Natasha Henson

Bryan Harmon

Breathitt Online News Click Here

Perfect Plan?
I don’t know whose idea it was, but there is a very smart Democrat (or maybe it was a group of them) in Washington. I have not heard any of the pundits say this, but the Emergency Funding Bill for the Iraq war is brilliant.
Now, some folks are crying about the small percentage of the money that is going toward what might be called “pork”. They claim the Democrats are starting the spend portion of their signature “tax and spend” policy. My answer to that would be that even if the funds included in the bill for things other than the war were added only for the purpose of recruiting support for the measure, “So what?” I think that in this case the end justifies the means. And I don’t believe the government is doing anything else that approaches the level of waste that funding this unnecessary war clearly is.
Why is this money allowed to be left out of the budget and called “emergency” funding anyway? The President knows that he is going to need funds for the war effort every year. It seems to me that “emergency” funding should be reserved for unexpected occurrences, but be that as it may, it’s not the point of this piece.
No, the reason I call both the Senate and House versions of this bill brilliant is that they force the President to make a decision. If he vetoes the bill, then funding for the war is cut off without Senators and Congressmen taking that politically hazardous action. Mr. Bush is trying to spin this by claiming that Congress is forcing the veto, but that sounds like a “the devil made me do it” defense. I don’t believe that reasonable people will assign them the blame.
And if he signs it, the process of withdrawing US soldiers from this useless conflict is begun. It seems to me that the Democrats, and the country, win in either case. I must say that this is exactly the type of action that I imagined when I was writing in favor of a change in Congress this past fall.
Of course, I am also much heartened to see the various Congressional committees probing into the unsupervised Administration activities of the past six years. They say that “nothing disinfects like sunshine” and that is my hope for the current and forthcoming Congressional oversight hearings.
So, to the author (or authors) of the funding bill, I say, “Thank you. You are beginning to restore some of my faith in the American system of government.” As I said last fall, the primary purpose of having three co-equal branches of government is to ensure that one branch doesn’t become too powerful. There is not much danger that the Legislative branch could ever do that because of partisan political differences between its various members. But, for the last six years, the Chief Executive has been handed a blank check. Congress has been giving him everything he wants. That appears to have changed with a vengeance. By the way, this has not been a solely partisan effort. Some members of the President’s own party are supporting the Democrats in this.
Again I say, “Thank you”, to Congress. “You have gotten off to a good start. Now, if you can just do something about the way suspected terrorists are treated, and put some restraints on the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping.”

Maybe I’m a Conservative
I don’t watch much TV because the other folks in my home do not share my taste in programming, but the other night, after everybody else was asleep, I was channel surfing and came across an extremely interesting program on C-SPAN. It was a press conference by a conservative group called the American Freedom Agenda. Their stated goal is to restore the checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the Executive Branch.
The four speakers will be well known to conservative readers. Bruce Fein was a Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and is a constitutional scholar and conservative writer and columnist. David Keene is the Chairman of the American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest conservative organization. Richard Viguerie is a conservative writer who is considered one of the main architects of the conservative grassroots movement. And Bob Barr is a former Republican Congressman from Georgia who served as the impeachment manager against Bill Clinton. He currently holds the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy of the American Conservative Union.
These four gentlemen were speaking for many “true” conservatives, who put their allegiance to the Constitution above their party affiliation. Among the issues they find troubling about the Bush Administration are: the support of torture of suspected terrorists, the practice of extraordinary rendition – where suspects are kidnapped from another country and imprisoned without any due process, the Administration’s claims of the power to unilaterally declare anyone they wish an “enemy combatant”, the denial of habeas corpus in suspected terrorism cases, programs for warrantless wiretapping and opening of mail, attempts to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act, and the use of Presidential Signing Statements – which amount to a line-item-veto, which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. While it is true that other Presidents have issued these statements, Mr. Bush has done it more than all previous Presidents combined, and he has stated that he will not enforce these selected portions of duly passed laws.
And speaking of the passage of laws, Congress was not exempt from criticism. They were excoriated for their failure to exercise their constitutionally obligated power of oversight. During the first six years of the Bush Presidency there has been almost no oversight at all. With the Democrats now controlling both houses of Congress, that is beginning to change.
The title of this piece is a joke, I have too many disagreements with conservatives to ever become one, but it is refreshing to see that many of them share my concerns about the excesses of the current administration.
On a related note, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales represents the worst of President Bush’s government. As the chief law-enforcement officer of the nation, he is in position to make sure that the President stays within the Constitution. But he seems to believe that anything the President wants to do automatically becomes legal because of the power of the office. He has signed off on the legality of torture, of warrantless wiretapping and the military commissions to try the Guantanamo detainees, among other things.
In the latest scandal, which appears to show that Mr. Gonzales and other Administration officials fired US Attorneys for political reasons, the Attorney General may have finally overstepped his authority one too many times. Next to Mr. Bush himself, I can’t think of anyone else who deserves more to be shown the door. He may even be gone by the time you read this.

Avoiding the Truth
With the war in Iraq now into its fifth year, it is no wonder that it is a major issue in the upcoming Presidential election. The US has already been fighting there longer than it took to defeat the Germans in either World War. The battle for Baghdad has lasted longer than the American Civil War. Only the conflict in Vietnam has taken more time and that is no coincidence. The US does not like to admit that they are not going to win and the results of these longest of American wars will almost certainly be similar.
But back to the Presidential campaign. There are some major differences in the candidates’ positions on the war, but there are also some things that they all refuse to say.
For instance, the issue of whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place (which I believe it obviously was) is addressed very differently by the various Presidential hopefuls. Of course, none of the Republican candidates are admitting this, although Chuck Hagel is saying that President Bush’s troop surge plan is the biggest blunder since Vietnam, but not acknowledging that the war itself and his vote in favor of it was also a mistake. Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have joined their opponents from across the aisle in refusing to admit that their votes authorizing the war were a mistake. Fellow Democrats, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd, are willing to admit their errors and denounce the war, but Barack Obama doesn’t have to do that because he wasn’t in Congress when the war began.
The second statement that is never uttered, and this time the avoidance crosses party lines, is that the lives of the more than 3000 US service men and women lost in the war have been wasted. I know that this must be a painful idea for their families to accept, but, even if overthrowing Saddam Hussein and bringing freedom to the Iraqi people was a worthwhile goal, the vast majority of US casualties have occurred since that was accomplished. Thank God my brother and my cousins returned unscathed, but, if one of them had been killed, it would have been a waste. They would have died for nothing more than a President’s attempt to recover from a terrible miscalculation. I know that both Obama and John McCain used the word “wasted” in statements about the war, but they both retracted those statements and claimed they had misspoken. It seems that the correct euphemism for losing one’s life or limbs in this war is “sacrifice”.
The third statement that no Presidential hopeful will make is, “America will not win this war.” Like I said before about Vietnam, it is a national trait to refuse to accept anything other than victory. I don’t expect to hear any serious candidate say it. The funny thing is that victory could have been declared a long time ago and lives would not have been wasted. The prewar stated goal of making sure that the US is safe from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was accomplished long ago. It turned out that they didn’t exist, but even the most paranoid US citizen doesn’t have to worry about it anymore, so the war is a success. Right? I guess no one accepts that one.
As I stated earlier, Saddam Hussein was overthrown and Iraq’s citizens were freed from his oppression. OK, let’s call that a success. The war accomplished this secondary goal. But maybe he would have escaped custody and reestablished his tyranny. Well, he can’t do that now since he has been executed. Victory could have been declared at that point, albeit with a weaker claim that the US deaths were not a waste, but it wasn’t.
No, George Bush is set in his grand dream that Iraq will become a US-style democracy, with religious freedom and equal rights for all. This noble result will cause democracy to sweep across the Middle-East and turn potential terrorists into little American clones. It ain’t gonna happen. And as long as the Administration clings to this fantasy, lives will continue to be wasted.

Sympathy for the …
As you probably realize from previous columns, I don’t like President Bush very much. There is no doubt in my mind that he is the worst chief executive in my lifetime.
So you may be surprised to learn that I feel sorry for the man sometimes. He must realize by now, if he has any intelligence at all, that he has messed up royally by invading Iraq. And the policies of his administration in dealing with the ensuing occupation have been just plain wrong-headed. There have been any number of disastrous decisions.
I know he brought all this on himself, but I can’t help but feel sorry for a man who has almost certainly assured himself a place in history as a particularly poor President (to put it mildly). It is my understanding that Presidents are very concerned about their legacies. This is because they won’t ever have another real job in their life, and they are going to have to rest on whatever laurels they have accumulated during their time in the White House. (One exception to this might be former President Carter, who has, in my opinion, greatly increased his legacy since he left office, through his work with Habitat for Humanity and his diplomatic work.)
And the worst is not over for Mr. Bush. I can’t see there being any positive outcome to his ill-conceived adventure in Iraq. The best that can be expected for that poor country is that it will become an Iranian-like Shiite fundamentalist state. The worst outcome would be the ignition of a region-wide conflict that would have numerous terrible consequences for the US and the rest of the world.
So, yes, I feel sorry for President Bush. History will not be kind to him. But I can’t feel too much sympathy when I think of how he has gone about increasing the power of his office to the detriment of the freedom and rights of others. And I don’t just mean his treatment of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.
Mr. Bush has done more to abrogate the rights of US citizens than any President since Roosevelt interred the Japanese-Americans during WW II. Through warrantless wiretapping and the misnamed Patriot Act, he has caused the personal freedom of US citizens to be closer to those of the former Soviet Union than at any time in the history of the country.
So, I do feel sorry for the man sometimes, but I’ll be glad when he leaves the White House.

Minimum Wage and Effect
Since I am unemployed at the moment, I have been thinking lately about all the previous jobs I have had. The first time I was ever paid for working was when I was on the work program at Breathitt High in 1972. We got paid the grand total of $1.60 an hour. That was the minimum wage in those days, so it couldn’t be any lower.
There is a lot of talk these days about raising the minimum wage. It has been frozen at $5.15 since 1997. Now that Democrats are in control of Congress, it should finally get increased. Of course, conservatives are against doing this because it will cut into the profits of the wealthy. They say that it will cost American jobs because business owners will do away with the positions rather than pay the additional salary.
At first glance, this might seem logical, but when you really think about it, it doesn’t make sense. Jobs would only be eliminated if they were unnecessary. That would mean that management has been hiring un-needed workers, only because they could get by with paying them $5.15. I don’t believe that companies are that charitable.
The other problem with the conservatives’ opposition to a higher minimum wage is that, because of inflation, that 1997 $5.15 is worth only about $4 today. In fact, the real buying value of $5.15 now is less than the purchasing power of any minimum wage since it went to $1 in 1956, the year I was born.
For instance, the $1.60 that I received in 1972 was worth $6.01 in 1997 dollars. Other examples are: when it first went to $1.60 in 1968, that was equivalent to $7.21 and the value in 1997 dollars did not drop below $6 until 1980 and below $5 until 1985. It has remained below $5 to this day, except for the initial year of $5.15 in 1997. So, if the minimum is raised to $6.56, instead of losing money from an increase in the minimum pay, businesses would merely be going back to paying at the same level that they were in 1997.
And speaking of conservatives, most of them are falling into line to back the President’s new policy in Iraq. I guess Mr. Bush feels like he has to do something, so folks won’t keep saying that he is staying the course with a failed policy. But most of the informed opinions that I have read on the idea, both military and civilian, agree that a US troop increase of 21,500 will have a negligible effect on the situation. It would take five or six times that many to make an appreciable difference, and the US doesn’t have the available manpower to supply those. At least it couldn’t be done for very long.
Conservatives are saying, “If liberals are against what the President wants to do, then what is their plan? How would they resolve the situation without creating a disaster in the Middle East?” Of course, no one has come up with a workable plan to accomplish this. And the reason is simple. The Bush Administration has gotten the country into a mess that doesn’t have a good solution. No matter what course is taken, the results will be bad. No politician wants to be accountable for bad results, so therefore no competing plans are proposed.
It seems to me that the current stalemate in Iraq will continue until the US public demands that it end, no matter what. And that probably won’t happen until there is a new president.

Power Struggle
"I've got the beast under control", He thought (for the millionth time). "Now I see. Now I know, To release him would be a crime. I can handle it. No problems here." He smiled to himself, "It's a piece of cake! I can see how before I would always give in. I can see that before I would make the mistake. Now I know what problems it caused, Now I'm aware of the hurt it can bring. Never again, no way, not going to happen! To make my life better, control is the thing." The beast listened quietly to this, He had heard it all before. He yawned and lay down to wait, He'd rest up till ready for more. The beast had heard these words, Or similar ones, on many a day. He wasn't worried, he felt in control, Whenever he wanted, he knew he could play. Besides, he had help, a powerful serpent to aid. Between them, the man was as weak as could be, His defenses overwhelmed in a second.
Yes, the beast knew when he wanted he'd be free! But then another became involved; A powerful ally, of whom the serpent was afraid. He only helped when called on, but Unknown to the beast, the man had prayed. The beast didn't know the man could be helped, There had been no interference in the past, So when he decided the time was right For him to escape, he made his move fast. But the chains didn't snap and the door didn't break, For the first time the beast had failed to get out! And the man said, "Thank You" to the powerful friend, "Without You, i would have failed, no doubt."

Bryanna’s Quest, Chapter 2
The next thing Bryanna knew, she was standing in a green valley. Daddy was about ten feet in front of her and on past him she could see a hole in the hillside that looked like a cave.
Where had she seen this place before? Then she realized that this was the game. Bryanna and her daddy were in front of the cave in the computer game! But how did that happen?
It did explain their clothing. Both Bryanna and Daddy were dressed like the characters in the game. They were wearing what Daddy had told her were tunics, with wide leather belts, and tights. There were soft leather knee-high boots on their feet. Daddy was dressed in green and her tunic and tights were blue. Bryanna thought her father looked rather funny dressed that way.
Her father turned around and ran back to her. "Are you alright?" he asked.
"I'm fine, Daddy,” she answered. "Are we really in the game?"
"It sure looks that way. I think the crystals did it. Those spots of light were on the computer and on you."
"The green spot was on your face, too,” Bryanna remembered. "What do we do now?"
"I don't know,” Daddy answered.
Just then they heard a noise coming from the cave. It sounded like a cough, but sort of like a roar, too. They both turned to look that way. Something was coming out!
It was a dragon and it had smoke coming out of its mouth. Bryanna started to get scared, but then she saw it had a big goofy smile on its face. It was walking on two legs and it reminded her of one of the dragons on the cartoon, Dragon Tales.
Then she saw the reason for the smoke. The dragon had a cigarette in its hand.
"Hello. My name is Doug. Who are you?" the dragon spoke.
When Daddy didn't say anything, Bryanna answered, "My name is Bryanna and this is my daddy. Don't you know you shouldn't be smoking? It's bad for you."
"I didn't know that. No wonder they make me cough,” said Doug, as he threw away his cigarette. Dragons have a pouch like a kangaroo you know and he reached in there and brought out a whole pack, which he also tossed. "I just thought it would look cool for a dragon to blow smoke."
Just then Daddy spoke up. "You are talking to it. Can you really understand what it is saying?"
"Yes, his name is Doug. You mean you don't understand." Bryanna was surprised. She thought her daddy knew everything.
"I don't know that language,” her father stated.
Doug broke in, "Are you talking to your daddy? I can't understand him."
They finally realized that she could talk to both Doug and Daddy, but they couldn't understand each other. That was strange, but Bryanna was glad she could talk to the dragon. Maybe he could help them.
Daddy said, "Ask him where we are." So she did.
Doug answered, "Right here, in front of my cave."
Bryanna laughed and said, "No, what country is this?'
The dragon finally understood and replied, "The kingdom of Braeton, but right now there is no king. He died. The great wizard Kazar is sort of in charge. He asked me to look out for you."
"For me?" Bryanna asked.
"Yes, he told me a little girl would be coming here with her daddy."
"How did he know that?" she wondered out loud.
"He is the great wizard Kazar. He knows everything,” Doug replied, although she wasn't really expecting an answer. "He told me to send you to him when you got here."
Daddy didn't know what the dragon was saying, so he asked Bryanna what was going on and she told him what Doug had said.
"So ask him how we find this wizard,” Daddy said.
When Bryanna did that, Doug simply said, "Follow me,” and walked back into the cave.
As they walked inside, Bryanna and Daddy noticed that this was not a wet dirty old cave. There were lamps hanging on the walls. There were thick rugs on the floor and even dragon furniture, which has to be bigger and stronger than what people use.
"You have a nice home,” Bryanna remarked.
"Thank you,” the dragon replied, "I like it."
Finally they saw daylight ahead and they came to another door. When they looked out, Bryanna and Daddy were looking at a different valley. They had walked under the hill. There was a road leading away from this door. It wound off into the distance as far as they could see.
"Just follow that road and you will come to the wizard's house,” Doug told them.
"How will we know it?" Bryanna asked.
The dragon laughed, "You will just know. It is a wizard's house and it looks like what it is."
"Thank you for your help,” Bryanna said. "I am sorry we can't stay longer."
"I know you have to go," replied Doug, "and thank you for telling me about the cigarettes. I won't smoke anymore."
Daddy and his little girl started off down the road. When they reached the first curve, Bryanna looked back and saw the dragon was still standing there. They waved at each other and then he was out of sight as she rounded the curve.
"How far do we have to go?" Daddy asked.
"Doug didn't tell me that. He just said we would know the wizard's house when we saw it. By the way Daddy, you look funny in those tights."
"I believe you little girl. I must be a sight."
So father and daughter walked on down the road, looking for the home of the great wizard Kazar.

Bryanna’s Quest Part 1
Fifteen years ago, I started writing a story for my son, Johnathan, who was six years old. I finished one chapter and never got back to it. Last year, when Bryanna was six, I rewrote that first chapter for her. I work on it from time to time and I am currently working on chapter seven. Here is an excerpt from the beginning.
Bryanna had been sick for the last three days. She had a fever and her mommy and daddy said she was hot, but she had felt very cold. This morning she had started sweating a lot and then she felt much better. They told her that her fever had broken, but she would still have to stay in bed till tomorrow. So that was bad, but it still felt good to not be sick.
Her daddy was with her now and they were getting ready to play a computer game. Well, he was going to play. She would be watching from the bed. Daddy had moved the computer over near her bed so she could do that. They were waiting for the game to load.
While they waited, Bryanna remembered how they had first started playing this game. Last week she had been with her mommy and daddy when they visited the store in town that sold old furniture and other used things. It was called an antique shop. Her daddy told her that antique meant old. He had laughed when she asked why they didn't just call it the old store and told her that antique meant they could make more money. Grownups were just weird about things like that.
Anyway, while Mommy was looking at the old tables and stuff, Bryanna and her daddy were checking out the books. "Are these antiques, too?" she had asked. Daddy smiled and told her that no, they were just old. She was looking at some Dr. Seuss books, trying to pick which one she wanted to beg Daddy to buy for her. She chose two because she couldn't decide which one she liked the best.
When she took them over to Daddy, he didn't hear her at first. He was sitting on the floor looking at a big book that looked very old. It probably was an antique! He finally did notice her and said, "Look at this, Duga." That rhymes with sugar, well almost, and he called her that because it was her nickname. Her mommy had started calling her that when she was just a baby.
But back to the story, when she looked at the book she liked it. It had funny-looking letters, so it was hard to read. Besides, there were a lot of big words that even a very smart six-year-old like Bryanna didn't know. But there were lots of pictures and what pictures they were! There were dragons and wizards and a princess and castles and strange looking trees, but everything looked real. It was like someone had taken a camera into a fairy tale. No, it was like they were windows that you were looking through into a real place.
Nothing was moving, not when you were looking, but if you looked away and then back, the pictures were different. See! There had been no smoke coming out of that dragon's nose before. And that princess was looking at Bryanna now, not at the kitten in her lap. This book was strange, but she wanted it. Daddy must have felt the same way because he told her they were going to buy it.
The lady at the counter told them that all the books were one dollar each, because they were going to stop selling them. That made Bryanna and her daddy a little sad because they had gotten some good ones there, but they had just bought the best book in the whole world!
When they got home, they couldn't wait to look at it some more. Bryanna wanted to hold it so she could get a better look at one of the pictures. It seemed like she would be able to see what was behind that tree, if she could just get a closer look. When she put her face next to the book to do that, it made her sneeze because it was a dusty old book. The sneeze caused her to drop the book and it fell on the floor.
As the book landed, two things happened. First a piece of funny-looking paper fell out. It had writing on it that was even harder to read than what was in the book, but that wasn't all. A little door popped open in the cover and three colored stones spilled onto the carpet. They were smooth and shiny and they were each a different color. One was red, one was blue and the other was green. Bryanna had never seen any such pretty rocks.
Her daddy picked up the paper and said that it was parchment. He told her that it was made of dried animal skin and people used to write on it before they had paper. Bryanna thought that was gross and she was glad that there was real paper now. Daddy went on to say that it told about a computer game and how to get to it on the internet. That was the game they were getting ready to play now.
But then Daddy had done something strange. He had taken the three stones, which he called crystals, and, using wire and solder, he had made something to hang in front of her window. He called it a mobile. When she asked him why he did it, he said it seemed like that was what they were for. It was hanging up there now and it was very pretty.
With the aid of the full moon and the mobile, they are transported into the game. The story chronicles their adventures there. I guess I’m about a quarter of the way through it, and I do intend to finish it this time.

D-day - A Decade's Difference (part 2)
Last week I started this compare and contrast story of two divorces. As some of you may have guessed it is semi-autobiographical. Anyway, here’s the conclusion.
1983 - Brad handled the filing of the divorce without a lawyer. The $200 cost of a Do-It-Yourself-Divorce kit was a substantial savings over hiring professional legal counsel. His wife was two years gone and since she was not objecting to the divorce, the case progressed smoothly. Anita helped him with filling out and making copies of the various legal forms, filing them for him so he wouldn't have to take off from work. The judge merely asked if the parties were present and, on learning that only the petitioner was, he granted the divorce and stated that a copy of the decree would be sent to the now ex-wife.
1993 - Anita's lawyer asked her a series of formal questions and presented the paperwork to the judge, who then asked the respondent if he had anything to say. "Yes, your honor", he answered. "First of all, I have come to realize that it doesn't make any difference how I feel about this. It's going to happen anyway, but I would like it known that I don't feel that it's fair for a decision with this much impact on both us and on our son to be made by only one of the parties involved. But like I said before, I am aware that it doesn't make any difference how I feel."
"You have correctly summed up the content of the current divorce laws, sir", the judge replied and then went on to grant the divorce.
1983 - Brad walked out of the courthouse with Anita at his side, happy! The only impediment to their being married now was her divorce. That would be finalized in a few months. He felt the warm sunshine of the late New Jersey summer and it matched the feeling that being next to Anita kindled inside him.
They drove to the lake at Trenton State College where two and a half years before they first told each other of their feelings on a cold February night. There were many ups and downs in their relationship after that promising start. In fact, it was a veritable roller-coaster ride. At times it seemed as if they would never come to be. But now the moment of their being legally joined was definitely in sight, still off at a distance, but getting closer every day.
They stopped the car in the same place where they parked that magical evening and walked hand in hand to the lake. As they embraced on the shore and exchanged a heated kiss, the familiar longing began to stir. "I want you"; she said and her smoldering eyes made it clear what she wanted. "Now!" The amorous couple hurried into the woods beside the lake for some privacy. Their physical desire spent, they strolled back to the lake and sat on a bench talking about their future for a long time. It was a day he would always remember!
1993 - The new divorcee walked out of the courthouse alone and pulled his coat closer around him to ward off the Kentucky late winter chill. Brad mused with bitter irony, "Tomorrow is the first day of spring, but I guess winter got in one final shot." It was going to be a long time before he was warm again.
He stopped at a greasy spoon diner on Main Street. Its main attractions seemed to be its close proximity to a neighboring bar and to the bus stop; because most of the patrons seemed to be waiting out of the cold for the bus or recovering from an early bout next door. He had a cup of coffee to warm up and debated with himself about having a few beers. His first impulse was to drink himself into oblivion. After all, if he didn't need forgetfulness now, when would he? But he finally decided against that. A trip to see his family was planned for that evening. He hadn't seen them since Christmas and already postponed the visit once because of losing track of time and money in a bar. Brad needed to be with people who cared about him and he'd have to put off drowning his sorrows for a while.
So he walked across the street to the library to get his parking ticket stamped and ended up spending the afternoon lost in a world of books. All in all, it was a day he would never forget.

Something Borrowed, Something Blue
Well, Blue, I’m really gonna do it. Yep, me an Evie Johnson is a gittin’ hitched this Saturday. She’s been after me somethin’ fierce fer a while now, an I reckon it ain’t setch a bad idea after all. Livin’ by myself in this old house is a gittin’ old, jest like me.
I prob’ly done told ye this, but afore my Nancy passed she made me swear I wouldn’t stay by myself an pine away over her. She said she knowed I couldn’t see it then, but I would be glad she give her permission when the time come. Well, she was right, I didn’t thank I would ever want nobody else, but she was also right about me a changin’ my mind. My Nancy shore was a smart lady.
Now that’s somethin’ I’d better git over. Once Evie is the new Mrs. Howard, I gotta stop talkin’ ‘bout my Nancy. Women can be plum touchy about thangs setch as that. I know Nancy woulda understood.
Evie is a gonna be movin’ up here with me. That was the deal we made. She’ll sell her house an move in with me ‘cause I cain’t imagine me a livin’ nowheres else. An I’ll be goin’ to church with her. It’s real important to her an it won’t hurt me none. I don’t agree with everthang them preachers say, but it’ll make her happy. That’s one a the thangs I learned from bein’ married fifty years. If’n a man wants to be happy hisself, he’s gotta make shore his woman is happy.
It ain’t gonna be no fancy ceremony. Evie allowed we had to do it at her church, but they won’t be a whole lot a folks there. They’ll jest be some a her friends from the congregation an her boy, Joe. I asked my grandson, Joe Jr., ‘bout comin’ ‘cause Evie wanted me to, but he said he’d ruther not. I don’t thank he’s ready to be ‘round a lot a folks yet. He’s doin’ a sight better than he was, but that mess over there in Iraq is still a preyin’ on his mind. He did tell me he was glad I was a gittin’ me somebody so I wouldn’t have to be alone.
It’s kinda funny that me an Evie both named our boys Joe. Course her Joe is ten years younger than mine woulda been if he hadn’t gone over there to Vietnam. My boy would be fifty-six if he had lived. I shore hope them folks that got ‘im into that mess over there ain’t a restin’ easy. I know your supposed to forgive, but I jest cain’t do it.
You know it was fifty-six years ago this past January that me an Nancy got married. I was twenty an she was only seventeen, an her daddy couldn’t stand me. So, we had to run off to Virginia to git it done. When we come back as husband an wife her daddy couldn’t do nothin’ ‘bout it, but it was years afore he got over it. We stayed with her folks till I got us this place, but that was only ‘cause her momma stood up fer us.
It was right after we moved in here that Joe was born. Nancy couldn’t have no more kids, but she shore did love that youngun. He was a good boy though. We didn’t never hardly have to whip ‘im. Up in them hills there is where I taught ‘im how to hunt squirrels an dig ginsang. An we spent a whole lot a time down there at the creek a fishin’. Nancy used to come with us, too. She’d fix us some dinner to take along, an we’d make a whole day out a it. Never caught nothin’ big, but we shore had fun.
Well, that wind is a startin’ to feel mighty cold. Winter’ll be here for ye know it, but it shore will be nice havin’ somebody to keep me warm on them cold nights. They’s been five long winters since my Nancy passed, an I thank I purty much stayed cold all durin’ ever one of ‘em.
Well, I’m a fixin’ to git inside an stir up the far. You crawl in yer box there an keep warm. Have a good night, old dog, an I’ll see ye in the mornin’.

The Root of All Evil (part 2)
I guess I have too much time to think. You see, I have an hour each way of drive time every workday and I spend all evening by myself in the tool room. With nobody to talk to, I get a lot of thinking done. So it shouldn't surprise you that I come up with some unusual ideas. I started thinking about the following the other day.
Where does wealth come from? No, I don't mean money. I know they just print that up, but what about value and worth? If you get more, does it mean that somebody else now has less? It seems that there must be a limit to how much wealth there is to go around, but I can't figure that one out unless I know where it comes from.
I'll start with an easy example. For the last several quarters, Exxon (and other big oil companies) has garnered record or near record profits. During that same period, we have been paying more at the gas pump, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that those record profits came out of our pockets. But it's not always that simple to figure out.
For example, let's say you work for a company and they give you a raise. Now you have more wealth, but where did it come from? It's possible that your employer just settles for less profit, but that's not the way business works. If their costs go up, companies will try to recover their profits somehow.
They could raise their prices. Then your newfound wealth is extracted from the customers. Or the company could increase their sales volume. If they do that then one of two things is going to happen. Either their competitors would lose customers (your new wealth would then be coming from the competition), or brand new customers would have to be added (folks who had not been buying from your employer or the competition). Of course, that would mean that the new customers would now be spending money that they didn't before, and that would be the source of the extra in your pocket.
No matter how I figure it, it seems that when one person's wealth increases, somebody else has to have a decrease. It's like playing poker. If you win money, then some of the folks in the game have to lose. By the way, that's why I never liked playing poker. I don't want to lose my money, but I don't want to take my friends' funds either.
Well, what about ways of earning money aside from being employed? Interest revenue seems pretty straight forward. Customers with savings accounts receive a portion of the interest that is charged to the ones who are borrowing.
OK, what about stocks, bonds and futures trading? Whenever you realize a profit from one of these sources, does it mean that others have lost an equivalent amount? If that was the case, then the stock market would be a zero-sum game, and I don't think it is. The market is setting record highs these days, so there must be more winners than losers.
Of course, stocks and futures are only worth what ever folks think they are, but it's still real wealth. You can sell them and actually receive that amount of money. But then money itself is only worth what people believe it to be.
So, if the majority of stocks are continually increasing in value, where does that added worth come from? That's the part I can't figure out. Maybe the wealth comes from other countries. Do some nations have to lose ground in order for others to profit? Or is wealth just created somehow?
I did some research since I wrote the above. All the internet articles I found on economic theory were fairly vague on the subject of the sources of wealth, but here's what I got out of them. It has to do with resources and a labor force. When there is a market for the goods produced, these can be translated into wealth.
It seems to me that would still mean that wealth is being lost by the buyers. I guess if you have a continuous supply of new customers (from population growth, for instance), then their needs for the goods of others would present a source of income and thus wealth. But all these new folks have to have financial resources to make these purchases, and where does that wealth come from?
I see I am going to have to study on this some more, and I'll get back to you if I come up with anything.

Intelligence, or the Lack Thereof
The dilapidated old mobile home sat in a holler, just a little off of route 542. Joe Johnson walked out the front door onto the porch, which seemed to have been tacked on as an afterthought. He yawned and stretched and sat down in one of several sagging hickory-bottomed chairs. Opening the cooler at his feet, he pulled out a cold dripping can of Busch. After closing the lid, he propped his feet up on the cooler and popped the top on his beer as he leaned the chair back against the trailer wall. He took a long draught, while absentmindedly watching the crows in his overgrown corn patch across the branch. Joe had never got around to picking those late roasting ears and the black birds were helping themselves to the unclaimed bounty.
A dusty blue pickup pulled off the main road and parked in Joe's yard. The un-muffled roar of its engine caused the avian harvesters to temporarily abandon the corn field. Josh Clemons got out of the truck and walked through the tall un-mowed grass toward the porch.
"Howdy, Josh. Come up here an grab ye a cold'n. What's up, buddy?"
"Sounds like a good idea to me, Joe. How ye doin', ye old loafer?"
"I'm jest settin' here, watchin' the crows. I don't reckon we'll be able to set out here too much longer. Winter's gonna run us inside before too long." Joe drained his beer, crushed the can, and tossed it in the general direction of a tall garbage can, overflowing with empties. It actually landed on top of the heap, but bounced on across, dislodging several others. This contributed to the litter around the trash receptacle, but went unnoticed by Joe. He took his feet off the cooler, so his friend could reach the refreshments, and drawled, "Hand me another'n, while yer in there, good buddy."
Josh fished out a couple cold ones and closed the lid. After handing Joe a replacement, he settled down in a chair that was a twin to the one his friend was sitting in, and popped his top. He noticed that his host was holding the beer against his chest with his right arm as he opened it with his left hand. Josh noticed that Joe's hand looked swollen.
"What'd ye do to yer hand there, Joe?" He inquired, after he took his first drink.
"Well, it's a long story, but I'll tell ye. You know I been lookin' fer me a another job, since the mines closed an I ain't night watchin' no more."
"Yeah, you told me that. What'd ye do, git another job an git hurt on the first day?"
"Not exactly. See, I heard they was a harring up at Woodmark over in Perry County. So, I went up there to see about gitting me a job."
"Yeah, that cabinet place. I know some boys that work up there."
"Right, Bill Ritchie told me about it. Anyways, when I got up there, I had to take some tests an stuff. Fin'ly this feller told me they had to test my reflexes and I said, 'Well, let's git er done.' I didn't pass, so I reckon I won't be workin' over there."
When Joe had finished his interview and testing, it had been obvious to the company representative that he wasn't cut out for their type of work. He had told Joe that he had to pass a reflex test. The company man held his hand in front of a steel beam and told Joe to hit it. That had sounded strange to the prospective employee, but he wasn't about to argue with the boss, so he hauled off and threw a right at the outstretched hand. When the target was quickly drawn back, Joe's fist slammed into metal. While Joe was holding his injured hand, he was given an explanation. "See, you don't have enough intelligence to work here. If you had been intelligent, you would have known I was going to move my hand." Joe had gone home, still unemployed, nursing a badly swollen right hand.
Joe hadn't told his friend any of this yet.
"Well, what happened?" Josh asked.
"They told me I didn't have enough intelligence to work there."
"How'd they figger that? Was it 'cause you hurt yer hand?"
"Well, sorta. It's kinda hard to explain, so I'll jest show ye." Joe put his right hand up in front of his face. "Nah, wait a minute, that's my sore one." He replaced it with his uninjured appendage, after setting his beer down on the floor. "OK, hit my hand!"

Reflection on the Election
Christmas came early for me this year and I got exactly what I wanted. So did Thanksgiving, I am very thankful to the American people. Yeah, I'm talking about the election. Democrats gaining control of both houses of Congress was only a hopeful dream, but it came true.
Now, the reason I am so happy is not what you're probably thinking. As you may have guessed from previous columns, I am a liberal. In fact, if you look up the word "liberal" in the dictionary, the only reason you don't see my picture is because it is so far to the left that it's off the page. But I am not excited about a torrent of legislation on liberal issues pouring forth out of Congress. President Bush would veto all that anyway. No, there's another reason I am so thrilled.
Mr. Bush is now officially a lame duck. The hopes I expressed in the column of two weeks ago, that the "rubber-stamping yes-men" be replaced by backboned legislators who will limit his power, have come true. The Democrats who were already in Congress don't like the President (or his policies), and the newcomers were elected with the message that the voters disapprove of the Administration's agenda as well. This should mean that nothing the President asks for will be granted.
The only exception might be comprehensive immigration reform. The Republican House rejected Mr. Bush's proposal on it, but the Democrats might give him that. By the way, I don't understand a lot of folk's problem with illegal aliens. If it is true that they are taking jobs from Americans, then why is the unemployment rate so low? Before the election, the President and other Republicans were bragging about it being at a historic level. And some say that they are a drain on local resources because of their use of schools, hospitals, etc. Well, first of all, many of them have fake identification, so they are paying taxes. And secondly, I would rather they take my tax dollars and use them to subsidize kids and sick folks (no matter their citizenship status) instead of wasting them in Iraq.
But, hopefully, nothing else Mr. Bush wants will be passed. He has done enough damage already. Not only has he needlessly invaded a sovereign nation (that was no threat to the US) on false pretenses and is now unable to win the war (or leave because of the chaos that would ensue), but he has, with the help of the former Congress, eviscerated the rights of US citizens and foreign detainees alike. Of course, I'm talking about the Patriot Act, the domestic wire-tapping program and the Military Commissions Act. I don't know if the new Congress can do anything about what he has already done (unless the Supreme Court strikes down one or more of these unconstitutional laws), but at least they can stop him from harming the country any more.
Thanks to George W. Bush, the United States is one of the most hated countries in the world. And the majority of folks in other lands applauded the results of the election because they like the idea of his "cowboy" approach to foreign affairs being somewhat curtailed.
Again, I would like to thank the US electorate. You have restored my faith in the common sense and decency of the American people.
Samatha would like me to add that she shares my joy. The only thing she regrets is that Harold Ford, Jr. lost in Tennessee. I feel bad about young Mr. Ford as well, but at least Rick Santorum and George Allen are gone.
All the conservative pundits I have heard since the election are saying that the Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough. They were exhorting them to drop any attempts at being moderate and move back hard to the right. I hope they do. Democrats were able to win in a lot of red states because they had candidates who were moderate. I don't believe the majority of the country is conservative and I know they're not liberal. Most folks are in the middle, and I hope that is where the new Congress will govern from, as long as they keep Mr. Bush under control.

ho Do You Believe?
Yeah, I'm talking about the war again. You see, every night during my hour long drive home from work, I listen to talk radio. Conservative talk radio, and since I don't have a way to call in and voice my disagreements, I write them down for later on.
First of all, I would like to dispute the claim by the Administration that the West is engaged in a worldwide struggle against Islamo-Fascists, as if there was a monolithic entity mobilized against us. There are terrorist acts occurring globally, but they are perpetrated by diverse groups of radicals.
Al-Qaida has been the main focus of the US since 9/11/2001, but there are many other groups defined as terrorists that have their own agendas.
Hamas is a Sunni organization that was elected to power in Palestine. Hezbollah is a Shiite group in Lebanon. Some of them have been elected into that country's government. The Taliban is a Sunni fundamentalist organization that used to control Afghanistan. Iran is a non-Arab majority Shiite country, with an elected president. They are supporters of Hezbollah.
Iraq has three major groups. The majority are Shiites, but there are significant numbers of Sunni and Kurds as well. There are some elements of Al-Qaida in the country, but the vast majority of the sectarian violence is perpetrated by Sunni and Shiite groups. The Kurds pretty much stay to themselves in the northern part of the country.
Outside of the Middle-East, there are many Islamic groups in most European countries. And there are probably some within the US. Some of these are linked to Al-Qaida, but many are independent and have their own goals.
Lately the Right, including President Bush, has been saying that there is proof that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. Al-Qaida has made the same statement. The conservative argument is that if the enemy is saying it, it must be true.
There are two problems with this conclusion. First, if the West is going to believe the stated goals of Al-Qaida, then what about the claimed motivation of the other terrorist groups. Should we take these other claims at face value as well?
Hamas says they want to regain their land from Israel. The only thing they have against the US is its support for their enemy. Hezbollah has similar feelings. Their stated goal in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, that resulted in the recent war, was to try to negotiate a trade for some of their people in Israeli prisons. Again, their only beef with the US is its support for Israel.
The Taliban has continued to fight against the US, since the latter invaded Afghanistan and removed them from power. They want what they consider their country back. All three of these groups have stated their goals and Iraq is not a major concern for them.
Iran's stated goal is to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants. The combatants in Iraq say they want to drive an occupying army from their country. The terrorists in England claimed they were protesting the occupation of Iraq by British soldiers when they bombed the subway system. The group who bombed the Madrid train stations also claimed their motivation was to force the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq.
The reason I listed all the stated goals of these disparate organizations is that President Bush and the West refuse to believe these claims. So why believe Al-Qaida about Iraq? Could it be because that one statement supports what they are trying to convey, while all the others undermine their case?
The second reason I don't take Al-Qaida at their word on this subject, is the obvious fact that their statements are made to try to manipulate world opinion. Remember back before the 2004 election, when Bin Laden released a video tape urging US citizens to vote against Bush. At the time, pundits said that his plan to harm the President's election chances had backfired and helped the incumbent. I contend that Al-Qaida knew that this would be the result. They wanted to make sure that Mr. Bush was re-elected because the US presence in Iraq helps their case. It is their number one recruiting tool and it sidetracks troops and resources that could be pursuing them. The National Intelligence Counsel has stated in a report which has been reported in the news lately that the War in Iraq is the number one cause behind the rise in terrorism since the country was invaded.
So, it makes sense to me that Al-Qaida, in a continuing effort to keep the US in Iraq, would agree with the President's assertion that Iraq is the central front. Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaida are evil men, but they are very clever

Balancing Act
When the founding fathers were setting down the framework for this experiment in Democracy called the United States, they had many issues to consider. But their primary concern was that the power of the leader of this country be kept in check. They were very aware of the lack of human rights that resulted from the almost omnipotent control that the sovereigns of Europe exercised in those days. They had just fought their way out from under the yoke of King George III, and they didn't want to put their newfound freedom in the hands of another despot.
They realized that there were decisions that would have to be made by one man, so there was a need for a chief executive. But they also wanted this leader to have limits on his authority, so they needed elected representatives to have some powers that the president didn't. And, because this was going to be a nation of laws, there was a need for a third branch of government to make sure that the power of the executive and legislative branches would be limited by the codified rules of the Constitution, thus they created the judicial branch.
This setup appears so logical to us now that we have to remember that this was all new. No country had ever done things this way before. It has worked so well for over two hundred years that it is now considered the ultimate model for a free country, and most nations that value freedom have adopted a similar system.
Remember, the primary reason for the way the US government is setup is to limit the power of the President. It only works if the other two branches exercise their power of oversight. Unfortunately, in the last six years the legislature has not been doing that. This has happened in part because both houses of Congress are controlled by members of the President's political party, but that can't be the only reason. The country has been in that situation before, and the legislators did not rubberstamp every bill the President presented to them.
It seems to me that what has brought about this abdication of power by Congress is the politics of fear. If anyone tries to dispute the President's will, they are branded as unpatriotic, as if only the executive branch can decide proper policy. The way President Bush looks at foreign relations, "You're either with us or against us,” is echoed in his approach to the supposedly co-equal other two branches. And the excuse that things have to be different in a time of war is a bogus one. Only Congress can make that declaration (remember the separation of power), and they haven't done that. What the President would have us believe is that he alone can determine proper action, and Congress is letting him get away with that. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is still one Bush appointee away from joining them.
Just think about the following. (1) The Patriot Act - Who could vote against legislation with a name like that? But in reality, patriotism should mean defending the Constitution, while this misnamed law undermines that document. (2) A previous congress had created a way for the government to legally tap into phone conversations in the interest of national security, but the current version of that body let the President get away with ignoring the law. (3) When the Supreme Court struck down Mr. Bush's military tribunal system, congress turned around and wrote that same framework into law. I know, supposedly some Senators appeared to be standing up to him on this one, but in the end they caved in and gave the President everything he wanted. And anybody who voted against it, saying suspected terrorists should be tried in a more acceptable way, is being branded a friend to Al-Qaida.
Don't let the Right mislead you. None of the congressional members who voted against these measures are saying that steps shouldn't be taken to make the country more secure. They are not saying that intelligence services shouldn't eavesdrop on Bin Laden and his ilk. And they're not saying that suspected terrorists shouldn't be detained and tried. The folks who oppose the President's plans are just saying that these things should be done without violating the traditional principles of this country.
Opinion polls show that the majority of the American people do not think President Bush is doing a very good job, and they think Congress is doing even worse. Hopefully, in the upcoming election, they will follow these feelings to their logical conclusion and replace the rubber-stamping yes-men in both houses of Congress with backboned representatives, who will fulfill their constitutional duty of oversight, and return the authority of the chief executive to within the limits placed on it by the authors of our governing document.
Liberals, you already know what I'm talking about. Conservatives, you are supposed to be the party of fiscal restraint and protecting the status quo. If you open your eyes (and minds) and look at the current administration, does Mr. Bush really govern by those principles? Freedom-lovers of all political persuasions, do you really want to live and have your kids grow up in the police state that the President and his congressional allies are creating? Everyone, do your constitutional duty and restore the proper balance of power in Washington. If your Senator or Congressman responds, "How high?" every time Mr. Bush says, "Jump", vote for someone else.

American Justice? (part 2)
Everybody wants captured terrorists to be held accountable for crimes they have committed. Don't let the Right mislead you on this. So why are many members of Congress against the President's proposal on how this should be done? Because it is unnecessary, unfair and probably illegal. Allow me to explain.
In a previous column, I talked about the down-right un-American provisions of withholding evidence from detainees (and their counsel), allowing coerced evidence and hearsay, and legalizing interrogation techniques that many consider to be torture.
Now, you may say, "So what. These terrorists are murderous scum. They deserve whatever happens to them." I won't argue that point, but what about the ones who aren't terrorists, the innocent men who have been detained by mistake. And we do know that there have been mistakes made.
For instance, there is the case of Maher Arar. This Canadian citizen was mistakenly listed as a terrorist suspect by that country's authorities. As a result, Mr. Arar was detained by the US and sent to Syria, where he was tortured until he signed a false confession, stating that he had undergone terrorist training in Afghanistan. After many months of confinement, he was finally released. The Canadian government has admitted their error, but the US authorities claim they did nothing wrong. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that the government did not send him to Syria, but if they did, it would only have been after receiving assurances that he would not be tortured. Since when has the Bush Administration started trusting the Syrians, or even talking to them? Mr. Arar tried to bring a lawsuit for his wrongful deportation, but the case was thrown out of US Federal Court on the grounds of national security.
Another case is that of German citizen, Khaled El-Masri. He was picked up by the CIA and taken to a prison in Afghanistan. There he was interrogated and held incommunicado for five months. Then, without ever being charged with anything, he was flown to Albania and released on a hillside. Again, when Mr. El-Masri attempted to sue the US government, the case was dropped due to security issues.
Does anyone believe that these were the only innocent detainees? Do you believe that US intelligence agencies are infallible? Remember, these are the same folks who claimed that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaida. Both of these assertions turned out to be false.
The most troubling part of the President's plan for dealing with detainees is its refusal to allow them to protest their detention in court, by filing a petition of habeas corpus, which would allow them to seek release from custody. Remember, of the more than four hundred prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, less than twenty have been charged with anything. Republican Senator Arlen Specter tried to have the bill amended to allow habeas, but his effort was defeated 51 to 48. Mr. Specter stated that he had been informed that in Afghanistan, someone would say, "You, you and you are enemy combatants, and it would stick. Now they are being held for the duration." And how long will that be? Does anyone really believe that the so-called War on Terror will end in our lifetimes?
So, the next time you hear someone on the Right talking about things being necessary in a time of war, just remember, there is no government that will eventually surrender. This "War" will be going on as long as they say it is. The deterioration of rights, both ours (by the Patriot Act and other laws) and those of foreign detainees, is going to be pretty much permanent.
And, as I also pointed out in a previous column, all this is being done without there being much of a threat to us in the first place. Do any of you actually worry about a terrorist bombing in our neighborhoods? Do you really think our kids might be harmed by Islamic extremists? What puzzles me is that most people in New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. (the so-called blue states), who might actually be in danger from the next attack, don't support Mr. Bush's extreme tactics. But the majority of folks living in red states like ours, where there aren't going to be any terrorist activities, do stand behind him.
If you think about it, doesn't it make sense that the folks in power are the ones benefiting from keeping the country afraid? But please, let's not let them use that fear to change the basic values and freedoms that have defined this country for over two hundred years.

American Justice?
On September 6, President Bush gave a very interesting speech. He revealed for the first time (what everyone already suspected) that the US had been operating secret prisons in Europe, where the CIA was interrogating "high value" terrorist suspects. Mr. Bush stated that these men had been subjected to alternative questioning techniques, which were tough, but safe and legal. These detainees had just been transferred to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The president then went on to say that congress needed to pass his military tribunal system into law, so that these terrorists could be prosecuted, as if that was the only way this could be done. The proposed tribunal procedure is essentially the same as the one the Supreme Court recently struck down as being illegal.
There is considerable opposition to this, and not just from Democrats. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham (a former military lawyer), John Warner (the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) and John McCain (who was held for five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam) all stated that not only would the tribunals as outlined by the administration be unfair, but they didn't think they would stand up to a Supreme Court challenge. Two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell and Gen. Jack Vessey, are also on record as opposing the President’s proposal to modify the application of the Geneva Conventions. And, in a hearing before the House of Representatives the following day, a group of military lawyers (including Maj. Gen. Scott Black, the Army's Judge Advocate General) all testified that the President's plan to exclude prisoner's access to some of the evidence against them (for security reasons) would be illegal and unjust, even saying that if the only evidence against a detainee was unable to be revealed to him because of its security classification, then the case should be dropped. You may have noticed that all the names I mentioned are either former or current members of the military, as opposed to George Bush and Dick Cheney, who evaded service in Vietnam.
Other parts of the President's proposed tribunal system that are troubling to many include: allowing hearsay evidence (which is not allowed in US courts, anyone testifying against you has to appear in person or at least be recorded on a verified video tape), holding military and CIA interrogators immune from prosecution (back-dating this immunity to the beginning of the current conflict), and allowing the use of evidence obtained through coercion (that sounds like the alternative interrogation that Mr. Bush talked about).
Now, the President said that congress should hurry up and pass his proposal so that the men behind the 9/11 attacks (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind) could finally be brought to justice. The timing of this move reeks of political opportunism. Obviously, what the Administration would like is for the country to see Democrats voting against his proposal right before the midterm election. Then Republicans can say that their opponents voted against justice for the victims of 9/11 (as if only Mr. Bush's tribunal system can accomplish that). Hopefully the American public will see through this blatantly political move and understand that these perpetrators of terrorism can be held accountable in a way that will allow the US to maintain its reputation as a land of justice and fairness.
This last part is supposition only, but it seems logical to me. First of all, the fact that these "high value" individuals were held in secret prisons outside the US and were, in the President's words, subjected to alternative forms of interrogation suggests that they were tortured. The president's proposal to allow hearsay evidence and evidence obtained through coercion also points to the same thing, as does his request to have the interrogators made immune from prosecution. Obviously, the government couldn't bring in men who had provided evidence against the accused under duress and expect them to give the same testimony on the witness stand. Since they can't very well torture them in the courtroom, prosecutors would be unlikely to get the same story at the trial. Therefore the President wants this evidence to be presented in the form of hearsay. Do I have any evidence for this conclusion, aside from the obvious logic? No, but I know it's true 'cause I wouldn't put it past them.

A Letter from Harlan
A few weeks ago I wrote a column about the writer, Harlan Ellison. In it I described the effect his work has had on my life. If you haven’t read it, you can do so online. Just go to http://www.myspace.com/brybrad and click on View All Blog Entries. Before you go to my blogs, if you