A Look at Domestic Terrorism

Recently on Good Morning America, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani made the statement that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama." One finds it difficult not to stagger under such a dizzying intellect. Take a moment to analyze this statement.

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush." We can start with this part. First, it is grammatically incorrect. The verb have (of which had is the past singular first person conjugation) denotes possession. The addition of the word no negates this and therefore the phrase as a whole is without meaning. It is nonsense to say that you have something that you do not have. The sentence should read, "There weren't any domestic attacks under Bush" but no one ever gets this correct, so we can forgive Rudy this slight transgression.

Second, and more importantly, September 11 was a domestic terrorism attack that happened under Bush. As Mayor of New York City on the day of the attack, you would think Rudy would realize this, but apparently his memory is failing. Next, he stated that we had one attack under Obama. What attack was that? If he is referring to the so-called Underwear Bomber (Christmas day 2009), then one must remind him of the so-called Shoe Bomber (December 22, 2001), which would be the same type of incident. If that's the case, then he would be incorrect because neither of these can truly be called attacks. Both were attempts and both failed.

Apparently Rudy was speaking of the November 5, 2009 attack on Fort Hood, Texas. This attack was perpetrated by Nidal Malik Hasan, who was soon to be sent to Afghanistan and retaliated by opening fire on the military base where he was employed. Rudy is right that this happened under OBama, but is it domestic terrorism?

According to the Department of Justice, domestic terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." This was an act performed by an individual and therefore is not domestic terrorism under this definition.

The U.S. Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as "activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." By this definition the Fort Hood attack is not domestic terrorism as none of these objectives were attempted by this attack.

Rudy Giuliani seems to be confused as to what constitutes domestic terrorism. One must wonder why shows like Good Morning America would continue to ask for his opinion.

A Loss in Massachusetts

It's sad to say, but the Democrats have lost a seat in the Senate. The Massachusetts seat held by Ted Kennedy for decades was won tonight by a Republican. This disrupts the precarious balance of the Democratic majority in the Senate, and puts into serious question what the outcome of healthcare reform will be.

Why did the Democrats lose the seat? There will undoubtedly be a lot of finger-pointing and excuses, but the Democrats in office need to take long, hard looks at themselves and the work they have been doing.

A year ago (or slightly more than) we elected a new president. This new president was supposed to bring us sweeping changes. We elected him for this because we were tired of the old ways. We wanted fresh. We wanted new. We wanted change.

We did not get it.

We want healthcare reform. We need this reform, and when it was first introduced, Americans supported it, but in the interim Republicans have lied about what it is, what it is not, and what it will do to hard-working Americans. They successfully scared the public enough that support fell drastically. What was the Democratic response? Nothing.

Republicans dug in their heels and resisted every attempt by the Democrats to create a working bill. They rallied their troops, stormed town hall meetings, lied to the American people over and over again, and successfully halted this legislation from becoming a reality. What did the Democrats do? Nothing.

Now the Democrats have lost a seat, and probably due to their own actions, or lack thereof. Had the Democrats shown any backbone at all, they would have stood up to these attacks. They would have fought back in the place where the Republicans are winning; on Fox News. They would have pushed through their legislation without any support from the Republicans, and made their case that the Republican party wants America to fail.

Hopefully, this loss will be a wake up call to the Democrats currently in office. If you're not going to give us what we want, we're going to replace you with people who will. We, the people of the United States, are fed up with wishy-washy representatives who fail to show any concern for our wants and needs.

Give us healthcare reform, or get out of our way.

Don't Believe Bill O'Reilly

On a recent episode of his fictional program, "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly stated that the majority of Americans support torture in cases where it is necessary for our countries safety, and that he agrees with them. He then used this as a springboard to get to his equally ridiculous point.

Pundits like O'Reilly and his ilk often do this. They make a false statement as if it's a fact, and then use it to prove their point. What this statement lacks, however, is a citation to show its credibility. You'll never find these people citing their claims because they can't. In fact, they often distort the truth to win over viewers.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics conducted a torture poll and asked the question "Do you favor or oppose allowing the CIA, in extreme circumstances, to use enhanced interrogation techniques, even torture, to obtain information from prisoners that might protect the United States from terrorist attacks?"

Favor 43%
Oppose 48% http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/27/oreilly-torture/

This was on O'Reilly's own network, yet he seems to be unaware of the actual results. It should be noted that a similar question was asked, but specifically asking if torture were allowed to be used on Osama bin Laden and for that the majority concurred, but that was for one man, not torture in general.

A Washington Post/ABC News Poll asked the question this way:

"Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?"

58% stated that torture should NEVER be used compared to 40% who favored the use of torture.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/22/torture/

Also, Gallup conducted a poll and asked the following question:

"Would you be willing -- or not willing -- to have the U.S. government torture suspected terrorists if they may know details about future terrorist attacks against the U.S.?"

Yes 38%

No 56%

http://www.gallup.com/video/20002/Torture-Ban.aspx

Note that unlike Bill O'Reilly, I have cited my sources. So, when Bill O'Reilly states that most Americans favor torture, he is lying. Obviously most Americans do not favor torture, and the polls indicate this quite clearly, yet Bill O'Reilly states the opposite. This is the definition of a lie.

It's Time for Someone to Step Down

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader has been quoted as saying that Obama could win the election due to his "light-skinned appearance and speaking patterns with no negro dialect." Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, has called for Reid to step down as Majority Leader because of his "racist" comments. It should be noted that Michael Steele is African-American.

First of all, this comment was made in 2008, before the presidential election, so it's not a new comment. Second, Harry Reid has apologized for the remark, stating that his choice of words was unfortunate, but more importantly, consider what he said carefully, because in analysis it's not a racist remark. At least, not in the way Steele is making it out to be.

Reid stated that Obama would be able to win because he is a) African-American, but with lighter skin, and b) has a speech pattern that does not indicate he is African-American (meaning, he sounds white). In other words, Reid is stating that the population of America (largely white) will only vote for someone who is white, or who is close to being white.

Is this racist? Yes. Is it racist against African-Americans? No. It's racist against whites. It says that whites are inherently racist and that only by presenting us with a choice of someone who is like us or at least close to being like us will we vote for them. This does not say anything against African-Americans. It slams all white people. If anyone should be offended by Reid's remarks, it should be those of us who are of the Caucasian persuasion.

Michael Steele, however, is Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Republicans have made abortion one of their key agenda items, claiming that they are against the practice. Yet, under Michael Steele the medical insurance plan for members of the RNC specifically allowed abortion. Michael Steele stated that the democrats are practicing a double standard when it comes to Reid's comments, yet he ignores his own actions.

Yes, someone should step down, but it's not Harry Reid. Reid is doing a fine job of leading his party in the Senate, but I have to wonder why the Republicans are keeping Steele in a job for which is is obviously unqualified.

Los Angeles Unified School District

The Los Angeles Unified School District is always stating that they need more money. This is probably true, since they serve over 600,000 students annually, and with only about 37,000 teachers. Every school teacher I know has had to use their own money to buy things for their classroom. These things include chalk, erasers, notebooks and the like, but also often include books for their students.

Something is obviously wrong with our society when teachers (already fairly low paid) have to use their own money to buy school supplies. One of the problems here in Los Angeles is that Proposition 13 was passed many years ago. This legislation was good in that it reduced the value of houses in the state, but bad in what it has done to our schools.

Back in the 40s and 50s, many people moved to Los Angeles because they liked the year-round nice weather, and the job market was expanding. Many of these people had been stationed here during the war and wanted to stay. Houses were soon built on a large scale and suburban areas were particularly attractive, as the cost of housing was much lower than in the city proper.

Los Angeles grew and as it grew, housing values increased. This was a problem because salaries did not increase accordingly, and property taxes are based on the value of the house. A family living in a two bedroom house that cost $40,000 with the father earning $20,000 annually was doing well, but when that house increased in value to $100,000 the tax bill became so high that the family could not pay. Houses were being seized by the state in lieu of payment. Proposition 13 ended this.

With Proposition 13 your tax rate is based on what you paid for the house. That amount is allowed to increase by a very small percentage annually, but when a spike in housing value happens, it does not change your tax rate. This is all well and good, but the writers of Prop 13 went too far. It also includes houses that are given from a parent to a child or a grandchild.

These houses are often sold without the sale being declared, so the parent receives money from their child and the child continues paying taxes at the parents' rate. Property taxes are where the money comes from to fund the school districts. When these amounts are being decreased, the money to schools decreases.

We certainly need to look at Prop 13 again, not to abolish it, but to improve it. Areas where our schools suffer need to be addressed. Added to this, we need to get the parents of school children more involved in schools. We should enact tuition for all students in our district. $100 per student per year is a small amount to pay, but this amount would generate $68,000,000 in additional money for our schools.

Added to this, every parent should be required to work at their child's school for five hours per month. Five hours is a very small amount of time, and no parent can claim they cannot do this. They can forego five hours of television per month to put in their time at their childs' school.

For parents with more than one child, it was their choice to have children. Children are not free, and parents need to take more responsibility for their children. This is one way of accomplishing that.

Who Made This Economic Mess

Our nation is facing the worst economic disaster since the great depression, but where should we place the blame for it? As Americans, we enjoy pointing the finger, and both sides of the aisle will steadfastly accuse the other of being the proximate cause, and both with sound arguments. As I see it, the cause rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats AND the Republicans.

Republicans have traditionally been the party of big business and the wealthy, which often go hand-in-hand. The wealthy own the businesses, comprise the upper echelon of the management and own stock in the corporations. What ever is good for the business is good for their wallets, and the Republican party subscribes to that.


Democrats, on the other hand, follow a different tact. Where Republicans represent the wealthy, Democrats represent the poor. The Republicans are the owners of the businesses, but the workers are often Democrats. Both are responsible for the mess we're currently in, but they have added to the problem from different angles.

As representatives of the worker, Democrats often stand up for unions. Union workers enjoy good salaries and benefits due to their ability to band together and make demands of the business owners. While no one can argue that every American deserves a clean, safe workplace and to be paid a livable wage, unions often go above and beyond what is reasonable. Their logic is that if the businesses can afford to pay executives exhorbitant salaries, then the workers should be compensated highly as well.

This sounds all well and good, but there are problems with it. In the first place, the cost of these wages and benefits are passed on to the consumer. In the second place, mediocrity is being rewarded. Union workers are often compensated based solely on the fact that they are already employed, not on anything they have done to make themselves worth more. While anyone can spend the money and time to go back to school and get a degree, many union workers choose not to, but are still demanding wages exceeding those paid to someone with a degree.

The Democrats don't see this as a problem, and continue their union affiliations. If the legislature were to come out with a ceiling based on job and education level, the unions would have a fit, but such a measure would have done much to prevent the economic downfall in which we currently find ourselves.

The Republicans, on the other hand, continue to support the business owners. Years ago, as union wages rose the businesses decided they needed to cut costs, and one of the first places they did this was with their own operators. At one time in this country, when you called a company a person answered the phone and routed your call appropriately. Now you get a recorded voice and you must enter numbers to let the machine know where your call should be sent. If you don't fall within the parameters set up by the creator of the system, your call often goes unanswered.

All of these operators lost their jobs. Note that these were not the highest paying jobs, but they were jobs. People had them and relied upon them to pay their bills. Without these jobs, a segment of our society became unproductive, and their spending was curtailed. This, however, was not enough for the business owners. Other jobs were to follow. More and more businesses outsourced their Human Resources departments, their Customer Service departments, their Sales departments and their IT departments and much of this outsourcing was done in foreign countries. More Americans lost their jobs to the greed of the corporations, and more people had less money to spend.

Our economy has fallen apart and in order to rebuild it we need reform. Real reform. We need jobs at all levels, and those jobs must pay respectful wages and benefits. Those jobs should not pay exhorbitant wages. If someone wishes to better themselves, they should do that with education and training, not union affiliation.

At the same time, corporations must limit executive salaries. The executives of all corprorations should be paid no more than five times the salary of the lowest paid person in the company. All other benefits should be the same for all employees, be they executive or worker.

These reforms would not only end this recession, but they would ensure the prevention of another. In order for these reforms to work, Democrats and Republicans must work together. I wonder if I will ever see that happen.

City Council Member Violates Water Restrictions

One would think from the title of this post that I would be against the Councilman, but the opposite is the case. Here in Los Angeles the Department of Water and Power ("DWP") initiated a rule to enforce water conservation. This is all well and good, but as often happens when a utility is given too much authority, the ruling they passed doesn't make any sense.

As it currently stands, residents may only water their lawns twice a week; before 9:00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m. and for no more than 15 minutes per station. This in itself is a problem, since these are not necessarily the most optimal times for ensuring that the water does not evaporate. It also restricts the freedom of the citizens who do not have automated sprinklers, as it dictates that they must be home at certain times.

What is most onerous about the rule is that it can only be done on Mondays and Thursdays, which is a blatant violation of the rights of the citizens. One cannot pursue happiness if one must be at home watering one's lawn. While restricting water usage is a good thing, attempting to legislate days and hours when water may be used is illogical and quite frankly, stupid.

Now for the Councilman. Greig Smith has admitted that he is violating the DWP's rule by running his sprinklers not twice a week, but three times a week. What makes his way better is that he runs his sprinklers for eight minutes each time. At three times a week, he is running his sprinklers a total of 24 minutes per week. Using the DWP's method, he would be running his sprinklers for 30 minutes each week. Assuming that he uses 1 gallon of water per minute, he saves 6 gallons of water per week, or 312 gallons per year.

This is not enough for the idiots at the DWP. Joe Ramallo, a spokesman for the DWP, has stated that if the DWP witnesses Smith not following their schedule, Smith will be cited and then fined. For using less water than what the DWP allows.

I think it's time we get new people working for the DWP. Ones who think would be nice. It's also time our City Council change this legislation.