Letters from our Readers - June 2007

The Perfect Job for Bush
After watching the recent Scripps National Spelling Bee a thought surfaced.
President Bush after his term expires would make a delightful word “Pronouncer”? 
Not only would he be the pronouncer, but also the “decider” of the correct pronunciation. 
Bet the ratings would double. 
Maybe Leno or Letterman will create "The Great Pronouncer" skit for us.
Mike Sawyer
Birmingham, Alabama

Judicial System
Thanks you for alerting the public about the actions of the Montgomery County judicial system. My sister has lived in Montgomery for several years and has been literally destroyed by actions of the court system. She had been a stay at home mom for over sixteen years raising three boys on a full time basis. She was not your typical just stay at home mom, she was very dedicated to her children and actively involved in her church and community. 
After many years of abuse by her husband she fled her home after calling 9-11 and this is when her nightmare began. Unable to obtain a protective order in order to return to her home she was locked out by her husband and has never been allowed to return to her home. Her husband has made false allegation after false allegation and the court system has failed to investigate his actions. Her husband is financially well off and has hired the best attorney he could find to make her life a living hell. He has made numerous allegations against her and all have been unfounded yet she has been denied the right to a fair trial and hearing. 
The Montgomery County judicial system has violated her parental rights and he has repeatedly kept her from seeing her three boys. 
For days we sat in the courtroom listening to her husband and secretary flat out lie under oath about his financial status and the judge was in complete denial about his failure to produce business records. The judge’s excuse for allowing such behavior was he did not want to liquidate the only cash cow that anybody has. Instead her husband was allowed to lie and purge himself constantly under oath. As for domestic violence in Montgomery County, the courts don’t want to hear anything about a husband who for years mentally, physically and emotionally abused his wife. 
The judge was even handed a journal where her husband listed how he abused her and the courts once again looked the other way. My sister works part time for a large church in the Woodland area and the judge has even make comments about her religion and her so called little church friends. My sister works very hard volunteering lots of her free time to children and those in need. The judge’s comments are very disrespectful to her and her religion. We have been told on many occasions that the Montgomery county courts are very cliquish and that money play a major factor in the type of justice you receive. We were even told by an attorney in the Houston area that it depends who is sleeping with who that will win your case. This type of behavior is a joke to our community and a disgrace to the judicial system. 
My sister’s husband not only controlled her he controlled every asset they have and he has told her she would walk away with nothing including the boys. Before the trial even began he told her he already had custody of the boys and she better get used to it because she was going to be living under a bridge when he finished with her. To date he has managed to do everything he has said by using the legal system through the good old boy system and that includes the Adlitem who has always only heard his side of the story. She has never been given the right to a fair and every allegation made against her has been completely unfounded and untrue. 
This type of legal justice is wrong and needs to stop because it is hurting innocent people who cannot defend themselves unless they have deep pockets. After her one sided hearing the Judge ruled that she take an anger management class for violence which will probably go on her record despite the fact she is innocent. He also ruled she not be allowed once again to see her boys based on these false allegations. Once she completes the class he will allow visitation after her reputation has been destroyed. My sister loves working around children and this allegation could destroy because she works with kids. The ones who will also suffer are the children who love her and her character. These children love being around my sister because she truly has a big heart and loves what she does.
The judge ruled she will get a fraction of what she is entitled to even though we live in a community property state.
Her husband will keep everything and I mean everything including their home, her personal vehicle she uses for church and work and all their personal belongings. She will receive enough money to pay her own legal fees, her own debts, and a fraction of what she is entitled to which she was also ordered to pay child support and other expenses. She will basically walk away with nothing and that includes her three boys. How could this happen to someone who has done nothing but try to be the best she could be including an awesome mother, sister and friend to so many. She questions why God would allow such a thing to happen yet she has never lost faith in him. The only faith she has lost is in the judicial system. They don’t care about the anguish, pain and suffering they have caused to a mother who was stripped of her parental rights by a judicial system that is unfair and cruel. The worst part is there is nothing anybody can do especially in Montgomery County. We all feel so helpless and I pray she will get the justice she deserves and that somewhere somebody will listen.
Name Withheld

Click It or Ticket
Who was the "genius" who came up with last week's mass attack against pick-up truck drivers who don't wear their seat belts? Television commercials show many and various law enforcement officers surrounding truck drivers who's only crime is that they don't have their seat belts on. The commercial insinuates that Texas cares about the safety of pick-up truck drivers (who are believed to use seat belts less than other motorists) and that is why they are targeting them. Yeah, sure. I drive a pick-up and I wear my seat belt 99% of the time whether I am a driver or a passenger but I don't consider the lack of seat belt use as a crime that requires the use of thousands upon thousands of man hours from police to enforce. Not wearing a seat belt is not very smart but I consider it a personal choice made by citizens in a supposedly free society. 
Not wearing a belt may violate a law but it is a victim less crime as compared to say, assault and robbery. No one is physically injured by not wearing a belt (until a collision- and even then, belts can cause injuries themselves) and no one is deprived of their lawful possessions by not wearing a seat belt and yet our law enforcement entities are giving this a high priority? I was almost in an accident because an officer was standing in the middle of the road under an overpass trying to peek into motorists windows to see if they had their belts on. My fellow drivers were surprised to see this sight and reacted accordingly by slamming on their brakes nearly causing a multi-car collision. What if the officer was ran over or one of the motorists injured in an accident? For what? a possible $200 fine from some person who wasn't hurting anyone? I think the true reason for the crack down was monetary- the state wanted more money and raising taxes would be met with resistance. So they came up with this weak premise of caring about the public safety so they could hit the working people with a hefty penalty- also known as a tax- for doing what? Not doing nothing. 
If the government cared for the public as they attest then riding in the bed of pick up trucks would be illegal, seat belts would be required on school buses and motorcycles would be banned altogether. Single beers on ice could not be sold anywhere, the speed limit would go down to 45 mph on the interstates and driver's licenses and cars with 300+ horsepower would not be given to any 16 year old who wanted one or any 80 year old who shouldn't have one. Police officers would not be allowed to arrest drunk driver's one day and then be hired as security personnel for alcohol serving establishments the next day. Here are some novel ideas for the next "caring campaign" by law enforcement officials: Crack down on dangerous drivers, catch those illegal aliens who keep hitting my truck and fleeing and catch the thousands of real criminals that are still on the loose in Texas.
Richard Amburgey
Spring, Texas 

Presidents Plot for Continental Nation
On March 25, 2005, President Bush, Mexico’s President Fox and Canada’s Prime Minister Martin signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Twelve states have introduced resolutions to oppose the SPP and the North American Union (NAU). Some states also oppose new currency called the Amero. All of the resolutions are in reaction to integration of North America into one “harmonized” union. 
With this North American Union, our borders will be opened to more “undocumented immigrants” who will all become legal. Illegals are already straining our hospitals, schools and other governmental services. The proposed Union of the United States with Mexico and Canada will erase borders and destroy the sovereignty of our nation. General Douglas MacArthur noted, “I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
James MacGregor Burns, Council on Foreign Relations member, stated in 1984, “The framers (of the Constitution) have simply been too shrewd for us…. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges (or) tinkering. If we are to turn the founders upside down … we must directly confront the Constitution….” 
On Jan. 22, 2007, U.S. Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.) introduced H.C.R. 40 “that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”
States where resolutions against the Security and Prosperity Partnership and North American Union have been introduced include Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington.
Americans should see: www.JBS.org  (search: NAU ) - contact their representatives and demand their state join these states, and contact congress. World harmony is a noble goal; world government is not.
Charla Shamhart
Yucca Valley, California.

Iraq Parliament Wants U.S. Out 
On May 8th, without mention in the U.S. media, the Iraqi parliament signed a petition calling for US withdrawal. The Al Sadr movement, targeted by the Bush administration as enemy insurgents, sponsored the petition. (Raed Jarrar / Joshua Holland, Alternet)
It is obvious that oil is the defining issue in a major showdown that is developing between an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and US backed separatist, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The Iraqi parliament has proposed peace deals that might unite the country's ethnic and sectarian groups and result in an outcome all American politicians “say” they want: a stable, self-governing Iraq strong enough to keep al Qaeda from establishing training camps. 
Contrary to US interests, the plan sets a timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops and rebuilding the Iraqi security forces in a non-sectarian fashion. It includes provisions for disbanding militias, managing Iraq's natural resources and healing the wounds of more than 30 years of dictatorship, sanctions, and US occupation. These people don't hate us because of our liberty and freedom and they are not bomb-toting terrorists; they are Iraqis wrestling with a life or death problem and they want the US out. 
George W. Bush's claim that setting a timetable will “embolden the terrorists, those who hate and fear democracy"…. is nothing more than politically-driven hogwash. 
The ridiculous idea that truly sovereign Iraqis would ever permit the U.S. to build large permanent bases in Iraq or illegally re-write Iraq's constitution was always a grand delusion cooked up by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and the other traitorous signers of http://www.newamericancentury.org/ . Read this, if you dare - read it all! 
Powered by Cro-Magnon Neo-Cons of the American Enterprise institute like Newt Gingrich, and William Krystol, these people always plotted to use the invasion as a means of securing a toe-hold in the Middle-East for the U.S. military and "business-friendly" legal structures for international investors. And the Bush Administration was complicit up to its ears to the tune of $430 Billion of American taxpayers money! 
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” - Benjamin Franklin
Bill Barnes
Conroe, TX 

Tears (or Oscar) for Rep. John Boehner
Must say that the recent emotional drama of Congressman John Boehner (R, OH) got my attention. Boehner was proclaiming we need courage to defeat the enemy now, or long regret it.
Quick Internet searching informed me Boehner is:
· A chain-smoker
· A friend of Big Tobacco and foe of abortion
· The Republican House Leader who succeeded pro-tobacco Rep. Tom DeLay
· The leader of The Freedom Project which collects the most donations as a Political Action Committee from BT
· The 1995 summer Santa Claus, giving out $1000 BT checks on the House floor
Preaching “courage” while accepting “cash” from tobacco which was predicted to abort one billion this century. Tears or Oscar for Boehner?
Boehner should catch that BT jet (DeLay rode it from DC to TX for mug shot) to Bangladesh, not Beverly Hills to see the terror his embedded BT do to the poorest of poor. 
Mike Sawyer
Birmingham, Alabama 

Eliminating, then Privatizing the VA 
The handwriting is on the wall! The Bush administration doesn’t want to maintain the VA as a government agency and is pushing to dismantle it. 
It is interesting to note that the VA works so very well it’s been used frequently as the example to institute a national healthcare program, which is an issue sidestepped and hated by most Republicans. 
One of the problems inherent in the VA system is under-funding of taxpayer dollars to do the job adequately and also the governmental and bureaucratic politics that appear to dictate every cornerstone of the system. 
The VA has many individual and group success stories. According to Larry Scott’s Sept. 29, 2005, commentary printed on <Military.com> entitled Dismantling VA: 
"In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina we learned that VA was the ONLY healthcare organization that managed to save ALL patient records. This is because VA uses a computerized system that was backed-up on a regional level and put back online in a matter of hours. Now that system is under attack by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs . Rep. Buyer wants to eliminate regional control of the system under the guise of saving money." 
However, the VA is a part of big government. While the Bush administration sees no problem in its ongoing invasion into the every day lives and activities of the American people, it wants to cut-down dramatically the tax dollars paid into various social and economic programs that benefit the masses who need them. The VA now is one such target for eradication and privatization as it continues under government auspices, as is our Social Security Program.
Ideally, the Bush administration looks at the VA as a private sector function — and why not? It is another ripe plum for an administration whose wealthy special interests rule and whose major insatiable objective is to acquire an endless stream of profits. Millions, perhaps billions, may be made by privatizing the VA. Rightly so, Veterans groups are enraged and frightened by this overt and very possible hostile takeover by the current administration and its corporate special interests.
In September of 2005 a move occurred towards privatization when the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs approved S. 1182 (Sec. 10), which takes tax money from VA’s healthcare budget to study outsourcing jobs of VA healthcare workers. The study, with VA healthcare funds going to private consultants, could cost well over $160 million and may lead to the loss of up to 40,000 VA jobs. Most Democrats voted against it, but it was approved by the [then] GOP majority and is a current study. 
Dismantling and privatizing VA is a big job, but the administration and the corporate sector are trying to sell the idea to the public. 
The VA is an integral lifeline for all Veterans of past and current wars and of multi-service eras. The Bush administration, with no problem providing "Corporate Welfare" to its own special interests, abhors the function and status of the VA by viewing it as another form of mass social welfare. The attacks by the administration on the VA and veterans’ benefits will continue. The majority of service organizations know it, yet all they do is go before a committee and testify that veterans are good people and deserve their benefits, while in actuality, their dues-paying members are waiting months for treatment at a VA facility or getting no treatment at all due to the ongoing cutbacks of tax funding, personnel, equipment and pharmaceuticals, and ongoing special interest power-plays. 
Eliminating the VA in favor of privatization is a major priority of the Bush administration, right along with the privatization of Social Security. It appears that the government will stop at nothing to pursue ever-greater profiteering.
Once again, it hinges upon our nation’s loyalty and self-respect to our Veterans, who are heroes being cast aside by a greedy government and corporate regime. American citizens with a conscious for doing the right thing, along with those Veterans needing the system, must pound-down the doors of the Bush administration and demand that the VA remain under the rubric of government. To enable privatization of the VA will ensure that to most Veterans needing the system it will become unaffordable, much as the current healthcare insurance system is unaffordable for most Americans. It may be an endless battle to keep the VA free of the pending corporate takeover.
Peter Stern,
Driftwood, TX 

BMI Article
I have a 60 seat bar in po-dunk Iowa. BMI has been hassling me for at least a year. I have avoided the call until just recently. They tell me I can put 90
people in my bar and they will charge me 580.00/year. 
I have no idea if my local musicians or kareoke guy plays their music but it sure seems this industry should have some regulation. You would think they would have bigger fish to fry. I never charge a cover
or record any music being played. I pay the musician out of my till. Do I need to pay these extortion artists?
Name Withheld

Guns and Bars
Perhaps you should look up crime statistics on states that allow the carry of handguns in bars. Many states, including states where a lot higher % of the population is licensed, allow concealed (or open) carry in bars. I grew up in Indiana before moving south. One out of every 16 adults is licensed to carry (far higher than Texas) and bar carry was/is legal. Blood does not run in the streets, arguments do not end in gunfights. People are safer. If you are so worried about it, make it illegal to drink while carrying a gun in public.
Also, consider this: We know alcohol and driving do not mix...yet bars have parking lots. Why? Recognizition that not everybody who goes to a bar drinks, and not everybody that drinks does so to excess. 
Nathan Brooker

Bars and Guns
You need to know that if bars become legal places to carry a Licensed Concealed handgun, the law STILL SAYS YOU CANNOT CARRY SAID HANDGUN WHILE INTOXICATED. 
I quote Section 46.035 Secion (d) of the Texas Penal Code. 
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.
Here is a link to the code. It is better to know the facts before you publish things like that. http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/ docs/PE/content/htm/pe.010.00.000046.00.htm#46.035.00  
Thank you for reading. 
Walter Foster

Immigration
Washington--When the Newseum reopens this fall in Washington, it will have on exhibit what may be the largest section of the infamous Berlin wall remaining anywhere and the East German guard tower that I used to pass crossing through the wall at Checkpoint Charlie. The Newseum is the Freedom Forum's living tribute to the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and engraved on the Newseum's wall facing Pennsylvania Avenue here in this nation's capital.
Our Media & Politics class put on hard hats for a look at the work under way. The Newseum sits midway on the avenue that links-or divides--the Capitol and the White House, a metaphor for the role of the press as the Fourth Estate in America's artfully crafted, yet sometimes precarious balance of powers. 
It's been a warm, sunny week in Washington during which the division over funding the war in Iraq cooled-slightly. The simmering summer debate over changing the nation's immigration laws, though, continues. It bubbled up in the recent Republican presidential debate in Columbia. There's a wall between Senator John McCain-worker visas--and former Governor Mitt Romney-no amnesty. South Carolina's senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint are similarly divided. The "A" word is causing much of the buzz, though the issue is too complex to be characterized by any single aspect.
There are real, virtual and rhetorical walls in this debate. Rep. Henry Brown told the students that past immigration reform has not worked, so the U.S. "has got to defend its borders first." Rep. Jim Clyburn suggested that for every "15-foot fence" there is a "16-foot ladder."
Last year's Secure Fence Act calls for some 700 miles of fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. History suggests walls don't always guarantee security. China's Great Wall was, in effect, more a centuries-long jobs program and is now a tourist attraction.
The walls of Jericho came tumbling down, and Israel's contemporary walls have not kept terrorism out.
The Berlin Wall was an onerous scab. East Germans risked and lost their lives trying to get over or under it. Korea's DMZ has substantially held the North Korean nation captive. It's the North Korean government that tunnels under the DMZ trying to subvert the South Korean republic. 
As a nation that built its reputation on open doors and open arms, the United States is now engaged in debate as to how welcoming it wants to be. This is only partly a question of national and personal security. It's also about economic security. 
That's a two-way street. Are immigrants-legal or illegal-taking jobs from Americans or doing jobs that would otherwise be hard to fill? Send back 12 million immigrants and see who shows up for work tomorrow morning. That goes well beyond the stereotypical notion that immigrants are all gardeners, dishwashers and hotel maids.
What the U.S. is wrestling with is hardly new or unique to our shores. When I lived in Yugoslavia decades ago, the street cleaners and garbage collectors were all ethnic Albanians. Serbs tended to look down on them. When I moved to Austria, the street cleaners and garbage collectors were more likely to be Yugoslavs. Austrians tended to look down on them. When I moved to Germany. you get the picture.
I took my teenage son to Ellis Island in New York recently. It was one of those Dad provides a field trip experiences to supplement son's American history studies. The museum on Ellis Island documents the flow of Germans, Irish, Italians, Russians, Jews and others to the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 
Those populations, too, faced struggles of assimilation and discrimination. We've done this before and in numbers that probably seemed equally daunting. We did not, though, have to face immigration with the fears and insecurities of terrorism or in the kind of global economy that has Americans worried about some think isour inevitable decline. 
As the immigration debate continues there is much for our politicians and our society to think about. It's not a time for building walls around our imagination and creativity
Charles Bierbauer
West Columbia, SC

Gypocrite
Senator Fred Thompson, a possible conservative republican candidate for President recently remarked about film maker Michael Moore's trip to Cuba. In an article in the May 2, 2007 National Review article,"Paradise Island" the Senator says :" It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro" Clearly, the Senator feels that it is morally wrong to support the Communist regime of Fidel Castro. Senator Thompson will most likely bring up this matter when he decides to run for higher office - or will he? In the April 23, 2007 issue of "The Weekly Standard's" there is a statement about the fine, conservative Senator that states "Thompson's work space looks like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like--though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat screen TV, and box upon box of cigars--Montecristos from Havana" (emphasis added by me). 
Now could it be that the conservative Senator is too stupid to realize that the cigar stuffed into his mouth helps support the communist regime of Fidel Castro's Cuba or does he just not care? I guess the latter. It would seem that we have another hypocrite conservative republican slamming a liberal for doing something, while the republican does the very same thing, but not if you look closer. Moore went to Cuba, not to buy some illegal cigars to suck on, but to have Cuban doctors examine some of the workers from the September 11, 2001 tragedy. 
It seems the U.S. government can't find the time nor money to help these people out so Moore took them to a country with a much better health care system to emphasize how negligent our own system is. Senator Thompson was appalled- as I am sure many of the compassionate, conservative republicans out there will be. So the best Senator Fred Thompson can do is accept money from the health care lobby, smoke his illegal Cuban cigars, ponder his candidacy as a moral representative of fine conservative values and "shake his head" about Michael Moore's nerve. I have now coined a new word to describe people like Senator Thompson- Gypocrite (GOP + hypocrite)
Richard Amburgey
Spring, Texas

Texans Paying Highest Property Taxes, Home Insurance Proportionately in the Nation! 
We need to ask ourselves, "Why?"
Three years ago with Gov. Perry, then Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) Commissioner Jose Montemayor, and legislators "looking the other way," lax insurance legislation permitted the industry to double the premiums paid by Texas homeowners.
At that time and during the previous several years the insurance industry had been experiencing a "hard market" and was losing revenue, we were told it was due to excessive claims due to storms, , winds, flooding, hail and mold. It had called upon the state informally to help with correcting the market, but few listened to industry pleas.
As in many previous years of "hard markets" the insurance industry elected to act on the problem without waiting any longer for government interaction on its behalf. Virtually overnight it then "over-corrected" the market by doubling home insurance premiums.
In some instances, the industry decreased the coverage and still increased the premiums significantly.
The reactions by homeowners was disbelief and then anger. They contacted the offices of the Governor, TDI, and various legislators. They were told publicly by Gov. Perry and TDI Comm. Montemayor that by the next year the insurance industry would refund up to 14-percent of the increased premiums.
To date, that has NEVER occurred.
The governor and state officials continue to permit the insurance industry in Texas to maintain the highest home insurance premiums anywhere else in the nation.
Currently we are nearing the end of the 2nd business quarter of Year 2007 and are in a "softer market". The industry has been reaping substantial profits for the past several years and still is. Despite high revenues there is no sign of legislators providing more oversight and/or regulation on the insurance market, nor is the industry on its own considering lowering the premiums of home insurance to a more reasonable amount.
Periodically and when public opinion and discontent require it, Gov. Perry gives the issue some lip service and leaves it up to the Legislature to consider, but no one seriously acts on behalf of overburdened Texas homeowners. With ever-increasing property values and taxes, home insurance is a close second as the cause of the record number of foreclosure throughout the state.
Apparently, unless Texans pound on the gubernatorial and legislative doors, communicating via phone and letters that home insurance relief is needed NOW, no one will do anything about it and Texas homeowners will continue to pay the highest premium costs anywhere in the nation. We can't depend on the governor, legislators, current TDI Commissioner Mike Geeslin or the insurance industry to offer homeowners relief. To them the sweet smell of profits overrides the stench of decay from the "American Dream" becoming a nightmare for most of us.
We either can remain the docile sheep officials want us to be, or we can move on correcting this unacceptable series of insurance events.
Peter Stern
Driftwood, TX

I Want to Cry From my Mansion!
Last issue's letter entitled: "BMI Article" caused me to do some thinking. Organizations like BMI charge club owners etc. for the rights to play copyrighted music in their establishments. The author considers BMI as "extortion artists" because of the excess fees BMI imposes. Artists sell a product and they do it for profit. I have no argument with that point but when is enough ,enough? The issue came to a head when the file-sharing program "Napster" was created. Artists like Lars Ulrich of the band Metallica argued that he was being cheated out of money because people were consuming his product without paying for the right to do so. I understand his position but I think there are some very "gray" areas pertaining to this situation. Like the author of the letter, a friend of mine with a nightclub had to pay a hefty yearly fee if he wanted to stock his jukebox with the latest hit music. I was in a band that gigged in his club and he told my band that we or he could be charged or fined if we played music by Bruce Springsteen without Bruce's permission or paying the fee. I don't consider myself a thief when I play "Pink Cadillac" in my band but does BMI feel the same way? When someone drops a quarter in the jukebox to pay for the right to hear a song but everybody within earshot hears the same song without paying for it are they thieves too? 
Shouldn't everybody who listens to the song have to pay too or, at least, cover their ears? What if the bar owner has paid the fee but I am standing outside his establishment when I hear the song? Is that a second-degree music felony? If I sing a song at Karaoke and I don't chip in a buck am I a common crook? What if I hum the theme to "Enter Sandman" by Metallica in the shower? Does Lars have the right to kick in the shower door and demand a check from me? My point is that certain consumables -like music- are never used up or depleted like a candy bar or automobile is. You only pay for that Snickers bar once and then it's gone. Snickers doesn't try to charge you royalties for future fond remembrances of a past event. Chevrolet gets your initial twenty-five grand for that new car you just bought but they don't get any more money when you sell it to the guy down the block 5 years later or he sells it to the illegal alien 5 years after that. When Ozzy Osborne sang: "You can't kill rock n roll" he wasn't kidding. Music can never really die so how long should someone be expected to pay for it- or to collect money from it? And what about all those old magazines lying on the coffee table in your doctor's office? Did you look through one on your last visit? Did you pay for the right to read one? No? Thief! You now owe billionaire Rupert Murdoch some money. It is hard to feel sorry for rich rock stars when they cry from their mansion in Beverly Hills about not being able to buy that 2nd Lear jet because crooks like me did a half-assed version of one of their songs in an ice house in Conroe without paying for it. But maybe the tide can be turned. What if I demanded money from BMI or their clients to play one of their songs at my next gig? I have been giving free promotion and advertising every time I sing a Karaoke song or cover a tune in my band. Instead of me owing Bruce- maybe Bruce owes me! And if he is too cheap to pay then I will just have to create my own original tunes so hopefully one day I can cry from my mansion too!
Rick Amburgey
Spring, Texas

Binding Resolution
The defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed by the United States. (Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet)
The continuing occupation of Iraq and the allocation of Iraq's resources -- especially its massive oil and natural gas deposits -- are the defining issues that now separate an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists in the Iraqi parliament from the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists. (Alternet, May 9)
The separatists favor partitioning Iraq into three autonomous regions with strong local governments and a weak central administration in Baghdad. They favor privatizing Iraq's oil and gas. But public opinion is squarely with Iraq's nationalists. The University of Maryland's Project on International Public Policy Attitudes poll finds majorities of all three of Iraq's major ethno-sectarian groups support a unified Iraq with a strong central government. (Alternet, May 9) 
Turkish troops are currently massed along the border, awaiting orders. They have threatened to attack if the separatists get what they want, an autonomous Kurdish state. Are we headed for war, not only with Iran, but with Turkey too? 
How many times have we heard the Bush Administration and Republican Presidential candidates warn of the chaos that will ensue if we “cut and run?” How can the American public continue to swallow that worn out old line? For at least two years, poll after poll has shown that large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the United States to set a timeline for withdrawal, even though they expect the security situation to deteriorate in the short term as a result.(worldpublicopinion,org)
While our Democratic-controlled Congress cowers under the threat of presidential veto and scurrilous accusations of “not supporting the troops,” the Iraqi parliament has acted. On June 5 they passed a binding resolution that would prevent US supported
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, from unilaterally securing yet another UN renewal of the resolution that legalizes the US occupation. The Iraqi parliament's action will, in legal terms, change the US status in Iraq from “liberators” to “armed occupying troops,” removing from them any reason for UN support. (Alternet, June 16)
All “humanitarian” excuses for US presence in Iraq will then be nullified. Let's see what kind of spin the Bush administration puts on this.
Bill Barnes
Conroe, TX

Supreme Court
Our conservative supreme court has ruled that partial birth abortions are illegal even to save the mother's life by a vote of 5-4. This is the result of a woman being replaced on the supreme court by a conservative man. 
Where is there any compassion in conservatives? This is a heartless, unmerciful decision. Every woman and man in America should be outraged. 
I can understand people being opposed to abortions, especially, partial birth abortions. However, I can not understand how the life of a fetus is more important than a mother's life. 
In my mind, I see a young man who has just been told that his wife had to die to save his baby. Would that had been his choice? 
I also see parents being told their daughter had to lose her life so her baby could live. Would that have been their choice? 
As a father, I know it would not have been my choice, even though my children are so precious to me. 
As a grandfather, my grandchildren are precious to me, but I would have had to choose my daughter's life had I had to make such a horrible choice 
My father told me long ago, if our house had ever caught fire, "I would have saved your mother first, then went back in 
to save you kids." I fully understood and think any reasonable person would also. I do not understand anyone who would sacrifice a woman's life to save her fetus. 
Every woman who loses her life due to this ruling will be another casualty of the Bush administration. It is time for Americans to wake up and elect a democratic president to restore sanity in our federal government. 
Bill Talley 
Houston, Tx

Great Article
I really appreciate this opinion piece as it speaks to the heart of a fatal error that was made in the wake of 9/11. As you suggested, the journalists were mistaken in considering themselves as Americans first and journalists second. 
When Bush figuratively donned the red, white, and blue as an imperial cape, we all had no choice but to yield to that which would protect us, fight for us, and avenge us. To question any of it was un-American. 
With this is mind, I humbly suggest you look into something that the media has overlooked. Beyond the catastrophic failure of the occupation, despite the double standard that has been evident with respect to the global war on terror, and despite the false pretenses that have gotten us into war, there is something far more sinister and disquieting that the mainstream media has overlooked - 9/11 itself. 
Before you dismiss this as "tinfoil-hat/conspiracy" nonsense, hear me out on a few things. The mainstream media failed to question the 9/11 Commission's report ommission of critical questions that have remained unanswered: 
1. Why was the collapse of Word Trade Center Building 7 left out of the report? This was a 47 story building that was not hit by a plane and came down in free-fall collapse, falling into its own foot print. 
2. Why didn't the commission follow up on the inconsistencies of NORAD's testimony? Kean even suggested that people were deliberately being untruthful. 
3. Why was the potential testimony of dozens, if not hundreds of firefighters, police officers, EMS, Port Authority workers, and employees of WTC left out with respect to their corroboarted accounts that heavy explosives were heard and seen at the base of WTC towers one and two prior to collapse? 
These are just a handful of questions. It is odd that not one person has been charged with criminal negligence, fired, or even demoted as a result of 9/11. If this was the result of corporate negligence, wouldn't heads have rolled by now? 
Check out these websites to learn more about 9/11 Truth. To explore these questions is patriotic to the core. Where the mainstream media has failed to answer my unasnwered questions or even address them, I have found some convincing evidence and analysis here: 
http://patriotsquestion911.com/  
http://911blogger.com/  
http://reopne911.com/  
I also suggest you read David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor. This is the book that changed my whole perspective on 9/11 and got me to explore my own inquiries. 
Rob Reis 
Port Chester, NY 

A Missed Opportunity on Energy
High energy costs have a tremendously adverse impact on our economy and our daily lives. Studies have shown that each time oil prices rise by 10 percent, the negative effect on our national economy results in the loss of 150,000 American jobs. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2030, the United States will consume 28 percent more oil than we do today. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate recently missed an opportunity to confront our growing dependence on foreign oil by passing an energy bill which does nothing to ease high gas prices or increase our energy supply.
The high cost of foreign oil is the largest single contributor to the record gasoline prices we are experiencing this summer. Over 60 percent of our petroleum comes from overseas—almost all of it from members of the OPEC cartel or third-world nations ruled by dictators who are hostile to America and collude with state sponsors of terrorism. Common sense says that we must control our own energy supply and not leave it to the whims of foreign despots who seek to harm us.
Thankfully, there is a way out of this trap. America is a land of abundant natural resources and immeasurable ingenuity. We must be willing to tap both these assets to increase energy production within our own borders. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), for example, could potentially provide 1 million barrels of oil per day—a 20 percent increase over current domestic production—but short-sighted policies have blocked exploration there for decades. And, even though the Outer Continental Shelf has enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for 60 years and enough oil to drive 85 million cars for 35 years, the Senate voted down amendments to end a 25-year ban on expanded production there. Some Senators cited environmental concerns, but neglected to mention that ANWR is the size of South Carolina and the area that would be explored is smaller than DFW Airport. In addition, advances in modern technology allow us to explore for the energy we need with very minimal ecological impact. 
This bill also failed to address a dangerous lack of refining capacity in the United States. A new refinery has not been built in America in 30 years, but our demand for gasoline and petrochemicals continues to rise. As we painfully experienced in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, refinery setbacks can inflate energy prices enormously. The notoriously bureaucratic federal licensing process has dissuaded many companies from building new facilities, yet the Senate voted down an amendment I co-sponsored to remove these regulatory roadblocks.
Rather than encourage domestic energy production, some Senators attempted to amend the energy bill with provisions that would have burdened our oil and gas industry with approximately $29 billion in new taxes. The last thing we should be doing is discouraging domestic exploration with tax hikes and overregulation. When Congress passed “windfall profits” taxes such as these in 1980, domestic oil production dropped and oil imports increased by as much as 13 percent. Some of my colleagues are quick to make promises about lowering gas prices by taxing big oil companies. In reality, these taxes would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the pump. Fortunately, a group of my colleagues and I were able to block this tax hike amendment.
The continued failure by Congress to confront our core energy challenges will hurt America’s families and jeopardize our national security. With our oil imports in the hands of foreign rulers and our domestic industry undercut by misguided policies, it is likely that energy costs will continue to rise. It is time to get serious about energy. Unfortunately, with the passage of this energy bill, the Senate has squandered an opportunity to do so.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

“Hydrogen Economy” a Boondoggle
While the "hydrogen economy" receives much media attention, there are serious problems with hydrogen as transportation fuel. The first is hydrogen gas is extremely explosive. Hydrogen must be pressurized to 250 atmospheres for use as fuel, requiring corrosion-resistant tanks that don't rust, spring leaks, and explode. Hydrogen’s low energy density requires fuel tanks 14 times as large to yield the same driving range. To get a 1,000 mile range, a tractor trailer needs 168 gallons of diesel. Hydrogen vehicles would require 2,360 gallons of hydrogen, stored at 250 atmospheres. Dedicating that much space to fuel storage would drastically reduce how much trucks could carry, while the costs of high-pressure, corrosion-resistant storage tanks -- astronomical. 
The two main options for producing hydrogen, generating from water and extracting from other fuels, both have energy efficiencies below 100%, (takes more energy to produce than you get). Hydrogen vehicles (currently $1 million each to produce) would need a widescale hydrogen fuel distribution system. With a single hydrogen fuel pump costing $1 million, installing six at each of the 176,000 fuel stations across the US is over $1 trillion - costs completely avoided with biofuels that use our current infrastructure. 
Tami Freedman
Ooltewah TN

Time for Republicans to Choose
The recent claim by Dick Cheney to have both executive privilege and not to be part of the executive branch of government seems to amount to a claim that Cheney is simply above the rule of law. It appears that both Bush and Cheney think they rule by divine right like the absolute monarchs of medieval Europe or the dictators of the old Soviet Bloc. Both need to be impeached. Until they are removed from office, the media, Congress and the courts should be aggressively investigating, exposing and opposing their abuses of power. 
Bush has ignored the rule of law repeatedly. He has wiretapped American citizens without court orders in clear violation of the law by claiming nonexistent Presidential authority. Both Bush and Cheney lied to the American public and Congress to take America into an illegal war in Iraq. 
Republican politicians helped Bush and Cheney pack our federal courts and the US Department of Justice with partisan political hacks who do everything possible to make illegal actions benefiting Republicans appear legal. Elections have been essentially rigged by denying millions of Americans of their right to vote or to have their votes accurately counted. 
Corporation channeling money to Republican organizations or candidates have been able to win billions of dollars worth of no-bid government contracts under highly questionable or obviously illegal conditions. Corporate givers were able to ignore government regulations and federal laws concerning oil and mineral leases, environmental considerations, worker safety, consumer rights, fair competition, price-gouging and anti-monopoly concerns. 
Congress should immediately repeal the falsely-named Patriot Act because neither Bush or Cheney can be trusted with the powers that law hands to the White House and the Executive Branch. All funding for the White House should be strictly limited and closely monitored by Congress. 
White House funding should be conditioned on Cheney revealing all details of his Energy Task Force and all details of Karl Rove’s role concerning the various election scandals seemingly connected to the White House. All details concerning the outing of CIA agent Valerie Palme and the lies promoted by the White House leading up to the invasion of Iraq should be revealed to Congress. White House involvement in torture and secret prisons should be publicly exposed. 
Our national security has been undermined. Our civil liberties threatened. Our traditional political freedoms badly trampled by an out of control Executive Branch actively abetted by Republicans in Congress and Republican federal judges. 
Corruption and incompetence dominates the leadership of the Republican Party at the state and national level almost everywhere in America. Investigations are underway in state after state from California to Texas to Ohio of Republican political abuses. Many more are called for in places like Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada and Pennsylvania. 
Partisan political considerations should never trump the rule of law. It is up to Republicans to clean-up the corruption and contempt of American political traditions by their leadership. Republican leaders need to choose between their Party leadership and the future of the American nation! 
Stephen Crockett
Earleville, Maryland

Firing the Federal Prosecutors
You've certainly read about the Justice Department firing eight federal prosecutors for political reasons. Why is that such a big deal? 
Upon taking office, each incoming Administration hires its own team of federal prosecutors. Normally, all or most of the previous administrations prosecutors are let go at the beginning of the new Presidents term. Under Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno allowed some of Bushs prosecutors stay on for a few months, but most were dismissed immediately. The idea is that federal attorneys are employed by the Justice Department, which is under the Executive branch of government. Thus, they serve at the pleasure of the President. 
Now, once this process is completed, the meddling stops. The team is in place, and from then on, prosecutors review cases based on triable facts. If a fact pattern reveals a triable federal crime, an attorney may proceed with charges. Prosecutors bring cases forward only when conviction is a real possibility. 
In other words, cherry-picking cases based on politics is not supposed to happen. Presidents dont call prosecutors out onto the carpet because there arent enough of the "other guys" heads on the chopping block. Clinton didnt do that, Bush Senior didnt do that. The president is not supposed to use the Justice Department as his personal tool of political recrimination. Of course, that happens in dictatorships all the time. In weak democracies, strong-arm rulers frequently use the threat of prosecution to intimidate political opponents. 
America is not immune to presidential judicial meddling. From Thomas Jefferson forward, most Presidents have sought ways to influence, not only the outcome of federal court decisions, but the personnel who decide them. From the landmark case Marbury vs. Madison, to FDRs attempt to stack the Supreme Court, to Nixons infamous "Saturday Night Massacre," Presidents will try to act like kings. These conflicts are usually played out loudly, publicly, with the President sent back to his corner, licking his wounds. 
But the Bush Administration is sneakier. Mr. Bush believes that individual federal prosecutors are political servants, and should prosecute Democrats while shielding Republicans. Anything less would be disloyal. Anything less would lead to dismissal. Thus, Bushs friend Alberto Gonzales was hired to monitor the work of prosecutors, and keep an eye out for those whom refused to bring charges against Democrats, even if those charges lacked real substance. Those who would not play ball were fired. Most often, Karl Rove would already have a replacement in mind. 
In the months before the 2006 election, the Republican team was especially keen on quashing corruption cases against Republicans, and prosecutors who wouldn’t bend were sacked. For example, one prosecutor was instructed to lay off California Congressmen Cunningham, currently serving 8 years for bribery. She refused, and was fired. Others were fired for failing to go after Democrats. The charges may not stick, but they could at least serve to intimidate the opposition. 
Intimidation. 
Yes, thats what the Republican team had in mind. One important ongoing Republican project is trumping up charges of voter fraud. These charges are invariably leveled against Democrat voters, often isolated individuals without money to fight back. As was reported recently, theres no evidence of widespread election fraud, and the few triable cases that surfaced were minor procedural violations. For example, one woman voted while she was on probation. Small potatoes, maybe, but you can be sure shes going to jail for a good long time. Four years actually. She’s a mother of four young children, and yes, she’s black. 
Right there. That’s what most of the fired federal prosecutors wouldn’t go along with trumping up charges against individual Democratic voters of color. 
The reason why Republicans risk such murky legal waters over this is because the stakes are high. Black voters will play a huge role in the 2008 election, and the Republicans would dearly love to scare a few into staying home. Black voters were not crazy about Kerry, but they sure came out for Bill Clinton. The Republicans fear, of course, that Hillary may pack the same punch. And beyond this, there’s simple force of habit. Republican attempts to keep blacks from the polls are recorded on the most blood-soaked pages of American history. 
But this time around, we may never learn the worst of what they had in mind. The ghost of Nixon hangs heavy in the Oval Office, chanting, "Always burn the tapes," so you can bet that the email discussions between Rove and Gonzales have been purged from the servers. They have good reason to cover their tracks. Justice-tampering was at the heart of the impeachment case against Nixon, leading to his disgrace and resignation.
Celeste Greene

It Is a Crime
There were 31 killed at the university.
In Iraq there are 60-80 being killed daily 
What we have done to the Iraqi people is criminal and how can anyone justify it? 
We invaded a country who was not a threat 
to us or it's neighbors. Life was bad under 
Saddam but most Iraqi's lived normal lives in a secular country. 
Hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed or maimed. Many have had their homes destroyed, thousands of children have become orphans. 
Today, every Iraqi is living a nightmare as their country is torn apart by all the warring factions. 
They are afraid to go shopping, to work and forget about play. A large % of the children have got bed wetting problems or have developed a stutter. 
What we have done to the Iraqi people is a crime, what we have done to our troops is a crime as well. 
Bill Talley 
Houston, Tx

Editor's Note: We encourage you to send in your Letters to the Editor, but please remember to give your name and town. `Anonymous' letters will no longer be accepted. Direct confidential questions by calling (936) 539-2200 or e-mail editor@thebulletin.com.

LETTERS FROM MAY 2007

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2007

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2007

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2007

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2007

LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2006

LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2006

LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2006

LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2006

LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2006

LETTERS FROM JULY 2006

LETTERS FROM JUNE 2006

LETTERS FROM MAY 2006

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2006

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2006

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2006

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2006

LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2005

LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2005

LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2005

LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2005

LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2005

LETTERS FROM JULY 2005

LETTERS FROM JUNE 2005

LETTERS FROM MAY 2005

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2005

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2005

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2005

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2005

LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2004

LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2004

LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2004

LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2004

LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2004

LETTERS FROM JULY 2004

LETTERS FROM JUNE 2004

LETTERS FROM MAY 2004

LETTERS FROM APRIL 2004

LETTERS FROM MARCH 2004

LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2004

LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2004