Last week, we gave coverage to the unreported story of the malicious rumors against Barack Obama begun by faith healer Loren Davis.

The trouble in covering this story is that Loren Davis’s emails (there are now at least two different ones being sent around in circles of gullible Americans) are so rambling that it’s difficult to cover all of the distortions and outright lies told by Loren Davis.

Tonight, a reader named Franck Metellus left us with a copy of an email that he sent in response to a friend of his, named Ken, who forwarded the Loren Davis conspiracy theory email on to him. Franck’s email covers some of the bizarre territory that we have yet to explore in Loren Davis’s ideas about Obama.

The following is the text of the email written by Franck Metellus:

“A friend of mine sent me a copy of the Loren and Celest Davis attack on Obama. Here is my response to him.

Ken, Ken, Ken,

Where do you keep coming up with these bullshit emails? I hope you do not give something like this any credence. First of all, Just because you read something, does not mean that it is true. It does not mean that it is not true either. But before you take it as fact, it must be researched. Otherwise it is gossip and innuendo. Neither of which I give any credence to. If I make a decision it will be made based on RELIABLE FACTS AND DATA NOT HEARSAY, GOSSIP OR INUENDO. Do yourself a favor and do not pass on stuff like this because there is no substance to it. Check it out first. I would also encourage you to ask the person or persons who are sending you this junk to stop sending this junk out. It is not funny and it is not a joke. There are too many ignorant weak minded people who will jump on the band wagon just because they see something in print, when in reality there is no substance to it and is just meant to tear down a candidate who is running for office. Actually, I personally question the motives of people who send trash like this out. If they had any REAL issues with Obama based on his record or platform, then I am more than willing to listen to them, but this trash is just disgusting, divisive and does the Country no good.

Let’s analyze the BS email you sent me.

They know Obama’s family in Kenya and the family is responsible for the presidential election chaos in Kenya.

Just because they make the statement that they know the family does not make it true. Even if they did and what they say is true, what does that have to do with Barack Obama? This clearly is an attempt to smear Senator Obama with GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. I explained this to you last time that this is a LOGICAL FALLACY. When someone uses a logical fallacy the conclusion drawn is FALSE because they are using a faulty premise.

Let’s look at the facts from RELIABLE Sources. Below are quotes from CBS News and Wikipedia

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/08/politics/horserace/entry3687705.shtml

The Associated Press reports that Obama has spoken to Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga to “express grave concerns over the election’s outcome,” according to Odinga’s spokesperson, who added that the Democratic hopeful also plans to call Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki.

Obama, who has discussed the situation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has also recorded a message urging an end to the violence for broadcast on Voice of America radio.

Odinga and Kibaki are engaged in an electoral standoff that has sparked riots and inflamed tribal rivalries across a country seen as a strong U.S. ally and a rare example of a stable democracy in Africa. Violence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raila_Odinga

Raila Amolo Odinga (born January 7, 1945) is Kenyan politician, currently serving as the Prime Minister of Kenya under President Mwai Kibaki in a temporary coalition government. He has served as a Member of Parliament for Langata since 1992, was Minister of Energy from 2001 to 2002, and was Minister of Roads, Public Works and Housing from 2003 to 2005. He was the main opposition candidate in the disputed 2007 presidential election. Following a post-electoral crisis that resulted in the deaths of 1,500 people and the displacement of 600,000 more, Odinga took office as Prime Minister, at the head of a national unity government, in April 2008.

Odinga claims to be a cousin of American Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama through the latter’s father, Barack Obama Sr., who Odinga claims was his maternal uncle.[26] This claim has not been corroborated, but Obama Sr. did come from the same Luo tribe as Odinga.[26]

Now here is a direct quote from the BS email that you sent me, “As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America. ”

What makes the author of this shit SURE that Obama will loose, and if he does he will say that the election was rigged? Where are they getting their crystal ball??? I want one so I can put mine to more productive use and pick the winning lottery numbers for me. Secondarily their statement that he will possibly cause a race war in America is totally unfounded and just plain inflammatory. The statement is made just for effect with no logical basis or foundation. This again is designed to prey on the minds of the ignorant , the gullible, and the weak.

The author of the email also states, “What we would like you to know is that the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way.”

How stupid is this???? First of all if Obama was a Muslim, why was he baptized in a Christian Church??? Why does he attend Christian services???, Why was he married in a Christian Church??? Why were his children baptized and brought up as Christians??? Even if he was a Muslim…So What? There are many Muslims that are good Americans also. The author of the email attempts to paint all Muslims with a terrorist brush, which just is not correct. Here is his or her logic, The 911 terrorist were Muslims, They belong to the class of Muslims and they belong to the class of terrorist, Therefore all Muslims are terrorist.

Let’s play it a different way The KKK terrorist were White, They belong to the class of KKK terrorist and they belong to the class of White people. Therefore all White people are KKK terrorist. See, when I bring it closer to home you can clearly see the logical flaws in this persons thinking.

The second part of their statement is that Obama is a “racist”. Let’s see now, Obama ½ Black and ½ White. Which race is he against? Oh, I get it now, it must be Asians because he is not part Asian? What do you think? How ignorant a comment was that!”

I just can’t stand it any more. I’ve got to break my jaw-clenched, steaming mad silence, this pisses me off so much.

There’s this black angry preacher who a presidential candidate did not seek the endorsement of and did not receive the endorsement of, and did not invite to join his campaign in any capacity whatsoever. When the presidential candidate found out he said “God Damn America” more than a handful of years ago, the presidential candidate quickly and repeatedly denouced that position. When the black angry preacher decided to keep saying such things, the presidential candidate called a national news conference to reject, renounce, denounce and condemn the black angry preacher. The news media covers this prominently for months on end, and pundits decide that the existence of this black angry preacher may doom the presidential candidate’s campaign.

There’s this white angry preacher who another presidential candidate DID seek the endorsement of, and DID receive the endorsement of, and DID hug on stage at a political rally, and DID proclaim to be proud to have associated with the campaign and was “glad to have” him join the campaign. When this presidential candidate found out that the white angry preacher said “America is under the curse of God, even now,” the presidential candidate responded on national TV that “I’m glad to have his endorsement.” When the white angry preacher continued to say such things, political insiders accepted the presidential candidate’s non-rejection mutely. Hardly any media attention is given to this information, and this presidential candidate continues to sail on to the presidential nomination.

The next time you’re sitting with your friend Rachel and she asks you why those, those, you know, black people say there’s still racism in this country, remember this. Then slap Rachel on the head for me and tell her to get a clue.

I’m reading The Spiderwick Chronicles with my seven year-old son for a bedtime story. We’re on book two, in which the household brownie (a kind of domestic fairy) plays a prominent role.

The thing is, my son can’t remember that the name for the kind of fairy is brownie. So, he keeps on asking me questions about the book that begin with, “Remember when the muffin…”

One of our good readers, John Stracke, asked a great question this afternoon. I had written an article highlighting our first sale of the Zoroastrians for Obama bumper sticker. The point I was trying to make was that Barack Obama is the best presidential candidate in terms of respect for cultural pluralism, including people of different religions.

I mentioned Zoroastrianism, of course, and the Mormons, and Wiccans, and even seekers in general… but I didn’t mention the atheists. That’s an odd omission on my part, given that I’m a non-religious person myself.

Well, John asked why hadn’t mentioned any bumper sticker for Atheists for Obama. The truth is, it just slipped my mind.

Rest assured, we do indeed carry an atheists for Obama bumper sticker. We’ve got an atheists for Obama campaign button too, for that matter.

But, why would an atheist support Barack Obama instead of one of the other presidential candidates?

Well, why wouldn’t an atheist support Barack Obama?

Okay, that’s not a fair answer. Here’s one for you, then.

You can go ask the official Atheists for Obama group too, if you’re curious.

When we elect people to the United States Senate, we’re sending them to Washington to do something about the problems that face this country. To be sure, there are many different ideas about what the problems are that face this country and how those problems should be addressed, but it is the job of a U.S. Senator to do something on Capitol Hill, not just sit on his or her thumb.

There are different sorts of activities that Senators can carry out, including behind the scenes district work advocating for individual citizens in trouble and procedural leadership through party and committee. Today I’d like to focus on another sort of activity, one which isn’t dedicated to individual constituents or to helping the Senate as an institution. I’d like to focus on the writing of and support for laws that change our nation’s policies. Bills before the Senate have principal sponsors who are responsible for their introduction, and they also gain cosponsors, Senators who add momentum by formally signaling their support for a bill.

Here are the number of bills sponsored or cosponsored by members of the United States Senate (as of the morning of April 30, 2008) in the 110th Congress of 2007-2008:

Sponsorships and Cosponsorships by Senators, ordered from least to most activity:

Senator Richard Shelby: 22
Senator Mitch McConnell: 51
Senator Bob Corker: 62
Senator Robert Byrd: 63
Senator Judd Gregg: 65
Senator Robert Bennett: 67
Senator Jim DeMint: 78
Senator Christopher Bond: 84
Senator Jon Kyl: 88
Senator John McCain: 90
Senator Ben Nelson: 101
Senator John Warner: 101
Senator John Sununu: 103
Senator Jim Bunning: 107
Senator James Webb: 107
Senator Sam Brownback: 108
Senator Tom Coburn: 108
Senator Thomas Carper: 109
Senator Jeff Sessions: 113
Senator John Ensign: 116
Senator Lindsey Graham: 116
Senator Herb Kohl: 118
Senator Lamar Alexander: 119
Senator Richard Lugar: 120
Senator Mike Crapo: 122
Senator Harry Reid: 122
Senator Kent Conrad: 127
Senator John Thune: 127
Senator Wayne Allard: 128
Senator Michael Enzi: 129
Senator Orrin Hatch: 129
Senator George Voinovich: 131
Senator Pat Roberts: 133
Senator Charles Grassley: 134
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: 138
Senator Claire McCaskill: 140
Senator Richard Burr: 141
Senator Elizabeth Dole: 142
Senator James Inhofe: 142
Senator Lisa Murkowski: 142
Senator Jay Rockefeller: 146
Senator Evan Bayh: 149
Senator Mel Martinez: 151
Senator Max Baucus: 157
Senator Jon Tester: 163
Senator Larry Craig: 164
Senator Mark Pryor: 165
Senator Saxby Chambliss: 168
Senator David Vitter: 169
Senator John Cornyn: 170
Senator Jack Reed: 170
Senator Ted Stevens: 171
Senator Pete Domenici: 175
Senator Charles Hagel: 177
Senator Ron Wyden: 184
Senator Joseph Biden: 188
Senator Byron Dorgan: 188
Senator Thad Cochran: 190
Senator Bill Nelson: 190
Senator Amy Klobuchar: 199
Senator Daniel Akaka: 209
Senator Robert Casey: 209
Senator Daniel Inouye: 213
Senator Arlen Specter: 214
Senator Russell Feingold: 217
Senator Benjamin Cardin: 218
Senator Carl Levin: 223
Senator Blanche Lincoln: 225
Senator Johnny Isakson: 228
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: 238
Senator Patrick Leahy: 247
Senator Barbara Mikulski: 251
Senator Tom Harkin: 259
Senator Patty Murray: 261
Senator Ken Salazar: 263
Senator Mary Landrieu: 265
Senator Debbie Stabenow: 265
Senator Gordon Smith: 266
Senator Maria Cantwell: 288
Senator Christopher Dodd: 292
Senator Frank Lautenberg: 293
Senator Dianne Feinstein: 295
Senator Tim Johnson: 295
Senator Norm Coleman: 301
Senator Bernie Sanders: 302
Senator Joseph Lieberman: 305
Senator Jeff Bingaman: 308
Senator Susan Collins: 316
Senator Barack Obama: 323
Senator Robert Menendez: 331
Senator Edward Kennedy: 333
Senator Olympia Snowe: 364
Senator Charles Schumer: 374
Senator Barbara Boxer: 416
Senator Sherrod Brown: 424
Senator Richard Durbin: 432
Senator Hillary Clinton: 464
Senator John Kerry: 469

[Notes: Senator Trent Lott and Senator Craig Thomas are not listed because they have left the Senate by resignation and death, respectively. Their replacements are not included because their limited time in the Senate has restricted their potential for activity. These are the standard Senate bills that begin S.___, not resolutions declaring the “Sense of the Senate” but lacking the force of enforceable law.]

74.5% of Democratic Senators are located in the top half of the activity rankings, and 76.6% of Republican Senators are located in the bottom half of the activity rankings. Of the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the most active in sponsorship and cosponsorship activity, with Barack Obama not far behind and also in the list of the ten most active Senators. What about John McCain? He hasn’t mustered a mere fifth of the activity of Hillary Clinton. It not just that he’s missing votes, even with no primary opponent left in the presidential race. He’s not working on or advocating legislation, either. John McCain is one of Washington, DC’s least active Senators.

In an unmistakable signal of the tone her presidency would take, Hillary Clinton has agreed to appear on The O’Reilly Factor tonight, on right wing cable network Fox News. Hillary Clinton is demonstrating that she embraces the most extreme elements of the Republican smear machine.

It’s true that Barack Obama appeared on Fox News a few days ago, but that was on Fox News Sunday, a show that at least attempts to appear to be journalistic and objective. The O’Reilly Factor is a show purely of right wing opinion. The O’Reilly Factor is the worst of right wing extremism that Fox News has to offer.

I think that it was unwise for Barack Obama to go on Fox News Sunday, but it’s an entirely different matter for Hillary Clinton to go make friendly with Bill O’Reilly.

Clinton’s coming handshake with Bill O’Reilly comes as a particular insult to progressive Democrats, whom she snubbed by voting for the war in Iraq. Since that time, Hillary Clinton has not entered into serious dialogue with the antiwar majority within the Democratic Party. Yet here she is today, reaching out to Bill O’Reilly.

If Hillary Clinton had tried to reach out to people in her own political party in the way she has reached out to Republicans, she would not have gone from apparent inevitability to desperately fighting to remain in the Democratic presidential race a year later.

I’d like to see Hillary Clinton go on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, or on the Bill Moyers Journal. It’s not going to happen. Hillary Clinton has always believed that she doesn’t need to show respect to the progressive base of the Democratic Party, because we’ll just follow along like good little dogs once she makes a show of power.

This morning, I am not feeling like a good little dog.

Mother Davis looks at a crowd of people buying winter clothes, then turns to say,

I thought I had reached my limit of exasperation when it came to what people consider to be news. Then I looked over at Google News this morning and saw that, for about the third day in a row, the former preacher at the church that Barack Obama attends is the top story. Why? Because over the weekend, Jeremiah Wright said exactly the same sort of things that he has said in the past. Barack Obama also has said the same sort of things this week that he has said in the past. Obama says that he rejects Jeremiah Wright’s ideas.

This Jeremiah Wright story, essentially unchanging, has been reported as a top story by mainstream news organizations for two months without letup. Yet, as Jim has ably documented, most American newspapers have completely failed to report that the President of the United States has admitted that he approved of a Cabinet-level conspiracy to torture, devised and set into motion before Abu Ghraib. The New York Times, which loves to think of itself as the nation’s paper of record, did not bother to report the story until eight days after it initially broke.

Yet, all of these newspapers have printed the same unchanging story about Jeremiah Wright, who is not the President and has not broken the law, but expressed opinions some people don’t like, over and over again for two months.

It’s not a problem that’s isolated to Jeremiah Wright and Bush’s torture. In an article last night, Jim explained a similar problem with inflatable pigs and a bill to enable wealthy Americans who don’t work to live off the labor of others completely tax free.

What brings these superficial stories to the top of the news, while truly important stories, like the President coordinating war crimes, or Republican members of Congress trying to abolish taxes on the most wealthy Americans, go almost uncovered at all?

Looking at the Jeremiah Wright story’s place on the top of Google News, I realize that the American news establishment is not the only one to blame. Yes, the quality of America’s journalistic institutions has become alarmingly degraded. However, those institutions have become driven by marketing concerns, considering mostly not the news that’s fit to print, but the news that people will buy.

What that means is that the superficial stories of inflatable pigs and Jeremiah Wright in part do well because that’s what Americans want to read about. Americans don’t want to read that their President approved the program of torture that led to Abu Ghraib, so newspapers don’t write about it. Americans don’t want to read about congressional legislation, even if it means that working Americans pay all the taxes, while heirs to wealthy estates who don’t work at all pay no taxes on their income.

Americans’ democratic thermostats have gone haywire. While the Constitution is being made irrelevant, we’re all listening to the same sermon in somebody else’s church over and over again. While the people we’ve elected to Congress are working to make an American wealthy aristocracy on the backs of working people, we’re watching inflatable pigs float away in the sky.

Putting away her winter coat,
Mother Davis

As of right now, there are 504 distinct reports in the news media concerning the loss of an inflatable pig over the California desert.

As of right now, there are absolutely no reports in the news media regarding H.R. 5908, a bill which is upfront about its purpose: to “provide a permanent zero percent capital gains rate for individuals and corporations.”

There are two ways to make money in America. One way to make money is to do work (whether for yourself or for an employer) and to be compensated for that work. The other way to make money is to take money you already have, let someone else do work with it, drink a pina colada on the deck, and take a cut when that other person is finished with their work. The former is the way that the vast majority of Americans gain the vast majority of their income. The latter is the way that the very, very, very small number of very, very, very rich in America stay very, very, very rich and get ever richer.

H.R. 5908, the bill put before the House by Republican congressman Wally Herger last week (and cosponsored by a cabal of fatcat Republicans), would alter the American tax code. Under Herger’s Republican plan, the income made by the vast majority of Americans who work for it would continue to be taxed. But the huge piles of investment income raked in by the tiny number of ultra-rich Americans would not be taxed at all.

Think about what kind of moral values Wally Herger’s bill promotes — the lassitude of the rich. Oh, I know, there are some people out there who are going to argue that we need to give incentives to people so they’ll try to become rich… because golly, Americans just have no desire to become billionaires, right? No incentive is needed to prod this society into dreaming big. That claim like is putting lipstick on a pig: even if you can inflate it, we’re still talking about a pig here. Wally Herger’s bill promotes the piggery of a very small number who would drown in their own swill had they not thought of asking their butlers to bring their water wings down to the slop feast.

There’s a word for a country that is dominated by a small number of people who don’t have to work for their living, who make money off of having money, who have the privilege of access to the halls of power, who reap great benefit from government services and infrastructure but who don’t have to pay a dime of income tax to keep it going. The word is aristocracy.

Wally Herger and his Republican colleagues in the Congress want to turn this country into an aristocracy.

The media is too busy looking for inflatable pigs to notice.

Here’s a little reminder for those Americans who are getting stuck on all the political pseudoscandals designed to divide us with the idea that only a few elite kinds of people are suited to lead us with the presidency. The USA is a lot more diverse than a lot of people understand.

Take Zoroastrians, for example. Zoroastrians are living here, in the United States, as full citizens with rights and contributions to make to our nation. Yet, whenever we hear about the important role of “faith” in the 2008 presidential election, we always hear about Christianity and the Christian Bible and Christian churches.

That singular portrayal of Christianity as The American Religion is outdated, and disrespectful to Non-Christian Americans. So, we’ve created a series of political bumper stickers for people of non-Christian identity, in order to enable them to assert their cultural identities at the same time as they promote the presidential candidate of their choice.

So, I’m happy to report that this morning, we sold our first Zoroastrians for Obama bumper sticker. It will soon be sent off on its way.

Psst… Christians… Don’t feel snubbed. We have a Christians for Obama bumper sticker for sale too…

…and Wiccans for Obama… and Seekers for Obama… and Mormons for Obama…

… we can all share the American national identity, unless we make it a small thing.

Oh, how the Library of Congress gets under my skin! The Library of Congress is supposed to be the library of libraries. It’s bigger in scope and size than the famed ancient library of Alexandria. Goodness me, but it’s also a rat’s nest.

The people working at the Library of Congress are the most powerful librarians the world has ever known, but they’re supposed to be working in the service of the American people. To that end, dealing with the amount of important material they do, with its importance to the democracy functioning of the nation, you’d think that the Library of Congress would have the most up-to-date system for providing people with information about the mountain of documentation of government activity going on in Washington, D.C.

They don’t. I don’t want to fault individuals working at the Library of Congress for this, as I can’t really say who would legitimately bear that fault. However, as an institution, the Library of Congress has a lot of catching up to do.

A couple of weeks ago, I urged people to give a call to their members of Congress in support of H.R. 21, a piece of legislation commonly referred to as Oceans 21, but with the full name of the Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act. The proposed law would:

- Establish a national oceans policy
- Strengthen the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to assess and address the marine ecological crisis
- Establish a national oceans advisor and committee on ocean policy to work on solutions
- Facilitate regional coordination for a cooperative approach for ocean policy
- Establish an Oceans and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund

This kind of action is exceptionally important right now, because the seas around the United States, and around the entire world for that matter, are undergoing an extreme ecological crisis that threatens to create a significant biological collapse within the oceans. It’s one of the most under-reported stories of our times, because we don’t often think of what’s underneath the surface of the oceans, but the ecological troubles in our oceans have already created astonishing economic losses, and it’s getting worse year by year.

Just think of what it has meant for the salmon runs on the Pacific Coast to be reduced to near-nothing this year. That’s just one aspect of the rapid marine biological deterioration that is taking place, and the way it is affecting us land-loving humans.

There’s good news on the progress of Oceans 21. Last Wednesday, the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee On Fisheries, Wildlife And Oceans voted to move Oceans 21 forward in the next step toward a full vote by the House of Representatives. The Library of Congress provides this information about the vote in the SubCommittee: “Forwarded to Full Committee, as amended, by a roll call vote of 11 yeas and 3 nays.”

That’s good information to have, but it’s really not complete. Who are the 3 members of Congress who care so little for the oceans that the would actually vote against allowing Oceans 21 to be considered for passage by the House of Representatives?

The Library of Congress didn’t have this information - not even when I called them to ask for the records of the vote directly. The web site of the Subcommittee didn’t have the information either, only saying that three member had, in a roll call vote, tried to block the Oceans 21 legislation. I had to make a telephone call to the Subcommittee itself, and ask some very nice aides there for the information.

I’m glad that the House Subcommittee On Fisheries, Wildlife And Oceans has such friendly, helpful people working there. However, in this day and age, a person should not be required to call to request such information as the identity of members of Congress who vote for or against particular legislation in committee. That information should automatically be made part of the public record, and should be made available to the public through online databases quickly and easily.

It’s not just because I care about this one issue of marine ecology that I would like the Library of Congress to make public information public. It’s because I care about the health of American democracy as well. A democracy will continue to be strong only when citizens are able to obtain the information they need to be informed and active on issues that they care about.

This is a congressional issue, because the Library of Congress is administered and funded by Congress. The Democratic leadership of Congress ought to be considering an upgrade to the Library of Congress and its relationship to Congress itself, making all information about congressional activities, not just on the floors of the House and Senate, but in committees as well, available to the public in a timely manner.

Back to the particular matter at hand: Who are the three members of Congress who voted to block the Oceans 21 law from being considered by the House Committee On Natural Resources, and by the full House of Representatives?

They were all Republicans:
Henry Brown of South Carolina
Bill Sali of Idaho
Rob Wittman of Virginia

Bill Sali’s district is landlocked. The congressional districts Henry Brown and Rob Wittman represent, however, are on the water - Rob Wittman’s on the Chesapeake Bay, and Henry Brown’s stretching from Myrtle Beach to Charleston. They ought to know better. They have voted against their constituents’ interests. Those people who live near the ocean know how essential it is to their well-being.

These three members of Congress have acted to neglect our oceans in a time of great need. Call them, and tell them what you think of their opposition to Oceans 21.

Henry Brown: (202) 225-3176
Rob Wittman: (202) 225-4261
Bill Sali: (202) 225-6611

As you may know, we’ve had a system for rating members of the House and Senate for a few years now, with information on votes and cosponsorships that are important from a progressive perspective.

We’re planning an upgrade of our congressional database system in the near future, and we have some nifty plans for the kind of information we’re going to make available. But I thought it would also be a good idea to ask you what sort of information you’d like to see, or what you’d like to be able to do with it.

If you have any ideas, I’m all ears.

This Saturday, Guam will be voting to determine which Democratic presidential candidate gets the most of its eight delegates (each of those eight delegates get a half vote). This election in Guam is an important story, especially since those 4 complete votes could make the difference in the 2008 Democratic race, and so in the general presidential election as well. Don’t think for a second that Guam doesn’t count.

Oh, but as far as big news factories like CNN are concerned, Guam doesn’t count. Go look on CNN’s election center, and you’ll see that Guam isn’t even on their list of primary elections. It’s as if Guam doesn’t exist.

Sadly, that’s not the only story about Guam that might as well not exist, if you’re just paying attention to the big mainstream news resources.

Have you heard, for instance, that the Pentagon has decided that it will escalate the American military presence on Guam - in defiance of opposition from the Chamorro people, the native inhabitants of Guam? They’re organizing with groups such as the International Peoples’ Coalition against Military Pollution out of concern that the heightened American military presence on Guam will bring ecological disaster.

Have you heard about how the Chamorro people have been sending delegations to the United Nations for three generations now, seeking decolonization? They want sovereignty, not to be an American colony anymore, and they compare the American colonization of Guam with the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

I’m not sure if that’s an apt comparison, but then again, I live in the colonizing country, not the country that’s been colonized.

If the United States of America is going to claim ownership of territories like Guam, the least we could do is pay attention to what the people in the places want - both as American citizens, and possibly as citizens of sovereign nations.

What is wrong with our nation?

You’ll have to forgive me for sharing some late-breaking news. I say “late-breaking” not because the hour in the day is late, but because the news itself occurred last week: White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino has flatly denied that the Bush administration has inflicted or been a party to the infliction of torture:

Hearst Newspapers Reporter Helen Thomas: The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?

White House Spokeswoman Perino: Helen, you’re taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hill fully in this regard, and it is — I’ll leave it where it is. The President is accurate in saying what he said.

Thomas: That’s not my question. My question is, why did he state publicly, we do not torture –

Perino: Because we do not.

Thomas: — when he really did know that we do?

Perino: No, that’s what I mean, Helen. We’ve talked about the legal authorities –

Thomas: Are you saying that we did not?

Perino: I am saying we did not, yes.

Thomas: How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it?

Perino: Helen, I think that you’re — again, I think you’re conflating some issues and you’re misconstruing what the President said.

Thomas: I’m asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration.

Perino: And what I’m telling you is we have — torture has not occurred. And you can go back through all the public record. Just make sure — I would just respectfully ask you not to misconstrue what the President said.

Thomas: You’re denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured?

Perino: Yes, I am denying that.

I’m late in reporting this news to you because I’m late in discovering it. And why is that? Because not one newspaper in the entire nation — not one! — has published this information for its readers since the conversation took place in the White House press room five days ago. The only mainstream news source to report on the exchange has been an online-only blog of the Kansas City Star.

I just don’t get it. Why the news blackout on this stark denial by the White House? This is a gift to the news media: a story wrapped up and tied with a bow. See, this is how the story and the follow-up reporting goes:

First, report Perino’s remarks as a “repeated denial.”

Second, report the story (which your newspaper most likely still hasn’t covered) about how this month George W. Bush confessed not only that he was aware that his senior cabinet members met on a regular basis to approve the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques, but also that, in his words, “I Approved.”

Third, note that as recently as last month, the Bush administration has issued memos in which it offers such bon mots as these:

At the same time, some prohibitions under Common Article 3, such as the prohibition on
“outrages upon personal dignity,” do invite the consideration of the circumstances surrounding
the action… the fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation and abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act.

Fourth, note that the emergence of information regarding CIA tapes of waterboarding have confirmed that the torture techniques approved by George W. Bush and senior cabinet officials were indeed carried out.

Fifth, for a little intermission bring in Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s testimony that waterboarding is torture if it is done to him, but not if it is done to somebody else.

Sixth, bring in a legal scholar to discuss the variety of bases for classifying torture as an illegal act, including international treaties with the force of law, constitutional standards prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, and federal law itself. Talk about the definition of torture under federal law to include the threat of imminent death, which is exactly what waterboarding is designed to produce. Note the existence of the federal crime of conspiracy to commit torture, which makes each Bush administration meeting to approve of waterboarding a felony punishable by up to twenty years in prison.

Seventh, interview Congressional leaders and local Congressional representatives about their reaction to the news. Read them the law and ask them what they plan to do about it.

Eighth, contact the presidential campaigns and ask for statements reacting to the news that George W. Bush approved of torture and that his spokeswoman denies repeatedly that the torture ever took place.

This isn’t Woodward and Bernstein difficulty in reporting we’re talking about here. The pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are right there in place. Why won’t our national media, which spent a year micro-reporting the consequences of an Oval Office blow job, cover this story in the manner that emergence of an American government torture bureaucracy merits? Why won’t our national media cover this story at all? Why? Why?

America is in the 5th year of a failed and bloody war that we never needed to start in the first place. Our economy is running into the ditch as people are kicked out of their homes and jobs at a record-breaking pace. The climate is careening out control, causing wildfires, drought, and even agricultural mayhem across the United States.

What’s Republican Congressman Paul Broun doing about the problem? He’s creating legislation to make it illegal for American soldiers to buy issues of Playboy Magazine.

The fighting in Iraq has taken young American soldiers away from their girlfriends and wives, exposing them to violent attack at any moment, putting them under extraordinary pressures that are causing them many of their psyches to crack. They’re in a country where there’s no opportunity for them form relationships with local women.

So, with their active hormones surging and yet denied, and their lives at risk every day, some soldiers find a small amount of pleasure in looking at images of beautiful women. Congressman Paul Broun isn’t coming up with any solutions to soldiers’ problems, but he is taking the time to remove this simple source of comfort from soldiers lives.

His proposed law is H.R.5821, called the Military Honor and Decency Act.

Decency? It’s Paul Broun’s legislation to deny a even little pleasure to American soldiers that’s indecent.

If you really support the troops, don’t cut them off from the small things that keep them sane.