Social Security is a pressing issue since Alan Greenspan implied in his Congressional testimony of February 25 that Bush's tax cuts endanger the fund. Greespan says that the solution isn't to reverse the tax cuts for the rich (Greenspan says this would slow growth), but to reduce Social Security payments.

A letter to the New York Times offers another solution. The Social Security tax is only charged to wages below $83,000. Wages above are exempt. The letter implies this exemption isn't consistent with tax fairness, and that removing the exemption is the best wasy to fix Social Security.

In 'Fixes for Social Security' (editorial, April 4), you hit on the fairest, quickest key to fixing the problem: removing the cap on taxable wages. For years, I have asked congressmen of both parties how they justify this most regressive of all taxes. I have never received a reply.

I would go further: Remove the cap and make the tax progressive, just like the income tax. That might even produce enough surplus revenue to give the lower wage earners a Social Security tax cut.

--Norman Macht, Menlo Park, Calif.

In an age where law enforcement officials no longer need a court order to wiretap your phones and secretly videotape your every move, it appears that the 4th amendment is still alive and well. It's just move alive for some than for others.

Dick Cheney's personal Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, gave a speech about the Constitution at a Mississippi High School and college. At both speeches, a reporter was on hand to record Scalia's commentary on the Constitution. And at both speeches, the U.S. Marshall's Service forced the reporters to destroy the recording of Scalia's words. In addition, the press were told they couldn't photograph the justice.

There is evidence that the Marshall's Service, in forcibly destroying the reporters' recordings, is in violation of the Privacy Protection Act, which says government officers may not seize journalists' materials.

A letter to the Minneapolis Star Tribune questions whether the wonderful job figures for March 2004 should be accepted at face value.

The economy added 308,000 jobs (Star Tribune, April 3)?

Wait a minute. The Labor Department did not report the loss of 72,000 jobs when California grocery workers went out on strike (specifically because it was a strike, not a layoff), but its press release on the huge job gain last month cited the return of those 72,000 workers as a major element in the 'huge' job gain. Did it also ignore the job losses of the thousands of temporary workers the grocery chains had hired in order to keep their doors open?

Is the Labor Department cooking the books? I smell the sour stink of Enron-type accounting here.

--John Gibb, Monticello, Minn.

We're waging war against terrorism, drugs, smoking, obesity, yadda yadda yadda. But now we have a new war to look forward to: pornography, or pr0n, as it's called tongue-in-cheek on the 'net. We're not talking about child porn, or snuff films. We're talking about run-of-the-mill `boy meets girl, boy you-know-whats girl'.

Under the Clinton Administration:

Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general, who focused on child pornography, which is considered child abuse and comes under different criminal statutes.

Under the Bush Administration, a representative for the Department of Justice (DoJ) says:

Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity.

Some of the cable versions of porno movies are prosecutable. Once it becomes obvious that this really is a federal felony instead of just a form of entertainment or investment, then legitimate companies, to stay legitimate, are going to have to distance themselves from it.

And who is the person that Bush is relying on to tell us what porn is prosecutable? John Ashcroft, director of DoJ: A deeply religious man who doesn't drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or even dance. Would you really want a man who thinks that dancing is morally frivolous to be the meter stick for what's obcene?

To that end, the government is devoting full-time FBI agents, postal inspectors, courts, judges, and millions of dollars (not including the $60,000+ per year salaries of those people) to prosecute porn of any and all kinds. The DoJ has 6 full time employees who look at pornographic magazines and movies from 9am to 5am (sorry, all the positions are filled).

First amendment and privacy of the bedroom issues aside, does anyone remember that National Geographic was considered pornographic in the 1950's? Or how about recently, when a website giving breast cancer self-examination instructions was banned by library filters for containing `offensive' pictures of a woman touching her breast?

Considering everything that our nation is facing in these days, is a war on vanilla porn a wise use of our resources?

Imagine if you gave a speech and someone yawned during the speech. No big deal. But for the intolerant officials in the Bush administration, someone yawning during a George W. Bush speech is a big enough deal to spread lies over.

As Paul Krugman describes, CNN helps such Bush officials to spread lies anonymously.

On March 30, 2004, CNN played a tape previously shown on 'Late Show with David Letterman' of a boy yawning during a speech by George W. Bush. Then after a commercial break, CNN anchorwoman Daryn Kagan announced that the White House says the tape is fake. After David Letterman spoke out that evening to say the tape is real, CNN announced that the White House never said the tape was fake. CNN gives the Bush Administration the power to smear David Letterman, and then lies for the White House when the smear doesn't pan out.

Another example: Richard Clarke, author of 'Against All Enemies,' said the Bush Administration treated terrorism as a low-priority before 9/11. On March 24, 2004, CNN's Wolf Blitzer responded by announcing that unnamed Bush 'administration officials' said Richard Clarke's 'personal life' has 'some weird aspects.'

CNN didn't name the White House sources when it smeared David Letterman; CNN didn't name the White House sources when it smeared Richard Clarke.

CNN's corrupt journalism gives the federal government absolute power to smear people without accountability.

Advice to CNN: name the sources of smears, or don't broadcast the smears.

The RIAA filed 89 "John Doe" complaints against students using university networks and 443 complaints against individuals using ISP networks in connection with suspected music swapping.

The suits being "John Doe" complaints means that the RIAA only knows the IP address, not the identity, of the suspected music swapper. Further court action is needed to reveal the identity of the suspected swappers.

To date, the RIAA has always settled with suspected music swappers. Probably because nobody wants to play around with a $100,000 per song fine that the RIAA seeks. There have been 1,977 people sued by the RIAA on behalf of record companies, and the settlements have averaged $3,000 per person. In 2003, the RIAA settled with 4 students suspected of file swapping. The fines were between $12,000 and $17,500.

You can boycott the RIAA by not purchasing albums released by record companies associated with the RIAA. The RIAA Radar provides a database that you can search by album title, artist, and record label to find out which albums are released by RIAA associated record labels. In addition, they have links to "indie" record companies not associated with the RIAA.

Buying used CD's from RIAA associated companies and new CD's from small indie companies is a great way to boycott the RIAA.

To learn more about the issues surrounding the RIAA lawsuits, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a good place to start. While you're there, please consider becoming a member. It's a non-profit group of lawyers and activists working to preserve your dwindling freedoms in the digital age.

'I feel that some of the good, well-intentioned members have been caught up in this desire to all of a sudden clear up the airwaves. I believe it is a distraction. It is a weapon of mass distraction to keep us away from the real issues at hand. The fact is, that this part of my opinion of the continuing thinking of the Patriot Act, the philosophy of the Patriot Act, that says we will read your e-mails, we will find out what you take out from the library. We will hold you in detention without charges or a lawyer and we will then tell you what you can listen to on the radio. Now, let's understand something, the target here is coming from the political and religious right and it is directed only at that which they think is bad, anti-American, or indecent. Right-wing radio which demonizes liberals, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice and animal rights activists, they are fine, they will not be touched. And let me for the record say, I support their right to say whatever they want about me and other liberals.'

'...The FCC has been complaining about (Howard Stern's) locker humor jokes for years...Was he okay when he was supporting the administration? How did Clear Channel decide to knock out its number one money maker one day before facing Congress? I wish I was the telephone company and could have heard those phone calls coming in with the political pressure. My friends, this is a dangerous time. This bill should be defeated. If for no other reason to send a message that there is something larger here at work than simply something you don't like. What I don't like, may be something you like and vice versa. The best protection we have is not this bill. Just turn the channel, switch the station.' '

--Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY), speaking out against 'The Decency Enforcement Act of 2004,' March 11, 2004.

The bill, which allows the FCC to fine stations $500,000 per-incident of indecency, passed the House 391 - 22 later that day.

You can still ask your Senators to vote against increasing FCC fines.

Rigging electronic voting machines is easy, especially ones which don't print paper ballots. For example, Georgia election officials allowed an update to the software in their Diebold machines prior to the 2002 Senate election, without any officials reviewing the software update. With no paper ballots, a meaningful recount couldn't be done, even though the results were suspicious. We'll never know if those machines were rigged or accurate, but they easily could have been rigged under those circumstances.

Any electronic voting machine company which wants to rig an election can tell officials shortly before the election that they discovered a problem and need to do a quick software update, and there isn't time for the software to be reviewed. Officials in one state may say no, but officials in another state will say yes.

So why would The Election Center say rigging electronic voting machines is as difficult as "time travel?"

Money could be the answer.

The Election Center, a non-profit which evaluates voting machines for state governments in exchange for tax dollars, also takes money from electronic voting machine companies. This conflict-of-interest only came to light because of an error . Yet we're asked to believe executive director R. Doug Lewis' assessment that rigging an electronic voting machine is as difficult as time travel.

To achieve secure elections, however, the answer isn't to get a more ojective group to evaluate complex, electronic voting machines. Voting machines shouldn't be used by most voters for the major races.

To achieve secure elections, make it simple. Use plain paper. Have voters mark X's on plain pieces of paper, and drop their ballots into a transparent ballot box. Later in that room, after the voting, have two Republicans and two Democrats hand-count the votes as a roomful of citizens watches.

The Supreme Court declared that state antimiscegenation laws (laws that make interracial marriages illegal) were unconstitutional in 1967. At the time, 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriage. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, many states still had antimiscegenation laws on the books into the 1970's. Astoundingly, Alabama finally took its antimiscegenation law off the books in 2001!

Why are gays not allowed to marry? It's because we still live in an intolerant society. As recently as 1991, a national opinion poll found that 66% of all white Americans objected to having a relative marry an African American.

As Howard Stern says, a civil union is NOT a marriage. It's less than marriage. Denying gays the right to marry is like giving non-white people half of a vote.

The 15th amendment prohibits abridging any citizen's right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude. It was passed in 1870. Despite this, many Southern states still denied blacks the right to vote up until as recently as 1965! Think about that! To remedy this, The federal government passed the Voting Rights Act, which is due to expire in 2007.

The 15th amendment wasn't perfect. Henry Adams remarked that the 15th amendment was "more remarkable for what it does not than for what it does contain". It doesn't give blacks the right to hold public office or women the right to vote.

Consider the courageous acts by Gavin Newsom (Democrat, mayor San Francisco), Jason West (Green, mayor New Paltz), and Greg Nickels (Democrat, mayor Seattle). Some people are outraged that they would dare break the law by sanctioning same sex marriage. But is there a precedent for this kind of civil disobedience?

First they laugh at you...

• 1776: Abigail Adams tells her husband, John Adams, to `remember the ladies' in the new code of laws. Adams replies the men will fight the `despotism of the petticoat.' Women quickly lose the right to vote in all states but New Jersey (where they lose the right to vote 11 years later).

Then they ignore you...

• 1868: In New Jersey, 172 women attempt to vote. Their ballots are disqualified.
• 1870: In Massachusetts, (after the 15th amendment passed), 44 women attempt to vote. Their ballots are disqualified.
• 1870: During ratification of the 15th amendment, women petition to be included in the amendment, but are turned down.

Then they fight you...

• 1872: Susan B. Anthony and her supporters are arrested for attempting to vote. The women are held on $500 bail. Anthony is held on $1000. Think about how much money that is for 1872.
• 1873: The women are denied a trial by jury. They lose their case and are fined $100 each.
• 1874: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that being a U.S. citizen does not guarantee the right to vote.
• 1886: In an act of cruel irony, women are excluded from the dedication ceremony for the Statue of Liberty.
• 1917: Hundreds of women picket the White House for woman suffrage. Most of them are arrested for `obstructing traffic' where they are brutalized by prison guards and force fed when they go on a hunger strike. In the following months, hundreds more women are arrested when they picket for woman suffrage.

Then you win!

• 1920: The 19th amendment was passed, and women were granted the right to vote.

How do you like the way I finessed that Gandhi quote into my opinion piece?   :-)

Fellow Americans, if you were born non-white, or non-Christian, or non-male, you have a very long history of civil disobedience to obtain the rights which you probably take for granted in the 21st century. It was a long struggle, and a lot of blood and effort was put into obtaining your `inalienable rights'. Don't fool yourself: there are still people today who'd gladly take away your right to vote or marry whom you choose.

Don't discriminate against your fellow Americans the way people once discriminated against you.

Senator John McCain announced he'd consider being Kerry's running mate if asked.

In terms of winning votes, Kerry-McCain would be the ultimate dream team to beat the Bush/Cheney/Nader ticket.

However, McCain's positions on abortion, civil liberties, and the environment, don't make him the best man to be in the White House. In 2003, he voted with Bush 91 percent of the time.

The ozone layer protects everyone on Earth from getting too much melanoma causing ultra-violet radiation from the Sun. Therefore, one might expect everyone in a position to protect the ozone layer would do so.

However, the Bush Administration is so beholden to corporations that it's seeking to exempt millions of pounds of methyl bromide, a pesticide which destroys the ozone layer, from the Montreal Protocol, which is an international treaty enacted in 1987 to protect the ozone layer.

Among the uses of methyl bromide: treating golf courses.

Maybe more people will get skin cancer if the exemption is granted, but at least the rich will have greener golf courses.

Quite an impressive resume. Bush bankrupted an oil company, a state, and now he's bankrupting the country.

Bill Lockyer is the Attorney General for California, an elected position which upholds and enforces California law. Personally, Bill is a socially liberal Democrat, but as a good government official, he doesn't let his personal politics interfere with how he sees his job should be done.

Conservative groups asked Lockyer to halt the same sex marriages in San Francisco. As an AG with integrity, Bill asked the courts to make a decision. After all, it's the AG's job to enforce the law.

Bill is criticized by liberals for going to the courts and asking for a decision on same sex marriages, despite the fact that he refused to enforce governor Schwarzenegger's order to halt them. That's the price you pay for integrity.

Now, the same Republican activists who helped mount the recall of former governor Gray Davis announced plans to seek the removal of Bill Lockyer from Attorney General for not enforcing the state marriage laws.

People predicted this will happen: Californians set up a bad precedent in recalling Davis. Crybaby Republicans will now try to recall every politician they don't agree with. Politicians are going to spend more time trying to keep their jobs than doing their jobs. Nice work, California.

This is how much debt our country will owe over the next decade on Bush's Budget:

$2,750,000,000,000.00

This is how much debt our country owed on Bill Clinton's last budget:

0

And the Republicans claim they're fiscally responsible? Puh-leaze! The Republicans are responsible, all right. They're responsible for the richest 2% of the country getting huge tax breaks. They're responsible for wanting to make those tax breaks permanent. They're responsible for a sky-high unemployment rate. They're responsible for destroying ecosystems in the hunt for oil. They're responsible for the pending collapse of Social Security. They're responsible the erosion of liberty and human rights that our Founding Fathers fought for.

But fiscally responsible? Not a chance!

Who will pay for Bush's tax-cuts for the rich? Who will pay for the massive military spending?

We will.

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is calling for cuts to Social Security, to address the budget deficit Bush created.

Congressional Republicans are distancing themselves from Greenspan's remarks about cutting Social Security because there is an election soon, but after the election may be another story.

Unless we put fiscally-responsible Democrats in power, we'll be left with crumbs from the money we paid into Social Security.

Schwarzenegger, in Washington DC in an effort to get federal help for California's economic woes, met with Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee. Schwarzenegger claimed he expects to get a lot of, you know, money.

"I expect to get a lot of it simply because, you know, I'm very persuasive and I'm like, you know, a tick that hangs on it and will not let go until I get what I want."

When asked if he had gotten any commitments from Stevens, Schwarzenegger said:

"I judge Sen. Stevens facial expressions and it was kind of like the kind of facial expression that indicated to me, 'You're right Arnold, you should get the money,' and so we're just waiting for the moment when they get us the money."

Stevens, when asked about Schwarzenegger's strange remarks, had no comment.

It's official:   Ralph Nader, who likely took Florida from Gore and gave it to Bush in 2000, announced that he's rejoining the Bush / Cheney ticket in 2004.

We're allowed to make copies of CD's and DVD's that we purchase in order to back them up. That is our right, guaranteed by law, and is called "fair use".

321 Studios is a software company that sells two programs, `DVD Copy Plus' and `DVD X Copy', that allow a person to make backup copies of his/her DVD.

The MPAA sued 321 Studios to stop them from distributing their software. The basis of the MPAA's claim is that although we have the right to make backup copies of our DVDs, DVDs have copy protection (a digital "lock"), and it is illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to circumvent copy protection.

The issue is which is more important: Our right to fair use or the DMCA's clause that we can't bypass copy protection.

Judge Susan Illston of U.S. District Court in San Francisco has ruled that the DMCA is more important, and ordered 321 Studios to stop selling DVD backup software. What good is the right to fair-use if consumers can't buy products to exercise fair-use?

Arnold Schwarzenegger has defined his intolerant stance on the issue of gay rights.

Schwarzenegger has directed the state Attorney General Bill Lockyer (a liberal elected Democrat who supports California voter's right to pass a law legalizing medicinal marijuana) to take immediate legal steps to block San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.

A spokeswoman for Lockyer said that the Attorney General will try to seek a judgement on the issue, but that the governor has no authority to tell the AG what to do.

Schwarzenegger, the Republican California governor, was cheered at a GOP convention when he revealed his intention to stop same sex marriages. Makes you wonder: how is it that there are gay Republicans? Can it be viewed as an upscale form of sado-masochism?

Trillions in tax cuts for the rich, over a billion for Halliburton, but Bush wants the poor to get less. Housing vouchers and child-care-support-for-the-working-poor would be cut under Bush's budget proposals.

From the Dean For America website:

"I want an America...

where CEO's don't make 531 times what workers earn, even as they ship their headquarters to Bermuda and their jobs to China.

where men and women have the chance to go to college, get good jobs, maybe even start their own businesses -- regardless of their background. Where the kitchen table is a place to share dreams -- not to worry and struggle over paying the credit card bills, the mortgage, the tuition payments."

--Howard Dean, statement for official campaign website, 17 February 2004

The Massachusetts judicial system previously ruled (4 to 3) that it would be unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry, even if they had the right to civil unions. The Massachusetts legislature just voted on a bipartisan bill to legalize same sex civil unions, but ban same sex marriages. The bill was rejected 104 to 94.

My favorite part of the article quotes Dianne Wilkerson, an African American state senator who grew up in Arkansas:

"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."

38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring recognition of gay marriage. In true California style, there's a bill in legislature that will make California recognize Massachusetts gay marriages.

All this fuss over a basic human right.

"Questioning our leaders and holding them accountable is the highest form of patriotism, especially in war."

--General Wesley Clark, candidate for Democratic Presidential nomination
   10 February, 2004, speech in Memphis, TN.

Note: Clark's spoken words differ from the 'as prepared for delivery' text on his website.

Halliburton has a contract to feed American soldiers in Iraq. At least in some cases, Halliburton is billing us for three times as many meals as it actually serves (in July 2003, 42,042 meals-per-day were billed vs. 14,053 served).

Ideally, a company operating in a warzone would try to provide the utmost, instead of overbilling.

Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000.

In 2003, before the start of the Iraq War, Halliburton received a no-bid contract to provide gasoline, food, and other services in the event of a war.