Seeds of Ideas Takes Root, Blooms

Welcome to my newly revamped blog! My humble little blog has been getting a little bit of attention, and folks are stopping by from all over the world, I thought it was time to spruce up the place a bit for company. The look and title are different (a little less defensive, perhaps?) but the meat and potatoes of politics and world affairs hasn't changed. I'll still be dishing it out every morning (after having already dished out breakfast, thereby trapping my 2-year-old in his high chair-- you know, I've gotten used to working with children's TV in the background!) so stop by anytime.

Really, people, start leaving some comments! I know you're there! I'd love to hear some other opinions, or requests for post topics.

In the meantime, try to stay cool in these dog days of summer and blessed be!

PS-- We're moving to a new house around mid-August, so the blog posts might slow to a trickle right around then...

PPS-- HUGE CONGRATS to Floyd Landis, who won this year's Tour De France!!! He'll be having hip surgery soon, here's wishing him all the best. The Tour has not seen the end of Living Strong!

All Hell is Breaking Loose, Part II.

Previously on "All Hell Is Breaking Loose":

Muslims are divided into Sunni and Shi'a, which is similar to the differences between Catholics and Protestants in Christianity. They generally don't like each other and think that the other side is worshipping all wrong.

Muslims are spread all over the world, but some countries are dominate in one or the other sect of Islam. Needless to say, countries that identify with one side are going to back up that side. To compare this to the familiar, Protestant countries like England and Catholic countries like Spain might feel the need to take sides in a Catholic/Protestant conflict. Catholic countries like Mexico, while an ocean away, might feel a camaraderie with their Catholic brethren in Ireland even though culturally they have little in common.

So, who's who? Well, as Wikipedia points out, the Shi'a are kind of the proverbial "red-headed stepchild" of Islam. "One of the lingering problems... in estimating the Shi'a population is that unless the Shi`a form a significant minority in a Muslim country, the entire population is often listed as Sunni... No Sunni-Shi'a breakdown is available for many countries... This is certain to have exaggerated the proportion of Sunni Muslims." It's like the way the US is considered a Protestant country even though there are a lot of Catholics here, certainly enough to make a political impact, as we saw in the recent immigration debate.

Another great example is Iraq. Under Saddam, the country was considered to be Sunni because Saddam and his government were Sunni (though it seems they had lapsed into secularism). As we found out when we cracked Iraq open, it turns out that most of the actual people inside were Shi'a.

Wikipedia is saying that the conventional wisdom breaks it down 85% Sunni and 15% Shi'a, even though because of the problems listed above, that's probably not right.

What's happening in the world is the rift between these two sects is growing and becoming more violent. It seems that when this really ignites, nation-states are going to take sides. So, who sides with whom?

Out of the major players on the world's stage who are predominately Muslim, it breaks down (as far as I can tell, with Wikipedia's help--they have an awesome chart-- and accepting the above disclaimer) like this:


SUNNI
Somalia
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Yemen
Kuwait
Afghanistan
Libya
Pakistan
United Arab Emirates
Egypt
Jordan
Syria
Indonesia

SHI'A
Bahrain
Iran
Iraq

Out of the countries that aren't predominately Muslim, but have significant (60-75%) Muslim populations, their Muslims break down like this:

SUNNI
Sudan
Albania
Bosnia Herzegovenia

SHI'A
Lebanon

If you're wondering about G8 countries like the US, all of their Muslims are listed as Sunni, probably because of the poor data collection mentioned earlier. (While Muslims might list their religion on US census forms, for example, I don't think it specifies "Sunni" or "Shi'a".)

So let's take a headline from the other day: "Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt issue a statement condemning Hezbollah's attack on Israel." While that seems significant, Arabs turning on Arabs instead of banding together in lockstep against Israel, look at the chart. Hezbollah is a Shi'a group from Shi'a Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all Sunni. Iran supports Hezbollah, and from a glance at the chart, that makes perfect sense. The Sunni Syrians, on the other hand, took over Shi'ite Lebanon until they were recently kicked out, which explains the animosity there. On the other hand, the Syrians aided Hezbollah in the past, because Hezbollah was formed to fight the Israelis, which despite their differences is something radicals of both groups can get behind. In fact, in this growing rift between Sunnis and Shi'a, the Israel/Hezbollah conflict may be the only thing keeping them together, as seen by the Syrians welcoming Shi'ite Lebanese refugees with open arms.

Iraq has become the hotbed of the conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'a. The Sunni dictatorship of Saddam allowed for Sunni abuse of the Shi'ite majority. (Well, let's face it, the Husseins were just downright sick puppies, and they happened to be Sunni and used that as an excuse.) The US came in and, through many missteps but I think with the idea of rooting for the underdog, ended up handing the country back to the Shi'a. Needless to say, after years of horror, the Shi'a are back and they're pissed, as the saying goes. That's why what is flippantly referred to in the MSM as "sectarian violence" has replaced any kind of insurgency in Iraq.

"I can't understand/ what makes a man/ hate another man," Depeche Mode once sang, and it is unfathomable why such a horror would occur unless you're a part of it. I still find it hard to believe that Ireland was torn apart by what we would now call "sectarian violence", when really, who cares who's Catholic or Protestant. But go into a pub in Ireland and ask that question, and you'll get an earful-- or, the patrons will narrow their eyes at you as if to say, "Idiot," and turn back to their Guinness without a word.

The Shi'a are back in Iraq with a vengeance, and are flooding into the police forces and military, from which position they are purportedly abusing and murdering Sunnis. Those that don't get jobs join gangs, which they euphamisitcally call "militias", and go around abusing and murdering Sunnis on their own. What a fun place.

Is it any wonder that the Sunnis in other countries are starting to get angry with the US for backing the Shi'a and putting them in power? And who exactly would be mad at us? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and Turkey, for starters. At least four of those are our business partners and in recent years, friends of a sort, which would be a great loss to us if they should turn on us. Iran, for all of its saber-rattling and hatred of the US, is actually not doing as much as you might imagine to provoke us because on this greater sectarian battleground, we just helped them by creating another Shi'a country. (That's why people keep saying, "The big winner here is Iran," which doesn't really make any sense unless you understand the Shi'a/Sunni conflict.)

I don't have a profound point here, just wanted to get this all straight in my own head and hopefully help you out too. I do have a warning: keep an eye on these Sunni and Shi'a divisions, they will be key to understanding wide-spread conflict and (any God willing) resolution.


UPDATE:
Wow, talk about topicality: just took a look at Salon.com's political blog by Tim Grieve, who posted this:

The Bush administration has long insisted that news stories about violence in Iraq obscure the progress that is being made on the political front.

Perhaps it's time to put that story to rest.

In an extraordinarily gloomy report from Baghdad, Reuters correspondent Mariam Karouny says that Iraqi leaders have "all but given up on holding the country together." Among the ideas now on the table: Divide Baghdad into two zones, one for Shiites and one for Sunnis, in the hopes of stopping the bloodshed between the two.

The harsh words from one unnamed government official: "Iraq as a political project is finished."

I certainly hope that's not the case, since division is never the solution ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Reagan) but I will say I understand all that a lot better having done all this research.

All Hell is Breaking Loose

There is something really important happening in the world. It's not just that Hezbollah and Israel are at each other's throats, it's not just that the US has destabilized the region and upped the ante. It's that there are two main branches of Islam, the Sunni and the Shi'a, and they are ready to fight to the death.

All of your preconceptions about the conflict in the Muslim world, which states are nice and/or democratic versus which states are mean and/or "rogue", forget them. This battle is going to come down based on who believes what.

If you're having trouble getting your brain around this, think about the Catholics and the Protestants. While both religions follow Jesus Christ, they differ significantly about how to follow Him. To over-simplify it (oh, don't worry, I'll be over-simplifying the Muslims too), the Catholics believe that Jesus chose the disciple Peter as his successor, and Peter formed the Church and became the first Bishop of Rome, a position which later became known as the Pope. That makes the Pope the direct "descendant" of Peter, who got his marching orders directly from Jesus, which makes him the Supreme Head of the Church. Conversely, the Protestants think that Jesus didn't pick a clear successor (there were other Bishops of other cities at that time who were not considered any more important than Peter) because His whole point was that your relationship with God is personal and you don't need anyone in between you and God. This is known as the "priesthood of the believer", which means that if you believe, you are a priest yourself, and you don't need any intercession of priest or even prayers to saints.

Well, that sounds like a pretty academic argument, but if you know anything about European history, you know it has been the cause of much strife and death. And the beautiful, ethereal Ireland became the main front in a war of ideas in modern history. The Irish have more in common with each other than with any other people on the planet, and yet they were killing each other during the Troubles as if Catholics Were From Mars and Protestants Were From Venus.

The Sunni/Shi'a division is very similar. Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him) also did not leave a clear successor, which left his followers at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed after his death in 632.

Mohammed was a merchant who often went to caves near Mecca to pray. "Muslims believe that in 610, at about the age of forty, while in a cave in the mountain called Hira, he was visited by the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite the verses sent by God. These verses were later collected as part of the Qur'an (which was revealed to him over a period of about twenty-three years until his death)." [Wikipedia]

He went on a preaching mission, similar to Jesus, reinforcing monotheism and warning of Judgement Day, similar to John the Baptist. "He did not completely reject Judaism and Christianity, two other monotheistic faiths known to the Arabs, but said that he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect those teachings." [Wikipedia] Remember, ultimately the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are all the same entity, the religions having already branched off (twice) many centuries before.

He moved the people of his time to reinvigorate their relationship with God, and as the quote above said, to "perfect" it. Consequently, his death left a large vacuum. If Muhammad was the only one who understood what was to be done and how to perfect religion, then who would direct the people now? "Two questions faced these early Muslims: who was to succeed Muhammad, and what sort of authority he was to exercise." [Wikipedia] Jesus left a similar vacuum-- He told us that there was a better way, but He was gone after three years, leaving mere mortals to figure out what the heck He was talking about.

What we would call the "disciples" of Muhammad are called "caliphs" in Islam. Mohammed had plenty of these. Traditionally, according to Wikipedia, Arabic leaders were chosen to lead by a committee called the "caliphate" (think of Jesus' disciples, only more of them). If a familial heir was competent, great, but if not, the caliphate was free to choose someone else that would do a better job. (Apparently there was no official method to do this.)

Muhammad had two potential successors--

-- Abu Bakr who was M's lieutenant and right-hand man (think St. Peter) and
-- Alī ibn Abī Talib, who was his son-in-law.

The followers of Abu, the lieutenant, became the Sunni.
The followers of Ali, the son-in-law, became the Shi'a.

(I hope it's not rude to shorten their names like that, but it will help readers follow all of this.)

The Sunni refer to themselves as followers of the "sunna" or the TEACHINGS of Mohammed. Their leaders are called Caliphs.

The Shi'a refer to themselves as followers of the "Ahlul Bayt", or the FAMILY of Mohammed. Their leaders are called Imams.

They not only don't agree, but these days they really don't get along at all, ala the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland.

In Part II, we'll look at what effect this split is having on today's politics.

Torn

A news junkie who is a caring citizen, like myself, often finds she is torn when waking up in the morning: Do I turn on the TV and see how bad it is today, or not?

It seems we might be on the brink of WWIII. I'm not sure what else to say about that.

It's strange to watch a war on TV that we're not in. I'm so used to the Pentagon briefings about planned strikes that it's very strange to watch the reporters scurry around and report where bombs fell and being genuinely surprised by each turn of the screw.

Stranger still to watch them cover anything else. I was flipping around last night and after wrapping up a panel discussion on this crisis, the cable news TV host (not trying to protect an identity, just can't remember!) went on to tease for the next story, which was that somebody saw TomKat's baby and said it was "funny-looking", which besides being COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT was also three-day-old news.

I haven't turned on the TV yet but in pulling up my browser I saw a bit of CNN.com.

Now, I must be wrong about this, but I thought the idea was to keep Syria in particular out of this conflict. It may well be, as many assert, that the nation of Syria (meaning, its government) is one of the two "parents" of Hezbollah-- Iran being its "father" I guess. So perhaps that's what you do when the kid starts acting out and, you know, bombing the neighbor's cat: you call his parents. But it was also my impression that Syria was saying if they had to get involved, Israeli would pay big time-- they're already pissed off after the recent fly-by of the Israeli air force over the Syrian President's house-- and we know that Israel would be ready for them.

I must have been wrong about all that though, because the headline on CNN.com was "Bush calls on Syria to act". Now, he's an idiot but surely not that big of an idiot, right? He'd never say "Bring it on"-- oh, wait.

Leaving aside that argument-- is he calling Hezbollah's mom, or inciting a bigger conflict-- I opened the article to see what it had to say, and this line caught my eye:

"The best way to stop violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said during a news conference ahead of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. [CNN.com]

As Yosemite Sam would have said, "Oooooh, that varmit!" OK, here's why that pisses me off. (And wait until you hear the rest of it.)

After 9/11, the question on everyone's lips was "Why do they hate us?" Even Oprah did a show on it, bringing on the then-not-questionable Judith Miller to explain it. We were so surprised that the US could have done anything or be doing anything to make people want to inflict that kind of violence on us. Our first reaction was to find out why.

Of course, finding out why might have led to finger-pointing and/or a reassessment of US foreign policy, which was not the direction that the White House wanted to go right after 9/11. If there was a "post-9/11 mindset", then there is also a "post-Operation Iraqi Freedom mindset" where now we look at things a little more cautiously and analytically. But we were still in post-9/11 shock, and while thoughtful consideration might be the knee-jerk reaction for some of us, it wasn't for Karl Rove.

So before the conversation really got started, the White House shut it down by hitting us where it hurt-- accusing us of being pussies for wanting to talk about it.

The quote I was hunting for, to my surprise, was only from June 2005, to which fact I can only say, this is how he felt all along, and finally said it. And that he shifted the conversation using other political means, like putting up the Patriot Act for a vote which worked on the premise that there was nothing else to do but attack, attack, attack.

Regardless, here it is:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. [Washingtonpost.com]

Now, let me reprint that Bush remark so you can see them side-by-side:

"The best way to stop violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said. [CNN.com]

Oooh, that varmit!

Again, I'm torn! Does one get mad at them for being hypocrites, or happy that they've come around? Arianna Huffington recently found herself in a similar debate. (Sorry, can't find a link right now and I'm making pancakes so I just need to keep going.)

But even more mind-snapping than that was what he said next!

"And that is because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon and into Israel because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers." [CNN.com]

OK, WHAT? First of all, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Why would H attack I because H kidnapped I's soldiers? Now, Israel bombing Hezbollah because H stole their men I get, although it certainly leaves out more than half of the story. But this makes no sense at all.

Which might even be fine, except that he was just crowing about "understanding why violence occured" and he clearly doesn't understand much of anything, including what's happening on the ground right now.

The only thing worse than having Bush as Pres during and after 9/11, that is, our war, is having him President during someone else's war which is inextricably linked with ours.

So make some blueberry pancakes and watch the beginning of WWIII. Or a nice Sandler comedy like "50 First Dates". (Say whatever you want about me, but that movie is adorable.) Or if you're one of those studious types that feel the need to make good use of your time at all times, go shopping for a hybrid car. Word has it that gas is going to hit $4/gal, and if Iran gets into this, much, much higher.

We've decided to be the Good Guys after all!

Well, maybe this crazy ol' world is swinging back towards sanity. Whether this swing will be enough to keep the GOP in power, it's hard to say at this point. But whatever their motivations, we can all sleep a little easier tonight.

The Department of Defense has issued a directive that every single person held by the military, no matter where, and no matter who he or she is, is entitled to and will receive the treatment outlined in Geneva Conventions.

The memo instructs recipients to ensure that all Defense Department policies, practices and directives comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions governing the humane treatment of prisoners.

"You will ensure that all DOD personnel adhere to these standards," [Deputy Defense Secretary] England wrote. [CNN.com]

You may remember that the Administration's somewhat twisted plans for people detained by the US Military was struck down by the US Supreme Court. (I say "twisted" because the rules seemed to be all tangled-- this guy gets this treatment in this place, but if he gets moved here or if he's a different kind of guy he gets this kind, etc.)

That BTW was such a cool exercise in the way government operates, shown in real time. I'm not being sarcastic! If I had been a teacher, I would use this story in my class to explain how the three branches deal with each other. Basically, the Executive made up some rules, the Judiciary reviewed those rules and said that the Executive couldn't do that under current law; however, it directed the Exec and the Legislative to work together to draft a law that would allow it. Now, if this weren't such a dangerous and important thing for our National Character, I would have liked to see the story play out: the other two branches hammer out a law, the Congress passes it, the Exec signs it, and the Judiciary is satisfied. If only it were a little stamp tax or something.

But instead, thank the Good Lord above, the Exec came to their senses and realized that if they went to the Congress, even one held by their own party, and worked out a deal whereby they could torture people, arguing in committees whether this or that horrible thing is torture, that would look really, really bad. Instead, they went back to those good ol' Geneva Conventions-- you know, the ones where another group of people many years ago already hammered out those details "so you don't have to". It's my understanding this means that there won't be a law drafted by the Congress because now there doesn't need to be. Although the McCain "torture amendment" already passed the Senate 90-9, I'd like to see Congress use this time to cement this DOD directive into law and set up some protections in US law that would keep another "War President" from going haywire again.

On the other hand, WH Press Sec Tony Snow was quoted in that CNN article as saying "We look forward to working with Congress on this," so that would imply just having a DOD directive doesn't mean it's all squared away. Of course, he also said, "This isn't a policy change," and it clearly is, so I'm not sure it's worth listening to him anyway.

These are just my observations based on reading one article on this, and I can't see a downside. But as I get to research this more fully and read other points of view on it, I might come back and update this post or do another.

Suing Rumsfeld

[Note: this post has been updated with clearer details.]

A former US Navy SEAL is filming a documentary in a faraway land about an ancient civilization, the kind of thing you watch at 3am on the History Channel. He is arrested in that country because the yahoo policemen that pull over the taxi in which he was riding one day discover washing-machine timers, which bomb-makers can use as timing devices. He is thrown in prison and held without counsel or hearing for 55 days, until his family makes a big enough stink by suing the government that is holding him. Suddenly, law enforcement decides that the former US Navy SEAL is not, after all, what they were calling an "imminent security threat" [CNN.com] and releases him, a spokesman crowing that this showed "the effectiveness of our detainee review process."

A shocking, shocking story. We should find those f*&%kers and bomb them.

Oh, wait, it was us.

The former US Navy SEAL in question is an American named Cyrus Kar. He is in his mid-40s, a part-time college professor, and is of Iranian descent. He was in Iraq making "a documentary film about Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who wrote the world's first human rights charter." [CNN.com] Oh, the irony, it would make a great documentary. But my sarcasm digresses me. He was originally pulled over by Iraqi police. When he asked to contact the US Embassy, he was instead turned over to the US Military, who put him in one of their Iraqi prisons for 55 days.

I read about this on CNN.com, but a quick Google search of Cyrus Kar yields even more details from sites all over the web. (Would it surprise you to know that Bill O'Reilly-- who thinks that all film-makers are pinkos, appartently-- decried Kar as a "lefty" who is getting "legitimacy" by having his story covered by the mainstream press? And how does making a documentary film about ancient civilizations make you a Hollywood liberal?) The more shocking details of his treatment by US soldiers, even after explaining repeatedly that he was an Armed Services vet, include having his head slammed into a concrete wall.

And let us not forget that the FBI also raided his Los Angeles home and searched it, after they had determined that whatever they found in that cab was the cabbie's, and they continued to hold him for nearly seven weeks after that, despite having cleared him of suspicion. Go down into your storm cellar, have your kids bring you food twice a day, and stay there for seven weeks and tell me that's no big deal.

So, now he is suing Donald Rumsfeld. "In addition to Rumsfeld, the defendants include Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq, and Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, who was in charge of detainee operations in Iraq at the time of Kar's detention." [CNN.com]

Well, the administration, using their news minions at FOX News, is going to jump all over this guy and rip him to pieces, like they did Cindy Sheehan and, well, anyone that gets in their way at all.

But it will be very hard to deny the charges when the person you detained and treated questionably is a former US Navy SEAL, and a film-maker. (They will deny them, and they might even make it look easy, but it's going to be tricky.)

I wonder if the judge can award that Rummy has to give up that smarmy smirk as part of the damages.

A simple Sunday lesson

I pulled up CNN.com this morning and scanned the headlines at the top of the page. Among other headlines, I saw this:


SOMALI BAND BEATEN FOR PLAYING MUSIC

DAVE CHAPPELLE: THIS HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT


With all due respect to Mr. Chappelle, tell that to the band.


BTW, in case you were wondering, CNN says: "The Islamic militiamen controlling the Somali capital broke up a wedding celebration because a band was playing and women and men were socializing together, witnesses said Saturday, describing the latest crackdown by a group feared to be installing Taliban-style rule in this African nation."

Oh, goodie.

For better or worse

There is an article on Salon.com by Nir Rosen called "Did the invasion make things worse in Iraq?" that I thought was worth quoting. He has been in Iraq since 2003 as a reporter and most of the article lists atrocities committed by the Hussein regime before the US invasion.

Was it all worth it? Was it better to leave Saddam in power? Are Iraqis better or worse off than they were before the American war?

I never know what to say when asked this question. How do you compare different kinds of terror?

Those spared Saddam's prisons and executioners may be better off, though they have not been spared the American prisons, or attacks, or the resistance's bombs, or the death squads of the civil war. The Kurds are certainly better off, on their way to independence, benefiting from their relative stability and improved economy. The rest of Iraq? In many ways, things are worse. Under Saddam the violence came from one source, the regime. Now it has been democratically distributed. Death can come from anywhere, at all times, no matter who you are. You can be killed for crossing the street, for going to the market, for driving your car, for having the wrong name, for being in your house, for being a Sunni, for being a Shia, for being a woman. The American military can kill you in an operation, you can be arrested by militias and disappear in Iraq's new secret prisons, now run by Shias, or you can be kidnapped by the resistance, or by criminal gangs.

Americans cannot simply observe the horror of Iraq and shake their heads in wonder, as if it were Rwanda and they had no role. America is responsible for the new chaos in Iraq, which began following the invasion and the botched and brutal occupation. Iraq's people continue to suffer under the American occupation and civil war, just as they did under the American-imposed sanctions and bombings before the war, and just as they did under the years of dictatorship. Once more they are mere victims of powers they cannot control. Saddam is out and the Americans are in, but Iraq is still a republic of fear.

Sorry so quiet

I haven't posted in a while, partly because I've had company visiting and we're getting ready to move to a new house and decorate it, and partly because nothing has pissed me off enough to drive me to the computer.

Also, the last thing I was working on was about the Seas of David, a story that seems to have died.

Is it encumbent on me to be different than the MSM and keep beating a drum long after the parade is over? We do complain that they move on off a story all too soon. All I know is that thinking about it seems like a waste of time, and with an almost-two son, time isn't something I can mess around with much.

Today there are a few items of note. Ken Lay, the luckiest SOB to walk the earth, has died of natural causes before serving a day in jail or seeing his finances decimated like those of his former employees. North Korea set off a few missiles, which seemed to prove only that they don't really have the capability to do much of anything. (Although that was a touch scary because I took a nap with the baby and when I woke up, my roommate said, "North Korea fired off 3 missiles while you were sleeping." For just a second it was like waking up and seeing the WTC on TV.) Fortunately, we didn't have to show that our ability to shoot down the missile would have certainly failed too. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has escalated significantly, that has me more worried than anything. But I haven't had time to really research what the heck is going on so I can't really write about it. Rush Limbaugh got off for having that Viagra, which is fine, only I can't help but think of how many black men are in Florida jails today who have done far less in the way of drugs but didn't get the sweetheart deal RL got. I do feel for him having a drug problem, I don't judge him, but I do have to judge the Florida court system and/or drug laws for its blatantly unfair behavior.

Hope you had a great Independence Day. It's strange, I never really felt patriotism-- not that I wasn't patriotic, but I didn't feel it strongly-- until 9/11. Suddenly I felt a rush of love for my country. I knew it would pass and it did. But the intervening 5 years of the Bush Administration has made me feel more truly patriotic and adoring of my country in a lasting way. I well up with tears when I hear words from the Declaration or the Constitution. My heart swells when I read the speeches from Lincoln and FDR and Kennedy. I was describing this to my roommate and he said, "Because you know what you're losing." A fitting description. My country has been hijacked, its ideals trashed in the name of patriotism and fear. Remember that show Sliders? I feel like this is the alternate universe where everything goes to hell in a handbasket-- my only solace is that somewhere there is a universe where everything is wonderful and I hope they appreciate it. In the meantime, we have to live here, and it's breaking my heart. How do we restore the greatness of America? I'm at a loss, although step one seems to be removing the cabal that scurries in the hall behind the Presidential podium.

Well, that was cheery, wasn't it? Sorry. Why don't you use the comments field of this post to suggest content? I'll take requests, and research it and give you how I see it. In the meantime, have a great week and if you see any good decorating tips, send them our way.