The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker...

If you are into bird watching and ornithology, this week has been incredible. The Holy Grail was found in southeast Arkansas. It was not in the form of a 2000 year old cup, but a woodpecker - an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Bird watchers like myself were ecstatic about hearing the news. This large woodpecker has deceived us for 60 years, retreating into the seclusion of a very small virgin forest in Arkansas. For the last couple of years a group of scientists have carried out a very systematic search for this bird and all of the hard work has finally paid off (you can read a very well written and very long article about this process here).

However, there's still a LOT of work to be done. The type of environment needed for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker to survive is disappearing. The need for wood and uninhabited land is winning the fight between business and nature. What a shame, this bird may end up extinct after all. And then how would we feel? Seeing this bird for the first time in over half a century just to watch it die with the Carolina Parakeet the Passenger Pigeon, the Bauchman's Warbler. We saved the Bald Eagle, let's save a few woodpeckers, shall we?

Some of my most cherished memories of my childhood are with my dad out in the middle of nowhere (no, seriously, we've been to the MIDDLE OF NO-WHERE) looking for birds. Lost Maples State Park, Glacier National Park, just about anywhere you can find some untouched woods, trees, flowers, you name it. But usually, looking for some random bird on a random page in our "Field Guide To Birds" book. Gosh, he was the first thing I thought of when I read the news about this great discovery. Now, John Q. Taxpayer, give us the opportunity to find this piece of ornithology. The only way it will survive the continued deforestation of the American southeast is by contributions to conservation groups and a dramatic push for funding to keep out deforestation from this rare and precious area and to keep in it's NATURAL inhabitants. I know my sister appreciates such places of beauty and natural wonder, I just hope Congress does too.

I love birds. I love trees. I love this feeling that I have knowing that the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker is not extinct like all of us thought. I want this feeling to overcome that which will exist in my heart if we do nothing and this species really does disappear again, never to be found by future generations. Visit http://www.ivorybill.org and read about this bird and how you can save it. Even if you don't care much for ornithology, at least care about me and my dad and help give us another father/son vacation... out in the woods looking for another bird.

No, Thank You...

I had an interesting 30 minute conversation today with a hard-core, right-wing Christian. I started the conversation talking about doing some plant work at the house this weekend and playing golf. The talk quickly switched to politics. I'm a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ and all but I got really upset, downright pissed off at what she had to say about the latest move by the Christian Coalition and Bill Frist.

With all of the Democrats in the House filibustering debate on ten of Dubbyuh's judicial nominees the Republicans are doing anything they can to get them approved. They're talking about a "nuclear (that's new-klee-ur, Dubbyuh) option" and having rallies in Louisville to drum up some support from the Radical-Right. But the most disturbing move they've made has been to argue that the democrats oppose people of faith. I'm sorry, but what the hell? Are Democrats not, "people of faith?" Are you blind to the fact that practically all Democrats are Christians? We go to church and practice Christianity like the rest of ya'll, but now, when you need some appellate justices to carry out your religious agenda, we are atheists? I'm sorry Mr. Frist, but you are wrong, sir and this will cost you at the poll.

Let's look at that the Terry Schiavo case. I know, I know, we've all heard enough about it and wish we'd never hear about it again... I'm sorry. But think about this, 89% of Americans independantly polled believed the issue was used for political gain. Considering Democrats refused to meet in the Senate to discuss the issue with Republicans and did practically nothing with the issue, one could conclude that the Republicans were in it for the politics. Not to save the life of an innocent person, not to do God's will, but for political gain. These nominees are no different. This is all politics and the Radical Right seems to think that because most Americans believe in God, they can tack on Christianity to every issue and get their way. Anyone who gets in their way is standing in the way of God's will and, therefore, is wrong.

If these judicial nominees have their appointments approved, they will soon have the issue of Roe v. Wade placed before them. This has been the will of the Christian Coalition and the Radical Right all along. Now, the justices have made their inevitable ruling on the issue very clear. My friend I was speaking with today put it to me like this: The Democrats are refusing to approve those of Dubbyuh's appointees who are people of faith and rule based on firm Christian beliefs and to refuse to accept them into the judicial process is wrong.

Let's look at the oath that a federal judge takes when entering office; "I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." If you ask me, to use religion as the sole reason to rule in a case would bypass the most fundamental guideline within this oath of responsibility, "...and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States." There is no law requiring Christianity to be the basis of all that is legal, and just in the American government. I'm sorry but "In God We Trust" on our money and "so help me God" at the end of an oath does not equate to a Christian state. If this isn't a fundamental desire by some Right-wing leaders to establish a Christian form of government, I don't know what is.

The real problem here is that these justices are set on using religion as the sole reasoning behind their decision-making process and for the Republicans to support that is wrong. The Dems aren't opposed to people of faith, they are all people of faith themselves. Do you think Senator Kennedy isn't a Christian? Come on... However, Kennedy and the rest of the Democrats are against the Radical Right manipulating the situation in a way that makes Democrats look like they oppose Republicans because of their devout faith. We oppose those justices because they make radical decisions based on religion and religion alone.

I wonder what Bill Frist thinks about people like me. Am I not a "true believer?" Do I love God less because I love the Democratic Party? Why can't we just do what is right and denounce what is wrong? As long as we lead good lives, have a morally sound society and government and believe in God, everyone (God included) should be happy, right? The Radical Right just can't be happy with that. It seems to me like they have to use God as the reasoning behind everything they approve or it's just not good enough. I think they would like this nation to be run like these Islamic nations, but with the Bible dictating our every move.

I appreciate your offer Mr. Frist, but 89% of Americans say "no, thank you."

Recent Saudi Elections...

Saudi Arabia is one of America's closest allies in the Middle East with Israel leading the pack. However, recent elections in this Muslim-majority nation should at least raise a few eyebrows in Washington.

Conservative clerics, mostly bearded religious leaders, had a near clean sweep of the candidates chosen to head the government. If you thought that democracy was staring to take root in this part of the world, it's clear that one of it's most liberal governments is heading back to the ways of the Koran and fundamentalism. Forget their rich princes with their millions of dollars and lavish lifestyles, this is about the common man and his desire to live in that nation that follows the teachings of Islam. This is about children growing up studying Mohammad, Mecca, and martyrdom, not Mickey Mouse, McDonald's, and MTV. The White House is watching very closely, I'm sure.

Saudi investments make up roughly 8% of the US economy. That's a staggering number. There are a half dozen Secret Service agents guarding the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington 24 hours a day, looking out for them and their interests. If their government begins a path back towards Islamic fundamentalism, there's going to be a lot of money for America and God Ol' Petroleum to lose. This is disheartening for some. Lebanon was just starting a revolution of sorts to kick out the military occupation of Syria and, many believe, begin a sort of "new democracy" of their own. Sorry Dubbyuh, it takes more than just using the words "freedom," "liberation," or "democracy" in every sentence to actually achieve any real political change in this part of the world.

Will these elections hinder the process? Will the price of oil be effected? Will our strong ally of the Arabian Peninsula be no more? We'll have to wait and see. For now, I'm putting my money into Verizon stock... there's going to be a TON of phone calls for the next few months between Washington and Riyadh.

Nine More Dead Today...

Quick blog today. I read that nine more Americans died in Iraq today. That brings the total to 1,565. I ask, how many dead Americans does it take to give Iraqis their freedom? At what number do we say, "alright, that's enough." ??? Is it 5,000? 10,000? 100,000? It took about 55,000 in Vietnam to leave and about 405,000 to liberate Europe in WWII. Granted, those wars were very different than this one; at least we knew from the start what the real objectives were.

But seriously, at what cost do we liberate a country thousands of miles away in the name of democracy? $250 billion and 5,000 lives? $500 billion and 10,000 lives? Whatever it takes? And then what do we do with Iran and North Korea? And Rwanda? And Cuba? And China? And Somalia? Where do we draw the line with, "Ok, Iraq needs liberating right now, but things aren't bad enough in Iran yet... let's see what happens there. How many people starved in North Korea yesterday? Only 1,200? Well, when it hits 3,000 a day, call the Pentagon, we've got a country to liberate."

I've got a number - 112,000,000,000. That's how many barrels of oil are under Iraq. When the number hits 0, our interest in Iraq will end and so will the US casualties.

Border Patrol and the US PATRIOT Act...

To continue with the theme of our southern border and the lack of any serious federal legislative attempt to reform it's protection, we need not look any farther than the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. I doubt most people have read it, or even seen it. I myself found it online for the first time today and had just enough time to skim the first half of it. You can read it here. The first few titles of the Act are pretty minute in terms of significance. A number of other pieces of legislation are changed with the removal of the word "and" here and the insertion of the word "or" there - nothing too profound. Then they get into the money laundering and the bank accounts, which is good. But it really is just an extension of already existing finance and economic laws to me... no real meat.

Then we come to "TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER." Immediately I get excited. FINALLY something my Dad can sink his teeth into. Surely if there were no tough immigration laws protecting those Arizona citizens before 9/11, this part of this Act oughta fix some of the problem. "Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border." Good, take care of the North, then take care of the South... the way it should be. "Subtitle B--Enhanced Immigration Provisions." Wait, where's the part about protecting the US/Mexico border? I'm sure it most be another subtitle. "Subtitle C--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of Terrorism" Ok, I get that. If you're a victim of terrorism, we'll take care of you. So, Subtitle D... wait, there is none. Did they forget to print it? Is it in another Title? Hold on, I'm confused...

Folks, there is no mention of increased security, sustained security, or security at all specifically mentioning the southern border of the US with Mexico ANYWHERE in the USA PATRIOT Act. An entire title of the Act is dedicated to making sure terrorists do not come to the U.S. from the North. Triple the number of border patrol and triple the amount of federal funds are now spent on protecting America from illegal aliens crossing our northern border, but not a single mention of our problem in Arizona or anywhere in the southwest. How is this possible?

Maybe there's not enough money to go around. Maybe Congress doesn't think there's a problem. Kidding aside, I understand that we don't have Canadians flooding into our country for a better life. Hell, you can't pay most of them to live here. A fraction of the drugs coming into this country come from Canada. But wouldn't this be an opportune time to ensure the American public that if you're thinking about committing terrorist acts in this country and you think you can come across a border to do it, you'd better think again? What an opportunity to not just protect one border, but to protect BOTH borders, AND our coastline. What good it would do to add three times the number of border patrol in the desert of southern Arizona and let my Dad get back to his waning golf game and grandfathering. I'm disappointed... just really disappointed.
In all fairness, the US PATRIOT Act was written 1 week after 9/11 and voted on in the House and Senate with hardly any debate. I mean, at that time it would be considered political suicide if a member of Congress did anything to halt this legislation from passing (Senator Russ Feingold was the only Senator who voted against the Act for reasons of civil liberties, but was not very public in his opposition). At the end of the Act you could have entered the clause, "And if you don't lie it, KISS OUR ASS!" and you might actually get applause from everyone in America. But almost four years have passed and the nationwide feelings of togetherness and unity have been replaced with hatred and bitterness toward the other side of the aisle. With Republicans claiming Democrats are out to oppose "men of faith" and with the Democrats being so damn reactive that John Kerry seems to be the most decisive man in the party, it's no surprise that there's gonna be some serious debate on reforming this Act. And if the Republicans get their "nuclear option" and the Dems put a lock on the legislative process in Washington, we're gonna have a real showdown.

Back to the main point though, it's obvious, really, why there was no mention of the southern border. I said it yesterday, too many votes at stake, too much money to be made from the cheap labor, not enough people having their homes overrun by illegal immigrants. I think some reform to the PATRIOT Act would be good, not only to get some more money down south, but to protect the civil liberties of those in Guantanamo Bay with no representation (legal or otherwise) and no formal reason for them being there. Another blog for another day...

The PATRIOT Act was a hastily written document rushed to approval with no real significant consideration for protecting our borders. Is walking into this country, stepping onto the personal property of a U.S. citizen, entering their home, raping them, killing them, and fleeing the scene not terrorism? If it isn't, then George Dubbyuh Bush is my hero...

And he can KISS MY ASS!
(applause)

Arizona and the Minuteman Project...

My Dad is a part of a group of men who volunteer their time to patrol the U.S. border in Arizona. When he started doing this over a year ago, I thought he was crazy. What the hell was a retired, Harvard PhD. chemist doing with a handgun strapped to his hip out in the Arizona desert looking for Mexicans? It just sounds dumb... at least at first. I decided to step outside of my box and think seriously, point-for-point, what he was doing and about his cause.

Originally, I saw this group as a vigilante rag-tag bunch of conservative men who are (thankfully) too old to enlist in the military, but too bored at home to spend 24 hours a day with their wives and family. They need something to do - something worthy enough to label it as a "cause" and fun enough to involve weapons. So, they think about what really pisses them off, I mean what REALLY makes them tick. Mexicans! But they can't go on the record saying that, so they call it "illegal immigration." "Ok, we have the cause, now, we've got to get the guns involved." Enter, Arizona. The open carry laws in Arizona are some of the most lax in the country, so don't come into the Minuteman Project with a handgun, bring a rifle too!

This is how I used to think... now I feel quite differently about the topic. My opinion of the people involved, based on what I know of one of them and have read of the others remains. I think they still dream of the "good wars" and wish they had an opportunity to fight in them. I think they have an obsession not only with guns, tanks, bombs, or anything else that kills, but they have a fear of the unknown and feel that these things are the only way they can protect themselves and their country. Another debate for another blog...

But I stand beside these men considering the cause. Not "their" cause, but a cause all Americans should support. Illegal immigration, as productive as it may be for lowering consumer costs, agriculture prices, etc. is still illegal. We have laws to keep it from happening, regardless of any other benefit. For the last 20+ years the executive branch of government has turned a blind eye to the borders. Whether it be for political gain, lack of funds, lack of understanding of the problem, it is happening. It is causing neighborhoods in the southwest near the border become infiltrated with trespassers. Illegal immigrants camping on the lawns of property owners, dealing drugs in their yards, destroying their property. How? Because we let them. With one border patrol agent per tens of miles of border, how can the federal and local systems keep up with the staggering numbers of those coming to America for better lives and drug profits? No one here is willing to pay for the people needed to stop the problem, so my Dad, with others, has to do it for us.

Now, with a thousand volunteers doing a job for free, it's unlikely for a national interest to be created to start funding the INS and other programs to replace the Minuteman Project. Too many rich people are getting richer because of the lack of real border control in the southwest. Think of all that cheap labor we'd be missing out on. It's a shame that America has come to this. Allowing people who aren't even citizens break U.S. laws to enter this country illegally, not be documented, not have background checks, with us not able to decide, "should we allow this person to do this?" Maybe we should start a nationwide campaign to promote illegal immigrants to buy guns at Wal-Mart. Then at least we could figure who's here.

On a more serious note, I've been reading the 9/11 Commission report. It's scary, downright SCARY how easy it has been for people to illegally enter the U.S. with falsified documents and forged passports to commit terrorist acts in our homeland. Thanks to the Patriot Act we've tried to solve some of those problems (and create others, but again, another argument for another blog) with billions of dollars and an oppressive regime of our own, but still no effort to close our southern border from people just walking across it. If these people tried to fly across they'd be stopped before they got in the airport, but they can just walk to Arizona and sleep in an American's barn on an American's property.

Too much groveling for votes, I think. Dubbyuh and his people want more Latin votes, so they talk about opening borders and giving amnesty to illegals... and letting them VOTE! Letting the get drivers licenses! They are promoting this illegal behavior of walking to America... unacceptable!

People should help fight for those Americans in Arizona losing their OWN amnesty from illegal invasion. We should NOT support illegal immigration. It should NOT take 1000 yuppies like my Dad to solve this problem. Increased border patrol and local law enforcement will solve this problem. We need them to protect our rights as citizens in this country and to protect those who are being overwhelmed by those illegally crossing our southern border.