Analysis of DCCC Ad--Mark Kirk's Votes against Veterans

Sorry it took so long. I've been really busy.

Roll Call 149 for the 109th Congress was a vote for H CON RES 95 On Agreeing to the Conference Report that is supposed to help the House and Senate come to an agreement regarding the FY 2006 budget. The budget showed that republican priorities were wrong. It spent a bundle on the war and keeping the tax cuts for Paris Hilton to get new hair extensions while providing too little for health care for veterans. It was also dishonest as it attempted to hide the deficits it created. Basically, it embodied the tax and keep for ourselves and our rich friends philosophy of republican economics.

Roll Call 554 from the 108th Congress was a vote on the Stupak Amendment to H. R. 3289 (start here to look for it) which failed in a tie and was for a "$1,500 bonus to members of the armed forces who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan in fiscal year 2004." H.R. 3289 was yet another disasterous republican war spending measure that the Democrats worked to soften up with amendments that failed because no republican would break from party to help out veterans and make sure the troops had adequate body armor and drinking water. It was the consequence of Bush's strategy of failing to get broad support in Europe for the war and was the first inkling we got that the whole sales pitch them made that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war was a big lie.

Roll call 82 from the 108th Congress was the vote to pass the resolution, another Concurrent Resolution for another H. Con. Res. 95, related to the budget for FY 2004. This one also passed narrowly in the republican controlled congress, so Kirk's vote would have mattered if his country mattered more to him than his party. Here is what Congresswoman Betty McCollum had to say about that vote:

Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution, March 2003: Republicans voted for a budget that called for cutting $14 billion from veterans' benefits, including veterans' pension, compensation, education and other benefits, over 10 years. Furthermore, the GOP budget called for an additional $14 billion in cuts in veterans' health care over 10 years. Furthermore, the GOP budget included the President's proposal to impose a $250 fee for enrollment in VA health care for category 7 and 8 veterans, along with a doubling of the drug co-payment for those veterans. [H. Con. Res. 95, Vote #82, 3/21/03. Adopted 215-212 (R 214-12; D 1-199)]

DCCC Ad

Thanks to a commenter who drew my attention to this ad by DCCC:

Kirk-Style Inhumane Trade

As chronicled before on this blog, Mark Kirk led the US-China Working Group with the attitude that nothing mattered except intellectual property compliance, China needed to improve compliance with copyright and patent laws to earn trade status with the US and that was that. Everything else was A-OK.

Problem is that China has lots of other manufacturing problems. They treat their workers terribly, but Kirk didn't care about that. Then, word of other problems started to slip out. Some Chinese manufacturers seem to have a little tendency to put poisonous substances in their products. First, it was pet food and some cats and dogs died. Then, it was found in livestock and farmed fish feed, but we were told it wouldn't kill us at least in the short term.

Then, as things like this tend to go, now we find out that there are problems with toothpaste. At first, they told us that the tainted toothpaste never made it into the US, but it killed a bunch of kids in Panama. Now, we find out the toothpaste did make it into the US, in discount stores and now we find it has been found in several US institutional settings, prisons and mental hospitals (Ohmygosh, although she looked just fine plastered all over the news over the last couple of days, poor Paris might have gotten ahold of bad toothpaste and that should make it a story!).

I don't bring this up to attack the Chinese people (or Paris) in any way. They (Chinese workers, not necessarily Paris) need our compassion more than anything else as China shows the world that governments and corporations can couple dictatorship with capitalism easily enough and that this new viruluent form of capitalism, devoid of health and safety regulation (the kind Bush and Cheney and Kirk want to bring here to the US), is dangerous.

Again, Kirk has his priorities all wrong. As an order of first business, we need to be concerned with health and safety of products from China and the health and safety of the Chinese workers who make the products and if we can get past these problems, then we can address issues with patents and copyrights. The only part on this topic with which I agree with Kirk is his wish to have more American kids learn the Chinese language in school. That is a good idea so they can learn how to say things like "Please don't put poison in the products you sell to us!"

Kirk has done nothing and said nothing that I have seen (and I've looked) to change the focus from his original inhumane position and again shows that he cares more about business than people in the extreme. He should not have our trust to work for us in Congress anymore. If you ever eat or brush your teeth, you should vote him out in 2008.

Mark Kirk Supports Torture School

There was a vote to de-fund the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) FNA the School of the Americas, infamous for being the go-to place for teaching human rights abuses despite the name change.

See the votes on Prarie State Blue. Kirk voted to continue funding the School of the Americas.

It's expensive too: "The Center for International Policy has estimated that the current annual cost of keeping WHINSEC’s doors open is $7.5 million, much of which is funded by U.S. tax dollars. "

Me, I'd rather have a bridge to nowhere.

Memory Jog on What Cheney is Hiding

So what is all this nonsense about Cheney's branch really about? It's been in the media, but has faded under the weight of the critical Paris Hilton story.

You might remember that the issue started when the The Information Security Oversight Office asked Gonzales to resolve a dispute it was having with Cheney's office. ISOO complained that since 2003, the VP failed to comply with Executive Order 12958 as amended by Executive order 13292, which by it's own language is supposed to "prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information." Specifically, Cheney's office failed to give ISOO data on classified and declassified information. His office also blocked required audits.

Additionally, the VP is subject to federal regulations regarding security under 32 CFR 2800 which point to ISOO Directive 1 that requires: "Each agency that creates or handles classified information shall report annually to the Director of ISOO statistics related to its security classification program." In an amendment to 12958, Executive Order 13292 (section 6.1(b)) defines an "agency" to be a statutorily-defined executive branch agency and "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information".

The issues at the time of the amendment to 12958 were automatic declassification and reclassification. The purported administration goal being "to maintain the appropriate balance between openness and national security."

Here is a little description of what ISOO does.

Shockingly (uh, right), the Justice Department has failed to rule on the ISOO's request.

I won't take credit for figuring this one out as many others have said so before me, but I'll reiterate: Funny how Cheney's determination that he need not comply with the EO and regulation requiring ISOO disclosure happened around the same time of the amendment to 12958 and around the same time he authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's job description. Not only did they out a CIA agent working on the issue of WMD in Iraq (an issue they claimed was important) without a moments care or worry, they've now created a constitutional crisis to help hide it. When will the American people decide they have had enough of the Cheney administration?

The Answer to No Branch Land is in the Constitution

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand...not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people....~~ James Madison, Federalist No. 37

Now Bush and Cheney are basically telling us that they comprise an extra-Constitutional branch of government accountable to no one. Specifically, Cheney says he's in both the executive and legislative branches and therefore in neither and Bush says it would be too awkward for him to have to obey the rules of his own branch. Surely the founders would not have wanted a President to feel awkward, would they have? Maybe they weren't so worried about that. A word search of the Constitution online fails to turn up the word "awkward"?

The goverment thinks the President and Vice President are in the executive branch, at least that's what they told the webmaster over at usa.gov probably long before the facts leading to the current controversy became known. (I wonder how long it will take them to "re-educate" him, so here's the screen shot.) The 219 year old traditional school of thought is that the office of Vice President is created in Article II and that puts him squarely in the executive branch. Article I gives him some duties in the Senate. A 6 year old $300 tax cut and a failed war without end is supposed to make Americans buy into this new scheme.

Rahm Emanuel's clever idea is to take Cheney out of the executive branch budget. While amusing and likely to capture the imagination of what is left of our media, there is a real constitutional remedy for what Bush and Cheney are doing to our government and a word search of the Constitution online will lead you to it, six times. It's called impeachment. It's not clever or amusing and some are afraid it will hurt their election chances if they utter the word, but it is how our government is supposed to work. If the President, Vice President or a civil officers of our government gets involved in "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors (the usual meaning being abuse of power), they are to be removed from office by impeachment. It's part of the system of checks and balances set up by our founders. Not using the intended remedy when it applies weakens the checks and balances of our government, but that is what Bush and Cheney are going for, so they put out the word that it will hurt the country and claim that as some sort of wisdom. I'll bet our founders thought the checks and balances and the remedy of impeachment would hold their hard earned government in place because they never imagined the American people would so easily buy into the twisted logic of wanna be Kings after all they had been through to earn their independence from real ones.

At this point, impeachment doesn't look likely through lack of courage more than lack of evidence, so we will be stuck in no branch land with individuals operating separately and unaccountable to real branches of our government and unaccountable to the people. Good news though! The Supreme Court just decided that they will be accountable after all, accountable to the corporations that contribute dollars to their ad campaigns.

SiCKO, Health Care Myths Debunked and A Threat to Health Care Access Still Operating Under the Radar

I'm not going to see SiCKO until July 1 because I am waiting to see it with the Tenth Dems. However, that is no reason why I cannot point you in the direction of good information about health care. This post for the Center for American Progress debunks health care myths that health care corporations pay big money to get you to believe so you act against your own interest and for theirs.

If and when you go to see SiCKO keep in mind that Mark Kirk has consistently voted against providing Americans (even veterans) with affordable access to health care and prescription drugs. Check the archives for the sad list of his anti-access to health care votes.

An issue that few are focusing on, but probably will affect most working people in the very near future, if it hasn't already affected you, is the Bush administration health care strategy of using new rules regarding health care spending accounts to encourage employers to push their employees off of conventional insurance and even HMOs into high deductible insurance plans with the HSAs designated to make up the difference. See here too. The legislation that helped this along became law before the Democrats took power in Congress, H.R. 6111 now PL 109-432. These HSA schemes are part of Bush's "Ownership Society" and basically encourage employers to provide only catastrophic coverage to employees and their families. Employees are supposed to save up their hard earned salaries in these HSA accounts and pay for everything else.

Insurance is supposed to reduce risk by spreading it out among large populations, and these HSA accounts provide the exact opposite, forcing people to carry most of their health care risk all by themselves. It also increases costs by taking bulk user negotiations off the table completely. I know folks with very good jobs whose employers switched to this type of health care plan at the beginning of this year and others who will get it next year. These are folks with good jobs who thought health care was not one of their worries. They have to think again now as their new insurance is basically no insurance except for catastrophic coverage, the sort of plans usually left to the unemployed who absolutely must keep premiums down to a minimum as top priority. My employed and newly underinsured friends were shocked when it happened to them, but they were not paying attention when the bill that paved the way for it was passed by the republican congress. The Ownership Society secretly slipped into our already abysmal health care system and that should be a big wake up call to those still not paying attention.

Mark Kirk's Big Idea to Solve the Immigration Problem

I'm pro-choice and believe that women and men should have unimpeded access to birth control, but there is a huge difference between that and telling people that they are not good enough or rich enough to have children as international policy. A commenter in an earlier post brought up that on Thursday, Mark Kirk made the argument that the US should ship free contraceptives to Mexico as part of our immigration policy. The article refers to a heated argument Kirk had with other members of Congress:

A slower rate of growth of Mexico's population would improve the economy of Mexico. It would also reduce the environmental pressure on Mexico's ecosystem. But a slower rate of growth would also reduce the long-term illegal immigration pressure on America's borders," reasoned Rep. Mark Kirk, who also supports stronger border security in the short-term.

The article in which this quote appeared pointed out that might not really be the answer because Mexican birth rates have already gone down.

I'll leave the morality discussions to you, but at this very least, I believe that this is just another example of a republican coming up with an idea that avoids the real issue and will not solve the problem anyway. It also serves to protect the real culprits who happen to be in the group republicans usually protect, large, multi-national corporations. A lot of what happened in Mexico that has driven Mexican farmers north has way more to do with free trade agreements and what they have done to working people around the world to benefit large multi-national corporations than it has to do with babies. Under NAFTA, an estimated 1.5 million agricultural jobs within Mexico have been lost and have prevented subsidies to poor farmers while allowing subsidies to wealthy corporate farms. Failing to address free trade vs. fair trade issues once again leaves human beings out in the cold (or heat in Mexico's case) and now Kirk wants to further de-humanize them by forming immigration policy around the strong suggestion that Mexicans don't deserve to have families.

Bloggers Against Kirk (and I don't even mean me!)

Kirk's staff members assigned to this blog whine and cry that I have the unmitigated gall to point out his voting record and then lie about him to make their tortured arguments, but lately I'll admit, my posts may be the least of Kirk's worries. Many other bloggers, some in his own party, are going after him.

Here Kirk is called out for his hypocrisy on earmarks. Remember the good old "bridge to nowhere" which might have been too much money for the benefits, but if you really bothered to learn the facts was a bridge to an island that contained the local airport and that local developers wanted to help with commerical development of the area. Even if we benefit from them, Kirk's earmarks are no different than a bridge that benefits the folks in Ketchikan, Alaska. One man's worthy project is another man's bridge to nowhere.

Then, there are of course the pro-war folks riled up by years of republican lies about security and WMD now again riled up by Kirk's show with Rove to give himself fake anti-Iraq creds. I guess it's always a risk to play both ends against each other and have no real sense of morality of your own.

Here's another republican complaining about Kirk for both of the above and for endorsing McCain. I wonder if McCain's recent "tanking" in the polls will have an effect on Kirk.

So, he's pissed off his base and isn't genuine enough to attract the other side. Who else had Mark Kirk irritated recently (not Karl Rove because we just don't believe the fight with Rove was genuine)?

Nope, he went after the nation's librarians who have a few things to say about his Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), which put the dope in DOPA by pushing for censorship of the Internet while ignoring the real issues that effect risk to children--that it takes a two career family to live in a decent home in an area with decent schools and those jobs require enormous time commitments and the parents are never home to supervise the kids. Kirk called librarians "out of touch". Here are some better suggestions for helping kids safely use the Internet from Nancy Willard who actually did research and wrote a book on the subject and is not just pandering for votes. She also debunks some of the myths Kirk uses to make his argument. For example, about halfway through you podcast you will hearn that some of the data Kirk's uses to make his argument of the proliferation of sexual solicitation of teens actually pre-dates the existence of social networking sites. She also points out that the fearmongering turns off teens to learning the real risks of social networking sites and how to handle it.

As Kirk loses support in his own party and Seals' loyal volunteers step up their efforts, this race becomes more interesting all the time.

More (as promised)

After work Wednesday night, I jumped over to New Trier Dems and got my new Dan Seals for Congress bumper sticker. Had to rinse off the bumper and try to get it on straight this time. Sorry about the links below being messed up and thanks to Mom for leaving me a voice mail to let me know that the YouTube link wasn't working. The best place to view Dan's podcast is at his site.

Enthusiasm among the grassroots seems high and already at 10:30pm I was asked for another bumper sticker by a neighbor coming home as late as I. Sorry, I only took one. Supplies were low.

What am I looking for in 2008? For Congress, I'm looking for a real difference from Mark Kirk on Iraq, on the economy, on protecting our Constitutional Rights including free speech, due process and privacy, on universal health care. I'm looking for real support for the people of Israel, not using it as a pawn in powermongering and warmongering as does Kirk's party. I'm also looking for a candidate who cares about the opinions of the people in the district enough to ask and not simply impose and instruct as does Kirk in his snide "I know better than you!" and "I have the intelligence that you don't" (no apologies if it turns out to be made of lies) responses to constituent letters and questions. I'm also looking for someone who is more WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) and someone who has shown warmth and respect for the people of the district. I saw that in Dan as the 2006 campaign progressed and I still see it in him.

For the presidency, I'm looking for a new direction for the country, truth in explaining the true mission of this country which mission should include extracating ourselves from the cycle of supporting every ruthless dictator available and later warring with his people to remove him, leading Americans to uplift each other and thereby all of us, expert execution of legal and moral plans and an understanding of the importance of all people, including the working people that make this country great. No fake independent, pretenders to being non-republican fit the bill. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and thanks George Bush for his global war on terror. It's probably a republican duck.

I hope Dan is correct when he says that "our best days are ahead of us." I hope that the district strives for unity and better support for one another through these difficult times.

Dan's In!

See it here and here.

and here:



More later.

Rule of Law? You crack me up

Someone claiming racism has nothing to do with immigration concerns commented Monday on the importance of the rule of law. Well, pick me up off the floor and help me stop laughing. None of the rule of law republicans are a bit concerned about the rule of law. The GAO just released a report completed at the request of Sen. Byrd. The report shows results of a study of 19 provisions of 2006 appropriations bills affected by 11 of Bush's signing statements. The results were that Bush issued signing statements on 11 of 12 appropriations acts in fiscal 2006 and, over 31% of the time, provisions of law as written were not followed by agencies under the executive branch.

You're not upset about 6/19 lawbreaking moments? Not enough for you? Before you decide what you care or do not care about, please consider that this was a study of only a limited sample of signing statements relating to appropriations bills that became law. There are really 149 such signing statements and even more objections to laws as each signing statement refers to more than one point of law. Author Phillip Cooper, as cited by John Dean, found that in his first term, Bush challenged 505 provisions of laws including "23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms." Those statistics are for Bush's first term only. No one really knows how many times the federal government has broken the law since 2001.

Among the laws not followed are the failure of the Defense Department to include budget justification documents explaining how 2007 war funding was spent and the failure of FEMA to submit a proposal and expenditure plan for housing. For all you immigration fearmongerers out there, the report notes that "Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) did not relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector every 7 days as directed by Congress in the appropriations act." See page 10.

The unitary executive theory was cited, but not explained in 4/12 categories studied, but there is no case law that supports that theory of the meaning of Article II. It's simply not recognized US law. In the same number of categories, the President's claimed power as commander in chief is used as the justification, but that theory is not recongnized US law either, just part of Bush's theoretical wish list. The President has made himself into a little Supreme Court of one and that's not justified anywhere in the Constitution under any argument.

So, you want to tell us that the republican argument against immigration is that they are concerned with the rule of law? We know it's the Heritage Foundation talking point on immigration and we simply don't believe you (or they) really mean it.

One Paycheck Away

What to do when the people you've race baited and threatened with lost jobs for years cannot let it go for a legislative vote you want? I guess republicans will figure that one out eventually, but not before they do a little more intra-party bloodletting over immigration.

Apparently, so-called conservative bloggers don't want to give up their hard earned racist creds to give Bush his pro-corporation immigration legacy. Racism works well at the polls as Reagan proved, so it's hard for them to give up on it particularly now that their war is going bad on their 2008 hopes.

Now they are calling it trading border security for amnesty and some of them are calling their former hero "incompetent" and "embarrassingly dimwitted" and uploading unattractive pictures of him. One of the arguments they claim is national security, but they still have no problem with underfunding first responders or underequipping the national guard of various states because none of that allows them to blame folks with darker skin and actually using tax dollars wisely is not in their playbook.

Nonetheless, they aren't going to be able to stop Immigration Bill, the Sequel from popping up again later this week. Too bad and so sad for them, they cannot even blame the Democrats for it as Bush pushes the corporate cheap labor agenda. One silver lining to all this is that the right-winger fake religious hatemongerers finally see that the republican agenda was never about them and was always about corporate power and money.

It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so very sad for both Mexico and the US. Mexicans won't get the economic justice they so badly need and we will be stuck with raging corporate greed pushing down the cost of labor until no one can afford a home, food or medicine. I still think we should be nicer to Mexicans both here and in Mexico because most Americans are one paycheck away from having to immigrate and become someone else's nanny or gardener.

Social Darwinism From the Party that Hates Darwin

We've seen the Bush/Cheney/Kirk ownership society in operation and it's not even in the full operation they actually intend. It's about putting people into bankruptcy when they have a health care emergency. It's about caveat emptor at the grocery store and now we have to think twice about eating peanut butter or spinach or when we feed our pets. It's about people at their most vulnerable getting swindled. It's back to the good old days of robber barrons, sweatshops and snake oil salesmen. Why? Because they can get away with it.

republicans complain about tax and spend Democrats, but what they don't tell you is that they tax even more than Democrats. They just spend only on their wealthy campaign contributors who then give it back to them so they can keep power. We should call them the Tax and Keep republicans. They played a game with that one-time $300 tax cut for the rest of us, but you already bought a sweater at Macy's with that money and it's probably out of style by now. What you've seen since is your tax dollars wasted on failing wars and corporate welfare for oil companies, airlines and corporate mercenaries accountable to know one but their corporate hierarchy and having who knows what effect on our own US military. See here too.

One of the reasons I support Barack Obama for President is because he understands what that Ownership Society is and that it is being brought back to this country and because he understands what it will do to the people of this country. Here is Obama in his own words because he's the last person who needs someone else speaking for him:

Galesburg, IL, June 4, 2005:

How does America find our way in this new, global economy? What will our place in history be?

Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn't much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government - divvy it up into individual portions, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, education, and so forth.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford - tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job - life isn't fair. It let's us say to the child born into poverty - pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes that we will always be the winner in life's lottery, that we will be Donald Trump, or at least that we won't be the chump that he tells: "Your fired!"

But there a problem. It won't work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools - that has allowed all of us to prosper. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity - that has produced our unrivaled political stability.

Spartansburg, SC, June 15, 2007

Over the last few decades, fundamental changes in the way we work and live have trapped too many American families between an economy that's gone global and a government that's gone AWOL. Too many rungs have been removed from the ladder to middle-class security, and the safety net that's supposed to break any falls from that ladder has grown badly frayed. Many families face increased anxiety when it comes to paying the bills or finding ways to spend more time with their children, while others have tumbled into poverty, watching jobs disappear, and fathers leave the home. And even though the vast majority of mothers are now working - including single mothers - we haven't yet provided them with the support they need to raise their children.

I don't have to give you a history lesson in economics for you to know how this all happened, because many of you have seen it or even lived it. You've seen the factories close their doors and move overseas, leaving too many cities and mill towns without their biggest source of employment. I saw it when I first arrived in Chicago in the early 80s, where I took a job helping to rebuild neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings.

And today, it's not just factory jobs that are disappearing. As countries like China and India churn out more workers who are educated longer and better, revolutions in technology and communication have made it possible for American companies to automate some jobs and send others wherever there's an internet connection.

The jobs that remain pay less and offer fewer benefits, as employers have succeeded in busting up unions and cutting back on health care and pensions to stay competitive with the companies abroad that are paying their workers next to nothing.

The weekly earnings of American workers, which had steadily risen during the years our parents and grandparents were employed, have fallen more than twenty percent since 1973, and the minimum wage hasn't moved in ten years. This means that right now, a family of three with one minimum-wage earner is still more than $6000 below the poverty line.

And there is the famous DNC 2004 speech wherein Obama showed his remarkable skill of telling the truth and bringing the country together under it:

...for alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

The Bush/Cheney/Kirk Mideast Policy--An Islamic State In Gaza

I think this one pretty much speaks for itself, but when people were floating the idea of the two state solution, I don't think they meant two Palestines, one an Islamic state ruled by Hamas.

It may be a little late for this and can't we all imagine what if this was done a while ago:

The American administration is also interested in improving living conditions in the West Bank to demonstrate to the Palestinians that they are better off under Fatah than Hamas.

Washington will urge Israel to reconsider loosening its military grip on the West Bank. Israel will also be requested to unfreeze the Palestinian tax funds it has been withholding from the PA. The money and further funding will help boost Abbas' new emergency government.

This man on the street quote gives us an idea:

Today everybody is with Hamas because Hamas won the battle. If Fatah had won he battle they'd be with Fatah. We are a hungry people, we are with whoever gives us a bag of flour and a food coupon," said Yousef, 30. "Me, I'm with God and a bag of flour.

Kirk was right on top of this one, wasn't he? Well, maybe his support of the do-nothing and watch the powder keg explode Bush administration Mideast policy was part of the problem, but no matter, he did get a photo op out of it and isn't that what his support of Israel was all about from the getgo?

Couple of Quick Notes

1. I'm not the only one worried about food safety and the degredation of the FDA. Here is what Jim Hightower has to say. Hightower asks why US companies would import chickens from China when we have plenty of chickens here in the US. I wonder if that is what Mark Kirk was going for with his US-China work group seeking greater trade with China despite human rights violations and problems with their products including antifreeze in products containing glycerine and toxic melamine in pet food, fish food and livestock feed.

2. The government just lost motions in the 2005 Inaugural litigation, the court ruling that the ANSWER Coalition could challenge the constitutionality of the Inaugural parade permitting system and that ANSWER had standing. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice said after the ruling:

For years, regardless of which of the two parties secured the Presidency, the Government has tried to stage manage a false appearance of consent and approval by excluding dissent from nearly the entirety of the Inaugural parade route, allowing the Presidential Inaugural Committee to erect towering bleachers behind which protestors are to stand or else to be relegated to limited areas for dissent, and also allowing them to use the area as a private fundraising venture.

Not a single case against the government's illegal restrictions at the Inauguration has ever proceeded to a full record or trial because the government waits until the last minute to revoke protest permits, allowing only for limited preliminary injunctive litigation without any semblance of a record. This has been an issue for a decade and the three immediately preceding inaugurations.

The Court recognized that dissenting groups would be out again in 2009 and refused to accept the government's argument that the case was moot because the 2005 Inaguration was over and done.

SG3 Secure Room and Cut and Split Fiber Optics

Remember the EFF case against AT&T for working with the NSA to spy on us? If not, see here and here. Now, they are in discovery and some previously redacted documents are now available to the public in full. Here is an affidavit that discusses the construction and use of a room called the SG3 Secure Room. It's next to a switch room that directs long distance calls, including both voice and data. The affidavit also describes how fiber optic cables are split to divert information into two weaker, but identical signals and how such orders were given to split in-use cables.

Here is another supporting affidavit of an expert witness who assessed the authenticity of documents and analyzed them for EFF. In his opinion, it is clear that the documents reflect actual deployments and that AT&T had the capacity to assist the NSA in its spying program, that the equipment and procedures were not for "routine Internet backbone operations" and that the NSA was given access to the operative equipment. The expert also states that to his surprise, "The deployment, however, is neither modest nor limited, and it apparently involves considerably more locations than would be required to catch the majority of international traffic." He also stated that there would be no commercial reason for AT&T to have or deploy these configurations and found AT&T's claim that the work was done to enhance its own security unconvincing. The expert also analyzed traffic flows and his findings indicated that "a substantial fraction, probably well over half, of AT&T's purely domestic traffic was diverted, representing all or substantially all of the AT&T traffic handed off to other providers."

The Bush administration has asked for retroactive immunity for involved telephone companies. In the meantime, Gonzales (regardless of his race or religious affiliation) is all over the map on his testimony regarding the flap in Justice about the program as they pushed ill and hospitalized former then AG John Ashcroft to sign on to the program despite his misgivings. Ah, but they were just wishing him well. Small wonder why they didn't do it by phone.

Note that all this went on while the FBIs terror watchlist grew to over one half million names. Seems to me we need a more rational approach in the fight against terrorism or we'll sink ourselves before we sink them.

No mention of NSA spying in Mark Kirk's plea for congress to concentrate on important issues.

Are Mark Kirk's Priorities The Same As Ours?

Our first principle, which should be the main work of this House, should be focused on key major issues before the country. ~~ Mark Kirk on the House Floor June 11, 2007 (The exact link is a query string that you techies out there know won't link, but you can find this quote by searching the Congressional Record on GovTrack.us.)

Then, he went on a diatribe that never once mentioned the Iraq war, the impending Iran war affordable health care (other than a proposed bill to extend the very expensive COBRA program), gas prices, energy independence. He's still on his suburban strategy. He didn't win that little battle with Karl Rove to fight for his re-election with a failed war pending, so he's back in his corner licking his wounds and cradling the suburban strategy that barely supported him in 2006.

According to a CBS News/New York Times Poll taken in mid-May 2007, the top 5 most important problem facing this country today are:

War in Iraq 31%
Economy/Jobs 8%
Gas/Heating oil crisis 7 %
Immigration 7%
Health care 5 %

Mark Kirk's priority is his own re-election. Is that your priority for our country?

That Pesky Constitution. We do not live on a global battlefield after all, but we still have real law enforcement and it works.

Here is a copy of the Fourth Circuit Appellate Court order that granted the habeas corpus petition of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri proving that the concepts of due process and habeas corpus won't die easily in these United States. It's important to note that al-Marri wasn't seized on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan by the US military, but from his Peoria home by civilian authorities and that he had not been charged with anything since June 2003, spending 4 years in a South Carolina military jail. He is not a US citizen, but was legally residing in the US, a citizen of our ally, Qatar.

It is also important to note that as much as the Bush-and-party-before-country right wingers try to use this case for political purposes making it sound like the court just set this guy free for no good reason, the court was clear that he need not be set free and can be "returned to civilian prosecutors, tried on criminal charges, and, if convicted, punished severely." They just have to charge him of something and try him like we always used to do here in the US. He was originally charged with credit card fraud. Bush got him off on that one by calling him an enemy combatant and moving him to military custody. He was also charged with making false statements to the FBI which charge was also dismissed on motion of the feds, but now seems like a pretty good charge to prosecute with freshly minted solid precedent from the Scooter case.

Close your eyes and forget about al-Marri for a minute and imagine you were taken into custody, transferred and not allowed to communicate with your family or even an attorney for sixteen months.

You can open your eyes now and read on. (Oh, you've probably already done that by now if you are reading this.)

Anyway, the government's argument was that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) applies to al-Marri even though it became law over 3 years after his capture and transfer. Remember that was passed in response to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2762-69 (2006), which held that federal courts still had jurisdiction over the pending habeas petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees and that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Geneva Conventions still limited the President's authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)

al-Marri contended he still has some habeas protection under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution and the government countered that the MCA afforded him an alternative remedy. The Court held that the MCA does not afford an alternative because it doesn't apply to al-Marri at all. The Court didn't parse words or make up technicalities as republicans will whine. They did what courts do when confronted with statutes that attempt to do away with long venerated common law, they strictly construed the statute. The idea of strict construction of a statute (in a nutshell) is that, if the legislature decides to do away with long time common law by statute, parties seeking whatever remedy afforded thereunder at least have to follow the terms of statute to get the remedy. The government just didn't follow its own rules in this case. Additionally, the Court also felt the government was being disingenuous in claiming it would give al-Marri a Combatant Status Review Tribunal because they hadn't done so in all the time they could have for al-Marri or any other non-Guantanamo defendants. The Court found that the government never thought CSRTs applied to cases such as al-Marri's before they decided to use it as a strategy for this particular argument in this particular case.

The Court then addressed the habeas corpus issue and found that the MCA affected only statutory habeas that applied to "aliens captured and held outside the United States" and not the constitutional "great writ" that applies to citizens and those "lawfully residing within the country with substantial, voluntary connections to the United States." This comment can be found in 152 Cong. Rec. H 7548. Ah the power of the Internet. Those pesky legislative histories with those great comments are easier to find with the Internet now, aren't they? This comment was made by Sensenbrenner: " Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren’t listening. There are two types of habeas corpus: one is the constitutional great writ. We are not talking about that here. We can’t suspend that. That is in the Constitution, and we can’t suspend that by law. The other is statutory habeas corpus, which has been redefined time and time again by the Congress. That is what we are talking about here, and we have the constitutional power to redefine it.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. KING)." Sensenbrenner was sarcastic, but it is now clear that the Democrats were listening and it was a good thing they got his denial of their suspicions on the record.

al-Marri claimed that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated in his transfer and detention. The Court agreed because the Fifth Amendment refers to "persons", not citizens, and has long been extended to "lawfully admitted aliens living within the United States." The Fifth Amendment gives people the right to due process before life, liberty or property is taken away. Due process is that right to be charged and have a public trial. Enemy combatants may be deprived of such a public trial under Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004), but the Court determined that al-Marri is not an "enemy combatant" and assumed that the MCA was not meant to lead to the "absurd result" that just anybody (and most certainly not a US citizen) can be held as an "enemy combatant". Hamdi and Jose Padilla found different results in their cases because both served on foreign battlefields, but there were no allegations that al-Marri ever did.

The government countered that al-Marri engaged in acts of terrorist in what seems to be the global battlefield in our backyard argument. The Court rejected the argument and that is the key to this case. Bush was pushing the idea of a global war on terror on a global battlefield that includes our backyards, so he could unleash limitless power against individuals, and I'd guess even US citizens, although the Court here affords his intent more charity. (Remember I was worried about this argument back in April 2006.) Here the Court said you need a real battlefield to make an "enemy combatant", and talked about the same thing that civil libertarians were worried about when we began tearing our Constitutional rights apart after September 11, 2001, the President's claim that he could drag us out of our beds in the middle of the night and disappear us in a military prison because the battlefield was everywhere.

The Court concluded by rejecting the governments comparison to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war. Lincoln recognized that the suspension was extraordinary and limited, while Bush argued that it was part of his inherent powers that could be exercized at will. While the Court recognized the President's powers in war and the special authority given after September 11, 2001, it reminded the government that it must not "break faith with this Nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority," and that "remaining true to that faith remains as important today as it was at our founding."

Real law enforcement works and this al-Marri matter could have been handled years ago. They should have prosecuted those credit card fraud and false statements charges. They may have even been able to prove RICO or worse if they tried. They got Al Capone on tax evasion, didn't they?

Sadly, however, when confronted with using traditional, good law and the opposite, the Bush administration will choose the opposite. They are appealing the decision to force the global battlefield concept and likel to test the loyalty of their hand-picked cronies on the Supreme Court.

What if they gave a war...

As I've said before, when Bush said "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003, he was in fact correct. The mission was accomplished, but we have to understand that the mission was to get us into a war in Iraq. That mission was accomplished and no one ever said anything about actually completing and ending the war any time soon. Bush could argue that he didn't really lie, we just weren't listening carefully enough.

Now, the mission is to stay in Iraq and it looks like that mission has also been accomplished Congressmen and women having failed to set a time table afraid of seeing their faces merged with Osama bin Laden's this coming election cycle. Now it looks like the new strategy is to keep the war going by working both sides. Remember the old Vietnam era saying "what if they threw a war and nobody showed up"? Well, apparently, Bush had time to ponder the answer to that while shirking his National Guard duty and Cheney had more than enough time to ponder it while receiving the multiple student deferments that kept him home when so many others were being torn apart, and they came up with the answer: arm the enemy. So the next kid that gets chewed up by an IED may find US parts in his or her body, but not to worry, they are taking finger prints retinal scans of the folks we're arming so there shouldn't be a problem. Uh, right.

If I was a parent of one of those kids, I'd be screaming and yelling at my congressman. Ah, but my congressman wouldn't listen or care. He's busy wrapping himself around the no-brainer issues he thinks will give him (political, if not gas) milage in 2008. Sort of hard to believe Kirk really cares about corruption when he said nothing about Ney, Cunningham, Abrahamoff, Foley etc and still has confidence in Alberto Gonzales.

We have to demand more from our leaders, stop rewarding them for pandering to the obvious and then let them do what we need them to do without threat of political smear and destruction. Kirk's been busy patting himself on the back for a big load of nothing while American kids are at risk from some brilliant idea that probably came from some guy who ducked out of sevice when his number was called.

Mainstream Media Still Enamoured of Iraq War

"Among free men," said Abraham Lincoln, "there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs."

Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they desire.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach non-violence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some look for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.

This is the breaking of a man's spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all.~~Robert F. Kennedy, April 5, 1968

Now I understand what CNN was going for when they put John Roberts in their morning lineup.

I just saw Roberts on CNN moments ago saying that most Americans back Bush in the Iraq war and he went on to use that statement to show that most Americans will favor republicans over Democrats. Problem is that the statement doesn't even agree with CNNs own poll findings. Back in their March 2007 poll, CNN found that only about 35% were confident in the war. In May 2007, CNN found that 57% of Americans wanted Congress to put timetables in the funding bill. Maybe, John needs to go back into research and leave the on camera work to someone who knows how to read.

It's strange to me that after all that has happened and how much discussion there has been about how the press failed us back in 2002 when Bush began his war strategy in earnest, the mainstream media is still so very enamoured with the Iraq war. They'd rather look like complete idiots than admit it was wrong and remains wrong and that they were wrong. They must believe that the war still brings them power and profits. What a surprise it will be to them when they realize that now most Americans have wised up to them, the war and the Bush/Cheney/Kirk war for fun and profit cabal.

More than Paris Hilton Coming Out of California

OK. I watched about 10 minutes of MSNBC's Paris-a-thon last night. After 10 minutes, I thought they ran out of things to say and I ran out of patience. What got much less press this past week was something else, much more important, that came out of the California Senate, a referrendum on the Iraq war. If passed and signed, it would put the Iraq war to a vote in the state's primary. So far, Schwarzenegger is not taking a position on the referrendum, but he has not been a huge fan of the war for a while.

I think it would be a good idea to have Iraq war referrenda on various state ballots and that the better place for them would not be in the primaries, but in the 2008 general election. republicans shouldn't complain. They like putting referenda on the ballot, although their ideas usually involve votes for divisiveness and hate. Iraq war referrenda would probably operate to unite rather than divide, and when we unite, I still have faith it will be for good and not the other.

As for the whole Paris in the press thing, I'm not really all that against it. If it's the only way Americans will learn about habeas corpus, then so be it.

Mark Kirk's Problem with Core Values and Something I Heard

Poor Mark Kirk. He's got a problem. No, not the failed Iraq war, not the failed military commissions hampering prosecution of real terrorists because they were more concerned with gaining authority to hold Americans who happened to disagree with their politics, not the failed Medicare D, not the failed justice department run by the failed administration he supports. No. Kirk's problem runs deeper than all that governing stuff that always seems to get in the way of the day-to-day politics for which he ran. Kirk's problem is figuring out how he can he stay true to his core beliefs with a divided republican party, a Democratic congress, a Democratic district, and a popular Democratic candidate about to announce a second run (or so this grape hears on the vine).

Well don't take your concern away from Paris Hilton just yet because staying true to his core beliefs might not be as hard for Kirk to do as one would think. So far, what we've seen of Mark Kirk's core beliefs is that he believes in his own re-election. Thing is, he has to figure out how to accomplish same at a time when keeping his lock step republican base that is still looking for WMD in Iraq happy is diametrically opposed to showing the growing number of Democrats, left leaning independents and unaffiliated realists that he represent them too. (Ouch. republicans get to learn that sometimes that divide and conquer stuff can go against you.)

So, what is Kirk's strategy for re-election? I have no idea, but I think he's going for the confuse them into submission strategy by voting both for and against everything so he can fill in the blank on any questionnaire depending on the recipient of the information. For evidence of Kirk's voting pattern, check out this article over at Tenth Dems. (ah, they saved me a bunch of work in putting it together!) Kirk's votes have been all over the place, splitting his procedural and final votes (he's always done a lot of that) and voting the opposite of prior positions including voting for the raise in the minimum wage, against the troop surge and not voting at all on the Medicare D price negotiation amendment.

It seems that all this backtracking by Kirk has offended many in his own party (here too. here too). Some of the banter on republican blogs has even devolved into name calling. Well, we never call Mark bad names on this blog. We just offer him some friendly advice and help him get his message (in the form of his voting record) out and yet he shows so little appreciation of it. Go figure.

Well anyway, great rumor about Dan Seals to announce soon. Dan's lucky. He has it a lot easier than Mark. He's grounded in his core values and consequently won't have to work so hard keeping track of his positions. Imagine, a congressman who actually has time to work for us for a change.

Separation of Church and State is Good for Church too

I think it's safe to say that there is a church on every block in the major cities of Italy. Piazzas are named after their church as are many streets. It was explained by our guides that many of these churches were built by the neighbors sharing the square to commemorate their survival after a plague of some sort. (Pictured above is Santa Croce on Piazza Santa Croce in Florence. Buried in Santa Croce are Michelangelo and Galileo Galilei reburied there in 1737 and then formally rehabilitated from Church condemnation and finally officially published by Pope Benedict XIV in 1741. In 1758, the general prohibition against heliocentrism was offically removed--probably because it turned out to be true. Scientist Enrico Fermi made it into Santa Croce with no controversy over 200 years later.)

Roman Catholicism was the official state religion from 1929 until 1985 (not to mention the inquisition). Greater than 90 percent of the people identify themselves as Catholics and there are also large Protestant and Orthodox communities and about 820,000 Muslims and 47,000 Jews.

I expected religion to be big in Italy. It's not.

While I'm sure there are many devout followers in Italy, I didn't meet them or hear much about them. Most of our guides recited religious stories with giggles and eye rolls. Only the Vatican employee who toured us around the Vatican museum seemed serious. When I got home, I did a little research. Only about 35% of Italians regularly attend church down from 90% and according to a December 1, 2004 article in the New York Times which also described that only about 32% believe religion should have a place in government (I didn't link the article here because you have to pay to get it). Abortion is legal on demand through the 12th week and divorce is legal. So what happened?

I was told that while Italians generally still have respect for the Church, they no longer tolerate rigidity in decisions involving their personal lives. Another Italian attributed the relaxed attitude toward the following of Church doctrine to impatience with problems in the Church and recognition that religion does not always ensure morality.

I also have a theory. Overload. Religion is everywhere in Italy. Religion is taught in the schools (although now it's voluntary) and religious images are on every street corner. Even my hotel room in Rome had a mother and child icon on the wall. Religion was in the government in one form or another pretty much since the early Roman pagans enforced their beliefs against the early Christians. Constant reminders of religion seem to have worn thin on the populace

Our founding fathers here in the US decided to base our government on separation of church and state. They did it not only for the good of the state, but also for the good of church. They were concerned with religious liberty and keeping religion from being tainted by politics. Jefferson said to Rev. Samuel Miller in 1808: "I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines."

The Bush administration has given new voice to theocrats who want to establish their own brand of religion into our government. I'd caution them with the model of Italy and one story in particular. When the Medici's were gaining power in Florence in the late 15th century, Girolamo Savonarola decided they and the artistic renaissance they brought with them represented moral decay. He was pretty successful for a while preaching hell and brimstone briefly taking over the government and even persuading the artist Sandro Botticelli (famous for The Birth of Venus otherwise known as Venus on the Half Shell) to throw some of his own paintings into the fire (know as the original Bonfire of the Vanities). So what happened to Savonarola? His promised last days of salvation never came and the Florentines got sick of him and burned him alive.

Established and politically enforced religion, over time, can lead to devout secularism.

Listen

I met Joey Hebdo in Italy. He performed in Venice and Rome. Take a listen here.

Lost power and gained happiness

Before my trip, I wondered if the Italians were going to be unpleasant toward me as an American. Friends told me to say I was Canadian. I decided not to play that game and it turned out that Italians have no particular problem with Americans. They are not mad. They feel sorry for us. They had their Titus', Neros, Doges and Medicis and now we have ours.

At most tourist sites in Italy, the guides start off by telling you that most of what you are seeing was stolen. The precious metals and stones in St. Marks in Venice were stolen from the Byzantines and even St. Mark himself, now supposedly buried in a tomb in the church, was stolen from the Turks. The Coliseum was built with stolen riches and labor from Jerusalem, depicted in the Arch of Titus (above). The marble mosaic floors of the Vatican came from marble plundered from the buildings of ancient Rome.

The rewards of instability, war and plunder were put on display so the people could see the power of their leaders. The many buildings of the Roman Forum were described to us by our guide as oppressive clutter to show the people that the might of the Roman Empire was unbeatable, so why bother fighting against it. The riches in the Vatican seemed to many in my group to echo the sentiment.

Now, American corporations reap the rewards of war in Iraq. Whether or not democracy is ever realized in Iraq, the oil companies and corporate mercenaries are growing fat from plunder modern style.

Italy has 3 stories of republic turned to dictatorship. In Venice, the government was not exactly democratic, but the Doges (see their palace left) were elected by an inner circle of wealthy Venetian families and carefully watched. When the Doge died, he was judged and the family fined for any malfeasance. In 1797, Venice was invaded by Napoleon who plundered the city for its riches, sending many of its great works of art to Paris (much, but not all, of it was sent back and makes up the Accademia in Venice). After Napoleon, Venice was left to the Austrians who they credit for leaving it with pastry shops and pigeons all over the place.

Florence was a republic until the Medicis grew too rich and powerful to be refused their dukedome which they briefly lost to the theocrat Savonarola. Here is an interesting piece on Florence by Machiavelli. Once of his observations on the failure of the Florentine republic is particularly interesting to us here in the US today:

The reason why all these governments have been defective, is that their Reforms have not been made to satisfy the common good, but for the security and confirmation in power of one of the Parties; which security, however, has not been found, because one Party has always been discontent and it has been a powerful instrument to whoever has desired change.

In Rome, Julius Caesar was murdered to save the republic from dictatorship, but the conspirators blew it with bad PR. They stabbed him (23 times) in the temporary Senate building (not the one in the Forum) and got scared, leaving Caesar's bloody body in the hall where it was found by servants 3 hours later. In the meantime, the protectors of the republic regained their courage and ran around the streets proclaiming the tyrant dead. They decided to hold a funeral and read Caesar's will. Bad idea. The mangled body was present and the will showed that its former owner had left a lot of property and wealth to the people of Rome. Caesar looked like a hero and the saviors of the republic looked like a bunch of dimwitted thugs. They had no idea how to restore the republic, the country and army now used to following personality rather than law, and the consequent civil war opened the door to ultimate dictatorship.

Each of the Italian historical and artistic scholars I met seemed to want to simultaneously warn and commiserate with Americans about lost republic and crumbling empire. Their stories illustrated how people never seem to be able to keep their republics because they find it easier to fall into the politics of personality and conquest. Now, Italians seem content with their country of simple needs and desires. They like fashion and food and their afternoon siesta time when businesses close and cafes open. They think we can learn a lesson from their current situation even more than their past. One told me that Italians are happy now because they work to live and not live to work.