Month: September 2005

Remember that WSJ editorial Tuesday that pounded the GOP-run Congress, stating, “You know spending discipline has collapsed on Capitol Hill when one of the lone voices for fiscal restraint is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi”?

“With a lifetime Citizens Against Government Waste rating of “Hostile to the Taxpayer,” Ms. Pelosi hardly qualifies as a fiscal conservative. But at least she understands what the out-of-touch Beltway Republicans don’t: The latest polling shows that voter support for the GOP is slipping, especially among normally loyal Republicans, and their spending spree is one big reason. This is an important moment for Republican governance that threatens their control of Congress. (Emphasis mine.)

Now, CAGW has named as its “Co-Porkers of the Month” none other than … oh yes …

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) … for their response to requests to cut spending to offset the costs of Hurricane Katrina.

Rep. DeLay has said that cutting the 6,000 special-interest earmarks – for items like landscaping along the Ronald Reagan Freeway and a visitor center in Gray, Tennessee – in the recently passed $295 billion Highway Bill would adversely affect “important infrastructure.” … MORE BELOW:

He went on to posit that the Republican-led Congress has “pared [the government] down pretty good,” though it has in fact presided over the largest increase in federal spending since the Great Society

When asked about redirecting the $450 million for the Gravina Island and Knik Arm bridges (renamed “Don Young’s Way”) to hurricane victims, Rep. Young said: “They can kiss my ear.” He then called the request the “dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” Instead of kissing Don Young’s ear, taxpayers should shout loud and clear that they want him and his colleagues to give up their pork and cut the fat.

For adding all Hurricane Katrina relief to the deficit without agreeing to offsetting spending cuts and exaggerating the fiscal competence of the Republican Congress, CAGW names Reps. Tom DeLay and Don Young Co-Porkers of the Month for September 2005.

Now, we don’t share many values with CAGW. But this is still sweet.

this diary is dedicated to all who suffer because of war and other disasters

cross-posted at DailyKos, Booman Tribune, European Tribune, and My Left Wing.

image and poem below the fold

A man mourns outside a morgue after identifying the body of his father who died in a suicide car attack in Baghdad September 26, 2005. A suicide bomber killed at least six people outside Iraq’s oil ministry on Monday, a police official said. The official said initial reports suggested the bomber rammed a car into a bus carrying ministry employees. REUTERS/Ceerwan Aziz

from The Lotos-Eaters
by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

IV

Hateful is the dark-blue sky,
Vaulted o’er the dark-blue sea.
Death is the end of life; ah, why
Should life all labour be?
Let us alone. Time driveth onward fast,
And in a little while our lips are dumb.
Let us alone. What is it that will last?
All things are taken from us, and become
Portions and parcels of the dreadful past.
Let us alone. What pleasure can we have
To war with evil? Is there any peace
In ever climbing up the climbing wave?
All things have rest, and ripen toward the grave
In silence; ripen, fall and cease:
Give us long rest or death, dark death, or dreamful ease.

– – –
support the Iraqi people
support the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC)
support CARE
support the victims of torture
remember the fallen
support the fallen
support the troops
support the troops and the Iraqi people
read This is what John Kerry did today, the diary by lawnorder that prompted this series
read Riverbend’s Bagdhad Burning
read Dahr Jamail’s Iraq Dispatches
read Today in Iraq
Leonard Clark’s blog has been taken down
witness every day

BooMan, in June, wrote a wonderful description of what this blog is about, and I’m reprinting his comments here. Everyone who’s found a home here really likes these simple statements, and how BooMan has created a warm, inviting, and decent-hearted atmosphere here.

He wrote, “BooTrib looks like Daily Kos, but it is a different site. Below are the two relevant rules … From the FAQ:”

From the comments:

OK, work with me here. I have been going through over and over in my head the discrepancy between Judy’s statement of what her testimony was about compared to what her lawyer said on Wolf Blitzer.

So, as I’m thinking it through, here is how I got there:
FACTS:

1. We don’t know who Miller’s source is. Everyone assumes it’s Scooter Libby, but show me an article where that was EVER CONFIRMED. It never was, we all just THINK it’s Libby because the media keeps saying it. But it has never been proven that Libby is Judy’s source…
2. Judy said today that her testimony is limited to information concerning her source.
3. Her lawyer says her testimony is speficically related to the “Valerie Plame” matter.

THOUGHTS:

1. We all assume one of them is lying based on the belief that Libby is the source. If that’s the case, then why aren’t she and her lawyer on the same page? OH NO!! That could be bad!
2. BUT, WHAT IF SHE AND HER LAWYER ARE TELLING THE TRUTH? What does that mean? If “Valerie Plame” was her source, then Judy and her lawyer are, all of a sudden, on the same page.

But, if that’s true, then we all must totally re-think the story. We all are convinced that Judy is working for the admin and she’s in on it. But what if she’s not? What if Libby says that Wilson’s wife was in on it somehow, Judy calls Wilson’s wife to ask her directly and figure it out. Plame then confides things to her about something. Judy then knows something. Well, I could go on and on, right?

It then becomes a whole new ball game…

Thoughts? Theories?

Two of Judith Miller’s attorneys — Bob Bennett, her criminal attorney who was brought in only within the last year, and Floyd Abrams, the New York Times‘s attorney (and a Miller attorney) — differ widely (and apparently without any communications) in their description of the deal that Miller made with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. And both attorneys appear to have independently communicated with Joseph Tate, the attorney for Cheney aide Scooter Libby.

As you who read my earlier Miller story know, Robert Bennett was interviewed at around 12:30pm PT by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Bennett volunteered that Judy’s testimony was “limited to the Valerie Plame matter” and [would not be permitted to be] a “fishing expedition.”

This was clearly a major contrast to what Miller herself said in an interview at around 9:25am PT when Miller left the grand jury. She said that her testimony was “limited to communications with the source from whom I received the voluntary waiver.”

As often happens, Robert Bennett’s differing — and vastly wider interpretation of the scope of Fitzgerald’s agreement over what he could expect to question Miller about — caused a stir in the blogs.

Dumbya, in a recommended diary at Daily Kos, trumpeted:

Judy Miller’s lawyer, Bob Bennett (Bill Bennett’s brother), was on with Wolf and said that Judy’s testimony was focused on the entire Valerie Plame matter. This is big, because her testimony wasn’t limited to Scooter. It appears that Judy negotiated a deal so she wouldn’t have to answer questions regarding her bogus pre-war reporting rather than limiting the questions to Scooter alone. (Emphasis mine.)

To buttress his argument, Dumbya cites Digby:

Ok kidz. Judy’s lawyer Bob Bennett just told Wolf Blitzer that Judy’s agreement with Fitzgerald was limited to “the Valerie Plame matter” not just Libby. Wolf pressed. Fitzgerald reiterated that it was “the Valerie Plame matter.”

Judy was worried that Fitzgerald was going to pursue her bogus WMD claims.

Bolton and Cheney and Rove all the rest aren’t off the hook on Plame. Do you suppose that includes Niger?

Right. Judy doesn’t want any “fishing expeditions” — perhaps into the WMD stories, the aluminum tubes, and Chalabi contacts — as Bob Bennett told Wolf Blitzer today. BUT. And it’s a BIG BUT.

The key point that remains — and is vastly more mportant to the CIA Leak case — is if Miller made a deal with Fitzgerald to testify solely about Scooter Libby, or if she must testify about all matters relating to “the Valerie Plame matter,” as Bob Bennett said twice today to Wolf Blitzer.

At approximately 3:15pm PT, MSNBC’s Dan Abrams interviewed his father, famed civil rights attorney Floyd Abrams, who represents both the New York Times and Judith Miller.

Floyd Abrams stated emphatically, and repeatedly, that Judith Miller, in the agreement with Patrick Fitzgerald, must only testify about Scooter Libby — not, as Bob Bennett said, the “Valerie Plame matter.”

So, Digby and Dumbya, it’s two to one. Both Judith Miiller and Floyd Abrams carefully stated today that Judy need only testify about Scooter Libby, and no one else. Not Cheney, not Rove, not Bolton, or anyone else.

Of note, neither attorney referred to the other, nor was either attorney, unfortunately, asked about the other’s statements. Another oddity was that both attorneys claimed to have had communications with Joseph Tate, Scooter Libby’s attorney, that were not forthcoming about Libby’s permission for Judith Miller to testify, yet neither attorney referred to each other’s communications. Bennett said he didn’t talk to Libby’s attorney until August 31, after Miller was in jail, and that the attorney was not clear about Libby’s wishes. Abrams went further: He said that Libby’s attorney talked a double story. He told Abrams that Libby graciously gave permission for Miller to testify about what Libby told her, but the attorney reminded Abrams that Libby had been coerced into signing a blanket, standard release. Abrams interpreted this as less than forthcoming, and so advised Miller. It was only after Miller received a personal letter from Libby, followed by a personal phone call to her at the jail, that she knew for certain that Libby was giving her permission to testify about what he’d told her, without reference to the blanket release he’d been “coerced” into signing.

So, I don’t trust Bob Bennett’s statement that Fitzgerald’s deal with Miller permits him to ask her about any and all characters involved in the CIA Leak case. I’m inclined moreso to trust the statements of both Miller herself, this morning, and Abrams, this afternoon, that she is only required now to talk about Scooter Libby.

That is perhaps a big blow to the CIA Leak case. It remains to be seen.

Michael Isikoff of Newsweek was interviewed by Chris Matthews this afternoon and reminded us that Fitzgerald said some time ago that his investigation was complete except for the testimony of Matt Cooper (Time magazine) and Judith Miller (New York Times). Isikoff thinks that, since both Cooper and Miller have now cooperated — through deals — the investigation should be wrapped up, and Fitzgerald should bring indictments or give it up. Isikoff also noted that Fitzgerald is not required to provide a report, as Kenneth Starr was under the old independent counsel law.

One question: Will Fitzgerald refer to the CIA’s own report on any damages, even deaths, that it has catalogued as a result of the exposure of Valerie Plame and, by association, any assets or contacts she developed internationally?

Been out of town for business most of this week; just got in.  Sorry for posting late.

Miles Davis

While the following may seem long and detailed, it is in fact an abridgment of the wealth of information available at the Wikipedia site on Davis, if you are interested in investigating Davis or any of the periods or styles he pioneered – or the musicians with whom he worked – in more detail.  My hat is off to the folks at Wikipedia for pulling together such an amazing amount of information in an easily readable, informative form.

Early Life and Career

Continuing our profile of important figures in Jazz, this week we take a look at Miles Davis (May 26, 1926 – September 28, 1991), a jazz trumpeter, bandleader and composer.  From the 1940s until his death from pneumonia, respiratory failure and a stroke in 1991 at the age of 65, he pushed the boundaries of jazz, from bebop through jazz fusion and beyond; each time he innovated, a new generation of musicians would build on his breakthroughs to expand the horizons of the art form.  It would not be an exaggeration to say that Miles Davis is as important a figure in jazz as is Picasso in art.

Davis was born in Alton, Ill., and raised in East St. Louis.  His family was relatively affluent (his father was a dentist).  He began trumpet lessons at 13.  By age 16 he was a member of the musician’s union, and playing professionally while still in high school.  In 1945, he went to New York – his parents thought he was attending the Julliard School of Music, but he neglected his studies to play with well-known jazz musicians such as Charlie Parker, joining Parker’s quintet on seminal bebop recordings in the late 1940s.  By 1948, his own recording career began to bloom.  He formed a nonet that included such unusual instruments in a jazz setting as a French horn and a tuba.  The group recorded a number of singles in 1949 – 1950 later released in 1957 as the album “Birth of the Cool.”  This is an amazing album, whose ideas are 15 or even 20 years ahead of other musicians.  It is almost impossible to believe it was recorded in 1949 until the final tune, a vocal track that suddenly jars you back from the sonic horizons you were exploring and returns you to 1949. (Can you tell I think that cut was a mistake, LOL?)  He continued to perform and record with some of the brightest stars in the jazz universe of the era.  Unfortunately, like many musicians of the time, he became addicted to heroin, and put his career on hold in 1954 to return to East St. Louis where his father helped him kick his habit.  

First Quintet & Sextet – 1955-58

In 1955, his period of seclusion over, he performed concert dates with Thelonius Monk, and then formed his first quintet, which included John Coltrane on saxophone.  He also began using a mute on his trumpet to create a more somber sound, which he would often use for the remainder of his career.  Rather than continuing in the popular bebop style of the time, with its emphasis on rhythmic complexity and player virtuosity, the group developed a slower, more melodic style exploring the musical possibilities of different, non-standard, musical modes (musical modes differ from one another in where they place the half-steps in an octave; see here for a more in-depth discussion).  Albums from this group include “‘Round About Midnight” and four albums from one two-day recording session in 1956: “Relaxin’ with the Miles Davis Quintet,” “Steamin’ with the Miles Davis Quintet,” “Workin’ with the Miles Davis Quintet,” and “Cookin’ with the Miles Davis Quintet.”  Unfortunately, due to drug use by some group members, the quintet broke up in 1957.  

In 1958 the quintet reformed as a sextet, with the addition of Julian “Cannonball” Adderly on alto saxophone.  This group recorded the album “Milestones,” which featured both the new modal jazz as well as bebop and blues numbers.

With Gil Evans – 1957-63

Davis next turned to an exploration of large-group music, working with arranger Gil Evans for several albums.  The first album, “Miles Ahead” featured a jazz big band.  Their next collaboration was a 1958 recording of Gershwin’s “Porgy and Bess,” with the well-known tunes providing a showcase for Davis’ improvisations.  In 1959-60 they recorded “Sketches of Spain,” where Davis improvised on pieces by Spanish composers, including Rodrigo’s “Concierto de Aranjuez,” backed up by a full orchestra.  While the two would work together on other projects up to 1968, these are their best known albums.

Kind of Blue – 1959-64

Overlapping with the large-group sessions above, Davis continued to record with his quintet, although there were some personnel changes.  A fortunate addition was Bill Evans (no relation to Gil Evans) on piano; the group recorded the album “Kind of Blue,” which the RIAA reports is the best-selling jazz album ever.  The album was also a huge influence on other musicians.  Amazingly, in keeping with their “modal jazz” approach, Davis and Evans only sketched out the basic ideas for each piece, which were not provided to the other musicians until they arrived at the studio to record, to make sure their improvisations for each piece were “fresh.”  This success was followed by some bad luck, however, as Davis was beaten by New York police and arrested outside the “Birdland” jazz club, and personnel in the group left.  Reorganizing a new quintet followed, however; the new group in its final form included bassist Ron Carter, saxman Wayne Shorter, drummer Tony Williams, and pianist Herbie Hancock.  This would be Davis “second Great Quintet.”

Second Quintet – 1965-68

The second quintet was the last of Davis’ all-acoustic groups, and they were responsible for albums such as “E.S.P” (1965), “Miles Smiles” (1966), “Sorcerer” and “Nefertiti” (both 1967), “Miles in the Sky” and “Filles de Kilimanjaro” (both 1968).  Wayne Shorter brought significant skills to the group as a composer, and the second quintet has a distinctive sound from any other of Davis’ periods.  For the 1968 albums, Davis switched to electric bass, piano, and guitar, and by the time F. de K. was recorded, Dave Holland and Chick Corea had replaced Carter and Hancock.  Davis took over composing duties, and the group left its “free-bop” or “post-bop” style and entered a new, electric-instrument phase.

Jazz Fusion – 1969-75

Davis took the group in a very different sound direction, influenced by the rock music of the era, especially Sly and the Family Stone, James Brown, and Jimi Hendrix.  Now that more previously unreleased music from the time is available on CD, we can tell the shift was not as abrupt as it must have seemed in 1969, when the new group released the album “In a Silent Way.”  Joe Zawinul and Hancock were added on additional electric keyboards, and electric guitarist John McLaughlin made an appearance (Zawinul would go on to form the group Weather Report in later years; McLaughlin would form the Mahavishnu Orchestra).  Williams left, and was replaced on drums by Jack DeJohnette, who would go on to perform with Corea in the piano trio format (acoustic and electric) to this day.  Six months later an even larger ensemble would go on to record “Bitches Brew.”  These albums were the first successful merger of jazz with rock music, forming a style called “jazz fusion” or just “fusion.”  “Bitches Brew” was Davis’ first gold album.  Both albums made extensive use of studio editing; the pieces on the final albums were not those actually recorded.  

Touring during this time with the “Lost Quintet” (Shorter, Corea, Holland, and DeJohnette), the groups’ music often spilled over into long, edgy, free-jazz (which Davis had previously rejected) performances that reflected the psychedelic sound of the time.  The group toured with rock acts like the Steve Miller Band and Santana.  Additional albums from this period, notable for their psychedelic and black power influenced artwork, were “It’s About Time,” “Black Beauty,” “At Fillmore,” and “Live-Evil” (all 1970).  By the time of “Live-Evil” the group had evolved into a more funk-like sound.  1971 saw the release of “A Tribute to Jack Johnson” which some consider his finest electric, rock-influenced album.  1972’s “On The Corner” continued the exploration of funk, and several albums and double-albums were released in the 1974-75 period of previously recorded material:  “Big Fun” and “Dark Magus” (both 1974); “Get Up With It,” “Agharta,” and “Pangaea” (all 1975).

At this point, troubled by chronic pain, diabetes, kidney trouble, and a renewal of drug use (both cocaine and heroin), Davis withdrew from public life for five years, but his fellow musicians continued in the paths he had trail blazed.

Return to Performance – 1981-91

Davis returned to performance and recording with a new batch of young lions in 1981, but the first few albums were a mixed bag, although he could still put out an amazing concert performance.  His 1986 album “Tutu” was his first to make use of the new studio tools of synthesizers, tape loops, samples, etc. and was very well received, winning a Grammy award in 1987.  Two additional albums, not as successful followed.  He married actress Cicely Tyson in 1981, and they divorced in 1988.  He continued to tour with a rotating group of musicians until he died of a stroke in 1991.  He is buried in the Bronx, New York.

A Suggestion

“The Essential Miles Davis” is a 2001 2-CD overview of Davis’ work, for those who want to sample a range of his styles in one place before deciding on which periods of his work they might want to investigate further.

Today on the way home from work, I passed by the College of St. Catherine, which is a couple of blocks from my house. There is a beautiful rolling lawn in front of the school and I noticed lots of activity there. Turns out its the local exhibit of “Eyes Wide Open: Beyond Fear-Towards Hope.” Its “an exhibition on the human cost of the Iraq War” put together by the American Friends Service Committee. Since the literature says the exhibit has been in over 60 cities so far, maybe many of you have seen it. Boots for all Ameridan service members killed in the military were everywhere. More pictures below.

There was also an exhibit in memory of some of the Iraqi’s who have died.

Some of the soldier’s family members added special memories of their loved ones.

No words are needed for this one.

As I was leaving I noticed this soldier had just arrived. I wanted to take a picture of him without intruding on his privacy. I just aimed the camera and shot. When I looked up, he had been wiping away tears. I probably don’t have much in common with this man, but today we shared a broken heart.

Dear Republican Neighbors,

I’m asking you for a favor. Please, please, please write to your leaders in Washington and ask them to take a break. Three weeks, a month, two.

Now, I’m not asking this because of patriotism or fellow feeling for my countrymen, though a break from Republican “leadership” would be good on both those counts. I’m asking because, quite frankly, I’d like a break from letter writing.
Sure, the combination of keystone cops competence and Sopranos ethics make them easy to write. Sure, it takes all of ten minutes to do the necessary research to show how badly the Republicans in government are performing. Yes, I’m a professional writer and dashing off a couple hundred words every few days is the least I can do for my country. But, I’m getting tired. My ability to feel outrage is starting to go numb. All I’m asking for is a few weeks of no new Republican bad news.

Ask them to stop with the corruption, the cronyism, and the inept policies. Ask them to quit getting themselves indicted and investigated. To stop the never-ending sea of red ink. I don’t care what they do. They can all go on a retreat to the undisclosed place where they store Dick Cheney most of the time.

I’m not even asking that you convince your leaders to do something good or competent. Let’s face it, I’m too much of a realist to expect that. Just a one month hiatus from the damage they’re doing to the country. Is that too much to ask? Heck, it might even help your electoral prospects for 2006. And if it does, you’ll know that all you have to do to improve the Republican brand’s image is to get them to hide from the light for a while, like cockroaches. It’s really not that much of a stretch. Try it, you might like it.

Come on, my fingers are starting to bleed from trying to keep up with the Republican scandal machine.

Thanks,
Your loyal opposition.

For those of you who have been reading and following the Senator Obama “discussion” on DailyKos, I offer this cross-posted diary.

******************

I’ve read both Senator Obama’s diary and expatjourno’s as well as all the comments on their respective threads.

And I have come away clearer in my own thinking about two issues that seem to be in contention.  And for that, I thank the authors.

One issue that seems to be emerging from these diaries and contributing to the disagreements among posters who comment on them is the apparent confusion between two words.  Another issue is what is an extremist and who should be labeled one?

Regarding those two, I have this to say:
The confusion over words partially stems from the fact that the first word has many usages. Additionally, we may be needing to use the second word, but forget it exists.

The two words are “accommodator” and “appeaser.”

To accommodate, as we think of it in political discussion, is to come to an adjustment, make suitable, reconcile, as differecnces of opinion or position.

To appease, as we think of it in political discussion, is to conciliate especially by giving into demands; it’s special sense is to give in to the demands of a hostile or dangerous power in attempt to prevent trouble.

It is the second word’s particular definiton that seems to apply to the thinking of those who feel that some Democratic politicians are “giving in” in order to prevent trouble to themselves — that is attacks from the right and withdrawl of support by the well-heeled, whether corporate or private, that could spell loss of their own political power and position.

Now, I don’t believe Kossacks (or Boo Tribbers from here on out) are opposed to accommodation when the opposition acts in good faith.  Nor should we be.

But I do believe that Kossacks are opposed to politicians and political mouthpieces who give in when the opposition clearly does not act in good faith.  At least, I hope so.

From where I sit, few of the opposition have acted in good faith.  Arlen Spector is about the only example of a Republican of good faith that comes to my mind at the moment.  There are probably others, and who they are may depend on how you feel about your “pet” issue(s).

Also from where I sit, the crime in Kossacks’ eyes is not to refuse to accommodate a politician of good faith, rather it is to accommodate a criminal, unethical, lying goon who happens to hold office by hook or by crook.  It is difficult if not impossible for me to accommodate an accommodation with such a character.

Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” decried the fact that the Negro’s worst enemy was the white clergy.  He asked, how could they in Christian consciousness and good faith ask blacks to wait for whites to give them equal civil rights.  He saw the white clergy’s accommodation of oppression as an appeasement of the most venal un-Christian kind.

In the same way, many Liberal Progressives — of which I include myself in their number — ask, “How long must we wait for Republicans to give us back our full civil liberties abrogated by the so-called Patriot Act; to give us back our jobs shipped overseas; to give us back the benefits that provided us with affordable health care, or an alternative that does; to give us back a clean, safe, preserved environment suitable for more than just human habitation and for future human generations; to give us back our freedom of expression and right to privacy, choice, and unfettered sexual identity; to give us back, as a Nation, our respect in the world derived from the humane foreign policies and honorable behavior among the world community; to give us back our sons and daughters sent to die for oil, ego, and empire?”

King rightly concluded that no peoples have ever been given their rights — they had to be wrested from those who denied them.

Likewise, many Kossacks have concluded that no Democratic (liberal or not so liberal) candidates can be elected as long as they do not wrest power from those who have denied it them in the last two corrupted election cycles.

Never forget that King himself was categorized as an extremist and decided that he would take a certain satisfaction in that label.  Was not Jesus an extremist for love?  Was not Amos an extremist for justice?  Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel?  Martin Luther?  John Bunyan?  Abraham Lincoln?  Thomas Jefferson?  He felt in good company among such a number.

I take a certain satisfaction in having no desire to accommodate members of the opposition who are criminals, defrauders, liars, and betrayers or scoffers of oaths to uphold Constitutional Law.  I certainly will never support any candidate who seems to appease such politicians.  I, like King, take a certain satisfaction in being, in this regard, an extremist.  I will wear the label proudly and hope to find myself among the elect and represented by like-minded elected one day.

Someone has to stand up for this country’s best image of itself characterized by The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.  And I, in the manner of Dr. King, hope that the dark clouds of illegal wars, the deep fog of lying politicians, and the fear-drenched soul-suffering of the American people will one day be dispelled by the radiant stars of honest and steadfast politicians who will stand unyielding and offer no accommodation or appeasement while fighting for what is the best in the American dream.  It is my sincerest wish that you will be among their number.