You want to talk about terror? I find this whole article a bit terrifying. Is the fact that Bush claims to be a brother in god enough to therefore give him the green light among the faithful to proclaim whatever he wants to be true and to justify whatever act he wishes? No god that I would believe in and love would support war without an overwhelming justification and need based on indisputable facts.


January 20, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Wayward Christian Soldiers
By CHARLES MARSH
Charlottesville, Va.

IN the past several years, American evangelicals, and I am one of them, have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history. But at what cost to our witness and the integrity of our message?

Recently, I took a few days to reread the war sermons delivered by influential evangelical ministers during the lead up to the Iraq war. That period, from the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003, is not one I will remember fondly. Many of the most respected voices in American evangelical circles blessed the president's war plans, even when doing so required them to recast Christian doctrine.

Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, whose weekly sermons are seen by millions of television viewers, led the charge with particular fervor. "We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible," said Mr. Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "God battles with people who oppose him, who fight against him and his followers." In an article carried by the convention's Baptist Press news service, a missionary wrote that "American foreign policy and military might have opened an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

As if working from a slate of evangelical talking points, both Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of Billy Graham, and Marvin Olasky, the editor of the conservative World magazine and a former advisor to President Bush on faith-based policy, echoed these sentiments, claiming that the American invasion of Iraq would create exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims. Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the hugely popular "Left Behind" series, spoke of Iraq as "a focal point of end-time events," whose special role in the earth's final days will become clear after invasion, conquest and reconstruction. For his part, Jerry Falwell boasted that "God is pro-war" in the title of an essay he wrote in 2004.

The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president's decision in April 2003. Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of white evangelicals continue to support the war. But what surprised me, looking at these sermons nearly three years later, was how little attention they paid to actual Christian moral doctrine. Some tried to square the American invasion with Christian "just war" theory, but such efforts could never quite reckon with the criterion that force must only be used as a last resort. As a result, many ministers dismissed the theory as no longer relevant.

Some preachers tried to link Saddam Hussein with wicked King Nebuchadnezzar of Biblical fame, but these arguments depended on esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament book of II Kings and could not easily be reduced to the kinds of catchy phrases that are projected onto video screens in vast evangelical churches. The single common theme among the war sermons appeared to be this: our president is a real brother in Christ, and because he has discerned that God's will is for our nation to be at war against Iraq, we shall gloriously comply.

Such sentiments are a far cry from those expressed in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974. More than 2,300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries signed that statement, the most significant milestone in the movement's history. Convened by Billy Graham and led by John Stott, the revered Anglican evangelical priest and writer, the signatories affirmed the global character of the church of Jesus Christ and the belief that "the church is the community of God's people rather than an institution, and must not be identified with any particular culture, social or political system, or human ideology."

On this page, David Brooks correctly noted that if evangelicals elected a pope, it would most likely be Mr. Stott, who is the author of more than 40 books on evangelical theology and Christian devotion. Unlike the Pope John Paul II, who said that invading Iraq would violate Catholic moral teaching and threaten "the fate of humanity," or even Pope Benedict XVI, who has said there were "not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," Mr. Stott did not speak publicly on the war. But in a recent interview, he shared with me his abiding concerns.

"Privately, in the days preceding the invasion, I had hoped that no action would be taken without United Nations authorization," he told me. "I believed then and now that the American and British governments erred in proceeding without United Nations approval." Reverend Stott referred me to "War and Rumors of War, " a chapter from his 1999 book, "New Issues Facing Christians Today," as the best account of his position. In that essay he wrote that the Christian community's primary mission must be "to hunger for righteousness, to pursue peace, to forbear revenge, to love enemies, in other words, to be marked by the cross."

What will it take for evangelicals in the United States to recognize our mistaken loyalty? We have increasingly isolated ourselves from the shared faith of the global Church, and there is no denying that our Faustian bargain for access and power has undermined the credibility of our moral and evangelistic witness in the world. The Hebrew prophets might call us to repentance, but repentance is a tough demand for a people utterly convinced of their righteousness.

Charles Marsh, a professor of religion at the University of Virginia, is the author of "The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today."



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

Would it be so hard for the U.S. government to at least show a bit of remorse regarding the fact the US killed innocent men in women in an airstrike in Pakistan.

Last I checked we were not at war with Pakistan. Not that war excuses civilian death in my opinion anyway. Many, many innocent civilians have died in what at best is a questionable war in Iraq.

I understand the US government has a duty to protect US citizens over that of other nationalities. But, can we really morally place a higher value on US lives?

Even if you for some reason experience no moral outrage or even sadness at the wanton disregard for life (non u.s. citizen life that is) we should be worried about the growing anti-US sentiment this fuels. Even if the strike did kill high ups in al-Qaida things like this actually make us more at risk to terror. The high ups will be replaced, and with the swelling ranks of recruits fueled by on by acts and attitudes such as this, they will be easily replaced from thousands willing to die to feat the enemy -- the U.S.

Derrick Jackson's is the only article I have seen on this subject. I am guessing (hoping!?) there were others. Not living in the US I am out of touch with popular sentiment. Is there no protest? Does everyone feel OK with what is going on?

Derrick Z. Jackson: Remorseless support
The Boston Globe
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006

BOSTON When teenagers show no remorse for mistakes, we call in the therapist. When killers show no remorse, we want life sentences or death row. When the United States makes deadly mistakes, remorse is unnecessary, because, of course, it is never our fault.

Thinking we could nail Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, our military launched an airstrike into a Pakistani town just over the border from Afghanistan. We smoked 18 people at a dinner that al-Zawahri was allegedly going to attend, but apparently skipped out on. The provincial government claims that four or five foreign militants were killed, but local witnesses said women and children were among the rest.

This is of small concern to the White House. President George W. Bush has never apologized to the Iraqi people for the three years of carnage done in the name of weapons of mass destruction, weapons that were never found. Bush always dodges the need to show remorse on the premise that "we are up against people who show no shame, no remorse, no hint of humanity."

He long ago maneuvered the self-absorbed American psyche to ignore our own inhumanity. Our bombs and bullets have now killed several times more innocents in Iraq than were killed during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. But the rationale for a remorseless occupation continues to be, as one senior White House official told me and a small group of journalists in November of 2003, "There will be some civilian deaths. It will be nothing like what Saddam Hussein did."

With three years of denial, the reaction to the latest mistake in Pakistan was predictably without feeling. Asked Tuesday if regrets were forthcoming, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to talk about the incident, saying only, "I think you've heard our comments about matters of that nature in the past. If I have anything additional to add, I will." All McClellan said was, "Al Qaeda continues to seek to do harm to the American people."

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brushed off the airstrike by saying, "The biggest threat to Pakistan, of course, is what Al Qaeda has done in trying to radicalize the country. ... These are not people who can be dealt with lightly."

Last weekend's political talk shows had influential senators, both Republican and Democrat, issuing remorseless support of the mistake. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, basically blamed Pakistan for the mistake. "It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" he said. "It's like the wild, wild west out there ... the real problem here is that the Pakistani government does not control that part of their own country."

Mississippi Republican Trent Lott, who is on the intelligence committee despite a career of unintelligent comments on race and sexual orientation, justified the strike and targeted assassinations by saying, "There's no question that they're still causing the death of millions of - or thousands of innocent people and directing operations in Iraq." Bayh seconded that by saying to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I agree wholeheartedly, Wolf. These people killed 3,000 Americans. They have to be brought to justice."

But no one should dare attempt to bring America to justice. Senator John McCain of Arizona played the game on CBS's "Face the Nation" of issuing an apology and then immediately qualifying it. At one juncture, he said, "It's terrible when innocent people are killed. We regret that. But we have to do what is necessary to take out Al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives."

At another juncture, McCain said, "We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again."

The equivocation guarantees that it will happen again and again. The world is our wild west. When we miss the villain at high noon and the bullets fly past the saloon to kill mothers and children, we still flip the barrel to our lips, blow a triumphant puff, twirl the gun back into the holster and say, "Darn sheriff should'a told everyone to stay inside."

McCain said, "This war on terror has no boundaries. Clearly Al Qaeda does not respect those boundaries, but I don't want to equate our behavior with theirs."

The airstrike in Pakistan reaffirms how our behavior is plummeting in the direction of the evil we proclaim to fight. At home, we are appalled by drive-by shootings that take out innocent children. Abroad, the fly-by airstrike is the source of no remorse, with dead children and mothers taken very lightly.

(Derrick Z. Jackson's column appears regularly in The Boston Globe.)

Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

What can we do about the current state of our government? How much credibility does the US have saying we are trying to promote democracy abroad when the democratic process in our own country is full of corruption? Who represents the needs and concerns of "everyman" these days? We do not only need to worry about separation of church and state but now also separation of special interests and state. I found the below article interesting. I hope you take the time to read it.


January 19, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
If You Give a Congressman a Cookie
By NORMAN ORNSTEIN and THOMAS E. MANN
CONGRESSIONAL Republicans are suddenly taking a strong interest in lobbying reform. Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, are rallying behind a reform package that will include measures like increasing disclosure and doubling the length of time after leaving Congress before lawmakers and staff can lobby their colleagues. These are commendable and desirable reforms. But to get to the root of what ails Washington's political culture, a more basic change is necessary.

The two of us have been immersed in Washington politics for more than 36 years. We have never seen the culture so sick or the legislative process so dysfunctional. The plea deals of Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, the indictment of Tom Delay and his resignation as House majority leader, and the demise of Representative Randy Cunningham notwithstanding, this is not simply a problem of a rogue lobbyist or a pack of them. Nor is it a matter of a handful of disconnected, corrupt lawmakers taking favors in return for official actions.

The problem starts not with lobbyists but inside Congress. Over the past five years, the rules and norms that govern Congressional deliberation, debate and voting - what legislative aficionados call "the regular order" - have routinely been violated, especially in the House of Representatives, and in ways that mark a dramatic break from custom.

Roll call votes on the House floor, which are supposed to take 15 minutes, are frequently stretched to one, two or three hours. Rules forbidding any amendments to bills on the floor have proliferated, stifling dissent and quashing legitimate debate. Omnibus bills, sometimes thousands of pages long, are brought to the floor with no notice, let alone the 72 hours the rules require. Conference committees exclude minority members and cut deals in private, sometimes even adding major provisions after the conference has closed. Majority leaders still pressure members who object to the chicanery to vote yea in the legislation's one up-or-down vote.

To be sure, bills have been passed under this regime, on party-line votes with slender majorities. But the results have not always been true to party objectives or conservative ideals. Democrats aren't the only ones undermined by a process whose methods, like the cynical use of earmarks for pet projects, serve to bloat government bureaucracies.

Some of the abuses are straightforward breaches of the rules. The majority Republicans bypass normal procedures and ignore objections that parliamentary rules have been violated. They then reframe substantive issues as procedural matters that demand party discipline. Other abuses do not violate the rules, but they do transgress longstanding practice. For example, House rules don't set a maximum period of 15 minutes for most roll call votes. But since the advent of electronic voting in 1973, 15 minutes has been the norm.

In 1987, when the majority Democrats once - and only once - stretched a budget vote to 30 minutes because they found themselves unexpectedly down by one vote when time was supposed to expire, the minority Republicans loudly protested, with their whip, Dick Cheney, saying it was the worst abuse of power he had ever seen in Congress. Now it is routine to bring up a bill and troll for enough votes to pass it, even when a clear majority of the House - 218 members - has voted nay.

What has all this got to do with corruption? If you can play fast and loose with the rules of the game in lawmaking, it becomes easier to consider playing fast and loose with everything else, including relations with lobbyists, acceptance of favors, the use of official resources and the discharge of governmental power.

We saw similar abuses leading to similar patterns of corruption during the Democrats' majority reign. But they were neither as widespread nor as audacious as those we have seen in the past few years. The arrogance of power that was evident in Democratic lawmakers like Jack Brooks of Texas - the 21-term Democrat who was famed for twisting the rules to get pork for his district - is now evident in a much wider range of members and leaders, who all seem to share the attitude that because they are in charge, no one can hold them accountable.

Indeed, Mr. Hastert showed open contempt for the House ethics process last year when he fired the Republican chairman of the ethics committee and ousted two Republican members after they did their duty and reprimanded Tom DeLay for three violations of standards. Mr. Hastert then appointed two members to the committee who had given large sums to the DeLay legal defense fund - when the main matter pending before the committee involved Representative DeLay.

The same attitude produced the K Street Project, in which the new Republican majority, led by Mr. DeLay, used its governmental power to demand that trade associations and lobbying groups fire Democratic lobbyists and hire designated Republicans, who could then be expected to show their gratitude by contributing generously to party candidates and committees. Jack Abramoff was one of the progenitors of that initiative.

What can be done? First, Mr. Hastert; Representative David Dreier, the Rules Committee chairman; and the new House majority leader should declare that there will be a return to the regular order and to a reasonable deliberative process. And they must be prepared to follow through on that declaration.

But there are also rules reforms that would help. Two- or three-hour votes should become a thing of the past. Any major bill should be presented at least three days before it is considered, unless a supermajority votes to waive that rule. Votes should be required on objections to excessive earmarking in bills, and members should be required to declare that they have no personal interest in the earmarks they promote. Real debate and reasonable amendments must be allowed on most bills, and the integrity of conference committees needs to be reestablished. Finally, if there is to be real and credible ethics oversight, that process, too, must be overhauled.

Quick and decisive Congressional actions could minimize the damage done by the explosion of scandals related to Mr. Abramoff. But lobbying reform alone is a temporary solution. The real solution is for Congress to behave like the deliberative body it is supposed to be.

Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. They are co-authors of the forthcoming "The Broken Branch."



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

A Republican controlled house and congress creates a poor system of checks and balances on our current president's power, especially when you have a president that thinks he is above the law. The article copied below is from Elisabeth Bumiller in does IHT.


WASHINGTON Shortly after 8 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 30, 2005, the White House sent out an e-mail message with an innocuous "Statement by the President" in the subject line. As might be expected of a seemingly routine announcement released in the dead time before New Year's weekend, almost no one paid attention.

But last week, Washington opened its eyes. President George W. Bush's quiet little statement not only set off fireworks at the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Judge Samuel Alito Jr., but also has ignited a new debate about the Bush administration's drive to expand the powers of the president.

To start at the beginning, Congress late last year passed what became known as the torture amendment, sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody. Bush at first opposed the amendment, but gave in when it became clear that it had overwhelming support from both parties on Capitol Hill.

The president then invited McCain, his old political nemesis, to the Oval Office to announce that he agreed with him and "to make clear to the world that this government does not torture."

But on Dec. 30, after signing the legislation into law with no ceremony at his Texas ranch, Bush issued an accompanying "signing statement" - the 8 p.m. e-mail - that Democrats and some Republicans say asserted that he could ignore the law if he wished.

Specifically, the statement said that the administration would interpret the amendment "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on judicial power."

McCain issued a strong statement rejecting Bush's assertion, even as the White House has repeatedly declined to say what the president meant. But Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, had no doubts and told Alito at the hearings that Bush had in essence stated that "whatever the law of the land might be, whatever Congress might have written, the executive branch has the right to authorize torture without fear of judicial review."

Alito was not just an interested observer at a hearing. In 1986, as a lawyer in the Reagan administration's Justice Department, he had helped Edwin Meese 3rd, then attorney general, develop a new theory that signing statements could be used to advance the president's interpretation of legislation.

Before then, the statements had been largely triumphal proclamations. Alito wrote that the new signing statements would "increase the power of the executive to shape the law" even as they created resentment in Congress.

At his hearings, Alito distanced himself from the memo, calling it the work of a government employee, and sidestepped questions about his current view on the statements. At this point, their legality is largely untested.

But one thing is clear: Bush has issued more than 100 of them, which scholars believe may be more than any other president. (Signing statements have been around since at least the administration of Andrew Jackson.) More significant, scholars say, Bush has greatly expanded the scope and character of the signing statement, even from the time of the Reagan administration.

"The whole history of American government is one of trying to figure out what executive power actually is, so here is the president saying, 'Well, it's my job to tell you what that power is,"' said Andrew Rudalevige, an associate professor of political science at Dickinson College and the author of "The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power After Watergate."

Scholars say that many of Bush's most significant signing statements have been attached to national security and intelligence legislation and that he frequently uses them to assert that the administration regards requirements to turn over information as purely advisory.

For example, in signing the legislation that created the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush said that while the law established "new requirements for the executive branch to disclose sensitive information," he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to withhold information" for national security.

As the members of the Sept. 11 commission soon learned, they had a difficult time obtaining information from the White House.

"Now, we can't prove that the reason the administration held back the information was because of the signing statement, but it announced its intentions quite clearly," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration in the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University and the author of "By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action."

Bush also used a signing statement, in November 2003 to assert that an inspector general created for oversight of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led administration that governed Iraq, should "refrain" from audits or investigations into matters of intelligence or counterintelligence.

In December 2004, Bush used a signing statement to say that in the act that created the new post of national intelligence director, he considered "advisory" those provisions setting forth how - and from whom - he received intelligence information.

Or as Rudalevige put it, "The president is basically saying that those structural changes are nice, but I don't have to listen to anybody in particular."

Is the tower starting to crumble?

The media is finally waking up and calling shots as they see them, and there are certainly many many shots to be called. This collection of investigations is from Trish Wells and is carried on Yahoo News. I certainly recognize there are corrupt Democrats as well. I support accountable and responsible government, no matter which party.

In fact, I believe party politics is a leading reason of WHY there is so much corruption. Much of it is about staying in power. Anyway.... Here is the list from Trish.

Sen. Tom DeLay's indictment Wednesday isn't the only legal trouble involving Republicans. Among other woes:

-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee is being investigated over whether he used insider information in deciding to sell Hospital Corp of America stock from his blind trust shortly before the price fell. The sale netted him millions.

-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California is under investigation for the sale of his California home to a Pentagon contractor at an inflated price. He's on the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense.

-Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio faces questions over his connections to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who in turn is being investigated for his business dealings with the Tigua Indians and the funding of trips for members of Congress.

-A special prosecutor is investigating who revealed the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame. The probe has reached as high as White House adviser Karl Rove. No charges have been filed.

-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger faced conflict-of-interest allegations over a $5 million contract with two bodybuilding magazines.

Dear concerned (breathing!) Americans,

The web-site ourfuture.org makes it very easy to write to your representatives and demand they take action to reinstate the minimum wage.

Are you looking for a very easy, immediate action you can take right now?

We must stop this ridiculous pattern of cronyism, corruption and favoring the rich and the power elite. Three of the first things Bush did in
reaction Katrina was to say there will be no new taxes to pay for Katrina,congratulate Brownie on a good job and to suspend a law requiring decent minimum
wages.

We now know his administration, led by a man who is now facing criminal charges (at last some accountability!) has signed no-bid contracts that will give billions to multi-national corporations like Halliburton without any guarantee that they will hire displaced people to rebuild their own communities.

Congressman George Miller has just introduced legislation (H.R. 3763) to reinstate the wage protections that were suspended by decree of President Bush, and I call on you now to demand that congress supports Rep. Miller's legislation.

Everyone that works hard should be entitled to a decent wage - especially the people we want to help get back on their feet after this enormous disaster.

We must ensure that our government works for us and reflects our wishes. You must let your representatives know what you want them to do. They work for us!

Follow the link below to write to your representatives.

http://action.ourfuture.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=27805 or visit www.ourfuture.org

Thanks! Erica

Yesterday’s (September 22, 2005) IHT ran an article applying the age old wisdom of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure to both hurricane Katrina and in the looming “perfect storm” in Africa.
Katrina has provided a convenient example to what many African advocates have said for years “we must spend some billions to erect levees against those forces now, or be ready, as in New Orleans, to spend countless hundreds of billions to clean up the mess later.”

The article, by Michael Wines draws heavily from Jeffrey Sachs. A few more quotes below:

“Sachs essentially argues that a perfect storm is building in Africa: a confluence of the AIDS pandemic, extreme poverty, mass hunger, illiteracy and, he would say, potentially devastating climate change. Not tackling these problems now, he says, is penny-wise and pound-foolish, for the costs of salvaging the continent later are likely to be huge.”

“Spending money wisely now to forestall Africa's problems is both an economic and political no-brainer, even if one believes the continent's problems will never worsen. “

“Hunger, he says, is but one example: Across much of the continent - and certainly in Niger - rich nations have spent billions to rescue nations from famine but a tiny fraction of that to introduce modern farming practices that might make the continent self-sufficient. Malaria is another: Spending to prevent or eradicate the illness, while rising, is far below the economic cost of the sickness and death it leaves behind. AIDS, illiteracy - the list is long. “

Another recent hit in the media by Jeffrey Sachs is The Diary of Angelina Jolie (http://www.mtv.com/thinkmtv/features/global/diary/angelina_jolie/). Sachs and Jolie travel to a village in Kenya where Sachs shows Jolie first hand how small efforts, such as a $10 mosquito net, in the village are fundamentally changing life in that village forever.

“Spending two long days in Sauri, Sachs exposes Jolie to every corner of village life to reveal his vision for ending extreme poverty by 2015. In a small hut, he demonstrates how a simple $10.00 bed net keeps families safe from Malaria, a disease that kills over three million people every year. In an open field, Jolie learns how basic instruction in proper farming techniques and fertilizer use can produce enough food to keep villagers alive on land that has failed to yield sustainable crops for generations. And, in a moving sequence featuring the town's young people, Jolie discovers how free school lunches are giving children a reason to come to class and learn - and that one computer is connecting this tiny village to the rest of the world.”

The only thing that could be more tragic, senseless, inhumane, and wasteful than what has happened in the wake of Katrina, and indeed the wake of the elective war in Iraq, is if things do not change.

There has been mind-blowing ineptitude in the emergency planning and response efforts. We are still a very long way from a remotely adequate response to this situation. People are still homeless, hot, hungry, jobless and worried about friends and family and we have a looming environmental disaster.

There were many heroes as well, although I have not seen many of them being heralded. People should be able to point out that something went incredibly wrong without being accused of playing politics or a blame game. The fact that we are completely over-stretched by supporting another huge disaster, the Iraq War, is part of the problem. The fact that we are dealing with a government that is under-funded due to ridiculous tax breaks for the wealthy is another part. And we are also dealing with a government that is far more interest in public relations campaigns and keeping its core constituency and friends and family happy and employed than actually governing the country. Their campaign has largely been based in creating fear among Americans and then claiming they are the people best able to protect America. This claim was either a lie and they actually did not give a damn about protecting Americans outside of their circle or their best was not nearly good enough.

I have cried every day this week reading articles about the senseless misery resulting from Katrina. Of course, I do this all the time as there is no shorter of senseless misery in the world. Can you, you personally and not some unnamed person on the TV, imagine watching people being murdered or committing suicide and having to live with dead bodies around you? Can you imagine your children watching this? Can you imagine watching your own baby die of heat exhaustion? This is not in a developing, poverty stricken, or war-torn country. This is not during the immediate deluge of the hurricane. THESE THINGS HAPPENED DAYS AFTER THE DISASTER IN A SHELTER IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

We need change. We need a government that is by, for and of the people. We do not need a government that is owned by big money and big business. We do not need a government that is owned by the energy companies. I was amazed when I read that in Bush’s two elections, oil and gas companies gave Republicans 79 percent of their $61.5 million campaign contributions. (Derrick Z. Jackson, IHT, September 3-4, 2005). My first thought was that this helps to explain why America appears to have its head deep in the sand on issues like energy conservation, renewable energy sources and global warming.

I do not profess to know everything or even nearly everything. I think that is part of the problem. We do not have all the answers or even all the questions so we sit rather than crying out for it to stop. I do not have much time to learn about all the issues and all the endless factors that are involved in making foreign and national policy. It was though obvious to me that, even before Katrina, things were horribly off-course in America. In just about every way you would care to measure, I felt we were heading in the wrong direction. The huge losses of human life (American and foreign) in Iraq and the financial and psychological impact it was having on Americans was not even of enough concern for Bush to call short his month long holiday, or even pretend that he was concerned, when angry citizens cared enough to start camping out near his ranch.

I hope the scenes from the past weeks are the tipping point.

We must ensure that the tax cuts for the very wealthy do not get renewed again. The Bush Administration is intent on dramatically cutting the federal government. This is the government that we rely on for environmental protection, education, healthcare, safety nets, and programs to address urban poverty. This is also the government we rely on for Homeland Security, The FEMA and the National Guard. To make matters worse, the money he saves on so-called big government he is giving back to wealthiest and most powerful in the form of tax cuts and credits.

We must inform people at the grass-roots level. Talk to your friends, family, and colleagues. Demand action from your local representatives. Make the mainstream media cover the real issues. We are a wealthy, peaceful, modern, free democracy. We have a huge percentage of the world’s wealth. Yet, we are not even able to take care of our own - let alone make substantial contributions to combat poverty, disease, war and environmental destruction abroad.

Tonight as I put my beautiful, happy, innocent children to bed, I will once again remember to be thankful for the life I am able to give them. I will vow to try to do things, even small little things, to make the world a better place for them. Even small, seemingly little things can make the world a better place for those children whose mothers and fathers are not able to promise them a safe, clean, war free, carefree life.

I will also hope that there are other people out there making the same vow. Together we do actually make a difference.