As you know I have been against the war from the beginning and have advocated getting out as soon as possible. However, I feel angry about the bill the Democrats just passed through the House. The bill would continue to fund the war as Bush requested but added artificial deadlines that supposedly obligate the troops be pulled out by certain days depending if any progresses are made in Iraq. I understand that if you don't fund the war, you will be accused of not supporting the troops. But by funding the war more soldiers will die and it would not make a difference in the war on terrorism. If Bush does not veto and follows the timetable, the Republicans can say that the failure was due to the constraint the Democrats placed on the generals. In fact that is what they are saying about this bill right now.

The other thing I am angry about this bill is that in order to get it passed, Pelosi allowed attachments to the bill that are not related to the war at all. Most of these are porks that would have no merit of being passed on their own. Among them were spinach, shrimp and peanut subsidies. The Democrats had promised reform when they took over Congress. They had promised to make it transparent about who would give their votes for pork. They have broke these promises by putting these spending attachments to this bill and not revealing which Congressmen were behind them. It is unconscienable that in this crisis of war the politicians put their interests ahead of those of the nation. It just goes to show you, you can't trust either party.

The Supreme Court is hearing a case this week about a high school student who was suspended for 15 days for holding up a sign that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus" at a parade. This was supposedly an important case because it may have implication of a student's free speech rights versus the authority of a school. I don't see that at all. The kid had put up a sign at a parade, not on school grounds so I don't see why the principal had the right to get involved at all. If he had put up the sign in the school, then certainly the principal had a right to hand out punishment if the kid did not remove the sign right away. Since it was outside the school the principal should have called the parent and let them handle it.

Interestingly the kid is now in his twenties and is teaching English in China. He admits that he was a kind of troublmaker as a kid but he felt that his free speech rights were violated. I wonder what he thinks would happen if he was to hold up a sign at a Chinese parade that says "Bong hits 4 Mao"? I hope he appreciates the freedom we have here and will take some reponsibility about drugs and insulting other people's religion. On the other hand, the principal should understand that to keep this freedom, she should not get bent out of shape by a stupid sign written by a kid. There was no need to make a federal case out of this incident.

Last week Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. I have been trying to read about this case and even though it is more clear now than a few months ago when I wrote about this, I am still confused about some issues. Ultimately, it appears that nobody is being prosecuted for committing the crime of exposing a CIA agent but that one person is guilty of a coverup. It seems to me that we always have trouble convicting people of "real crimes". In the end we justify the expenses of the prosecution by pinning something minor in comparison on somebody.

A few months ago I wondered why Robert Novak was not in jail since he is the one that put Valerie Plame's name in print and thus outing her. Why did we jail Judith Miller when she was not the one who revealed Plame? After this conviction I still wonder about this. Novak apparently told the prosecutor that it was Richard Armitage, deputy sec. of state, who told him about Plame. Armitage was not prosecuted because he claimed that he did not know that Plame's identity was classified. Karl Rove might have also talked to Novak about this. Anyways, it seems to me, that government officials should have known that an identity of a CIA agent should NEVER be disclosed. It may be that they were not intentionally trying to destroy her but they are still responsible for what happened. The same with Novak. Just because someone gives you information it doesn't absolve you of responsibility of deciding whether it is appropriate to put it in the paper.

Libby obviously lied. But why? The people he talked to never wrote about Plame before Novak did. So Libby was never responsible for outing Plame. If he did not lie, there was no problem for him. Was he covering for Cheney? It does not look like the prosecution can prove that. So why go through this whole charade? Now the best way for him to stay out of jail is getting a pardon from Bush. Ironically, Libby represented Marc Rich who was pardoned by Clinton. It was a pardon that drew lots of criticism and rightly so. Now Libby may need the same type of controversial pardon by Bush who had strongly criticized Clinton's pardon of Rich.

From Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton to now Libby, didn't anyone learn that it is not the original crime but the coverup that gets you into big trouble? Nixon would have not gotten much trouble if he didn't try to coverup. The Clintons may have done some illegal dealings with Whitewater but the prosecution could not convict and wasted tax payers money in going after the Lewinsy scandal. Clinton could have saved himself a lot of trouble by telling the truth about Lewinsky. Even Al Capone may not have gone to jail if he just paid his taxes. Real justice is usually not done. I don't think it was done here.

Some hospitals in LA are being accused of dumping homeless patients back on skidrow after they are discharged from the hospital. There is now a push for laws that will levy heavy fines for the hospitals and jail time for people who actually dump the people on the street. It is of course hard to see people being dumped on the streets but to just single out hospitals and the drivers (who are just doing what they are told to do) is unfair. It also points out the problem of our society where there is always a cry for rights to certain things but no plan as to how to pay for these things.

First of all those patients would not be dumped on the streets if they actually had a home before they came to the hospital. Sometimes they are dumped by the police in the ER after they are found to be unconscious from drinking or drug abuse on the streets. So while a hospital may seem insensitive to put someone back out on the street after they are treated, it should not be blamed for this problem in the first place. Politicians are trying to pass laws that would punish the hospitals but yet they are the ones who have not solved the homeless problems. I say city hall has more responsiblity than a hospital for this situation. Hospitals already are forced by law not to turn anyone away even if they can never get paid for providing the medical care. Is is reasonable that they paid for shelter also after treating the patient?