Phil's Observations

Dr. Rice has accomplished many things in her career, and made many firsts. Where are all of the women support groups (i.e. NOW) declaring support for her accomplishments?

January 31, 2005

I hereby pledge my support for Howard Dean to take role as the Democratic National Committee Chair. He will provide the radical left-wing of the democrats the inspiration they need to push their hate agenda forward. His leadership will be beneficial to all.

Sincerely,

Phil

Courtesy of

WASHINGTON - The two top Democrats in the U.S. Congress challenged President Bush on Monday to draft an "exit strategy" in Iraq and work with them in his drive to revamp the Social Security retirement program.
With Bush set to deliver his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the Democratic pair made a political pre-emptive strike or, as they put it, a "pre-buttal," in a joint appearance of their own at the National Press Club.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, hailed as "a milestone" Sunday's Iraqi elections, when millions defied threats and went to the polls.
"But on Wednesday night," Reid said, "the president needs to spell out a real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead: defeat the growing insurgency, rebuild Iraq, increase political participation by all parties ... and increase international involvement."
Without offering a timetable, Reid added, "Most of all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there."
House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, focused her remarks on domestic matters, and took aim at the administration's drive to revamp Social Security by allowing workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds.
Many oppose such private accounts, fearing that they could undermine, rather than strengthen, the program.
"We can solve this long-term challenge without dismantling Social Security and without allowing this administration's false declaration of a crisis to justify a privatization plan that is unnecessary, unaffordable and unwise," Pelosi said.
"To be sustainable, any long-term solution must be bipartisan," Pelosi said.
An updated Congressional Budget Office projection released on Monday estimates the retirement system will exhaust its trust fund by 2052, 10 years later than projections cited by Bush.
Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican Party, replied, "While President Bush is looking to work with Democrats in confronting the challenges facing our nation, the Democrat leaders' attacks on a speech that has not even been delivered are a sad reminder of their determination to score partisan political points even at the cost of accomplishing the business of the American people."
Millions of Americans are certain to tune in at 9 p.m. on Wednesday (0200 GMT Thursday) to the State of the Union address, an annual event that hands the president a major opportunity to speak to the nation and the world.
Afterward, Reid and Pelosi will deliver their party's official response. If history is any indication, many will have turned off their TVs or switched channels by the time they speak.
Still, as former Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley put it, Reid and Pelosi will likely be addressing their biggest audiences ever. "They will be heard," said Foley, who attended the pair's joint appearance.
As a result of the Republicans' success in the November elections, Reid and Pelosi face expanded majorities in Congress as they seek to rally public support for the Democratic case for change.
Pelosi said, "As the president begins his second term, it is fitting that we pause to look at where our nation stands, where we are headed and what better course of action should be taken."
Reid said: "Let me be clear; There is no partisan split in our commitment to defending this nation. America stands united in waging the war on terror. We Democrats simply believe we need a stronger strategy for winning this war."

Phil's Observations:
Reid: "Most of all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there."

Phil: "Listen up, you idiot. There is an exit strategy. We know what victory is. We know how we can get there."

Reid: "Oh yeah? Then what is it?"

Phil: "Jackass. Listen up, 'cuz I am only going to say this once. Victory is when Iraq has become stable, has created a consitution and represetative government, and when it is able to provide sercurity for its citizens. We can get there by doing what we have been doing: provide security and help rebuild its infastructure. Then, we will exit. Why the hell are you so selfish?"

I am so tired of hearing my liberal friends whining about an exit strategy. We have one, and we're on our way of accomplishing it. How dense can you be to not understand this?

Pelosi: "We can solve this long-term challenge without dismantling Social Security and without allowing this administration's false declaration of a crisis to justify a privatization plan that is unnecessary, unaffordable and unwise,"

Phil: "Why don't you just come out and say what you mean without beating around the bush? 'We want to control you, dear citizen, tell you what's best for you, so you cannot have any control over your future'"

Pelosi: "That's not what I am saying"

Phil: "Duh! Of course not. You would never say something that you mean. You don't have a belief system to stand on. You claim that a solution to SS must be bipartisan. Calling the administration's goal as false, unecessary, unaffordable, and unwise really shows how you feel about working together to get things done. Go back to your hole in California"

Courtesy of

ASKAN, Iraq — Some couldn't read, but knew their party's identification number on the ballot. Others couldn't see, but were led to the polls by police. Across wide swathes of Iraq, especially in the southern Shiite and northern Kurdish areas, Iraqis went to the polls Sunday, expressing fierce determination and pride, together with hope that the election will improve their hard lives.
"I don't have a job. I hope the new government will give me a job," said one voter, Rashi Ayash, 50, a former Iraqi lieutenant colonel.
From the early hours of Sunday morning, Iraqis stood in long lines that wrapped around street corners, defying militant threats of violence to cast their votes for the 275-member National Assembly. Dozens were killed as militants fired mortars, and in one town, a suicide bomber mingled with voters waiting outside a polling booth.
But people continued to vote undeterred.
"Am I scared? Of course I'm not scared. This is my country," said Fathiya Mohammed, 50.
Security was tight across the country. Iraqi police provided much of the frontline protection, checking women's' handbags and even babies wrapped in blankets, while female Iraqi guards patted down women voters.
Voters heading into a polling station in a boys school in Baghdad's middle-class Karada district were searched twice, first at an outer perimeter about 40 yards from the school. Then they removed their jackets and the batteries from their cellular phones, which have been used in the past to detonate bombs. Finally they walked past coils of barbed wire under the eyes of sharpshooters on nearby rooftops.
Authorities banned cars from voting centers as part of security measures meant to stop car bombings, a rule that left some people struggling to reach the ballot boxes.
In the northern Kurdish city of Sulaymaniyah, a man carried 80-year-old Mohammed Karim Khader over his shoulders and trekked the last few steps to the polling station.
At a polling place in eastern Baghdad, an Iraqi policeman in a black ski mask tucked his assault rifle under one arm and held the hand of an elderly blind woman to guide her to the polls.
Fathiya Mohammed shrugged off the incessant threats of violence and donned her head-to-toe abaya before heading to her neighborhood polling station in the small town of Askan south of Baghdad.
"This is democracy," the elderly woman said proudly, holding up a thumb stained with the purple ink used to mark those who had voted. "This is the first day I feel freedom."
Turnout was brisk in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods like Askan, and in heavily Shiite areas in Baghdad and Basra. Polling stations in heavily Sunni cities such as Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra were virtually deserted in the morning. By midday hundreds of people were voting in Samarra and the volatile city of Mosul in the north, though there were still big pockets with little turnout.
In the mostly Sunni province of Salaheddin, Gov. Hamad Hmoud Shagti took to the radio to urge voting. "This is a chance for you as Iraqis to assure your and your children's future," he said.
The prospect of impending violence was never far away.
When an unexplained boom sounded near one Baghdad voting station, some women put their hands to their mouths and whispered prayers. Others continued walking calmly to the voting stations. Several shouted in unison: "We have no fear."
Electoral commission official Mijm Towirish said the fact that voters came to the polls showed Iraqis "broke a barrier of fear."
Voters all across the country said they hoped the election would bring them security, jobs and a better future.
"I came here to vote for our goal, which is freedom," said Abu Ahmed, a 55-year-old Shiite voter in Baqouba north of Baghdad.

News, Quotes & Photos Courtesy of and
(Commentary & Observations Courtesy of Phil, of course).

"Today, the people of Iraq have spoken to the world and the world has heard the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," President Bush said, adding that Iraqis firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists and refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins.

"Men and women have taken righful control of their country's destiny and they have chosen freedom and peace," Bush said. He also thanked Americans for being "patient and resolute" even during difficult times.

Voter turnout was expected to be around 8 million eligible voters or 60 percent, according to the Independent Electoral Commission. That comes despite considerable morning violence in which nine homicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations killed at least 44 people, including the bombers. Voting in Sunni areas was expected to be lower than predicted, suggesting that the minority Muslims who led the country under Saddam Hussein may not have the representation they would like in the new National Assembly. You know what? The Sunni's had their chance to participate, if they chose not to participate in mass, then they won't have the representation they wanted. Oh well, it just goes to prove another point that if you want something, you have do something to get it.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., also tempered joy for the occasion during a Sunday morning news show. "It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote," Kerry said. After the show, he told reporters that the election is also a chance for the United States to begin mending bonds internationally and start considering reducing its presence in Iraq. Fuck you, Senator Kerry. Pessimistic bastard. This is why you didn't and won't be elected President of the US. Our world is changing for the better because of the Iraqi vote, and you are whining that the better world won't be legitimate? This is a historic day full of optimism and freedom, and you tell the world that it's "hard to say" that it is legitimate? Why do you spit on the brave Iraqi's who had the will and the courage to risk their life to vote? Why do you signal to the people who were afraid to come out and vote that the election isn't legitimate? They chose to hide. You give the terrorists hope when you say things like that. You're providing them reasons to continue resisiting freedom. Iraq's and soldiers may die becuase you say things like that. Shame on you!

Added Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who has called the situation in Iraq "George W. Bush's Vietnam": "While the elections are a step forward, they are not a cure for the growing violence and resentment of the perception of an American occupation ... I continue to believe that the best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the administration to withdraw some troops now and to begin to negotiate a phase-down of our long-term military presence." Of course this one event isn't a cure, you sick idiot. This historic vote is the first step of the cure. I don't know about you, but I am fine with the terrorists resenting our presence there. We stand for freedom, they do not. Why is it so hard for you to grasp this concept, Senator Kennedy? The troop withdrawl will come with time, Mr. Kennedy, as we work with the new Iraqi government. We are not going to abandon them. Most Americans are not sick bastards, like you.

The election will create a 275-member National Assembly and 18 provincial legislatures. The assembly will draw up the country's permanent constitution and will select a president and two deputy presidents, who in turn will name a new prime minister and Cabinet to serve for 11 months until new elections are held. Remember, it took many years for other democracies to get their start. Let's give the Iraqi's the time they need to get their country in order.

Enjoy these pictures, courtesy of and

Courtesy of

NEW YORK- The boards of directors of SBC Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. met on Sunday afternoon to vote on a more than $15 billion stock deal in which SBC will acquire AT&T, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The companies, which have been in talks for days, have come to a tentative agreement, the source said. The combination would bolster SBC's business with large corporations and spell the end for AT&T, the once ubiquitous "Ma Bell."
If the boards approve the deal, it could be announced as early as Monday, the source said.
According to the Wall Street Journal, which cited people close to the companies, the deal would include $15 billion in SBC shares as well as an additional $1 billion special dividend to be paid to AT&T shareholders

Phil's Observations:
You know, I am a little bewildered by this move. I'm not sure I see the benefit of it. In 1984, Ma Bell breaks up. SBC, Ameritech, GTE, and others are now independent companies. In the '90s, they all start merging and aquiring each other. SBC buys Ameritech and others, and Verizon buys GTE and others. Now, SBC wants its big daddy, AT&T back into the family. I'm not so sure about this move.

As a side note, I'm not so sure about the P&G and Gillette move either. That, too, would create a mammath company.

If you'd like to get an up-close view of world events, you should spend a few moments reading Steve Harrigan's blog. He's a correspondant for Fox News. His blog is his personal commentary and observations. Click on his latest post to get a taste. It's a great blog!

I don't care what the critics say, I like the new Dodge Charger. I think it's a great looking car.

Click on this link to see more pictures and get more info.

You know what really drives me up the wall? Poor customer service. It doesn't matter where it's coming from. The utilities. The financials. The healthcares. The services. The hospitalities. Name an industry, and I can cite numerous examples of poor service. What saddens me, though, is that our service levels reflect our society: the expectations are getting lower and lower and lower.

Lemme explain. I want to work for a company that is customer-centric. I want the companies I do business with to be customer-centric. Hell, in today's world, I am even willing to pay more for better service. Here's my thing: If I don't get service that at least meets my expectations, I don't come back. Ever. That's right. Unless I have no choice, chances are I will never, ever come back to you for business again. Yeah, I said chances are. If you try hard enough, I might give you another chance, but the odds of me coming back to you are not in your favor. BUT, if you exceed my expecations, I will be come your loyal customer.

Why am I bringing this up now? Because I've had a couple of recent customer experiences that have frustrated me. And because so many companies don't get it. In order to be successful for the long haul, you need your customers to become loyal. You need to wrap yourself around your customer and make your customer feel like there's no need to even consider going anywhere else because you offer the best solution for them. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? It all goes back to treating others as you'd like to be treated.

You have to spend a ton of money on marketing and sales to get customers excited about your solutions. Once they are your loyal customer, keeping them costs a lot less than getting new ones in. I honestly believe that if a company sincerely takes care of its customers, the customers will take care of the company. Sure, as in every case, there are exceptions. Some people (and some companies) don't want any responsibility with the relationship. Steer far away from them. A potential customer doesn't have poor credit just because. He or she didn't take personal responsibility with their relationship with their finances. A company doesn't steal money from its shareholders just because. The company didn't take personal responsibility with their relationship with their code of business ethics & moral conduct.

It all boils down to relationships. If you've done anything to inconvenience me, offer me a guesture or token of appreciation. Here's a couple of examples.

I was in line at my local Road Ranger Citgo gas station one morning, and I had to stand in line at the cashier longer than normal. The cashier was talking with the customer in front of me for a while. When that customer left, she apologized about the longer-than-normal wait, explained that she was catching up with one of her regular customers, and offered me a gift certificate for a free cup of coffee. I was impressed, and now I am one of her regular customers. It wasn't just the one experience that made me a loyal customer. It was the icing on the cake. They have always been very friendly. They smile all the time. It's a clean store. Their shelves are full of stuff I might want.

I was flying into DFW for a meeting. I used National. I had some delays in returning the car. I was frustrated. I told Emerald Club about it. Their response was canned and insincere. My next trip to DFW, I used Hertz. Once again, I had some delays getting the car returned. I contacted Gold Club, and I received a letter of apology and a gift certificate for $25. I am now a loyal Hertz customer. Was it because of that one exeperience that I became a loyal customer to Hertz? No, it was the icing on the cake. I've had great experiences with them before.

My cable internet connection had been having issues for a couple of days. I called the tech support line, we did some trouble shooting, and they dispatched a tech to come during a window of time I felt was convenient. They came, the problem was resolved. I was happy. The tech was a great guy. Then, a few days later, I get a postcard from my cable company apologizing for letting me down. I wasn't expecting that. They made a difference. Our relationship is stronger now. I'll probably become a loyal customer when they offer a product that I've been wanting. Why don't I leave them because they don't offer the product I want? Because right now no one does in my area. It's available in other areas, so I know it will get to me eventually. If one of their competitors offers it before they do, I'll consider what to do then. But I can tell you, it will take a lot for me to leave this company.

You see, it takes a little effort to create a loyal customer. If you make feeble attempts to keep your customers, you're building a relationship with a defective foundation. If the foundation isn't strong, your relationship with your customer will crumble. But here's the amazing thing: It typically doesn't take a lot to build the genuine customer relationship. Remember, all it's taken for me in these examples are smiles and tokens of appreciation for my business (and my money).

Here's another big aspect of creating a loyal customer. Keep them out of the middle. Remember, I am buying something from you, a company. I am not buying something from a department, or a division, or a single person. If you're having a problem servicing me or providing me with a product because of a problem internally, or with a vendor, I don't care. That's not my problem. Keep me out of the middle. You take care of it. That's what I pay you for.

Hey, and while your at it, ask yourself this question every time you change something - no matter what it is, a product, a service, a process, whatever - How is this change going to benefit my customer?

Ya know what? No company is ever going to advertise bad service or a bad product. I know that. I'm not buying a service or a product. I'm buying a company. I'm buying a relationship. Save yourself some time, money, and effort. Don't bother trying to get me as one of your customers if you aren't centering everything you do around your customer.

After I posted my last message, I got to thinking. Why don't some people go for the gold, shoot for the stars, or try to be the best they can be?

Is it apathy?

Is it a lack of confidence?

Is it pessimism?

Is it a lack of self-worth?

Is it despondency?

Is it a lack of love? Friendship?

Is it distrust?

Is it a fear of change?

I simply don't understand why people are afraid to take the action needed to make themselves feel happier and more successful.

I really don't get people who don't do what they need to do to get something done. That statement is pretty vague, isn't it? Yup. Lemme explain.

I know three women from various associations.

1. A 50-year-old single mother; divorced twice; has three grown kids, one teen out of wedlock, and two kids from the second marriage; she works about 30 hours a week; goes to college part time; lives in an apartment she can't afford; and one of her adult children lives with her to provide support; she is the mom of the other two as well.

2. A 28-year-old single mother; has two kids from the same father; has never married; boyfriend (& father of kids) is serving 7 years for armed robbery while he was high on meth; works part-time; also lives in an apartment she can't afford; doesn't have a car.

3. a 23-year-old single woman; works full-time; was diagnosed with Rhuemetoid Arthritis when she was 4; lives in an apartment with her boyfried she can't afford; works full time; boyfriend has his own medical and mental health issues

So what's common with these three women?

a) None of them have a positive attitude; they all expect bad things to happen to them.

b) None of them know how to manage money. The first mom only works about 30 hours, and make some attempts to get a better paying job but isn't consistent about it. The second mom doesn't have a high school diploma or GED; has trouble even working part-time, and relies on her mom and siblings to watch her kids. The third one works full-time, but doesn't work overtime offered to bring in more money.

c) None of them manage time well. They all feel like they don't have enough time in the day. Yet, they all seem to find time to play games on a computer or watch TV.

d) All of them have had a difficult life.

e) All of them say they need to do more. But none of them make the effort to do more.

f) None of them have a sense of confidence or self-resilience.

This is what I don't understand. Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results? When I am not happy with something in my life, I change what needs to be changed. Why can't I seem to help these women understand that concept?

I believe that when someone is struggling, they reach a breaking point. That is, they realize they are not happy with their life, and then make a decision: I am not happy with my life and I need to make a change, or I'm frustrated and I give up. I'm not sure if any of these women have reached that point yet. And that concerns me. They have gone through so much - so many things that would have taken me to the breaking point some time ago - that I don't understand how much more misery they can live in before they make a change.

You see, I donate quite a bit of my net income to charitable organizations. I also volunteer for a couple of organizations. If you can't tell yet, I'm a little depressed. I am motivated by seeing the results of my efforts. I enjoy giving my love, effort, time and money to helping others. But my resources aren't unlimited. I can only give so much love, effort, time and money before I need to ask that all-important question: Am I doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? I've been working with these three women for almost 2 years now to help them improve their lives ,to help them become self-sufficient, and I haven't seen significant improvement over the last few months. It bothers me. I want to see positive results, and I'm not. I know that I am not the solution to their problems; they are. But yet, I can't quite seem to get them to understand that they are in control of their future. The choices we make today dictate what the future holds for us.

Why are these three women so afraid to make a change? Fear of rejection, fear of failure, fear of sucess? I dunno. Sure, all decisions have some risk. Some results are good; some are not. I understand that if I am rejected or I fail, that is one less rejection or failure I'll have to face in the future. Why can't I help these three ladies understand this concept? Something only changes to benefit you if you make the change happen.

Isn't this pathetic? I'm depressed because I've been trying to help these three ladies and I'm not seeing the results of my efforts. I'm so frustrated that I've actually thought about terminating my relationship with these three ladies and letting the pro's do it with the money in donate. I know that I'll miss the personal contact, and am sure that I will do it again in the future, but right now I am drained. I need to stop and anaylze my priorities. Look at this. Here I am concerned about three people who are so much worse off than me, but I am talking about myself. How pathetic!

Once again, a parent puts her child in harm's way. Dammit. Forget the fricckin test to be a parent. Now I'm starting to think an adult needs to get a state license to become a parent.

Mom Charged With Giving Crack to Son, 4
Friday, January 21, 2005

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A mother has been arrested on charges that she gave crack to her 4-year-old son to "calm him down."
Michelle R. Shelton, 32, of Kansas City, was arrested Thursday on a child endangerment charge. Police said the boy did not suffer any obvious injuries from taking the highly addictive drug. He remains in state custody.
Police first began investigating Shelton a year ago when officers said they saw her escorting drug users into the apartment complex where she and her son lived. Police said some residents at the complex told investigators Shelton sometimes gave the boy crack cocaine to "calm him down."
Social workers were sent to the apartment where they took hair samples from Shelton and her son to test for illegal drugs. The tests came back positive, police said.
According to court records, Shelton told detectives she found empty crack bags and drug paraphernalia throughout her home after parties her son attended. She said it was possible the child found some of the drug.

"Well, gee mom! How come my friends like you more than me?" Once again, adults should have to take a test to qualify to be a parent.

'Cool Mom' Threw Sex Parties for Boys
Friday, January 21, 2005

ARVADA, Colo. — A 40-year-old woman faces charges of sexual assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor for allegedly supplying drugs and alcohol to high school boys and having sex with some of them.
Sylvia Johnson, 40, told police she wanted to be a "cool mom," according to an arrest affidavit.
Johnson did not immediately return a telephone message Thursday.
The arrest affidavit alleges Johnson had parties for the boys almost weekly between October 2003 and October 2004. The affidavit says she gave them marijuana, methamphetamine and a variety of alcoholic drinks.
"She described herself as a 'cool mom,' " Detective R.J. Vander Veen wrote in the affidavit. He said Johnson told investigators "she was never popular with classmates in high school and now began 'feeling like one of the group.' "
Jefferson County district attorney's spokeswoman Pam Russell said she could not comment on whether Johnson has any children. If she does, they would be considered victims, Russell said, and state law shields their identities.
The affidavit accuses Johnson of providing drugs and alcohol to eight boys and having sex with five of them.
Authorities said the investigation began after one of the boys told his mother about the encounters, and she called police.
Johnson faces a preliminary hearing in February on two counts of sexual assault, eight counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and two counts of distribution of a controlled substance. She was arrested last month.

Sometimes, I wish we could execute people simply for putting kids in harm's way. How stupid are some of my fellow humans? I'm starting to think that people should have to take a test to qualify to be a parent.

Fla. Boy Found; Kidnap Suspect Still at Large
Saturday, January 22, 2005

ATLANTA — An 11-year-old boy was found safe Friday in Georgia, three days after he disappeared with a convicted child molester who had been living with him and his father in Florida.

"He is safe and he is OK," FBI spokesman Steven Lazarus said of the boy Friday evening. Police were searching for the man who had been with the boy in the same woods where the child was found.

Frederick Fretz, 42, picked up the boy Tuesday from his school in Dunnellon, Fla., police said. Their drive ended about 375 miles to the northwest when their car stalled on an exit ramp off Interstate 75 north of Atlanta.

The discovery of the car Friday morning triggered the search for the two. Emerson, Ga., police received a call when Fretz and the boy went to a store to buy a gallon of water and some candy, police Maj. Mike Powell said.

Police found the child near a gas station less than 12 hours after the car was found and about two miles from the vehicle. "Two of my officers were chasing the suspect through the woods, and the boy was running toward us," Powell said.

The boy's father said he was going to Georgia to reunite with his son.

The boy's father says Fretz never told him he had been convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy in Pennsylvania in 1991. Authorities issued an Amber Alert on Wednesday to notify the public and other law enforcement agencies once they learned about the conviction.

The boy's father had invited Fretz to move into his home in October after they served time together in the Marion County, Fla., jail — Fretz for domestic battery and marijuana possession, the boy's father for a probation violation on an aggravated battery charge. While in jail they realized that they had known each other as teens in New Jersey.

Fretz regularly took the boy to and from school because his dad has been able to leave home only for work and church.

Here's the address with comments mixed in.

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. (Wow, he understands that it's not all about him ... for my liberal friends who say he is conceited) For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.(Just like our brave firefighters, America doesn't run away from fire, we go in to save lives.)

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. (Human freedom is the catalyst to destroy tyranny!)

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. (This is the one thing that liberals either don't understand or choose not to. Any one who doesn't want a democracy is a threat to democracy!)

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.(Why are so many liberals so afraid to spread democracy?)

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. (What a visionary statement!)

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. (After all, isn't that what freedom is all about?) And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.(i.e. for my liberal friends, we are not forcing America's way of life upon them)

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. (Wow, a President who understands that an excuse is just that... an excuse!) America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.(You know, my income isn't unlimited, but I still give to charitable organizations. Just because the resources are limited doesn't mean you shouldn't fight the good fight.)

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. (Not many Presidents have understood this. I won't mention the name of our President in the late 70's.) Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. (WAIT A SECOND! You mean there is actually a difference between what is right and wrong? So many of my liberal friends don't acknowledge this.) America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen (Look at the past 50 years. How many more democratic governments are there because of America?),is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.(Oh my God! He's making a committment!)

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. (Wow! This man can see beyond today!)

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." (Wow! We still believe that? Bet your ass we do !)

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side. (Wow! Another committment!)

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.(Holy cow! You mean this President can be realistic, AND promote optimism? Damn straight!)

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world. (You mean it's possible for every country in this global community could be a democracy? What a vision!)

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy … the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments … the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.(Wow! You mean the young folks matter? Yup. This guy is looking out for you!)

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.(A side note ... My career has revolved around leading and managing people. I can cite so many examples of how employees peform better and strive to be the best they can be when the employee feels that s/he belongs and feels like they have ownership in what they are doing. One of my most challenging and enjoyable experiences was taking a staff of 75 data entry and customer service folks with an accuracy rate of 84% and leaving them with an accuracy rate above 99% in about 14 months. How did I do it? I didn't! I provided an environment that encouraged process and customer ownership. Once they felt they had a role and owned it, they took off and performed better than they have ever before! They did it, not me! If it worked for an employee, what's to say that it won't work for an average citizen? Let the individual be in control of their future. Encourage them to own their home. Encourage them to prepare for retirement by allowing them to own personal savings accounts. Encourage them to manage their own health care. An ownership society will take America to places it never imagined possible before. Remember, so many people came to this country simply for the opportunity to own land!)

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.(You mean that people from all faiths can contribute. Yes! That is your obligation as an American citizen.)

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.(It's time to start living in the 21st century folks! Look at my very first entry in this blog to get a futher explanation on that comment.)

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause? (There's that ownership thing again! Are we acting like we are accountable? Whenever you look at the effectiveness of a process, there are three simple steps: Plan, Do, Verify. Yes folks, every once in a while we need to stop and ask that all-so-important questions: Are we getting results from our actions?)

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.(America did all of that? Yes. Have you been asleep at the wheel?)

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. (We must always have faith!) Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.(i.e. Do something that means something!)

May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.
And God bless you, Mr. President!

Courtesy of Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) -- With the threat of a defamation lawsuit looming, powerful Chicago Alderman Richard Mell on Thursday recanted allegations that the chief fund-raiser for his son-in-law, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, traded government appointments for campaign contributions.
"When I said that you, as the governor's chief fund-raiser, traded appointments to commissions and state boards for $50,000 donations I knew that to be inaccurate," Mell wrote in a letter to Christopher Kelly, who had been Blagojevich's campaign finance director. "My comments were based upon my misreading of earlier published reports and were an exaggerated extrapolation made by me in the heat of the moment."
Paul Levy, Mell's attorney, said Kelly signed a legal document that prevents him from suing Mell over the issue.
Kelly, in a statement read by his lawyer, said he insisted Mell acknowledge he misspoke "or be forced to tell his story in a court of law.""The truth is not negotiable, and we stood our ground and the truth has emerged," Kelly's statement said.
Mell, the father of Blagojevich's wife, Patti, made his accusations during a public argument with Blagojevich after the governor closed a landfill run by a distant cousin of his wife. Mell accused Blagojevich of shutting down the landfill to punish him for criticizing the governor in the past and to polish his public image.
The influential Democrat said he spoke in the heat of the moment after he had been told that people in the governor's office were saying he was part of an illegal landfill operation, which he denied.
"I probably overreacted when a (Chicago) Sun-Times reporter called me and I said things that, in retrospect, I certainly wouldn't have," Mell told The Associated Press.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine and Blagojevich's executive inspector general are investigating Mell's accusation.
Mell said if the investigations are based only on his comments, they should be halted. Robert Clifford, Kelly's attorney, declined to go that far.
"It's not for me to say where she should go," Clifford said about Madigan, whose office and Devine's were working together. "From what I know about the matter, it's closed and should be closed."
On Friday, Kelly denied the accusation and threatened to sue Mell for defamation if he did not retract his statement publicly.
Mell told the Chicago Tribune last week that he based his allegations on articles that appeared in that newspaper in November. The Tribune investigated the amount of money donated to the Blagojevich campaign by appointees and found that more than 120 appointees donated $1.9 million total to his campaign fund.
In his letter, Mell apologized to Kelly for "any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family," and said it was "never my intention to impugn your reputation. I know that you would never compromise your integrity."
Levy denied that the threat of litigation prompted the letter.
"The litigation was not the concern. The concern was setting the record straight and correcting an error," Levy said.
"The alderman misspoke under the pressure of an emotional moment. He made a mistake and he wanted to correct that mistake," Levy said. "Frankly, he really wanted to do the right thing. This letter is evidence of that intent on his part."
The unusually public family fight began Jan. 6 when Blagojevich shut down a landfill run by Frank Schmidt, a distant cousin of the governor's wife. Schmidt vehemently denied rumors that he suggested he could operate his dump unlawfully because of his family ties.
The governor ordered the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Schmidt's Land Reclamation Services Inc. in Joliet, then told the agency to shut down the landfill after the investigation found multiple violations.
Mell reacted angrily, saying Blagojevich was acting as a "white knight" trying to show he was "the champion of virtue."
Days later, Mell choked back tears when he said he was right to criticize the governor but wanted the fight to end for the sake of his family.

Courtesy of the Rockford Register Star

ROCKFORD -- The Winnebago County state's attorney dropped a dozen pending felony drug cases after the resignation of a Rockford detective who was involved in what officials call "an unethical relationship" with a female informant.
The decision allows 12 suspected drug dealers, who were accused of pushing heroin, crack and marijuana, to walk without being taken to trial. And defense attorneys say the dismissals call into question 15 more felony and misdemeanor drug cases that could be open to post-conviction appeals.
The decision to dismiss the cases came two weeks after Rockford Metro Narcotics Detective Doug Palmer told department brass about his relationship and resigned.
Calling it a personnel matter, police officials aren't saying with what or whom Palmer was involved, but the former detective is not under investigation, and charges have not been filed against him.
"We don't believe that anything improper occurred, but there could be the appearance of impropriety," Winnebago County State's Attorney Paul Logli said.
"Basically, with input from the Rockford Police Department, and at the department's suggestion, these cases were dismissed."
Devastating to department
Logli said not all cases Palmer was involved with have been dismissed. Only cases that involved him and a particular contact were dismissed. Palmer was an 11-year police veteran who worked gangs and narcotics as a detective.
"From the time that this surfaced, we acted," Deputy Police Chief Dominic Iasparro said. "We are very uncomfortable with even the appearance of impropriety."
Iasparro said the dismissals were devastating to the department, and in particular the Metro Narcotics Unit, because many of the cases took weeks, if not months, to put together.
"It's not to say these people aren't dope dealers -- they are," Iasparro said. "If they continue to do that, we'll arrest them and they will be prosecuted."
Palmer did not return a call placed through his former union rep.
Four cases gone
Officially, only four cases have been dismissed: Lonnie Morris, accused of possession of 100 to 400 grams of heroin; Glenn Robertson, accused of possession of cocaine near school grounds; Adrian Scott, accused of possession of 300 to 500 grams of marijuana; and Victor Tilson, accused of possession of marijuana.
Logli said the other dismissals will occur when the suspects appear for their next court date. He added that he does not plan to refile charges on these cases.
"You could say they'd be dismissed with prejudice," Logli said.
Public Defender Karen Sorensen, whose office handled Tilson's case and started work on another until that suspect got a private attorney, said dismissing only pending cases might not go far enough.
Sorensen said she plans to vet the earlier cases involving Palmer and possibly file appeals.

LOL, what a waste of government time. The onlly bright spot is that I was able to get a good chuckle or two. Everyone knows she is going to be confirmed because she is intelligent, passionate, and knows how to get things done.

Here's a sample of my favorites:

Rice was visibly irked when Boxer said, “I personally believe — this is my personal belief — that your loyalty to this mission to sell this war overwhelmed your respect for the truth.”

“We can have this discussion in any way that you would like, but I really hope you will refrain from impugning my integrity,” Rice replied. “I really hope that you will not imply that I take the truth lightly.”
- - - - -
"Sept. 11, 2001 was a defining moment for our nation and for the world. Under the vision and leadership of President Bush, our nation has risen to meet the challenges of our time: fighting tyranny and terror, and securing the blessings of freedom and prosperity for a new generation. The work that America and our allies have undertaken, and the sacrifices we have made, have been difficult and necessary and right. Now is the time to build on these achievements to make the world safer, and to make the world more free. We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the time for diplomacy is now." — Condoleezza Rice
- - - -
"We went in to rescue Iraq from Saddam Hussein," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "Now I think we have to rescue our policy from ourselves."

Rice replied: "I'm sure that we (made) multiple, many decisions, some of which were good, some of which might not have been good. But the strategic decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was the right one."
- - - -
"We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom," Rice told the committee. "And the time for diplomacy is now."

Biden shot back: "Despite our great military might we are in my view more alone in the world than we've been in any time in recent memory. The time for diplomacy, in my view, is long overdue."
- - - -

If you haven't checked out Seth's blog, it may be worth your time. Here is a recent Seth post and my comment.

Gay Paris
I’m tired of people picking on the French because they didn’t want to get into the “war”. They stayed neutral, so what? The United States did the same thing years ago. Remember WWII? Well the Germans invaded France in 1940 but the United States refused to get involved until we were attacked in 1942. Iraq never attacked France so why should we persecute them for not going to war? In all honesty Iraq never attacked America either. Granted Iraq should have been liberated and I am glad we are over here doing what we are doing but we shouldn’t pick on a country for staying out of a fight that isn’t theirs. Later.
posted by SethIsRoot at 8:15 PM
- - - -
Seth, I'm not really bothered if a country decides to stay "neutral" and out of a conflict; that is their priority (although I may consider them to be wimps). The problem with France is that they are not neutral! They are waist deep in shit from their dealings with Saddam. They just didn't just not want to assist America, they argued against it! Wait for a few more months, and they may be chin-deep in shit as it folds out.And while I'm on this rant, I've got to explain that it is not the French people I am angry with. It's their government. I really wish they would fight for a new government. I've been to France twice on vacations; they have some absolutely great people there, and I love to travel the countryside with my camera.
You're absolutely right. Iraq did not attack us directly. Key word is directly. Saddam knew it would be nuts to do that. That's why he offered habor & support to Al Queda. He lost the bet, though. We still came and kicked his ass. No wait. We couldn't. His ass was hidden in an underground hole.
By Kicknit, at 4:38 AM

AP Reports via FoxNews
Saturday, January 15, 2005

ATLANTIC BEACH, Fla. — The adoptive mother of a 31/2-year-old boy at the center of a custody dispute tearfully handed the boy to his biological mother on Saturday, then dropped to the ground and repeatedly screamed: "How can they do this to a little boy?"
Evan, bundled in a blue jacket and sucking on a pacifier, was carried outside by Dawn Scott, who along with her husband, Gene, cared for the child for most of his life. The couple had appealed a judge's ruling transferring custody to the biological mother, Amanda Hopkins.
News crews gathered around the Scotts' home Saturday morning in anticipation of the meeting, and the child's biological father and grandfather pushed a television cameraman out of the way during the transfer.
Evan, who could be heard wailing inside the home, appeared calm after he was placed in a car seat in a van driven by Hopkins' husband, Michael Hopkins.
Amanda Hopkins scolded photographers taking pictures of the child: "Leave him alone. He's just a little boy."
Hopkins, a member of the U.S. Navy, lives in Illinois with her husband and infant daughter, but their hometown has been kept in sealed court files.
Evan was quickly whisked away, and Dawn Scott then dropped to the ground in an emotional outburst.
Gene Scott called it a "very emotional, traumatic situation" and said the family would continue their legal fight.
"If they truly loved him, they wouldn't have done this," he said, tears welled in his eyes.
The Scotts had appealed Friday to the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee, asking the court to let them keep the child. But their attorney, Susan Pniewski, said the court never acted in the case.
The case began about 31/2 years ago when the childless Scotts met Hopkins, who was pregnant. She agreed to a private adoption, according to court files.
The Scotts watched Evan's birth in May 2001, and he was placed with them two days later.
The adoption was supposed to be final in August 2001. But a month before that, the boy's biological father, Stephen White, filed a motion demanding custody. The Scotts claimed White should not be able to block the adoption, but a judge disagreed.
Hopkins supported the adoption until it appeared the court might grant White's request for custody. Late last month, she was awarded custody and White was given liberal visitation rights.
Calls to attorneys representing Hopkins and White were not immediately returned Saturday.
Carl Moodispaugh, 37, who lives in the Scotts' cul-de-sac, said his 8-year-old stepson, Christopher, often played "Hot Wheels" with Evan, and the youngster was like a little brother to his son.
"It is like one of our kids being ripped from us," Moodispaugh said.

Phil's Observations
We should be ashamed of courts when they rip kids from loving homes with responsible parents. This kid is now going to have to learn how to deal with a new mommy & daddy.

Courtesy of Rueters
Bush: Social Security Cuts Not Inevitable -- Report
Fri Jan 14, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Future retirees will not necessarily see smaller Social Security checks if Congress approves the administration plan to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes, President Bush said in an interview published on Friday.
Asked if people should expect some reduction in future guaranteed benefits as a necessity of overhauling the system, Bush responded, "No," without elaborating.
Bush has said his plan would not cut benefits of current or near-term retirees.
But conservative groups familiar with some of the White House thinking on the proposal said officials were considering changing the way benefits were calculated from wage inflation to price inflation. That eventually would lead to deep cuts in guaranteed Social Security benefits because wages rise faster than prices.
Bush told USA Today his goal was to protect the federal retirement system "without bankrupting our economy by having to raise payroll taxes so high, or dramatically slashing benefits."
"What people should expect is that we will work with people of both parties to do the best we can possibly do to prevent the system from going bankrupt and to making the system viable," Bush said.
The White House is trying to persuade lawmakers and the public that Social Security's finances are in peril and that the president's proposal, which he has yet to spell out in detail, offers the right fix.
Democrats have accused the administration of exaggerating Social Security's problems in order to push through Bush's plan to let workers shift part of their payroll taxes into private accounts, which could then be invested in stocks and bonds.

Courtesy of Reuters
Bush: Fixing Social Security Is 'Moral Obligation'
Sat Jan 15, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing an intensifying fight over his plan to revamp Social Security, President Bush insisted on Saturday that the retirement program was in peril and he had a moral responsibility to fix it.
"Saving Social Security is an economic challenge. But it is also a profound moral obligation," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
He described the 70-year-old U.S. retirement system as broken and urged that it be changed to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into private stock and bond accounts.
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy this week accused Bush of hyping concerns about the nation's retirement program, just as he did on Iraq, and urged Democrats to stand up to the "politics of fear."
The scathing remarks from Kennedy, a leading liberal voice in Congress, came as opponents of Bush's plan stepped up their fight against it.
The AARP, which represents 35 million senior citizens, is spending $5 million this month a newspaper ad campaign to beat back Bush's plan. Labor unions are also strongly opposed to it.
Even some Republicans became skittish about Bush's strategy after a leaked White House memo suggested the administration favors curbing the rate of growth in future retirement benefits.
Bush, who has yet to unveil a detailed Social Security proposal, was noncommittal about whether he favored cuts in future benefits.
When asked by USA Today on Friday if people should expect some reduction in future guaranteed benefits as a necessity of overhauling the system, Bush responded, "No," without elaborating.
In 2018, Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, according to report from the Social Security trustees, which includes Treasury Secretary John Snow and other members of Bush's Cabinet.
But Social Security will continue to earn interest income from the U.S. government bonds it holds in the trust fund.
The fund is expected to run out of cash in 2042, leading Bush to warn that the system is headed for "bankruptcy."
But many Democrats said the use of such descriptions exaggerates the problem because even under pessimistic scenarios, workers would still be paying into Social Security in 2042 and retirees would still receive benefits, although at a reduced rate.

Courtesy of Rueters
Bush, Democrats Spar Over Social Security
Sat Jan 15, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing an intensifying fight over his plan to revamp Social Security, President Bush insisted on Saturday that the retirement program was in peril and he had a moral responsibility to fix it.
But Democrats said Bush's plan to let workers shift Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts would drive up government debt and replace a secure program with a risky one.
"Saving Social Security is an economic challenge. But it is also a profound moral obligation," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
He urged quick action by Congress on his proposals to allow individual stock and bond accounts.
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan countered that Bush's plan, which is estimated to involve transition costs of $1 trillion to $2 trillion, would worsen deficits.
"Our nation already is staggering under the largest budget deficit in the history of the country," she said in the Democratic radio address. "Taking out even more debt could destabilize financial markets, drive up interest rates and stifle economic growth."
Transition costs would be required for private accounts because, under the current system, the benefits of those now retired are paid for through the payroll taxes of those now working. If a portion of such taxes are diverted, the government would need to make up the difference.
Bush has ruled out a rise in payroll taxes, leaving borrowing as one of the few options.
DELAYS COSTLY
The president argued that delaying on changes to Social Security would be costly by itself.
"According to the Social Security trustees, waiting just one year adds $600 billion to the cost of fixing Social Security," Bush said.
Stabenow echoed Sen. Edward Kennedy, a leading liberal in Congress, in saying Bush was hyping Social Security's woes.
"The program does face long-term challenges, and we should act to strengthen and improve the program for the long term," Stabenow said.
But she said the project long-term shortfall in Social Security was equivalent to just one-fifth the cost of Bush's tax cuts.
Labor unions and the AARP, which represents 35 million senior citizens, are fighting to beat back Bush's plan.
Even some Republicans became skittish after a leaked White House memo suggested the administration may favor curbing the rate of growth in future retirement benefits.
Stabenow highlighted the memo as an added reason for Democratic concern about Bush's proposal.
The president, who has yet to unveil a detailed Social Security plan, was noncommittal about whether he favored cuts in future benefits in a USA Today interview on Friday.
When asked if people should expect some reduction in future guaranteed benefits as a necessity of overhauling the system, Bush responded, "No," without elaborating.
In 2018, Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, according to report from the Social Security trustees, which includes Treasury Secretary John Snow and other members of Bush's Cabinet.
The trustees project the fund will run out of cash in 2042, leading Bush to warn that Social Security is headed for "bankruptcy."
But Stabenow noted that a separate report by the Congressional Budget Office said the trust fund would not be exhausted until 2052 and could still pay "100 percent of its commitments" until then.

Courtesy of Reuters
US Agency Prepares to Sound Social Security Alarm
Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Social Security Administration is set to publicize its financial problems and promote partial privatization of the government pension system as part of a solution, despite the objections of many agency employees, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
Agency internal documents include a "tactical plan" for making the case that Social Security is in serious trouble and requires immediate action, the Times said on its Web site.
Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support the privatization agenda of President Bush, the newspaper reported.
But many employees at the Social Security Administration have complained to agency officials of being dragged into a battle over the program's future.
They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency and say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy, the Times said.
"Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda," said Dana Duggins, a vice president of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 50,000 of the agency's 64,000 workers and has opposed private accounts.
Deborah Fredericksen of Minneapolis, who has worked for the agency for 31 years, told the Times, "Many employees believe that the president and this agency are using scare tactics to promote private accounts."
'MORAL RESPONSIBILITY'
Bush insisted on Saturday that the retirement program was in peril and he had a moral responsibility to fix it.
"Saving Social Security is an economic challenge. But it is also a profound moral obligation," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
He urged quick action by Congress on his proposals to allow individual stock and bond accounts.
Democrats said Bush's plan to let workers shift some Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts would drive up government debt and replace a secure program with a risky one.
Social Security trustees warn the program will pay out more in benefits than it collects in revenue in 2018. By 2042, the trust fund will be exhausted and tax income will be sufficient to pay only 73 percent of scheduled benefits, they say.
Alarming comments by officials about the program heading for bankruptcy have prompted inquiries from the public to Social Security offices. Agency managers said they expect a torrent of phone calls after Bush's inaugural address on Thursday and his State of the Union speech two weeks later.
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said Bush's privatization plan, which is estimated to involve transition costs of $1 trillion to $2 trillion, would worsen deficits.
"Our nation already is staggering under the largest budget deficit in the history of the country," she said in the Democratic radio address. "Taking out even more debt could destabilize financial markets, drive up interest rates and stifle economic growth."
Unlike two other cases, the government is making its role clear in the Social Security debate.
Federal regulators this week said they have opened a probe into whether conservative commentator Armstrong Williams violated a ban on "payola" in promoting the Bush administration's education plan.
Williams has acknowledged that the Education Department's outside media firm paid $240,000 to a public relations company he owns to promote Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education act during a television show he owned and hosted.
Last May a congressional watchdog agency said government video news releases on a new Medicare drug benefit constituted improper use of funds for publicity and propaganda.

Phil's Observations
This story will continue for many years. Some of us already get it. Too bad it takes others longer to understand what the actual problem is and what the actual solution is. It wouldn't be so hard to change if people would stop feeling entitled to getting a Social Security check.

Prince Harry Slammed Over Nazi Outfit
Thursday, January 13, 2005

LONDON — Being the son of Princess Diana buys some sympathy, but not enough to get away with wearing a Nazi uniform.
So Prince Harry is learning, to immense royal embarrassment, after his party costume provoked outrage from Jewish groups and politicians.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center urged the wayward 20-year-old to go to Auschwitz to atone; the leader of the opposition Conservative Party demanded a public apology, and another lawmedition was hitting the streets with a big headline — HARRY THE NAZI — and a picture of the young royal wearing a swastika armband.
The picture was snapped by a guest at a costume party on Saturday, and apparently sold to The Sun. "It was a poor choice of costume and I apologize," Harry said in a statement issued through the office of his father, Prince Charles.
Prince William reportedly was costumed as a leopard and lion for the "native and colonial" theme party at the home of Richard Meade, who won three gold medals in equestrian events at the 1968 and 1972 Olympics. One unidentified woman in the photo was dressed as an American Indian, while another was attired as a European peasant. A man wore what appeared to be an Arab headdress.
"I think a lot of people will be disappointed to see that photograph and it will cause a lot of offense," said Michael Howard, leader of Britain's main opposition Conservative Party.
"I think it might be appropriate for him to tell us himself just how contrite he now is," added Howard, who is Jewish.
Prime Minister Tony Blair sidestepped the furor. "Prince Harry has made it clear that he is very sorry about it. The rest of it is best to leave Buckingham Palace to comment on," he told BBC radio.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles expressed outrage.
"We strongly urge Prince Harry to accompany the British delegation on Jan. 27 to the Auschwitz death camp to commemorate 60 years since liberation," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the center. "There he will see the results of the hated symbol he so foolishly and brazenly chose to wear."
However, a spokesman at Clarence House, Prince Charles' London residence, said sending Harry to the ceremonies at Auschwitz "is not something we would be considering."
"Basically we felt that the prince's apology last evening was very comprehensive and extensive," said a spokesman.
Doug Henderson, a legislator and former defense ministry official, said Harry was unfit to take his place at Sandhurst, the military academy.
But Janner said: "I would send him in the army as fast as possible. I hope that would teach him not to behave like that."
The action also upset many Israelis.
Vice Premier Shimon Peres called it "very bizarre."
"Well, the next time he will dress up and behave like a prince," Peres said.
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said: "The use of Nazi symbols is always intolerable ... especially now that we are marking the 60th anniversary of the release from the death camps."
The incident secured Harry's place as the current buffoon in the long-running royal soap opera.
In October, Harry got into a fist-fight with a photographer outside a nightclub. Before that, a former art teacher at Eton claimed she had helped Harry cheat on an exam — a charge rejected by a tribunal. And in 2002, Charles made Harry spend a day at a drug rehabilitation center after he was caught smoking marijuana and indulging in underage drinking.
Charles himself has served his time as most disgraceful royal; so has Harry's outspoken grandfather Prince Philip, his uncles Prince Andrew and Prince Edward and their wives, and his aunt, Princess Anne.
But none made the mistake of trampling on sensitivities about World War II and the Holocaust, still vivid issues in Britain even as audiences roar at dancing Nazis in Mel Brooks' musical version of "The Producers" in London's West End.
"This incident serves as another reminder, if one were needed, of the importance for Holocaust education, particularly amongst the young," said Stephen Smith, who heads the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which organizes British commemorations of the Jan. 27 anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps.
Harry's grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, will mark the day by holding a reception at St. James' Palace for death camp survivors and some of the British soldiers who liberated them.

If you haven't done so yet, be sure to check out Seth's blog.

His latest entry gives gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling - the side of Seth that he doesn't often share.

Flower Power
I had a mission to one of the water treatment plants in Baghdad today. While we were waiting around a bunch of kids swarmed us. I gave them water and candy and in return one of the little girls went and picked a flower for me (look at the picture below). I thought it was pretty cool so I am posting it.I like knowing that I am making a difference here. The difference may be small but I like to think that we need to help on a personal level instead of just sending a check to some relief organization. Just talking and interacting with the locals shows them that we are not monsters like some say we are. Sorry no rants :(. Later.

Mell wants end to family feud; Blagojevich 'worried' about father-in-law
By MAURA KELLY LANNANAssociated Press Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich's father-in-law, influential Chicago Alderman Richard Mell, said Tuesday he believes he was right to criticize the governor for closing a landfill run by a distant relative, but he said he wants the public feud to end for the sake of the family.
"This is something that is going to be put to rest today," an emotional Mell said, choking back tears. "What was done was regrettable, I think. I'm hoping that there's a possibility of repairing this."
Blagojevich would not say whether they can patch things up.
"I just don't want to get into private discussions in a public setting," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I care about my father-in-law. I'm worried about my father-in-law. This has been hard on all of us."
Blagojevich angrily rejected Mell's accusation that his office has appointed people to boards and commissions in exchange for campaign contributions. The governor called the claim "reckless and defamatory" and said his inspector general should look into the issue so it can be laid to rest.
Last week, Mell publicly accused Blagojevich of shutting down a landfill run by a distant relative to punish him for criticizing the governor in the past. Mell said Blagojevich was acting as a "white knight" trying to show he was "the champion of virtue."
"I think you all know that I'm not afraid of a fight," Mell said Tuesday during a news conference at City Hall. "I think you all realize that in fact that when I think I'm right, I will stand up for what I believe is right."
Blagojevich ordered the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Land Reclamation Services Inc. in Joliet after Frank Schmidt, a distant cousin of Blagojevich's wife, Patti, allegedly told customers he could evade permit requirements because of his family ties. The governor asked the IEPA to shut down the landfill after a two-week investigation found multiple violations there.
Mell is Patti Blagojevich's father and a Democratic political heavyweight credited with helping get his son-in-law elected governor.
"It has to end not for me, or not for Blagojevich. But it has to end for my wife and for the rest of my family. This is not something that can continue," Mell said.
"I sort of wear my heart on my sleeve sometimes and sort of say things that possibly, in hindsight, I shouldn't have said," Mell said. "Do I believe I was right? I certainly do. And I don't regret that."
Blagojevich would not explain why he is "worried" about Mell.
He called it "an occupational hazard" for governors to endure occasional clashes between family and work.
"From time to time in this job, you've got conflicts that develop where a private interest of a family member or a friend conflicts with the public interest. The trick is to never forget what your big public responsibilities are," Blagojevich said.
"I guess the old way of doing business would say, you look the other way, you pretend like it's not there," he added. "Or you see that there may be a problem and you act on behalf of the people. I chose that course."
One of Mell's accusations was that an influential private adviser to Blagojevich had arranged for government appointments in exchange for $50,000 campaign contributions.
Blagojevich dismissed the claim and said a review by his inspector general will reassure the public. "That's what we have an inspector general for, and she'll do her job," he said.
Mell said he hopes his family can "get beyond" what happened. He noted that Blagojevich's daughter Amy loves to fish but hasn't been to Mell's Lake Geneva home to fish for two years.
When asked if he would reach out to the governor, Mell said he did not know what would happen. He did not take further questions.
On Monday, a Cook County judge agreed to a deal that would allow Schmidt to reopen Land Reclamation Services Inc. on Jan. 17 if he comes into compliance. Earlier Monday, Blagojevich shut down another landfill and promised to be more aggressive to stop illegal dumping.

Couple: order sending boy back to birth mom is rife with mistakes

By RON WORDAssociated Press Writer

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) -- A couple who has cared for a 3-year-old boy since his birth said Tuesday that a court order requiring them to return the child to his biological mother in Illinois is filled with inaccuracies.
Dawn and Gene Scott are trying to block the order requiring them to surrender the boy, now known by his birth name Evan Johnson, to Amanda Hopkins, his biological mother. She is now married and lives with her husband and baby on a Navy base in Illinois. The boy is scheduled to permanently move Saturday.
"We are going to use every avenue we can," Dawn Scott said at a news conference Tuesday, pledging to fight to keep custody of the child. "This was an unnecessary move for this child."
A child advocacy group, "Hear My Voice," and the Scotts claim there are seven inaccuracies in state Circuit Judge Waddell Wallace's order granting custody to Hopkins.
The group claims the Scotts did not "expressly promise to return" Evan to the biological mother if the adoption failed.
They also claim Hopkins sought to keep her pregnancy secret from the boy's biological father, Stephen A. White Jr. The Scotts also said they have never attempted to thwart White's rights or prevent Hopkins from visiting Evan.
Hopkins and White never married, and she did not learn she was pregnant until she sought medical treatment for injuries suffered when she was assaulted in the residence they once shared, court documents show.
Hopkins supported the Scotts' adoption of Evan until it appeared the court might grant White's request for custody.
When Hopkins was pregnant with the boy, she met the Scotts and agreed to a private adoption. The Scotts watched Evan's birth in May 2001, and he was placed with the Scotts two days later.
The adoption was supposed to become final in August 2001, but a month before that, White filed a motion demanding immediate custody. The Scotts claimed White should not be able to block the adoption, but a judge disagreed.
Garrett Barket, an attorney representing White, the boy's biological father, said the judge acted appropriately in ordering the child to return to his biological mother.
"We feel they judge was correct in his findings of fact and his rulings of law," Barket said.
He said he wouldn't be surprised by another court filing by the Scotts.
Hopkins' attorney Elaine Lucas had no comment.
While giving Hopkins custody, Wallace ordered that White be given liberal visitation rights. The boy took a trip to his new home earlier this month before returning to his Atlantic Beach home before making the final move.
The Scotts have appealed a judge's ruling which removed their standing to challenge the boy's custody.
On Tuesday, their lawyer, Susan Pniewski said she is considering a federal lawsuit.
"The federal suit, if it comes to fruition, will allege a violation of the child's constitutional rights and also a violation of the Scott's constitutional rights." She could not say when the suit might be filed.

Phil's Observations
Man & Woman get pregnant. Man beats woman. Woman doesn't tell man she's pregnant with his child. Women gives up child in adoption. Man wants kid. Judge gives kid to mom. Kid is raised by loving couple for three years. Kid knows his adoptive parents as "mommy" and "daddy". What a frickin mess. Man should die. Woman should die. Kid should be raised by the only parents he knows ... you know, the ones that wanted him since birth.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. Not all adults are ready to be parents, at least responsible ones.

I am getting very tired of hearing about the airline industry and their financial problems (including the frickin bankruptcies).

Here are four examples:

Delta

American

United

US Air

Phil's Observations
At some point we're just gonna have to let the changes take place without the frickin government getting involved. United has been in bankruptcy for how long? How many times has US Air filed for bankruptcy? How many skirmishes with bankruptcy have American & Delta had? Come on, folks. If they can't be competitive in the marketplace, they don't belong in the marketplace.

I can understand the government offering financial assistance after 9/11. The industry suffered immensely. But that was 3 years ago. If they can't get back on their feet within 3 years, it's time for them to leave. Although, I must admit, I fly American and hope they don't leave ... I've got tons of AAdvantage miles to use up.

Everything runs in cycles. Let's stop interupting the cycle of the airline industry and let it take its course. If we have to lose US Air, United, Delta, and American, oh well, life will move forward. I want a full-service airline; I am not a big fan of the discounters. But if that is the way it's going to be, I'm not going to cry.

P.S. I've got Bronchitis and it sux.

AP Reports via FoxNews:

When people say the oppose the war in Iraq, are they really saying that they don't want to see a democratic governement there? The answer is simply "yes". The terrorists are doing everything they can to stop an election, constitution, and rights for individuals. Honestly, why the hell should we care why we went there in the first place? We're there now, why not finish the job? Democracy in Afganastan and Iraq can only mean good things to America and the world. The murder of local officials in Iraq should be our motivation to get the job done.

Not a whole heck of a lot to say about this one, either. Well, one thing. I sincerely doubt that politics had anything to do with it ... my ass. It had everything to do with it.

Heads Roll at CBS

CBS Report

P.S. My favorite part of the whole thing is when Rather was asking Marion Carr Knox, former secretary to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, "Even though the documents have come under criticism as not being authentic, you believe the documents actually reflect his feelings ..." Nice one Dan!

Here's another favorite:

"Those who have criticized aspects of our story have never criticized the heart of it, the major thrust of our report, that George Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, and once accepted, failed to satisfy the requirements of his service." Dan Rather, 60 Minutes II, September 15, 2004. Isn't the heart of the story the basis of the story, i.e. the frickin documents?

The Big 3 are losing their audience. I wonder why?

It speaks for itself.

I just ran accross this blog. I look forward to checking it out once-in-a-while. Contrary to what some of you may think, I look foward to learning about others' observations and having some good debate. While ideology may seperate liberals and conservatives, most topics (and some solutions) we agree on. You see, I am open to others' ideas! Remember, if no one pumps up my ego, I might as well!

Liberal Youth

Remember, life is dull if you don't take some risks. Life is also dull if you aren't enjoying it!

It was a nice and relatively quiet weekend for once. Well, I guess that isn't really the truth, but it's always best to think on the bright side. My house is usually full on the weekend with family visiting. The sad thing is that it's not usually just one or two. It's usually my mom, siblings, or nieces and nephews. The great thing about this weekend is that none of them wanted anything from me. Now that is relatively quiet for me. No one wanted to borrow any money. No one wanted to use my car. No one wanted to use anything of mine except the couch and the TV. Pretty pittiful, isn't it?

Hope ya'll have a great week. I'm off to play some pinochle.

Be sure to check out a link on AR's post about the Iraqi elections.
American Report

AP reports courtesy FoxNews :

Andrea Yates' Conviction Overturned
Thursday, January 06, 2005

HOUSTON — Andrea Yates' murder conviction for drowning her children in the bathtub was overturned by an appeals court Thursday because a psychiatrist for the prosecution gave erroneous testimony that suggested the Texas mother got the idea from an episode of "Law & Order."
The ruling means Yates is entitled to a new trial, though prosecutors said they would try to have the conviction reinstated.
Yates, 40, is more than two years into a life sentence after a trial that stirred national debate over mothers who kill, postpartum depression and the legal definition of insanity.
The appeals court ruling turned on the testimony of Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist who consulted for "Law & Order" and helped prosecutors land a conviction in 2002. Dietz testified at the trial that shortly before Yates' crime occurred, a "Law & Order" episode ran about a woman who drowned her children and was found innocent by reason of insanity.
But it turned out that no such "Law & Order" episode existed.
"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," a three-judge panel of the First Texas Court of Appeals said.
A receptionist at Dietz's Newport Beach, Calif., office said Thursday that neither Dietz nor his firm had an immediate comment on the ruling. In its ruling, the court noted Dietz "acknowledged that he had made an error in his testimony."
On June 20, 2001, Yates drowned her five children one by one, then called police to her Houston home and showed them the bodies of Noah, 7, John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and 6-month-old Mary.
Yates pleaded insanity, and according to testimony at the trial, she was overwhelmed by motherhood, considered herself a bad mother, suffered postpartum depression, had attempted suicide and had been hospitalized for depression.
Five mental health experts for the defense testified that she did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right.
Dietz, a nationally known authority who took part in the Jeffrey Dahmer and Unabomber cases, was the lone mental health expert to testify for the prosecution, and the only one to say she knew right from wrong. Ultimately, the jury rejected her claim of insanity.
"His testimony was critical to establish the state's case," the appeals court said. "Although the record does not show that Dr. Dietz intentionally lied in his testimony, his false testimony undoubtedly gave greater weight to his opinion."
In his testimony, Dietz said he consulted for the popular NBC series, and added: "As a matter of fact, there was a show of a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children in the bathtub and was found insane and it was aired shortly before the crime occurred."
Later, during closing arguments, a prosecutor referred to the Dietz testimony to suggest that Yates learned from the TV show a way to escape responsibility for her actions. The prosecutor told the jury: "She watches `Law & Order' regularly, she sees this program. There is a way out. She tells that to Dr. Dietz. A way out."
The error in Dietz's testimony became known to prosecutors and jurors before the sentencing phase in 2002. The defense asked for a mistrial because of it, but the judge refused. The jury ultimately spared her from the death penalty.
The appeals court absolved the prosecutors of any wrongdoing. And Joe Owmby, who prosecuted Yates, said Thursday that he had no reason to doubt Dietz at the time.
"We fully intend to pursue a motion for a rehearing," said Harris County Assistant District Attorney Alan Curry.
Yates was thrilled by the news after learning of the ruling at the psychiatric prison where she is serving her sentence.
"She smiled and said she was basically just kind of in shock," said Todd Foxworth, warden at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Skyview Unit, who delivered the news. "But she was very happy. Physically and mentally, she's doing as well as I've ever seen her."
Yates' husband, Russell Yates, said in a televised interview Thursday, "I'm happy, happy for Andrea."
"I think she needs to be in a state mental hospital until she's well," said Yates, who has filed for divorce. "Had she not been mentally ill, she never would've done what she did."
Defense attorney George Parnham said he had no plans to seek her release from the prison about 140 miles north of Houston, where she works in the flower garden and has janitorial duties.
"Andrea is where she needs to be right now, as far as security is concerned for her," he said. "The last thing Andrea needs, quite frankly from my perspective, is to walk from the TDCJ Skyview Unit into the public arena."
The Yates case, and others in Texas where the insanity defense was cited, have prompted Texas legislators to take another look at the state's insanity laws. The case also stirred debate over whether postpartum depression is properly recognized and taken seriously.

Phil's Observations
I don't know what to say. This is frickin rediculous. The damn woman killed her five kids, found guilty of only killing three of them. And now the conviction is overturned? What the hell kind of country do we live in? What the hell kind of judicial system do we have? Anyone who kills a person is insane. Duh!!! This whole insanity defense is way over used by lawyers. I think it shohuld be used for those with real mental handicaps. Those that don't know right from wrong or cannot grasp concepts. This frickin women knew exactly what she was doing. She had to fill the tub and kill each one of those kids one by one. If this isn't an example of a death penalty case, I don't know what is.