I usually don't post more than once a day, or even that often but everyone should read an article that came out this morning in the Chicago Tribune by Steve Chapman. I'll bold my favorite remarks and even include his email address if you want to offer feedback. I was very surprised to see that a print journalist still cared enough about the real dream of America to publish a story with this kind of tone about our chief executive. You remember, of course that dissention does equate to treason or at least generic, domestic terrorism. This type of irresponsible, negative media does help the evil-doers win right? I might have to keep my browser set to follow Chapman's articles in the future. Ironically, I have been of the belief that not much could ever come out of Chicago. Perhaps Mr. Chapman is beginning to prove me wrong.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0512250256dec25,1,3472167.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true

Beyond the imperial presidency
Published December 25, 2005

President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.----------E-mail: schapman@tribune.com.

Went to the movies tonight with my family in the middle of a sloppy, Midwestern snow storm. I guess everyone got their white christmas in van wert county this year. If you get the chance or are looking for a fun movie to watch over the holidays, try out Fun with Dick and Jane. Not only was it a great comedy but it also poked fun at big CEO's and the trend of employee mistreatment and executive investment. Former employees are driven toward the criminal underworld in an attempt to pay their monthly bills and provide for their family while former company executives contine to live the big life during the depression of bankruptcy. There is even a short commentary with Dick's former CEO in which he explains that everyone in the company felt the stings of the bankruptcy; even he felt the cruel blow---having to sell one of his vacation homes, either the one at Jackson Hole or somewhere else, he couldn't remember at the time. My favorite scenes include the heroic ending for the former employees and their families, and a great sequence where Dick (Jim Carey) tries to get work at a big box store. When he interviews and does he drug test you can even notice a big anti-union poster in the employee break room. I had to laugh at that sight, and look forward to seeing who directed this film. Probably the greatest part of the movie is the final credit sequence where the special thanks are given to former executives (some currenty jailed or soon to be indicted) of companies like Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Anderson. All in all, I was happy to see a decent remake of a great film AND have it close to home during the holiday season..... one that probably sees quite a few families pinching pennies and thinking about their financial future because of the continual trend of corporate neglect and mistreatment of their employees. I invite all of you to do your shopping and daily business at local mom-and-pop stores and corporations that actually care about their employees and see them as part of their bottom line just as much as cash flow.

Happy Holidays to you all.
On this day I would like to say Merry Christmas, Happy Hannakah, and soon to be Happy Kwanzaa I believe.

On a personal note, I think we should all say a little prayer for our president during the holiday season. May he clear his thoughts and open his mind and heart to the American people in 2006, rather than the corporate big wigs and fundamentalist thinkers.

Fun questions and thoughts to ponder during holiday times:

1) Ultra-conservatives are extremely worried with taxes. In fact most would argue that the only way to jumpstart our economy and give more fiscal autonomy to individual families would be to cut taxes as much as possible. At the same time, a large percentage of these advocates are also part of the same leadership that pushes pro-life measures as a top agenda item. Now... with less tax money coming into state and federal coffers for social programming and government assistance/services, and essentially more babies coming into the world if abortions are reduced or legally eliminated...... who takes care of the abandoned babies; oftentimes with handicapped conditions or exposures to drug addictions, diseases, or prematurity? I'm sure it's only a matter of personal or family responsibility right? After all the family has suffered because of liberal concepts and cable television programming right?

2) Why is it that ultra-conservatives can still find it in their heart of hearts to cut taxes or eliminate programs that assist people that are sick, elderly, or poor...... at the same time that they push to increase defense spending measures, foreign aid to "coalition of the willing" nation-states, and infrastructure/social welfalre programming in Iraq and Afghanistan? Does anyone actually know when the timetable is set for the GOP agenda to address American social needs? Right..... stupid for me to ask...... you can't set a timetable to address social issues because then poverty, unemployment, underemployment, non-health care coverage situations, disease, malnourishment, missed educational opportunities, etc. will be able to win in the long run. Real American patriots know better than to set time tables right?

3) Since when did God change the "Faith, but not faith alone can get you to heaven" policy to "just get born again, yo" policy? I mean, I know that the ultra-conservatives changed the way the Bible was read (which passages were stressed repetively and which became background noise) but was God in on this too? Just checking... the way I figure, I should have expected this right? The golden rule would be called the platinum or diamond rule if we were supposed to take it seriously right?

4) Isn't saying "happy holidays" actually implying that you are wishing someone a happy holy-day? I always said that to people instead of saying Merry Christmas because I never wanted to guess a stranger's religious background, and would rather take the chance that it was a friendly greeting for all than to single someone out or make them feel uncomfortable. I mean I understand traditions and all... and that the Christmas tree was actually a German tradition or something..... but can we honestly put everything off on traditions that old white men have written over the past 2000 years? Of course, this is America right?

5) At the beginning of every phone call that is long distance, I think I might say a fake code word or mystery phrase just in case the FBI, NSA, or CIA is tapping my phonecall without my permission, a judge's knowledge, or Congress' permission. For example, "Hello, Chuck.... the ice cream that you served on Valentine's Day gave the Queen of England the runs." My friend, Chuck, would then know to respond by saying "Thank you, James. It is good to know that the fair queen isn't moving slowly these days." We could then resume business as usual, however we would be making the operatives earn their tax-payer donated salary.