Keith Thompson, San Francisco Chronicle - http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL - 5-22-05

In the sixties, America correctly focused on bringing down walls that prevented equal access and due process. It was time to walk the Founders' talk -- and we did. With barriers to opportunity no longer written into law, today the body politic is crying for different remedies.

America must now focus on creating healthy, self-actualizing individuals committed to taking responsibility for their lives, developing their talents, honing their skills and intellects, fostering emotional and moral intelligence, all in all contributing to the advancement of the human condition.

At the heart of authentic liberalism lies the recognition, in the words of John Gardner, "that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up." A continuously renewing society, Gardner believed, is one that seeks to "foster innovative, versatile, and self-renewing men and women and give them room to breathe."

One aspect of my politics hasn't changed a bit. I became a liberal in the first place to break from the repressive group orthodoxies of my reactionary hometown.

This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion.

True, it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites.

Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.

Posted by: Michele at 10:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Here's a memo Bill Frist released yesterday afternoon (see extended entry), regarding what he, as Majority Leader, has proposed to the Senate in order to bring an end to the filibustering (see next entry for a small sample) which has been going on this week.

The proposal? That there be 100 hours of debate on each nominee, with each senator getting one hour of floor time. On Tuesday, 4 nominees are scheduled to be considered.

I believe that Senators, who after reading the JC's (Judiciary Committee's) comprehensive report (which includes nominees profiles and credentials) and the transcript of the interviews, they are still unable to make up their mind on nominees (who are currently sitting on the bench in Circuit Court) or are incapable of debating their credentials concisely on the floor, then these Senators don' t deserve to be on the hill! more...

Posted by: Michele at 10:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 3 kb.

Last night, as I was doing computer upgrades and trouble shooting, I was listening to the radio on that day's filibustering in the Senate. Well, to hear what was going on was a mind-numbing experience.

I've posted in the extended entry a one page transcribed excerpt I found on either Hewitt's site or Fox news (sorry lost the link & page), just in case anyone was interested in seeing our hard earned tax dollars at work. Here's a link to the MP3 excerpt (via radioblogger.com) of the portion I didn't transcribe because of the overwhelming urge to laugh and scream simultaneously. For the love of God, can anyone tell me what this man means by the Republicans "Hamanizing" the Senate?

I'm interested in what others are doing to stay informed, so please let me know what you think and if you've kept up with the filibustering. Sometimes the personal annecdotes drive me over the edge, because I think to myself: "this is the crap that's going into the senate record for the day!"

Read on McDuff's, you be the judge and see if the wheels of democracy have come to a screeching halt. more...

Posted by: Michele at 08:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 759 words, total size 5 kb.

Last night I wrote another long post on the North Korean nuclear debate. In it I provided some background, history and listed a number of agreements and highlights facts that are relevant to today's situation. Why did I do this? Because pundits are very good at providing opinions and not sharing facts. I just care about the facts, I can formulate my own opinions thank you! Unfortunately, my computer began crashing, and I lost my post. Curses!

So I'll just summarize my most interesting observations and points and let you do your own research. For instance, I find it interesting that most people in our government, who have taken a position against this administration's policy on North KoreaÂ’s nuclear proliferation have never even visited South Korea, in order to get a glimpse into the mindset of North Koreans and it's presidenial dictator, Kim Jong II. Only then can they asses the real threat involved and assess the true character of Kim Jong.

I also find Hillary ClintonÂ’s flawed memory absolutely unbelievable. It seems that in blaming the current administrationÂ’s policy, of seeking a multi-lateral compromise between North Korea and itÂ’s neighbors, she overlooks what in fact brought us to this point.

Lest she forget I think I should reminder of several important facts:
First, it was agreements her husband made and pushed for, which forced the South Koreans to sell the nuclear reactor to North Korea in the first place. The South Korean government and it's people protested vociferously at the time and resented Bill's interference in their affairs. The US sent a delegation to threaten economic sanctions against a country whose major industries at the time (automobile parts and computer parts) were suffering heavily.

Second, within 2 years of the reactor being operatonal, North Korea began threatening to use it to create nuclear weapons. Weapons, South Korea beleived Kim Jong would build in spite of his pledge not to.

Three, it was subsequent agreements which Bill Clinton pushed for and brokered which essentially paid the North Koreans for not producing nuclear weapons, so they wouldnÂ’t make good on their threat of bombing South Korea, Japan and China.

Four, these payments happened in spite of protests by the South Korean/Pan Asian governments warning, that paying off Kim Jong was tantamount to paying off a terrorist and letting them keep their weapons plant.

Well, even if Hillary has forgotten I haven't. I lived in Asia at the time and was angered by our payments to a political criminal and murderer! But then, in looking back over Clintonian history I see this is something he practiced repeatedly!

Posted by: Michele at 06:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

I’ve been mulling over _Jon’s post (of We Swear) on “College campus’ ban of military recruiters”. There were several reactions that came up for me as soon as I read it. The first and most immediate one was anger with the news story. Imagine what would have happened to women’s sports if the federal government had not threatened to cut off funds to schools receiving federal money, and not using at least 25% of it to go towards women’s athletics. Women's sports wouldn’t exist! As it is, Title IX has never achieved the parity with men's sports that it sought. However, women’s athletics have come a long way since the days of no women’s sports in schools.

Imagine if colleges had said to the federal government, weÂ’ll take your money, but you know what you can do with your ideas of equality.

Well, his post was compelling enough to make me want to do research on this issue. Below are the basic facts that I culled from various sources including the Thomas Register, which is the Library of CongressÂ’ archival repository for current and past legislation. That way I filter out the middlemen (Sorry _Jon, but just because a guy at the Washington Post says trust me on this, doesnÂ’t me I do.) So in my research I culled some basic and very important relevant facts:

- The policy being used as a pretext to push the military off campus is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy implemented by the military in 1993.

- The Solomon Amendment, requires all institutions, not just educational, who receive federal grants, to give limited access to military recruiters, so they can make unobtrusive presentations (in the form of pamphlets being left behind or visits by recruiters) to people who may be interested in a career in the military. This is done with the consent and approval of the school.

- The was passed under a number of laws in 1995 and extended to educational institutions in 1997. when interim rules were established.

- The final institutional rules were implemented in 1998.

Hmmm, I wonder who was President during this period?

I have several arguments to make on against the ban:

First, it was not until recently, with our government actively involved in a war, that this became an issue and recruiters and their pamphlets were banned from campuses across the country. Colleges still continued to use and accept federal grants and aid. in spite of violating the Solomon Amendment. During my tenure as undergraduate student government president from 1995 to 1997, this was an issue for some students (the anarchists and extreme left) and faculty. Administrators on my campus were indifferent because they relegated military recruiters to the same space credit card representatives were given at the edge of our campus.

Second, the overriding issue that I see is the denial of Free Speech. ItÂ’s OK for students, faculty and staff to openly object to the war, but let one ROTC or military recruiter come on campus with their recruiting table and pamphlets and all hell breaks loose.

So what I see in this fight, is more than just a simple college ban, it is college staff and administrators systematically limiting dialogue or free speech and denying studentsÂ’ the exposure to a differing point of view.

In the extended entry you will find a letter a former mentee of mine (and an impending law school graduate) will be sending to the Washington Post and New York Times. His argument is different from mine. Weigh in if you wish, IÂ’ve posted my 2 cents on this issue.
more...

Posted by: Michele at 06:29 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 836 words, total size 5 kb.

I read a post by Ed Thomas yesterday, titled "BBC and the UN's problem with morality", in which he outlines the continual bias of these organizations against the US and UK governments. He uses the example of the UNÂ’s recent renewal of Zimbabwe's seat, as a member of the UNÂ’s human rights commission. He argues that these 2 organizations often overlook issues/abuses by African governments, in order to maintain their criticism against US/UK and their foreign policie. The reason for his criticism is summarized below.

This just sums up the wrong headedness of the Beeb (BBC) and the UN, who often these days seem partners in crime. The cause of suffering, ie. the tolerance of foul and callous leadership in Africa, is demoted to a footnote, while the sticking plaster of what amounts to compassionateÂ… is foregrounded- and thus we get warm and fuzzies about the UN and totally misled about [their] failures to confront the evils that plague Africa.

It's a criticism with which I concur, except that I would have used stronger language. I have many problems with Zimbabwe's renewal; mostly for what it means for both the UN and Annan, that they are once again escaping public scrutiny and hiding behind a diplomatic cloak. But I'm especially angry, for what it means, in terms of the tacit approval given, to Zimbabwe's government; that it's OK to tolerate corruption and fraud, so long as your taking some small miniscule step to feed and help your people while pointing the finger at others. It seems that the criticism labeled at us stems from the US/UK holding off or cutting aid and support until the UN cleans up it's act and honestly conducts a thorough investigation in the Oil for Food program scandal.

Posted by: Michele at 12:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember how the UK newspaper, the Guardian, who gave out addresses to British citizens so they could write to Ohio residents in order to influence our presidential vote last September? Well, it turns out that my old comrade at The Politburo Diktat is issuing a similar challenge, in order for us to do the same.

In the Commisar's post, 'My fellow non-Britons ...' he gives us important details and links to a similar project in which we try to influence the voters of Monmouth, Wales (a swing region) to vote for who goes to live at 10 Downing St.

If you're up for the challenge, and are not intimidated by the Queen's English, then I suggest you write to a Briton and return the favor. Tom, the person I wrote to in Ohio, not only wrote back to thank me, he also informed me that he was of like mind. It was really cool!

To find out more details or to get involved visit our dear Comrade in arms at the link above. Thanks!

Posted by: Michele at 08:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.