and "progressives" that did speak out, got a wake up call. And toothpicks did not have to pry open their eyes.

Some Days Are Not For the Faint of Heart

2006-11-10T00:47:00.000-08:00

As promised, I was going to write something about Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. I was even going to add the news of Mr. Mehlman's resignation coming today. As I was set to write my take on these new developments regarding the changing of the guard in Washington D.C., I had heard that veteran 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley had died of leukemia. The news, believe me, was pretty hard to take.

Mr. Bradley has been a staple within my home as long as I could remember. His face graced the screen of many a Sunday night as my family would sit around and watch his reports among the others (such as Leslie Stahl, Harry Reasoner and Mike Wallace with wonder. But for us, seeing him was quite special. It meant that progress was happening in the industry of television. News, for what it was worth at this day and age, benefitted from having Mr. Bradley there. There was not one news story he did that did not have an impact on society. My parents, sister and myself would marvel how he would travel the world and interview very fascinating people. We also watched with wonder as he would capture the essence of the story regarding many things that were pertinent to current events. Here was a Black man who intrepidly traveled the earth, conversed with world dignitaries and was treated with respect by his colleagues. Yes, things were changing.

However, the news today took my breath away because although news reports indicate that Mr. Bradley had been on the much lauded CBS news show for twenty three years, to me it seemed like forever. He was never going to leave. He was always going to be there despite the changes to the landscape of 60 Minutes. Mike Wallace's retirement was pretty hard to take as well. But, he's still alive and kicking (which is wonderful). Mr. Bradley will only be available with the legacy of video, which is is great for seeing his past triumphs in the news world. In the end, it is sad with the realisation that the soft-spoken, jazz-loving newsman would no more come on screen with hard-hitting items that people ought to know.

That is why despite the hope ushered into the world by the mid-term elections, today is just not a day to celebrate. The Broadcast and Print newsworld has lost one of its giants. His shoes will never be filled, despite how hard they try. Mr. Bradley's type of reportage with meticulousness, courage and empathy can never be emulated or replicated in any form. He indeed broke the mold.

Sorry for the downer. :(

More will be said regarding current events later on.

It's Going To Be A Long Night

2006-11-07T20:14:00.000-08:00

Here we are--the day of the mid-term elections. Myself and others have been constantly bringing up this day since early this year. It seemed (from watching the footage today) that there were a lot of lines at precincts around the country. That shows that people do care about the direction of the country. No matter who they supported, voters across the nation did do their civic duty. It simply felt good to watch.

However, the early news reports had indictated that there were problems in some states regarding voter intimidation. I'm sure after all the votes have been counted, more will be brought forth about this news. After all, what would be election day without a little drama? Although most items have stated so far that the elections process had gone on smoothly, it seems that "dirty tricks" (as in previous elections cycles) still have their part to play in terms of how politics is run in America. Although most might perceive the process of voting to be fair and just, reports since the 2000 election continue to rear their ugly head especially when it comes to electronic voting.

The jury is still out on the notion of electronic voting despite the aura of it being more systematic and quicker in terms of counting. One thing that some forget when it comes to praising the virtues of this new technology is the fact that the machines themselves are easily hackable and the results (when pressed by "touch-screen) can be easily changed. Not just a paper trail have to be considered in the execution of these machines, especially when so much is on the line in terms of what way the country will be steered.

For the most part, the day has been very exciting. I have been at the edge of my seat as the results came in. So far, so good. It seems that terrorism isn't the only thing that people are voting upon today. Of course, some seats up for grabs are already a given for their particular incumbents. However, as the items go on in the cable news channels, most incumbents are not safe. Other indications reveal that the Dems are leading in terms of obtaining seats in the Senate and the House. As of right now, it is still too early to tell. However, by tomorrow, we'll see whether this trend proves to be true across the country.

And if things continue the way they have been today, we might see our first female Speaker of the House, the third person in line to the President. As my mother said to me several weeks ago, it is about damn time for women to assume the position of authority in matters of state. If Rep. Nancy Pelosi does take this position in the House, it will not only be a milestone; it will prove to the rest of us that times are changing from the past.

Change is good. Let's hope that change helps everyday people like you and me make our lives better and more fulfilled. Let's also hope that we voted for people who will truly work for us and not prostrate themselves to the ground in order to serve a certain agenda that does not represent their constituents at all.

More will be said as the breakdowns come late tonight and tomorrow morning. This chapter isn't finished yet. :)

Some Things I've Noticed About this Election Cycle

2006-11-06T23:23:00.000-08:00

It's a little too early for a post mortem, but I thought I would point out a few things that stand out in the lead up to tomorrow's mid-term elections. It is fascinating to me, but you all are free to agree or disagree if there is a different take on what has been done:

1)You know which side the media is buttered on. The MSM does not believe in "equal time" clauses anymore. In the old days, if time was given to one politician, his or her opponent is supposed to get equal time. Well, the sea of Republican pundits and candidates on local and cable stations did away with that little FCC rule.

2)It's all about Barack Obama. Like him or hate him, he's made the rounds on many a campaign speech. There's even talk about him running in 2008. He hasn't said yes, but I don't think he's ruling it out.

3)It's terrorism, stupid. The GOP was taking a beating until issues of terrorism began to creep into the news and in the policy speeches. Mr. Saddam's verdict was like manna of the gods. However, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The civil war has just begun in Iraq.

4)The gas prices are falling, the gas prices are falling! That is, until after Tuesday. Just watch when they creep over four dollars in the next month. Well heck. I'll give it two weeks.

5)No mention about jobs or the economy. Is it because it might upset the Middle Class and the working poor?

6)No mention about immigration. I'm sure it has been in some policy speeches, but voting blocs are being courted. That means talk about immigration (if you saw Lou Dobbs' "Town Hall Meeting") upsets some groups in America. Talk about it now and it might seem like it is hard line.

7)Invite Mr. Bush to your state, but don't stand next to him. It has amazed me that some of the candidates tried to distance themselves from the President of the United States, yet still invited him to his state. Or, in lieu of his presence, the First Lady has been requested to get on the stump. That is if you don't read the tabloids about their divorce. ;)

8)Religion has uneasily been lurking in the background. I'm not truly sure, but the Christian Right has not been heard quite as much as in previous elections--except when it has to do with a certain pastor and the notion of forgiveness

9)Dirty Campaigns. If you had been watching the Tennessee race, you'd think that you'd be watching the catfight between Krystal and Alexis. Even literature was thrown into the accusations flung...as well as extra-curricular activities.

10)Tasteless Ads. Among the usual ads which threaten if you vote for a Dem and end up with a terrorist in your lap, there has been others that scare your conscience, appeal to your moral center or simply use manipulation to get you to vote for the other guy.

Okay, *one more* (Jeez, I can't help myself).

11)The hyping of the "Governator". This is a small service announcement to you Californians out there. Please don't let star power guide your vote. Mr. Swartzenegger's sudden turn to supporting Democratic and liberal causes ought not to fool you. After all, he was in a corner after the vote-down of all eight of his supported Propositions last November. He trampled on the Nurses, Teachers, Law Enforcement personnel and Fire Fighters last year as well as their Unions. Turn off the news and pundits whenever they publicize his name and vote your consience here. He hasn't changed. Not even the First Lady of California can change his platform.

That's it. More tomorrow. :)

One Last Reminder About the Mid-term Elections

2006-11-05T21:20:00.000-08:00

To some, this might be seen as beating a dead horse. However, we are two days away from voting in the mid-term elections across the country. How we vote hinges upon our very future in determining the policies of state locally, nationally and internationally. I've made it a committment to talk until I am blue in the face about this issue because it is critical that there is a large turnout on Tuesday. In past elections, voter turnout has been very low due to the fact that Tuesday is a week-day in which a lot of people have to work, myself included.

The main reason why I vote is because of my parents and relatives who, prior to 1965, did not have a chance to vote in elections due to "poll taxes" and the "grandfather clause" inflicted because of Segregation. Because of the intimate connection I have to past history prior to the Civil Rights era, voting is much more important to me. My relatives were part of the many citizens in America who campaigned for the right to vote. My parents, especially, participate in every election because they remember what it was like to be harrassed and forced to pay to do their civic duty.

Voting may seem like nothing to others because it comes infrequently due to the length of years. But to me, hearing stories about how some would walk blocks, if not a mile to get to their precinct to cast their decision in local and national politics makes it important to study everything related to an issue I can to make a good effort when I get to the polls. It also humbles me because I walk in the footsteps of pioneers who fought despite being violently opposed to simply put their ballot in the box.

Although what happened in Ohio and Florida disappointed me greatly because it thwarted the voting rights of some Americans in trying to cast their ballot, I certainly hope that this mid-term election holds us wiser and more vigilant in terms of participation.

What are the other reasons why I vote?

1)It is as American as baseball and apple pie. The Constitution bestowed upon us freedom of speech. Voting is such an exercise of this right.

2)Voting is a privilege that people have to comment on the endeavors of government. Without the voice of the people, government would be little more than a dictatorship.

3)Despite the different stances we take about governmental policy, it is important every so often to tell our national leaders where we stand.

4)Not only the Founding Fathers fought for our liberties in establishing this country; everyday people like ourselves campaigned and protested for the right of all of us to cast a vote. One cannot forget the sacrifices the people before us made in order for us to get to next Tuesday. We should vote in honor of past citizens who have exercised their freedom of speech to fight for even the least of us.

5)This time is extemely critical. So many policy changes occurred within the past five years that jeopardize our very rights of expression and existence. In order to hold the present Administration in check, we ought to cast our vote to demonstrate our feelings on this matter. If one stays silent, that is as good as giving our politicians a blank check to do whatever they will to us.

It is important to put your best foot forward and submit your ballot in the box at the precinct you go to. Especially during these times, one ought to remember the signifigance of the ability to do this, even when the political ads and flyers continue to beseige us every moment until the mid-term elections.

With that being said, it is always helpful to reflect on the nature of voting. I know that our lives have increasingly become busy and cumbersome with the demands of family, friends and work. But, as we pay close attention to current events and sometimes feel helpless about their execution, it is important to note that voting allows us to obtain some sort of power for ourselves in the frenzy to push certain agendas ahead without our saying. Embrace that power and march up to your precinct. Proudly put that sticker on your voter's guide and think to yourself that you indeed did vote. You did not stay silent and allow your fate to be guided by those who might not have our best interests at heart.

Amidst Election Plugging in the Media, Here's One They Missed...

2006-11-04T12:46:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Just Generic for suggesting this item. This story should have been publicized more.

There are a lot of critical issues that we have to be aware of when we go to the voting box on Tuesday. However, there are such stories (which received little, if no publicization in the press. Go figure.) that have to hover in our minds as we make our choices of what and whom will represent us in government, local and national. Out of the limelight, a bill, H.R. 5122 became law in late Octobter. It is called the " John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007".

After wading through all the appropriations and protocols to revamp and reactualize the military, there is a little nugget which indicates a transfer of power when there is public disorder of the domestic sort. The bill plainly states this and it is appalling that few ever thought to point this out in their questions to President Bush during the usual Washington Press core:

``(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
``(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

``(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

``(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

``(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

``(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

``(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

``(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

``(b) Notice to Congress.--The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.''.

What does it mean? In a domestic national emergency, the President has total authority. What is scary about this section in a bill about military issues is the fact that these amendments almost give absolute power to the Executive Branch without needing to go through "checks and balances". After all, one has to question why the Founding Fathers went through all the trouble setting up such a system if two-hundred and a half years later one national leader would do the best of his ability to erase what they created? The other side of the coin is the fact that this states that the American people have absolutely no say over their fate in such a crisis. It does not even question what might happen if the President is not of good health, mentally or physically? It does not determine what type of national disaster would afford this authority. Chillingly enough, it doesn't even ensure the protection of civil liberties at such a time.

Pack your bags and put together your survival packs. When the day of disaster comes, you might not even have a say about where you will be sent in the matter of a crisis. God help you if your city is quarantined for any such reason. Your cries will go unnoticed. Haven't you heard of the epidemic troubles that might befall a society if the bird flu mutates into a more dangerous strain?

It is enough to let the hairs stand up on the back of your neck.

However, there are people who are speaking up about this development from Congress.

On the blog, "Another Day in the Empire," there is a very telling report of what the bill might do and what people have spoken about it. Here it is in black and white. It is very telling of what might happen when such an event might arise and the pressures it might ensue:

On October 17, with little fanfare, the unitary decider signed H.R.5122, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. “The act provides $462.8 billion in budget authority for the department. Senate and House conferees added the $70 billion defense supplemental budget request to the act, so overall, the act authorizes $532.8 billion for fiscal 2007,” explains Jim Garamone of the American Forces Press Service.

According to a press release from the office of Senator Patrick Leahy, however, the bill takes a “sizable step toward weakening states’ authority over their [National] Guard units, according to the congressional leaders who are leading the fight for Guard empowerment.” Leahey and senator Kit Bond, a Montana Republican, “said the conference agreement is expected to include a provision making it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies. The provision is opposed by the National Governors Association and by key leaders in both the House and Senate.”

Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest and activist in New York City, writes that the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 actually encourages the establishment of martial law “by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.”

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Bush demanded Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco yield to him the command over any National Guard troops sent to the area. “Bush wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed him to take control over all armed forces deployed, including Louisiana’s National Guard troops. But under the terms of the act, he had to get the assent of the legislature or the governor of the state. The legislature was not in session and Blanco refused,” writes Deirdre Griswold. As of September 11, 2005, Griswold notes, citing the Los Angeles Times, “Bush has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, but his administration is still discussing how to make it easier for the federal government to override local authorities in the future.”

One could only shake one's head at this. It's not enough to read the tremendous amount of money and attention paid to the military. The money could be spent on creating jobs or education. However, reading this should be the real Halloween scare on the level of The Exorcist (1973). This is especially appropo because it was passed just days before the holiday.

The only thing to do is to vote your conscience and wisdom at the ballot box, electing public servants who will think of the people, and not to dismantle the system of Checks and Balances simply because it might fit a certain agenda.

Especially not this one.

Cut Sen. Kerry Some Slack, Why Don't You?

2006-11-02T17:20:00.000-08:00

Continuing on the theme of manipulation of the masses, Senator John Kerry (D.-Mass) also comes to the fore of this issue. A couple of days of ago, he was caught saying a joke in a speech that seemed to "denigrate the military". The moment that he uttered the words, the President of the United States and other members of the opposing party jumped on him with the force of a "swift boat" attack. The Democrats were not left unscathed. The newscasts immediately put forth that the GOP wasn't the only ones that were "mad"; the Dems showed their wrath by slapping Kerry on the wrists for "messing up a good thing" when the polls indicate that more people in America will probably vote Democratic next week.

In light of this, it is best to give Sen. Kerry a break. During the 2004 Presidential elections, smear campaigns had painted the man as being "stone-faced", "flip-flopping" and "humorless". This seems to be a particular motif that touches the most important candidates of the Dems in every campaign and speech. Add on to the alleged "support of the terrorists" and then you get a stigma of a man who doesn't embrace any humor and is in bed with the enemy. The problem with such stigmas is that even though they aren't the least bit true, they stick in the minds of those who are easily convinced.

Such bromide is also spread around by the pundits to make sure the false persona has some legs during the length of the campaign and afterwords every time the said politician makes strides in his or her career. Such manipulating has been par for the course for the opposing party because they know that they can get away with it. No one simply has the courage (except for the lone words of Keith Olbermann) to call them out for this behavior. That is part of the "fear mongering" that has taken hold over our nation without any release.

It has gotten to the point that politicians (as well as the rest of us) have to watch what we say when we discuss politics. The loudest voices (spurred on by the pundits and the politicians who support them) taunt those who dissent against what is taken to be "appropriate" by the present Administration. This harkens back to a speech that Mr. Kerry gave earlier this year about the lack of acceptance given to those who speak against the second Iraqi war. The words of the Senator from Massachussetts conveyed the fact that people who speak out are punished for their remarks while those in lockstep continue to get praised.

This election does not divert from the idea that this still takes place. Mr. Kerry is a staid man. That is the impression that most get because he does simply say what's on his mind. However, people ought to be glad that he does attempt to have a sense of humor. Humor is not simply left to the comedians amongst us. Everyone has to crack a joke from time to time as an attempt to get people to think about the current events of the day. Attempts at laughter come easier to some than others. The problem is that humor (even the most cutting) is accepted whole-heartedly while others get raked over the coals for it.

Now, Mr. Limbaugh's words about actor Michael J. Fox was not humorous. It was straight commentary that derided the affliction the actor was going through. Mr. Bush makes jokes about himself and his politics. Who can forget his comments about the "Have and the Have mores" that came across in director Michael Moore's Farenheit 911? Let us not forget the other attempts of Mr. Bush's humor (such as the meanspirited joke that came across when he was trying to search for the Weapons of Mass Destruction). It seems that jokes--especially when they are biting--have always been spoken and not experienced any outcry. In the case of the GOP, jokes are par for the course. All a politician with this certain platform has to do is to either say that they "don't remember saying it" or "that they didn't mean what they say".

What is different in the attack on Mr. Kerry's comments?

He hardly had a chance to answer for himself. Instead, he had to witness--like the rest of us viewers--firey speeches putting him down for his words. Then, this public chastising evolved into another tactic to change the mind of some voters in the last minute before the elections. Did it work? We'll see. Was it fair? We'll also see.

However, Mr. Kerry replied with an apology that was forced out of him to settle things. Does the opposing party ever apologize for what they say?

All this conveys is that it is far different from what the politicians of the past had to go through. There had been a long line of political people who have uttered things from the most benign to the most caustic. But they were fully exercising their First Amendment Rights in saying it. What Mr. Bush and his cohorts forget is that we still have a Constitution despite the present Administration's alleged attempts to dismantle it with policies restricting the rights of the press and the populace of America.

Mr. Kerry was exercising his freedom of speech.

However, a mountain was made out of molehill when dissecting and analysing the few words he uttered. As a result, his "punishment" by trial in the press and political sphere communicates to us that we can never speak what is on our minds unless we prepare a statement of apology before we say what we mean.

The main point here is the fact that even before some could even try to explain what they mean, there are a whole bunch of people speaking for them and interpreting their words. Doesn't anyone ever stop to think to ask questions before they make mince-meat out of another's comments?

Not in Mr. Kerry's case. He just simply opens his mouth and becomes condemned. So much for freedom and liberty in America.

Kudos for Keith Olbermann

2006-11-01T18:08:00.000-08:00

Strangely enough, Sen. John Kerry was going to be focal point of today's entry. He's coming later in an entry because there is plenty to say about him. Believe me, there is. However, Keith Olbermann's commentary on his show stopped the viewers in their tracks. He focused upon the nature of manipulation, especially when it has been used by the present administration. His words, delivered in traditional passion and fire, criticized how Mr. Bush and his colleagues accuse those who oppose his doctrine of "letting the terrorists win" because of their rhetoric.

That is pure hogwash, and Mr. Olbermann called it out. It was a shame that Rush Limbaugh criticized actor Michael J. Fox harshly. And then, his words were left to his cronies to clean it up. Mr. Olberman was not having it. He said, and rightfully so, that for the past five years, the public was manipulated into an aura of fear due to their constant threats of "lessening national safety" and the fact that "9/11 might happen again". He even went as far to say that it was because of the rhetoric posed by the present administration that we are in a constant aura of fear.

What is especially relevant about Mr. Olbermann's commentary is the fact that he pointed out that no one has been caught for the anthrax terrorist attacks happening in 2001. These acts were allegedly responsible for killing several postal workers. The letters even made it to former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw and past Rep. Tom Daschle. However, no one has been found responsible for these sendings through the U.S. mail. And, like Mr. bin Laden continues to slip under the radar of the U.S. government, so does the "anthrax killer". No efforts have been made to catch him. However, the "anthrax killer" was responsible for adding to the culture of terror and fear in order to make the American public putty in the Bush Administration's hands.

With that being said, Mr. Olbermann centered on these notions to hit the point home the irony that was coming from the speeches regarding Mr. Kerry's remarks yesterday. It is agreed, and rightfully so, that Mr. Kerry's critics have no right to call his words "manipulating" when they have engaged in the same practices most undoubtedly throughout the bleak days after 9/11. It is appalling with bitter irony that the blame is spread to others when the key people using "fear as a tactic to subdue the masses" comes with unrelenting precedence in every newscast, speech and press conference.

It was about time someone called out this behavior. Thank Mr. Olbermann for his insightful and pointed speech about those who skirt their own behavior while taunting others for theirs. A-men.

Someone should be held accountable for creating this "culture of fear and denial".

Pardon My Dust

2006-10-30T22:23:00.000-08:00

If you are seeing small changes to the blog, it is because I am trying to experiment with the format to get the type of design that I want. I know that the up and coming changes are not totally aesthetic, but I am still trying get the blog up to working speed. In the midst of that, the entries will continue to be posted and the business will go on.

Again, I thank you for reading and being patrons of the blog. It is so nice to hear of people reading my work! And please do keep on posting your thoughts and feedback. I like to read them!

P.S. If any of you know the whereabouts of HarlemHottie, Just Generic, donwhite, Rasobasi420, maria_stardust, Nikelbee or Duzey on the board would you please tell them about the new blog? I would like to hear from them because they are dear to me and I especially think of them. If anything, please tell them that they are in my thoughts and I miss reading their blogs and posts from time to time. Thank you very much. :)

Take good care,

Ceci :)

New Orleans On My Mind

2006-10-29T23:15:00.000-08:00

Without A Trace is a powerful show on its own right, but tonight's episode about Hurricane Katrina survivors (yes they are survivors not refugees) especially hit close to home. The nuanced, but heart-wrenching performance by Eriq La Salle was phenomenal as he used his talent to embody the pain of what happened in the wake of disaster as well as the repercussions. Mr. La Salle portrayed a father who saved his family when the levees broke. Unfortunately, he still encountered a troubles and misfortune while trying to put his life back together.

The sad thing about the entire episode is the realisation that there are many people in Houston and other towns across the country who are living what had been depicted within that hour. Some viewers could probably watch this latest installment from the venerated series without crying. But I couldn't. Call it the old heart of a softie breaking when watching once the pain conveyed in real life as well as in fiction. The tears flowed as the backstory and the present merged together to present the crisis that the present Adminstration tried so desperately to sweep under the rug. After seeing the devestating effects that still continue through the eyes of the characters portrayed by the family featured in the episode, one has to come to the conclusion that not anything that any of our national leaders could do or say will make up for the devestation that had occurred last August.

Although help has flowed in many directions to help the survivors get back on their feet, still more needs to be done. It seems that even though some may try to sweep what happened during Hurricane Katrina under the rug (and even with the recent overtures made toward the firefighters who had lost their lives in the desvestating Esperanza fire in California), it never came to my attention the national leaders from the President on down have uttered such words of remorse or conscience when it had to do with bringing the Katrina survivors hope or comfort.

Of course, the hearings were held and the speeches were spoken. People are still suffering before and after the words were uttered. It is appalling and amazing at the time taken during that crisis not to save people who were waiting on roofs or wasting away at the New Orleans Convention Center or the Superdome. Even after that, some have continued to make their home in New Orleans while others have found other fortunes in various cities across America.

But one thing comes to mind when seeing tonight's episode and wiping the tears away. Eriq La Salle and his co-stars in the show had brought forth the voices of the "invisibles" that theorist George Lakoff had mentioned in his piece regarding Hurricane Katrina:

It is impossible for me, as it is for most Americans, to watch the horror and suffering from Hurricane Katrina and not feel physically sore, pained, bereft, empty, heartbroken. And angry.

The Katrina tragedy should become a watershed in American politics. This was when the usually invisible people suddenly appeared in all the anguish of their lives -- the impoverished, the old, the infirm, the kids and the low-wage workers with no cars, TVs or credit cards. They showed up on America's doorsteps, entered the living rooms and stayed. Katrina will not go away soon, and she has the power to change America.

The moral of Katrina is mostly being missed. It is not just a failure of execution (William Kristol), or that bad things just happen (Laura Bush). It was not just indifference by the President, or a lack of accountability, or a failure of federal-state communication, or corrupt appointments in FEMA, or the cutting of budgets for fixing levees, or the inexcusable absence of the National Guard off in Iraq. It was all of these and more, but they are the effects, not the cause.

The televising of the event brought forth the voices of those who never got the rest of the country to listen. Their pain and despair at such an event could not be hidden away--not by the glib coverage of vacations at Crawford Ranch or the shoe-buying spree while purchasing tickets for "Spamalot".

The pain of those who have lost nearly everything in the flood comes forward with a stirring resonance in their stories and resilience to make their lives better after the flood. However, it is still agreed that Hurricane Katrina let forth another deluge that it will not be easy to wipe away in the wake of questions to levy at the present Administration: the inquiries of race, class, history and region will not escape the minds of those who had watched minute after minute of the footage in which people bared their souls about the suffering they intensely experienced during those weeks.

I hope that others, who have watched this poignant episode, never forget what had happened and how we have to think of the bigger picture than ourselves when we see others of our citizens suffer in the worst degree that nature can dish out.

This is yet another reminder that kindness cannot be forgotten or wished away. We must still nurture the notion of compassion in our hearts to reach out to others when times get rough for some of our brethen no matter what walk of life they come from.