And so we come to the end of another year, another 365 days, another trip around the old sun, another journey around the life-giving orb, another sojourn around that gigantic ongoing nuclear explosion we call friendly old Sol. So much has changed, but so much has stayed the same. The same smiles, the same tears, the same smell of an unwashed hand, the same grudges, the same memories of glories gone by. 2006 passed by with many names: The year of the Wombat in Salamanca, Spain. The year of the Leeward Pomegranate in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The year of Lemon Rind Curd in Gloucester, Britain. The year of record stamp sales in Djibouti. The year of championship in Columbus. The year of ignimony in Truth or Consequences. We watched with popcorn together on television as armies clashed, we cheered together on television as people with strange names were hauled off to prison, we held our breaths together as Richard Johnson of Gaithersville put that last rubber band on his ball, we cried together as Richard Johnson’s sister snuck up from behind with a big pair of pruning shears. And who can forget the kangaroo with dinner slippers? But as we look forward to a new year with new eyes, new ears, new nostrils, new fingertips, new swaybar bushings and new shoelaces, we can only wonder at the possibilities. What will 2007 bring? Only time can tell. But this we know is true: the more things equivocate, the more things rotate. That, and some schmuck will waste another seven minutes of news time on the air this time next year with a stupid-ass retrospective written thirty days prior.

Excelsior. Good night.

In between helpings of mincemeat, here is a smattering of bumper stickers of various sorts:

Smack, smack. That last piece of pie is definitely spoken for.

One essential difference between progressives and non-progressives is that progressives don’t believe in the magical power of rituals of human sacrifice. Many non-progressives do.

Oh, non-progressives don’t say that they believe in the magical power of rituals of human sacrifice. They phrase it differently. They say that holding executions has a special power to make the world a better place.

The clear reality is that killing prisoners doesn’t make the world better. The prisoners are already held prisoner, after all, and are already rendered incapable of inflicting further harm on society. The crimes that the prisoners have been convicted for are already in the past, and can never be undone.

Yet, people who support the idea of the ritual of executing prisoners don’t seem concerned with the obvious lack of tangible benefits of the executions. They claim that there are extraordinary benefits from the rituals that are so unconnected with reality that they can only be explained as a kind of magic.

George W. Bush’s celebration of that the ritual killing of Saddam Hussein is a prime example. President Bush claims that hanging Saddam Hussein from a noose will transform Iraq into a secure, stable democracy, saying, “it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.” The reality is that hanging a person until dead has no power to make an undemocratic nation into a democratic one.

It is as if George W. Bush and other non-progressives like him believe that the psychological power of killing another person can magically be transformed into a tool for improving society. It is as if they believe that by taking away the life of one person, a government can add that person’s power to its own.

Progressives don’t believe in this kind of magic, and don’t support ritual human sacrifices. Progressives recognize the simple truth expressed by Sophy Haynes, mother of Schuyler Haynes, a soldier killed in Iraq. Commenting on the execution of Saddam Hussein, Sophy Haynes stated plainly, “It has no meaning. We went into a place that I don’t believe we had any business going into.”

Progressives don’t support using the power of government to conduct rituals of dark magic such as public executions. Progressives oppose human sacrifice to an invisible God of Justice. That’s reason number 91 to vote for a progressive President in 2008.

Mother Davis watches a suet feeder swinging below the branch of a dogwood tree as she comments,

One good New Year’s resolution for Americans for 2007 would be to learn to ask more questions about what we see in the news.

This morning, my thoughts are dominated by a simple question provoked by President George W. Bush’s comment celebrating the execution of Saddam Hussein by hanging from a noose until death. Bush said of the execution, “it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.”

My question is this: How does hanging Saddam Hussein help Iraq become a stable and sovereign democracy?

Watching a squirrel licking furiously at the congealed fat,
Mother Davis

It was a travesty, an outrage, a fiendish evil act when insurgents in Iraq broadcast video of their execution of a man by chopping off his head.

So what was it today, when the Iraqi government we put into power broadcast a video of Saddam Hussein being hung in a neck until dead?

ABC News started its story tonight with the lines, “This video image released by Iraqi state television shows Saddam Hussein’s guards wearing ski masks…”

What’s the lesson? Just so long as our puppet government does it, and just so long as there’s no chopping, it’s okay?

In February, Jim reacted to the outrage about Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed by drawing a cartoon of Mohammed of his own, showing Mohammed as a baby in a diaper. Jim’s point was that Muslims who got outraged about cartoons of Mohammed were treating their prophet like a little baby who needed to be coddled and protected from anything at all challenging that could make it cry.

Well, the reaction to that cartoon was very intense, with hundreds of commenters arguing back and forth. Last night, someone named Nijma came on and gave comment number 664, stating that religious moderates from all traditions, including moderate atheists, should speak up more, so that the radicals wouldn’t dominate the public image of religion so much. This comment left me wondering what it is about so-called religious moderates that makes them so silent. Are they really silent, or are there fewer of them than many people assume?

More superficially, the thought occurred to me that the article is just two comments away from having 666 comments. Wouldn’t it be great if, for just one or two days, the article could offend both fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians by having both a cartoon of Mohammed and the supposed number of the Beast, the Great Satan of the Christian tradition?

Oh, the blasphemy! Go on over and add your comment to double the outrage!

A popular song once had suggested poetically that “the ocean is a desert with its life underground and the perfect disguise above”. A non-profit organization makes the opposite suggestion, that the desert is an ocean. The Sagebrush Sea is not a body of water, but a high, arid expanse of plains sweeping through the American West between mountain ranges.

As the name suggests, the Sagebrush Sea is dominated by sagebrush, but it has a lot of other interesting inhabitants as well, such as western grouse, pronghorn antelope, and several species of prairie dog. Some people think of the areas as wastelands, but they are, in fact, biologically rich.

The sagebrush ecosystem is, unfortunately, threatened by mining, petroleum exploration, off-road vehicles that erode the fragile soils, invasive species, and agricultural development. The Sagebrush Sea Campaign is working to counter these threats, and has more information about what’s at stake. Check it out.

Promoters of religion as a necessary element of society are fond of contrasting the moral values promoted by religion and the knowledge promoted by science. The suggestion often made is that, because science is not a field that makes declarations about moral values, whereas religion is a field that concerns itself with moral values, scientists are less moral than religious professionals.

There’s an obvious flaw in that argument, for anyone who cares to think about it. The inherent assumption is that someone who does professional work in discussing moral issues will be more moral than someone who does not do such professional work. It is as if talking about morality makes a person more moral. That makes about as much sense as saying that people who talk about money for a living are the most wealthy people on Earth.

The reality is that religious professionals are capable of both moral behavior and immoral behavior. The same is true of scientists. Just because scientists are not in the business of making declarations about morality doesn’t mean that scientists are not moral people.

Let me give you an example of a group of scientists who are also a moral people: Albert B. Sabin, a medical doctor after whom the vaccination program of the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases, is named, said, “A scientist who is also a human being cannot rest while knowledge which might reduce suffering rests on the shelf.”

With that thought in mind, the scientists at the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases have dedicated themselves to the project of struggling against rampant diseases that ruin the lives of massive numbers of human beings. These diseases, as the name of the network suggests, don’t have the high profile of HIV or breast cancer, but they’re just as serious. The scientists at the network aren’t doing their work in order to gain prestige. They’re doing the work because it’s the right thing to do.

The Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases is motivated by plain human need, not by religious sentiments. It is, nonetheless, an organization with a high degree or moral motivation.

There is nothing about the nature of scientists and morality that bring them into opposition. Science as a field is value-neutral, but scientists as individuals are not by nature amoral or immoral. If they regarded honesty as a worthy moral value, religious leaders stop making statements to the contrary.

John Edwards, the poor dear. Yesterday was his special day, the day on which he announced he’d be running for president of the United States. But even on John Edwards’ very own special day, bumper stickers, buttons and shirts supporting his candidacy were eclipsed by items supporting Barack Obama.

Third in rank yesterday, by the way, was Dennis Kucinich. Not a soul bothered with Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton.

Here and in a Unity08 “shoutbox” forum, I have asked 12 questions about the financial transparency of Unity08. These regard discrepancies within and between the following:

1. 2nd and 3rd quarter reports to the IRS, which as mandated by law are to detail contributions and expenses.

2. Statements by Unity08 that it is dedicated to “the spirit of greater financial transparency, which is sorely lacking in politics today,” and also that “Transparency is essential to the public’s trust.”

3. A public commitment, not kept, by Unity08 to update its list on this website of all donors giving more than $200 to the organization, once a month. It is nearly three months since that list has been updated.

These are typical questions for any national political movement. They should be expected for any movement that aims to elect a president and a vice president to lead the country, especially when that organization derides secrecy in other parties and dedicates itself to financial transparency.

I have not received any substantive answers to the twelve questions as of this morning.

Early this morning, Anya T. Harris, a veteran marketing and business executive who is now working as Chief Operating Officer for Unity08, wrote the following comment:

All I can tell you is that we are working on reviewing everything to ensure accuracy in all that is reported to the IRS and on the web site. As you can imagine we are a small, streamlined organization with a big agenda to accomplish. I will repeat once again that we will report on the list of $200+ donors as soon as the reports are ready and complete. There’s no more I can say on this subject. The tone and repetition of your questions assumes there some mal-intent, which is frankly curious to us all.

Why dont you help us grow the movement with the same level of intensity? We would welcome your substantive help in growing the movement which is intended to transform a badly broken political system.

I’ve responded on the original thread regarding financial transparency itself. But my motives and character have been questioned. I think that’s a distraction to the problem of a lack of financial transparency, so I’ve set aside a new thread to keep the question of my intent from clouding the need for Unity08 to accurately report its finances as required by law.

Here is my response about the accusation of “mal-intent” and my intent:

1. It’s interesting that questions dedicated to correcting errors in Unity08’s operation, and to establishing the financial transparency Unity08 has already committed itself to, are received by the Unity08 leadership as “mal-intent.” Questions about financial transparency shouldn’t be perceived as “mal-intent” unless the answers to the questions about transparency shed a bad light on the organization. If the answers DON’T shed a bad light on the organization, then there should be no problem. If the answers DO shed a bad light on the organization, then it is even more important for the public to know those answers.

2. In case this accusation of “mal-intent” blossoms into full-fledged character assassination, let me over-anticipate. I am not now, nor have I ever been, either a member, an employee, or a beneficiary of any political party, including the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. I am not now, nor have I ever been, either a member, an employee, or a beneficiary of any 527 or PAC that might be a competitor to Unity08. I have no financial gain to make from Unity08’s demise. I am nobody’s shill. My name is James Matthew Cook. My address is 1287 Hunter Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201. I am married and I have two kids, two cats, and a dog. I have a mole just below my right nostril. My blood type is O negative.

3. I’d love for a viable political movement outside the political party structures to arise.

4. I will give all my support to such a viable political movement if it:
a) is not an elitist insider operation, but rather a “grassroots organization,” which Unity08
claimed to be in its press release announcing its formation
b) is transparent in its finances (as is required by law), allowing citizens to verify the sources
of funding and influence upon the organization’s leadership.
c) pursues the welfare of the people of the United States, rather than the
welfare of a subset of financial patrons, in its policy program.
d) supports the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms contained therein in its policy
program.

5. I will refrain from supporting a political movement if it:
a) is not a grassroots movement, but rather an elitist insider operation
b) is not transparent in its finances, preventing citizens from verifying the sources of funding and
influence upon the organization’s leadership.
c) pursues the welfare of a subset of financial patrons, rather than the welfare of the people of
the United States, in its policy program.
d) does not support the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms contained therein in its
policy program.

I have a number of questions regarding the insider versus grassroots and transparency versus opaqueness nature of the Unity08 organization. I have a set of questions about whether the organization is viable and therefore worth my time to support. These questions are regularly asked by donors to charities, and they are regularly asked by journalists of major political movements, one of which Unity08 openly aspires to become.

THAT is why I am asking those questions. And the more that Unity08 declines to answer these questions, the more loudly and repeatedly I will ask them.

So no, I don’t have “mal-intent.” I have a good intent. But I’m not loyal to Unity08. I’m loyal to people-centered politics, financial transparency, and the well-being of the country and its constitution. If Unity08 embraces those qualities [which it is not doing to date], I will fight tooth and nail for Unity08’s success. If Unity08 rejects those qualities [which it seems to be doing], I will do all I can to make the nature of that rejection clear to the public at large. And until the nature of Unity08 is clear, I will continue to ask questions to bring transparency to the matters at hand — a transparency that Unity08 has already committed itself to.

Maybe a green Christmas wasn’t enough of a reminder for you of the reality of global warming. If that’s the case, look further north, closer to the mythical homeland of Santa Claus.

Today, it’s being reported that the Ayles Ice Shelf has broken free from Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic. The ice shelf is big, 41 square miles in area.

Where will this big berg go? Not anywhere near human settlements, probably. Yet, as springtime melts more sea ice, the liberated ice shelf promises to pose a significant threat to vessels in Arctic shipping lanes.

The dynamics that have freed the Ayles Ice Shelf from its historic home are much larger than mere Ellesmere Island. The entire Arctic appears to be melting, and that regional crisis is part of a scientifically measured climate change that is already proving expensive in human terms. We’re losing money. We’re losing lives.

Terrorism is a pipsqueak next to this threat.

Wait, no, no, that isn’t right. Let me look at the email the John Edwards for President campaign sent me the other day. Oh, here it is. Yes, it was entitled, Tomorrow Begins Today!

In the email, sent on December 28, John Edwards declares “I’m writing to you from New Orleans, where tomorrow I will announce that I am a candidate for president of the United States.” Then, later in the same day, Edwards announced his candidacy.

So, it seems that what John Edwards meant to say was that Today Begins Today!, which is, perhaps, not quite so exciting.

Apparently, the Edwards for President campaign meant to send today’s email yesterday, but then, wasn’t the announcement that Edwards said would be made tomorrow today really made yesterday anyway?

Maybe the John Edwards campaign for President needs to give itself some more flexibility in timing. Perhaps it should have announced last week that this week is next week.

It’s now been 8 days since I posted a set of 11 questions to the Unity08 forum, the outfit backed by public relations executives that says it will nominate a Republican-Democratic ticket for the presidential election in 2008. I added another question a day later. Here is the complete set of 12 questions:

1. Unity08’s second quarter statement lists $18,700 (a significant portion of all donations) as having been made in the year 2002. Is this a typographical error? If it is not a typographical error, was Unity08 conceived in 2002? How does this mesh with the description of Unity08 in its May 30, 2006 press release as a “new grassroots organization” that has been “building for months,” not years?

2. The following donations are shown on the Unity08 webpage but do not appear in the 2nd or 3rd quarter IRS reports:

Thomas Beard Atlanta GA $1,000
Charles Buck Weston CT $200
Mark Cave Charlottesville VA $300
Ian Davis Chapel Hill NC $200
Thomas Delaney Saint Louis MO $200
Michael Ghiglione Spokane WA $200
Carol Guardo Fountain Hills AZ $200
Jim Jonas Denver CO $250
Hamilton Jordan Atlanta GA $5,000
Dorothy Jordan Atlanta GA $5,000
David Litt Columbus OH $500
Jack Lohman Colgate WI $200
Richard Mullen San Francisco CA $250
Sean Myers Coopersville MI $200
Dennis Nolan Anchorage AK $300
Dennis Nolan Anchorage AK $200
Joseph Parlante Bethesda MD $300
Malcolm Peabody Washington DC $250
Malcolm Philbrook Jr. Biddeford ME $200
Grant Reeder San Diego CA $200
Victoria Sant Washington DC $5,000
John Singleton Kingsport TN $200
James Stragand Bend OR $200
Lisa Sunderlin Troy MI $200
Glen Vanderhorn Brick NJ $200
Michael Wenzke Boston MA $200
Amos Wilder Chevy Chase MD $200
Julie Wright San Diego CA $1,000

What explains the discrepancy, and how is the discrepancy to be remedied?

3. On July 18, 2006, Founders Council Member Doug Bailey indicated of members of the Founders Council that “Some will have expenses reimbursed…. And a few will be providing their business services at standard rates.” Tom Collier of Steptoe and Johnson has provided legal services in his filings with the FEC, which resulted in Unity08 needing to be reclassified as a PAC, not a 527. But there is no indication in the 2nd quarter and 3rd quarter reports of any compensation or reimbursement of Collier or Steptoe and Johnson for their services. Were these services donated? If not, how much compensation or reimbursement is due?

4. The 2nd and 3rd Quarter IRS reports indicate that for over this six month period, Shane Kinkennon has been compensated $7,669.41. Is this a “standard rate” for professional public relations services? Has Mr. Kinkennon been further compensated for his work in this six-month period?

5. Has any group or person other than Unity08 compensated or reimbursed individuals for their Unity08-related work? If so, who and for how much?

6. Unity08 has commissioned a national poll with Princeton Survey Research. I cannot find any description of expenses associated with a national poll on either the 2nd quarter or 3rd quarter list of expenses. Did Unity08 pay for this poll? If so, could you clarify those expenses? If Unity08 did not pay for this poll, who did pay for the poll?

7. On October 11, Unity08 updated its financial disclosures on its website from July, when it had pledged to make disclosure updates every two weeks. As of October 11, Unity08 provided information on donations as of September 1, and pledged that “This list will be updated once a month in the spirit of greater financial transparency, which is sorely lacking in politics today.” The list has not been updated in more than two months. When will this list be updated next?

8. As of December 20, the Unity08.com website still refers to the Unity08 organization as a 527 organization, and still refers to its status as under review by the FEC. The FEC has ruled that Unity08 must classify as a PAC. There are no electronic filings with the FEC for Unity08 available for review on its website. Has Unity08 reregistered as a PAC? If so, when will piublic records for the PAC become available?

9. What is the total dollar amount of all donations — including those under $200 — received thus far by Unity08?

10. If Unity08 has a positive balance in its accounts, what is that balance? If Unity08 is in debt at this point, by how much? From whom is it obtaining loans, if it is in debt?

11. The Unity08 plan for early 2007 — that’s starting next month — reads as follows:

“In order for Unity08 to compete with a bipartisan Unity Ticket for the White House in 2008, it must be on the ballot in all 50 states. Each state has its own law, and the laws vary dramatically from state to state. But most require thousands of signatures on a petition.

Unity08 is readying its ground troops to begin securing ballot access early in 2007. We will start with only a handful of states first, recruit staff and volunteers, provide guidance and assistance, and provide tools. We’ll learn from what we do well in those states, and learn from our mistakes. And we’ll learn from what our online supporters tells us. Then we’ll incorporate those learnings into our efforts in the next state.”

What is the financial plan for Unity08 to accomplish the Unity08 political plan, given the current state of its finances?

12. Since writing the original eleven questions regarding the financial transparency to which Unity08 has committed itself, I’ve noticed another position — Anya Harris, Chief Operating Officer of Unity08. Yet there is no notice in the 2nd and 3rd quarter reports made to the IRS for Unity08 of Anya Harris (or any Chief Operating Officer) receiving compensation.

Has the Chief Operating Officer of Unity08 been compensated in any manner for her work, which includes hiring duties as well as website duties? If so, for what amount and out of what source of funds? If not, how has the Chief Operating Officer sustained herself during her period of volunteering for Unity08, and what is the source of that sustenance?

Today at noon, Anya T. Harris, Unity08’s Chief Operating Officer, gave a classic public relations nonanswer:

Jim,
Thank you for your continued interest in Unity08. We appreciate the focus that you give our movement. We are reviewing the IRS filings for accuracy and will be making amended updates as necessary. Once again, thanks for your continued interest in Unity08.

In other words, please shut up and go away. This is not the response of an organization comfortable with financial transparency. I can only guess why, but my guesses are rather colorful.

Regardless of the source of Unity08’s obstinacy, the public deserves answers to these questions for a few good reasons:

1. Unity08 itself writes that it is dedicated to “The spirit of greater financial transparency, which is sorely lacking in politics today,” and also that “Transparency is essential to the public’s trust.” Either this is a fib, in which case it is good for us to know that Unity08 actually despises financial transparency, or it was a heartfelt statement, in which case it is good for us to know that Unity08 is having trouble following through even on its sincere pledges.

2. Unity08 claims to be a “grassroots organization.” A grassroots organization is answerable to the grassroots.

3. The ability of an organization to get simple financial reporting done right is a useful gauge of the ability of an organization to run the first national online secure presidential and vice presidential nomination — which is what Unity08 tells us it will accomplish in a year’s time.

4. As a political movement with the goal of nominating a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate, Unity08 proposes to put itself in a position of some power. It is important for citizens to know from what sources this organization has been funded, and to whom this organization is indebted, in order to assess any possible avenues for the corruption of this organization.

At this point, I need your help, because Unity08 COO’s non-answer has made clear to me that Unity08 would rather not answer my questions. In order for the questions to be answered, therefore, they’ll have to become everybody’s questions. More people will have to ask these questions and request answers to them, in more public places.

So, if you have a blog, please post these questions on it — or your own questions in your own words.

If you don’t have a blog, please head over to the Unity08 forum where I asked these questions and give the forum a “thumbs up.” This keeps the forum, and its questions, on Unity08’s front page.

If you’re feeling really active, write a letter to the editor of USA Today, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Herald, or the Philadelphia Enquirer — all newspapers which have published glowing news reports about Unity08. Ask in your letter why Unity08 is keeping its finances decidedly nontransparent.

If we work together on this, maybe we can get some answers and have these mysteries all cleared up.

If we work together on this and still can’t get any answers, then that’s an indication of an untrustworthy political organization, unworthy of our support.

John Edwards announced his 2008 campaign for President today, and the timing has me wondering if former Senator Edwards really wants to be President of the United States. The Edwards for President announcement comes in one of the slowest news weeks of the entire year - the week between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, when most people are feeling too stuffed, or sleepy, or holly jolly, to pay much attention to the news. Any news that does get through to them will be obliterated by the New Year’s holiday. Perhaps the days after Election Day in 2006, when Tom Vilsack announced his candidacy, might have been worse, but this week certainly has got to be one of the times a candidate would choose for an announcement that he wanted almost no one to pay attention to.

So, why would John Edwards choose this week to make his announcement? One might say that he’s trying to get a piece of attention before the juggernauts of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama stomp all over the newspapers.

I’ve got another theory. I think that, like Tom Vilsack, John Edwards is running for the vice-presidential spot on the 2008 Democratic ticket. I think that John Edwards doesn’t expect to win the nomination, but he does expect to make a good enough showing to earn the support of the eventual presidential nominee. Becoming Vice President in 2008, he would be first in line for the Presidential nomination in 2016, and better qualified for the job, to boot.