It's the course, Stupid

In the debate over the debate in Iraq, it's come to this: Americans must now choose between Stay the Course and Staid with No Course. Both sides vocal and venomous. Wrestling with the political and the patriotic. And not a reasonable plan in sight -- only the course.

Neither side can offer a reasonable plan forward because they are both looking backwards. And so rather than having an honest debate about the future, both sides justify decisions past and disguise them as visionary.

Stay the Course
By now we all know the oft repeated refrain. Thousands of Americans killed in Iraq. Stay the course. Many more thousands are maimed and lie in hospitals. Stay the course. The image of Americans occupying Iraq has been a virtual recruiting poster for terrorists. Stay the course. There’s no WMD in Iraq after all. Stay the course. It turns out Sadam wasn’t much of a threat to us. Stay the course. Osama is chilling in a cave somewhere watching American Idol with contempt. Stay the Course. For two years, stay the course has meant that any mention of changing courses would be construed as an acknowledgment that we were on the wrong course, even if all evidence suggested we were. We couldn’t even send in enough troops to do the job properly because that would be off course.

You’d think a situation like this would be easy pickings for an opposing party. An administration marching mindlessly down what appears to be the tragically wrong path. Parading soldiers to their death, like sheep to slaughter, chanting stay the course. Of course…not.

Staid with No Course
From day one in this debate, the opposing party has been too worried about how they might be portrayed. Too worried that Americans might not like them if they told the truth. Too conservative to take on a popular president in his war of folly. Too unsure of themselves to clearly and convincingly speak their minds. Too busy pointing fingers to pen their own plans. Too calculating to stake out a strong position without offering every other viewpoint some consolation.

For instance, here’s John Kerry’s speech on the floor during the first war debate. Some have trotted out this speech as evidence that Kerry has some predictive powers:

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

"Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with al-lies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

In other words, I am voting against the war before I vote for it. What was the point of all of that gas bagging if you were going to authorize the president to go to war? Did anyone seriously doubt at that time that George Bush planned to go to war? Seriously? It was Congress' authority to declare war. If you have serious concerns about the way we should go to war, then you keep that power of the checks and balances to make sure that the president cannot act unilaterally. For a senator to hand his responsibility over to the executive branch with an ominous warning is irresponsible not visionary.

And now most Democrats spend an inordinate amount of time explaining nuanced statements like Kerry’s. Three years later, still no clear alternative plan to victory only “we told you so’s” when actually they didn’t.

It's clear both sides are shackled by their past mistakes. I'd like to just forget what everyone said way back when and focus on the course. From the reason we invaded to the way we occupy, it’s become increasingly clear that this course is a wrong one. We've spent too much in dollars and lives while the other side of the balance sheet offers very little to offset it in the way of what we've gained.

But, there appears to be good news on the horizon. The American public has stopped hitting the Iraq snooze button and is waking up to the reality of our situation -- we're off course. I think the time is right to start a new chorus. It isn’t nuanced and complicated. In fact, in light of the current situation, it is rather simple.

Change the course.

Does God hate Pat Robertson?

We always knew Pat Robertson was crazy, but this week we found out how low he could stoop.

Run a Google search on Pat Robertson or scan any of the hundreds of articles that have been written about him in the last couple days, and you can scroll through pages and pages of foolishness he has spouted.

Of his most quotable quotes: the Constitution is a document only for Christians; he would keep non Christians out of government; and that the white people of South Africa’s apartheid needed protection for their vote.

Here is one of my favorite Pat Robertson quotes, “You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.”--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991.

But this week he went a step beyond foolish. He pranced around ridiculous and teetered on dangerous. What makes this so disgusting was that he did this while claiming the mantle of a man of God.

NO RIGHT TO LIFE?
Like most people, I was aghast and shocked to hear — and see — Pat Robertson, from the set of a religious TV show, smirk into the camera, look us right in the eye, and proclaim that a human being should be assassinated. Killed. He even suggested the military could do it covertly. And then he offered the rationales that it would be cheaper than starting a war and that the oil would still flow. Convenience and economics.

Even the most hardened criminals with mountains of evidence have to undergo a formality called a trial before they can be put to death in this and most coun-tries. But not in Pat’s world. Pat Robertson has decided that Hugo Chavez is dangerous and that is enough to sentence him to death. Innocent until proven guilty? Not anymore. Any preacher can pronounce you guilty and call for your head.

Is Chavez a bad guy? I would say the jury is still out, but there hasn’t even been a trial. Under our legal system, the accused gets to live until someone presents evidence, the accused has an opportunity to refute it, and a jury of 12 returns a verdict. If Scott Peterson could get that much, shouldn’t a head of state?

And whatever happened to their precious right to life? Is life in its begining stages any more sacred than after a lifetime of choices?

PRIDE GOETH BEFORE DESTRUCTION
What would make Pat Robertson think he had the right to call for another per-son’s life? Imagine the arrogance it would take to not only think it, but also to say it into a camera that you know is beaming into millions of homes. He has said so many outrageous things over the last 20 years, without consequence, that he felt himself invincible.

And lest we be fooled into thinking it was the slip of the tongue, he went an entire day while this story brewed without a comment. He didn’t rush back out to apologize or straighten the record if he was misunderstood. For almost 24 hours while people gasped in horror, Pat Robertson was silent. He meant it.

LYING LIPS ARE AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD
To make things worse, he came out the next day and claimed that he didn’t even say it. With the benefit of reflection and I’m sure a few calls from his colleagues begging him to recant, Pat Robertson looked into the same camera and said it didn’t happen. As if we didn’t witness it the first time?!

Now that couldn’t have been a slip of the tongue either. He had an entire day to plan what he was going to say. He thought about it. Meditated on it. Maybe even prayed about it. And then lied about it.

He knew what he said. To say otherwise is just a deliberate lie. That’s what he would tell any of us.

A COWARDLY RESPONSE
As if advocating violence and compounding it with lying wasn’t enough, he al-lowed other preachers to go out and fend for him. An even more disgusting dis-play was watching pastors like Rev. Ted Haggard, from the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, tap dance around issues of law and morality while trying to defend Pat Roberts.

Some pastors denounced Pat Robertson. Others tried to cover him in the cloth – the First Amendment cloth. Pastors were defending his right to call for a man’s death while saying they didn’t believe in killing. It was a sad day for Christian-ity.

And Pat did nothing but watch.

THE APOLOGY WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
Finally, Pat Robertson issued an apology of sorts on his web site. The accusa-tion and the cover up happened live on TV. The apology needed to be down-loaded. He’s a killer (encouraging someone's death is no different in my book), a liar and a coward.

The actions we have seen this past week are clearly counter to any Biblical teaching. The same Bible also teaches that God's love is unconditional, but some things piss Him off — just as they do to us.

“These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:16-19

Count them up, and draw your own conclusions. I won't sentence Pat Robertson to death, but he does have to live with this.

What honor?

I am tired of hearing Bush’s latest talking point about troops killed in Iraq. The president keeps repeating that we honor their service by completing the mission.

Honor?

Where is the honor in continuing an engagement that everyone now agrees was based on erroneous information? Where’s the honor in sticking to a strategy that clearly doesn’t seem to be working? Where is the honor in continuing down a road that seems to be costing Americans far more in lives and money than anyone foresaw, without any effort to re-evaluate the approach?

According to this thinking, we honor the dead by ensuring more fall to the same fate.

Here’s a thought. If you want to show respect, address the issues that led to the soldiers being killed in the first place. Make sure they have enough troops to defend themselves, enough armor to protect themselves, a clear strategy for engagement and withdrawal. I'm sure that is a form of honor all the troops would appreciate.

Honor: a : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION b : a showing of usually merited respect : RECOGNITION example: pay honor to our founder.

A supreme pick

What’s a disgruntled Democrat to do when the president nominates a respectable Republican to the highest court?

We learned last week when President Bush nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court.

Bush introduced his choice for the nation’s 109th justice July 19 in a prime time East Room ceremony and, as they say, flipped the script.

A portrait of Roberts emerged as a lawyer and jurist who earned solid conservative credentials but built a strong resume. His profile exposes him as man with a sharp legal mind who knows how to temper his views with a dose of practicality. He is affable, charming, and most of all, fully qualified. He also passes the Norman Rockwell test, with a family that includes two precocious toddlers.

“Qualified and likeable, what do we do with that,” Dems wondered aloud.

I learned the next morning when I received this email dispatch from John Kerry:

“Dear Nate (Why does John think we are on a first name basis?),

This much is clear already. Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O’Connor (Don’t you like it when politicians point out the blatantly obvious?).

Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v. Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America.”

He “argued against Roe v. Wade” — there was the totality of John Kerry’s objection to Judge Roberts. We were expecting the second coming of Robert Bork and got a man who “argued against Roe v. Wade.”

Here is some free advice for John Kerry and his party: you won’t do any better than this. President Bush is not going to nominate a liberal or even a Sandra Day O’Connor. If you got a nominee who is known for being fair, you should be celebrating.

Here’s what you do, confirm Judge Roberts unanimously. Practically speaking, you won’t defeat him, and strategically it could pay dividends for you.

The Republicans have been doing a moderately successful job of painting Democrats as obstructionists. They have been hammering “liberals” for not giving nominees to lower courts an “up or down vote.” Confirm Judge Roberts unanimously, and you can silence all that nonsense.

Save your weapons for a candidate you know that you really can’t live with. If you confirm Judge Roberts, you will have credibility to wage appropriate battle against the next Robert Bork. No longer will anyone be able to paint you as an obstructionist because you will always be able to point at Judge Roberts and say, “give us a decent candidate and we have proved that we will do the right thing.”

Spend your political capital fighting someone that everyone acknowledges is fair and qualified, and Americans will shake their heads every time you object to a nominee. “If we couldn’t trust you to be fair to a guy who was a good pick, how can we trust you on any others?”

The fact that John Kerry doesn’t have the good sense to see this and fall in line is probably only one of many reasons he isn’t the person picking the nominee.

Bombs and stones may break our bones but our web-site...

Someone created a website, www.werenotafraid.com, as a response to the latest terrorist attack in London. Now do-gooders on both sides of the Atlantic are rushing to post pictures of themselves, their pooches, their parents and kids...all with the headline "We're not afraid."

I, too, paused with a sentimental, yet defiant smile until I thought about folly of this symbolic stunt. First, do terrorists really care if we post our pictures on a web site? Perhaps they will be hunkered down in their safe house, wearing their FREE SADAM t-shirts when they'll see the Jeanie Moss piece on CNN. They'll gasp in horror, pop open their laptops and log on (using their neighbor's wireless signal). They'll see pages and pages of defiant Brits and Americans boasting that they aren't afraid, curse Allah that the infidels have responded in such an unexpectedly strong fashion, and immediately convert to Christianity. Or... they'll chuckle and strap another five pound bag of fertilizer on the newest recruit and wait.

What makes the site even more ridiculous is that it simply isn't true. We ARE afraid. Terrorists strike a continent away, and we immediately ratchet up the terror alert to Orange. Up until last week, your bladder could explode during the first 30 minutes leaving from or last 30 minutes arriving to Washington's Reagan National Airport, but your fanny could not leave the seat. If so, you'd be gang tackled by all the undercover marshals and perp walked to the nearest federal facility.

Try and board a plane without stripping down to your bare feet lately? Now they want to do the same thing for Amtrak trains. You don't even have to travel to feel the effects. The federal government wants to be able to see all the books you check out of the local library, as well as the web sites you've visited.

All this doesn't sound like the reaction of people who aren't afraid, and we aren't fooling the terrorists by emailing our pictures in. We seem to be fascinated with symbolic feel-good gestures: wearing the flag pins on our lapels, the yellow ribbon magnet on our cars, and now posting our pictures on a web site. If we could only get that kind of support to change the policies that make us such attractive targets.

You can't fire me. I stay!

Ever wonder what it would be like to have a job where you couldn't be fired for forced to retire? The Supreme Court Justices know.

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80 and in frail health, smacked down the chattering class last week by announcing he had no intention of retiring. Sure he's dying of cancer. Sure he can barely get around. Sure he could barely raise his hand to swear in President Bush during the inauguration. But he's not retiring, and you can't make him. How's that?!

Not even federal workers have it that good. At some point, you have to submit retirement papers. Why should the justices be able to serve until death do them part? Perhaps it is time to look at a new system that gives them a set number of years on the bench -- one that staggers the end of their tenures so no one presi-dent can stack the bench. Maybe justices should have a mandatory retirement age. Why should they be exempt the rules that govern the rest of the workforce? Is this really in the best interest of the country?

Leak or the lie, Wilson gets leveled

If Joe Wilson is complaining that the White House tried to ruin him by outing his wife, he probably figures he’ll give them another chance to do the job right.

Wilson is now vocally complaining...aligning himself with Democratic senators...and playing right in to the Republican strategy to fight this latest Karl gate.

Check this out from a July 13 article in the Washington Post:

"The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.

Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse
Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than dis-couraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday."

The circular nature of this whole story is so ridiculous. It started, supposedly, when the Republicans were trying to discredit Wilson for crossing them. Now it ends with the Republicans using the same tactics of which they are originally accused while they are denying it.

The White House can't comment about comments they made about an investigation that they shouldn't have commented on originally.

And now Joe Wilson is being destroyed the way the Republicans should have probably done it the first time.

Meanwhile in the rest of America....who won Dancing with the Stars?

What crime, Beth?

Am I the only person in the world who thinks the Aruban government needs to release everyone they are holding in the Natalie Holloway case and quit assuming it is a crime?

Natalie Holloways's mom has been so effective at drumming up media coverage and casting suspicion on the last three people to be seen with her daughter that everyone seems to have overlooked one significant fact: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME!

There is no grassy knoll, no bloody glove, no hair, no fiber, no claims of responsibility from Al Qaeda, nothing.

Instead, Aruban police have been acting like Beth Holloway-Twitty has some Abu Ghraib pictures of them. Up until recently, they have arrested, released and detained anyone she wanted. When they finally decided to follow their own minds, Beth threw a hissy.

I'm sorry for your grief, Beth, but there is no evidence that Natalie didn't just cut her hair and hop on a Greyhound to Vegas.

That whole proximity argument is ridiculous. Being in the back seat of a car on the receiving end of Natalie's southern hospitality doesn't make you a killer. That wouldn't hold water in a U.S. Court and it shouldn't in Aruba. Johnnie Cochrane (God rest his soul) would have a field day if the LAPD used that as a reason to arrest Todd Bridges or any of the Drummond kids. Arrest an honor student son of a judge and Johnnie could phone that in from the Armani store.

Instead, these boys were held in jail for weeks while everyone assumed they were guilty. Let's all take a deep breath and call this what it really is: a missing persons case and not a murder investigation.

Who knocked off Natalie Holloway

(Off the front pages, that is.)

Two days and no stories about Natalie Holloway's mom. Everyone is blaming Al Qaeda, but it seems the Arubans had just as much to gain. :-P

Jailed Journalist heralded and forgotten in the same news cycle: Priceless

Don't hold your breath waiting for fair and balanced coverage of that journalist who went to jail.

Media reporters were tripping over each other for their opportunity to denounce the sentence. Keith Oblemann went so far as to pronounce the judge as the worst person on the planet.

Meanwhile Judith Miller is getting her Martha Stewart fame -- success on a scale she never enjoyed when she plied her trade and was the target of scorn from many of those same journalists. You have to wonder if she's not secretly enjoying this as she pens her book: My time in a suburban DC jail.

Sucks to be the other reporter whose source allowed him to talk. Damn! His book: Almost a martyr, out soon.

The irony is that journalist's outrage was short lived when a real tragedy knocked them off their soap boxes. Thanks to "the terrorists" nobody seems to care about the plight of a jailed journalists anymore.

Now Judy sees how it feels to try and create news coverage on the same day a big story drops. Feel the pain of PR hacks everywhere.

For the record, I think having the government jail reporters for not revealing sources is a bad idea. But it's not like I claim to be fair and balanced.

Assault on the media

This is a really good article. If I had time, I would have written it. :-)

LM

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

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, May 27, 2005; Page A27

So it turns out that the FBI has documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained about the mistreatment of the Koran and that many said they were severely beaten.

The documents specifically include an allegation from a prisoner that guards had "flushed a Koran in the toilet."

And yesterday, Pentagon officials said investigators have identified five incidents of "mishandling" the Koran by military guards and investigators. It was the first time Pentagon officials had acknowledged mistreatment of the Muslim holy book, though they insisted that the episodes were minor and occurred in the Guantanamo facility's early days.

What, then, is one to make of the Bush administration's furious assault against Newsweek magazine for bringing allegations about the abuse of the Koran to popular attention?

Vew the entire article.

Free Lynndie?

Pfc Lynndie England beat the wrap in the Abu Ghraib trial, and I’m not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing.

An Army judge Wednesday ended the court martial trial of England — the woman who became the poster child for Iraqi prison abuse — saying that her guilty plea was not believable. Under military law, the judge could not accept England’s plea unless he was convinced she knew she was committing an illegal act. England first claimed she was only following orders, but said Monday that she knew her actions were wrong.

Why might this be a bad thing?

England finally admitted she was wrong, and the judge said “I don’t believe you.”

Having served in the Army during a deployment, I can understand how a situation like Abu Ghraib could spin out of control but not how a person wouldn’t know it was wrong.

In the Army, maintaining the integrity of the chain of command is paramount. If a soldier given a lawful order by someone senior, that soldier is expected to follow it. There is no tolerance for disobeying a lawful order, especially during wartime. This is essential because a wayward soldier making an independent decision could cost lives. The military works best when everyone is on the same page. Drill sergeants are fond of saying “we are here to defend democracy not practice it.”

You’ll notice that I was careful to note that you are duty bound to obey a lawful order. The military also makes that distinction because if you receive an unlawful order, you are also duty bound not to follow it. That’s part of your instruction during basic training. Moreover, if you do receive an unlawful order, you should report the person dispensing those unlawful orders. Those are the rules.

So England now says that she thought she was receiving a lawful order. Everyone was doing it. She didn’t receive training. It was war. He was older. Blah Blah Blah.

The Army shouldn’t need to tell you that putting a naked man on a leash and taking a picture with him is wrong. You should have received that block of training from your Mama. That’s called home training.

I can’t imagine any conditions under which I would let somebody, of any rank, talk me into doing what England did. And if any child of mine ever did, the Army wouldn’t need to discipline him — at least not until I got first crack at him. They can have what’s left after I’m done with him.

How many times have you heard a mother say, “I don’t care how many people are doing it. If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?”

Well they all jumped off a cliff and England followed them. She was clearly wrong, and she knew it. That she might not experience any consequences of her actions is a bad thing.

Why might it be a good thing?

It could force the Army to confront the systemic problem of leadership. It was no surprise to anyone familiar with military culture that the only people prosecuted were enlisted, and lower enlisted to boot. These are the people at the bottom of the scale in terms of pay, responsibility, training, and everything else. Yet, they carry all the weight in this scandal.

When an enlisted crew does outstanding work, every officer in their chain of command falls over themselves to take credit for the “inspirational leadership that created the conditions for success.” When things go awry, that same leadership should also be accountable. If that happens, it would be a good thing.

My college professor used to say, “ambivalence is watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand new BMW.”

Watching England potentially go free elicits the same emotions.

Is it so hard to say "I'm sorry?"

In the midst of all the fuss about whether or not Jennifer Wilbanks is selfish or misunderstood, you can get an important cue from her parents.

Last week, when Jennifer was missing and presumed dead, the family lined up three deep for a news conference where they tearfully begged the community for its help.

Deluth, Ga., responded with over 100 volunteers forming search parties that worked around the clock to find the missing bride. Of course, now we've learned that Jennifer skipped town in an attempt to side step the wedding.

Since returning home, there's been a small chorus rising that Jennifer was just acting selfishly and should realize some consequence for her choices. Expect it to continue its crescendo. Why? The family has been unable to muster the one thing that could possibly work to dampen this feeling of betrayal, an apology. It's been almost 48 hours since her discovery and we've heard nothing from the family.

Jennifer is supposed to hold a news conference to say something, sometime. We know she's crazy, but what I find odd is that we've not heard a word from her parents. These are the same people who mobilized their community in what turned out to be a hoax, and now they are silent. Nothing more to say? How about sorry. How about thank you.

With all the family members who were free to line up when they thought Jennifer was missing, you'd think ONE of them could find the time now that she's surfaced. They wouldn't even have to turn on her. They could say something like this.

"Last week we prayed that Jennifer would return to us alive, and she did. For that we are extremely grateful. Even if a wound is self-inflicted, we still count our blessings when it isn't fatal. Last week, we asked for our community's help, and we were overwhelmed with the response. We always thought of our community as a family and last week, at our lowest point, you proved us right.

Sometimes in families, our family members disappoint us. In those times, we try to teach, practice and pray for forgiveness, healing, and love. This is a time where we've been obviously disappointed. We ask you to show the same forgiveness, healing, and love that we would give to any other person in our family who has disappointed us.

There is still much we need to learn, to get to the root causes and begin the process of recovery. We ask for your prayers as we undertake that journey. Finally, in this world that we live in, it could be an unfortunate reality that someone else in this community may need to call on your generosity and sup-port for a family member who might be missing. We all hope and pray that our situation will not dampen the spirit of love that we experienced. You can count on us to be in the number volunteering our support should that occur. Thanks again for your support and love. You make us proud to be citizens of Deluth."

See how easy that was. But we still haven't heard any reasonable facsimile. And if the parents don't have the decency to apologize, how can you expect the daughter to?

There's an old saying, "the fruit don't fall far from the tree.

Why the 'Capital' Checks Won't Clear

It seems George Bush has exhausted his political capital.

You might remember in the wake of his presidential election victory, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed his new mandate.

“I earned political capital, and I intend to spend it,” proclaimed the newly-reelected president.

President Bush then got out his executive check book and presidential pen and proceeded to spend his capital on Social Security, judicial nominees, and an energy policy, to name a few items on his shopping list.

He should have confirmed the balance in his political capital account, because it seems President Bush’s love bank didn’t have as big a deposit as he thought.

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans are rejecting the president’s proposals, and his standing is at an all time low.

The numbers tell a story few could have predicted. This week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll put the president’s overall job approval score at 47 percent — matching the lowest score of his 51 months in office. In the survey highly negative ratings outnumbered the very positive 3-to-2.

On the issues, President Bush was also hurting. His signature proposal, Social Security, has not excited most Americans in a way that the administration would have liked. Only three in 10 respondents approved of the job the president is doing on Social Security, and the momentum is moving in the wrong direction. In mid-March, 56 percent favored private accounts. Now that number is down to 45 percent, an 11 percent plunge.

If things weren’t bad enough, it seems the Republican Party has also been siphoning funds from the political capital account. Tom Delay’s ethics troubles, the party’s decision to change the ethics rules, and the midnight intervention in the Terry Schiavo situation, all contributed to the account depletion.

That’s assuming there was that much capital to begin with.

What if the president really didn’t have political capital after the election? It’s not like he hasn’t been wrong about anything before.

During the election, the president ran on John Kerry’s record. His basic message was “at least I’m not that guy.”

That guy, John Kerry, proved indecisive, impersonal, and clueless. It was easy to paint a caricature of him. Let’s face it, John Kerry turned off or scared many Americans, and for the ones he didn’t, Theresa was there to pick up the slack.

So Americans agreed. “You’re right, we don’t want that guy.”

To win by default doesn’t necessarily endow the victor with spoils, however.

In fact, most Americans had no clue what the president’s new agenda would be, since he ran largely on Terrorism. Even at the Inauguration, President Bush talked about spreading democracy, not reforming Social Security.

So when the president attempted to enact his bold agenda, he ran into a couple problems:

1) No one had actually voted for that agenda in the last election.

2) His good will was confined to Terrorism and to not being John Kerry.

When the economy started eclipsing terrorism in the minds of most Americans, and he didn’t have Sen. Kerry to kick around any more, he learned the harsh truth:

Dear Mr. Bush, we regret to inform you that the check you presented to your Political Capital account is being returned due to insufficient funds.

Damn.

The terrorism high

For George Bush, it’s looking like 2001 all over again — the pre-9/11 2001.

In his first term, President Bush was off to an awful start. Down in the polls, pushing an unpopular agenda, dodging charges that he was the clueless puppet of the vice president.

Then a terrorism attack and a bullhorn changed everything. You know the cliché: September 11, 2001 changed everything. And for George Bush it did. It gave him an issue, a cause, and a reason to be. He assembled both houses of Congress and gave an electrifying speech to the nation. At that moment, he was presidential.

President Bush and the country were on a terrorism high. We were united in a common tragedy against a common enemy. The flag was in vogue. Congress was singing in unison. But it is hard to sustain that level of energy indefinitely, and fatigue began to set in.

Anyone who works with addicts will tell you, after the first “hit,” users spend their lives chasing the euphoria of that first high.

Americans have notoriously short memories, so something else had to sustain the terrorism high that buoyed the president. The answer: the Global War on Terrorism — first stop Afghanistan. After that, Iraq. Then there was the high drama of the election, which provided the perfect opportunity to remind us all about the evils of terrorism and the perils of retreat.

Now with the economy sinking, the high is wearing off, and Americans are looking at the president with sober eyes. It is starting to feel like 2001 all over again.

Forget rehab. Brace yourself for the next hit.

Will kill for life

Not far from the site of an extremely controversial battle, a mother hunkers in her home. She is afraid to leave. She fears for the safety of her two children and their father. The family has received threats that if they are caught out-side their doors, they will be killed.

The government promises her protection, but the mother knows that won’t be enough. There is a very strong possibility that people outside her doors will make good on their promise. Now she bunkers in her home fearing that the very people who have sworn to protect life will kill her.

Knight Ridder Tribune reports that the other woman in Michael Schiavo’s life, Jodi Centonze, fears for the safety of Michael Schiavo and their children. Centonze was told that she was “next.” Last week, we learned of a man who was arrested for taking out a bounty on Michael Schiavo’s head.

Throughout years of court battles, KRT reports that Centonze stayed in the background. She backed Michael Schiavo, visited his wife and even did her laundry.

Now people new on the scene want to kill her.

Those of us who don’t quite ‘get it’ watch with amazement as pro lifers bomb abortion hospitals and execute doctors at abortion clinics. I watch that situation enabled by a system that provides legal support for people who would carry out these missions.

In Iraq and around the world, we call people who would bomb and kill other individuals, terrorists. I’m trying to figure out why the same term wouldn’t apply here. Citizens who want to exercise their constitutional rights and the doctors whom they employ live in fear.

They know that a stranger can deliberately kill them at any time. They know that the killing would happen in support of an ideological cause and celebrated as a victory for “God.” And so they are terrorized.

When radical Islamists commit acts of terror, Americans demand that main-stream Islam supporters speak out, and conservatives bemoan the fact that mainstream Muslims don’t speak out forcefully enough.

Well it’s time for conservatives to start practicing what they preach. It’s about time someone starts speaking out against the extreme fringe right to lifers who think it is justified to take a life while campaigning to save one.

More importantly, it’s time that conservatives start speaking out against the extremists who would commit such atrocities in their name. That denunciation needs to be heard loud and clear from the top. We should clearly hear vows about hunting down pro-life terrorists and bringing them to justice.

If George Bush and his party have denounced these acts, I haven’t heard them. That, to me, is further evidence of his sincerity; I have heard everything else he’s wanted me to hear.

I heard him spout on and on about why Social Security is broken and needs to be fixed. I heard him declare that freedom is on the march in Iraq. I heard in celebrate the virtue of tax cuts.

But I’ve not heard one word against pro lifers who would kill innocent people. On that form of terrorism, he and other conservatives are uncomfortably silent.

I’m sure if pressed they would say, “of course we don’t support taking another human life,” but they have to be pressed. That’s the problem.

It’s time for Bush to go after the terrorists – “wherever they are.” It’s time for Bush to speak up in support of life. All life.

“To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of all men.”

Tech toting teachers

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_us/nra_safe_schools_2

The National Rifle Association says we should start arming teachers. They were serious.

A conversation on tough issues usually takes two

Maybe Bill Clinton took the last pair when he left the White House, but the Democrats have been unable to get their hands on any since then.

One of the most appalling developments during the national "conversation" on life, government and Terri Schiavo was the absence of any real debate. The religious right was vocal and aggressive in framing the issue as one about the sanctity of life. But the opposing view went almost without a sponsor.

There was the conspicuous absence of any compelling voice coming from the Democratic Party. Last Sunday when the debate reached the House of Representatives, Barney Frank was left to make the opposition's case practically alone. All of the so called leaders of the Democratic Party were silent.

It's not like they didn't have encouragement from public sentiment. By a margin of 63 percent to 28 percent, an ABC News poll said Americans supported removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube and almost 70 percent resented Congress' involvement.

Even with those numbers, the Democrats were too timid to get involved.

It reminded me of the Iraq War and the 2004 election all over again. When the president coasted on stratospheric approval ratings and proposed a war, Democrats climbed over each other to fall in line and appear to be in step. Most overwhelmingly supported giving the president the power to go to war with Sadam Hussein, against their better judgments and counter to the will of their base.

Later when the war started going sour and Howard Dean's protest began to find traction, there was the parade of Democrats scurrying across the street. Later in the election, explaining their actions required the kind of spin that provided fertile ground for Republicans to plant seeds of doubt about their sincerity.

Here we go again. The nation is involved in a discussion about life, death, and the role of the government in our lives, and Democrats have NOTHING to say? Part of the reason the Democrats are out of power is because they don't appear to believe in anything with any real conviction - the kind that says "even if we lose elections, even if we lose power, even if we are down in the polls, we will not compromise on these core beliefs."

We know what the core beliefs are for Republicans. They speak out against what they believe is wrong, regardless of popular opinion.

I only wish the Democrats could find that kind of conviction because a conversation on tough issues usually takes two.

"Balls!" cried the Queen. "If I had them, I'd be King!"

Too cowardly for Canada

Even Canadians know a coward when they see one.

A board hearing Canada’s refugee cases rejected a bid Thursday for asylum by a U.S. Army deserter who refused to go Iraq, according to The Washington Post.

The board decided that the United States would not unfairly prosecute Jeremy Hinzman for refusing to serve in what he said was an illegal war.

The parachute-trained specialist served in Afghanistan but fled from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Canada in January 2004 after his unit, the 82nd Airborne Divi-sion, was given orders to deploy to Iraq.

But Hinzman couldn’t even escape to Canada, a favorite destination of deserters (who were drafted, by the way) during the Vietnam War. Canada said go back and take your punishment. Good for them. What Hinzman did was cowardly, and Canada was right to call him on it.

First, in this age of the all-volunteer force, nobody should be in the Army unless you have chosen to be there. Sure the recruiters are going to come by the house, offer you wheel barrows full of money, to mow your mom’s grass, wash your dad’s car, and tell your sister her dress is pretty.

But you don’t have to join.

In fact, as a public service to all the other Jeremy Hinzmans who might be contemplating signing up, I offer what should be common knowledge. Once you sign on the dotted line, they own you. If you don’t like war, don’t join the military. If you only like some wars but not others, don’t join the military. If you don’t like following orders, don’t join the military. If you don’t like the thought of deploying to dangerous places, don’t join the military.

If you do join the military, nobody will ever ask you again what your position is on any of those issues. As my drill sergeant used to say, “it’s mind over matter. I don’t mind, and you don’t matter.”

But Hinzman, 26, did join. When he did, he took an oath. Everyone who joins takes the same oath:
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers ap-pointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Hinzman took an oath that he would obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over him. He took a regular salary from the U.S. govern-ment. He more than likely took a cash bonus and money for college. And when it was time to pay it back, he ran.

Now I’m sure he and others will try to spin this as some sort of conscious, honorable form of disobedience. It isn’t.

The closest parallel I can find would be the civil disobedience articulated by American author Henry David Thoreau and made popular by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. There is a long history of civil disobedience used as a form of protest against governments.

Gandhi outlined about nine rules on how active civil disobedience should work, but one of the rules is particularly relevant.

“When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.”

A nonviolent protester is fully aware and accepts the consequences of his or her actions. In other words, Jeremy, they don’t run. They don’t take everything their government has to offer and disappear. If you have an issue with the war, stay here, make your point publicly and face your consequences like a man. That’s what Canada was telling him.

Anything less is just cowardly.

Terri Schiavo's unstudied life

This is by far the best effort at humanizing Terri Schiavo. It is a profile on the per-son...before her illness. Very well done.
LM
------
Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life

By Jennifer Frey

She was a girl who laughed easily at her uncle's lame jokes. A girl so innocent that she wrote to John Denver, asking him to come sing at her wedding, who went to Disney World for her honeymoon and believed that a good life meant that one day she'd be able to vacation there every year with her kids.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64459-2005Mar24.html?referrer=emailarticle

God supports delay in Schiavo case?

According to Tom Delay, God was looking down at America -- at what Delay and the Christian conservatives were enduring from liberals, at Delay’s ethics problems, at just the overall direction the country was heading -- and God decided to intervene.

God also knew that down in Florida a woman named Terri Schiavo was at the center of a family feud between her husband and her parents. Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state by doctors who had treated her and as merely disabled by doctors who rented the video.

Terri’s husband, Michael, says that Terri told him that she never wanted to live like that. Terri’s parents say it doesn’t matter. And so they fought -- for years.

God, looking at the family fighting in Florida and Delay’s maladies in Washington, had the perfect answer.

“One thing that God brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America” Delay told a group of Christian conservatives March 18.

What specifically? “Attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against others,” Delay continued.

And so God brought Terri Schiavo to Delay, and the congressman and his colleagues took it from there. They created a new law so that the federal government could intervene. They summoned the president from his beloved ranch in Crawford, Texas, to sign the law in his jammies.

They second guessed the doctors. They questioned Michael Schiavo’s motives. They turned the attention of all three branches of government, at the federal and state levels, on saving Terri.

It all seemed to be working. They had elevated the Schiavo case. Everybody was talking about Terri. Nobody was talking about the nasty ethics charges.

But the conversation still didn’t go Delay’s way. The public supported Terri Schiavo’s brother by 63 to 28 percent. What’s more, 70 percent opposed the federal government’s intervention. Even Republican voters disagreed with their party, by a 58 to 39 percent margin, and evangelicals disagreed by a 50 to 44 percent margin.

It seems Americans felt Delay’s actions were based more on selfishness and than compassion or caring. A CBS News poll found that 13 percent of Americans think Congress intervened out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics.

Perhaps Delay was right. Terri Schiavo “helped elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Just like Delay said. Just like God wanted.

“We shouldn't worry so much about whether God is on our side as about whether we're on His.”

-Ronald Reagan

Who's looking at the man in the mirror?

Someone needs to give Michael Jackson a copy of his “Bad” album and tell him to listen to track #7.

There he’d be reminded of the syrupy yet preachy tune he subjected us to in the 1980s. You may remember, “Man in the Mirror.”

In the song, the self-proclaimed King of Pop croons:

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

As I watch the spectacle that Michael Jackson has become, I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror. I know what most of us see, but what does he see?

I’ve come to the conclusion that while most people slow down to gawk at a car wreck, some people enjoy being the car wreck. That was Michael: serial plastic surgeries, the chimp, living in the bubble, and of course, the Peter Pan fascination.

He’s enjoyed watching us slow down and gawk. He created this appetite in us to see how far he would go. What will Michael do next? And he has to keep taking it to the next level. For someone like him who grew up in the fish bowl and on stage, the worst thing that could happen is that people stop paying attention. We speed by without slowing down. The car wreck has become part of the landscape.

And as he continues to create absurdity for attention, he doesn’t realize how pathetic he has now become.

There was Michael singing to us about the man in the mirror, but it doesn’t appear that he has done any of the difficult soul searching he urged us to do in his sappy songs.

I guess royalty requires no reflection to acknowledge its own greatness. Besides, all the loyal subjects, the entourage, the trappings, they all reinforce what he intrinsically believes.

Surely somebody in that crew could tell him what he refuses to see. Perhaps the umbrella man could also hold up a small mirror once he is indoors and relieved of his duties. Surely someone could be close enough to him to be able to grab him by his fragile neck and shake him. Perhaps if he had forged a real relationship with an adult there might be a better chance of that happening.

Fine. I’ll do it. Michael! How did you get here?! You KNEW they were coming after you. You KNEW they would try to justify the failure of the old child molestation charges. Why were you holding a young boy’s hand on TV? Why in the world are you sleeping in the same bed with them? STOP! What in the world is motivating you?

The Jessica Lunsford incident has given us an opportunity to peer into the mind of a pedophile. It turns out most of them know they are wrong but just can’t help themselves. Is that Michael?

I've narrowed the oddity of Michael Jackson to one of two conclusions. Either he is innocent and clueless or guilty and helpless. Either he created a car wreck that got out of control, or he got out of control and created a car wreck. Either way, he can’t begin to address it without heeding the message in his own music.

Hey Mike, track #7.

Operation Iraqi Freedom: Two Years and Still No Super Bowl

What do the New England Patriots and the War in Iraq have in common with millions of Americans? I'll tell you in a minute. Stick with me.

Last weekend, the president reminded us that the Iraqi war reached its two-year milestone. It's hard to believe that two full years have elapsed since we first saw the orange streaks across the Iraqi night sky and became acquainted with the term "shock and awe."

In two years, the country experienced an emotional journey. We mourned with families of fallen soldiers and shared in the exhilaration of Iraqi voters. We will always remember the images of Sadam's statue falling as well as Americans hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.

The anniversary is not only a good time to reflect on where we've been but to assess what we have achieved. In his radio address March 19, President Bush laid out three accomplishments.

"On the this day two years ago, we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm a brutal regime, free its people, and defend the world from grave danger," Bush said.

Lodged in those three measurements are legitimate reasons for Bush to be commended but also reasons why widespread acceptance of the war has eluded him.

It's easy to verify the first two points of measurement. Did we disarm a brutal regime? We all saw the statue fall, the leader captured, and the people vote. Check that one off.

What about free its people? "In January, over eight million Iraqis defied the car bombers and assassins to vote in free elections," Bush reported. "This week, Iraq's Transitional National Assembly convened for the first time. These elected leaders broadly represent Iraq's people and include more than 85 women. They will now draft a new constitution for a free and democratic Iraq."

Not many of those facts are in dispute either.

The third point, "defend the world from grave danger," still remains the subject of heated debate. Critics remind us that the weapons of mass destruction never materialized and nothing more concrete than Sadam's "intent" was offered as evidence of grave danger. I think it's fair to conclude that we are far from consensus on that point.

The administration complains that the media and Americans don't give them enough credit for their victories in Iraq. They are probably right. Bush can rightly claim that they have freed 25 million people from oppressive grip of an Iraqi dictatorship. In Iraq, schools and hospitals are open. The economy is improving.

These are all laudable achievements, but I still have one nagging question after reading them.

So what?

I'm happy for the progress, but it has absolutely no impact on my daily quality of life. It's like watching another city's team win the Super Bowl.

I grew up in Louisiana, which pretty much makes me an oddity outside of the state's borders. Why? I'm a Saints fan. There aren't many of us Saints fans out-side of Louisiana unless you count the support groups. Each year, we get all revved up with the promise that this year will be our year. Each year, we have our hopes dashed. Last year, we came to the brink of the playoffs only to see opportunity evaporate during the last minutes of one of the last games of the last week of the regular season.

I watched with interest as the New England Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. I can understand the excitement of New Englanders as they claimed an-other Vince Lombardi trophy (after all, LSU did win a national championship two years ago). But other than that, I didn't care. It wasn't the Saints.

That's how I feel watching Iraqis celebrate voting and new schools. I would much rather see residents of the District of Columbia vote. I would much rather see the schools in my county improve. I'm happy for Iraqis who do enjoy these accomplishments, but I'm not personally invested in them.

What would it take to get personally invested? Tell me what's in it for me -- which brings us back to the third point of measurement. The third accomplishment, "defend the world from danger," is the only one that can make Iraqi successes relevant to everyday Americans. Yet, it is the only accomplishment the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate in a convincing way.

Until they make the case for the third measurement, or prove to me why I should care, they will have a hard time generating my excitement for the first two.

What do the New England Patriots and the Iraqi War have in common with the lives of millions of Americans? Absolutely nothing. And until you convince me that they do, I'll reserve my excitement for the promise of a new Saints season. Good for your New England. Good for you Iraq. Geaux Saints!

The Steroid Show strikes out (and other annoying sports puns)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43422-2005Mar17.html

Question: If an athlete testifies about steroids and no cameras capture it, will we have to worry about any more athletes testifying?

It’s a silly question, I know, because there is no way we could have realistically expected TV news cameras to ignore this spectacle. The lure of baseball’s best, elbow-to-elbow, scowling and sobbing, proved irresistible to most Americans, whether they were baseball fans or not. So the cameras lined up, the politicians pontificated, and the players evaded. Reporters fired sports clichés faster and less accurately than a Curt Schilling fastball. The steroid show was in full swing.

Was any of this news? I’m sure there are a million ways to justify coverage, but did we learn anything useful?

Well, just in case you started pondering any of these questions, Congress of-fered up this convenient rationalization: This is for the kids.

That’s right. Mark McGwire and company were hauled in front of The House Government Reform Committee to set an example to kids all over. Listen up kids, if you take steroids, you might break baseball’s most cherished records but you will eventually face a day of embarrassment in front of our nation’s legislators. Scared straight now?

Here’s an idea: if you really want to scare kids off of steroids, make baseball players show us how the drugs really affect them.

According to webmd.com, men who use steroids might develop breasts, have their testicles shrink, experience impotency, become bald, get acne, and de-velop jaundice. Now those are real deterrents not to mention great TV. Let the cameras line up to see Mark McGwire with breasts. So Jose Canseco isn’t bald yet, but there is a long line of other effects that we could explore with parental warning. Are those pimples on your back, Sammy?

But no…. We have to suffer through politicians asking the tough ones: Do you think using steroids is cheating? Are you kidding? You subpoena star sluggers under the guise of serving the public and you inquire, “Is it cheating?”

Why are the networks even covering that? During the political conventions, broadcast networks boycotted much of the proceedings because they bemoaned them as being too boring and too scripted. Can’t we apply the same standard here? Please? For the kids?

I guarantee you if the athletes testify and no cameras show up, Congress will move on to real work.

Anything a man can do

It was a moment that passed mostly without notice, partly with a bit of cynicism.

In one of the news conferences following the Brian Nichols murder spree, a re-porter asked why a woman was guarding a male prisoner.

The response: because a woman can do anything a man can do.

I must admit I rolled my eyes as I knew that answer had been scripted on official talking points somewhere. Some PC do gooder scribbled the words knowing they would come in handy during the crisis.

Of course women deserve equal opportunities. Of course any person performing the same service is entitled to equal pay and promotions. Of course I expect that if a woman was hired for a job, she should be expected to do it the same as any other person drawing the same salary with the same job description.

But as we heard over and over, here was 5 foot grandmother asked to guard a 6 foot 210 pound ex football player, who happened to be a black belt.

Anything?

The answer revealed itself over the course of the ordeal. First came the news that Nichols was being apprehended. Then we saw the image of Nichols being escorted out of the apartment complex by a woman. It seemed like a quiet, de-fiant moment. But the truth wasn’t revealed in that photo op.

The truth we learned from 26-year-old Ashley Smith.

Smith recalled being held “captive” for hours, in a plain spoken, compelling manner. She told how she was accosted by a nervous, trigger-happy killer and subdued him without ever laying a finger on him.

In appealing to Nichols’ humanity, Smith helped transform the aggressor into a man who realized his mistake, asked for help, and surrendered without inci-dent.

In the end, a woman brought down the same killer who was practically freed by one. She did it with the quiet strength that was probably more effective than trying to physically overpower the suspect.

The chief says a woman can do anything a man can do. He may be right, but could a man have done what Smith did?

Would he?

Punishing pedophiles

What's a suitable punishment for someone who would sneak into a neighbor's house, kidnap a 9-year-old girl, violate her, kill her and bury her in the yard?

On a week when Congress turned its attention to baseball's steroid shenanigans and Terri Schiavo's right to live or die, here is an issue worthy of their outrage.

Police recovered the body of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford around 3:30 this morning using information supplied by John Evander Couey, a former neighbor and registered sex offender. The discovery ended a mystery that captured the nation's attention ever since the young girl was discovered missing from her bedroom on Feb. 24.

It's hard not to share the devastation of Jessica's parents, Mark Lunsford and Angela Bryant. From all accounts, Jessica was a special child. Her father and grandparents say she would always ask permission before leaving the house. Jessica laid the next day's school clothes out before going to bed. She woke herself up with her own alarm clock. She regularly attended church. She was a good kid.

I remember thinking that she sounded almost perfect. Speaking as one who has raised a 9 year old, I would pay good money to get those kinds of results. No person deserves such a horrific fate, but it seems even more tragic when it happens to a child — especially one who exhibits that level of responsibility and maturity at such a young age. With a start like that, Jessica had to be on the road to great things.

But now she has been derailed from that path.

In the hierarchy of crimes, pedophilia ought to occupy a special place. If ever there was an express lane to hell, pedophiles should have reserved seating.

Unfortunately, the plight of Mark Lunsford is not an uncommon one. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that in a one-year period, 797,500 children were reported missing. That is an average of 2,100 children reported missing each day. What's more, 198,300 children were involuntarily missing, lost, or injured over the course of a year. Nonfamily members abducted 58,200 children in the same time period.

Thousands of parents empathize with Mark Lunsford's tragedy tonight.

But what do we do with the convicted predators? John Evander Couey admitted kidnapping and killing Jessica Lunsford. Priests around the country are admitting or are being convicted of preying on young parishioners. And these are the few cases that attract media attention. Thousands of people like Couey are plotting to take someone else's child tonight.

Many people take quiet pleasure in knowing that the prison code will exact a certain level of revenge.

They nodded with satisfaction when a fellow inmate beat serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to death with a lead pipe. You remember Dahmer gained infamy by killing 17 young men between 1978 and 1991. The prevailing wisdom was that the system worked, even if it was unofficial.

We shouldn't have to depend on vigilante prison justice, however. What John Evander Couey did was vile. His punishment should be severe enough to dis-courage any other potential pedophiles from violating another child.

But Congress spent the week meddling in a major league dispute between labor and management and refereeing a family feud that was being adjudicated in the state courts. I don't mean to trivialize those issues, but I'm not convinced they needed Congressional intervention.

Here's an issue that does. I'm not usually a proponent of the death penalty, but I'm willing to break with my longstanding objections for the John Couey's of the world. A conviction of child molestation or pedophilia should bring a response that is quick and severe. In the majority of those convictions, the sentence should be death.

That law should be enacted at the federal level. There should be no escape across a state line for a convicted sex offender. They shouldn't have the opportunity to move across the street from a 9-year-old child, unbeknownst to the parents, and plot. This is a case for zero tolerance. On the first offense, pedophiles go behind bars for life. When it fits, they go behind bars to await death.

Members of Congress, this is an issue to get outraged about. Pass a law. Send a message. Do something useful.

DC, give congress the finger

Washington, D.C., residents, eager for statehood, now have a reason to give Congress the finger.

During the Iraqi election Dec. 31, 2004, voters dipped their fingers in purple ink to signify that they had voted in the election. The process, conceived as a way to monitor voting status, quickly grew into a symbol of pride. Iraqis brandished their inked fingers for cameras and flaunted them as a symbol of defiance and pride.

The symbolism wasn’t lost in America, where Louisiana freshman representative Bobby Jindal painted his finger purple during the State of the Union as a symbol of unity.

District residents should take this very visible and well-known symbol and use it as a tool to highlight their status as the only citizens in our country to defend democracy but not enjoy it.

Here’s how their act of defiance would work. District residents should be encouraged to dip their fingers in ink – preferably red – to demonstrate their lack of voting rights.

Red ink could be used to symbolize the fact that America has defaulted on its promise of no taxation without representation. It could be used to dramatize the blood that they spill in Iraq for a right they don’t enjoy at home.

I’m sure we could talk a District-based printer to donate the ink to the cause. The ink could be stationed around the city – maybe at Metro stops, for instance. Residents should be encouraged to stop at these locations and dip their fingers as a symbol of protest. Those who couldn’t could download an image of the symbolic red finger from a website. Bumper stickers and T-shirts could fuel the campaign.

We brought democracy to Iraq. How about a little for the Nation's Capital. Don't make us give you the finger.