American Liberalism Project Archives September 2004 to June 2006

Nuclear Iran

2006-06-30T09:07:00.000-05:00

Richard Perle is one of the guiding lights of NeoCon foreign policy. He is currently out of office, but he maintains a presence in the capital and speaks his mind on the Bush policy in the middle east. This does not mean that his mind is right, of course, or that Bush is right. Perle merely speaks from a set of postulates that he believes are coherent and interconsistent. He is wrong, of course, ... as usual.

Perle had an article in last Sunday's Washington Post which you should not have missed. The Post is welcome to run this stuff. It is a classic study in the threadbare and tattered ideology of the latter day American Empire. Perle wrote ...

So, after declaring that a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable," Bush blinked and authorized the E.U.-3 to approach Tehran with proposals to reward the mullahs if they promised to end their nuclear weapons program.

Perle blames the "blink" all on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, about whom he explains

Condoleezza Rice has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice's influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of -- and increasingly represents -- a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries.

Perle, like many in the conservative bullpen, believe that diplomacy is hogwash and diplomats fools. He, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, believe that history is made by select advisors and other non-Constitutional officers taking up the reins and riding a horse hard into the fray. They have little patience with established lines and communications. Ultimately, Perle and his ilk believe in the Great Man Theory of history ... as long as they are the handlers of the great one.

You see, Richard Perle wants us to believe that President Reagan sank the USSR single-handedly, that it was his bluff and bluster that forced Gorbachev to liberalize and to reform, and that ultimately Reagan pushed Gorbachev over the edge of the cliff. This, of course, overlooks the fact that 55 years of rule by thugs of the CPSU had transformed Russia from a country on the brink (1910) of evolutionary industrialization into a state planned economy, which was more like a shell game of resource allocation than a real economy. The USSR collapsed of its own ponderous bureaucratic weight and ironically of the destitution of its infrastructure. It never did work as a whole, and the Soviets and their people knew it. It was a house of cards, industrialized over the dead bodies of millions, eleven time zones wide and a minute deep.

Now Perle overlooks the weaknesses and strengths of Iran and sees a new kind of "Great Man" politics for George W. Bush in the middle east, a person who can posture and shake his big stick at the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran until they, too, collapse in a heap of unraveled turbans. Well, Iran is nothing like the USSR. And the Europeans are correct in their belief that nuking Iran to keep them from the brotherhood of nuclear weapon-bearing nations would be counterproductive to say the least, the beginning of a protracted war drawn partly along religious lines and partly along natural resources lines, the final outcome of which cannot be foreseen, but the stoking of terrorism from it completely assured.

By sheer luck and circumstance the American policy on Iran is slowly building from some stark realizations about the jack boot nonsense of Perle and the rest of the Empire makers. The fact is that the American Army cannot now or in the near- or mid-term future invade Iran, hold even the smallest territory within Iran, or carry out "surgical" operations. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have exhausted the Army in Iraq. It is basically off the chess board, whether Perle understands this or not. The U.S. Air Force, when it is not busy worshipping Jesus as an early Jimmy Doolittle, is fully capable of reducing Iran to radio-active rubble, of course. And, the U.S. Navy could do the job as well from carriers and submarines. The result would be $25/gallon gasoline on Day One of the aftermath, swiftly escalating to prices that will bring the western world economies to their knees and elbows! Iran is not completely helpless; the Straits of Hormuz will be closed for months, if not years. Oil from the Persian Gulf will dry up and so will the EU and US economies ... and civilizations.

Perle somehow thinks that bluster and bluff will do it again. It will not. It did not do the deed the first time. He is wrong; he has read history through PNAC lenses and his distorted version has become a mantra of perverse puerile dreams. Perle's article will be referred to, however, so be ready to hear this baloney again and again.

JB

Border People

2006-06-29T09:43:00.000-05:00

There is a border which runs through our society that largely remains unnoticed but it is a critical one.

It is the border of people who are employed as civil servants, members of the military and police forces and media people. The border they work in defines the interface between the citizens of this nation and our government and big business interests. These border workers are the first line of loyalty and defense the people have. It is within their ability to choose to serve the greater good of the society or to serve those governmental and corporate interests who may be causing harm to the society and it's people. We need them to be alert that this choice may have to be made in the coming times.

It may not be an easy choice, requiring them to put their job at risk and perhaps suffering financial hardship. For some, legal punishment may resulting in jail time. For others, it may be that they can follow their conscious through activities that don't reveal their identity but serve to alert the citizenry of questionable activities. Why take the risk? Why should they endanger themselves to tell us anything if it threatens their personal well being or that of their family? It is not easy to ask this of them but the future of all of us is at stake here and either one is working for the people and a society that survives and thrives or giving one's efforts to those who threaten that. If a tiny minority that has an agenda to take control of our government for the benefit of money making interests, we can look forward to a further diminishing quality of life, degrading environment and the threat of nuclear warfare. They can only achieve their objective if the border workers continue to support their efforts with their work.

Those who stand on our front line are :

The Civil Servants.

For lifetimes many of them do the paperwork and carry forth the policies of government across our nation. While parties come and go, they remain to run the engines of government. In their daily tasks many of them become aware of information withheld or misrepresented to the people. Information that the people need to know. Some hold a tiny piece to a larger picture. What should they do? The official channels are fraught with danger, since often the information indicates it is the officials themselves who are violating the law. The leadership of Congress has shown itself to be non-reactive and non-protective of those who come forth. The press is often censured by corporate entities who also have vested interests in keeping information away from the people. Who they confide in that will be trustworthy and make sure the information is revealed as well as protecting their identity? Sadly, we lack a place for the truth tellers to go, but we must change that. If we are asking them to risk coming forward with information we need, we must insure they are protected. We must identify those groups who can be trusted to receive information and to get it out to the rest of us and make sure legal defense exists for those who may need it.

The Military/ Police

These are the people who have they physical means to protect us. They stand as our defending vanguard. Our taxes pay them and they are sworn by oath to uphold the laws that protect us. What happens then when our own protectors are turned on us in service of protecting the ill gotten gains or illegal activities of elected officials and corporate entities? They tread a fine line and their position is one that requires a great dedication to what is right, even if that means disobeying orders. Too often in the past, officials have used them to protect the powerful and wealthy against the people with just and grievous complaints. Workers striking or protesting for better wages or work conditions have been met with armed military or police sent to suppress them. Protesters who oppose government policies of war or environmental destruction have been likewise oppressed. Now, more than ever, they must question who's interests they are serving? Is it the interests of the people or is it those of the powerful who may be up to no good. Those ordered to do harm to citizens like themselves, who are massing together to voice the need for change, must decide who's interests they choose to protect. Will they choose to be one of the oppressors or to support the citizens expressing their concerns? Each one must search their consciousness and decide what side of the line they stand on and follow that with their actions. Those who support us are courageous and deserve our appreciation and support. We must not fail them when they strand up for us.

The Media

As the bearers of information, they are so important to us! Through their courage and diligence, we are given the information necessary to a healthy democracy. Without information, we do not know what is going on, we cannot make decisions that insure that this country still functions based on the Constitution and the laws threat protect our freedoms. many media people become aware with events and activities that are of questionable nature. As fellow citizens, they have a vested interest in making sure that the members of their society are informed. Please! Tell us what is going on! Investigate, question, report. I know that many are fearful of their jobs and go along with the suppression and half truths that owners of media demand. Where does that get one in the end if democracy disintegrates and we live under the yoke of suppression? For the thousands of you who still labor for the corporate god, I hope you will keep trying to do what your heart tells you and find ways of revealing the truth. To the brave editors who print the work of truth telling journalists and TV managers who broadcast all the truth, we hold you in esteem and honor your courage. To those who do not, you must accept that you are complicit in the denigration of our freedoms.

As a nation, we must come together to honor and protect our border people who work for us. It is primarily in their hands to advance the causes of justice and democracy in our society because of their strategic positions. If you are a border person, please think about these issues and decide your loyalty. If you are a citizen, think and act in ways that support their efforts on the behalf of our society. We need them.

Sue Dyer, Guest Essayist

Asking The Tough Questions

2006-06-28T11:31:00.000-05:00

For the last 6 years the MSP and the MSM have given George W. Bush pretty much of a free ride, heaven only knows why, as he treated them like a red-headed step child, and has had nothing but disdain for the so called Watchdogs of Democracy. We have had plants in the White House Press Corps, a Press Secretary who rivaled Baghdad Bob for spin, and a crew of Orwellian characters whose leader proudly proclaims that he does not read. Makes one want to send him a gift certificate to the Sylvan Learning Centers, doesn't it?

The worst offense, however, in my estimation, has been the disrespect of one of the Press Corps mainstays, a woman who in her eighth decade, has seen, and asked questions of, every President since John F. Kennedy. One would think it must rankle to be treated thusly by such a group as the Bushrangers.

Helen Thomas is a news service reporter, a Hearst newspaper columnist and senior member of the White House Press Corps. Not too shabby for a lady who started her career as a copy girl for the old Washington Daily News. After joining UPI in 1943 she wrote radio news and covered the Federal Government news, her beat being the FBI and Capitol Hill. As White House Bureau chief, first woman member and President of the White House Correspondents Association and first woman member of the Gridiron Club. she has paid her dues.

In 1960 she started covering then President Elect John F. Kennedy and it was during that man;s administration that she started using her trademark phrase, "Thank you, Mr. President", at the end of each press conference. Since the coronation of the Bush regime, her pride of place in the front row of Presidential press conferences has been taken from her and she has been relegated to the rear seats. She says, "...they don't like me...I ask too many mean questions." And surely that was the case when, for the first time in three years, George W. Bush deigned to call on her. She told him he would be sorry and then asked him why we had gone into Iraq when all the reasons for it had since been proven untrue. Of course his response was just so much Bushshit, saying that Saddam Hussein had denied weapons inspectors. Needless to say, White House Press Conferences are no longer ended with Helen's trademark phrase.

Hopefully, Helen will still be asking the tough questions, once again from the front row, long after Bush & Co. have faded, leaving only a bad memory and a nasty taste in our mouths. Would that all of journalism had Helen Thomas' feisty temperament and journalistic integrity, then perhaps, there would have been no need of her latest book, and the country would not have been steamrollered by the "Gang of Five" which now inhabit Washington, DC and have made a mockery of our great country.

The MSP, needs to take Helen's example to heart, and bring back some of the moral integrity it used to have. Rather than continue to chew on the bones with no flesh, that they have been thrown by the Bush administration for the last 6 years, they need to go back to truly being the Watchdogs of Democracy.

Susan B. Goodwin

Another Bush/Cheney War

2006-06-27T10:59:00.001-05:00

So the War on Terrorism is not going so very well despite what the right's propoganda machine would have you believe. I am sure in his heart of heart's Bush knows this, but then again, perhap's not. He is probably one of the 33% that think all is well and his battle cry of "stay the course" is right on track.

Now comes the press; the Grey Lady finally rousing from it's torpor of the last 5 years to try and make up for it's dereliction of duty. They have, heaven forfend!, decided to get to the truth. This, as you can well imagine, does not sit well with Big Brother Bush and, once again, we have been subjected to his calling any who do not agree with him, unpatriotic.

I would suggest that you read what The News Dissector has to say about this new "hot" war of Bush/Cheney's.

http://www.newsdissector.org/blog/2006/06/27/#2001

Susan B. Goodwin

The Minimum Wage

2006-06-27T10:38:00.000-05:00

The seventeenth century Dutch of Amsterdam broke with all tradition in their Protestant disregard for Catholic teachings about commerce and, equally, in their emulation of the activities of the Jewish merchants among them. The Dutch went where the Spanish were not, while Spain mined the New World of its gold and silver and thereby destroyed its home economy with inflation and corruption. The Dutch led both the English and French in establishing a commercial "empire." Of course the machinations of Louis XIV in France impinged on the freedoms the Dutch enjoyed and the Dutch East India company took, but the bourgoisie of both France and England became quite jealous of the prosperous Dutch.

It was the dawning of a global economy, nascent at least, but touching all the inhabited continents (but Australia) and most of their civilizations. Human slavery was part of the whole, the three-cornered Atlantic trade being the most well-known to Americans and Europeans, and it was widely practiced. Civilizations outside of metropolitan Europe practiced slavery widely, as well. Seen as a economic question of raw materials, labor, and finished products ready for market, continuation of slavery was integral to the continuation of profits, for the competition among merchants kept prices low enough to hover over and dip down into the most flexible of the costs--labor. Virtually free labor insured profits and continuation of the enterprise.

Almost needless to say slavery was eventually abolished and declarations of human rights proclaimed to establish a public, even economic, morality about it. The occasional emergence of outright slavery today is thought to be almost entirely related to prostitution, and our imaginations roll away from the implications of it as if prostitution were a reasonable excuse for enslaving "those who allow their bodies to be used."

Child labor is a form of slavery, and using one's own children to achieve economic gain is. People will argue this point endlessly, but the fact is that the child has no alternative and no viable means of escape. They are in servitude and their work is more or less free to their parents and relatives. In fact, it is this sort of "economics" that perpetuates the overpopulation of the the planet, for subsistence farmers and city-dwellers alike see children as costing less that the economic benefit of their work to the economic unit of which they are a part.

Then there is so-called "wage slavery," a tricky concept, but nevertheless amenable to discussion and analysis. Management would say that if a wage is tendered for the work obtained, then there can be no literal use of the term "slavery." The labor side has to rely on a gestalt definition of a job that pays too little, yet consumes the available work hours to the point where the worker is reduced to a routine of work for the employer, recuperation time, work for the employer with virtually no chance of self-investment to improve one's lot.

The original idea of the Minimum Wage was less complicated. It simply said that there is a point on the curve of incomes in THIS society below which a worker working 40-60 hours per week still cannot make ends meet and is caught in an out-of-control spiral downward toward economic unusefulness from ill-health, malnutrition, or a combination of meager economic circumstances. The exploitation of labor at less than survival standards relative to the society is virtual slavery, not because of chains and fetters keeping the person in these circumstances, but because of the absolute lack of an alternative for such persons.

There was a day when picking up the family and carting them west was an alternative. That frontier society and all the escape valves it could offer is long gone. We are now a civilization of place holders (mobile only to the extent that we can hold different places by moving, but moving is an economic decision that is anything but free). We are not unfree because moving is expensive and highly regulated. We are unfree when the circumstances of our place holding conspire to keep us where we are because we cannot afford to move or we cannot afford to quit the dead-end underpaid job.

The recent refusal of the Republicans in Congress to consider raising the standard of living of millions of Americans by raising the Minimul Wage was an act of wage slavery. It was as evil and hard-hearted a decision as the capture and selling into plantation slavery of Africans two and three hundred years earlier. It is a deplorable act of selfish greedy and corrupt morals. It is an act of class warfare against which all civilized men and women must struggle.

jb

We Are GO, Houston!

2006-06-26T19:09:00.000-05:00

The cut-over from Time-Warner webhosting to SoapBlox bloghosting is complete. It took several hours Monday to accomplish, but it worked, and the new website is there for the reading. Go to: http://americanliberalism.org/frontPage.do
or simply
http://americanliberalism.org!

The front page is for essays from "American Liberalism Project regulars" and "guest bloggers." When you get to the front page open up a new account so that you can read the "Diary Section" blogs/essays of others and write diaries/essays there of your own when you feel the urge. Guest Bloggers will be selected by ALP from among those who post essays in the Diary section. Of course, comments are welcome from all! (Keep it civilized and clean, please.)

And, of course, comments about the site are always welcome. We will begin having an "Open Thread" blogs for comments of any kind in a couple of days. "Open Threads" will always be on the front page, accessible to all.

Jim

One Step Closer to Bush's Demise

2006-06-26T09:08:00.000-05:00

We recently had a Democratic primary in Virginia to elect someone to oppose George Allen, the current junior senator from Virginia. Jim Webb was the winner over Harris Miller. Both were good candidates but Webb was a better speaker and especially in Virginia the more likely of the two to be elected.

Webb had been a Republican and was the Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration. He supported "W" in 2000 and Allen when he ran for the senate, but his disgust over the Iraq war and the Bush Administration policies in general convinced him that he had made a huge mistake. Webb switched parties and decided to run for the Democratic nomination to help the Democrats regain control of the Senate and to rid the senate of the likes of Allen.

As governor Allen had a stormy relationship with African-American voters in Virginia, many of whom criticized his policies and his embrace of the Confederate flag, which the NAACP condemned as a symbol of racism and hate. As a lawyer, Allen also had a noose hanging from a ficus tree in his office, a decoration critics have charged was racially insensitive, but which Allen has explained as a symbol of his tough stance on law-and-order issues.

In 1995, 1996, and 1997, Allen proclaimed April as Confederate History and Heritage Month and called the Civil War "a four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights." The proclamation did not mention slavery and was subsequently repudiated by the next Republican governor.

Allen has done almost nothing for Virginia and supported Bush 97% of the time. He was given an "F" by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy for his votes on concerns of the middle class. As indicated by his senate votes he opposes abortion, public health, immigration, the environment, civil rights, and public education. Allen has spent most of time recently trying to promote his national image in an anticipated run for the Republican nomination for President.

Webb has an excellent chance to unseat Allen and if he can it would bring the Senate one step closer to a Democratic majority where it can begin to investigate the illegal acts of King "W" and the ultimate impeachment of the worst president the United States has ever endured.

David M. Goldberg

Class Struggle

2006-06-25T09:30:00.000-05:00

Gore Vidal, returning to the United States after years in Europe was asked how he liked America after all that time. Did it feel different? Did he still care? "How is it, then," the reporter asked, "to live full-time in the United States?"

If you care about America it's dreadful," he said. "If you are making money you don't care.

This is the root of it, I think, the real basis for division and divisiveness. America is two places, one is for people to live and express their uniqueness and individuality, and it is being dismantled clumsily by the Republicans whose narrower view is that America is primarily a place to make a living. If you happen by luck or wits or family connections to be doing a successful job of making a living, you tend to see America as a marketplace. If, on the other hand, you happen by luck or wit or temperament to be reasonably well adjusted, if your kids are growing up reasonably strong and healthy, if your home is a place of peace and imagination, if your inner self is reflective and, within your natural limits, wise, then you tend to think of America as a kind of dream—the American Dream. You probably find yourself somewhere in between these two, leaning one way or the other, but probably toward the Dream and not the Marketplace of Avarice.

John Edwards is headed out again into the hustings with his philosophy of two Americas. I wish him well, but I have to tell you that a couple of Republicans with whom I sat on a recent airplane trip thought his philosophy to be "divisive." Sometimes the truth is too ugly to acknowledge. These two birds thought that America was one, a place where how you make a living defines all the rest. They could not see the misery and discord created by the financially successful, for the majority whose luck, wits, temperaments and, indeed, lives were drawn into various kinds of chaos by the greed of the wealthy.

Vidal has it right. The wealthy literally do not care. They care not a bit for the harm they do; they care only for their position in the hierarchy of wealth. They deliberately insulate themselves from knowledge of life among the masses; they silently create caste and class boundaries without a thought for the damage to human psyche and consciousness.

What is to be done with these people? Shall we assume there is a glimmer of humanity locked within them, bound by the tendrils of avarice, but ready to escape to prove their better nature? Should we confine them to civilized ranges of income through taxation, hoping that they will begin to understand? Should our commonwealth take all but the necessary wherewithall from them as punishment for all the trouble they have caused and leave them to the devices of the injured and downtrodden? Or, should we simply erase all vestiges of them from our planet, these pigs, these arrogant genetic mistakes, these mutants and cancers in our midst?

The thing about class warfare is that, once begun, it affects the very soul we have chosen to honor. Avarice is like the hunger for power that our Founding Fathers understood so well at the crest of the Enlightenment. Its appearance among us is a sober truth against which we must be eternally vigilant. It is, like narcissism, one of the many possibilities of human development, which, left to its own development, can run rampant and destroy, or it can serve mankind usefully as a carefully managed organizing principle.

Progressive Democrats must come to an unspoken agreement about greed and class. We have to agree to tolerate small distinctions, but to unfailingly extirpate any excess

JB

Update

2006-06-24T08:57:00.000-05:00

Quite a week! The Republican Congress has voted against raising the minimum wage, against extension of the Voting Rights Act, against setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. Meanwhile the administration is snooping banking records without warrants, and Cheney is scolding the press for telling us about it.

If anyone in the media ever tells you again that there is no difference between the two parties, tell them to go to hell!

Meanwhile, we are waiting for SoapBlox to get things prepared for the great migration from our current ISP to theirs. The website is ready for the debut, but until the migration is complete and well-propagated we are going to keep Blogger up.

I have decided to keep Blogger indefinitely, actually. When the new site is thoroughly propagated throughout the internet, I am going to take down the opening remarks and links, etc. and leave only the Archives. This way we will not lose our history.

Our regular contributors and regular guest contributors will be frontpage features on the new website. Like Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and FireDogLake, each on different software platforms, The American Liberalism Project will be open to anyone to comment on essays. In addition, our "Diary" section will have "occasional" essayists, and all of you are urged to sign up to do that. Commenting and writing essays is important, because that is how we test our ideas in the marketplace. Lurking (reading only) is okay, but we hope you venture out once in a while an write a comment.

When the transition occurs it should be reasonably transparent to everyone. One day your American Liberalism "bookmark" will point to a different IP address and you will see the new website. But, computers and the internet are complicated and there are always problems. So, be sure to make a bookmark of this website, because we will be keeping you posted on the progress here.

Thanks for your support. Please be thinking of one or two people you will tell about the new site when it appears. Think of people who are in local politics. We will run diaries that are campaign endorsements for PROGRESSIVE Democratic candidates this year provided they say what the candidate actually stands for.

Jim Brett

Feel a Draft?

2006-06-23T09:44:00.000-05:00

The sad course of the war and now the occupation of Iraq has pointed out the limitations of a small, high tech, volunteer Army. War and occupation are nothing like life in the Pentagon or across the Potomac River in the fever swamps of the federal government. War and occupation are brutal and nerve-wracking tests of individual human beings in the deliberate act of conquest, of asserting power over and control of other human beings.

The casualties of war and occupation are not only soldiers, their minds and personalities, their limbs, sight, and sustainable health. Of course the casualties on the other side are usually much, much higher: the children, wives, mothers, civilians of all walks of life pay a tremendous toll at the hands of our soldiers. Enemy combatants in a lop-sided war and occupation like that in Iraq are unlikely to survive for very long. In Iraq the death count of combatants is ten to fifty times that of Americans (and the piddling contributions from other nations).

But, another casualty of war and occupation with a small volunteer Army is policy. Practically no one believes we can put up a credible fight for any purpose beyond our current activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, we reported the demise of PNAC the other day, doubtless a casualty of the realities of war and occupation, the realization that our legions are not endless and are not prepared to fight simultaneously everywhere.

Joan Vennochi in the Boston Globe wrote yesterday an OpEd piece that seemed to be calling for a reinstatement of the Draft, universal conscription. I have to agree with her. At every level meaningful to our democracy an immediate institution of the draft would so democratize this war as to make it completely unacceptable. In fact, I call on all people who believe that we should make a careful and responsible withdrawal from Iraq (and wherever else our troops are failing to achieve their mission and our national goals) to institute universal conscription to commence not later than January 1, 2007.

Yes, this should be an issue in the up-coming mid-term elections! Yes, to paraphrase Ms. Vennochi, if this war is worth spending another billion dollars a month on it is worth the efforts of the whole country!

Yes, I know, the draft will create its own problems. Men will be required to register for the draft, but for women it will be a choice. Yes, there is inequality in that, and we could sit here and argue it endlessly. I think huge numbers of women would register, frankly.

Yes, the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful would, as always, get special considerations or take the easy way out like George Bush did. As long as it is a complicated and difficult procedure to avoid the draft, then those who shirk their duty should pay for it with the righteous opprobrium that the society will (normally) give them. Or, they can move to Canada or Mexico and become immigrants.

Yes, the draft will fill our colleges and universities with kids who are borderline or less, and yes, grade inflation will rear its ugly head again and take decades to fix, but the overall effect will be to democratize the armed forces and to democratize the war.

Will the draft improve the armed forces? Yes and no. It will provide many more bodies to rotate in and out of combat, thus achieving the respite that has been eroded away in the all vol army. It will put pressure on military leaders to train those bodies so they do not get killed the first day on the line. It will give the U.S. Army more credibility, for now the view is that the volunteer army composed of kids with few opportunities and even less hope. A draft army will be more representative of American society.

That is the key. If America wants to bully the rest of the world, then everyone who votes that way should understand that their own sons and, perhaps their daughters, too, are in harm's way. That should cut down the bullshit by a factor of 100 immediately.

JB

God and Life

2006-06-22T10:41:00.000-05:00

If you pray to God to let your team win, you are praying to a local god. If you are praying to God to bless your tanks, bombs, the soldiers sent to kill and your success in the destruction of another people, then you are praying to a national god.

Logically one could infer that the great creative force of the universe, if it has the ability to think, would be very unlikely to give us a permission slip or support in any destructive actions of this creation so amazingly wrought.

What loving parent would side with one child who wishes to harm a sibling? Why would the creator of life support our wanton destruction of any part of this creation? When we choose to destroy life through war, environmental degradation and oppression of other people, we are working against the creative forces as well as undermining the very life systems we depend on to survive. If there is an evil, it is our own decision to destroy life and bring death.

Early man went to war against invaders to fight for territory that enabled him to survive. We should have evolved beyond these tactics by now but in our ignorance and arrogance we dare to use force on others when they do not threaten our lives but have something we want. That is what war has become. The bully tactics of those who have been able to amass the biggest, strongest and deadliest killing force on earth, to oppress other lives, cultures and the environments of people around the world and to take from them the control over their resources, environment and people to feed the profit motivated globalization effort. Those who hunger for war get us to support it by telling us we are threatened by some enemy. Look past their claims and see how often their true motives were to full fill one of the above objectives. Ask 'Who Benefits? War is a great profit generating system. Who loses? Life loses.

The very idea that one person is superior to any other on the basis of race, sex, culture or ideology, is to fly in the face of the creation as it exists. How do we dare to claim that the creator's work was not perfect when the diversity of humanity emerged? How do we claim that a different culture, people, language, belief system, way of life or any of the thousand differences that have developed among us, are inferior to our own when they have developed in their unique environment and met its challenges to survive using the abilities the creative force endowed them with. We should stand in awe of the amazing talent of mankind to not only survive, but to create unique cultures in response to their environment.

Every plant, living thing, and environmental system is part of the net of life we inhabit. Any event anywhere in this global life will have an effect on all of us in some way. If we tear vast holes in the net through use of warfare, irresponsible environmental abuse, neglect of vast numbers of others who are suffering, the net becomes weaker for all of us. Do we wish to pass on to our children a tattered shroud of life, a dying shadow of the vibrant healthy net of life that provided the means to survive to all? How much longer will we continue to act as spoiled children breaking and destroying this amazing creation we have been born into?

Mankind has failed to grow beyond the use of brute force. We all consider bully tactics in the schoolyard as offensive, yet we accept these same tactics in our leaders. Why? Billions of dollars are invested in the weapons and means to kill and destroy life. We invest in death, not life. What does this say about us, our society?

If we continue to accept the brutality of war which is driven by ignorance and self serving motives, we will have a hand in our own destruction. If there is a thinking creator observing all of this, my guess is that human life on earth would be considered a failure.

Sue Dyer, Guest Essayist

The Foreign Policy Institute

2006-06-21T17:51:00.000-05:00

In an eighty page report, the Foreign Policy Institute published the results of a survey of more than one hundred foreign policy experts whose ranks include Richard Clarke, Hary Hart, Steve Coll, William Odom, Larry Johnson and Walter Pincus. This group has a varied political view and their backgrounds are certainly the same, but they seemed to be a fairly cohesive group given their responses.

As far as the US winning the war on terror, eighty-four percent of them said we are not and eight one percent think that Guantanamo reflects negatively on us. Eighty-six percent think that we as Americans are at much more risk in the world. They also favor multilateralism and support the UN three to one.

Sixty-two percent felt that Saudi Arabia was the greatest producer of global terrorists with thirteen percent favoring Eygpt, and eleven percent say Pakistan. And those are our allies! Where are the bad guys we hear so much about...North Korea, Iran and Syria?

Eighty-four percent think that it is a strong possibility, within the next five years, that there will be another attack, on the same scale as 9/11, and almost the same number feel that it will be a suicide bomb.

All around, when asked to prioritize what they would do in the war on terror, some said catch the leaders, some wanted to spread democracy but a whopping 82% said we need to outgrow our dependence on foreign oil, and two thirds felt that the current U.S. energy policies actually made matters worse.

Former CIA director James Woolsey said:
"We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East. For example, in Saudi Arabia, billion are transferred to the Wahhabi's and like minded groups, who then indoctrinate young people to hate Shiites, Sufis, Jews, Christians and democracy, and to oppress women horribly."

If you happen to ask anyone not from America, why they yhink we are in Iraq they will almost to a person say, Oil. We have allowed a group of greedy, mundane people to take control of our government, besmirch our country's good name and honor. And for what? If you still believe it was to oust a dictator, or in pursuit of WMD's, or to spread the democracy and freedom we all enjoy, sort of, then you live in an alternate universe. We are there for one reason and one reason only. Greed.

Susan B. Goodwin

The Mess That is Foster Care

2006-06-20T12:57:00.000-05:00

With all the controversy swirling around about abortion, education, homelessness and drug abuse, not much mention is made of the Foster Care system in this country, a system which works marginally for it's clientele. The state of Florida, notorious for the worst Foster Care system in the country, manages to lose approximately 5,000 children within the system every year.

Today I would urge you to take a look at this series of articles from Justice Talking.

http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=555

Stay the Course

2006-06-19T12:55:00.000-05:00

Tom Englehardt in TomDispatch often produces blogs featuring "spot-on" commentary by notable analysts. Yesterday Tom presented some views on Iraq by Robert Dreyfuss entitled "Permanent War."

Dreyfuss's comments are chilling in one important respect—the statement is made that there can be a successful outcome to the "stay the course" policy of Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, & Bush LLP.

You need to read this analysis because it factors directly into the 2006 mid-term elections and the stance being taken by the Democrats.

"Cut and Run" is the mantra that Rove uses to describe the quisling attitudes of the Democrats. Currently most of the Democrats are saying just that ... there can be no victory, so we must leave.

The question (and the answer) is that the victory predicted by the cabal in the White House will come at unacceptable costs to the moral fabric of the people of the United States, the respect other nations and peoples have for the United States, and most of all the welfare of the Iraqis themselves.

Bush intends to occupy Iraqi as we have occupied Germany and Japan, i.e., until it is exactly a compliant, supine, client of the U.S. corporate petroleum interests. The Iraqi culture will be completely obliterated and hundreds of thousands will be maimed and killed before they catch on that they have been serially raped by corporate America.

The antidote to Rove's mantra "stay the course" is to describe the "course" for what it is. This needs to be reduced to sound-bites and counter-mantras. "Pillage," "cultural genocide," "Rape the Iraqi," "Occupation without End," are a few that come to mind quickly.

America has not done this sort of warmongering since the Spanish-American War. American history is pretty well settled that it was an explosion of jingoistic violence and hubris. Those were dark days of Johnny-come-lately imperialism.

The Bush policy in Iraq has every element of that almost forgotten war, but is embedded in two slow-motion global crises: global warming and the depletion of petroleum world-wide. These two factors provide a slightly new context, one in which the actions of the United States are laid bare and exposed for what they are—the first stages of a global struggle for survival, conducted not as a civilized, cooperative, and rational society, but as a wounded beast, red in tooth and claw.

JB

Photo by Robert Fisk

PNAC

2006-06-18T11:24:00.000-05:00

One of the more startling announcements this past week was Tuesday's rather passive comment that PNAC is not answering its telephones. Jim Lobe's article in Inter Press Service was picked up by CommonDreams and had all the effect of the last party whistle blast of New Years Morning.

PNAC is dead? What will we do now, I asked myself incredulously? Have these latter day imperialists succumbed to the notion that we are but one nation among many with no moral charter granting us hegemony over the rest? Have they so well succeeded in Iraq that there is no point in swaggering across the globe bargaining with a big stick for petroleum and McDonald's concessions? Or, has there been a falling out among them, a rift grown to a chasm, an argument over using nukes in Iran, a decision on North Korea that was hard to swallow?

Perhaps they noticed that their favorite toys are spent, exhausted, weakened by time and fate. The retired generals have spoken their piece. Perhaps PNAC is not used to being spoken to in this way. The Pax Americana was not to be a Pax, afterall, some of them discovered. Prolonged war is not all it was plumped up to be.

Frankly, I don't believe it. PNAC was always way too public with their declarations and manifestos. It was always something of a façade for the smokey rooms wherein are hatched the real geopolitical monsters of the imagination and hegemonic schemes. There is nothing to prevent these tin pot globe trotters from continuing their designs, the next war or imperialist incursion, the raping of the planet.

Yet possibly, the corporations may have come into play. Corporations are linked by interlocking directors and directorates, and above all they understand one another, like wolves in a pack understand a herd of starving bison or elk. Perhaps PNAC was given orders from Wall Street that it could not ignore, but could not carry out. The mission is secure, they said, closing the door, the Project is finished—mission accomplished, but all that has happened is the elimination of the illusion of publicity.

The domestic agenda is now in full swing, of course. Habeus corpus has been successfully suspended, warrantless wiretapping is old hat, no-knock invasion of privacy has been vindicated, and elections are manipulated like pin-ball machines without a "tilt" mechanism. The country is tired of seemingly futile occupations and the mad chase of Bin Laden and his retinue. PNAC has, in fact, served its narrow purpose: the excuse for our bad behavior has been tendered. In "balance journalism" this is enough.

James Richard Brett

Our Pragmatic Reality

2006-06-17T10:06:00.000-05:00

There was a piece in The Washington Post on Tuesday by E. J. Dionne, Jr. that described the anguished speech of Cardinal Ratzinger just before he was elected by his peers to be the next Pope. This is an important article and important subject, because what it is really about is the inadequacy of soul that leads people into ideational absolutism, sometimes known as blind faith.

Ratzinger is a fairly notorious person in his own right, a martinet, an absolutist, intolerant of others, a bully, a doctrinaire dogmatist. But, Ratzinger is not unlike thousands and probably millions in America whose souls' need is for an absolute certainty about something, almost anything it seems, but surely about spiritual matters, those parts of mental/emotional life that quickly end up in the cul-de-sac of impossible ignorance when we are left to our own devices.

Interestingly, James Fallows in The Atlantic this month (July/August) also wrote about the tension in our country (and others, of course) between Idealism and Practicality. It is a tension that could be said to have been first enunciated well by Gov. John Winthrop in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when he described the City on the Hill, the New Jerusalem, the notion that America is special in the eyes and in the hands of God. But, there was a strong, vigorous native pragmatism even then, though, and it was not weaker than the idealist faith of Winthrop. This pragmatic streak in American thought was expressed in academic terms a couple centuries later by Dewey and James, as we all know. So the question has ever been which tether is the stronger. Are we founded on immutable ideals, Christian or otherwise, or are we really quite a bit more secular and pragmatic than any of the Puritans would like to admit, and are we really just one nation (albeit powerful) among many.

The resolution of philosophy, as I understand it, is that since Hume and Kant and the emergence of Analytic Philosophy the tacit agreement is that all systems of thought have their axioms and postulates that cannot be proven within their systems. In the 20th century this has led some thinkers to very elaborate and to simple forms of relativism and contextualism, the very evil that Ratzinger so abhors. What is so appalling about Ratzinger is that he presumes that all human beings are led by their gonads or other beastly glands to spiritual relativism--the so-called shopping cart view of Roman Catholicism. He does not, (and we presume the whole College of Cardinals does not) believe in the rationality of homo sapiens sapiens, which to my mind is as complete a negation of our best view of ourselves as you can find. But DUH! When did they ever care about rationality.

The matter is settled for most of us. We recognize in our daily lives that we have different views of things at work than we do at home, and we act differently. We are different at 21 from what we were at 18 and more different still at 65. We know that this is true not only in 2006, but in every year of human experience back to Caesar crossing the Rubicon and farther back still. We know that we are relativists and contextualists. Why should we allow ourselves to be made to feel guilty about this? To shore up the political power of the Vatican? Surely you jest! To give credence to the notion of aristocracy, whether genetic or economic? To support the inept in their headlong flights of military imagination in the deserts of the middle east? By no means!

This short essay is about understanding the roots of Liberalism, for it is completely the case that Liberalism is contextualistic and relativistic. It depends on an allegiance to principles, but with the caution that one must be vigilant against dogmatism and dogmatists, the power hungry and the foolish.

James Richard Brett

Impending Changes Here

2006-06-16T09:21:00.000-05:00

The American Liberalism Project is about to undergo some major changes. To make sure that we do not lose contact with our readership, though, we have migrated a good part of the website over to the blogger URL where we have been posting our essays for almost two years. Maybe you have already noticed this change. The blog URL is http://americanliberalism.blogspot.com/ (this appears in the "address box" of your browser as you are reading this, of course) and you should bookmark it now, just in case we run into trouble migrating the basic website to its new format and location. The Blogger location will be kept running until we are completely satisfied that the transition has been successful.

The new website (with the same name) will contain our essays and running dialogues as well as our static features like links to press, liberal and progressive organizations, blogs, newsletters, historical and contemporary documents, etc., the Leaders of Liberalism gallery, and some other features now on the old website. The big change will be the ability to generate good discussions. This capability will make our site more like the famous Daily Kos, My Left Wing, FireDogLake, and others where a distinct community of people from all around the nation (and world) feel free to make comments on essays, statements, "blogs," and "open thread" opportunities posted by ALP regulars. There will be a way to accept new essayists, and there will be a way to regulate "trolls" and "flamers." It should take about a week to get everything in order and ready for the transition, then we will cut from our Time-Warner ISP to the new system at SoapBlox. Blogger will continue until we are well out of the woods.

The one thing that will not change is this: we are dedicated to providing news, opinion, and discussions about American Liberalism, Progressivism, and critiques of American politics and politicians. We hope your and our emphasis stays on clear, rigorous critical thinking and that it provides the readership with a sense of belonging to a community of like- or similar-minded people. I was, btw, in a large group of such people in Las Vegas at Yearly Kos a little over a week ago. It felt wonderful!

The (first) Yearly Kos convention was a unexpected success. About twelve hundred bloggers (writers, commenters, and lurkers) showed up and were entertained by Markos Moulitsas himself (looks like 18, but actually 33, and very mature and humble), former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean now Chairman of the DNC, Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Minority Leader, as well as throngs of press, columnists, and photographers. Yours truly met Arianna Huffington and spoke with her for a while. Earlier I was on CSPAN during a Q&A session.

One of the things discussed at YK1 was that websites like Daily Kos and The American Liberalism Project provide multi-directional opportunities for free expression, something very important to this democracy. We provide a place of (hopefully) thoughtful discussion that makes it possible for people out in their homes and workplaces to feel like "they are not alone." Blogs are one of the best cures for the "divide and conquer" strategies of the opposition.

Another thing we provide is a forum for elucidating and prioritizing facts and interpretations of them. The forum exists at the website, but its importance goes beyond the website because anyone reading it can forward and point out interesting discussions and new facts to other people, including politicians running for office or officials sitting in their offices in Washington or state capitals. We will be able to have polls taken on virtually any subject and the results can be emailed to anyone in politics as "pressure" for fixing their stance on the issue.

A third function of websites like ours is to act as a "surrogate" for spreading information and political opinion outward from candidates and elected officials by going around the main-stream media, which has failed us so badly in the past few years. The American Liberalism Project is capable in this way of helping any and all true liberals or progressives carry their message to the rest of the nation. And, of course, while doing this, it is always ... always ... up for examination and criticism.

The American Liberalism Project will continue to be advertisement free. If you all can spend your valuable time with us, we can certainly afford to spend less than a fifty cents a day to keep the website going. We appreciate your loyalty and interest.

Liberalism is a deceptively complex subject. It has a long history that was foreshadowed in the writings of philosophers like Plato and others. It has its solid roots in the Enlightenment in Britain and Europe, and it has its own early American history with the framers of the Constitution. Modern "Liberalism" is not a dirty word, and invective-whores like Ann Coulter who throw endless insults our way are not worth our attention. What is worthy of our energies is the idea that human beings can organize their lives so that individual freedoms can be maximized. We meanwhile strive for progressive change that recognizes the goodness and humanity in the vast majority of us, in our ethics, and in our understanding that power corrupts. We liberals understand that we depend on a rule of law for the security of our liberties and freedoms.

We hope you will like the new format and new energy. If you do, tell a friend.

James Richard Brett

Memorandum

2006-06-15T09:31:00.000-05:00

Memo

From: CEO Bigbucks

To: Political Power People and Fellow Corporate Entities

Subject: The final power grab

I just wish to congratulate you all on the wonderful progress made on getting the voice of the people out of politics. They know nothing about how a country should be run anyway. We all agree that it up to us, the élites, to manage the policies to insure that profits will continue to rise among us.

I am encouraged that the Beast, the sleeping giant, the great unwashed masses continue to be so apathetic that they never even raised a hue and cry when we stole the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004 right from under their noses! Just goes to show how inept they are! There is no doubt, now that we have our machines and subverting tactics ready that the 2006 and 2008 elections will go our way without a hitch!

I love the fact that their taxes continue to fund our military adventures to expand opportunities for corporate markets and increase the flow of labor and raw materials, while we make great profits on the wars too!

Luckily, they have been pretty well trained to believe that any tax spending for social programs smacks of socialism and communism! A mark of their stupidity is that they think by keeping government from spending on programs that benefit them and enforcing laws that protect them, they think government is getting smaller! It's a myth we need to keep promoting so they don't realize how big it is on the military, intelligence gathering and corporate subsidizing side.

By the way, the diminished environmental protections have really helped to improve the bottom profit line. Not only do we not have to clean up the messes we create, the health industry will benefit from increased illnesses and the dumb masses won't even be able to find out that they're getting sick from the water, the contamination of their food supplies and those invisible toxins in the air. Pharma reports that the anti allergy drugs are a good investment. We need fewer people anyway.

I've read that some voting groups are asking for state officials and Congress to 'fix' the voting machines and process to protect their votes. What a laugh! I'm sure you all know to just ignore them or, if you must do something, just to make a law that contains plenty of loop holes and has no teeth. We have plenty of judges in place that owe their positions to our vested interests so we're covered on that front should any of our people get hauled into court.

You folks in the Main Stream Media have been doing a good job making sure that reports like Kennedy Jr.'s on the stolen elections and corporate takeover of the food supply don't get noticed. Your handling of the Downing Street Memos was great! The fact that they showed the Iraq war was pre-planned could have wiped the Prez right off the throne. A hat tip to the majority in Congress too for ignoring them. I was worried that Conyers might get something going on that but thankfully the lack of news coverage helped to squelch that problem.

Just keep on using the gay and abortion issues to keep the dummies divided and soon our takeover will be complete. Divide and conquer! Works every time. Luckily 50% of the silent majority are still asleep anyway and never even bother to vote so it will be easy to disenfranchise the remaining few with the tactics we already have been using.

The only thing that might stop us would be if they decide to use paper ballots to verify votes in addition to voting on our machines but I doubt that they have the brains or organization to get that together.

Meanwhile, a toast to our Corporate-Government-Military system! Long may we reign!

Fraternally,

Big

cc: Sue Dyer, Guest Essayist

Guns, God and The N.R.A.

2006-06-14T17:44:00.000-05:00

Of all the things which bother me the most it is perhaps the lack of civility, good manners and just plain decency that really sticks in my craw. Add to that mix the fact that most of the people, who lack these qualities, own guns and you have a recipe for disaster.

Shortly after the debacle at Columbine, Moses, a/k/a Charlton Heston, the then President of the National Rifle Association, went to Colorado, a decidedly inconsiderate move given the distress and hurt with which that community was trying to fathom and deal with. He had the gall to insist that guns do not kill people, people do. Well, excuse me for being naive, but is it not the fact that the bullet is coming from the gun that kills the victim? I doubt seriously that I, or anyone for that matter, would be able to spit a bullet with enough velocity to do anyone serious harm. And yes, I do understand that it takes a human hand to pull the trigger, but what if that hand had nothing to wrap itself around. We would then be back to the bullet spitting technique, and, at best, that would be fodder for a reality TV show.

The city in which I live has just started a gun "Buy Back" initiative with. so far, limited success. I am sure it is too early to say it is going a long way towards ridding the streets of my fair city of fire power, but, I would hazard a guess that we have far more than just 35 guns (the number counted the first day) I am hoping it will swell and every gun in my city will be off the street. Too many young lives have been lost to the fire power which is far too easily obtained.

Many feel it is their God given right to own a firearm. I have often wondered why it is that that idea seems strongest, not in my area of the country, where the blood of the Sons of Liberty still runs thick and strong, but in the hinterlands of the country. Those areas where the belief is that God is a card carrying member of the N.R.A. and it is your Constitutional right to bear arms. Arguing that part of the Constitution is another whole essay.

For some reason it escapes a whole segment of the population that our right to have guns and carry them, has not made us the envy of the rest of the world. In fact we are one of the most violent countries in the world, with the highest murder rate, and just about the only industrialized nation which still has a death penalty. We also now, in many states, have a law which states that should you feel threatened, you, as the owner of a firearm, shoot first and ask (or not ask) questions later.

I hope that this Buy Back policy in my city is successful. I would like to believe that more and more people would come to see that we would be much better off without all this firepower about in the streets.

Power Grab or Putsch

2006-06-13T09:03:00.000-05:00

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Elizabeth Drew in the New York Review of Books this week has an excellent article about the Bushovik grab for executive power. It is a must read.

SBG

The Real Moral Issues

2006-06-12T11:58:00.000-05:00

I do not subscribe to the National Catholic Reporter, but I was recently sent a copy of an article by Joan Chittister, OSB about a letter from the Global Peace Initiative of Women about an Iraqi woman who was a participant in a recent conference called Dialogue of US-Iraqi Women.. This letter reveals the true nature of the effects of our invasion of Iraq not the doctored news we get from our so-called objective media.

Dear Dena [Merriam, convener of the Global Peace Initiative of Women], Joan [Brown-Campbell, chairperson], and Joan [Chittister, co-chair]:

I finally called [one of the delegates to the GPIW] today, as we had not heard from her for a while. She was due to join us [for an upcoming event] but is now afraid to leave her family.

She has lost her uncle and nephew recently in a bombing and so there is tremendous grief in her family. They have decided to try to leave Iraq for another Arabic speaking country as they say it is much worse now than ever before.

Women cannot wear slacks now. They cannot drive. They must be veiled and the bombings and shootings have increased manyfold.

She said when they were here in the United States during the meeting things were so much better. But now it is impossible to live there. There is hardly electricity. There is talk of turning off cell phones and even the Internet for a month or two. She has been unable to access her e-mail for many days. And when she walks to her work each morning she now fears for her life.

She said that there is not one family in Iraq that has not faced a tragedy.

I am sorry to convey such sad news from Iraq.”

Our mid-term elections are less than five months away and the presidential election in 18 months. According to every poll taken in this country the Iraq war and what we have done to Iraq as a result of our illegal and ill-conceived invasion of that country is right at the top of the list of concerns but you would never know it by the current hot topic in the Republican Party and their senate supporters: same-sex marriage.

The founders of the US never intended to have the Constitution amended to remove a right and deliberately made it very difficult to amend so that frivolous amendments would not be approved. The Republicans know that this amendment will never get the required votes in the Senate let alone get to the states for a vote but it provides a good distraction from the real issues and is an attempt to energize their rapidly evaporating conservative base.

As Joan Chittister says more eloquently than I, “From where I stand, the issue of same-sex marriage is not at the base of US decline today. At the base of US moral deterioration today is political oligarchy, corporate greed and the complete breakdown of the kind of morality that is not only social but civil and Christian. That kind of morality, unfortunately, we haven’t seen for years, even from some of out moralists.”

David M. Goldberg

Do I Want a Conservative To Talk to Me?

2006-06-11T09:03:00.000-05:00

I suppose I shall never get used to the idea that there are those who do not share my world view. Naive as that may sound I guess i just expect more of most people, that they use the brains they were blessed with and not just tag along behind some yahoo whose idea sounds right at the time. I guess the benefit I had with my education was that it taught me to question, to weigh both sides of an issue and then make the best informed decision that I possibly could. So to realize that there are people out there who actually believe the venom that spews forth from the mouths of people like Ann Coulter Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and a host of others, of their ilk,just gives me severe nausea, and leaves me shaking my head.

I absolutely would defend their right to say what they feel, if those are truly their feelings, but I have it in mind that they are just hate mongers, playing to the basest instincts of the human psyche, and getting paid very well for it, by the right. Why else could anyone conceivably denounce the widows the 9/11 by suggesting that their resultant "fame" from that tragedy, be preferable to cooking dinner for their in tact families? Media Matters - Coulter suggested 9-11 widows might not give up "celebrity and notoriety" to "have their husbands back"

None seem to be immune from Coulter's venomous tongue, and for someone with no credentials to speak of, she has way too much air time. I have a mental image of her chuckling about her listening base as she shuffles off to the bank Can someone seriously look at genuine war heroes and even dare to question their patriotism? If one supports the troops, loves their country, but feels the war is wrong, why should their patriotism be called into question? Media Matters - On Fox, Coulter further criticized victims -- including Max Cleland and Christopher Reeve -- for using their ..

Apparently this is what our country has become, intolerant. For a country that had always prided itself on tolerance, and that welcomed those who had been the victims of intolerance, we are hardly a shining beacon any more. When people such as Ann Coulter can galvanize people around her peculiar brand of bigotry and hate, surely others in this world must look upon us as less than intelligent. She is, however, entrenched in the landscape of what some consider "news" . Even some whom I had given credit to as being above her brand of nastiness have fallen into step with her and feel a need to defend the Queen of Liberal Hate. Media Matters - Matalin, defending Coulter's attacks on 9-11 widows: "I take her larger point" What larger point could there be?

We do have an element in this country who find it easier to just accept things, that some say, as gospel. It takes too much effort, apparently, to seek the truth. Twice this past week I received emails from a conservative friend. Both mails which he forwarded were patently untrue, but both he absolutely believed, and continued to believe even after I sent him proof that both were Internet Urban Legends. I had always believed this person to be of some larger mental capacity, however, his response to me, after he received proof of the falsehoods, was 3 lines of "bla bla bla bla bla bla". What a sterling representation of the conservative Bush supporters.

And as for Ms. Coulter, please do not talk to me, for if you do, I will not be responsible for my stomach contents erupting on your designer pumps.

Election Fraud

2006-06-10T12:13:00.000-05:00

Our National home has been illegally invaded by criminals who have stolen our wealth and put us in jeopardy. It is almost beyond belief that the man running our country has come into that position through fraud and thievery. The report by Robert Kennedy, which pulls together many investigations of the 2004 election, makes it pretty clear that the 2004 election was stolen. Reports of the final vote count in Florida in the 2000 election, which show Gore as the winner, also indicate that that election was stolen. Should we expect less of spoiled frat brat George W. Bush who has a history of getting his way by any means?

Though we are stuck with an administration which has come to power through fraud and deceit, why are there not criminal investigations into the violation of one of our most sacred democratic processes, the election of our leadership? If ever there was a need for the people to raise their voices in protest and honest members of Congress to speak out, it is on this issue.

Under their faux leadership we have suffered outrageous policies that have led us into two wars, moved huge amounts of wealth from the majority to the privileged few, experienced an increase in the degradation of our environment, unemployment, national debt, and a decrease of our reputation in the world community for illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, torture, rendition, and a bully attitude. Our nation is in shambles with failing schools and infrastructure, increased state taxes to make up for the tax breaks to the wealthy and a health system that leaves many without care.

The stealing of the elections needs to be criminally investigated and the participants tried for treason for that operation as well as for jeopardizing the security of our nation and the illegal invasion of Iraq.

This is a truly rapacious leadership which seems to exist only for the benefit of the elite which Bush called 'my base.'

Dear Dr. B:

2006-06-09T18:20:00.000-05:00

Dear Dr. B:

I have friends who are conservatives, who vote Republican every time, and nevertheless seem in many other ways to be normal human beings. Is there something that I am missing about them? Do they ask questions like this to their conservative shrinks about me? Can I trust these people with my children? Should I loan them my lawnmower? Should I tell them I have a self-defense hand gun in my house? Should I have a self-defense hand gun ... in my house?

Dear Worried:

These are good questions, and I am pleased that you have found that part of yourself where the answers to these questions will be important. You have understood that being a Liberal is not necessarily the road for everyone. It is a sign of healthy growth.

You need to understand that people on different roads might also be totally lost. So to answer part of your last question: Yes, it is okay to have a self-defense hand gun. You should take it to a shooting range at least once a year and practice holding and firing it. You may keep it in your house, but remember, if you have children they will eventually find it and perhaps hurt or kill themselves or some other child with it. If you are in a high-crime area, burglars may intrude and find it. There is no magic bullet, pardon the expression, for personal safety. You may drop a burglar with your hand gun, or the burglar may get it away from you and show you the way out.

The thing about conservatives in general is that they have a fundamentally understandable world view. They believe that their views about "life and the big city" are coherent and add up to a consistent package. To get a handle on their politics, let's think about their foundational ideas.

A modern day conservative usually has a view of humanity based on an incomplete understanding of modern science and culture. They correctly believe that half the people are smarter than the other half, because they have understood that's the way we measure intelligence in public schools, defining half above and half below the mid-point IQ of 100.

Most of them do not understand one thing about standard deviations, so they miss the point that 68% of all Americans (or whatever normal curve group you are discussing) are within one standard deviation of average. 95% are within two standard deviations. When you say standard deviation to an "average" conservative their eyes roll and their first thought is "deviation = deviant." Wrong! But that's what goes through their minds.

Most people think that they are above average in intelligence. This is a normal kind of narcissism that is harmless enough, but it leads in some cases, conservatives being conspicuous among them, to some equally false conclusions. For instance, to maintain the illusion of being better than average, lots of people use irrelevant measures to shore up the idea of superiority. Most use "income" as a measure. Those with better than average incomes believe themselves to be better than average. The super rich begin to think that the obviousness of money (and adult toys) as a measure is too simple to be the whole truth, so they invent multiplier measures to account for their wealth and superiority over the dull average masses. Ultimately they become completely alienated from humanity.

But money is not their only measure of being above average. Some conservative people think that fitting oneself to an ideal (never mind whose ideal) is a measure of superiority. Thus, some believe that being heterosexually married with 2.6 children (this number varies over different epochs) is the ideal, and that having reached this pinnacle of performance, they are superior.

Some people get their superiority by contrast with people who have dramatically NOT achieved an ideal. They look down their putatively patrician noses at Sanford and Son.

Others believe that God predestines certain people to be superior, and still others believe that accepting a doctrine of religion and asking forgiveness for sins qualifies one as above average. They don't see it as self-righteousness, but it is.

All of these measures, including the Stanford-Binet IQ measure are false. The truth is that life and humanity are so complex that what serves to distinguish one person from another in one case at a certain time is woefully inadequate to distinguish other people at other times. Life is complex and messy. Yes, we can predict to a fair degree of accuracy the number of Americans who will be killed on the nation's highways each year, and we can imagine the number who will get Ph.D.'s or be convicted of murder, but these statistical guesses do not introduce you to anyone, and you do not know any particular person for knowing these things.

Yes, some people are bad. They sometimes go bad very early on, and sometimes only after a lot of college and corporate ladder climbing. Some are lazy good-for-nothings, and some are so acquisitive that they cannot stop stealing other peoples money.

In a word and phrase, making invidious distinctions among people misses the point that they are all complex, interesting, and innately worthy of being judged as human beings. Test your conservative out with this question: "Say, Jack, if only 2.5% of the population are very, very bright, and if on the other side 2.5% are very, very dull mentally, then which are the more human?" If your conservative friend is average he will say the high end people are more human, that they represent the direction humanity is going, or that the low end people are less human, and he will be oblivious to the truth that they are all just as human.

Worried: But how does this relate to conservative v. liberal, and how does it relate to politics?

Dr. B.: Politics is the craft of sharing a commonwealth with whomever else happens to be here. Everyone knows that some people are born with defects or that they have defects inflicted upon them by disease or accidents, wars, or crimes. Everyone knows that some homes are better nurseries for the young, while other homes are better for teenagers. So, everyone knows that all human beings are not created or grow up to be equal. Sharing a commonwealth is complicated. We liberals agree that the only way to deal with the differences is to accept the idea that we are all equal before the law. There are differences and some of these differences are problems, while other differences produce solutions.

Who knows which person is likely to become a solution-bearer or is suddenly going to save someone's life. It does not take years of lifeguard training to do it, nor does it take great education or even great motivation. It takes opportunity and an innate sense of the value of other human beings, the ones you know and the ones you will never know. You never know about people, so the best motto is to believe in them until you have a good reason not to believe in an specific individual.

Conservatives have a lot of trouble with this concept because they believe they should conserve their care for their fellow man on the theory there is only so much to go around. Yes, conservatives believe in a zero sum game of life where once the pie is divvied up, there is no more pie. Liberals, on the other hand, understand that pie is not the only form of nutrition and that, moreover, human beings are wise enough to find these alternatives.

Right along with the zero sum game approach, conservatives almost always believe in the law of the jungle. This is also known as the "survival of the fittest" concept, and conservatives, even those who believe in special creation, believe that humans are inherently competitive for scarce resources and that the people who get what they need are, ipso facto, superior to those who for whatever reason do not get what they need.

One of the characteristics of conservatives is that they believe that society and government should operate to assist those people who get their piece of the pie and who survive the competition, since they have proven their superiority and should rule. In an irony that would make most blush, they tend to forget that once they have molded a government in their own image, it tends to work against anyone who does not share their point of view.

These two ideas, "zero sum game" and "survival of the fittest" are the foundation upon which is built the entire edifice of modern conservative thought. Neither idea is original, nor are they necessarily linked, but conservatives do link them and forget all about the fact that civilization is different from the jungle, that culture is a human device for transcending the worst in humanity.

Worried: Okay, Dr. B., I understand that, but what practical significance does it have? Should I let my kids play with their kids? Should I loan them my lawn mower?

Dr. B.: No, you should not loan your mower to them, unless they have a good reason for not having one themselves, such as theirs just broke down yesterday and their lawn is shaggy. Ask yourself what would be going through their minds if you were asking to borrow their mower. Borrowing mowers is a way conservatives use to balance their budgets. Let them balance it with their own resources. They like to preach about personal responsibility, so let them live some of it too.

Of course, you should let your kids play with theirs until you find out that there is something out of order. If the kids play doctor *every day* then begin to wonder. All kids play doctor sometime, so just make sure your kids are prepared for it. Your kids will be a good influence on their kids, and more than likely your kids will meet with stranger folk than these as they grow up and move out on their own. It is all about getting to understand who is sharing the commonwealth with us.

Worried: I guess I understand all of this, Dr. B., but you haven't answered one of my questions, you know.

Dr. B.: Yes, I know. You should not tell them you have a self-defense hand gun in the house. Conservatives believe in having guns to protect themselves against ne'er-do-wells and crooks and, someday, against godless commies. They like to go hunting, too, of course, and some actually do in some parts of the country and some never hunt in other parts.

There's no telling what these conservatives think of your politics, but odds are they are very clumsy at making distinctions between "godless commies" and American Liberals. If you see an NRA sticker on your neighbor's car (or pickup in Texas) then you can be assured that your neighbors have more weapons than they can possibly shoot at one time. More to the point, they usually have something laid by just in case they detect a commie take over. The whole point of having the right to bear arms (in a well-regulated militia) is that well-regulated militias and commie take-overs are what the vigilantes and NRA say they are. Think about it.

James Richard Brett, Ph.D.

American Embassy in Iraq

2006-06-08T09:20:00.000-05:00

We like to peruse the foreign press, to get a feel for what our friends and allies are thinking these days regarding the ongoing carnage in Iraq.
This particular article, reprinted here from the Australian newspaper, THE AGE, is rather interesting in regards to the cost to us, the American Taxpayer, and it says something about what those, who are potential employees at the Embassy, are feeling.

While we understand that it behooves the United States to have embassies aeound the world, they seem rather redundant these days given our administration's lack of interest in diplomatic relations.

I am outraged at the expense, not to mention the projected continued presence of Americans and American troops in Iraq.

THE AGE
Sumptuous US embassy in Baghdad sets records

Oliver Poole, Baghdad
June 8, 2006

ON THE west bank of the Tigris, at the edge of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, a forest of cranes marks the progress of Iraq's newest monument: a US embassy that will be the largest in the world.

Once an army of more than 3500 workers have completed construction next June, the vast site will be the hub of the American administration in Iraq.

Protected by five-metre-thick walls and ringed by military guards, it signals the seriousness of America's intentions to retain a large and long-term presence.

The $A790 million building's existence is meant to be a secret. But it is impossible to hide a complex that will be the size of Vatican City and have the population of a small town, especially when it is lit up at night to enable work to go on 24 hours a day. It takes nearly five minutes to drive along just one side of its 42 hectares, which will contain 21 buildings.

While Baghdad has erratic clean water supplies and intermittent electricity, the embassy will have its own water treatment plant and a generator.

The only details of what the completed complex will look like can be found in a recent US Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. The report also explains why such a luxurious site is needed: the State Department is finding it more and more difficult to persuade its employees to come to Iraq with its constant threat of violence.

There will be six blocks, with 619 one-bedroom flats, a recreation building, a beauty salon, gym, swimming pool and a school. A lavish "American Club" will provide a venue to relax and a site to host receptions.

An Iraqi newspaper questioned last month why the US had been given the embassy land for free.

The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy

2006-06-08T07:56:00.000-05:00

I have read today, with much delight, that the Senate has rejected the Gay Marriage Ban amendment to our Constitution. Some of you may or may not have heard that parts of our Constitution owe their existence to the Confederation of the Iroquois nation.

With immigration also at the forefront of news these days it would do us all good to remember that we are all immigrants in this land.

Please read and enjoy.

Modern History Sourcebook: The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/iroquois.html

Susan B. Goodwin

Relationships

2006-06-06T12:40:00.000-05:00

A week ago I had the opportunity to attend an "Author's Tea" at my grandson's school. It was a gathering of the students in his first grade class who read books they had authored to their parents and grandparents and assembled other "guests". The cafeteria was set up in areas of 4 "authors" chairs with an audience grouping of chairs in front of them. Each child then read his illustrated book, to us rapt attendees, and shared the pictures by holding the book up and passing it in a back and forth motion before our eyes. After the readings everyone mingled, shared refreshments and the children laid their books out on tables nearby so that comments could be written in the comments page at the very back.

One young lady, aged 6, with fiery red hair wrote a wonderful story about losing her hamster and imploring her dad to help her in looking for it. Dad helped to look but, so did Poppy, when he too discovered the missing rodent.
Dad and Poppy...her two dads. Wow! I thought and immediately thought about all the negative remarks I have heard about homosexuals raising children. How horrible for the children of straight couples to have to come up against the fact that a classmate has two parents of the same sex. Until; that moment I had no idea that my grandson had a classmate that was the child of a gay couple. Later that night, when I was discussing the day with my grandson, I mentioned his classmate to see what sort of response I might get. He very casually said, "Oh yeah, K***, she has two dads." Obviously this situation had in no way impacted negatively on him, and he thought nothing of it. Oh well, he more or less said, that's her family, and he saw nothing out of the ordinary with it.

I think we tend to forget that children accept things that we have only been conditioned to reject, or have taught them to reject. If nothing is said, children sort things out for themselves. The trouble with kids is adults.

Relationships, even among the most committed of people, take time and energy and lots of stroking. A certain level of maturity is a must, and a healthy does of humor cannot be beat. When a relationship blossoms into a willingness to commit oneself to another human being, marriage is usually considered the resultant step. Who has not looked at a bride and groom and envied their seeming endless joy in each other, and marveled at how lucky they were to have found each other. Their vows, a symbol of staying committed to one singular person, is something none take lightly. The caveat to this endless bliss seems to be, however, that it is reserved for one man and one woman.

The clergy will tell you that Jesus blessed the marriage at Canna, however, little, if anything, is known about the participants in that ceremony. One man and one woman? Two men? Two women? Someone, at some point has decided that it was a man and a woman. Was it? For those who choose to believe that that is exactly what it was fine, but no one knows with any amount of certainty. None of us having been privy to the actual event, we have taken what has been written, after the fact, about these things, as well, gospel.

Now we have a President who just knows for a fact that it was one woman one man. After all, shouldn't he know? He has a direct line to God, or so he would have you believe. At any rate, things other than what he considers right, are not to be tolerated and therefore we must alter the Constitution to reflect his beliefs. And, if this were not an election year, would we even be having the discussion about what constitutes a real marriage? I think not. It has not even been a topic of discussion since it became a hot button issue in the Presidential election of 2004. It has screamed from the pulpits of many churches. The sanctity of marriage must be protected and preserved for mixed gender couples only! Why? Of all those who see this as a religious issue and use the Bible to point out their belief, you may want to reconsider your stand on that basis.
Let us look at some facts about the institution of marriage which our President feels so strongly about.

We have all heard the old saw, "The family that prays together, stays together>" It may surprise you to learn that this is not necessarily so, and we see statistics which indicate that there is a much higher divorce rate among conservative Christians than for other faith groups or even for Agnostics and Atheists. Also, surprisingly enough, the very lowest divorce rates can be found in the Agnostic/ Atheist group. Donald Hughes who has written a book entitled The Divorce Reality said: "In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being "born again" is not a rabbit's foot>" and he also notes that 90% of the divorces among born again couples occur after they have been "saved.

When I looked at my grandson's classmate's two dads what I saw was a committed relationship. Not a "gay" couple but two human beings who have committed not only to each other, but to raising a strong, independent little girl, no different from the other little girls in her class who are living with one parent and a step-parent, or with two parents or a single mom or for that matter a single dad. How they choose to live their lives should not be a political issue. and those who would alter the Constitution to reflect a bigoted, biased agenda should look to their own relationships first.
Susan B. Goodwin
Related Reading:
uwnews.org | University of Washington News and Information
U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

The Chicks and Bush

2006-06-05T08:43:00.000-05:00

Eugene Robinson had an interesting column in our local paper, "The Daily Progress," about the Dixie Chicks. For those of you who are not country and western fans and have not followed the Chicks and the controversy surrounding them, a little history may be in order.

During the run up to the Iraq invasion, The Chicks were in London giving a concert and Natalie Maines, the Chicks’ lead singer, told the audience, “we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.” As a result of that comment, the Chicks were denounced as traitors on right-wing talk radio. Country and western stations refused to play their music and denounced them as well using the rational that their listeners threatened to boycott the stations that dared to play their music. At one point the controversy got so heated that Maines received a threat that she would be shot dead on stage

Then the Shrub got into the act. During an interview with Tom Brokow in April after the war had begun he was asked if he would invite the Chicks to the White House. Bush equivocated and answered by basically endorsing a boycott of the Chicks and their music.

To their credit, the Chicks never backed down. Emily Robinson and Martie Maguire, the other two members of the Chicks supported Maines and all three posed in the nude for a cover of Entertainment Weekly their bodies covered with graffiti supporting free speech and peace.

I don’t think any one would call country and western fans flaming liberals. If anything they are usually considered on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the Dixie Chicks new album, “Taking the Long Way” opened at number one on the Billboard charts with 525,829 copies sold.

This is especially bad news for Bush and his party. It is another indication that Bush and his war have become unpopular in a constituency which would normally support him. The war has become the defining issue of this administration and the nation’s eroding support for the war has panicked Bush into trying to promote controversial social issues such as the gay marriage amendment to try to invigorate his dwindling political base. But it won’t work. The war is the thousand pound gorilla he can’t shake loose and it will destroy him and his band of neo-cons.

David M Goldberg

Was the Election of 2004 Stolen?

2006-06-04T10:25:00.000-05:00

What happens in November 2006 will tell the tale for the United States of America. If the Democrats win, they still have to deal with states where respect for the voting process is not much advanced over Peronist Argentina or Mussolini's Italy. Make no mistake it is going to be a gigantic struggle to bring back voter confidence in elections. The reasons for this, of course, are the unscrupulous and widespread dishonesty of Republicans in the last election. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has an essay published about those elections which, aside from being a "collectors item" of research journalism, is something you should keep (download and save) to show to your children and grandchildren in case it goes badly again. You probably will not be allowed to read anything like this again if the next election is stolen.

JRB

The War Prayer

2006-06-03T09:35:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of the aftermath of Haditha, in the time of reckoning after the time of covering up, in the glory of our arms and the feral terror of our realization that all is not as it was said to be, listen now to ...

The War Prayer

by Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said: "I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!"

The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think. "God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their
humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2231.htm

JRB

Garcetti v. Ceballos

2006-06-02T09:54:00.000-05:00

The United States Supreme Court ruled this week on a case, Garcetti et al v. Ceballos, involving a public official's right to "blow the whistle" on what the official considered to be wrongful or illegal conduct by his employer, a District Attorney's Office in which he worked as a professional. The case revolved on an inaccurate affidavit used to get a search warrant, the evidence obtained as a result of which was, of course, "legally contaminated" and so, the case should not have been pressed using that evidence, asserted Deputy District Attorney Ceballos in a memorandum to his superordinates in the office. His employer thought otherwise and, seeing Ceballos's communication as a form of mutiny, retaliated against him. The Supreme Court overturned the Circuit Court opinion and ruled that the public employee does not have "whistleblower protection rights" under the First Amendment.

As it happens, new Supreme Court judge Samuel Alito, whose nomination was strongly resisted by liberals and the bar association, you will recall, cast the deciding vote in this matter, which was heard by the Court a second time to afford Alito a chance to register his opinion. This case foreshadows a very difficult time for us all. That 50 cycle hum you hear in the background is the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

The interesting thing about the majority opinion in this matter is that the Supreme Court sees an employer's right to "employment discipline" which, moreover, the Court thinks supercedes the rights persons have as citizens to express themselves under the First Amendment. It was held that: "When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

This outlandish reasoning establishes the notion that employees of public agencies somehow lose their status as "citizens" during working hours or otherwise in the performance of their duties as "employees." I am sure that no public employee considers him- or herself indentured to their governmental employers, nor do they believe themselves at any time bereft of their normal civil rights, but what else can this mean? The effect is the same. It gives new meaning the the idea of wage-slavery. It is an absurd and utterly dangerous concept!

The Court's opinion also sets out a doctrine that heads of public agencies are, because of the differential established by employee discipline between them and their employees, "above the law" that governs employees. It is obvious that the concept of "employee discipline" should not be regarded as a legal doctrine at all. Yes, employers can set conditions of employment, but each such condition is not a law and must not violate any law. Conditions of employment which violate law are unenforcible and should fall before each and every challenge.

Laws such as the Hatch Act which govern the political activities of federal governmental employees are not considered "conditions of employment," nor are the Laws governing civil service, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, etc. These laws apply to entire universes of personnel, not to specific agency missions.

Conditions of employment and the idea of "employment discipline," which is merely the one end of the bargain reached when someone becomes employed, are within the law, not above it. So, for instance if Ceballos had been late for work because of unusual traffic congestion on a Los Angeles freeway due to the overturn of a tanker truck at a crucial intersection, then Ceballos's excuse for violating the "employee discipline" of timely arrival is understandable and most would say reasonable. He would be within his rights to complain about retribution for his late arrival. So, then when Ceballos violates "employee discipline" by pointing out a failure to comply with (or in this case a direct flouting of) federal and state law, is this violation different because it goes to the very substance of the agency mission rather than simply the assembling of mission professionals in the office at 8:00 a.m.? A reasonable person would conclude that the employer's attempt to defend its own illegal behaviors is ipso facto illegal.

The Supreme Court has hung quite a load on this concept of "discipline" and it clearly is at odds with the fundamental belief in equality before the law. Yet, there is a "common sense" about employment discipline that all of us can understand. I can imagine a soldier huddled in a hole in the Iraqi desert emailing home complaints about the lack of body armor or the unwholesomeness of food or some other complaint that focuses on the decision making of persons senior to him. This happens all the time, yet we expect the soldier to do his duty while the complaints are being addressed. We understand "employee discipline" to be important to the smooth and efficient carrying out of missions. We do not fire or demote the soldier for complaining; actually, we expect it. Somehow we separate the soldier on combat duty complaining in a trench from the soldier in action, riding a humvee, jockeying to avoid roadside bombs. We are appalled when he is killed for the lack of body armor, and would be ready to lynch his NCO who handed him paper mache body "armor" and then put him harm's way.

The mental slight of hand that we experience when we think of necessary "employment discipline" and those times and places where discipline is inappropriate (or down right antagonistic to the values and laws we already have) is related directly to the word "mission." In the instant case, Ceballos was a professional lawyer and bearer of mission; his comments about the perversion of mission thwarted the carrying forward of the perverted mission, and thus he was in fact carrying out the mission. The employer viciously resented the underling professional making a determination about mission, for according to the organizational chart, decisions on mission fall to senior management, not junior professional personnel. Well, who says so?

Every professor at every state supported university in America is affected by this decision, as are all other "mission-bearing" professional employees of public agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the IRS, the NSA, prisons, etc. Is the Supreme Court telling Professor "Jones" of the Philosophy Department at the University of Michigan that she no longer has the right to determine what will be said in her classroom? Where do understanding of mission and mission discipline diverge? If "Jones" begins discussing Home Economics, then the chair of the Philosophy Department might reasonably inquire as to the line of discussion when students appear at his door complaining, but ... and this is vitally important ... but, "Jones" has the right to approach the subject of Death and Dying or the subject of division of labor in society from any avenue that she chooses. The Chair and the students need to respect her credentials and her innovation as well as her intellectual destination. Same for Ceballos.

I will guess that you see the point. The mission of the Philosophy Department is to assemble professional philosophers to teach. The mission of the District Attorney's office ... determined by City Charter ... is to assemble a group of law professionals to prosecute violations of the Law, not to break the law! Equally, those who speak up when domestic spying is illegally conducted must be protected. Those among us who are spirited off into an endless tropical nightmare at Gitmo based on this tainted process of spying must be given back their rights.

The Supreme Court ruling on Garcetti v. Ceballos must be overturned. There is only one way to do this and that is to assure that the next Supreme Court nominations are made by and for honest men or women who understand what their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States really means. How many times do we have to be kicked in the teeth before we understand this!

James Richard Brett

War Demons

2006-06-01T09:57:00.000-05:00

Thoughts about the families reportedly killed by US Marines haunt me. I keep thinking about the thirteen year old girl who survived that assault. Her large brown eyes looked directly into the camera as she stated ,"I hid under the bed and pretended I was dead. The body of my brother was on me and blood was running out of him like a spigot.' There she was alone now in the tiny house it's walls scarred by bullets and blood.

What terror, sorrow and distress she must have felt, seeing her family gunned down while fearing for her life.

Who of us could bear one of our children or loved ones going through an experience like that? Who will heal her fear, anger and despair and the pain of the last memory of her family? I multiply her pain by thousands and begin to feel despair that this is being done by our government in our name with our money. This is one face of the true horror of war.

How can we be a part of this?

Once you strip away the cloak of patriotism, heroism, noble sacrifice, and all the flags, medals, and other bells warnings and whistles that entice us to war, the actual face of war is revealed to be a demon which waits to consume all caught up in his maelstrom of fear and anger. War exposes us to terrible events in which people engage in one of the most destructive, obscene and fearsome activities that mankind chooses to engage in. The worst part is that the human feelings that grow in war are fear and rage, overwhelming the emotions of love and compassion. The damage to the psyche is terrible.

What about the marines suspected of doing the shooting? They too show another face of war revealed when rage becomes dominant and is acted out with cruelty on others. Damaging actions tear the net of humanity we share and something inside them gets torn too. Having power and using it to harm others is the supreme act cowardice and is a violation of deeply held beliefs about the value of life for most. It must also be fearful experiencing oneself venting full rage and committing murder in a total abuse of power. War gives rise to man's negative feelings and emotions and fuels them. To create killers the military strips the recruits of the instructions they got as children to not hit, be kind to one another and to act fairly and replaces them with the order to kill.

All kinds of humanitarian impulses must be suppressed in order to follow orders. A killing machine must not feel or question the participation in the horror.

Why do we support or engage in war? Is the evil genie that brings nothing but death, destruction and pain, except for those who are making a lot of money from it. Who will undo that 'kill' military training in our soldiers before they come back into society? Who will help dispel the horrors of their actions and thoughts and return their energy field from anger and fear to love and trust? The face of war is the face of damaged people and nations. The energy of war is destructive to mankind and all living things. The harvest we reap from war is death and destruction. No one wins except the money makers who feed like vultures on the carrion of the destroyed. It is shameful.

The energy and money wasted on war would be so amazing in it's power and scope if it were directed towards life improving ideas and actions. Not anti-war but pro-peace.

In a pro-peace world we would direct our government to ratify the Declaration of Human Rights and act with just fairness integrity in our relationships with the rest of the world. While conserving energy resources, we could make fair trade deals with countries who offer that resource. Meanwhile a plethora of inventors would be busy devising alternative energy systems. Part of our current Defense budget could go to fund grants to applicants. Patents to workable systems would be owned jointly by the taxpayers who funded the research and the inventors personally. If their project was part of a company participation, the company would get a percentage based on the use of their resources. There would be plenty of money to rebuild our infrastructure and educational system and create a publicly funded health system. The list could go on only limited by our imaginations. The images of potential Peace provide a more promising life experience for us . We must repeal and deny war powers to our government unless agreed on by public referendum. War inciters must be criminally tried and war profiteers must pay heavy taxes on their bloody profits. The means to make windfall profits on war must be restricted by law.

War is man at his lowest behavior. We must say no to War. We must say yes to Peace.

Sue Dyer
Guest Essayist

Walls

2006-05-31T14:31:00.000-05:00

WALLS

"Good fences make good neighbors"
Mending Wall- Robert Frost- 1915

The poet goes on to say that before he built a wall he would question what he was walling in or walling out and to whom he might give offence. Walls have been a mainstay of civilization and we find them through all of history, erected for what seemed like a very good reason at the time, and all doomed to fall or be breached for what probably seemed like an even better reason. For the most part they were built to keep invading hordes out of one's territory, but in more recent history we have seen walls erected to keep the civilian population in.

I am sure there were walls before the one in Jericho, but that is the first that springs to mind. Joshua and his army supposedly made short work of making those walls "come tumbling down". We had the walls of Troy which were impenetrable to the Greeks until they outsmarted their adversaries with the gift of a great wooden horse. And with that wall story we have the expression, "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." We have The Great Western Wall, Hadrian's Wall, The Great Wall of China, Derry Wall, Korean Wall (demilitarized zone in Korea).

There are famous walls all over the world. Turkey, England, Germany, Russia, Wales, Greece, Iran, France and Switzerland. Most of these were constructed long, long ago, and were not necessarily for defensive purposes, some as pleasing shapes in the landscape, although many would probably be listed in walls as fortifications. and now we have decided to be wall builders. This comes at great expense to the taxpayer, although you can be sure that the Bushes and Gates and Murdochs of this world will not be put out over it. Is this an exercise in futility? Did we not, in fairly recent history, have a President who demanded that a wall be torn down? Down it came but not because Reagan threw down the gauntlet to Gorbachev, but because those on both sides of the wall willed it to come down. Most walls have met a similar fate.

So, will the wall we are building between our country and the country of Mexico really keep those who want to be here out? Someone with a modicum of intelligence, one who has obviously studied the rise and fall of past walls, has said, build a fifty foot wall and someone will build a fifty-one foot ladder. How true, how true. If you cannot scale it, tunnel under it. Can't get around it, go over it! If you cannot get over it, under it or around it, go straight through it! Just like the Berlin Wall, where there is a will there is a way.

We are a country of immigrants. Each and everyone of us has ancestors who started somewhere else. True, most of them came legally and made their way through the hardships of that first winter in Plymouth, survived being transported to the Virginia Colony as a prisoner or awaited their fate at Ellis Island. Some even arrived as brides after any of the wars which were fought overseas.

What most of us will never understand is the desire to be anywhere but where one is at, in the moment. To be living in abject poverty, and to know that just a few miles away lies an area brimming with hope and opportunity has to be an overwhelming siren call. We know it is given the lengths to which some will go to cross that border. The numbers of those who have ended up paying with their lives because they were caught up by unscrupulous human traffickers who took their money and crammed them into the back of an already overcrowded trailer. Or those who think it is fun to go out at night and "hunt" Mexicans in the desert. Those who "lead" some into the desert to simply desert them to the freeing temperatures or the Border Guards.

We think we are building a wall to keep us safe from them, when, in truth, perhaps they are the ones who need the protection from us.

"Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, 35
That wants it down.”

He says again, “Good fences make good neighbours.”

Susan B. Goodwin

9/11 Should Not Have Changed Everything

2006-05-30T09:06:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, it became accepted politically that everything had changed in America. The idea was always simply nonsense. The Bush Republican machine used the public hysteria to sell a broad array of pro-Corporatist and anti-civil liberties measures.

The terrorists were never going to destroy America or American political conditions by acts of terrorism. The assault on American institutions and traditions were only going to be successful if they were launched by strong elements of the American political spectrum. Our nation was unfortunate to have the Bush Republicans in power during the 9-11 attacks.

The 9-11 attacks were successfully executed largely as a result of incompetence by the Bush Administration. The outrage expressed by the Republican establishment and their Fox News allies during the 2004 Presidential Election concerning Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9-11, was based on fear of facts. There was great fear that the American public would discover that political and policy failures by this Republican Administration. They could be documented unless the documents were hidden from public view.

The cult of government and corporate secrecy that surrounds Republican rule was sold on the basis of National Security. The doctrine has been used to conceal and justify a broad array of corruption and oppressive measures. The secrecy cult has not extended to the behavior, activities or privacy of individual citizens.

Big Brother government spying on average citizens has long been a fear of traditional conservatives but not by the Corporatists of the current Republican Right. These Bush Republican Corporatists want government behavior protected from the constraints of both law and public opinion. They want hide their corruption and abuses from the citizenry. This change is a serious threat to what America should be about…. true responsive and representative government.

Traditionally, Americans have rallied to the traditions of our Founding Fathers when faced by serious national challenges. We stood by our Constitution and Bill of Rights during World War II. The current conflict, with the forces of Bin Laden, is certainly not as serious as the worldwide war with the Nazi-Fascist-Japanese Axis.

The 9-11 terrorist attacks hurt us emotionally as a nation but were not seriously going to destroy our nation even if repeated over and over again. We are a much stronger nation than most Republican politicians want to admit. The 8-11 attacks were tiny when compared to our vast resources. We are by far the strongest military power ever seen on this planet. Our population is around 300 million and growing. We dominate an entire Continent and more.

Our economy is huge. Only the largest corporations can adversely damage our economic health as a nation. It is unfortunate that the 9-11 attacks did not focus on the damage that these corporations are doing to the interests of our American nation with the active support of Bush Republicanism. They are undermining the national security of our nation by exporting our manufacturing base and creating foreign enemies for the American nation.

It is time to use some logic politically. Use your votes to restore common sense. We need to open the actions of government to public view. We need to restrain excessive Corporate power. We need to restore individual liberties to our citizens. We need to secure the established traditions of our nation and rely on the teachings of our Founding Fathers. We need to admit that the 9-11 attacks should not have changed us in fundamental ways as Americans… because America is stronger than the terrorist threat!

Stephen Crockett

Co-Host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .

Raping Our National Treasure

2006-05-29T10:12:00.000-05:00

A recent article by one of my favorite columnists, Jim Hightower, was about Bush’s mendacity when dealing with one of the public’s most beloved institutions: America’s network of national parks. Survey after survey reveals our national parks to be perhaps the most highly regarded government program by the American public and this deep love cuts across all political persuasions.

Knowing how highly regarded the national parks are, Bush has used them as backdrops for ads in both his presidential campaigns, promising to increase their funding. But once the campaign is over, this promise like so many others is forgotten in the greed and hypocrisy that are the hallmarks of this administration.

Apparently, believing the American public has a very short memory the administration instructed the parks guides in the election year of 2004 to never use the phrase “budget cuts” but to refer to them in the Orwellian phrase, “service level adjustments.” Can you just see the hand of Rove in this hypocrisy?

Now, the axe is being applied again. Under the radar, Bush has asked each park service superintendent to give him a budget which will cut funding by a third over five years. This comes at a time when there is huge backlog of needed repairs and a severe shortage of park rangers.

When visitors to our parks ask why they are paying more for less such as reduced hours, fewer rangers, and deteriorating facilities, the park service has been instructed to respond with this “new speak” sentence: “The National Park Service, like most agencies, is tightening its belt as our nation rebuilds from Katrina, continues the war on terrorism and strives to reduce the deficit.”

Unbelievable, this administration which has let billions in unregulated contracts to Cheney’s favorite charity, screwed up the response to Katrina, embroiled us, through lies and deceit in an unprovoked invasion which has cost 300 billion and counting dollars, cut taxes for the rich, and as result given us the largest deficit in history wants to use these debacles as an excuse to rape the best-loved government program: the national parks. Maybe just maybe this time it has gone too far and the public will rise up in protest and throw the bums out.

David M Goldberg

Reality Checks

2006-05-28T09:47:00.000-05:00

One of the things that has happened in America since 2004 is that Liberal and Progressive voters and Democrats in Congress have lost confidence in themselves and their leaders. The reason is that there are many routes to recovery and no unanimity among us all on how best to win a convincing and lasting victory at the polls. One of the elements of this lack of confidence is the possibility of corruption among us. It has been asserted that significant Democratic leaders in Congress are on the take from corporations.

Personally, in some cases I have suspected a deliberate campaign emanating from certain quarters to sow dissention in the ranks. For instance, if I were Hillary I would not want Nancy to become Speaker. That would put a woman into unparalleled prominence for two years before the general election in 2008. Some people might think that one woman is enough and begin to back away from supporting my aspirations. A group of people around me but not extremely close might begin to spread nasty rumors.

This is all speculation, of course. This week I happened on a resource that makes a major step in the elimination of speculation. I have added it to the extensive group of Links on the American Liberalism website, and I would like to you to take a look now. Here is: Congresspedia! Look up your Representative or your Senators and see where they are getting their money and which interests are their major supporters. Just in time, Congresspedia will begin to dispel the clouds of mistrust ... or in some cases confirm them.

James Richard Brett

Democratic Leadership

2006-05-27T10:05:00.000-05:00

There are a couple of ways for the Democrats to win the election this fall. One of them is to do a lot of pointing and name calling, all of it richly deserved. The Republicans have their elephant and have painted a huge target on its belly with the antics of Tom DeLay and Co. Rarely has a political party so repudiated its ideals by corruption so rapidly and thoroughly than have the Republicans in the last dozen years.

My own instincts ran toward the "eradicate and annihilate" side of politics from the moment the Supreme Court ripped off the election in favor of George W. Bush. I have been angry and almost ferally alarmed by what we have experienced. It is essential, though, that we win and that having won we can do something with the victory that will be meaningful and lasting.

So, the Democratic leadership in Congress has irritated every one of us who have wanted to draw blood and watch the Republican beast die a horrible painful death. Nancy Pelosi has incurred the wrath of every male chauvinist in the Democratic Party for her quiet, "centrist" ways. I have thought and written lately that I trust her and, lo, on Friday I got her periodic "House Call" message and now have something very important to show you.

The strategy of the Democratic Party is to take the Left and ALL OF THE CENTER. Here is how they intend to do that. Notice that not one centrist voter is going to feel like a vote for an honest Democrat (meant as a vote against a dishonest and corrupt Republican) is going to feel disenfranchised or unrepresented. As far as I am concerned this is a courageous and absolutely necessary political stance, and I applaud Mrs. Pelosi (next year's Speaker of the House) and her colleagues for it.

James Richard Brett

Narcissism, Corruption & Politics

2006-05-26T10:14:00.000-05:00

Those of us born in the middle half of the 20th century grew up dealing with the terms and theories of Freudian psychology. Freud is not gone, but his influence over our view of mental phenomena and the construction of personality have been overtaken by psychology and neural physiology science in many significant respects, yet, much remains. Freud began his career under the tutelage of Hans Brücke and drank deeply from the materialist causation theories of the late 19th century. Early in his studies Freud wrote about finding the material substrate of personality, but gave up the task because of the mounting evidence that science was nowhere near advanced enough to provide the necessary answers. Instead, then, Freud erected an edifice (perhaps it would be better to say "effigy") of personality that drew on the evidence of contemporary "normative" personality development, on the one hand, and from classical stories from various mythologies. That is, he found in the myths of European culture characteristic stories that expressed very well the pathologies into which human personality development can fall prey.

Among the aberrations of personality categorized by Freud that attracted attention widely among the intelligentsia of Europe (and soon North America) was the condition known as "narcissism." Adult narcissism is both normal (at very modest levels of self-absorption), but normally very pronounced among infants and children up through the age of five or so. In a sense narcissism is a stage of development that might be predicted to occur given the structural genetic inheritance of the human brain and the artifacts and processes of human culture. We conclude that a personality is appropriately embedded in society with meaningful relationships to other human beings with the term "self respect." It connotes an positive valence of integration with the rest of us.

But at first, as neonates, we understand virtually nothing of the outside world and are completely captivated by the sensations of our own bodies. Mother's smiling face only gradually is distinguished from self and much else follows this pattern of separation of one's own perceptions and needs and desires from material and psychological reality. Differentiation is not an easy process for mother's milk flows in anticipation of baby's need, and so it goes throughout early childhood that those hovering external beings seem to cater to emerging needs as if by divine plan. Perhaps "the terrible 2's" are a signpost along this process.

Children who do not shed their infantile egocentricity for whatever reason ... doting parents, mistaken understandings of cause and effect, etc. ... are usually called "spoiled," spoiled not like milk, though for some it appears to be irredeemable. No, it is more like spoiled like a ground or surface, contaminated, not by a pollutant but by a false paradigm, a false notion of how the world's processes proceed, remediable, but perhaps only with "Superfund" resources.

For those who grow up to become corrupt politicians their narcissism is marked by their insistent belief in their fundamental worthiness to "receive" bountifully and an overweening belief in the correctness of their own frames of reference. A person like William Jefferson Clinton, whose well-publicized appetites are essentially narcissistic, is trapped in a developmental cul-de-sac from which escape is thwarted by the unavailability of the personalities who played (or should have played) the necessary roles to help Bill work this out "normally" on his own. Clinton has patched together a reasonable facsimile of successful personality development (as do most of us), but as the world knows, the Clinton result leans heavily toward narcissism which is tempered (and sometimes deluded) by a formidable intellect.

A person like Tom DeLay on the other hand uses a strong will in the place of a strong intellect and is, in any case, a different sort of narcissist. DeLay is a second level pathological narcissist, whose personality's ego centrism has reached the point where starkly binary relationships exist for him: those who fawn over him and kiss his ring are favored, those who don't (and everyone in their party) are not even worthy of being called human beings. The rejection of a person's humanity provides a multitude of excuses, of course, but fundamentally a person like DeLay has no friends, only courtiers who, like DeLay, see a feeding/suckling frenzy for what it is and latch on for their own narcissistic ride.

Leadership, especially significant political leadership, is expected (by those led) to be a tight wire act. We know that leaders are fallible, but we want them to have just enough narcissism to smooth over their occasional faulty judgments and actions. We do not want them collapsing in distress when something starts to go wrong. We want them to deal with it and "move on." We groom people from middle school onward who show evidence of a willingness to "impose" their wills on others as long as we can also observe charm, humility, and deference to the real needs that others have expressed. We often lose track of kids, like Karl Rove, whose charm is deficient and whose deference to the needs of others takes a back seat to his own material and psychological desires and fantasies. These people emerge later in life as demagogues and in other ways significantly dangerous candidates for or advisors to those in public office. Voters are asked to judge whether the person is really as selfish and narcissistic as some actions would seem to indicate, but meanwhile political parties work feverishly to obscure the evidence that we might have if we were just taking stock of people in a neighborhood. Political parties are trying to preserve their investments and too often choose to deal with the narcissistic "pig" in the poke later on. It never works out!

Corruption in politics is often based on one of the several kinds of narcissism. The narcissism of candidates and office holders is exacerbated, of course, by the trappings of power and prestige. But the narcissism of voting citizens is more difficult to see and all the more difficult because of its diffusion to deal with. Currently in America we have a vigorous debate going on about issues emerging from the Bush administration, his war, his tax breaks for the rich, his arrogant defiance of Congress, domestic spying, and the whole litany of impeachable offenses. We know now (with very little help from the corporate press) that Republicans have assembled an "unholy group" of people in the White House whose personalities feed ravenously from one another, producing thoroughly narcissistic, misanthropic, and anti-democratic policies. Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their sometime puppet George W. Bush are all pathological narcissists. Underlying this though, is a different sort of problem, the problem of mass narcissism manifesting itself in the jarring self-righteousness of the radical and religious rightwing voters.

Over the past two years and some I have be writing my reflections on the passing events of the day, and occasionally my perspective strikes a reader as wrong or worse, wrongheaded. The readers who think me wrongheaded write comments and send me email calling me an asshole, bastard, jackass, fucking son of a bitch, and some other similar but intersyllabically complex names you probably never heard unless you spent some time around sailors at sea. These vocabulary-challenged people are miniature versions of the pathological narcissist. Their attempts to denigrate the humanity of a fellow human being are evidence of their division of the world into people who love them and, they think, subpeople who hate them. These are spontaneous expressions of their own hapless egos, defending the indefensible territory of their narcissism. One does not find common cause with people like this. The fact is they have utterly missed the point. They are no better than the pathologically narcissistic rednecks and red state radicals for whom Bush, DeLay, Rove, and Rumsfeld are avatars of "the one true righteousness."

Eventually we discover that the handmaidens of narcissism are corruption and intolerance.

There is no one true righteousness. There is no single truth. No one can understand all of the world and its activities, and in fact, no one acting on the public stage really and truly understands what the mid- and long-term effects of his or her actions might be. The narcissists (by definition) isolate themselves and so they lose the benefit of productive discussion, discussion which might easily avoid the kinds of consequences now raining down on us from Bush & Co.

No political party is free of narcissists, but parties must learn that weeding out the pathologically narcissistic corrupt is a solemn and necessary duty. We play the game of politics in America knowing full well in advance (under our separation of powers Constitution) that we are playing with a part of human nature that all too easily slides into corruption. We must, if we are to govern ourselves democratically, be ever on the alert for signs of narcissistic pathology and remove these people from positions of authority.

James Richard Brett

Verifying Votes:

2006-05-25T09:30:00.000-05:00

Making a Paper Trail

If, when we were in school holding elections for Student Council, we were told we had to vote on "machines' devised by one of the candidate's supporters, we would have considered that outrageous and seen that as a red flag that there may be an intent to commit fraud when the votes were tallied. Why would we accept that now? In the last four elections the use of questionable machines has resulted in questionable elections. This is a big step by people in power to manipulate our precious votes and to keep us like sheep in pens, powerless and silent.

How did the voting tools and process ever get away from our control? It is imperative that the people control the voting systems, not the candidates or elected candidates. We have a vested interest in the voting process as it is one of the too few times we actually get to put our two cents in as to how our money is spent and how we like or don't like the direction the country is going.

November 2006 will be an election in which all the new voting machines are in place. This is the moment of truth for us. Will we accept results that come from these machines which have been imposed on us or will we devise a way to make sure every vote is recorded and counted?

Let's allow ourselves the option of jumping their fences and creating a paper trail at all the polling places. Using printed ballots and pen or pencil, we can help the voters leave a paper trail. In Germany all elections still use this method. It takes five days for civil servants to count the votes but the people are secure that every vote counts. Each polling committee could get ballots printed, secure them in locked boxes then count them under the scrutiny of community watchers. Simple and back to basics.

Putting Questions on the Ballot

Communities could also request that certain issues be put on the 2006 ballot. There are issues we are concerned about but that don't get addressed by our government. Why not get a direct vote from us as to how we want things handled?

Some issues that could be put to the vote are:

Do you want the US occupation of Iraq to end?
How soon? - Three months - Six months - nine months - 12 months - let the politicians decide.

Do you want a National Health System?

Do you want impeachment hearings held now for this administration?

Do you want a legal investigation into the administration's intent and behavior leading into the War with Iraq?

Do you want an independent investigation of 9/11, its members, witnesses and questions chosen by the people.

Do you want a Constitutional Amendment that states 'Only human beings can be considered people or persons in our law. Only the humans of this nation have the rights as endowed by the Constitution." (Currently Corporations are considered by law to be 'persons' and compete with us for those rights.)

Do you want run-off voting in all elections? (In run-off voting, you get to vote for choice 1,2,and 3. If your #1 candidate does not get a 51% win, your vote goes to choice #2, failing his/her win, your vote goes to your third choice, #3.) Thus your vote is never wasted and allows the candidate most favored to win.

Do you want selections to be decided by popular vote?

How about voting on whether we would want a national media system free of government and corporate influence, paid for with fees levied on the advertising revenue of the broadcasters who use our publicly owned airwaves for no cost at present. I think that among the citizens are plenty of people who could operate a national public media system well. We could vote on budget limits or getting the private banks out of the Federal Reserve. The potential is incredible.

I think we should list and vote on issues that concern us. Clearly, we have lost many of our Congress people to special interests leaving us without representation. I would make the case that we have a good case for a class action suit claiming there should be "no taxation without representation."

Meanwhile, why not take voting on issues into our own hands? I also believe that many non-voters would be interested in voting if their voice on issues would be heard.

Ballot questions are a wonderful way for us to get out voices heard. It's our vote why not use it?

The use of questionable machines to take our votes is a situation where we can make sure that votes are not lost or changed. As a grassroots movement, we can make sure a paper trail exists. It is our right as voters. Therefore, if every polling place meets to organize the logistics and the tools, (secure boxes, ballots, writing implements, staff) we will be sure that every vote counts. Please pass this on to everyone you know and let's be ready to make sure no fences corral our votes!

Sue Dyer

Guest Essayist

Liberal Is Not a Four Letter Word

2006-05-24T11:07:00.000-05:00

I have heard the word liberal so often used in such scornful terms it gives the speaker a tone of being somewhat superior. Those who adopt this tone somehow seem to imply that perhaps I am less than intelligent if I chose liberalism over conservatism, especially compassionate conservatism.

The idea behind the American Liberalism Project was to educate, to help some make informed decisions about their political feelings. If what liberalism has to offer is not your cup of tea, well then, so be it. I do feel however, that you cannot make liberalism and conservatism a black and white issue. There are certainly conservative liberals and certainly liberal conservatives. Unfortunately, the current political atmosphere has polarized so many that I am sure a great number of young people feel disenfranchised with politics. Especially since we have heard, for the last 5 1/2 years, that you are either "with us or against us", and it has been used not only as a battle cry in the War on Terror, but as a weapon by conservatives to smear their opponents.

Liberals are just as God loving (and some are not), law abiding, country loving, troop supporting, tax paying, compassionate individuals as any other American. To imply that we are less than upright members of our communities, or our country, because we do not happen to support those things which we see as morally reprehensible, is just simply wrong. I do not mean to imply that those who are not liberal are anything other than what we liberals are, that was not my intention, however, we have been smeared way too loudly for way too long by those who call themselves conservatives. It is ironic that those who sit themselves to the right of our President, who has labeled himself the great compassionate conservative, are just about anything but compassionate. Those who would wrap themselves in the shroud of Pat Robertson's brand of religion certainly do not practice what Jesus preached.

What exactly is liberalism? Most would define it as progressive, tolerant, generous, open to change and open minded. In contrast conservatives seek to maintain the status quo. I ran across this list which gives one a better way of comparing the liberals and conservatives and their beliefs.

Liberals Conservatives

Collectivism Individualism
Change Tradition
Science Religion
Inclusiveness Exclusiveness
Democracy Constitutionalism
Equality Merit
Public Sector Private Sector
Pacifism Armed deterrence

These are not, however, absolutes for either group. Would we be struggling in Iraq now had we deferred to diplomacy (pacifism) rather than running off on a fool's errand based on lies? Absolutes would eliminate religious scientists, of which there are many, and also eliminate those who work in the private sector but to the benefit of the public sector. Liberals would be those who align themselves with and represent the poor, workers, (the working poor), women, minorities, academics, environmentalists, artists and those who would promote gun control. Again, this is not to say that there are not liberals who are gun owning members of the NRA, nor wealthy business owners, or those who do not favor the police or the military.

The Constitution is our Democracy's sacred document, but we have a President who feels it is just a "G**damned piece of paper." Conservatives have railed against the ACLU, but since 1920 it is that group which has defended the Bill of Rights for all Americans. Conservatives proposed anti-tax, pro-property amendments would favor those who already have the most wealth and power. Blatantly obvious that the constitution is used as a political ploy, a vehicle to galvanize those who have such a narrow view of everything to begin with, it does not take much to turn them against others.

When the Constitution was finally ratified in 1788 it was a document that had been written by rich white, slave owning (some of them) men. Blacks could not vote (they had no rights), women could not vote (until 1920-they too had few rights) tax debtors got the right to vote in 1964 and young people. those who were off fighting our war in Vietnam, were not allowed to vote until 1971. It would appear today, that if we wish to preserve what has been given to us, to We The People, it is the liberal faction in this country which will do it.

Susan B. Goodwin

Qualities

2006-05-23T12:46:00.000-05:00

Pardon me while I sit, shaking my head in puzzlement, wondering what on earth it will take to make the remaining 29% of the population, who are still enamored of President Bush, to see the light. Outside of the fact that it is widely touted how everyone would like him, should they have the opportunity to meet him, I have to wonder how many of these supporters have actually had the dubious pleasure of having shaken the man's hand or had a beer with him, or even gone for a bike ride with him. OK, forget the bike ride.

There have been two realities operating in this country for the last 5 1/2 years. One is the faux reality Bush is laboring under and would have us all believe, and the other is what is in actual fact transpiring in this country and around the world, particularly in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq (increase in terrorist activity?). There have been many times in these last 5 1/2 years that I have despaired of my fellow countrymen, especially after the last election when I had thought that surely more had seen the truth of George Bush and his henchmen. Granted, had there been a more positive agenda from the left, the results might have been different, but it was still hard for me to realize that some could see George Bush as a great leader and statesman.

I began to think about all the things which I feel are important in a public servant. Qualities which I feel have sadly been lacking in this administration. Those who do have these qualities, departed this administration early on, when it became blatantly obvious that those same qualities were lacking in their peers. I made a list and tried mightily to attach these qualities to anyone in the administration, however, I was unsuccessful. I present the list here, and suggest that you try and find any of these socially redeeming qualities in anyone (Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice) who are now representing We The People to the rest of the world.

Statesman:

1. One versed in the principles or art of government; one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government and shaping its policies.

2. One who exercises poltical leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship.

Integrity:

1. Firm adherence to a code of especially moral values: Incorruptability;
Honesty

Ethics/Morality/Honesty:

1. A fairness and straightforwardness of conduct; adherence to the facts; Sincerity.

Synonyms: Honesty, Honor, Integrity, Probity mean uprightness of character or action. Honesty implies a refusal to lie, steal or deceive in any way. Honor suggests an active or anxious regard for the standard's of one's profession, calling or position. Integrity implies trustworthiness and incorruptability to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust (The Presidency?), responsibility (upholding the Constitution?) or pledge (Oath of Office?). Probity implies tried and proven honesty and integrity.

Charitable:

1. Full of love and good will towards others; Benevolent

2. A liberal in benefactions to the needy: Generous

3. Merciful or kind in judging others: Lenient

In every respect I honestly cannot find one person in George Bush's White House that embodies any of these qualities. And yes, I know, Bill Clinton lied, but that is also ancient history. The reality of today is that we have George Bush who has lied to us about things which are a thousand times over more serious. (WMD's-Saddam/Bin Laden terrorist connection)

Then again, perhaps this is a wake up call to all of us to be more aware of the candidates that we elect to represent us. We have become so complacent, and many, I am sure, find it easier to elect the devil they know rather than the devil they do not. With the mid-term elections about 5 months away, it behooves us all to make sure that we are sending the very best candidates to represent us, to carry with them our best interests, not their own. If there is any cleaning up to be done in Washington then we are the ones who are responsible for wielding the broom.

Susan B. Goodwin

Another Nail in Their Coffin

2006-05-22T10:58:00.000-05:00

I would like to return to a favorite topic of mine: How the Administration misused intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

Below is verbatim exchange between Carl Levin, Democratic senator form Michigan, and the President’s nominee for Director of Central Intelligence Agency, General Michael V. Hayden. General Hayden was being questioned as to whether the intelligence community was pressured by the administration to find information to support the invasion of Iraq. Hayden, had to be careful not to reveal intelligence information in open session and also not to politicize his answers. Nevertheless, his answers are very revealing if you know what to look for.

LEVIN: An independent review for the CIA, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA, said the following -- and this relates to the intelligence prior to the Iraq war -- "Requests for reporting and analysis of Iraq's links to Al Qaida were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection."
Do you agree with Mr. Kerr?

HAYDEN: Sir, I -- as director of NSA, we did have a series of inquiries about this potential connection between Al Qaida and the Iraqi government. Yes, sir.

LEVIN: Now, prior to the war, the undersecretary of defense for policy, Mr. Feith, established an intelligence analysis cell within his policy office at the Defense Department.

LEVIN: While the intelligence community was consistently dubious about links between Iraq and Al Qaida, Mr. Feith produced an alternative analysis, asserting that there was a strong connection.
Were you comfortable with Mr. Feith's office's approach to intelligence analysis?

HAYDEN: No, sir, I wasn't. I wasn't aware of a lot of the activity going on, you know, when it was contemporaneous with running up to the war. No, sir, I wasn't comfortable.

LEVIN: In our meeting in our office, you indicated -- well, what were you uncomfortable about? Let me...

HAYDEN: Well, there were a couple of things. And thank you for the opportunity to elaborate, because these aren't simple issues.
As I tried to say in my statement, there are a lot of things that animate and inform a policy-maker's judgment, and intelligence is one of them, and, you know, world view, and there are a whole bunch of other things that are very legitimate.
The role of intelligence, I try to say it here by metaphor because it's the best way I can describe it, is you've got to draw the left- and the right-hand boundaries. The tether to your analysis can't be so long, so stretched that it gets out of those left- and right-hand boundaries.
Now, with regard to this particular case, it is possible, Senator, if you want to drill down on an issue and just get laser beam focused, and exhaust every possible -- every possible ounce of evidence, you can build up a pretty strong body of data, right? But you have to know what you're doing, all right?
I got three great kids, but if you tell me go out and find all the bad things they've done, Hayden, I can build you a pretty good dossier, and you'd think they were pretty bad people, because that was I was looking for and that's what I'd build up.
That would be very wrong. That would be inaccurate. That would be misleading.
It's one thing to drill down, and it's legitimate to drill down. And that was a real big and real important question. But at the end of the day, when you draw your analysis, you have to recognize that you've really laser beam focused on one particular data set. And you have to put that factor into the equation before you start drawing macro judgments.

LEVIN: You in my office discussed, I think, a very interesting approach, which is the difference between starting with a conclusion and trying to prove it and instead starting with digging into all the facts and seeing where they take you.
Would you just describe for us that difference and why you feel, I think, that that related to the difference between what intelligence should be and what some people were doing, including that Feith office.

HAYDEN: Yes, sir. And I actually think I prefaced that with both of these are legitimate forms of reasoning, that you've got deductive -- and the product of, you know, 18 years of Catholic education, I know a lot about deductive reasoning here.

HAYDEN: There's an approach to the world in which you begin with, first, principles and then you work your way down the specifics.
And then there's an inductive approach to the world in which you start out there with all the data and work yourself up to general principles. They are both legitimate. But the only one I'm allowed to do is induction.

LEVIN: Allowed to do as an intelligence...

HAYDEN: As an intelligence officer is induction.
And so, now, what happens when induction meets deduction, Senator? Well, that's my left- and right-hand boundaries metaphor.

LEVIN: Now, I believe that you actually placed a disclaimer on NSA reporting relative to any links between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. And it was apparently following the repeated inquiries from the Feith office. Would you just tell us what that disclaimer was?

HAYDEN: Yes, sir.
SIGINT neither confirms nor denies -- and let me stop at that point in the sentence so we can stay safely on the side of unclassified.
SIGINT neither confirms nor denies, and then we finished the sentence based upon the question that was asked. And then we provided the data, sir." Hayden Transcript
The "mainstream media" are doing a great job of ignoring this exchange in the Hayden CIA hearing, but what Hayden did here is repudiate altogether the Administration assertion (supported by various bogus commissions and the SSCI under Roberts) that intelligence analysts were not "pressured" by abusive repetitions of "requests" for information into backing away from what they knew to be true about Iraq before the war.

Look at what Hayden said:
- There was pressure from Feith's Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon pushing the analysts towards judgments that were desired by Feith and company.

- That he was aware at the time of the pressure that it existed.

- That the "World View" of parties un-named in the Administration "informed" their judgment as much as the opinions of the intelligence community. This is important because the administration is now claiming that it is innocent of "original sin" in this matter and that the colossal errors in understanding Iraq were altogether the fault of the intelligence community.

- That the Feith/neocon crowd went outside the "boundaries" of what the intelligence community thought might be the situation in Iraq and were incompetent in the attempt.

- That the Feith/neocon crowd ignored evidence contrary to their views.

- That the Feith/neocon group committed the ultimate "sin" for an intelligence analyst, i.e., they used "deductive" rather than "inductive" reasoning in reaching their conclusions about Iraq. "Deductive" thinking is poison injected into the bloodstream of the government's decision process.

- That when "pressed" by the Feith/neocon crowd about NSA's conclusions concerning the AQ/Iraqi connection, he caused NSA to respond that "SIGINT neither confirms nor denies.." This was an appropriate and important.response for NSA which is a COLLECTION arm of the intelligence community and which does not perform analysis in the sense that the term is properly used.

In an earlier blog I stated that The Office of Special Plans was used by the White House to provide phony intelligesnce and to provide cover if no WMD were found in Iraq and if no Al-Quida connection could be established. If you combine this testimony with the Downing Street Memo, which stated the following about the Iraq war and the use of intelligence, “ the intelligence was going to fixed around the policy,” it is clear that we were lied to about the war, there was no intelligence failure, and the President will have to answer to the country for his impeachable offense.

David M Goldberg

Big Brother is Here

2006-05-21T10:06:00.000-05:00

It was interesting that many people (60% by one preliminary poll) feel it is all right for the government to get all of our phone records in order to “catch terrorists.” To me, even this, seems a violation of unreasonable search and seizure, which requires “probable cause.” But when considered along with other actions of the government it seems much more Kafkaesque.

Not only is the government compiling the telephone numbers called by all American’s on both cell phones and landlines, they have conducted warrantless eavesdropping on foreign calls (maybe domestic calls) and tracked people’s movements by their cell phone signal. Yes, you may not know that the government can track or reassemble your travels if you carry a cell phone.

They say they are not mining all of that phone data, just looking for patterns. Isn’t that the same thing? Their stated goal is to get records of every call ever made and gain access to all voice and email communications. Along with that, the government has requested that internet companies retain records of all websites people visit, sought to sample website searches and requested all search records for a week from internet service providers. There are also revelations from a former CIA agent that spy satellites that can see detail down to at least one meter have been used to watch Americans in this country.

Previously the Defense Department proposed an operation called Total Information Awareness that would have allowed them to “data mine” personal information on driver’s licenses, passports, credit card purchases, car rentals, medical prescriptions and records, banking transactions, employment records and more. That proposal was withdrawn following a public outcry, as far as we know.

The administration has all but openly admitted to breaking the FISA law and continues to do so. It’s solution? Legalize the illegal activity retroactively and pass a law that allows it to be even more intrusive. Senate Bill 2455, the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 introduced by Republican Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine includes free rein for the President to wiretap anyone he wants, stating: the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize a program of electronic surveillance without a court order for periods of up to 45 days if--
(1) the President determines that the surveillance is necessary to protect the United States, its citizens, or its interests, whether inside the United States or outside the United States;

How’s that for vague?

This decision will be reviewed by the Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales, the guy who argued for the right to torture) and a summary of the activity reported to a Senate subcommittee, eventually. The Act also proposes keeping all congressional review secret, penalizes whistleblowers who tell if its been used in violation of the constitution with up to 15 years in prison and a one million dollar fine and provides no penalties if the government violates its own statutes.

If you were hoping for government investigation or oversight, think again. A recent investigation of the NSA wiretapping program by the Bush Justice Department was shut down by the Bush National Security Agency because it refused to give the Bush Justice Department clearance to look at the alleged violations. When Harry Reid, Democratic Minority leader who is vice-chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee tried to hold a meeting on February 16th, where it was expected he would be joined by three Republicans to call for hearings on the NSA wiretaps, Bush supporter Pat Roberts from Kansas cancelled the meeting and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, threatened to restructure the committee to dictate its agenda if Reid pursued hearings.

The administration is pursuing investigations, with the promise of prosecution of those who leaked the NSA violations and the reporters who reported it. Given the Bush administration’s secrecy, its willingness to bend the truth to accomplish its goals (WMDs, Al Qaeda/Saddam connection), signing statements saying he can ignore laws at will, its willful and unnecessary violation of FISA, and a history of punishing even Republicans who disagree with it, it is impossible to trust that they will not use this information against their political opposition or people who report their wrongdoings.

There seems to be some discussion of implanting the real ID with the same technology that is being introduced by the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) to track every individual livestock animal with a radio traceable biochip. In the President’s proposal on immigration he wants to incorporate local police in to immigration control. Does that mean they will be able to stop people and ask for papers? Local police have already been found to be receiving funds to establish local intelligence units that have spied on peace groups, environmentalists and others. Forgive me if the more the President tells me he is out to protect me the more worried I get.

John Kelley
Guest Essayist

CRASH!

2006-05-20T09:02:00.000-05:00

It is a classical truth that most representatives of the species homo sapiens sapiens are by themselves incapable of perceiving very slow motion events. Our eyes and attention spans normally do not see the growth of plants or animals, only our memory gives us a clue to the fact of growth and other slow-motion events. But, our species has developed culture and civilization, means by which we can transmit little bits of accumulated knowledge to a next generation and so on so that eventually people learning the transmitted lore might be able to distinguish patterns among those individual facts.

With "sweeps" and season finales clogging our brainstems, with summer vacations being planned, with visions of sending children off to the next year of school or college in a few short months, with elections reduced to sound bytes and meaningless chatter about "values voting" and serious issues of separation of church and state, immigration, free trade, and all the welter of daily issues ... including the occasional badly faring war ... it is a wonder that anyone has noticed the fundamental changes being wrought by the combined effect of our government's policies and actions.

If you come to the American Liberalism Project Blog via the website you noticed that the Iraq War has now cost about $283 billion dollars and shows no sign of letting up. What is $283 billion dollars to a country whose per capita GDP (2003) is $38,611 or $11,583,300,000,000 (eleven and a half trillion dollars)? Well it is trouble, that's what it is. The bill for this war will be paid like a mortgage with the interest accumulating over the years to many times the actual money spent on bullets, stinger missiles, medical costs, flags, and salaries for colonels and soldiers.

The bill may very well break the bank in a way that none of the "kill the beast" welfare state haters imagined. The bill will land heavily in the midst of an economy that much later than necessary discovered that it will be converting from a petroleum economy to something else ... or else! The bill will land on an economy where the middle class is thinning out and the rich are richer, but less taxed than at any time in memory. The bill will land on educational systems, medical care, and all the hopes and dreams of people whose only reason for banding together in nations and states is to enjoy a "commonwealth" of benefits, such as security of currency, neighborhood, life and limb.

In fact the bill for all of "this" will probably not be exportable very much longer. We export our debts by keying crucial imports and exports to an idealized dollar. I am not an economist, so I have take much of this on faith. Apparently, according to Mike Whitney's article last week in OpEdNews, Inevitable Collapse of the Greenback the faith of whole countries is wearing thin. Iran has made its move. China will not be far behind. Venezuela has no interest in propping up George, nor do the majority of folk around this planet. They saw the vote in 2004, and because of it they do not care what happens to about half of Americans.

With Reagan we had voodoo economics (so-called by the elder Bush) and now with the junior Bush we have a serious situation of a amoral, spoiled kid following the advice of lunatic fringe extremists. They knew from Day One that they would not be around to deal with the aftermath of their deeds, but like very bad kids who have set fire to the family dog, they are hoping like hell the dog doesn't crash through into their club house. Does anyone think that this administration has the brains to deal with the impending disaster?

James Richard Brett

Nancy Pelosi

2006-05-19T09:14:00.000-05:00

Over the past two weeks there have been any number of news and opinion articles published that purport to understand the politics of impeaching George W. Bush and his friends. Last Friday's Washington Post contained such an article, written by the good soldier Charles Babbington.

Other articles, to which I will not link because they too are not worth the electrons to paint on your computer screen, have jumped all over Mrs. Pelosi for "dumping the Constitution," collusion with President Bush, and working for the RNC. To all these people whose editors do not give a damn what they say (or tell them exactly what to say), I say, y'all need a little lesson in humility and a big lesson in arithmetic. You should give up journalism and get a job!

The minority party in the House and the minority party in the Senate do not chair any committees. They have "ranking members" in committees, but "ranking" is not Chair, and not being Chair (or majority party) means that you have virtually no control over the agenda or conduct of that committee. The work that Rep. Conyers is doing amounts to private staff work at this point ... and, make no mistake, it is valuable work, nevertheless.

The minority party does not win committee or floor votes along party lines. That's what being the minority means. It means you come in second; even if you "try harder," you will not be able to pass your resolutions, bills, articles of impeachment, etc. So, DUH!

What do you expect Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat to say as the long hot summer before an election begins? Nancy Pelosi will probably become the first femme Speaker of the House of Representatives if the Democrats win in November. Not only will she be able to appoint Democratic chairs to committees, but she will be able to set committee agendas and will be able to maneuver agendas onto the floor when she and the Party believe they Constitutionally belong there. That is all you can say at this point.

Until November, though, anything she says is going to be taken up by Republicans as the rattling of sabres and beating of war drums. She does not need to get Democrats into a frenzy over impeachment ... we are already pretty pissed off and our teeth have been clenched for well over five and a half long years. And, she does not need to get Republicans ... who are presently stunned at the utter wasteland that George Bush & Co. have made of their party ... up in arms and out recruiting votes for their candidates.

The final inexorable mathematics of this is that Democrats have to win in November. With Rove about to be indicted (they say), we hope, and Dick Cheney's skin being measured by the local taxidermists at Justice, too, we suspect that the Republicans will continue their melt down all the way to through to 2008 or further and that Democrats could be looking at a landslide. Why screw that up!

In other words, you jackals and hyenas of the blogs and press, do you really think that the American public is that moronic? People understand the arithmetic, even if you do not.

James Richard Brett

America The Bully

2006-05-18T08:51:00.000-05:00

"The time has come to redesign the American flag with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by skull and crossbones." So spoke Mark Twain after news leaked out of the atrocities committed by American troops during the U.S. takeover of the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century. The American people do not know their own history and thereby fail to see the pattern of the takeover by force that our government has engaged in since the Queen of Hawaii was deposed in 1893 with the help of a U.S. gunboat offshore. The Americans who promoted the annexation of Hawaii were sugar growers who were the children of missionaries and who wanted their sugar to enter the U.S. free of tariffs. The annexation by the U.S. would achieve that. Because business interests wanted to make more profit, a whole culture lost its ability to manage the resources and laws of their nation. The U.S. government supplied the force, which could legitimately be called an act of terrorism, to threaten the Hawaiian people with attack should they resist.

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines came next. All were forced to submit to the will of the U.S. government and faced terrible physical retribution from a stronger military force. All were forced to allow U.S. military presence on their soil and U.S. business to control their resources, land, labor and laws. Any nation who stood up and fought against this takeover in an effort to keep or regain control of their country, has been subjected to covert actions to remove effective or democratically leaders, military interference to subdue popular movements, embargo, financial penalties and human rights abuses by the strongest, biggest, baddest military in the world, directed by the leaders in the U.S. government.

In his book Rogue Nation, William Blum lists 54 pages of U.S. military interventions just since 1945! Stephen Kinzer, in his book Overthrow, details 14 U.S. interventions which destroyed democratic governments. Marine General Smedly Butler laid it on the line in his book War is a Racket! in which he lamented that he and his Marines had made the world safe for (and opened to) the bankers and the corporations at the expense of young blood. Soldiers have died and suffered for generations to expand business interests.

The American people fail for the most part to see us as others see us. We have been fed lies about the people and nations our government has used military force against. Covert actions have been kept secret from us. Those who are trying to free their country are declared enemies and labeled communists, socialists, terrorists evil and whatever.

The facts show that the true agenda of our government, using our blood and money, is to expand it's control with more military bases and to open those countries to the multi-national banks and businesses. No democracy is spread, no freedom or better life, those who are forced to follow the rules imposed by the US lose their rights to manage their country for the benefit of their people and make their own laws. Our government uses the terror of force to impose its' will and has done so for 113 years. There you have it.

I know this is not what the American people envision as the American Dream. We do wish the world well and want every person to be free and have food, clean water, shelter and the opportunity to live in security to live one's potential. We believe that government should be by the people and for the people. We must recognize that ours has not and does not function by us or for us. We need only look around us to see that our own nation is looking pretty shabby right now. Our debt is out of sight, $8 trillion dollars, which we the people are responsible for. Meanwhile the very rich 10% have increased their wealth, funded by those very tax dollars we are in debt for. Our debt is their tax break. Huge profits are being made by the oil companies which receive equally huge tax breaks and subsidies from the government. War businesses like Haliburton and arms manufacturers are reporting record profits from the taxes allocated to pay for the war. The "War on Terror" what a laugh, how did we ever fall for that one? An endless war against an unseen enemy used to keep the tax dollars flowing into the coffers of the very rich, very powerful businesses who are in bed with our government.

If we truly were directing our government wouldn't we have a decent health care system, a clean environment, great education for all our people, all our people fed and housed, healthy food to eat, a prosperous economy and a foreign policy that was fair, just and peace seeking? You bet we would.

Given the increasing secrecy of our government and the imposition of laws that seek to gag, monitor and control us, we must recognize the situation we are in and resist and reject a government which does not function on our behalf and does not follow the ideals we believe in.

We must revoke the laws that give corporations the rights of "personhood" and strip them of the right to interfere in politics and lawmaking. We must take charge of our voting system and determine the design of our voting machines, ballots and how we want to "interview" the candidates and maybe even test them to see if they are mentally and experientially competent. Popular elections and run-off voting would be two steps to open elections up to more than the two party system. There are solutions to reclaiming our government, but first we have to recognize the problem.

Sue Dyer
Guest Essayist

John Adams on Government

2006-05-17T09:40:00.000-05:00

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers."

John Adams, Individual Rights

Of all the Founding Fathers, John Adams was in a most unenviable position. Following, in office, as he did George Washington, Father of his Country, he had large shoes to fill. It is perhaps our great good fortune, to have had as our first President, those men who were instrumental in the founding of the country and the framing of our Constitution. They had written the rules, now they had the opportunity to put action to words.

I give to you here, an example, in the form of a letter Adams wrote, of their commitment to making this new government and nation the best on earth. One which should stand as a beacon to others. It is clear, in it's reading, that this current administration has fallen so far from the ideals, hopes and expectations we should fear for our freedom. Indeed we do have great reason to fear.

USA: J. Adams - Thoughts on Government

Susan B. Goodwin

The Threat of Hugo Chavez?

2006-05-16T08:12:00.001-05:00

The likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would have you believe that they are about the Lord's work, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. I recall nothing in Jesus' words that called for the assasination of individuals with whom one disagreed, and yet we have seen Robertson do precisely that when he called for the state sanctioned murder of Hugo Chavez, the duly elected President of Venezula.

We thought you might like to read about the person who Robertson considers such an enemy of the US. I am sure that President Chavez would be pleased that more people understand what he has done, and continues to do, for the people of his country. Please read on.

Chávez is a threat because he offers the alternative of a decent society

Venezuela's president is using oil revenues to liberate the poor - no wonder his enemies want to overthrow him

John Pilger
Saturday May 13, 2006
The Guardian

I have spent the past three weeks filming in the hillside barrios of Caracas, in streets and breeze-block houses that defy gravity and torrential rain and emerge at night like fireflies in the fog. Caracas is said to be one of the world's toughest cities, yet I have known no fear; the poorest have welcomed my colleagues and me with a warmth characteristic of ordinary Venezuelans but also with the unmistakable confidence of a people who know that change is possible and who, in their everyday lives, are reclaiming noble concepts long emptied of their meaning in the west: "reform", "popular democracy", "equity", "social justice" and, yes, "freedom".

The other night, in a room bare except for a single fluorescent tube, I heard these words spoken by the likes of Ana Lucia Fernandez, aged 86, Celedonia Oviedo, aged 74, and Mavis Mendez, aged 95. A mere 33-year-old, Sonia Alvarez, had come with her two young children. Until about a year ago, none of them could read and write; now they are studying mathematics. For the first time in its modern era, Venezuela has almost 100% literacy.
This achievement is due to a national programme, called Mision Robinson, designed for adults and teenagers previously denied an education because of poverty. Mision Ribas is giving everyone a secondary school education, called a bachillerato. (The names Robinson and Ribas refer to Venezuelan independence leaders from the 19th century.) Named, like much else here, after the great liberator Simon Bolivar, "Bolivarian", or people's, universities have opened, introducing, as one parent told me, "treasures of the mind, history and music and art, we barely knew existed". Under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela is the first major oil producer to use its oil revenue to liberate the poor.

Mavis Mendez has seen, in her 95 years, a parade of governments preside over the theft of tens of billions of dollars in oil spoils, much of it flown to Miami, together with the steepest descent into poverty ever known in Latin America; from 18% in 1980 to 65% in 1995, three years before Chávez was elected. "We didn't matter in a human sense," she said. "We lived and died without real education and running water, and food we couldn't afford. When we fell ill, the weakest died. In the east of the city, where the mansions are, we were invisible, or we were feared. Now I can read and write my name, and so much more; and whatever the rich and their media say, we have planted the seeds of true democracy, and I am full of joy that I have lived to witness it."

Latin American governments often give their regimes a new sense of legitimacy by holding a constituent assembly that drafts a new constitution. When he was elected in 1998, Chávez used this brilliantly to decentralise, to give the impoverished grassroots power they had never known and to begin to dismantle a corrupt political superstructure as a prerequisite to changing the direction of the economy. His setting-up of misions as a means of bypassing saboteurs in the old, corrupt bureaucracy was typical of the extraordinary political and social imagination that is changing Venezuela peacefully. This is his "Bolivarian revolution", which, at this stage, is not dissimilar to the post-war European social democracies.

Chávez, a former army major, was anxious to prove he was not yet another military "strongman". He promised that his every move would be subject to the will of the people. In his first year as president in 1999, he held an unprecedented number of votes: a referendum on whether or not people wanted a new constituent assembly; elections for the assembly; a second referendum ratifying the new constitution - 71% of the people approved each of the 396 articles that gave Mavis and Celedonia and Ana Lucia, and their children and grandchildren, unheard-of freedoms, such as Article 123, which for the first time recognised the human rights of mixed-race and black people, of whom Chávez is one. "The indigenous peoples," it says, "have the right to maintain their own economic practices, based on reciprocity, solidarity and exchange ... and to define their priorities ... " The little red book of the Venezuelan constitution became a bestseller on the streets. Nora Hernandez, a community worker in Petare barrio, took me to her local state-run supermarket, which is funded entirely by oil revenue and where prices are up to half those in the commercial chains. Proudly, she showed me articles of the constitution written on the backs of soap-powder packets. "We can never go back," she said.

In La Vega barrio, I listened to a nurse, Mariella Machado, a big round black woman of 45 with a wonderfully wicked laugh, stand and speak at an urban land council on subjects ranging from homelessness to the Iraq war. That day, they were launching Mision Madres de Barrio, a programme aimed specifically at poverty among single mothers. Under the constitution, women have the right to be paid as carers, and can borrow from a special women's bank. From next month, the poorest housewives will get about £120 a month. It is not surprising that Chávez has now won eight elections and referendums in eight years, each time increasing his majority, a world record. He is the most popular head of state in the western hemisphere, probably in the world. That is why he survived, amazingly, a Washington-backed coup in 2002. Mariella and Celedonia and Nora and hundreds of thousands of others came down from the barrios and demanded that the army remain loyal. "The people rescued me," Chávez told me. "They did it with all the media against me, preventing even the basic facts of what had happened. For popular democracy in heroic action, I suggest you need look no further."

The venomous attacks on Chávez, who arrives in London tomorrow, have begun and resemble uncannily those of the privately owned Venezuelan television and press, which called for the elected government to be overthrown. Fact-deprived attacks on Chávez in the Times and the Financial Times this week, each with that peculiar malice reserved for true dissenters from Thatcher's and Blair's one true way, follow a travesty of journalism on Channel 4 News last month, which effectively accused the Venezuelan president of plotting to make nuclear weapons with Iran, an absurd fantasy. The reporter sneered at policies to eradicate poverty and presented Chávez as a sinister buffoon, while Donald Rumsfeld was allowed to liken him to Hitler, unchallenged. In contrast, Tony Blair, a patrician with no equivalent democratic record, having been elected by a fifth of those eligible to vote and having caused the violent death of tens of thousands of Iraqis, is allowed to continue spinning his truly absurd political survival tale.

Chávez is, of course, a threat, especially to the United States. Like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who based their revolution on the English co-operative moment, and the moderate Allende in Chile, he offers the threat of an alternative way of developing a decent society: in other words, the threat of a good example in a continent where the majority of humanity has long suffered a Washington-designed peonage. In the US media in the 1980s, the "threat" of tiny Nicaragua was seriously debated until it was crushed. Venezuela is clearly being "softened up" for something similar. A US army publication, Doctrine for Asymmetric War against Venezuela, describes Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution as the "largest threat since the Soviet Union and Communism". When I said to Chávez that the US historically had had its way in Latin America, he replied: "Yes, and my assassination would come as no surprise. But the empire is in trouble, and the people of Venezuela will resist an attack. We ask only for the support of all true democrats."

· John Pilger's new book, Freedom Next Time, is published next month by Bantam Press www.johnpilger.com

Work Forever

2006-05-15T10:23:00.000-05:00

A recent blog by Jim Brett titled Compromise and Cooption talks about a Liberal Compromise and the groups that comprised the force behind this compromise. He points out that for the average worker it appeared to be a bargain that would bring with it economic security in exchange for accepting that the movement would not move left into a wholesale acceptance of socialism. He points out that the key was a compromise of economics. We wouldn’t nationalize key industries; in exchange the leaders of labor were promised more and more of the economic pie and with them the workers they represented. And, as he points out for awhile it worked. It turns out however to have been a Faustian bargain whose results are now being felt and with real pain by labor. Look at what has happened as a result of that bargain.

General Motors’ announcement that that it would no longer provide traditional pensions to its employees hired after 2001 was stunning because of its size. Yet GM is hardly alone in trying to pare down or eliminate conventional pensions. Every day, from healthy companies like Verizon to bankrupt firms like Delphi, there seems to be a new announcement. United Airlines, Bethlehem Steel, Motorola, Lockheed Martin, IBM, Hewlett Packard, along with many other pillars of our economy, have frozen their pension plans, insisting they cannot afford to keep their promises.

The impact of simply wiping out traditional pensions resonates far beyond corporate boardrooms and company shareholders. It’s a unilateral move to cut out a main clause of our social contract, the model that a majority of Americans and their families have relied on for nearly three quarters of a century.

Are we really ready as a society to declare the end of retirement as we know it? In order to retire, must employees now bear all the costs and take all the risks? And at the very least, shouldn’t we have a serious, national conversation before we simply accept a major shift that will have such a significant impact on our economy and the quality of life in our country for generations to come?

Traditionally, pensions were part of a three-legged stool of retirement: Social Security, personal savings and private pensions from employers. Each leg is essential to ensuring that Americans can retire without fear of being desperate or a huge drain on family, friends, church or community.Yet Americans are having a difficult time saving. With stagnant wages and the escalating costs of housing, gasoline and college, many are just living paycheck to paycheck. That leaves pensions.

For most of the late 20th century, employers offered defined-benefit plans, pensions in which retirees received a fixed sum each month based on their length of service and income. By contrast, today’s newer defined-contribution plans, known as 401(k)s, give wage earners a tax break for putting part of their own salary into an account which they can draw on after they retire.

It’s not surprising that employers prefer defined-contribution plans. They offer the company the option of matching a worker’s contributions. But it’s just an option and a number of employers opt out. The number of American workers covered by 401(k) plans rose from 14.4 million in 1980 to nearly 60 million in 2000. Meanwhile, the number of private sector employees covered by defined-benefit plans plummeted to only one in five.

These 401(k) plans will not be sufficient for most people to retire. The median amount of money in a 401(k) plan for individuals ages 55 to 64 is only $23,000. Most experts believe that it will take at least $200,000 to $300,000 in addition to Social Security for the average American to have a secure retirement but, the average Social Security benefit is only $12,000. Instead of having the ability to retire with some dignity, future generations of senior citizens are more likely to have to arrange to sleep on their adult children’s pull-out sofas—if they’re lucky enough to have children who can afford to help support them.

How did retirement become so precarious? In a few years, all but the most affluent among us may have to keep working well beyond the age of 65. That’s not what we signed up for. And it’s not the way things have to be..

Let’s not go back to an era when we saw America’s elderly eating out of garbage cans. There are many ways to ensure that Americans have a secure retirement. But let’s not pretend that everything will be alright if we do nothing as we watch corporations renege on their promises of traditional pension plans with substitutes that will not provide the same kind of coverage. We deserve a truthful conversation about the options that will provide a decent retirement for all Americans.

David M. Goldberg

Mothers Day

2006-05-14T09:49:00.000-05:00

Here is an article, The Myth of Marriage, that may not resonate with the greeting card moments of this Mothers day, but nevertheless has some important points to ponder.

Marriage may have been invented for motherhood, to "insure" (on average) that children (and their moms) were given proper support during their long period of helplessness. Marriage became a vessel for transmitting property rights, of course, and among the nobility and royalty, for transmitting power.

Moms have not faired very well under the pretenses of traditional marriage, and so this article might suggest a progressive direction to take.

JRB

Cold War

2006-05-13T09:21:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday I wrote about the strange behavior of Dick Cheney in Lithuania. Having a week to think about it and to use the PNAC lens on the situation, the situation seems to resolve down to this. The Iran game is probably not going to work for Dick, Donald, and George. The world is too keyed up and will instantly discern any kind of b.s. that Bush might introduce as a pretext for beginning the Iran war. Blair is on the ropes in the UK and cannot provide even the most meager assistance. In addition, Ahmadinejad has written George a letter basically indicating (between the lines) that he is afraid Bush will strike. It is a clumsy letter, but Ahmadinejad is not necessarily completely sane.

The Cheney belligerence is designed to take the next best route to protracted war—reincarnation of the Cold War with Russia. In Putin he has a perfect stooge, presiding over an impossible mess in Russia. Cheney can work this gambit and seem like a democratic hero to his constituency, all of whom long for the good old days when the military industrial complex had on the Cold War nosebag.

Putin is hoist on his own petard, of course, and the PNAC crew know it! If he liberalizes Russia to avoid the churlish provocations of Cheney, he will lose his own foothold on power and Russia will meander along economically crippled and politically destitute. If he continues with the deliberalization of Russia (what I called the Putinshchina), he plays into the PNAC center pocket! If you want metaphors then consider Putin's wolf cry to be a message to the world, caste in the brutal iconography of his homeland's agony. Putin knows he is trapped and that he cannot sustain another shoving match with the American arms industry!

James Richard Brett

Communicating Liberalism

2006-05-12T10:00:00.000-05:00

In his Wednesday "Rant" at Capitol Hill Blue Doug Thompson delivered "the Pox" on "both their houses" again. (It is not worth reading, so I have not linked to it.) This time he slurred Nancy Pelosi, painting her with the same brush he used on a corrupt Democratic Representative from Florida. But, friends, isn't it enough already! Of course we know that there are (also) corrupt Democrats, and of course we depend on a non-corrupt leadership to put them in their place until the voters in their home districts come to their senses. It is tough to deal with corrupt people because you can never be sure they understand you.

This nation was established in the full face of the idea that power corrupts and, more importantly, that civilized men and women can nevertheless perform to high standards, if they constantly remind themselves of the truth of corruption. It is important to point out corruption, but it is reckless and stupid to give up and call them all whores.

But, Doug was not the only vituperator Wednesday. My Slate was delivered with yet another sophomoric attack on Minority Leader Pelosi, accusing her of being a double agent for the RNC! Slate is produced by the Washington Post Company and Newsweek, in case you had not noticed.

It seems to me that half the problem is that writers write too much and too often. At the American Liberalism Project our essayists have only a once a week responsibility. They are not pushed day after day to write something. They have the opportunities of reflection, distillation, editing, simplification, clarification, and common sense. Once or twice a week is enough. I think Doug Thompson should consider writing less, backing out of the barrel he now wears, and giving us the benefit of his truly interesting experience and MUCH less of his disappointment with the human species and its politicians. As for the dude at Slate, I can only say that I read ten percent of what they send me and then only to see what direction they are going.

Communication to the populace is tricky business. Often you cannot say exactly what is on your mind and then at other times you cannot say it often enough. In an open society (which ours still is in many respects) one communicates to the public not with a forked tongue, but with multiple purposes. When you say that Bush made a mistake you are telling your operatives to take advantage of that mistake, and you are telling your opponents that they have be uncovered ... all with the same words.

When Bush says that he is "the decider" (re Rumsfeld) he is interpreted by the Democrats as being ego-driven, with a decidedly strange view of his office. What Bush was saying to Republicans ... for whom the stakes have become extremely dicey ... is that he, George, not Dick Cheney made the decision (in the face of press commentary that week that the Cheney-Rumsfeld team could not be cracked by George.) Whether this was to deceive Republicans or not, that's what it was about.

Of course we all know that Nancy Pelosi has discussed the strategy of the Democrats with everyone in the Party of sufficient experience and intelligence to contribute, and THEY have decided to tell the country's Democrats that when they vote this coming November they will be voting for a civilized plan that leads toward impeachment of Buch and Cheney and perhaps others. At the same time, of course, they are ("inadvertently") telling all the Republican voters out there to get their ugly butts to the polls in November or their house of cards will come tumbling down. It is a calculate risk, no doubt about it. The way you play this game is that "the truth will out."

Democrats are very angry these days while Republicans are very stunned by the endless ineptitude of their party and its standard bearers. Usually what happens in a situation like this is that the people with the self-righteous anger are more apt to act, while the stunned are apt to just let whatever it is happen ... namely, let the Republican Party purge itself naturally (at the polls) of the inept and stupid.

We come to the not very surprising conclusions in all of this that (1) some people are better at communication than others, and (2) that those in the audience receiving the range of political communication they can stomach often misunderstand what they hear and read. Getting it wrong leads, of course, to anger and frustration, to confusion and paralysis, and inevitably to the old saws about the bottomless pit into which all politicians are headed. Yes, it is true that people often give up trying to understand politics because they do not have a real clue how to listen.

Those of you who have bothered to watch the rogues gallery on the front page of the American Liberalism Project website will have noticed that in some respects the gallery is something like the fabled Kremlin Wall. Bill Clinton has not been a member of the gallery since the very early days of the website. Hillary has never been. Biden is gone. John Kerry is about to depart. Barack Obama "finessed" himself right off the wall recently as did the senior Senator from California, whose name eludes me at the moment. Steny Hoyer, the Minority Whip will never get into the group, nor will the foul-mouthed DCCC Chair from Illinois. Each of those people, whom you might expect to see but do not, have committed atrocities against Liberal principles by turning their backs on them or violating them or by inconsistent practices. In a word, they are not leaders.

I bring this up to point out that one cannot measure a man or woman by the deeds of one day. To be political means that you have to attend to a myriad of facts and perceptions every day and be able to condense and distill from these judgments a coherent and consistent response. Most Americans do not have a clue how to do this because they have no idea about their own ideology, the set of principles upon which their politics is based.

A recent outside commenter on an American Liberalism Project essay ranted on at length about the benefits of competition in an economy. Inevitably he got to the position that competition is the anvil of truth and justice, but he did not understand that anvils are just hard objects that require someone to act on them with purpose. The critic's philosophy was impoverished on the subject of "purpose," for he was trapped in a social Darwinist paradigm that promotes the idea of survival of the economic fittest, as if that had anything to do with the intrinsic worth of people! He knew some of the phrases and key words, but he did not understand how his thoughts are arranged in his own head. He does not have an ideology, only slogans and pat dogmas.

Liberals judge their politicians on their promotion of Individual Liberty. They can do this by standing up for people whose liberty is clearly at stake or by using their own liberties to serve as role models.

Liberals judge on politicians Humanity, their promotion of humane treatment for humans and the planet. They are environmentalists, nurturers, creators of programs for those who cannot help themselves.

Liberal politicians must be Progressive and show a strong sense that improvement of our lot is not only possible but mandatory. Key to the progressive spirit is the idea that over time more and more people will attain individual liberties and more and more will be able to take full responsibility for themselves and the planet.

Liberal politicians must have personal Ethics, consistent principles that restrain the individual from egomaniacal quests for power and celebrity, yet balance a mature respect for one's office and encourage leadership.

Liberal politicans must demonstrate a solid commitment to the Rule of Law, effacing their own interests to promote the concept and reality that we can only survive if we are a nation of laws.

Politics is not taught in public schools. It would be almost impossible to do so. It is taught at home by emulation and by direct instruction. It is taught in bars and talk radio and now talk television. It is piped-in subliminally in news and novels and movies and a variety of other formal ways.

But politics is taught best when it is overt and both teacher and student can interact with one another. The best place for this is within a political party, where no one is ashamed or self-conscious about the subject. The next best place is the neighborhoods when parties are proselytizing for candidates, for during this act of politics everyone is both on guard against being duped or insulted, there are special social rules for neighborhood politicking.

Before one gets involved in a party, though, the person has to know what the sum of his or her basic values is. That's why at the American Liberalism Project we lead off with the statement of John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties—if that is what they mean by a “liberal,” then I am proud to be a liberal." -- John F. Kennedy

James Richard Brett

Corporatism

2006-05-11T14:10:00.000-05:00

As you know, we are decidedly against the current status and political activities of American corporations. What was once only a method of limiting the legal liability of corporate investors to the extent (percentage of the whole) of their investment has gone completely out of control, witness this article by Thom Hartmann in CommonDreams some time ago.

JRB

Political Parties & The Founding Fathers

2006-05-10T08:50:00.000-05:00

Today we find it difficult to imagine not having any form of political allegiance to one party or another. We each usually proudly proclaim our affiliation with either the Democrats or the Republicans, and many work diligently to aid their party. Each party either reflects our beliefs or appeals to us with their agendas. But such has not always been the case. The idea of political parties was anathema to Washington who stated in his Farewell Address (1796) that...
"They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community;..."

How prophetic those words seem today with the current administration. Surely the agenda of the Bush administration has not been to the benefit or betterment of the nation, and surely it has appealed to but a small faction of the populace, despite what election results might show. There had certainly been blatant pandering by this administration to a certain element of our society which is far from a reflection of the whole.

It is hard to pigeonhole any of the other Founding Fathers, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, into any of the political parties of today. Hamilton, would have been happy to have had a monarch, provided that monarch was benevolent and kept the welfare of the nation as the highest priority. Jefferson and Madison felt the government should be tightly controlled and in no circumstances should it intrude upon decisions of the individual states. This does not separate them into liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans as we see them today. In no way shape or manner would Jefferson approve of the Republican stance on prayer in school and abortion issues. Both he and Madison would have been appalled at any central government intrusion into what they considered local issues, if not totally personal ones. Government should not intrude into the private lives of it's citizens. One can only imagine their horror at the Terri Schiavo debacle or the religious rantings of the likes of Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson. The role of central government as they saw it was national defense, trade both international and national, and international relations.

In contrast, Hamilton would have had the government strictly controlling just about everything. He would have been on the positive side of prayer in school, abortion would not be allowed and he would have been a card carrying member of the NRA, as he felt everyone should be a gun owner, even if they did not feel the need or were opposed to that ownership. He would have had the President decide all and there would be no state or local governments. Congress should be in charge of raising monies and hand it directly to the President, to use at his discretion. The powers that be today would have reveled in that sort of government, and it seems they are doing their level best to achieve those ends.

With his words, "...give me liberty or give me death.". Patrick Henry managed to state his political beliefs. He was most strongly opposed to any form of governmental intrusion into the private lives of it's citizens. The spectre of tyranny is what had brought him to his feet in Virginia's House of Burgesses, and led to those immortal words. His challenge that day, to his contemporaries, was their acceptance of slavery or freedom, based on the Crown's intrusion into their lives. Today's wiretapping government would surely have sent him into apoplexy.
John Adams looked upon government as a benevolent parent, seeing government's role of helping those who were in need. Although a Federalist, today he would most likely be deemed a liberal. In this Hamilton and Adams were the most closely aligned. However, all of them were more or less opposed to any political party structure, seeing in them an entity not in line with the common good but rather a vehicle for separating one group of citizens from the other, pushing the agenda of one group rather than working for the good of all.

And what if they should return today to see the state of what they labored so long and hard for? Would they be heartsick over the turn of events in the Republic that they labored so long and hard to create? Benjamin Franklin, the philosopher of the group, perhaps said it best. When, as he left Constitution Hall, he was asked..."Well Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate, heard Franklin reply. "A Republic, if you can keep it."

I will leave you with a return to Washington and those prophetic words from his Farewell Address...

"However combinations or associations of the above description (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Susan B. Goodwin

Echoes of Fascism: Rhetoric We've Heard Before (from February 6, 2006)

2006-05-08T23:17:00.000-05:00

"My administration has focused the nation's resources on our highest priority - protecting our citizens and our homeland," Bush said in his budget message. "Working with Congress, we have given our men and women on the front lines in the war on terror the funding they need to defeat the enemy and detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist plots and operations."

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." -Adolph Hitler

According to Dr. Lawrence Britt's "14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism," we are in big trouble here in the Disunited States of America. While the American right continues to laugh at our comparisons of Bush's ongoing rhetoric and the rhetoric of fascist dictator Adolf Hitler, it is no laughing matter.

We do not make these comparisons lightly, nor do they give us joy.

Dr. Britt named these as the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism:

Powerful and continuing nationalism
Disdain for the recognition of human rights
Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Supremacy of the military
Rampant sexism
Controlled mass media
Obsession with national security
Religion and government intertwined
Corporate power protected
Labor power suppressed
Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
Obsession with crime and punishment
Rampant cronyism and corruption
Fraudulent elections

The talking heads of the radical right like to point out that Hitler belonged to his country's socialist party, but I ask them to consider this: If you run far enough to the left, you will eventually cross over into the right. The political spectrum is really more of a circle, not a straight line. In addition, using a socialist platform to win the hearts and minds of the people does not make one a socialist. Kind of like how using a platform of "compassionate conservatism" doesn't automatically make one compassionate or conservative.

Our current government promotes unquestioning patriotism, policies of torture and indefinite detainment without access to counsel, identification of Islamic terrorists as something all US citizens must live in fear of every day, the importance of strengthening our military while cutting funding for other government programs, the abolition of the legal right for a woman to make her own health decisions, and discrimination against homosexuals. Our mainstream mass media is controlled by the right. Our President is obsessed with national security, maintaining the power of corporations to drive policy, pollute the environment, and ship American jobs overseas and south of the border. The American right shows a clear disdain for labor unions and their objectives. Intellectuals are not respected for their knowledge, but mocked. The very word "intellectual" is used as an insult by the right. The conservative-heavy US government is constantly touting its "tough on crime" image while simultaneously languishing in more corruption than the majority of Americans are even aware of. And our elections have become a worldwide joke.

It's more than a little bit scary.

And what is scarier is the fanaticism with which right-wing commentators support our descent into fascism. In her August 17, 2005 column, conservative radical Ann Coulter (best known of late for her suggestion that someone assassinate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens) had this to say, "America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11 . It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope." She is also well-known for saying, a few years ago, that we should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Coulter, of course, is widely considered a hack and a radical, so let's not stop there.

The American right shudders in disgust when a liberal accuses the government or the right-wing media of propagating fascist policies. However, they aren't so disgusted that they can't use the same words to describe us:

"In Newton County, Georgia, the ACLU threatened a school board with litigation if it didn't remove the words 'Christmas holiday' from the school calendar. The county caved and removed the words because it couldn't afford to defend the lawsuit. This, ladies and gentlemen, is fascism, that is, using the threat of terror, which a lawsuit is, to promote policy" (Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/2/03).

Of course, it is more than appropriate for the President of the United States to use the constant threat of terrorism to justify the illegal torture of detainees, the illegal denial of counsel to detainees, the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, the illegal, no forget it, I don't have enough time to write this list.

The truth is, the right wing has taken over all branches of the United States government consistently using the threat of terrorism and the memory of September 11th. This wreaks of fascism.

And our government will continue to travel toward becoming a fascist regime if we do not fight for change.

Economics 101

2006-05-08T10:37:00.000-05:00

Another example of just how intellectually bankrupt the rabid right is came to light recently in an Atlantic Monthly article titled “Stoking the Beast.” In this article the author, Jonathan Rauch, makes a convincing case that the linchpin of the conservatives economic philosophy is just plain wrong. That philosophy has two components to it: The first is that cutting taxes will boost the economy and will pay for itself. The second and from the conservatives point of view most important is the Starve the Beast hypothesis that tax cuts reduce the funds the federal government can spend resulting in smaller government. Tax cuts need not await spending cuts because they would cause spending cuts.

Now conservative Republicans could offer both lower taxes and smaller government without any need for fiscal dentistry. Tax cutting had become the foundation of conservative economics and a political problem for Democrats. However, there had always been dissenters who did not believe that this easy fix had any intellectual rigor and some were even in the conservative camp. Chief among those conservative voices is William A. Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Niskanen argues that far from reducing government spending, tax cuts by themselves encourage such spending. He argues that cutting taxes without spending cuts would reduce the apparent cost of government thus stimulating rather than stunting government growth. “You make government look cheaper than it otherwise would be,” he said recently.

His argument is buttressed by real data from past administrations. When Regan cut taxes, federal spending as a share of gross domestic product went up. Under both Clinton and Bush 1 who raised taxes it went down, and back up again it went up under the shrub.

Niskanen has analyzed data over the last twenty five years and has concluded that a tax cut of 1 percent of the GDP increases the rate of spending growth by about .15 percent of the GDP a year. A tax increase reduces spending by roughly the same amount. At about 19 percent of the GDP taxes neither increase nor decrease spending. Above that level it increases spending and below that level it decreases it. Thanks to Bush tax cuts, it is currently at 17.8 percent and government spending has risen.

Democrats have rightly decried the unfairness of Bush’s tax cuts because they are skewed to favor the rich. Now, it seems to me they have another argument which would resonate with moderate voters that not only are these tax cuts not fair they increase not decrease government spending while simultaneously raising the debt future generations will have the burden to pay off.

No likes to pay more taxes than necessary, but when you have a morally and fiscally bankrupt economic philosophy, it is incumbent upon the opposition party to hammer home the message to the American people that this administration is so incompetent it can’t even do basic economics right.

David M Goldberg

Russia and Iran

2006-05-07T10:00:00.000-05:00

I have been looking for an excuse to post another link to Sy Hersh's now famous article in The New Yorker on The Iran Plans of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove Administration. (Who knows how long this article will be available, so you might think of downloading it.)

The excuse alluded to above is Cheney's interesting remarks in Lithuania this week, remarks that the Russian press are representing as the beginning of a new Cold War. What on earth could Dick have been thinking, I asked myself? Is ragging on the Russians the way to enlist their help in the forthcoming fracus in Iran? Weren't the Russians supposed to be the "neutral" party that would undertake the uranium processing for Iran ... and thereby obviate the casus belli?

It is true that Russia is going backwards in civil rights, but Russia has enormous internal problems to overcome and simplifying the discussion may be helpful in the short run. In the long run, I agree, this is the Putinshchina—the counterrevolution of the KGB.

If this was all calculated to convince Iran of Russia's neutrality, then I have to hand it to Cheney and the gang ... but I frankly do not think they're that smart.

James Richard Brett

Don't Run, John!

2006-05-06T10:20:00.000-05:00

A little over a week ago Ellen Goodman wrote a piece in the Boston Globe that warrants a little more exposure. She asked John Kerry not to run again, and personally I think her idea is a good one. Kerry was a terrible candidate who lost because his own ineptitude. You can point to advisors like Schrum, but the campaign was Kerry's to win against a fop of an opponent, and he lost it by being stiff, stupid, and thoroughly sold out.

The request that Kerry not run extends to all Democrats who favor the neocon adventurism in the Middle East. But in Kerry's case the request is primarily, and make sure you understand this, John, because you do not represent the mainstream Democratic interests and you are a terrible candidate.

James Richard Brett

Compromise and Coöptation

2006-05-05T10:23:00.000-05:00

I have been reading a recent extended email conversation among folks around America who are blue-collar or non-supervisory white-collar working people. Some rant, some bitch about personal affronts, some make telling points and then heap trash on their own arguments by making ad hominem remarks or misstating facts and general knowledge. General knowledge about labor is decidedly scarce and when available subject to infinite interpretation, it seems. The world of Labor has voices, though, and these voices are generally moving away from centrist ideas and toward the left away from the Liberal Compromise of the 1950's and 1960's.

If there ever was a Liberal Compromise, it was a mélange of forces in American public life that included the burgeoning middle classes, an educated elite drawn mostly from the middle and upper middle classes, educated persons from the moneyed classes, a very few captains of industry, and mostly working people and their spouses, the lower strata of society generally modestly educated, modestly housed, poorly insured against medical or other contingencies, many were naturalized immigrant citizens, people of all religions, but most of those who counted themselves as Jews, Catholics, and certain Protestant sects. The uniting factor was a belief that the existing American society did not have to be like the wild, omnivorous beast that caused the Great Depression and it did not have to be socialistic, but rather could be tamed by the federal government so that people could hope for a decent living and better opportunities for themselves and their off-spring over time.

The "compromise" of politics after WWII was a tacit agreement by Labor in the aftermath of major labor unrest, particularly among steel workers and miners, to not move more Leftward. Labor had threatened in decades prior to WWII to move wholesale into socialism, a position that fit poorly with the strident anti-Communism of the first decade of the Cold War. In fact, one should think of the it the other way around. Once there seemed to be movement in the recently joined AFL-CIO toward the political Center, the conservative corporatists built up their rhetoric about Communism and not-so-gently prodded the Left toward Center. If you were thinking that the McCarthy Era was about spies in the Department of State, think again, it was a phenomenon directly and intimately associated with the "Compromise."

The "compromise" of economics was the key. When it appeared that the majority of the electorate would not vote for wholesale nationalization of key industries ... or at least the politics of socialist radicals ... then the heat was off capitalism for a spell, and corporate leaders were only too ready to accommodate, to bring the upper echelons of workers into the fold with various concessions on wage and benefits agreements to insure that nationalization never occurred. The compromise turned out to be the beginning of a slow but steady process of coöpting labor and disengaging it from its historical roots and philosophies. In some ways the so-called American Dream was called into play, and it became commonplace for persons of the Left to see themselves evolving into persons of the Center or the Right as they scaled the economic ladder. They seemed not to notice that the ladder was missing some rungs near the top and that it was moved from time to time shaking loose the more precariously perched climbers.

It should be said that the agricultural South in those days was, except for some notable exceptions, a backwater region governed by rampant racism left over from Reconstruction and forming the outlines and filling in the body of local politics. So, the old Roosevelt coalition, that is, the Progressives in league with big Labor, adopted the middle and lower classes in the South for a separate compromise: the national party would move slowly (if at all) on race issues in exchange for which the South would vote Democratic on all other issues.

There is no question that the old Roosevelt coalition already had begun to founder in 1954 with the Supreme Court decision on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS. Dixiecrats had been irritated at Truman for his integration of the Armed Forces and generally inhospitable view of Jim Crow and Lynch Law. They were now outraged and used the Congressional seniority system as a delaying action against their inevitable bolt from the Democratic Party. By the time the 1964 Civil Rights Act had been signed, Lyndon Johnson knew that the Roosevelt coalition was dead, but he underestimated the power of racism, and gambled that what Democrats lost on one side of the race equation, they would pick up among liberal Republicans, independents, and racial minorities on the other side in other regions. In some respects this Faustian bargain has been playing out ever since, with Republicans taking ugly advantage of disaffection in the deep South and among those in other regions with a knack for bigotry.

By the time the ill-fated war in Vietnam had wound to a close, the specter of the military industrial complex, that is, the total coöptation of labor and Democratic politics into the thrall of industrialism and corporate hegemony was all but complete. Had Nixon not been such a paranoid crook, the Republicans would have consolidated their corporate ideology even more solidly and things would be a lot different today in many of the same ways. We would be a somewhat kinder and gentler plutocracy, for the likes of Tom DeLay might never have emerged to press the corporate hegemony as strongly as he and his minions believe that it must.

Today labor barely understands that it has been coöpted and scarcely remembers from the old leaders in the IWW and European socialism that in a capitalistic society Labor is a commodity. Thanks to the perfidy of union leadership during this epoch the coöptation effectively decapitated Labor and left it swinging in the wind. Time and again we hear the agonies of workers whose pension plans have gone up in smoke either from the ineptitude and crookedness of union leaders or for the same reasons but by corporate pension administrators, whose only interest was to get pensions out of the unions ... not so much to actually pay off when workers retired. We hear their moans when jobs move off shore permanently leaving whole towns bereft of income, leaving whole populations wondering why they were loyal to these corporations. It never occurred to people moving up the social strata with blue collars that the old Liberal Compromise had become the ugly coöptation.

Did the Liberal Compromise ever work? In an ironic sense it worked very well during the 1950's and on into the 1960's for a while. It was a noble attempt to harness capitalism with the Liberal Ethic, our masthead principles of Individual Liberty, Humanity, Progress, Ethics, and the Rule of Law. Harnessing capitalism is a precariously hazardous mission, though. Corporate capitalism is fierce and powerful and able to buy nearly anything it wants. Certainly governments are bought and sold right before our bleary eyes and we are helpless in our poverty of imagination to do much about it. Now plutocracy has welded government to the interests of corporations so that "regulatory" agencies are nothing but promotion tools for the industries they are meant to supervise.

The current debate within Labor has not yet gotten into the Left Blogosphere in a significant way. The quasi-socialists (or let's call them Anti-Corporationists) have not yet mustered up the courage to envision a polity in which corporations are stripped down to the bare essentials. The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, had it actually been the work of Ron Reagan, would be much less a burden to the Left imagination than it is for the real reasons for its demise. Soviet socialism, statist, centrally controlled, and terribly undercapitalized simply did not work and could not compete. There are lots of reasons it did not work, but authoritarianism is both a reason and not. The American Left has had to take into account the presumptive bankruptcy of ideology on the far left. Corporate media perpetuates this notion as strongly as it perpetuated the Red Scare of the early 1950's, including of course the collateral dogma about the godlessness of communism. Meanwhile, the Left now sees that it needs room to its Left so that it can maneuver without going into the Center and humiliating itself.

Ultimately the fortunes of Liberalism will be tied to an economic theory or dogma of one kind or another. If Liberalism is confined by energetic Capitalism it will decay from misuse and neglect of the Rule of Law and Ethical standards for neither of these are implicit in corporate Capitalism. Progress will be redefined by corporations. Humanitarian goals will recede toward tokenism, and (as we have already seen) Individual Liberties will erode under the jackboots of the corporate rank and file. As corporations own more and more of the government the political system will more and more closely resemble that form of state-assisted capitalism we call Fascism. America will become a select bundle of sticks representing the several key industrial groups of the nation bound together by the force of federal law into a formidable economic structure in which effective democracy disappears entirely.

If Liberalism is tied to Socialism it will fair much better, I am sure, but there will be distortions affecting Individual Liberties, especially relating to the public use of private property. Humanitarian goals will be the centerpiece of a Liberal Socialist regime, with progress in human affairs accellerated, but always subject to an inertia that critics will call "leveling" and apologists will correctly describe as "helping those who cannot help themselves." The Ethics of Socialism will be more congruent with Judeo-Christian principles, but detractors will claim the opposite, citing the abuses of bureaucracy. And, the Rule of Liberal Socialist Law will be difficult to achieve in an evolutionary timeframe. America does not have a strong tradition of cooperative enterprise ... notable exceptions in the agricultural sector, of course ... so much of the gelding of corporations will seem to be revolutionary, and the uproar from it will be disconcerting and perhaps destructive.

None of these or any intermediate positions that might be achieved takes place de novo or in vacuo, there are traditions and dogmas and aesthetics to consider and there is the world economy in which our efforts are embedded. Nevertheless, America is still (in some quarters) looked upon as a leading possibility for positive valence change. We must shed the crippling notion that deity prefers America for any purpose or goal, however, and with that conceit we must trash all of the acutrements of the "New Jerusalem," the "City on the Hill," the arrogance of militarism and industrialism. This does not mean, by the way, that we lay down our arms and let petty tyrants tread on us. It means that we reorganize the military, reënact universal conscription, and cast our lot with fair-minded and humanitarian peoples on every continent and in the United Nations.

If the George W. Bush regime has done nothing else positive, it has forced Labor and the "intellectuals" to brush themselves off and take stock of assumptions that evolved under and from the old Liberal Compromise. We have learned that you cannot ever trust corporations to act ethically or in any way responsible to the principles of Democracy and Liberty and Humanity. Accordingly, to paraphrase T.H.White in The Once and Future King, "Mordred must be slain!" We Socialists and Anti-Corporationists now have the burden of righting this ship and steering it onto a Progressive course. And, we are now free of our preconceptions and illusions. We know what the problem is and that is half the battle.

James Richard Brett

Life v. Profits

2006-05-04T09:25:00.000-05:00

Which of the two following statements do you agree with?

1. The resources of earth should be used primarily to sustain life.

2. The earth's resources should be used primarily by businesses to make profits.

Choose your position and be ready to fight for it because this is the struggle we are in now. How our finite planetary resources are used is the core issue that is driving everything else.

Multi-national corporations want to obtain and control resources for profit. Their greed has extended to the determination to have control over water, agriculture, and plant and animal life that sustain life. They are also working hard to reduce wages and labor to subsistence levels. Humans are considered expendable if their presence interferes with profit.

Our government has not acted to protect us from this plan but has made laws to favor corporate control of those resources and how they are used. NAFTA and GATT have advanced the corporate agenda world wide. Countries who resist are threatened by loss or reduction of US aid, trade and the knowledge that the US will use military might or covert activities to obtain resources and suppress any opposition.

NAFTA has allowed corporate interests to expand control in Mexico for example. In Mexico the people have even lost the ability to stop rampant corporate pollution. In one town, the people took a corporation to court to stop them from polluting their water and the court found in favor of the corporation claiming the corporate needs trumped those of the people! Wages have been reduced to such low levels that the people are desperate and flow over our borders in an attempt to make enough money to save their families.

Around the world, land previously used for growing crops for the population has been usurped by corporate interests to grow cash crops for export. Haiti is starving yet they have become a major food exporter.

Countries in debt have been forced to sell their water rights to corporate interests. Water for profit while denying its use for drinking and crop production by people is surely immoral and unethical.

Improper use of resources results in global warming, starvation, pollution, poverty, desperation as well as the diminishing ability of the earth to provide clean water and air and healthy food to sustain life.

From the beginning of human awareness mankind has recognized the dichotomy between the need to revere and preserve life and the need to take life to survive. In many societies this awareness resulted in self monitoring behavior in which life was taken in moderation to meet survival needs. Animals which were killed and plants which were harvested were honored for their lives given that allowed humans to continue to live. Those societies attempted to consume only what they needed and to maintain the balance of their environment as best they could. For thousands of years these practices allowed mankind to pass on to their children an environment which would sustain them.

Consumption of resources is necessary for the continuation of life. Responsible stewardship of those resources is essential to maintain the ecological balance that allows the earth to keep providing the clean water, clean air, animal and plant life that sustains life.

All life on earth and the health of the planet itself are threatened by the increasing control of resources for profit.

The United States currently is the most powerful military force in the world. The US government is the strongest supporter of corporate interests. As citizens who pay the taxes that support this system, it falls to us to change it. If you doubt that our government supports corporate interests over our human interests, just look at how our laws have been changed to benefit corporations at the expense of our quality of life. Through eminent domain business can take our homes. Environmental laws have been gutted. The rich and the corporations pay less tax and their wealth increases while we have fewer jobs and suffer stagnating wages. Our schools are falling apart and we still have no health program while billions go for war. Who is making record profits from the war? The corporations.

Who has more influence in Washington, corporate lobbyists or citizens? We get to vote every two years but they are there every day. The corrupt campaigning system allows corporations to leverage the votes of our representatives through huge contributions which we are unable to compete with. resources that were formerly protected because they benefited society have been 'privatized to allow corporations control them for profit. Communications, water, electricity, energy, food production and the harvesting of public lands in the form of oil, gas, minerals, timber and land use represent a few.

Look at the history of workers striking, demonstrating or organizing for fair wages and better working conditions and notice that time and again the government sent police and military forces to quell those voices and protect the corporate interests.

Look at the history of our military and covert entities being used to overthrow governments that were attempting to use their resources for the betterment of their societies thereby threatening corporate control of those resources. Democratic governments that have been destroyed in this manner include Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in the early 70's.

These represent only a few of the many times which the US government used the US military to force out governments which threatened the corporate control over resources. Plans were on the table in the summer of 2001, before 9/11, to attack Afghanistan to open it up for the building of an oil pipeline across that country. Iraq's huge resources were state owned and closed to foreign investment and control until the US invaded in 2003 and Bremmer announced in September of 2003 that "Iraq is open for business."

Our tax money is paying for a government which is promoting the interests of corporate entities through war and military force. Our budget allocates $500 billion dollars a year for the military. This does not even include the $10 billion per month ($120 billion a year!) we are spending for a war in Iraq that is destroying their country. Our government is building 14 permanent military bases and the largest US embassy in the world in Iraq - do you really believe they have any intention of leaving?

What to do?

First of all we must redesign our campaigning system to get corporate money out. Public financing for campaigns plus new forms of campaigning would be a good first step. Run off voting to allow the viability of third party entry into the system is also needed. We need an independent media system that is free of government and corporate control. This will enable information we need to be broadcast into every home.

The Federal Reserve, which is a private bank, must be taken out of our system and replaced by a monetary system which benefits the society.

Laws must be changed removing the corporate ability to mix in politics and interfere with policies. Profit making must be secondary to environmental responsibility and life sustaining needs.

To accomplish these and other changes we must recognize and organize our own power to impose the will of the people over our government to insure that our laws and resources benefit our society. We must also define how the military is used.

The obvious way to undermine this "tower of Power" is to stop funding the government and military which we currently pay for with our taxes. Here we are in the same position as those who are forced to pay "protection money" to a criminal enterprise. If we don't pay, the IRS is quite capable of destroying our personal wealth and life. We are told that our representatives are our voices in the system and manage our wealth for us but that is patently untrue except for a few who attempt to do that in spite of overwhelming odds. Corporate entities are able to use their wealth and influence to buy our reps. In addition to corporations, foreign governments also put money into Congressional campaigns. Why do we tolerate that? We have taxation without representation. I think these circumstances call for a class action lawsuit of the People vs. the US government/IRS/Congress/courts.

We also have the power of numbers. Currently our nation is divided by secondary issues like abortion, gay rights, immigration etc. Our first and unifying issue is to bring the control and management of resources back into the hands of people and societies for the health of the planet and the sustaining of life. Therefore, let us all combine our efforts to achieve that. Once we have secured the means to maintain life, we can sort out the other stuff.

Corporate wealth is maintained by stockholders who invest in the companies,workers whose labor keeps them running and consumers who buy their goods and services.

Investors who believe resources should be used primarily to sustain life, can use their power to take investments out of companies which don't act responsibly. They can use their power as stockholders to change the ways corporations do business. Many retirement programs are invested in corporate stocks. These groups can insist their investment is moved to companies which practice responsible behavior. The pressure of stockholder and trade boycotts of companies in South Africa who supported apartheid helped to change that policy.

Workers can refuse to participate in damaging corporate behavior if they are backed up by all the workers who will strike or quit in support.

Consumers can boycott companies that pollute, outsource for cheap wages, treat workers unfairly, put flawed or dangerous products on the market, don't pay fair taxes, exploit resources here and around the world and show profit as their bottom line at the expense to life.

You can really see people power at work in France. When the government tries to pass a law the people don't like, the whole country goes on a general strike. Everyone stays home and the whole country shuts down. Business comes to a standstill and no money is made during a strike. It is an effective method of protest.

If such a strike seems extreme, we could use a modified form of strike which would be something like choosing one day a week when we did not purchase any corporate produced products or services. If, for example, we chose Wednesdays to not buy gas, groceries, products, the businesses affected would definitely feel the economic effects and be forced to respond to our demands. Given the current gas prices, this would be an ideal time to have one no gas day a week. Using public transportation is also helpful.

I am sure, working together we can come up with even more ways to change these life threatening policies.

We must act as if our lives depended on it because they do.

Sue Dyer

Guest Essayist

PPD Law is Depressing

2006-05-03T15:48:00.000-05:00

With all the strides we women made in the last 150+ years, the beginning of this new century is seeing a decided turn towards removing any semblance of our personal freedom. We seem to still be at the mercy of men, as they are the one's who control our legislatures, and of those women, who would call themselves our sisters, but who seem to think that some of our gender haven't the wherewithal to cross the street unescorted.

Coming hot on the heels of the South Dakota ban on abortion, we now see New Jersey passing legislation that makes it mandatory for all new mothers to undergo mental health screening to determine if they do or do not have Postpartum Depression, or PPD. And the guiding hand behind this ludicrous idea? Why it is non other that the wife of the former governor, Mary Jo Codey, who it seems suffered from PPD herself. I feel for Mrs. Codey, I truly do, but her personal afflictions are surely not grounds enough for legislation that encompasses all the women who reside in her state.

Postpartum depression is surely a horrible experience for very many women, but those who choose suicide or kill their children are very few and far between. Perhaps because women have always been cast in the maternal role, and are expected to be loving and nurturing beings, we find it hard to understand when motherhood is less than a joy filled experience for some of us. Certainly it has been totally overwhelming for those like Andrea Yates, who certainly loved her children but found her depression and an overbearing husband too much to deal with.

The next question is, just how far should we allow government to intrude into our personal lives? What is the penalty for refusing to participate in the screening? If you do not participate does that mean forfeiture of your newborn? Where does this whole mess end? New Jersey has directed it's health care professionals to screen mother's after delivery and again a few weeks later. Having experienced the "Baby Blues" I can honestly say that had I been "screened" the day after delivery I might not have passed the test, however, a day later I was fine. Actually, had they asked to screen me, my answer would have been a resounding no, and probably relocation to another state.

While obstetricians will say that some screening is perhaps in order, they are now required to counsel families about the disorder and to screen the mother's of newborns. Is the state to pay for therapy if one is found to show signs of PPD? And just exactly what are the questions asked in the screening process? I have seen other examples of mental health screening questions, particularly those used by "Teen Screen" and no one would be able to answer them and come out with a clean bill of mental health.

While I certainly have nothing but compassion for those who do suffer PPD, and having had, myself, a minor bout with the "Baby Blues", I must say that I think a pre-disposition to depression might exist, as it did in the case of Andrea Yates. I may very well be wrong but I find it difficult to believe that 80% of New Jersey's new mother's are all women at the brink of suicide or are contemplating murdering their children.

In the meantime, the women of New Jersey are being forced to do something that might just take all the joy out of new motherhood, and is surely an entree or the Pharmaceutical companies to ride the coattails of a good thing...and they didn't even have to invent the syndrome!

Susan B. Goodwin

Poor America, Dumb America: The Mad Infinite Interconnectedness of Everything

2006-05-01T23:23:00.000-05:00

Until recently, I accounted myself a die-hard liberal--a full tilt leftist ideologue. I was anti-gun, pro-choice, antiwar, anti-big business, pro-government programs, anti-free trade, etc, etc, etc... Now, I am still most of these things, to one degree or another. I am still pro-choice, antiwar, and anti-free trade. I think that to be otherwise would be to advocate harming other human beings by choice, and I can't live with that. But I have found myself shifting gears on a lot of traditional left-right split issues... not necessarily to the right, but away from the left. Currently, one thing is really ticking me off--the poor financial choices of most Americans.

I am twenty-four years old. My husband is also twenty-four, and we have a two-year old daughter. Today, we sat down and looked at our finances, and at first things looked pretty bleak. My husband is a police officer and a Marine Corps reservist, and I am a full-time mom and freelance writer. For our ages, and our geographic location, we do pretty well financially. The median annual household income in our city is just over $29,000 and ours is around $40,000--but we are in debt, and I couldn't really understand why. Aside from our collective college debt, there was really no reason for us to be behind on any of our bills, much less ALL of them.

So I pulled out our bank statement, and added up all of the unnecessary spending we have done in the last month--shopping trips, eating out in restaurants and ordering in, renting movies and whatnot. Since April 1st, we have spent a whopping $1,372.80 on crap we never needed. We have paid exactly 0 bills in that time.

What the hell were we thinking? And why I am telling you all of this?

Now, I know that a lot of Americans are legitimately struggling to make ends meet, without anything extra. But it's time for all of us to wake up a little bit when it comes to unnecessary spending. I see two major problems with the concept of poverty we have here in the United States. First of all, we (and by we, I mean Americans in general) have made it respectable to be poor in this country. There is no shame in poverty, even if said poverty is caused by a refusal to go out and take a job. Second, most Americans living under the federal poverty line (and remember, this is not ALL, but MOST) live in relative comfort--meaning, they have a warm place to sleep, clothes on their backs, food to eat, cable and internet and a car, and a few bucks "left over" to have fun.

This lifestyle may well be a facade, because these people live like the majority of the rest of the American people--like me and my family in fact. We are a nation of people living beyond our means. For example, so-called "poverty stricken" Americans are extremely likely to have cell phones (2 out of 3 Americans own cell phones, and this does not take adolescents into account). That's $50 or so every month that each of these Americans could be putting in the bank and putting toward paying off debts. Most Americans living in what we consider poverty have credit cards. I'm not talking about those suffering from extreme poverty, our brethren living in shelters and alleyways. I'm talking about the Americans most of us progressives spend a lot of our time worrying about--people living in inner cities and trailer parks and government subsidized housing.

Frankly, I'm getting a little fed up with the politically correct requirement set upon me by my contemporaries to feel bad for ALL poor people. I am fairly poor--and no one should feel sorry for me--it was my own doing, 100%. When I see most "poor" Americans, all I feel is disdain. I see people who don't understand the promise of living in a country where, even if you are born poor, you have opportunities unheard of in much of the world. (You may not have the same opportunities as a George W. Bush or his oil baron brethren, but there are still opportunities available to most of us to better our lot in life.) I see people who choose to throw money away buying things and services they don't need instead of saving for themselves and their children. I see people who have been living their lives exactly as I have been living mine--without a thought for tomorrow, without a sense of personal responsibility or what it means to be a productive citizen.

I see selfishness. I see short-sightedness. And I see ignorance to the nth degree.

And I'm sick of feeling bad about it.

Here's my solution: I want to make financial planning classes mandatory for all American high school students and I want it to be mandatory ALL four years. I want the United States public education system to start teaching our kids things they really need to know to succeed in life. IRA, 401K, and mutual fund should all be SAT words. Our kids should be able to understand the interest rates they are agreeing to pay on credit cards and loans. Of course, this is a lofty goal when we take into consideration that most parents don't really understand the finer nuances of personal finance.

I think that teaching the next generation to budget whatever money they DO have, pay their bills on time and consistently, avoid unnecessary credit card and loan debt, and prioritize their expenses, we could completely change the face of our economy.

In addition to that, we need to reformat the entire public education system and recreate it as it ought to be. Our schools still focus mainly on the skills we needed to succeed in the world 100 years ago--reading, writing, and math on a basic level. Today our kids need serious computer skills--not typing class and Excel, but programming and repair skills as well. Our kids need to be able to read techno-jargon and communicate in multiple languages. Without revamping education, there is no long-term hope for the economy. Skills-based jobs will continue to fly overseas, and unskilled service industry jobs will multiply until there are no Americans left who can afford to buy those services.

So, if that makes me a right-wing ditto head (and I don't think it does), then so be it. I think it's time for all of us to start coming up with some serious solutions instead of expressing our feelings of solidarity with the homeless by sleeping overnight in a cardboard box. Feeling sorry for the truly poor isn't going to save them--those feelings must translate into action--and better for that action to be preventive, rather than curative.

I am all for lending a hand to neighbors in need. I am all for making sure every American citizen has access to a good, free education and healthcare and housing. I just want ALL Americans to make an effort--sometimes you don't succeed--it happens. Sometimes you get a tough break--we all do now and then, some more than others.

Should those of us who are doing our best, trying to do the right thing and act responsibly--should we be paying for the mistakes and bad choices of others? Should we be paying for these things any more than we should be paying for a war we oppose, or fueling the coffers that dole out corporate welfare, or the salary of a president who makes our blood curdle?

I say the answer is no.

Now, let's give Americans the tools and information they need to live up to their responsibilities.

Katherine Brengle

It Can Happen Here

2006-05-01T10:19:00.000-05:00

We all cheered when Abdul Rahman , the Christian convert in Afghanistan who faced execution for renouncing Islam, was released and sent to Italy to avoid being killed by mobs in his native country. Our State Department said they were pleased by this development. After the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the expense of billions of dollars, the specter of Rahman’s execution by the new democracy we helped create to replace the Taliban was to say the least an embarrassment the US government could ill afford.

Unfortunately, this is the most publicized of a number of cases of religious intolerance in Afghanistan. Afghan Christians have reported police raids on their houses and places of work. The small numbers of Christians who haven’t fled Afghanistan live in constant fear of their lives.

But, it’s not just Christians who are under constant attack form the Afghan government. Freedom House, a nongovernmental human rights organization, reports that Afghan journalists and others who dare to criticize Islamic law have been charged with heresy or blasphemy. Only through international pressure has the Afghan government found ways to spare these people; in some cases get them out of the country.

These cases demonstrate the fundamental flaw that could destroy the new Afghan democracy. The new constitution contains two contradictory clauses: One guarantees religious freedom, while another states “no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam.”

You can’t have it both ways either you have religious freedom or you have a theocracy; a state religion which governs both religious and secular life. Islamic law, or sharia, in the hands of moderate Muslims can find verses in the Quaran which seem to support religious tolerance. In the hands of more radical fundamentalists sharia heresy and blasphemy laws are used to deny religious freedom.

American evangelical Christians were first in line to condemn the theocratic oppression on display in the Rahman case. Unfortunately, what is good for Afghanistan does not seem to be good for the United States in the opinion of these same conservative so-called Christians. The irony is inescapable. Some of the same American evangelicals who demand separation of mosque and state in Afghanistan and Iraq have repeatedly condemned the “myth” of separation of church and state at home. Some, like former Alabama judge and current gubernatorial candidate Roy Moore, call for a “Christian America” where the US Constitution is interpreted in light of biblical law. I assume their interpretation of course.

The words “separation of church and state” may not be in the Constitution, but the principle is not only in the First Amendment it is also the bedrock of religious freedom in America. That’s why in the US, unlike Afghanistan, religious law cannot trump our constitutional commitment to universal human rights.

Kabul is a long way from Washington. But the danger of radical religion shaping government policy is close at hand. Religious freedom and theocracy, whether Muslim or Christian, can never coexist. We must never let these radical religionists triumph over reason and freedom.

David M Goldberg

Kicking and Screaming

2006-04-30T10:12:00.000-05:00

Over the months and years we have been suggesting to you that George Bush is a radical among conservatives and that his motives are nothing less than destruction of the liberal democracy that stumbled into his lap on 9/11. Before you read a couple of very good articles about these radicals, we would like you to consider the cupability of the the rank and file Republicans in Bush's (Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Rove's) plans. Republicans are so starved for the opportunity to humiliate Democrats and to drive a stake through their hearts that they have freely agreed to and voted for the Bush agenda, despite the fact that Bush is pushing a record deficit and expanding government and the Executive diametrically opposed to the traditional Republican orthodoxy. When it comes down to it, all Congressional Republicans are guilty as Bush & Co. (There are many guilt Democrats, too, of course.)

We think that Bernard Weiner's article in Democratic Underground entitled Bush's Great Game: A PNAC Primer Update is a useful survey of the strategy being played out.

Today's Boston Globe has an article by Charlie Savage Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws that will remind you of how Bush & Co. are accomplishing their radical agenda.

Finally, a short article in CommonDreams by Gregory D. Foster entitled The Long War Posture, which summarizes the threat that Bushite warmongering poses to us.

Folks, the pace now quickens. The next six months are crucial. Pay attention and talk to your friends about what you will do if Bush & Co. interferes with the 2006 election.

James Richard Brett

It Takes Immigrants to Make Our Nation

2006-04-29T12:54:00.000-05:00

The immigrants are opening the floodgates for us. On May 1, 2006, they, who have everything to lose, are taking a stand to challenge our government. On that day they are making their presence and value felt by their absence. They plan to stay home from work, school, shopping and protest for better treatment. Their courage and determination inspire me. This is People Power in action.

I have no doubt that their efforts will be profound. I have no doubt that their strike will bring a response from the powers that be. I know that I will stand with them and not buy anything that day. I will be forever grateful to them for reminding us how people power works.

We all can learn from their example to use these methods to voice our desires for a better life. Boycott and strike are powerful when used en masse. They strike at the heart of power which is the economy. The government may get our tax money but we have control over our spending.

We need to get creative and do more with less. Who needs "stuff" when it costs you life to get it? It will take all of us pulling at the wheel to turn this ship of state around. We can have a peaceful prosperous world if that is what we want.

May 1 is the first wave for change; their fight is our fight. The same laws of NAFTA which have driven them to seek a better wage and to save their families, has affected us too in outsourcing, stagnant wages and unemployment. The enemy is governmental policies which put profit for business avove human life.

For more on how NAFTA is at the root of many of our problems, go here.

Sue Dyer

Guest Essayist

Business As Usual

2006-04-28T10:05:00.000-05:00

One of the things my Republican acquaintances constantly tell me is that business, you know, American "free enterprise" business as conducted by Ma & Pa all the way to GMC and Exxon Mobile, is most progressive and creative part of our civilization. These people believe that business not only organizes the productive forces of the population but has a built-in need to express social and environmental concerns and that these are forged by the marketplace for the benefit of all. The fact that business is, by definition, responsible for the life-style of materialistic consumerism is off-set, they might think, by a durable faith in the Judeo-Christian God. It is a reasonable balance for them, although none of them seem to understand that a durable faith and understanding of the credo might have relevance to the conduct of business.

I would like to begin this essay with a trip over to a recent New York Times editorial about lawn care, for this is a neat little lesson in the nature of "free enterprise" conditioned by "free enterprise" politicians. Take a look and then come back. You will understand why my replacement mower will be electric and why I have such little faith in the "inate goodness" of business enterprise.

Yes, it is true, business provides the opportunity for those a little short on "enterprising spirit" or lacking sufficient capital to start their own business to work and to contribute to the success of the enterprise of others. Businessmen and women believe they have a fair bargain when they pay workers off within their business with a wage or salary. This is a vestige of the commodity mentality, however, and leads to the idea that workers are dispensable bearers of labor, rather than sweat-equity participants in the business. Business must take into account that both wage and salaried workers accumulate a contributor interest in the well-being of the business and take pride, like the owner, in producing a respected good or service.

But this is rare in America these days. There seems to be among corporations and proprietorships a sense that NOW is the only important time, and NOW is the time to "get ours while the getting is good." If I believed for a moment that the board rooms of America's corporations were enthralled by the imminence of The Rapture, I could understand this shortsightedness. If I believed that stockholders actually force the resignation of corporate administrations for a "slow quarter" or even a "slow year," then I could understand the CEO's behavior from another point of view. But, folks, these are excuse answers designed to cover up the truth that once business achieves that magic "repetition rate" and the dollars come flooding in, the average and the above average corporate executive becomes narcissistic and believes him or herself to be especially privileged, a person God loves more because of the bounty he or she reaps. The profit motive, despised in word, but honored in every deed becomes the vis viva, the living force of the system.

When you are finished reading my thoughts on corporations, I would like you to take a moment to read about The Ten Worst Corporations of 2005. You can read about them now, if you want, but the rest of what I have to say does not depend on that essay. You will see the profit motive gone wild in action.

An internet friend of mine passed this quotation along to me earlier this week. It seems to be appropriate, but bears some study.

The country is headed toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and monied corporations, and if this tendency continues it will be the end of freedom and democracy, the few will be ruling and riding over the plundered plowman and the beggar....

Thomas Jefferson

The point is that among the founding fathers Jefferson understood the mathematics of large enterprises. He understood that the corrupting influence of money would not restrict itself to the vanity and pocketbooks of corporate leaders, but would (and already had) manifest itself in politics, creating an anti-democratic force that would soon engulf the nation and make of it something quite different from what Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and the rest of us hoped it would be.

Corporations are inherently selfish, greedy, self-serving institutions. They are designed to make money for those who invest in them. They are managed to provide handsome salaries and bonuses for those who lead them. Back in the period immediately after WWII corporations used to understand that the people they employed (and the employees of other corporations in other areas of the economy) were the consumers of their goods and services. Accordingly, pay was more closely alligned with this consumer notion. Now, though, corporations see labor only as the most significant expense of production and try to limit their commitment to it. Rather than seeing to it that workers are also consumers, they believe that a globalized market (especially the NAFTA/CAFTA market) will provide the consumers they need for today's profits.

Of course it is shortsighted and wrong, but they do it anyway. The reason is that they understand how little they are actually paying wage and salary earners for their loyal contributions compared to corporate income, profitability. They are paying them nothing for this and expect that the workers will, in turn, have no loyalty, which means that they need not be loyal either. This notion overlooks the reality of work in this century (or any other), namely that workers commit their very lives and families to the enterprise.

The irony of the politics of corporate greed is this: when they have, by crook and fraud and misrepresentation, gotten complete control of the government ... as they now have ... they are incapable of maintaining the system that spawned them. Like dogs eating in a day a week's worth of food while the owners vacation, they will starve the next six days and whine about it like the curs they are. Mike Whitney recently published this notice on Rob Kall's OpEdNews. It is perfectly clear that the Bush administration aiding abetting the feeding frenzy of corporate greed and shortsightedness has buried our nation in the makings of a come-uppance that will make the Great Depression seem like the good old days. If and when we come out of this imminent debacle, we must readjust and overhaul our legal system to understand corporations and businesses for what they are—necessary but inherently anti-democratic.

James Richard Brett

Civil Disobedience

2006-04-27T14:16:00.000-05:00

Henry David Thoreau's words might have been written about today's state of affairs. We need sometimes to go back and contemplate wise words from Liberalism's past.

Stroking Egos

2006-04-26T10:14:00.000-05:00

Have we not heard it again and again? We learned our lesson in Vietnam. Never again will we sacrifice our youth on the altar of an unwinnable war. Is that so? Then what were we doing in Beirut, Grenada, Bosnia and now Iraq? We were stroking egos. Living out the John Wayne-ness of those who waged war but had never participated. Where the guys in the white hats always won no matter what the odds.

Boot camp is kindergarten in the school of life, where youngsters still fresh faced and loaded for bear are taught to kill. In the Vietnam era the teachers were those leather skinned veterans of WWII and Korea. These were the heroes of those movies boys had all cut their teeth on, on Saturday afternoons. This, however, was real life. These were the men who had stormed Normandy and survived. Beaten a path to Berlin and survived. Those who had survived the meat grinder known as Pork Chop Hill. Survival was what they were there to teach these new recruits.

Robert McNamara, in his book "In Retrospect" wrote about..." there are those things which you cannot quantify but the things that you can count you should. Loss of life is one when you are fighting a war of attrition. We tried to use body counts as a measurement to help us figure out what we should be doing in Vietnam to win the war while putting our troops at the least risk." The body count he referred to was the enemy body count. Those who had managed to escape the draft for Vietnam and who were protesting at home, were more interested in our own body count and who among us, who came of age in that era, will forget the chant, "Hey, hey LBJ. How many boys have you killed today?" Bleak days for a President with an inherited war and one who had campaigned on the promise not to send American boys to fight and die in Southeast Asia. But then, Vietnam was all a horrible mistake we are told.

Before we knew it we had in the White House a bona fide Hollywood "war hero". Ronald Reagan, an actor of questionable repute who was elected President and as such was now Commander in Chief of all the armed forces. His dream come true, and a nightmare for the rest of us. 1983 found Reagan and his advisors mired down in a totally incoherent Middle East policy. In an effort to show that the US meant business, 3,000 totally ill prepared and ill equipped Marines were deployed to Beirut where early on a Sunday morning, a suicide bomber drove a truck into their barracks taking the lives of 241 sailors and Marines. Ooops. Another mistake.

But in order to take the onus off the failed mission of Lebanon, three days later Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada. It seems this tiny island was fully capable of launching a full scale attack upon the mighty United States. Who knew! Grenada was a place few had even heard of much less thought of as an imminent threat to our safety and security CIA - The World Factbook -- Grenada But, Robert McNamara (again), Reagan's national security advisor, let us know that " we got there just in time." It certainly was just in time to take the spotlight off the debacle that had occurred in Lebanon. True to form however, Reagan blamed everything on the Russians, while stating that our presence in Lebanon was absolutely vital to United States interests. Just how vital and why is still a mystery as within a few months the marines were withdrawn.

Then we had Bosnia. An enemy that failed to listen to reason and NATO allies who failed to stand up to wanton aggression and genocide and whom they were unwilling to defeat. What to do, what to do? How to win in a no win situation was talked to death while the "peacekeeping" troops on the ground and the civilians were caught in the crossfire, denied the luxury of a voice in their fate. Full scale genocide was the order of the day and there was no way that the troops on the ground could prevail. Peace must be won before it can be kept, and there was no peace.

Now we are three years into another military boondoggle. The neo-cons, anxious to bring their John Wayne dreams to life, promised to shock and awe another soverign nation into submission. The rationale for this disastrous enterprise was based on falsehoods and manufactured evidence. It was sold to a nation reeling from an unprecedented attack. Egos swelled to near bursting capacity at the thoughts of what wondrous military actions could now be launched. We actually saw swaggering ego made flesh walking the deck of an aircraft carrier.

So once again, the cream of American youth is shipped off to a foreign land, put in harm's way, doing their duty, stroking the ego of their Commander in Chief.

Susan B. Goodwin

No Abu Ghraib Scandal for These Victims

2006-04-25T10:06:00.000-05:00

The American people have become well educated about where their food comes from in recent years, mainly by the efforts of animal-advocacy groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ), though they remain startlingly apathetic, but most have no idea that thousands of animals are tortured and killed every year in military tests.

Hopefully by now everyone knows that the United States uses factory farming to feed the American population—a maniacally cruel production system where animals are penned, maimed, pumped full of hormones, separated from their families (yes, animals have those too), and eventually slaughtered in order that they may fulfill their higher function as your dinner. If you haven’t heard these things before, maybe it’s time to ”meet your meat.”

Unfortunately, animal rights advocates get about the same reception by society as environmentalists, which is a nice diversionary tactic created by the corporate power structure to keep you from thinking for yourselves. I ask you, for the next few minutes, to put away your pre-conceived notions of the rights of man and hear me with an open mind.

Every year in the United States and abroad, there are countless non-human victims of war. While we count casualties in terms of human lives lost or diminished, we remain silent on the thousands of animal murders perpetrated by our own government in order that we might have even more effective ways of murdering other human beings.

The United States military has the good fortune to have the right to label any number of operations “top secret” and keep them from us (for our own good, of course), and it is reasonable to assume that many instances of animal experimentation and murder fall into this category of the unknown. However, those we are aware of are numerous and disturbing.

For instance, the United States military uses animals to further their war-related medical skills in so-called “wound labs”:

The Department of Defense has operated "wound labs" since 1957. At these sites, conscious or semiconscious animals are suspended from slings and shot with high-powered weapons to inflict battlelike injuries for military surgical practice. In 1983, in response to public pressure, Congress limited the use of dogs in these labs, but countless goats, pigs, and sheep are still being shot, and at least one laboratory continues to shoot cats. At the Army's Fort Sam Houston "Goat Lab," goats are hung upside down and shot in their hind legs. After physicians practice excising the wounds, any goat who survives is killed.

Various animals, including rats, rabbits, goats, sheep, pigs and monkeys, are used to test guns, bombs, radiation endurance, biological weapons and other scenarios our soldiers may find themselves facing.

The US military also uses animals in a variety of medical tests, including the following:

To evaluate the effect of temperature on the transmission of the Dengue 2 virus, a mosquito-transmitted disease that causes fever, muscle pain, and rash, experiments conducted by the U.S. Army at Fort Detrick, Md., involved shaving the stomachs of adult rhesus monkeys and then attaching cartons of mosquitoes to their bodies to allow the mosquitoes to feed.

Were our government to treat prisoners of war this way, we would be hauled before the United Nations and a world court and destroyed as a world power. We would find ourselves in the position of captured Nazi leaders and doctors at the Nuremburg Trials, and we deserve it—for what we are doing is no better, is it simply easier to keep quiet, because animals do not, and by their very nature cannot, have human rights.

It is time for our government to understand that the American people do not want animals tortured and murdered so that humans can be easier for us to kill. Animals should be in the wild, supporting our fragile world ecosystems, where they belong, not locked in gas chambers and shot with AK-47s and exposed to toxic levels of radiation.

While we worry about our soldiers being murdered overseas, it is easy to forget or ignore the very human victims of war we are creating abroad—it is even easier to forget or ignore our non-human victims.

For more information, click here.

Katherine Brengle

Where is the Outrage?

2006-04-24T09:51:00.000-05:00

The recent debate over immigration policies has engendered much ranting by pro-business types in the Republican Party who favor more immigrants for cheap labor and therefore more money in their pockets and an anti-immigration faction who, fearful of the loss of dominance by white Anglo-Saxon types, want illegal immigrants declared felons and jailed. Lost in this debate is the plight of the Mexican women and children being bought and sold as sex slaves. Sex traffickers transport at least 18,000 captives each year into the United States.

Currently, the US is one of the top destinations for sex traffickers who have become adept at penetrating suburban areas. High rates of trafficking are found in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Texas and Washington.

The southern border of the United States is the main thoroughfare for sex trafficking. Girls are smuggled in from all over the world through this gateway and smuggling is not limited to rings based only in Mexico.

Tijuana is a favorite crossing point for this illegal trade and each trafficking ring uses its own route from Tijuana into the US. Some drive into the US by flashing counterfeit documents at the border while others are slipped across the border on foot and then shuttled by van to brothels through a network of covert “safe houses” spread across the country.

The abuse, both physical and psychological, that these young girls suffer is unbelievable. The younger and most desirable often have to service long lines of men and don’t even receive any money for undergoing this terrible degradation.

What puzzles me is where in all the rhetoric over illegal immigration is the moral outrage over this despicable trading in human life. Where, for that matter, is the outrage from those who wear their religion on their sleeves? Why haven’t the Christian right who rail against abortion and homosexuality brought their considerable influence to bear on what all should agree is a morally indefensible practice.

But, there would be no supply if there were no demand. Most of the demand comes from within the United States. And while the demand is great, the supply is ever expanding and always getting younger. Children as young as 11 are forced into the slavery that will break their spirits and, for many result in death. Which for me at least raises another question: How is it in a country which has the largest number of people who declare themselves to be religious and has the highest percentage of citizens who attend a house of worship we have the highest demand in the world for this type of obnoxious, despicable sexual deviancy? I invite your comments.

David Goldberg

Civilian Control: What Is It?

2006-04-23T10:25:00.000-05:00

The author of the eloquent article "Physical Courage, Moral Courage, and American Generals," Lawrence Velvel, touches on a very important subject that few people, from any part of the political spectrum, want to think about, which is the principle of "civilian control" of the armed forces, measured against the elaborate traditions and "codes of behavior" within the military establishment. These traditional military "codes" have far reaching implications in a "professional army" whose troops are trained to be loyal first and foremost to their units, to their corps, and to their commanding officers. In a citizen army, in which soldiers "do their duty" by giving temporary mandatory service to their country, and then retire back to the civilian life that they left reluctantly, the implications of "directed loyalty" are not so critical. Citizen-soldiers, doing temporary service to their nation, are very naturally loyal to that nation first, and their commitment to the military is secondary. But in a "professional military," in which the bulk of the officer corps, and most of the non-commissioned officers, (the sergeants who actually directly supervise the soldiers), and even many of the troops themselves, are career "mercenaries," professional soldiers for whom the military is their chosen "trade," the primary loyalty of the soldiers undergoes a subtle but all important shift, and loyalty to one's nation often becomes distinctly secondary to loyalty to one's unit, to the corps, and to one's commanding officers.

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his legions in 49 BC, it marked the end of the seven centuries of the Roman Republic, and initiated the long cruel centuries of the Roman Empire. Caesar's seasoned veteran troops were loyal to HIM, not to Rome. He was murdered not too long after he prevailed in the Civil War that followed his march on Rome, and when Octavian, his nephew and heir, defeated Antony and Cleopatra at Actium, and ascended the newly created "throne" as "Imperator" (Emperor) of Rome, it was his personal command of the Army that determined his power. The Roman Senate continued to meet throughout the centuries of the Empire. The charade of "republican democracy" carried on. But all clearly understood that the power of the Roman State lay solely in the hands of the Emperor, as long as he commanded the unquestioning loyalty of the Legions, (and particularly of the Praetorian Guard).

Augustus, as Octavian came to be known, defined the powers of the Emperor during his long reign, but those powers never exceeded the power that has been claimed by George Bush. Bush claims personal command of the military. He has made a complete mockery of the separation of powers that supposedly reserves to Congress the exclusive right to "declare war." He has taken the "tradition" of using the military for "police action," (and thereby circumventing the need for a "Declaration of War"), to unprecedented extremes, and has proclaimed an Official Doctrine of the American State which declares, in prideful and grandiose terms, that America shall command the world through the violent power of its military. If Bush wants to "nuke" Iran, nobody can stop him. He will simply declare his authority as Commander in Chief to protect "national security," and then simply give the order to launch a strike. Do we think that such a unilateral order will be disobeyed by the mercenary professional soldiers under his command?

He has already proclaimed, by imperial edict, that his "duties" as Commander in Chief give him the "right" to disobey any laws passed by Congress, should he alone decide that any laws are not in the interest of "national security." He has pressed forward this claim several times now, as he has issued 'signing statements" declaring that he is not bound to follow the laws he is signing whenever he determines, by his own personal judgment alone, that his "duties" as Commander in Chief, (to guard "national security"), should supercede the will of Congress, or any mere law that Congress passes. (He has also signed a bill into law that was not even passed by Congress, but was rather only advanced by one branch, and had not yet passed the other).

With not so much as a credible whimper of protest from Congress, from the magistrates on the Courts, from the press, or even from the citizenry, we, the people of the United States of America, have fallen under the "rule" of an "emperor" every bit as powerful as Augustus Caesar, who claims personal authority over a mercenary professional military, and has declared that the priority of his military command places him above the law, and beyond any obligation to honor the Constitution. Augustus Caesar claimed no more than this. Once the office of "Imperator" was created by Augustus, many emperors to follow extended these basic powers to every excess. Eventually the military itself came to control Rome, and to control the Empire, as the excesses of the Emperors fell under the restraint of the Praetorian Guard, which simply murdered any Emperor who failed to give the Guard the proper "respect" in came to command.

With this "Imperial American Presidency" now proclaimed with so little protest, what changes might come next? It is only an amendment to the Constitution that was passed in my own lifetime, (in 1951), that prevents a president from being elected to office indefinitely. As amendments are passed, so can they be repealed. Or, now that the honesty of our electoral system itself has become so seriously suspect after the irregularities that have occurred during the past two elections, perhaps we will merely become that sort of odd "democracy" in which a minority of our citizens parade obediently to the polls to choose between prospective "Imperators" that are nominated by the two supposed "Parties," both of which are under the firm control of the Military Industrial Establishment of the Corporate Elite. Perhaps we will thus preserve some vestige of a charade of "democracy" as a sort of "constitutional dictatorship."

If History teaches us anything, it is most certainly that it often repeats itself. People, even when their lives are separated by many centuries, tend to behave in similar ways when they are in similar situations, and are faced with similar options. But sadly, we remain too self-involved and foolish to heed the warnings of people like Santayana, (who said that "those who do not learn from History are condemned to repeat it").

No one, from any position on the political spectrum, wants to talk about the implications of maintaining a mercenary professional military. The Left, which properly decries the unjust imperialist policies to which the American military is being applied, will allow no talk of a "draft" that would re-establish a "citizen military." And the Right knows full well that a draft would produce the same kind of violent unrest that it did in the Viet Nam era of the Sixties, (or in New York during the American Civil War). So all sides across the political spectrum agree that a "draft" is a "taboo" subject, a political "third rail" that no one will mention because anyone that does, (like Charles Rangel, the African American Congressman from New York who tried to point out that the professional military is staffed through a de facto "draft" of the working class poor), is showered with howls of derision from every side.

The Spirit of the American Nation, which was born from such noble ideals of Freedom, Equality, and Democracy, to which we were taught as children to pledge our allegiance, (for "Liberty and Justice for ALL"), has fallen into such horrific neglect and corrupted disrepair that severe consequences yet to befall us seem to have become inevitable. This is NOT a story never told before. Over the One Hundred Centuries of recorded human History, it has been told, and re-told, and told yet again.

In ancient Rome, political power ultimately rested at the point of the Roman gladius, the short stabbing sword with which the well-trained legions killed so many millions of human souls as they brought the world under their command. And when the world became their oyster, and the wealthy Romans became accustomed to the luxury that poured into their coffers from every other nation, when the proud yeomen of the Roman citizenry were displaced by slaves, and then left to grovel in crushing poverty on the state "grain dole," and when the Roman Legions were filled with mercenaries, rather than levied from the yeoman stock of citizens, the Army came to give its loyalty to its generals, rather than to Rome, and the Romans did not protest as their naked Greed overcame their concerns for mere "niceties" and "frivolities" like "Democracy" and "rights of citizenship."

In the twenty centuries that have elapsed since Caesar sat in his saddle and looked across the Rubicon toward Rome, only the technology has changed. We have "advanced" beyond the crude "sword," and political power now comes, (as Mao observed), out of the barrel of a gun, (or the bomb bay of a warplane). And whenever, and wherever this awful power falls into the hands of a single individual, despotism, accompanied by great and horrific suffering for large numbers of people, soon follows.

These retired American general officers have stepped forward to testify because the loyalty they feel for their Nation remains stronger than their loyalty to the "code" of a mercenary professional military. We may wish they had spoken sooner, but we should certainly applaud them for speaking now. They are indeed heroes of the American Republic, just as those who condemn them as "traitors" are its enemies.

This display of loyalty by these general officers to the concept of a Nation of free women and men, free citizens unbowed by tyranny, citizens NOT subject to military command, but rather IN command of a military that only exists to protect our freedom, should perhaps give us some Hope that we are not yet fallen so far down this path, (that leads unerringly to rule by Emperors), that we cannot recover.

Zwarich

Guest Essayist

Euston Manifesto

2006-04-22T09:28:00.000-05:00

I tripped over a reference to the Euston Manifesto in this morning's newspaper. It bears some study.

JRB

Corruption

2006-04-21T09:36:00.000-05:00

Last week on "The West Wing" we buried Leo McGary and the actor who played him, John Spencer. The writers did not overdo it, thankfully, as perhaps they did with the funeral of Mrs. Landingham as President Bartlet cursed at his god in Latin, pacing the transept of the Washington National Cathedral, butting a cigarette into the hallowed marble floor. No, instead the "Requiem" episode was devoted primarily to the politics of an election aftermath, and the stunning moment came during a quick interview with a senior Democratic member of the House of Representatives who believed himself primed and ready to take over the job of Speaker of the House, the third senior position in the federal government (at least as succession to the Presidency goes).

The Democrat with a four vote margin stood up to President Elect Matt Santos and said he would not support legislation to effect a complete stop to lobbying contributions to elected officials. He said that now was not the time ... with a majority of Democrats ... to be endangering their hopes for major funding (paraphrase). It was a moment in mass entertainment when Hollywood spoke for an essential truth.

As it happens I had just read a review article in the New York Review of Books (April 27, 2006 issue) by Bill McKibben on the effect of the internet on politics and was disheartened to learn that, in what turned out to be pivotal Iowa, John Kerry, Richard Gephardt, and Robert Torricelli (the disgraced former NJ senator) were the principal backers of a TV spot that, using the image of Osama Bin Laden, declared Howard Dean to be a political lightweight, incapable of conducting effective foreign affairs.

I am reminded here at home that one is a fictional and the other a non-fictional tragedy. I am reminded daily in the blogs and opinion outlets that the Democrats have no plan, no voice, no nothing. And, also last week I was not only reminded but urged by Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue to dump my party affiliation and be independent from now on. Doug has subsequently apologized to the world for a series of wild statements in his daily rant. I understand that everyone has a bad week every so often, but Doug's preceding vehemence belies his mild apology. His "pox on both their houses" rant left stinging welts on my understanding of American politics.

A colleague reminded me of several cases where the powers within the Democratic Party are choosing their colleagues by undercutting Democratic rivals in local races. Illinois, Pennsylvania, and others are states where personality and connections are defeating principle and political vigor. To sum it up in a few words, it seems that not only is the Democratic Party a more closely held power structure than I ever wanted to believe, but that it is heir to various kinds of pecuniary and hubristic corruptions. The question then is what to do about it.

First, though, there are the Republicans. Every Republican in the House of Representatives has violated his or her oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutions of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. If they had not we would have Articles of Impeachment delivered to the Senate months ago. I bring this up to show that party discipline can be strong indeed. Bush, Cheney, and Rove have convinced the Representatives, whose constituencies are small by comparison to the President's and Vice President's, that the Executive has make or break largesse to deliver to loyal party members or to take from disloyal ones. It apparently took not much convincing to reduce the Republican Legislative Branch to lackey status, since it is true that the Executive has huge discretion in spending through the various bureaucracies of government. But the point is that where pressure can be brought to bear, economically and politically, party politics is the art and craft of wielding power.

Second, the Republicans are not going to reform themselves. Their 15 minutes of fame as a reform party was squandered nicely by Gingrich and friends a decade ago with Tom DeLay then serving up notice that power absolutely corrupts. What we observe in today's Republican Party is a food fight for position in what most believe is an inevitable relapse into minority status, a consolidation of local political deals, a vendetta against a multitude of perceived enemies.

Moreover, the Republicans are not going to let the problems within the Democratic Party, the notorious internal dissent, the traditional bickering and back-stabbing happen without taking political advantage of it. Far from it; Republicans are the Party of party politics and are a far more disciplined group than are Democrats. If the Democrats break up into a Progressive Party and a Green Party and perhaps even other shards, the Republicans win. It is as simple as that.

We Liberals have two choices: break away decisively and permanently or work from within. Breaking away requires leadership and a campaign upon which to focus the break. The leadership has to be pure and unassailable; the campaign needs to have dollar and on-the-ground resources ... people in every state, people in every precinct, people willing to work off thirty pounds hanging door hangers and putting up signs. The campaign needs an honest communications broker and the present-day mass media are probably not it. Working from within, on the other hand, takes above all patience.

I assume that most disaffected Democrats know what bothers them most--their key issue (employment, health care, military spending, immigration, etc.) That gives each disaffected Democrat two things to talk about locally: the issue that bothers them most and Democratic corruption. I assume that the local disaffected Democrats know who and where their elected representatives are and that they have the opportunity to speak with them. If these two assumptions are true, then combine them and multiply them by the number of people any disaffected Democrat can talk to in an evening's local meeting.

If you agree with the mathematics here then the order of the day is to go down to the local Democratic headquarters and introduce yourself. Then say you would like to volunteer and (especially) to meet other Democrats. Go to a local meeting, talk, listen carefully. When the time is right with a person who seems to share your views tell them what is bothering you: your favorite issue and Democratic corruption. See how it goes with that person and the next. In a short time you will begin to call yourselves the reformers, then the reform movement. You will all seek out your representatives or candidates and tell them two things: one, the issue that bothers you most and then your feelings about Democratic corruption.

The rest of the arithmetic is simple. A representative or candidate will hear a variety of statements about key issues and glued to each such statement will be a statement about Democratic Corruption. They will notice that you all seem to have internal solidarity among you, and from precinct to precinct they will notice that the reformers seem to have a movement going. You will hear from the candidate soon enough. You will hear rhetoric about reform and easy-to-make statements. Politicians are good at this, so you will have to be organized to hold their feet to the fire.

The fire is this: demand legislation to end PAC and corporate lobbying contributions of any kind: this includes airplane rides, golf vacations, any and everything. If corporations and PAC want freedom of speech let them speak to the voters, not directly to the voters' representatives. If they speak directly to elected officials, you the voters have been cut out of the equation!

You have to demand strict campaign financing legislation, too. Both! There is no other way to get back even a vestige of control over the Party. Since you are now many, call the candidate and ask if they have spoken to other Democratic candidates about this, if not, why not? Let them know (each one of you ... even if it means a hundred calls a week from your precinct) that you are keeping track of them, their thoughts and activities. Demand that reforms become the highest order of business. There is nothing at stake but our democracy, for there is no question that Republicans are little interested in it.

James Richard Brett

Our Corporate Government

2006-04-20T10:06:00.000-05:00

The present government of the United States of America is not the one put in place by the founders. This government does not function "by and for the people," it functions "by and for corporations."

The forefathers never would have let his happen. The Boston Tea Party was a protest over the corporate British East India Company's monopoly on trade and the high taxes resulting form that. In Europe corporations chartered by Kings had not only increased their own wealth by finding, settling and plundering foreign lands, they has also increased the wealth of their countries of origin. The Massachusetts Bay Colony and Dutch East India Company are two other corporations who were dominating the world at the time. Using their huge wealth and influence, they were able to pretty much monopolize trade at the expense of ordinary people.

At the time of the American Revolution, there was a strong resolve to limit the power and wealth of corporate entities because the founding fathers knew that such a concentration would lead to influence that surpassed that of the people and interfere with self rule.

In the beginning of our nation corporations were held in check by laws that limited them to a business role. They were not allowed to interfere in public policy, elections, and civic society. The states were given the right to charter corporations and to evoke charters when laws were violated.

Many corporate charters were granted for specific purposes such as construction of public works and ended with the completion of the project. States could limit the amount of profits a company could make, and terminate the charter if corporations exceeded their authority or caused public harm. Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

What Happened?

In the early 1800's laws to control corporate influence were weakened by Supreme Court decisions which found in favor of corporate interests in matters of state trade barriers being lifted and the ability of states to cancel a corporate contract. In a later court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who disagreed with the earlier rulings, lamented that "The continued existence of government would be of no great value, if by implications and presumptions, it was disarmed of the powers necessary to accomplish the ends of its creation; and the functions it was designed to perform, transferred to the hands of privileged corporations."

Corporations pressed on in their attempts to control labor, resources and community rights. IN 1886 a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, the court used the 14th amendment to find that California could not tax corporations differently than individuals. The 14th amendment had bee passed to protect recently emancipated slaves and stated "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The ruling was corrupted by corporations who then claimed if they were protected by 14th amendment rights, then they must have corporate personhood. Armed with this new status, corporations have caused courts to strike down hundreds of laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm. They have increased their control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, and every facet of our society. As "persons" they have influenced the political system to serve their interests and needs while society suffers.

Corporations with the help of "deregulation" and other laws put into place by our government, are polluting our water, air and earth.

Labor laws have been diminished leaving workers unprotected and the right to form unions severely curtailed. "Tort reform" is the effort to remove our right to sue corporations for wrongdoing in courts. Foreign policy is based on the interests of corporations to expand and secure control over resources, labor and wealth of other nations. Researching the facts behind US military and covert actions will reveal that they were taken to protect and advance the corporate agenda. In the 1950's the democratically elected governments of Iran and Guatemala were overthrown by covert CIA activities.They did so not to stop Communism but to remove governments that planned reform to improve their societies. These reforms threatened the control corporations had over resources and land.

This corporate government has a history of labeling any country "Communist" or "Marxist" which attempts to reclaim their sovereignty over land, resources, trade, environment or labor. Consider this: Under Saddam, Iraq's constitution stated that all the country's resources were to be owned by the state and no foreign investment was allowed. In the September after the US invasion, Paul Bremmer let it be known that "Iraq is now open for foreign investment." Here's the kicker. Investments in Iraq would be protected under the US Bank of Import/Export and should said investments be lost, that loss would be covered by that bank. The US Bank of Import/ Export is a taxpayer funded bank and the losses would be paid by our tax money! If you thought the BCCI scandal cost us, just wait until we get this bill! What government that was truly working under the mandate to "protect and provide for the public security and welfare" would do that?

If you follow the money, it is obvious that the real winners in the "War on Terror" are the corporations who make and provide provisions and services to the War machine. Our wealth is being siphoned off directly into their pockets. Our soldiers are fighting hard to open the occupied countries up for corporate investment, exploitation and control.

When they use the term "democracy" they mean a system like ours where corporate interests rule. Our government now functions to increase corporate wealth and control and we find ourselves once again taxed without representation. Tea Party anyone?

Sue Dyer

Guest Essayist

Directions Needed

2006-04-19T13:21:00.000-05:00

We have just come down from one of the holiest of Christian holidays, Easter, and I cannot help but muse on the attendant fuss which seems to accompany these yearly rituals, most of which are deeply rooted in Pagan mythology. That the great majority of the populace knows little if anything about these pagan rites is a true testament to the power of the early Christian church and the continuing perpetuation of these myths "in Jesus name". But then they know, it seems little of their Christian faith either. If they did, the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson surely would have no following.

Now a new Gospel has been found which flies in the face of accepted fact as regarding Jesus' last days. And if this new gospel is to be believed our entire view of the existing Gospels is brought into question. Could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have gotten it that wrong? Weren't they eye witnesses to the events as they unfolded? No they were not. Rather than face arrest and imprisonment themselves, they fled. Certainly a betrayal as well. Were they perhaps jealous of Judas and his closeness to Jesus?

Written as it is, in Aramaic, the language Jesus and his disciples spoke, the Gospel, regarding Judas, would seem to be the more authentic. That Jesus was a political rabble rouser, should be acknowledged and one should perhaps look more closely at how Jesus operated to understand why the premise of Judas' betrayal being a "set up" is not as far fetched as it sounds. For a man who flew in the face of convention, as did Jesus, it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Jesus flaunted his relationships with those whom society considered outcasts. The marginalized of society were His "base", and He scorned those who felt their wealth gave them privelage. He targeted the corruption amongst the Priests in the temple, He allowed Himself to become "unclean" by laying his hands on those who were ill (Leprosy) or dead (Lazarus). To deliver Himself into the hands of those who would wish Him ill is totally within the realm of possibility, if it served His purposes.

Today, however, there is a very large segment of the population who reject anything which is not from the mouths of those who preach a gospel of hatred They deny all those whom Jesus would have embraced, and even more incredibly, have stated that those who share the faith that Jesus practiced are not eligible for a seat in Heaven. How can this be? Jesus was most decidedly a Jew and absolutely, if the Easter Story is to be believed, in Heaven. Not only did He gain entry into heaven there are at least two thieves there with him.

Unfortunately, when you have a large segment of people who believe what these fear mongers say, you have the prejudice and hatred that leads to the crimes that Jesus tried to teach us to overcome. It leads us into wars. It villifies those members of society that someone else has deemed unfit. Why is there not more outrage from those who would understand that this is not the message of Jesus? Where are all of those who profess a belief in Christianity and certainly not the brand preached by these two yahoos and their ilk? Why are those who are in your face Christians not living by Jesus' rules?

It has always been easier to take the well beaten path then the road less traveled. Easier to perpetuate the myth than to try and debunk it. We have the road map, perhaps Mr. Falwell's base should refer to it more often, rather than taking verbal directions from a person who is already lost.

Susan B. Goodwin

The Hypothetical Prenatal Gay Test

2006-04-18T00:03:00.000-05:00

Imagine it with me.

Pregnant women go through a barrage of tests early on in a pregnancy. Tests are run for blood type, gestational diabetes, anemia, STDs, cervical cancer, and immunity to a whole host of diseases.

Fetuses also go through a number of tests, some optional, some not, as a pregnancy progresses. These include tests for chromosomal disorders, birth defects like Spina bifida and Anencephaly, and Down's Syndrome, amongst many others, including the more innocuous ultrasound or amniocentisis to find out the baby's sex.

As our medical technology and expertise has advanced with time, so have the tests. New tests are added to the list as new problems arise (for instance, thirty years ago there was no AIDS test for expectant mothers, but now there is) and new options in birthing and anesthesia are continually coming in and out of vogue.

So, say scientists find the "gay gene" someday. Ostensibly doctors could then perform prenatal testing to determine if the resultant child will be gay.

Reminds me of a great bumper sticker I saw recently:

"If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?"

Some pregnant women choose to terminate a pregnancy if testing shows a fetus that will suffer from a serious birth defect. Perhaps this is selfish or perhaps it is simply a practical but horrificly sad decision for those women, but regardless it is a fact of life.

What if a devout Christian conservative who is very serious about battling the "homosexual agenda" could test for the gay gene while pregnant? What do you do when you know you are going to give birth to a child you will never really be able to love? Or would your entire philosophy on sexual orientation change? Or would your entire philosophy on abortion change? Or would you give your baby up for adoption, unable to bear the site of your very own gay child?

Would you be able to "hate the sin, not the sinner?"

Welcome to the big gray area of the future. It might never happen, but once upon a time, our ancestors believed that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that if a person thrown in a lake sank instead of floating that person was clearly not guilty of practicing witchcraft... Not so long ago, no one thought twice about lighting up when pregnant, drinking and driving, unconventional weapons on airplanes, etc...

The world changes very quickly these days. Food for thought.

Katherine Brengle

Universal Health Care

2006-04-17T13:44:00.000-05:00

Opponents of universal health care have objected to it for a number of reasons and it is incumbent upon those of us who support such a system to answer these objections and propose solutions which answer them.

The first is that a public system would be more efficient. What ever terms you want to use the numbers are obvious. For profit companies spend 20 to 25 percent on administrative costs versus 3 percent for Medicare, which by the way takes care of much sicker and older patients. Removing profit as a motive for managing the company improves efficiency by at least 17 percent by this reasonable measure.

Second is the argument that other types of insurance are offered by the free market so why not health insurance. Surely if it works for life or automobile insurance it would work for health insurance. Unfortunately, this argument ignores the cold fact that health insurance for most people is tied to an employer and employer-based health insurance does not operate on a free-market model. Consumers, assuming their lucky enough to even have a plan offered, do not choose their insurance companies to begin with and they cannot switch to another if dissatisfied with the product.

Third, public universal insurance would result in the government rationing the care covered by this plan. Such as argument ignores the fact that rationing already exists: It is done by the various mechanisms for profit companies use to subvert good science by co-pays, deductibles, pre-authorizations, diagnostic exclusions and many other barriers to discourage treatment. States have had to create laws to force private insurers to cover even simple preventive screening procedures such as mammograms and colonoscopies. If overt rationing were deemed necessary, at least theses decisions would be made more openly honestly by panels of caregivers and with appropriate public input; not by owners and investors seeking to maximize their profit on the back of the sick and injured.

We are the only industrial nation without national health care. We spend almost twice as much per capita as the next country, Switzerland. And, by any measure we are no where near the top in the quality of health care provided. We have at least 45 million people in the US who are uninsured and health care is no less essential than education or transportation which is provided by public funding.

Poll after poll shows that the public supports a national health system. Since 1945, when Harry Truman first proposed a national health system, public support was then and remains at about 75 percent. Why don’t our legislators support what three quarters of their constituents want? Perhaps it has something to do with campaign financing, but that’s the subject for another blog.

Physicians for a National Health Plan (pnhp.org) has worked since 1987 for universal health care and have an affordable model that works for all. It is time we made our elected officials implement it.

David M Goldberg

Hope

2006-04-16T10:28:00.000-05:00

Today is Easter, the Day of Eggs (literally), the day the heathen tribes of Europe (and elsewhere) celebrated the rebirth of nature, the festival of onrushing spring! If you have noticed the moon the past few days, you will see how tuned to natural phenomena this day is. The Christians wisely decided that the spring celebration, rooted as it is in the crucial days after the long winter when planting must be accomplished in Hope for a bountiful harvest months later, should not be ignored, for Hope is the emotion of these spring days, and Hope is the message of the story of martyred Jesus's resurrection from the dead.

The Hope we have this fine morning is that Americans still have their wits about them, that even after a long winter of fear and insecurity Americans will rise to the task of throwing off the creeping tentacles of oppression that now threaten their freedoms and liberties. We Hope that you read Gary Allen Scott's article on fascism all the way through and that you file it for future reference.

JRB

Culture of Corruption

2006-04-15T10:03:00.000-05:00

Bill Moyers is one of those rare voices within the Liberal Progressive community to whom you will want to pay attention. Here is recent offering that should provide you with plenty of discussion material on the Culture of Corruption. The big problem is that corruption is an equal opportunity employer, so your attitude toward politicians of any and every stripe must be (a) eternal vigilance and (b) swift sure response to their fooling around.

JRB

Iran

2006-04-14T09:20:00.000-05:00

Some of us have been avid readers of political apocalypse fiction for a long time, and so the idea of the demise of our species (and perhaps our planet) because of a nuclear holocaust has been done to death, so to speak. We tend now to dismiss the idea as passé or at least improbable, although the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which publishes the "doomsday clock" does not agree. Among us, those old enough to remember "duck and cover" exercises in public schools ... (my high school was (and still is) 3.2 miles from the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia) ... remember the awful epiphany that our parents and the rest of the adults in our society were into the nuclear era way over their heads and completely useless to us as protectors and guiding lights into the future they were creating. It took us decades to wrest the government from their trembling hands, from their incompetent judgments about good and evil on our planet, from the mindset that "it would be better to be dead than Red."

"Godless Communism" was the threat then. It was understood as a two pronged attack on basic American values, (1) on God, who obviously favored us as a subgroup of the species, having given us the opportunity to appropriate the majestic plains and purple mountains from the heathen aborigines who already dwelt here (sans horses and smallpox), and (2) on property, which we had been crafting since the first days of our arrival, but had recently shown some proficiency in creating industrially, manufacturing along with our products a comfortable (if self-righteously ignorant) existence as a nation of middle class believers in the American manifest destiny. Godless Communism entailed, in addition, a betrayal of federal principles in favor of centrist planning and an utter rejection of corporate profits and visions in favor of social and economic justice. But primarily, to Americans it was the godlessness of Communism that posed the most palpable and bone-chilling threat.

Americans understand religion intuitively. They understand from their European experience that religion is not so much about one's own salvation, for that, it goes without saying, is assured by the doctrine of repentance ... however late and tardy one might choose it. No, organized religion is less about one's own immortal soul than about the guy next door or the guy in the next car whose behaviors must be controlled according to some predictable system to be as little threatening as possible. Religions exact this performance more or less equitably, so a pretense of adherence is nearly as good as a vocation in it. Remarkably, when a society takes up a religion more or less universally, the sense of security should rise. Historians know the truth of the matter, but then real history is strewn with the baggage of many competing religions, a situation which seems to confound the human brain.

Before the Protestant Reformation Roman Catholicism waxed the unruly Europeans into a form of behavior that provided a modicum of predictability in society. Eventually this led to sufficient leisure and communications among Europeans that a Pandora's box of criticism erupted and the Church broke into several large and contentious pieces. The great bogey of the middle ages, Islam, meanwhile, had peaked both militarily and intellectually, and on the edges of Europe receded into the gloom of ignorance as more exciting European wars of succession, religion, and ego embroiled Europeans for at least the last half millennium.

Now though, with a global industrial and commercial transformation in progress due to the penetration of Europeans and their wars into nearly every village and valley of the planet, the Islamic nations are now turning out to be serious threats, chief among them the ancient race of Persians, now in the thrall of a great awakening of their religion's militant spirit. In a fundamental sense the problem that comes from dealing with a foreign religion with values that are not shared is that the predictability of behaviors is greatly diminished. And, of course, these modern day Iranians now vociferously threaten to equip themselves with the nuclear weapons developed by the Christian nations, bringing into clear focus a new form of doomsday for our species and planet.

If Iran achieves "the bomb," it will at the same time upset the balance of civilization in several ways. Being militant, Iranians may decide that middle eastern politics needs a new direction and "wipe modern Israel from the map" as recently promised. Then, Iran is a petroleum exporting country, so its effect on the petroleum-addicted economies of the West could be decisive in an epoch in which the West and far East is unprepared to adjust its economies to other forms of energy. It seems to some, perhaps Dick Cheney and his friends, that the only thing that will forestall a descent into the nightmare of an Iranian dictated world order is the elimination of Iran's ability to dictate.

This is a notion fraught with deceptions and ignorance, however, for the ability to dictate depends not so much on having a nuclear warfare capability as the ability to mobilize annoying resources of any kind to a constant purpose. In other words, the nature of the regime determines the ability to mobilize resources, so the question is primarily about the nature of the regime in Iran, not whether it has certain kinds of weapons or not. Pakistan, btw, is an Islamic state with Christian nuclear weapons, and we tolerate them.

Conceivably, Iran could declare conventional war on Israel tomorrow and inflict grievous (perhaps fatal) damage on Israel in return for which, however, Iran would probably expect to have certain national assets around the country nuked into oblivion, but Iran itself (being much, much larger than Israel) would not be destroyed. In fact, Israel acting alone could not actually count on achieving regime change in Iran, but it could weld the indifferent and the moderate Iranians into a terrible wounded-dog of a country that wreaks havoc for decades in the region and outside of it.

We have to ask the question: Is Iranian regime change the essential difference between war and peace in the Middle East? And, if so, could the United States with the other western powers and Israel achieve lasting regime change in Iran? The answers to these questions have to be answered before the first bomb goes off. But that may be the rub. With the fortunes of the regime in the United States plummeting, with speculation rife that Cheney and/or Rumsfeld will be forced to resign, the possibility that the regime in Washington will tip toward the nuclear option against the Iranian regime multiply rapidly and may soon be very difficult to control. It is all the more precarious since at times Iran has its hands on the steering wheel and we have the brakes ... and then vice versa!

It seems clear to me that a Cheney-Rumsfeld "surgical nuclear strike" against several dozen Iranian nuclear installations (some of which may be hardened to withstand multiple megaton nukes) would not necessarily endear the surviving Iranian population to American ways and policies. Few, indeed, would convert to Christianity, and most I suspect would dedicate themselves permanently to a violent disruption and destruction of the Great American Satan. Surgery, although it will certainly disrupt the Iranian nuclear effort is unlikely to be the answer to the "Iranian Problem." Then, what if Cheney and Rumsfeld unleashed a total nuclear war against Iran with the objective of removing Iran and Iranians from the world stage more or less permanently, sending them back to the 10th or 9th century, as the saying goes? Would this solve the problem? It surely would remove Iranian petroleum from the world market. It would cause a plume of radioactivity to encircle the globe for years, causing cancer and other unforeseen problems in countries wholly innocent of the Iranian Problem. It would, by the way, murder millions of innocent Iranians and their children for which even the bellicose Christian god might not be very willing to forgive and forget.

Okay, if surgical strikes are unlikely to break the will of the regime and if utter destruction of the country is an unacceptable policy, what use are nuclear weapons against a country that has none?

None. They are useless.

For Iran nuclear weapons could eliminate Israel, but they would soon find that making the Holy Land radioactive for decades to come would be unacceptable not only to Israel's allies but to millions of Muslims in the region. No, this is not what these feisty Iranians are up to. I think that Iran is hoping to get into a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario with Israel and the U.S. and believes that such a policy will work to their advantage much better than the asymmetric situation that prevails today. As Cheney and his confreres believe that more war (or at least significant sabre rattling) will solidify their hold on the levers of power in the United States, ... so do the mullahs in Iran. The solution then is obvious. We should seek regime change in both Washington and in Teheran, and we should not go to war with Iran!

James Richard Brett

The Real War We Are In: Life v. Profits

2006-04-13T09:40:00.000-05:00

Looking at the world situation from a wide perspective, some patterns become visible. The biggest pattern is that there is a struggle between the haves and the have nots for use of the world's resources.

The "haves" are the very powerful 10% who control 90% of the world's wealth. Their belief is that everything is up for grabs to make more money and to solidify their power.

The "have nots" are the rest of us, 90% of the people, who get 10% of the wealth. Our belief is that the first priority is that resources should be used for the survivability of life and profit making is fine once the social contract is met.

The corporate powerhouse rejects a social contract and they destroy people, environments and nations in their operations. Around the world people have risen up to resist this consuming beast and have been beaten into submission by covert and military forces, first by the colonial countries then by the American government.

As citizens we have been told that those rising up are "Anarchists," "Communists," "socialists" and "terrorists" and that they "threatened our democracy" and so must be "defeated." The truth is that they were seeking to throw off the yoke of control imposed by corporate interests that were stealing their wealth and resources. They fought in the hope of using those resources for the people of their nation and the improvement of their society. Our "democracy" is not under threat by those people, it is corporate control which is threatened. Chavez of Venezula is a current example of this. He has regasined control of the nation's oil from corporations to fund "milk and bricks" for his society. He has sent educators and medical teams out over the country to teach and heal the people and for this sin is called a "Communist." He is not a communist, he is a leader who is putting the needs of his society first.

Here in our country we have been indoctrinated with the belief that "capitalism" and a "free market" are good for us but the fact is they are not. "Deregulation" and "privatization were sold to us as beneficial to us and we offered no resistance to the corporate takeover of some of our basic social systems such as electricity, telephones and health as well as massive amounts of publicly owned resources such as land, minerals, timber, water and our airwaves. The corporations make billions of dollars from our legacies while we struggle to keep our heads above the water.

Because of the enormous wealth needed to run a political campaign, corporations have used their wealth to corrupt most of our legislators to pass and repeal laws that favor them and disenfranchise us. Most of the environmental laws, we fought for so hard, have been repealed to allow businesses to pollute without worry and the taxpayers are left to clean up the mess and suffer the illnesses caused by toxins in our environment. Our nation thrived not because of capitalism but because those suffering under it went on strike, held rallies and fought for labor laws, workers rights, enviornmental protections. They even faced the police and military forces, paid for with our taxes, that the government sent to beat them into submission to protect the corporate control.

Big business agriculture is not only poisoning our land with chemicals to grow crops, the crops they are growing contain contaminants as well as providing fewer nutrients than those organically grown. Big Business agriculture has also driven our small farmers out of business. Their genetically modified plants produce sterile seeds forcing growers to come to them each year for the new seed crop. In addition to that, GM plants can contaminate healthy plants and render them sterile. This puts our food sources at risk and make us dependent on them for the food that gives us life.

Various laws, world wide in scope, have given the corporations the right to claim patents and property rights on plants and food around the world. An example of this is the neem tree that grows in India which has insect repelling properties and has been considered sacred by the people for the many gifts it has given to them. The people have, for thousands of years used the leaves from this tree to line their seed containers with the leaves to keep them insect free. Now WR Grace corporation claims the rights to the trees and seeks to prevent the use of the tree by anyone else.
Plants used for centuries in the Amazon are being "patented" by corporations who claim all rights to them and denies their use to others. This may sound crazy but it is happening. Corporate control of water around the world is another offence to life. Before the Bolivian people kicked Bechtel out of their country, the corporation was claiming the right to charge them for rain!

This is a conflict which is reaching life threatening proportions. Our very survival on earth is threatened by those who seek to make a profit from any and all resources. Their heedless exploitation of the earth, this biosphere, has caused global warming, increased the pollution of our water, air and earth and diminished the survivability of life around the planet.

They assert that the bottom line is profit while we assert the bottom line is life.

Where will they go, I wonder, when this garden of Eden has deteriorated into a planet of poisoned air, water and earth? Even a rich person needs the basics of life our environment grants to us.

They must imagine themselves to be immune from the destruction they are creating with their clever money making schemes.

Their tools of power are:

the "free trade agreements" which open countries up for "investment" (exploitation).
The military systems which further their control through aggression and consolidate their control through protection and suppression on both foreign and domestic fronts.
The governments which provide the above military protection and remove laws protecting citizens from abuses by profit seeking entities {environmental laws, legal protections that allow users of products/services to hold companies accountable for inferior products and services and fair labor laws}
The ability of businesses to become massively large and eliminate competition.
A "cover" operation which allows their further control while fooling the people into believing something else is going on. War fills this niche nicely.

The result has been a catastrophe for the planet and the life on it.

What to do? Business is the economic machine of our society. The aim here is not to destroy business but to reign them in. I must point out at this juncture that I am referring to multi-national and national corporations who have a track record of exploitation of people and environments.

The first step must be to change the profile of acceptable profit making from "anything goes to make profits" to one that demands a social contract from business that puts the sustainability of life first. As the workers, consumers and investors in business, we can demand that. Laws must be passed to limit their sphere of business and exclude areas that a society depends on to survive and thrive.

We must break their power over our political system by making campaigns publicly funded and design a campaign system that is under control. Public officials found receiving benefits from corporations should be criminally prosecuted and fined.

We must claim a spectrum of the publicly owned air waves for public media to be funded by fees charged to broadcasters who currently pay nothing! Information is the currency of a democracy and we have the means to bring it back into circulation.

To a large extent, they are only able to continue their exploitation with our co-operation.

If we remain silent, if we continue to fund their agendas through taxes, if we buy stock in their companies, work in their companies and provide soldiers to create their armies, we are contributing to their power and losing our own.

To bring down their "towers of power" we must be willing to resist by refusing to buy products and services they make and buy from companies who meet a social contract. Can you resist buying a gas guzzling inefficient vehicle if driving one that gets better mileage, reduces emissions, and is better built helps save our environment?

Boycotts, strikes and public pressure will send a message that we are on the move as well as denying them our money.

We need to ask our warriors, those we pay to defend us, our police and military, not to use force against their own people in defense of corporate interests.

This issue supersedes all others and requires that we form a united group. Join public action groups, check out watchdog groups, and let's pool our ideas and strength to reclaim control over our government, resources and living systems. Our lives depend on it.

Sue Dyer

Guest Essayist

Searching For the "Ring that Binds Us"

2006-04-12T10:34:00.000-05:00

Scott Ritter, the former intelligence officer who served as a weapons inspector for the UN in Iraq, who since the invasion of Iraq has spoken out in opposition to the war, has recently generated much discussion, and considerable controversy among anti-war activists, with his suggestion that all progressive activists should, for the time being, de-emphasize their concerns for any other issues besides the war, and concentrate their attention on working against the war with a "laser-like concentrated focus." He further suggests that the anti-war effort should be organized under a united structure, and that if we can successfully bring an end to this war, we will defeat our "enemies," whom he identifies as the neo-conservative Bush regime.

As a life-long "warrior" himself, a member of the intelligence/military establishment, Mr. Ritter well knows that one of the most basic tenets of "warfare" is "Identify the Enemy." If we fail to properly "identify the enemy," then we run the risk of not only fighting the wrong battle, but also of being "used" by our REAL enemy to fight his battles for him, or else of being duped into expending all our energy in other battles before our real enemy even shows his face.

But although I support Mr. Ritter's noble goal of uniting a powerful anti-war movement, I think he is mistaken in assuming that we need to de-emphasize other issues to accomplish this goal, and I also think he is mistaken in identifying the Bush neo-cons as our REAL "enemy."

We need to properly "realize" what we can all clearly see, which is that these "neo-cons" are not all that smart. They've hatched a "grand plot" to "rule the world," and now they've laid an egg in Iraq that is even now in the process of destroying them. Anybody with two brains to rub together knew that Iraq was going to be a quagmire, yet these idiots are so "dumb" that they thought it was going to be a cakewalk. They ignored not only the lessons of Viet Nam, (and Colin Powell realizes even now how horribly he "screwed up"), but all the lessons that History offers us.

But there is a much larger Power that lies behind these neo-cons. This Power has provided this neo-con cabal with a certain amount of "muscle," and it will abandon them as they start to fall, (this is happening already). This Power may be weakened a bit by the inevitable defeat in Iraq, but I think they knew that going in. The oil is no doubt very important to them, but I am sure they already have contingency plans in place, should they lose control of this oil, (and see it go to China). Other energy technologies can be rolled out for instance, if all the Power of amalgamated Capital were thus applied.

Amalgamated Capital is our REAL enemy. Corporations are more powerful now than government itself. (Of the 100 largest "economies" in the world, 50 of them are American Corporations). Iraq is only one element in their grand design. Iraq has being used, and is being used, as wars are always used, to divert our attention from the malfeasance of Capital. Exploiting patriotism is one of the oldest "tricks" in their book, and amalgamated Capital has been using it for thousands of years.

Corporate Globalization is no joke, folks. Surely everyone has read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." Amalgamated Capital, which, if you've read that testimony, you know behaves EXACTLY like the Mafia, (only on a MUCH larger scale), has set out a scheme to not only subvert individual governments, as they already have subverted ours, but they intend to subvert "government" itself, by claiming the entire world to run as THEIR private company.

THEY are our enemy, folks. It is these forces of Corporate World Domination that is our REAL enemy. Underlings like the foolish, power-crazed neo-cons are only puppets to amalgamated Capital, to Corporate Power. They are "puppets" on the strings of these Puppeteers. When we are fooled into putting all our attention on the puppets, then we are being controlled by the Puppeteer, just as if we were on his strings ourselves.

That is NOT to say that we should not focus on working against this horrific war. And we should CERTAINLY strive to achieve a United Front in doing so, (and Scott Ritter is an excellent candidate to lead such a United Front), but I am concerned when people think, as Mr. Ritter has stated, that ending this war is going to represent "victory" for us.

The war will end whether we help end it or not. We may be able to help end it faster, but these idiotic neo-cons have committed our military to a "battle" that cannot be won. All of History would have taught them this, but they were just too crazed by power to learn. But when the war ends, the designs of Capital will not. Their Power will remain. They will STILL completely control the Means of Communication, (and they are avidly trying to figure out a way to control the Internet also), and by that power they will continue to control our government.

Surely none among us thinks that this ex-coke head and drunkard, this dim-witted frat-party boy, is the "mastermind" that opposes us. Bill Clinton did as much, if not MORE, to advance the Power of Corporate Globalization as Bush. Bush has opened up the purse of the common citizens for the Corporate Elite to reach in and indulge themselves in an orgy of Greed. And he has also made bold moves to further destroy Democracy and establish outright Fascism, but in doing so, he seems to have only weakened himself, and strengthened the degree of resistance against him. Clinton was a great champion of Global Corporate Power. He was a great supporter of the WTO, and NAFTA could never have passed without his enthusiastic efforts to ram-rod it through. In fact, the primary reason Clinton was elected at all was that Ross Perot rose up against NAFTA, and split Bush the First's vote. But perhaps the most damaging thing that Clinton did was sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which paved the way for greater consolidation in media ownership. The ink on this bill was not even dry as Corporate Power moved quickly to suck up media outlets under their control. Surely we realize that the Means of Communication are the means of power.

When the neo-cons fall, as they surely will, The Puppeteer will only trot out another of his puppets to mesmerize us, and keep our attention off of him, (and another "Clinton" puppet is now waiting in the wings). And old saying sums up this "game" used for so long and so well by The Puppeteer to keep us from thinking straight and sorting out this foolish game. "Fools line up to vote, those with the REAL power pick the candidates." When one puppet falls into disfavor, another just takes its place.

With the Means of Communication in the hands of the "enemy," it is crucial for us, as Mr. Ritter counsels us, to UNITE our efforts. We must find the means to unite our efforts, so that we can unite our resources ($), to gain the power to create the requisite media to communicate our own message to the general population. Uniting the anti-war effort is a VERY good idea. But we must realize that ending the war is not going to free us from the designs of Corporate Power.

It is not a matter of choosing one issue upon which to concentrate. It is a matter of realizing that ALL issues are related. What we must find is the "one Ring that binds them all." We must find the ONE "issue" that binds together all the others. We do NOT need to ignore ANY issue, and we must be aware of all the issues, but we must realize that it is the threat to Democracy, or rather even more than that, the threat to "government" itself, presented by Global Corporate Power, that is the Ring that we must "find," and cast into the "Cracks of Doom." This is the "one Ring" whose destruction can and must unite us, for if we do not destroy It, It will most certainly destroy us.

Do any truly understand Tolkien's epic allegory? He witnessed the horrors in the mud of WW I. With his own eyes he saw the mud turn red with the blood of innocent boys on every side dying in the service of a Power they did not understand. He wrote the 'trilogy" in the midst of the rise of Fascism. Many have forgotten that there was considerable support for Fascism in England, (where Orwell also wrote), and also in America, where notables like Charles Lindberg, a noted anti-Semite, had considerable sympathy for Hitler. (Have all seem "V for Vendetta"? It is a comic book Orwellian allegory that describes a Spiritual "process" through which an apathetic population might be induced to rise up against Fascism. Despite its comic book character, it is an important film that seems to be getting little attention).

We need not choose between issues to support. Rather we must find the ONE issue that binds the rest together. That issue is the rise of Corporate Power, also known as Fascism. Every other, from the degradation of our environment, to immigration, to the war in Iraq, is but a derivative of that.

Democracy is the ONE "issue" that binds together all others. Our "process" (Democracy) is our most important "policy." Democracy is not an "issue" at all. Democracy is rather a "Principle." Democracy flows from Truth. It flows from high concepts like "Freedom," "Justice," and "Equal Rights for ALL," which themselves flow directly from the wellspring of Truth itself.

Ending the war is only going to end the war, it is NOT going to end the rise of Fascism. The war is going to end whether we find the means to unite or not. But Corporate Power will remain after American troops slink out of Iraq in defeat, (just as the surviving troops of Crassus stumbled home from Persia to Rome).

The defeat in Viet Nam did not weaken Corporate Power. The Corporate Elite "made a killing" in Viet Nam. War is always good for Capital, and just as they bet on "both sides" in our political system, by getting both the Republicans and the Democrats in their pockets, they usually support "both sides" in war. (The Bush family fortune was largely assembled by doing business with Hitler and the Fascists).

Mr. Ritter may be right that the neo-cons may be weakened, or even destroyed, by this war, but when they fall, The Puppeteer will remain, and new puppets will only take their place. As long as we remain mesmerized by the puppet show, we will remain under the control of The Puppeteer, just as if we were on his strings ourselves. We must cut these invisible 'strings" that keep us mesmerized, and we must turn and face the Puppeteer himself, with all the anger and determination of our United Power. The most basic tenet of Democracy demands that ALL power be derived from "the consent of the governed." ALL power flows from the People. When we unite in our DEMOCRATIC power, we will be MUCH stronger than this mere "wizard," this puppetmaster, behind the curtain.

Democracy is our "one Ring to bind us." If Scott Ritter can unite the anti-war movement that will be great, but we have fallen deeply under the spell of Corporate Power. It has woven inside each of us a will to individualistic satisfaction of our Desire. In our rampant "individualism," our main concern is to compete with one another to satisfy our egos, and we have largely forgotten how to "do" Democracy.

Democracy demands an awareness of the Common Good. It protects the rights of EACH individual citizen with religious fervor, but it DEMANDS that each citizen suppress his or her own ego, his or her own selfish Desire, before the Common Good.

In our will to satisfy our demanding egoism, (another name for individualism), the anti-war movement does not WANT to unite. It rather WANTS to remain splintered into thousands of small groups. Each one has an "Executive Director," or a National Coordinator," Etc, and this serves many egos very well. This is the classic 'too many chiefs, not enough Indians" syndrome, and it is a VERY powerful force. If Ritter can overcome it, and unite the anti-war factions into a real "movement," then good for him, and more power to him, but doing so will not require that we turn our backs on other issues. And I would warn people that if we can end the war, that will mean not "victory" in the larger war, but rather only a battle won in that war.( A battle fought to defend Minas Tirith in Gondor against Sauron's troops, is not a battle that can defeat the evil of Sauron himself).

Our Aragorn walks among us now. He has not yet thrown off his robes to reveal himself, but is rather yet waiting for his time. He WILL resist an offer to wear the Ring of Power, because he knows that such Power is in fact our Enemy. He will instead be a champion for Democracy, and he will obey the People, whose humble employee and servant he will be, and ever remain.

Anyway………back to Earth. (And please don't ask me yet how I know such things, but I do)………I would support Scott Ritter's efforts with the caveat that he must re-think his analysis that any need deny their concerns for any issue, and that success for the anti-war movement is going to bring any final "victory" against the marching forces of Fascism. Granted, it will be a major victory in an important battle, but winning it will NOT mean victory in the larger war. ALL issues are related, and it is Democracy that binds them together. Democracy is not an "issue," it is a Principle. We must fight not just to end a war, but for our Freedom! For Justice! And for Equality for ALL living people who draw breath on God's Earth.

Zwarich

Guest Essayist

The Legacy of The West Wing: How Things Ought to Be...

2006-04-10T23:36:00.000-05:00

On Sunday night, the greatest show in television history began its final farewell to America. After seven seasons, the show is winding down. In a mad swirl of drama and classic idealism, we watched as Leo McGarry mirrored John Spencer's too early departure from this world. We watched as an eerily familiar election night played out, both sides wondering if they would need to file lawsuits after the polls closed, a razor thin victory, and a news media extremely hesitant to announce the results of exit polls or call the election for either candidate.

Perhaps the integrity and strength of character shown by both candidates was a little unrealistic--after all, politicians are not known for always taking the high road--but it showed us what elections should be like in this country.

Our elections should be positive, not fraught with tension and negative campaigning.

Our elections should be clean, not filthy with corruption, conflicts of interest, and fraud.

Our elections should be between Americans of quality, not battles between megalomaniacs.

Our elections should be about making America better for Americans, not about dividing Americans in order to make life better for a tiny handful of wealthy business owners.

The West Wing is fairly idealized fiction, but for one hour a week for over six years, it has given us a glimpse of what American politics could be, with a little integrity, honesty, and heart. For those of us deeply pained by the current direction in which this country is moving, it is a necessary and beloved escape from reality. For me, it is a peek at possibility.

There really are Josiah Bartlets in this world--men and women who, though imperfect, have a deep and abiding love for this country and its people, a desire to perform a vital public service, and the ability to do so with honesty and an open-mind not guided by political dogma alone.

There really are politicians out there who understand what they have been elected to do, to represent the will of the American people, and want to fulfill this sacred duty. There really are American men and women serving in public office who know that when it comes to matters of public policy, their job is truly to put their own opinions and needs aside and listen to the people.

If this television phenomenon taught us anything, it showed us that there is something of American politics left to save. There is a tiny shard of truth and hope and beauty and idealism buried beneath the surface of grime and mud and lies and nastiness and corruption and pragmatic indifference to which we have become accustomed.

The West Wing will soon be a thing of the past, added to our DVD collections and pop-culture trivia, but its message is one that will be carried into the future.

Katherine Brengle

The Myth of Health Savings Accounts

2006-04-10T09:41:00.000-05:00

Having failed to get the country to adopt his idea of privatizing Social Security, Bush is now pushing health savings accounts (HAS) as the answer to the Nation’s lack of a comprehensive health care system. He would like to expand this system he claims as a way of encouraging people to save and become more cost conscious consumers of medical care. I would like to believe his rational for promoting HAS if it were not for his previous assault on the Social Security System which even his own party refused to adopt.

HSAs are open only to individuals who have a health insurance policy with a yearly deductible of at least $1050 or $2,100 for families and who have no other health coverage, including Medicaid or Medicare. Premiums can be less because of the higher deductible and some employers offer HSAs to employees and may make contributions to the accounts. The contributions to HSAs are rolled over from year to year to build up the account, but money used for non-medical expenses are charge a 10 percent penalty and are taxed. After age 65 the funds can be used for anything with no penalty.

For healthy and wealth families HSAs are a good deal. It provides another tax shelter for the wealthy and gives them at retirement another nest egg they can tap. It is also claimed by proponents of HSAs that it provides an incentive to shop for the less expensive health care since the consumers are paying for it with their own money. Another plus is that HSAs are portable and can be held on to should an employee change jobs.

For the average person, HSAs are not very attractive. People in poor health have trouble buying health insurance period, and those with little income are not going to have the funds to buy HSAs irrespective of any tax advantage. Moreover, it would provide an incentive for healthy people to move out of traditional health insurance plans pushing up premiums on the very people who could least afford them: the poor and the sick. This is another example of social Darwinism that this administration would like to adopt.

Another down side to HSAs is the cost. It is estimated that the tax breaks for the wealthy could cost over $156 billion over 10 years, increasing the pressure to cut spending for Medicare and Medicaid. As employers drop health benefits more employees would be forced into the individual market where sicker people would find it increasingly difficult to obtain coverage.

The solution to our health car crisis is not HSAs but a universal health care system. My next blog will discuss the rational for such a system.

David Goldberg

Transmitting Extremism

2006-04-09T10:28:00.000-05:00

Recently on my high school class internet group one of the girls (now living in NJ) posted a "dog-eared" copy of the anti-Islam essay, which declares that in a direct confrontation between a imam and a priest the imam refused to deny that Islam means to kill off all infidels because the Q'ran says Muslims should. In truth the Q'ran does have some feisty bits into which radical imams can sink their teeth and promote violence. In truth the Bible contains its own share of violence and the histories of Christendom and Islam are both notable for the carnage that has been perpetrated in their names.

The internet posting is part of the program of a group of racists in America. This sort of garbage spews out all day long and nourishes those who are already committed racists. So this week I happened upon this article at firedoglake by David Neiwert called "Late Night FDL: Transmitting Extremism." It's worth a read.

James Richard Brett

Coma Rap

2006-04-08T10:57:00.000-05:00

I just woke from a coma I was in for eight years
and America's decline is bringin' me to tears
Protections have been gutted and pollutions on the rise
Pay for workers going down but up for corporate guys.

When I conked out the debt was getting paid,
The Prez was in trouble cause he got laid,
But we were at peace and things seemed okay
And we all were lookin' forward to a better day.

Well I wake up to find we're fightin' two wars hard
And they've ex-ported all of our national guard
Everybody's freaked, and full of fear
and we're fightin them there so they won't come here

We have a terror alert now and should it turn to red,
better run and hide and get under the bed!

Terrorists are all around, but you can't see 'um
they're crazy and they hate us cause we got freedom
At least that's what the President keeps-sayin'-on-the-news
and media doesn't show many other views

Security to fight off these hidden fiends
Requires that the government use any means
to 'increase our security' in the War on Terror.
If you don't give up your rights, you're making a grave error

Any who dare question official motives-or-reason,
Are probably guilty of the crime of treason.
and must be silenced at any cost
so the War on Terror will not be lost

It seem this all began with the 2000 election
When the Supreme Court made the final selection
Of George Bush to be our new President
and to be the White House resident

What happened then was his numbers fell,
and then we got hit with the day from Hell,
when 9/11 came with attacks from the sky,
and a nation in shock, turned to that new guy.

Three thousand people were killed that day,
Bush said 'Osama did it! I will lead the way
to find him quick before it's too late!'
Osama, they said, was the man to hate.

Congress was given the Patriot Act
Which was passed with the help of an anthrax attack
Our rights were signed away to make us more secure
Then they voted for the president to go to war

No time to ask why they attacked our nation
No crime scene examination
we had to start bombing, No time to waste,
Osama may escape, we must make haste.

The hunt for Osama soon went cold
But tales of Saddam began to unfold
He had gas-and-nukes-and-weapons maybe hidden in the sand
That he planned to use on us, unless we quickly bombed his land.

Iraq was invaded but no weapons were found
and Saddam was pulled from a hole in the ground
The people were livin' in sewage and the dark
But we stayed to bring democracy and leave our mark.

The plan is to win and We're there till we do
Those who say leave must want a terrorist coup
Ya see it's our duty to bring free will
and those who oppose us we'll just have to kill

We're winning hearts and minds and we will not fail
though we may have to torture some we've put in jail
For those who somehow manage to escape that perdition
We'll surely catch them later using secret rendition

Every day in Washington they bring down our freedom status
Have we lost enough yet so they no longer hate us?
and why is it we're feeling so much less secure
and like we're sinking down in a deep pit of manure?

After 9/11 Muslim neighbors were arrested
We should have seen then the Constitution being tested.
Our reporters were embedded or risked getting killed
While in Dover, under darkness, came the coffins that were filled

Then people were drowning from hurricane Katrina
But no one could get a response from FEMA
or any help or word from our administration
Who were all somwhere else taking their vacation.

Congress passes laws to keep the President reigned in
But then he signs a paper sayin' they don't apply to him
Now he's wiretapping us because we might talk to Al Quaeda
And we don't know what he does with all that collected data

Congress keeps ignoring threats to the Constitution
They seem to be unwilling to provide us a solution
We're told we get our say when we cast our next vote
But who can wait for that when we're in a sinking boat?

And who can trust a machines that give no paper trail
and can be hacked to change the numbers so our vote for change will fail?

Our schools and health are taking second billing
no money for us, just for killing

Things round here sure do look like hell ever since the towers fell.

I guess for most of you this happened gradually,
and it doesn't seem as shocking as it does to me.

But for a nation that is in trouble, you're not using all your force
like protests, strikes and boycotts to make them change this course

I'm just saying that it seems we need to do something fast
or the American we love will be a thing of the past.

If we want to fire Bush & CO., we should ring our bells each noon
To put Congress on notice we want something done- and soon!

It's time to send the message we're not takin' this no more
No more giving up our rights, No more fighting war!
We want Peace,
We want justice,
We want life and to be free!
And this leadership must go to protect our liberty!

Outrageous Harassment!

2006-04-07T10:18:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago Rob Kall at OpEdNews published an article with ”Black November” in the title. I read it that day and, because I thought the point of the article was about future “black Novembers” (2006, 2008), I missed (or quickly dismissed) the part that caused the uproar.

After reading the second article I wrote to Rob questioning the jurisdiction that brought in the Capitol Police to be involved, since no one he wrote about is a member of Congress. I guess he did understand my question in the circumstances of being harassed, and so I have not yet heard back from him how the Capitol Police jurisdiction now extends to browbeating the electronic press in America. Because of the browbeating Rob has revised the “Black November” article you just read; it no longer contains the specific “offensive” material, and Rob has also sent out new guidelines to OpEdNews writers instructing them plainly to refrain from inciting the public to acts of illegal or violent activity. I would call this excessively, perhaps gratuitously, reasonable and would note that the original version of “Black November” did not in my or Rob’s or even the Police’s opinion incite anyone to violence. It did hope that certain parties experience sleepless nights for the criminal and immoral acts that can be reasonably attributed to them. Calling upon the consciences of persons to rouse them from their immoral and illegal activities is just about what thousands of sermons every Sunday are about.

Let’s face it; if there is a heaven and hell, and unless he repents and performs appropriate acts of contrition, Tom DeLay is definitely going to hell. He and his brown-shirt thugs who push senior citizen ladies around at political rallies are all going straight to hell. Tom richly deserves the trip, the especially uncomfortable accommodations, and permanent resident status there. Notice, I am not telling Tom DeLay to go to hell; I am saying that the inherent logic of his situation—the entailment of his rude, crude, borderline, and out-and-out illegal activities, his the assault on American democracy under the guise of Christian righteousness and political enthusiasm—will result in Tom going directly hell without passing GO or collecting $200! And good riddance when it finally happens!

As for Kathleen Harris, et al, they should all stew and fret and lose sleep, for they are certainly among the most callous practitioners of anti-democratic, racist bigotry, all of which are inconsistent with a clear Christian conscience. Rob Kall was right to say so. Certainly his comment was minor compared to the screaming hatred that blares out of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom have many times publicly called for the violent demise of one prominent person or another.

It struck me the moment I read Kall’s second article, the one about being called by the Capitol Police, that the real point of the political harassment was not the sleepless nights that were directly mentioned, but the point was rather the topic of the first article, namely, Rob’s dream of the mid-term elections of 2006 being corrupted (again) and the Republicans holding the ground they have so undeservedly gained in recent elections. The way Rob wrote the Black November article left me with the lingering feeling that he is right, that the machinery and the will to corrupt the next election are in place and that it will happen. Thugs are thugs and American brown shirts have a rich genealogy.

In fact, Rob Kall’s nightmare became my own, and I have not slept well since I read it.

What can we do to protect our elections? The key is to insist that there be a reviewable paper record of every vote, everywhere (H.R. 550). Call your Representative today and get him or her to be cosponsor! It is high time that a federal election code be established for federal elections. The current system of leaving the management of elections to the several states just does not work (and never has!), primarily because it does not provide equal protection of the law.

We must also not allow ourselves or our press to be intimidated. Yes, of course, the aggressive forces of anti-democracy will pull their strings within the corporate media and the news will be distorted or ignored, but our electronic press must be saved from this. Make sure you understand that Rob Kall was not being browbeaten for his gentle reproof of Kathleen Harris or the others, but for his implicit call to “arms” against this sea of troubles that threatens our democracy.

James Richard Brett
http://americanliberalism.org

Help Wanted

2006-04-06T08:39:00.000-05:00

The American Liberalism Project blog is unique. We have a distinct purpose, which is to provide background and commentary on the passing events of the day overtly exemplifying a Liberal point of view. From time to time we provide extended discussions of the structural elements of politics and government. ALP also provides a community of understanding though its relatively small group of regular contributors. We believe that our readers like the opportunity to gauge the intellect and honesty of our essayists by frequent (weekly) encounters with them. Accordingly, each essayist is assigned a day of the week for which he or she is responsible to produce an enlightening essay from the grist of that week's news.

Because of ill-health of one regular and because of the resignation of another, The American Liberalism Project is now looking for essayists to fill spots in our lineup. We are looking for "authentic" writing, not necessarily college-level prose, but lucid, exciting, and intellectually honest.

If you have an essay a week in you, please consider contacting the editor and publisher for more information. If you have a sample essay handy, all the better.

James Richard Brett

Conspiracy Theories are Red Flags

2006-04-05T10:08:00.000-05:00

I am always on the look out for conspiracy theories. I see them as red flags that something may be amiss, as so often in the past it has been proven to be. The authors of 'Conspiracy Theories' are often called 'Conspiracy Nuts' who wear 'tin foil hats' and have 'wild fantasies about accepted 'reality.' I think of them as 'watchers and seekers'. They are the curious among us who are alert to the distorted, slanted, incomplete or propagandized message most of swallow without question from the Main stream media and 'official sources.'

Who among us has not had a moment when the message we heard sounded fishy or untrue? Unlike many of us, seekers dig for more information and ask more questions in an effort to uncover the truth. They share their information with others in order to get more input and to alert us that the situation bears examination. This effort can be fraught with frustration as it is not easy to swim upstream to find the truth against the current of popular belief. 'Official sources' will dismiss their questions without ever responding to them which sets the example MSM follows. The people who feel uncomfortable with questioning authority will also follow suit.

I could understand this if conspiracies were rare in our society, but they are not. If you take the time to look at our history, you will find multitudes of conspiracies carried out by various entities to defraud and mislead the public while 'the official message' shielded them from exposure. Our government at the highest levels has been complicit in many of them. Some recent proven conspiracies are:

Nixon using illegal wiretaps and burglary to gain advantage in an election.

The fake testimony that Iraqis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait to help Bush '41 raise popular support for war.

The foreknowledge of FDR that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, and his standown on that to bring the US into W.W.II.

The lie that the North Vietnamese had targeted one of our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify war in Vietnam.

The whole Iran Contra system that was set up in our government to continue its war in El Salvador and fund it by selling arms to Iran, thus end running Congress which had refused to fund that mission and warned them to stop.

The Bay of Pigs incident which was an attempt to draw Cuba into war and came a hairsbreadth from unleashing a nuclear exchange with Russia.

If no one had questioned or raised a hue and cry and persisted even after being booed down by the crowd, then these conspiracies would not have come to light.

Given this dismal record, it's odd that so many still reject conspiracy theories as 'crazy' before they even check out the evidence.

Actual Conspiracies have been shown to be are a very real threat to our society. Undiscovered they can cause us great harm by getting the nation into war, undermining our civil rights or defrauding us of our property.

Right now we are faced with big questions about 9/11. The question of why we were attacked was never examined ('because they hate our freedoms' is too simplistic) The history of US interference in the middle east and our military presence there long before 9/11 has been ignored. Osama bin Laden released a statement in 1998 stating that continued US military presence in the middle east and our interference in their politics would lead to war. Can it be that the 'terrorists' are people who are fighting to free their homelands from US occupation and interference and not blood thirsty fanatics after all? Another oddity is that the US government has never delivered to us the proof of Bin Laden's guilt in 9/11. Did anyone notice that in April 2002 the FBI announced that they were unable to find evidence linking the
'hijackers' to the event? The fact that the US had plans in the summer of 2001 to attack Afghanistan by that October have also been ignored. All charges unproven and yet we are at war.

There's also the President's possible manipulation of intelligence to get us into war in Iraq. There is mounting evidence that he planned to go to war long before we were told Saddam was a threat.

Both these situations reveal huge discrepancies in the official story from emerging facts. We owe it to ourselves and the security and health of our nation to seek out information that has been ignored or concealed or we risk the continued manipulation of those with hidden agendas that work against our interests.

Conspiracy Nuts are actually the 'watchers and seekers' among us and should be commended for their curiosity and efforts to bring information to our attention and alert us to danger.

That's why every time I hear there is a conspiracy theory that questions an 'official story', I pay attention and check it out. I trust my instincts and intelligence to decide if there is any merit to the questions or information raised and do some fact checking myself.

If there's official rejection and name calling going on regarding some 'Conspiracy Theory' we should take notice because that's a red flag that someone is likely guarding a secret.

Sue Dyer
Guest Essayist