A missed story...

San Antonio Express-News (Cary Clark) It's hard to lose sight of an imposing four-story structure of 60,000 square feet that's in your midst and will be responsible for the rebuilding of lives, but a few people allowed that to happen to them.

Last week's release of a list of some of the dignitaries and celebrities who would be attending Monday's dedication of the Center for the Intrepid and two new Fisher Houses upset some because of the inclusion of Rosie O'Donnell. The names of Denzel Washington, John Mellencamp, Don Imus, senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton may have titillated, but it was that of the outspoken and opinionated comedian and talk-show host that ignited sparks.

In explaining why O'Donnell didn't belong, people cited her politics, her stance against the war in Iraq, her criticism of President Bush, and her marriage to another woman and their adoption of children.

All of which had nothing to do with the purpose of Monday's dedication of the largest and most expensive privately funded facility for wounded war veterans.

There are stronger arguments for why the American government should have funded the Center for the Intrepid than why it didn't.

Any government that asks men and women to fight for it should do everything within its power to care for them when they return home, especially if they're returning with injuries. The opening of the center is a testament to the concern of the American people for the wounded.

The center isn't about politics or ideology or where one stood on this war. More than 600,000 people contributed to its construction and they span the political spectrum. Say what you will about O'Donnell, but she gave $300,000 of her money. Don Imus, the nationally syndicated talk-show host, has expressed reservations about the war since before it started but not only did he make a considerable donation but did as much as any person to publicize the center and raise money for it.

One other thing the center illustrates is how much we've grown as a nation over the past 30 years. During and after the Vietnam War era, such a center as this, built exclusively with private funds, would have been unimaginable. The divide over that war was too deep, hostile and fraught with distrust and suspicion to ask for so much money from so many people for a similar center that was just as vitally needed then as now.

Since then, we've learned how to oppose a war without opposing and disrespecting our troops and that to care for them and help them make the transition back to their pre-war lives as best as possible isn't Republican or Democrat, it's not conservative or liberal, it's not pro-war or anti-war, it's not even about being an American. It's about being humane.

The Center for the Intrepid gives us the opportunity to be more humane to the soldiers coming home. Monday's ceremonies weren't about Rosie or Imus or Denzel or the next possible president of the United States. It was about the men and women who will be requiring the center's services.

In Monday's story by Express-News reporters Scott Huddleston and Sig Christenson, there was this paragraph:

"Aside from $250,000 donated by USAA and $100,000 from Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union, San Antonians gave little for the center, (president of the Fallen Heroes Fund, Bill) White said."

That should sting everyone here, including me, who didn't contribute a dime to its building. But when all of the dignitaries and celebrities have left our city, the Center for the Intrepid will remain.

And so will our checkbooks, our time, and anything else we can offer. To quote Mr. Mellencamp, "ain't that America?"

Its only just begun...

Crooks and Liars reveals the CSPAN video:

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

A preview of things to come…

BBC NEWS:

Top Iraqi condemns US over Iran

One of Iraq's most powerful Shia politicians has condemned the arrest of Iranians by US forces in Iraq as an attack on the country's sovereignty. The comments by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, made in a BBC interview, are seen as the strongest expression yet of Iraq's concern about the US approach to Iran. They follow two recent US raids in which Iranians were arrested.The remarks are interesting as Mr Hakim is seen as close to President Bush, says the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad. Late last year, US troops descended on Mr Hakim's residential compound in Baghdad and detained two Iranian officials. They were later released, but last week, five more were detained at the Iranian liaison office in Irbil. They are still being held. US officials say they are linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which they allege trains and arms Iraqi insurgents. Iran, which has demanded their immediate release, says they are diplomats engaged in legitimate work. "Regardless of the Iranian position we consider these actions as incorrect," Mr Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told the BBC. "They represent a kind of attack on Iraq's sovereignty and we hope such things are not repeated." On Sunday, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that Iraq needed a constructive relationship with Iran. "We can't change the geographical reality that Iran is our neighbour. This is a delicate balance and we are treading a very thin line." We fully respect the views, policies and strategy of the United States, which is the strongest ally to Iraq, but the Iraqi government has national interests of its own," Mr Zebari said.

The view from the couch is a view from the top...

If you don't do anything this week, do watch this address by Bill Moyers.

Saber Rattling

BBC NEWS:

US warns Iran on Iraq 'meddling'
US Vice President Dick Cheney has warned Iran not to interfere in Iraq.

The US government thought it was very important that the Iranians should "keep their folks at home", he said.

His comments come after US forces detained several Iranians in northern Iraq on suspicion of aiding insurgents, accusations rejected by Tehran.

Mr Cheney is the latest member of the Bush administration to warn that the US will take steps against those trying to destabilise the situation in Iraq.

US officials say five Iranian nationals arrested during a military raid in Irbil on Thursday are linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which they accuse of training and arming Shia insurgents in Iraq.

I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want (Iran) doing what they can to try to destabilise the situation inside Iraq
Dick Cheney

Iran's foreign ministry says the men are diplomats and were working at the Iranian liaison office in Irbil. It has demanded their immediate release.

Washington has often accused Iran, or factions within the Iranian government, of aiding Shia groups in Iraq militarily and politically, but has offered little proof of Tehran's alleged activities.

President George W Bush on Wednesday warned that the US would take a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, which he accused of destabilising Iraq.

Mr Cheney told Fox News that Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" by aiding attacks on US forces and backing Shia militias involved in sectarian violence.

"I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want (Iran) doing what they can to try to destabilise the situation inside Iraq.

"We think it's very important that they keep their folks at home" he said, adding that the Iranian threat was growing, multi-dimensional and of concern to everybody in the region.

Pursuit

Mr Cheney's television interview formed part of attempts by the Bush administration to promote the new drive to improve security in Iraq, which involves sending an extra 21,500 US troops.

What the Americans claim is incorrect. The Americans want to radicalise the atmosphere in Iraq to justify their occupation, but we will act wisely
Mohammad Ali Hosseini
Iran foreign ministry spokesman
There similarly tough words from the US National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, who told ABC Television that the US had the authority to pursue Iranians in Iraq who "put our people at risk".

He did not elaborate on whether this could mean sending US troops across the border into Iran if necessary.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking before she embarked on her current Middle East tour, insisted that the US was not going to let either Iran or Syria continue activities that endangered American soldiers in Iraq.

"That's not an escalation, that's just good policy," Ms Rice told the BBC.

'Illegal action'

Tehran vehemently denies the charges of interference and says the men detained on Thursday were "involved in consulate affairs".

"Their activities were legal and in the framework of the law," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in response to the allegations.

The Iranian government has also demanded compensation for damage to the building where the men were seized.

Mr Hosseini said the building the Americans attacked opened in 1992 and was officially registered as the Iranian consulate. The Iraqi authorities have said it was a liaison office in the process of being registered as a consulate.

Iran is adamant the office and the staff inside should have had diplomatic protection and that America's action was illegal.

"What the Americans claim is incorrect. The Americans want to radicalise the atmosphere in Iraq to justify their occupation, but we will act wisely," Mr Hosseini said.

Last month several Iranians were arrested by the US in Baghdad, among them two senior Revolutionary Guard officers. They were released after huge pressure from the Iraqi government.

The Revolutionary Guard, known locally as the Pasdaran, is a parallel military force with its own army, air force and navy.

It was set up to enforce and defend the principles of the 1979 Islamic revolution and answers directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

There is more to protesting than poll numbers

With opposition to the war hovering around 60-65% it would seem that protests would be rampant. Student sit-ins, unorganized and spontaneous gatherings of disgruntled youth would fill the 24 hour news networks. However, all is silent on the post-modern front. Students go to class, teachers review their basic lessons, and workers go to work. A sense of malaise is in the air and the effects of this war seem to be on the periphery. We may know someone who has a cousin or distant relative in the war, or we may have an idea about where Iraq is geographically, but the essence of the war and its global ramifications are absent in civil society. Have we become desensitized to death and destruction? Have we giving up on our first amendment right to protest the government? Do we give a damn?

Last night the President of these United States made a shift in foreign policy, which will entail the increase of troops into the war torn theater of Iraq. No matter what your opinion of the President is he still has the power to send young men and women, our follow citizens, into a situation which can cost them their lives and destroy families. The support for this war is at 15-18%. Let me repeat that number 15-18% of the population support the efforts by this administration in the war. However, without these numbers you would assume that everyone is in favor. There are no out cries of anger and disappointment, no public assemblies of fist waving youth, no speeches in Beacon Park. The American voice is absent. The American people are absent. In effect, America is absent. A rouge President can do anything he wants in this apathetic atmosphere. Rights can be dismantled, war can be fought without a clear vision for victory, nations can be bombed, countries can be overthrown and leaders can be hung. We are left with coffee cups in hand, shaking our head and scoffing at “those idiots”. Never once thinking that those idiots represent us, they represent the better men of a nation. Those idiots are our representatives, we are responsible for their power, and we are ultimately responsible for their actions. In effect, we decided to send more troops.

What don’t you understand about being poor!

Watching CSPAN has never been better. The up and down vote on the minimum wage increase is just moments away and a motion by the minority party has stalled the procedure. Attaching an amendment to the bill granting small business owners exception from the wage increase if they offer health insurance to their employees. Just offering health insurance is enough for business owners to opt out of the wage increase. Never mind the co-pays or deductibles. To cultivate this irresponsible action, a human interest story from a GOP congresswoman in New Mexico telling the heartbreaking tale of a small business owner having to choose between cutting employment or offering a wage increase, explaining that the minimum wage is a weapon against small business owners. The GOP aisle rose in cries of ‘here, here’ and loud applause.

Then George Miller (D-California) was yielded his 5 minutes and took the GOP to the woodshed. Paraphrasing, he explained the GOP had ten years to implement this bill and now on the day of reckoning they want to slither in an amendment which would gut the wage increase from the inside out. Then as Miller’s face began to turn a satisfying shade of crimson he pointed emphatically to the GOP and rhetorically asked: “WHAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT BEING POOR!!” In a nut shell this is the different between the parties. In the eyes of the new GOP, the poor is there because they are poor and it is their fault, systemic problems do not exist, only cause and effect issues. As it stands now the vote will pass and small business owners, like all other business owners will have to pony up a whopping $7.25 in hour. This in GOP eyes will be the down fall of small businesses everywhere. Again I repeat Miller’s exaltation: “What don’t you understand about being poor!!”

Law of diminishing returns...The surge factor

The tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved. This is a clear definition of diminishing returns, however if one was to read this on a billboard or say a subway poster, you might be inclined to place it as a clear definition for the war in Iraq. 20,000 or 100,000 more troops will not solve a problem or ‘project’ for the level of result has already been achieved. This may not be the level that everyone thought or wanted but war is a messy operation, and as Rummy once said, “you go to war with the army you got”. Unfortunately, the new strategy for Iraq which will be unveiled next week, (Why not unveil it now? Is the old plan still working? If so then why change? I guess logic is not part of the new equation.) is a stop gap measure at best and a new epic blunder at worse. So sit back and have a drink while Bushy lets us all know about sacrifice, freedom, democracy, liberty, torture, hangings and surges for success.

Does God need a lawyer?

From The Independent

Evangelist sued for claiming that God heals
By Sadie Gray
Published: 02 January 2007

"A tele-evangelist with a large following across the United States is being sued by relatives over her claim that prayer cured her brother's throat cancer.

Darlene Bishop's claims appear in her book, Your Life Follows Your Words, which fails to mention that her brother, the songwriter Darrell "Wayne" Perry, died of the disease 18 months ago.

Mr Perry's four children have filed a lawsuit against their aunt for wrongful death, claiming that she persuaded him to stop chemotherapy and to depend instead upon God's healing.

Mrs Bishop, who is co-pastor at a 4,000-congregation Ohio church, also claims that prayer cured her of breast cancer.

In her blog she dismissed the allegations as "complete lies", adding that he had been in remission for more than a year when the book was published."

Secularism and the New Year…1797

The following is an excerpt from a treaty with Tripoli drafted in 1796 under Washington and signed by Adams in 1797:

“As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselman; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

How times have changed and religion has mutated into the oracle of wisdom for this nation. I hope this New Year brings with it more secularism, of the kind seen by Adams and Washington’s wisdom.