The Lion of the Left Speaks

NOTE FROM GIRL FRIDAY...

2012-02-02T02:08:00.000-08:00

The Lion has written two new blogs. The IT Guy and I are amazed that Bill O'Reilly would even notice us or comment about this blog on his program. I am all for free speech as long as it is tasteful and not pointless, derogatory diatribe. As concerns the commentator who is robo-posting massive amounts of inappropriate drivel...go ahead and post all you want; all your postings will be deleted no matter how many times you robo-post them. Of course, I know you are just as pure as the snow on top of Mount Everest; so you have every right to spend your time being infuriated at The Lion. I have noticed all my life that the people who criticize other people the most have the most to hide about themselves as they pretend to be sacredly pure. The Lion has a lot of fascinating insights and historical knowledge to share with us. I feel blessed that most of the commentators to this website write interesting material that is certainly worth publishing. I really hope that everyone votes in the next election and that everyone continues to write in the spirit of free speech!

SELECTIVE OUTRAGE...

2012-02-02T01:58:00.000-08:00

From pulpits across the country, Catholic priests read letters from their bishops outraged at a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS, with the approval of the Obama administration, refused to exempt the Roman church from a requirement which mandates health insurance plans, for employees at Catholic institutions, must cover all approved and legal methods of birth control. The Church did receive an exemption for parish operations and any institution where the primary purpose is worship. However, Catholic hospitals, universities, social services etc. would have to offer employees insurance plans which include birth control coverage.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a blanket condemnation of the new rules. The Church is officially opposed to all forms of artificial birth control. The new rules violate the first amendment's freedom of religion clause, according to the bishops. The government is forcing them to enable women employees, or the spouses of male employees, to use birth control to plan and control the size of their families. The Church is being forced to provide assistance for an act it considers immoral. Catholics have been urged to contact Congress and the White House to put political pressure on both bodies and get this decision reversed. It is a full-court press.

HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sibelius, stands by the rule change. She points out Catholic hospitals, universities, elementary and secondary schools, as well as other businesses, employ large numbers of non-Catholic workers. Workers are covered by new healthcare regulations in all other businesses in the nation, and Catholic institutions shouldn't be treated any differently.

The position of the bishops reeks of hypocrisy and selective outrage. Catholic Healthcare West, a corporation which runs hospitals in Northern California, already provides such coverage to its employees...a fact the bishops failed to mention nor have they put a stop to it. While there still may exist the quaint image of a hospital full of caring nuns, and universities chock full of Bing Crosby-like priests teaching and preaching, the reality is hospitals, schools and other "Catholic" businesses employ high numbers of non-Catholics and are no different than any other business. They may be a non-profit operation for tax purposes, but walking into St. Mary's Hospital in San Francisco is no different than walking into Valley Medical Center in San Jose. Simply because you are employed by a "Catholic" institution, whose primary function has nothing to do with faith or worship, should not mean you are a second class citizen with benefits other employees at "secular" institutions enjoy not available to you. The first amendment restricts government interference in religious affairs, but does not apply when the Church is operating commercial enterprises which serve much larger populations than just Catholics. Notre Dame deserves no more special status than do Harvard, Stanford or UCLA and their employees should be treated the same.

The outrage by the bishops also deflects attention from another reality. Over 85% of the Catholics in the pews listening to the bishop's rant, admit to using birth control and do not believe Rome should be able to tell them how to manage their families and fertility. They do not believe they are committing a sin by using technology for their benefit. The Church's position on artificial birth control is not infallible or even universal. In 1968, Pope Paul VI commissioned a study to see if the rules on using birth control could be eased. The committee's majority produced a report supporting the use of artificial birth control and recommended the Pope change the rules. Regressive forces in the Church convinced the Pope such a move would be a disaster for the Church's moral credibility, so the Pope rejected the majority report and issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae, prohibiting all forms of artificial birth control. A firestorm of criticism rained on Rome with priests and theologians and gum-chewing Catholics attacking the Church for being out of touch. Priests left the church in droves out of protest.

The Pope added insult to injury when he encouraged Catholics to use the rhythm method of birth control. (It was natural and naturally would get you pregnant) In other words, if one Catholic family intended to have sex, but didn't want to procreate, and used rhythm, it was proper, but if another family, also intending to have sex and not get pregnant, uses the Pill it is immoral. Even though the intention is exactly the same, one is a sin and one isn't. Catholics rejected Rome's position en masse and still do to this day.

The punditocracy quickly seized upon the Obama administration's decision as a political blunder which could cost the President the Catholic vote in November. Since over 85% of Catholics disagree with the Church's position and since those same Catholics use artificial birth control to plan and control the size of their families, how could this decision cause them to suddenly not vote for the President? If anything, women have to see that under regressives like Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, their access to birth control and abortion would be dramatically curtailed. The same men who talk about smaller government and less regulation are on the record as believing government should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body and what kinds of medicine and other steps she can take to manage her fertility.

What really shows the bishops have no clothes is the extent and force of their objections. The American bishops have come out in opposition to the spate of anti-immigrant legislation and sentiments expressed mainly by regressive Republicans. The Church condemned cut backs in programs for the poor and hungry. They decided the war in Iraq was immoral and they oppose the use of capital punishment. Yet, not once in recent memory have the bishops seen fit to blanket the nation and the pulpits with letters expressing their outrage. Priests did not stand and, under orders, direct their congregations to contact Congress and the White House to right these wrongs, restore the social safety net and develop a more humane immigration policy. Catholic politicians like Santorum and Gingrich are not condemned by the bishops for policies they support which the Church opposes.

The credibility of the American bishops is at an all-time low. They spend their efforts fighting against gay marriage, abortion and artificial birth control methods but are nowhere to be found on issues ranging from rapacious and crony capitalism currently wrecking families and communities to the growing rates of poverty and loss of homes and even calls for a new war with Iran. They make a mighty noise about sexuality issues while barely a peep is heard as the military might of this nation kills hundreds of thousands, children go hungry and the gap between the rich and the poor widens. While the bishops concern themselves with the bedroom, the exhortations of Matthew 25 are ignored in Washington, on Wall Street and across this land.

STIFF UPPER LIP...

2012-02-02T01:56:00.001-08:00

One of the hottest TV shows is Downton Abbey. Set at the turn of the century, it is the story of an upper class English family worried about how to preserve their home and lifestyle. It is written in the spirit of Upstairs/Downstairs. Upstairs are the rich upper classes and downstairs, the working class. In the United States, it would be called 1%/99% and it would capture the same dynamics of class and preserving power and wealth. As Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul struggle to represent the regressive movement and try to gain enough popularity to be the standard bearer, they do so in a nation looking more and more like a British drama written for the BBC.

Americans have been raised on the myth of Horatio Alger. It is a myth which crosses all classes and lines and populations. All you have to do is work hard, play by the rules and anyone can go from rags to riches. They can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and grab a piece of the proverbial pie. Whether it's Lincoln writing his lessons on the back of a shovel or stories about the rise of Rockefeller and Carnegie, Americans have been told they too can access the American dream and rise from working to middle to upper class. This is the primary reason American voters have consistently voted Republican in such large numbers. This myth is so powerful; they are willing to vote against their own enlightened self-interest in the hope one day they will strike it rich. Tax cuts, which don't apply to them, are popular because one day they will be able to take all those breaks the rich have built into the code.

On the campaign trail, Romney, Gingrich et.al. sing from the same hymnal. Obama hates capitalism and wants America to adopt a European socialist model. He wants America to look like Germany, France, Norway or Sweden. This is a reason to throw him out of office. He doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and genuflect at the mention of the American capitalist experiment. He engages in class warfare and demonizes the Brahmins of Wall Street and their acolytes like Mitt Romney. (Sean Hannity quoted me in his first book as an example of a liberal who hates America. He asked me if I believed America was the greatest nation on earth, and when I answered, "...for whom?" He rested his case.)

I don't know how many times I have said publically Horatio Alger is dead. The myth is a lie. For most of our history, economic upward movement was limited at best. By the time we reached the era of Downton Abbey, America's Gilded Age, our nation was awash with men of great wealth and power. (Morgan, Stanford, Vanderbilt... and tens of millions living in abject poverty.) There was a small middle class, a weak central government, no income tax and even less regulation. (Nirvana to today's crop of Republican wannabes) It was the time of poor houses and orphanages, slums and ghettos set in contrast to the mansions of New York, Newport and Nob Hill. The average American worked very hard...worked themselves to death and got little benefit for their efforts.

Horatio was resurrected in the 20th century by the Progressive movement. Starting with Teddy Roosevelt and his busting of trusts and monopolies, support for workers rights, and starting the conservation and environmental movements we benefit from today...through his cousin Franklin who built the firewalls to protect us from Wall Street and made it easier for workers to organize...to Lyndon Johnson whose Great Society lifted an entire population of seniors out of poverty and ended Jim Crow, it became possible to "move on up" as George Jefferson would say. A vibrant middle class served to funnel people out of poverty and to a share of the American dream. (Truman and Eisenhower also contributed through government programs like the G.I. Bill which sent a whole generation to college which would never have gone otherwise, constructed the interstate highway system creating thousands of jobs and building our economy and pushed the desegregation of the military and the modern Civil Rights movement).

In 1960, almost 40% of Americans were unionized, the top tax rate was 90% and the distance between a CEO and his or her employees had not yet become wider than the Grand Canyon as it is today. As recently as 1974, a single worker could provide enough income for his or his family to own a home, a car and send the children to college with the belief they would receive even greater economic benefits. Since 1980, and the election of Ronald Reagan, income disparity in the United States began to increase. Today, we more resemble the Gilded Age than at any time in over 100 years. In a recent column, New York Times writer Paul Krugman sites reporting the paper has done establishing the fact we have less generational economic mobility than many other advanced nations. The chance someone born into a low-income family will end up with high income, or vice versa, was significantly lower in the U.S. than in Canada, Europe or Scandinavia. The gap between the 1% and the 99% is sited as one of the main reasons for the lack of economic mobility. Today, the economic status of your parents is a determining factor in how far up the class ladder you will climb. (Sounds like the England of Downton Abbey doesn't it?)

CNN interviewed seniors in Florida asking them about the issues which mattered most to them in this year's presidential election. At the top of their list was not concern about Medicare or Social Security. They were most concerned about their children and grandchildren and their economic health. They are right to be concerned. For the first time in over 100 years, America is not an upwardly mobile nation economically. The beneficiaries of American capitalism are a smaller and smaller set of the "haves and have mores" to quote George Bush. The primary culprit is the 1% who use their financial resources to dominate the political agenda and debate (with some help from a regressive Supreme Court and its Citizens United decision).

Obama may leave a lot to be desired, but at least he isn't afraid to bring up the facts and denounce national policies which have brought us to this place. (tax cuts, de-regulation of the Roosevelt firewalls, tax policy which values investment income more than earned income) He wants the 1% to pay taxes at least in a 30% tax bracket. (Remember it was 90% in 1960, so they have still seen a 60% cut since then. How much have working Americans seen their taxes cut?) He wants to tax revenue kept outside this country (like Romney's accounts in Switzerland and the Grand Caymans). He wants more money for community colleges to train Americans and to cut federal funds for colleges whose tuition increases exceed inflation. If you create a job in this country, you get a tax break. If you kill a company in order to sell its parts and reap the profits, you pay higher taxes on that investment. Is it enough? No. College needs to be free; which we could do it with the revenue from letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Workers need to be able to organize and bargain over wages and working conditions. Health care has to be available to everyone so employers won't be able to hold health care premiums over the head of workers during negotiations.

I worry every day about the future for my children. They live in a nation where hard work is not rewarded, but moneyed contacts are. (Harvard, Yale or Stanford anyone?) They face huge debts just to get through college while many of their competitors are subsidized by their 1% parents. Children of the 99% look to the future with trepidation and I hate that fact. As Warren Buffet has said more than once, "...there is a class war going on in this country and my class is winning." The election of 2012 is the latest battlefield. If Obama can transform this nation to closer resemble Canada or Scandinavia, shouldn't we be leading the cheers for our children's future? The question this year is do we continue to regress or do we return to the Progressive Era which truly made this country great?

Deletion of derogatory comments..

2012-01-31T20:21:00.000-08:00

Yes, it is true. We have have deleted several recent highly derogatory comments. With apologies, we have also deleted a few comments that were responding to these comments so as to avoid confusion. As Girl Friday and ED the IT Guy have previously stated, ALL COMMENTS THAT ARE PURELY DEROGATORY WILL BE PROMPTLY DELETED. This blog site is for the discussion of current political issues and not for making personal attacks against "The Lion". Those that wish waste their time to pursue such attacks have plenty of avenues open for them to start their own blogs on a different website. In closing, we realize that the vast majority of you have posted thoughtful, appropriate, or supportive comments and we thank you for that. We look forward to continuing the discourse between "The Lion" and yourselves. Thank you for your support, ED the IT Guy and Girl Friday

ODDS 'N ENDS...

2012-01-25T02:19:00.000-08:00

(Note from Girl Friday: Three blogs were posted today for you to read-enjoy!) Lion of the Left: There have been a lot of comments about KGO since Cumulus killed the talk format. One of the most interesting comes from an interview with Mickey Luckoff. He said he had some experts run the numbers, and was surprised at the amount of profit a local talk station could generate. Despite this good news, he could not find one station in the Bay Area willing to take a chance. What does this say about the state of the industry since it was de-regulated by President Clinton? It confirms what we already knew. Despite the airwaves being a public resource, there is little to no interest in the local community and its needs. It also proves the corporate nature of radio and how taxpayers have been ripped off by giving the airwaves to these same corporations with no requirements they give back to the community in any reasonable way. This will only change when members of Congress in the Bay Area, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Eshoo, Spear, Lofgren et.al., are asked about this in letters, emails, and calls and at every public appearance they make. With enough pressure and attention, they could introduce legislation requiring a percentage of all programming be locally originated. It's not a fairness doctrine; it's simply competition that I'm sure the free market advocates on the regressive side will fully embrace.

...There are a lot of comments about the "sound" of KGO changing. Listeners have written to me to say it's louder and more annoying and the content takes a backseat to the "noise". I haven't listened since black Thursday, but you might have some thoughts. (I take it back, in that I do listen when I know Christine Craft is going to be on late nights)

...I have read some comments on this site about me and how I haven't apologized "enough" for the choices I made to put me where I am today. First, let me say I have apologized in every way possible for my actions and am quite willing to continue to apologize for years to come. I was wrong and there is no way around that fact. Also, there is no insult or criticism or attack that any commentator can launch at me, that I haven't already said to myself. As nasty as someone wants to get, it pales in comparison to what I have thought and said to myself about my actions. I was stupid and arrogant and wrong and reckless as hell. I failed my wife and children and brought embarrassment and humiliation to them and the rest of my family and friends. I crossed lines that shouldn't have been crossed for greedy purposes and without taking into consideration the consequences. I am very sorry for the carnage I caused and the disappointment I created. I should have been more outraged at the world I encountered which exploits and uses the most vulnerable and innocent in our society. It was a one-time mistake, but once is enough. I don't know if that suffices, but please know it's ok if critics want to castigate and savage me for my mistake. I have thick skin and they are softies compared to my ability to beat myself up.

...I understand Gene Burns was in the hospital and may be home now. I hope he gets well soon and would ask you to offer a prayer for his recovery. He is a classy gentleman and has always been gracious to me and his listeners.

...One piece of good news from the disaster at KGO...Kim McCalister is now anchoring some of the news. Kim is a wonderful person who is a joy to work with and an example of a good person to whom good things should happen. She is proof even when things look their worst, some good can be accomplished.

...For personal reasons, I'm interested in any of you who have listened to radio on the Internet or to Internet talk radio. Is there such a beast? What is it like? Could it be the future of talk? Is it more engaging than pod casting? Is it something that has a future?

...I have two more Christmases to endure here before I come home. Holidays are hard, but if I can share something personal, my wedding anniversary is during the holidays. I found it very difficult to cope on that day. It was our 30th anniversary. Perhaps because it is more personal than "the holidays", it was lonely and a sad reminder of a much happier time brought close to destruction by my selfish and egotistical actions. I am lucky to still be married, but do not look forward to two more anniversaries away from my wife. (Kim Kardashian take note...maybe Newt too, depending on his definition of an "open" marriage)

...Finally, I was sorry the 49ers lost to the Giants and didn't go to the Super Bowl. I love sports and remember going to Kezar Stadium to watch the Niners. However, they gave me a great gift. When they defeated the New Orleans Saints, I was able to watch and then call my sons and my wife to celebrate. It was one moment of shared closeness and brought us together for a happy discussion on a subject we all enjoy. Sports get too much emphasis most days, but on that day, it was an occasion that we were able to use to transcend our current separation and laugh and cheer and feel just a bit closer. I am very thankful to get that opportunity.

New Years...

2012-01-25T02:12:00.000-08:00

This is obviously a late entry into the New Year's observations and speculations genre. There have been some writer's block issues (what to address) and some illness, so maybe we can consider this appropriate for the start of Chinese New Years?
President Obama will have given his state of the union speech by the time you read this. I was going to wait to see what he says, but decided instead to open the New Year with what he ought to say. He should open his address with a proclamation the state of the union is improving. It shouldn't be a Bush-like "mission accomplished" moment, but rather a sober, honest summary of where we are. Every major metric, from new claims for unemployment to increasing requests for new home permits, are on the rise. Jobs are being created. It isn't enough, and it hasn't reached the most hard-hit populations, especially African Americans and Hispanics, but compared to where we were when he took office, the nation is in better shape. He should say this in front of the regressives who will sit on their hands and remain stone-faced to avoid showing any joy America may be starting to recover. It is the worst news they could face. If Americans believe things are finally starting to trend in the right direction, Obama will be re-elected in November. They know this, and it's why they are hoping the economy tanks, unemployment rises and the misery index climbs. By starting with this, Obama contrasts his policies with their obstructionism and myopic desire to put victory above the needs of average Americans who just want a job and a growing economy.
If I were advising Obama, I would beg him for a dramatic game-changing policy announcement at this point in his remarks. The number one drag on the nation's economic health is the housing industry. Millions of foreclosed or underwater homes sit in limbo waiting to be dumped on the market. The housing market can't recover until this sword of Damocles is removed. Obama should announce a three-part plan. First, announce all loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will be modified. Mortgage principle will be lowered so that the monthly payment is not more than 25% of the owner's monthly gross income. Immediately, hundreds of thousands of middle class Americans will know they wont lose their homes and can afford the monthly payment. Second, Obama should also proclaim a deal with all state attorneys general in which private mortgage lenders, from Bank of America to Citi Bank to Goldman Sachs etc, agree to reduce mortgage principle and modify any mortgage not in the final stages of foreclosure. In return, the banks will receive immunity from future litigation. Again, this would save American families from losing their homes and stabilize prices in places like Phoenix, Las Vegas and all of California. (Since the banks are facing multi-billion dollar settlements anyway, they should love this deal) Finally, Obama would tell Congress he will send them legislation which will fund these initiatives aimed at bailing out Main Street now that Wall Street has been saved by taxpayer money.
Can you imagine what an impact this idea would have on the nation's psyche? Home prices would bottom out. Families would be secure in their homes improving conditions in neighborhoods all over the nation. Property tax revenue would improve increasing revenue for local government. Of course regressives would freak. They would shriek with outrage about deficits and debt. They would claim this is immoral to reward people who got in over their heads. (Of course they have no problem with corporations getting in over their heads, declaring bankruptcy and dumping all pension and medical obligations they have to their former employees...nothing immoral here) They would accuse Obama of more economic profligacy. They would weep and gnash their teeth knowing this would kill any chance they have of defeating Obama in November.
The rest of his address should be a frank admission America is deeply divided between the 1% and the 99%. The Occupy movement has done him a huge favor. They have framed the issue and all he needs to do is flesh it out. He needs to tell Americans this is no longer the land of Horatio Alger. Study after study documents the fact you have a better chance of improving yourself economically, rising from the lowest class to the upper class, in Europe and Scandinavia than you do in the United States. He has to pledge to reverse this trend. He has to point out how the moneyed 1% dominate the nation's conversation about everything from taxes to education to foreign policy. He has to call out a Supreme Court whose regressive members believe a corporation is a person and who opened the floodgates for Super Pacs to distort a political system that tilts towards the needs of the uber-class already.
As part of his prepared comments, Obama should tout his own accomplishments. His passage of healthcare reform has already expanded health care to millions of Americans who would have been kicked off their parent's insurance and is reforming how medical care is delivered in this country. His new consumer protection agency will be a force to protect Americans from predatory lending and the common practice of hidden and unnecessary fees from banks. (He defied the regressives and appointed the new head of the agency in a recess appointment, which finally allowed the agency to start work) He refused to be stampeded into approving the Keystone pipeline and the EPA has issued new air pollution regulations for the first time in years. Cars have to have higher mileage standards. His national labor relations board is making it easier for workers to organize much to the chagrin of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the most evil organization in America) Don’t ask, don't tell is gone. We are out of Iraq and winding down the war in Afghanistan. He is proposing a huge restructuring of the military saving hundreds of billions of dollars. (and ending the insane idea we have to be able to fight two wars at the same time) Dodd/Frank is not perfect, but it is the first time in more than two administrations where the financial industry is being re-regulated rather than de-regulated. There is much more he can and should tout including the amazing stories of General Motors and Chrysler and the rising alternative energy industry.
In this New Year, those of us who had such high hopes for Obama have to forgive all the ways he has disappointed us. When you listen to Romney, Gingrich or Santorum, you hear them championing increased military spending, cutting taxes for the 1%, eliminating regulations and freeing up corporations to continue to export jobs and pay no taxes. Everyone running for the Republican nomination proclaims they will implement the policies started under George Bush if they are elected. These are the same policies that enriched the 1%, devastated the economy and weakened the middle class. (and started two immoral wars...and now a third if these chicken-hawks get their way on Iran)
I apologize for my lapse in writing. This will be a very political year. We face a simple choice. We can progress or regress. This isn't about liberals vs. conservatives. This is about those who want all Americans to move forward and those who want to return us to the Gilded Age where the rich ruled and the middle class was non-existent. November will tell us a great deal about who will win this struggle.

Bernie's back! Girl Friday's comments...

2012-01-25T01:55:00.000-08:00

Hello Everyone! Bernie has not posted a blog for awhile because he has been sick. First he had the flu; and then he caught a bad cold. He's written 2 blogs since he has recuperated from his illnesses. Bernie has always written his blogs with paragraphs included in the format. I have always tried to post the blogs with paragraphs clearly delineated. However, when the blog is transposed to the website through the software, the paragraphs mysteriously disappear. I know that this is very upsetting to many of you. If you have any ideas how the paragraphs could be preserved while being transposed onto the website, please let me know. As far as concerns the hurtful and embarrassing way that the seven talk show hosts from KGO were treated; this just clearly demonstrates the lack of respect that some human beings have for other human beings. Our whole planet would be a lot better if more people respected other people, if more people respected animals, and if more people respected our precious environment. I will continue to gladly provide the latest writings from our beloved Lion of the Left; and I truly hope he can make it out safely! -Girl Friday-

ADDING INSULT TO INJURY...

2011-12-15T23:59:00.000-08:00

We have established the reason why Cumulus killed KGO is so they can eliminate overhead and then bring in syndicated programming which will produce some profit. It is now clear, they are committed to local talk only where there are local sports teams and the reason is because its impossible to program syndicated talk for a local sports team and how it performs day-to-day or week-to-week. From Atlanta, they believe the issues which people in the Bay Area are concerned with are exactly the same as those in the rest of the nation and they don't believe there is a progressive audience of enough size to warrant continuing a station which offers a spectrum of opinion and which takes its cue from the people listening. There is no doubt now, the community will not be well served by this new product and many of the needs of people will go wanting because no one in Atlanta cares one way or the other.
If you needed any further proof of the disdain with which Cumulus looks upon the Bay Area, and KGO listeners in particular, you have to look no further than an email sent out to KGO Listener Club members. In this email, Paul Hosely, program director for KGO, says Cumulus did extensive research and discovered KGO listeners wanted the station to produce more news coverage, and the sacking of the weekday talk show hosts was done in response to what listeners indicated they desired. If you are so inclined, write to KGO and ask to see the research. No, don't bother because it doesn't exist. As mentioned before, the unique nature of KGO, which enabled it to dominate ratings for so long, and dominate all-news KCBS year after year, was the ability to cover the news and breaking issues and then be able to talk about both. Anyone interested in more news just had to switch over to KCBS. Anyone who enjoyed listening to KGO, did so because of the ability to be interactive and to react to the days events. KGO's listener's club, composed of the most ardent KGO fans, would be the last place you would find people lobbying for the station to cut talk programming and increase news coverage.
The fact Cumulus would send out such an email...send out such an obvious lie...send out something which has no connection to the reality of KGO listeners, actually shows what many of us already know. They don't care about the listeners...they expect to lose most of them...they will bring in syndicated programming and sell KGO to advertisers as a package mixed in with their other stations and like all of corporate America, they avoid the truth at all costs. They didn't want to admit the truth. They didn't want to take the hit, which would come if they put their plan on the table for all to see. They are worried, a little, about their license and so they make up phony research which anyone who knows anything about KGO can see right through.
The email was sent to me by a long time listener who couldn't believe what it said and was outraged by the temerity of current KGO management to lie to her and to think she didn't understand what they were doing. Talk radio in most of the country is an adjunct to the Republican Party. Talk radio on KGO, came at issues from lots of different sides. Owens is regressive on the economy, a hawk on foreign policy, a bit libertarian on drugs, but certainly no progressive. Gross... Pete Wilson before him...even Jim Eason before him, is a moderate, libertarian and occasionally progressive. Gene Burns is libertarian through and through. I was progressive some would say to the extreme and Ray maybe even more than me. It was a mixed bag, but anyone could find opinion with which they agreed or disagreed, but which always made them think. The email KGO sent out has no basis in truth whatsoever. The same people, who identified with a particular host, are the same ones who tuned in just to hear what someone had to say on any particular issue. It was appointment radio and Cumulus knows this but doesn't care.
Right before the Iraq war, we held an all-star remote at the Flint Center in Cupertino. Admission was free. More than an hour before the start of the show, the theater was packed. There were more than 2,000 people seated and the line was out the door to get in. It was a raucous night. The audience was alive and the atmosphere crackled with anticipation. KCBS could bring every reporter they have to one location and if more than a few hundred showed up to greet them it would be considered a triumph. It is not the station's zeitgeist to develop personalities who engender loyalty and anger...interest and distrust...intense hatred and passionate support. KGO has always been that kind of station. To suggest listeners want to go to a model in which reporters are faceless voices who give the news and fade back into the background is to show how little Cumulus knows about the station and how little they care.
The listener who sent me the email was insulted by Cumulus. She sent it to me outraged by the premise, new research, and the outcome, the execution of KGO as she knew it. Cumulus is secure in the knowledge they can continue to disrespect those who loved KGO and their license will not be threatened. I don't know how this battle turns out ultimately...I don't know if there is a way to resurrect the KGO aura in some other form. There have to be some people capable of thinking outside the box and coming up with a way to do this. For now, it is important to know how you are perceived (they think you are naive or dumb) and how little you matter to the corporation that controls KGO programming.
A listener wrote me to me and asked what is she going to do now without any outlet for interactive communication...no place to vent and hear others thoughts...no place where local issues, (be it a shooting by a BART cop or the occupy demonstrations in Oakland and San Francisco), can be aired...no place to hear articulate people present differing opinions and ask the audience to make up its own mind...no place to wonder what issues of the day will rise to prominence and no place to be part of a community which served her well for so many years. I wish I had an answer. I do know the public airwaves have to be re-regulated. I also know it will only happen if all of those who see what happened at KGO for the naked, corporate greed it represents, put pressure on the system to demand local content over local airwaves which you own.

Note About Purely Derogatory Comments

2011-12-14T22:19:00.000-08:00

Please note that while I have never and will never delete comments that express a viewpoint contrary to "The Lions' ", I will not hesitate to delete as spam any that are purely just derogatory and add nothing to the conversation! I usually get comments within a matter of minutes, and I'm sure the vast majority of the readers of this blog would agree with me that such comments should be deleted, judging by how few of them we get. SO FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE BUT KNOW THAT ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE NOTHING BUT PERSONAL INSULTS WILL BE DELETED PROMPTLY!!! Those that are bothered that "The Lion" is blogging don't have to read it! Thank all the rest of you,
Yours Truly, ED the IT guy

ON THIS DAY...

2011-12-12T22:24:00.001-08:00

I was sitting with a group of men reading Luke 21:5-19. We get together every Sunday night in the hope God will speak to us in some way. The passage is known as the "little apocalypse". Jesus talks about hard times we will all go through. "...Nation will rise against nation...there will be powerful earthquakes, famines, plagues and awesome sights...they will seize and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and prisons...you will be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives and friends".
As we read and listened, it hit me how appropriate the passage is for today. The East Coast gets hit by rare earthquakes, and floods blanket part of the nation. Drought is rampant across the South. Around the world, millions are threatened by war and famine and disease. We are in the midst of an economic meltdown and millions of Americans have given up hope of ever finding a job. Iran seeks nuclear weapons and young Americans die in Afghanistan every day. In this room, everyone has made choices, which so hurt our families and friends and we lost our freedom because of our weakness. In political discussions, we see no middle ground and we watch as paralysis grips the nation's throat and we seem incapable of cobbling together solutions to any of the multitude of problems we face. Our children wonder if this is the end of the world as they have known it. Sound familiar? Pretty dark times.....
As the passage was being read a second time, I became aware of music coming through the wall. Our room is next to the chapel and someone was rehearsing. As Jesus described trials and tribulations we will all have to endure, I recognized the song. "O Come all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant. O come ye, o come ye to Bethlehem!" This is my favorite Christmas carol. Right then it struck me as a total counterpoint to what we were reading. No one in the chapel knew what we were reading. No one in the chapel knew what we were doing, but in reality they were addressing the fears and anxieties we all have about our world and our time in it.
The entire work we call scripture is the story of God revealing Herself to us and our reactions to that revelation. It is a chronicle of our fits and starts trying to figure out how to relate to God in our own world. It is the story of an evolution in which humans begin to understand what is possible, what is promised and the hope that promise represents in an otherwise dark and scary world. O Come All Ye Faithful...why? The carol calls us to celebrate a human baby being born who is going to join God to humanity in a way where nothing can ever keep us in the darkness again. (Its called the Incarnation as we become one with God in an entirely new way) When we read the passage from Luke the first time, it was scary and troubling and each of us was alone with our thoughts and fears. The second time, as we listened to the faith and good news coming through the wall, w heard the rest of the message. "...for on this day a child is born and He shall be called Emanuel...God with us."
The world is a scary place. Each day holds the potential to be disastrous. Even those with plenty must wonder if they will find life to its fullest or accept the false promises of a commercial economy urging us to surround ourselves with lots of "stuff" so we don't have to face the real stresses and concerns of modern life. Darkness is so easy to give into and despair a blanket to pull over our heads.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke speak of "good news". What could be better news than to know we exist because God wishes us to have life...we exist to draw us as close to God as possible and it's what God desires most of all...we exist and not even death can stop us...we exist and are promised a full life (what is your definition of a full life?).
I live in a place where despair and hopelessness are constant companions. I'm here because of my own sinfulness and free choices I made. Along with everyone else here, it would be easy to give in to the temptation to surrender, give in, succumb to the sadness and let go of the light. However, the music reminds me there is hope and it's mine if I want to have it. It's yours too.
"Do not be afraid; for behold I proclaim good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today, in the City of David a savior has been born for you, who is Messiah and Lord." I am not afraid. (Ok, I still get scared and worry about my wife and family and I still haven't forgiven myself for my stupidity but I am a work in progress) I will sing and celebrate the birth of a Jewish boy who overcame the darkness of life to offer me hope. To all of you, I am so grateful for your care and support and I wish you a glorious and merry Christmas

LET'S TALK TOO...

2011-12-08T21:43:00.000-08:00

A friend recently told me her radio in the kitchen used to be on all hours of the day tuned to KGO. Now she is grieving because there is nowhere to go for anyone interested in hearing about and discussing the news. It is a void she can't fill and the silent radio reminds her constantly of her loss.
I have never run a business, but I'm told the key to success is the relationship between supply and demand. If you sell something a lot of people want, you make money. If you are the only one selling what they want, you make a lot of money. The recent decision by Cumulus to go to an all-news format on KGO violates the basic supply/demand principle. The public has been told they were bleeding money. Yet, the switch violates good business practice and will result in losing more money. What are they up to?
San Francisco is a tough city to open a new restaurant. It is foodie central and a high percentage of new restaurants go belly up within a year. As the 4th largest media market, the San Francisco Bay Area had 2 radio stations which were interactive, and listeners could talk about the news, but only one station was all local...KGO. (Yes, I Know Dean Edel was syndicated but he was still local and I know Bob Brinker was and wasn't) Green 960 is gone. There is no talk station out of San Jose. There is a small one in Santa Cruz and a sort of one in Santa Rosa. KGO had the genre to itself. Yet, instead of replacing or improving hosts, Cumulus dumps a format that has no competition and adopts a format with huge competition. Once again, what are they up to?
KGO's all-news format competes directly with KCBS. KCBS and KGO have been rivals for over 30 years. During morning and afternoon drive the competition raged and KCBS won some and lost some. The rest of the day KGO creamed KCBS. Why? Once you have listened for about 20 minutes, you have all KCBS has to offer. On KGO, you got the news, but then you got entertained and informed about it. You were encouraged to call, email, tweet and get interactive about it. You turned on Ronn, Pete, Gene, me or Ray to hear our take. The talk advantage is how we always beat KCBS. So along comes Cumulus and what do they do? They get rid of the one advantage they have over one of their chief rivals and go head to head against their biggest strength. They opened an Italian restaurant right next to the North Beach Restaurant but wont serve Ravioli, Gnocchi or anti-pasta. It's like they are trying to go out of business before they start. By killing talk and going all-news, they guarantee fewer listeners and less revenue. It will then allow them to justify what they have been wanting to do which is bring in all syndicated talk. They make less money, and have fewer listeners, but with almost no overhead they still make a profit. It's the model media corporations have been following for over 15 years.
The fly in the ointment is the airwaves are supposed to be owned by the public. An FCC license is supposed to guarantee a radio station will serve the local community. One of the ways the community is served is by local coverage of local events and local news. When Cumulus is done with KGO, there will be a 2-3 minute newscast at the top and bottom of the hour and that will be it. Ironically, there will be more local, live talk on KNBR then on KGO or KSFO. Cumulus will preserve local sports talk around the three franchises, whose games they broadcast, while abandoning the community with its castration of KGO. Sports we talk about...presidential elections, the economy, war, peace, corporate responsibility, income inequality, these we see no need to expand upon or update. God, I love corporate America.
Another way the community is served is through charitable campaigns. KGO raised over $20 million for the Leukemia/Lymphoma Society over the years. The Cure-A-Thon was an annual tradition. An entire 24 hours of programming devoted to raising money for research. It isn't a coincidence the first thing Cumulus did was dump the Cure-A-Thon. Can you imagine them trying it without Ray and Ronn and without all the other hosts who worked it over the years? KGO raised over $5 million through the Thanksgiving Charity Drive. The money went to 4 Bay Area organizations serving the area's most vulnerable residents. Between just these two campaigns, KGO returned as much as $1.5 million a year back to the community. KNBR has an auction each year in which they offer sports memorabilia. If they raise $75,000 it is considered a stellar year. The Cure-A-Thon is gone as is the Thanksgiving Charity Drive. Yet, Cumulus' license is in no jeopardy.
KGO went beyond these two campaigns. Over the years, on the spur of the moment, KGO listeners contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to help someone out. When a little boy in the East Bay was attacked by a pit-bull, KGO raised over $400,000 for his care. A dog was killed at the San Jose airport and listeners sent in thousands to the owner because of the circumstances. When Dwayne Garrett committed suicide, listeners contributed over $85,000 to help his family cope with the devastating economic and personal losses they suffered. In Richmond, a health clinic for the poor was going to have to close due to a lack of doctor and nurse volunteers. A wonderful woman and advocate, Susan Prather, called and appealed on the air and within a day had enough volunteers to keep the clinic open. One Christmas season, a water pipe burst at Sacred Heart Community Services in San Jose. The water destroyed all the Christmas presents intended for distribution to children of economically distressed families. The director called KGO one week before the day the toys were to be given out and asked for help. The response was overwhelming and they ended up with more toys than had been lost. With the change in format, and the abandonment of the community by Cumulus, all of these types of opportunities are lost. Yet, their license is not in jeopardy.
The "Occupy" movement heightened awareness in this nation to corporate and government collusion, which has resulted in more money in the pockets of corporate managers and investors and less in the pockets of average Americans. The 1% have brought about a radio environment where they have their message propagandized across the nation not because of its superior content, but because any competitive view has been wiped out. The average American has no place to challenge and few outlets to obtain information about what the real state of play is in the country today. The movement is criticized for a lack of specific solutions to solve the problem of the 1% vs. the 99%. Here is one specific solution. It is time to pressure your elected representatives, the White House and the FCC to issue a new regulation. No one can have a radio license unless a majority of the programming is locally created and broadcast. A "local content" rule would have stopped Cumulus in its tracks. It would also be nice to re-regulate radio and TV and force the divestiture of hundreds of radio stations by big corporations and see them owned by local community entities. It can all be done.
I don't know how many kitchen radios or radios in bedrooms, garages, back porches and cars are silent. I suspect the number to be quite large. If you stay silent, and defeated, they may never be used again. Pass it on.

LET'S TALK...

2011-12-06T17:50:00.000-08:00

The Thursday night massacre, which occurred at KGO, was not about ratings or people meters or a company bleeding money. What happened at KGO is the logical conclusion to a process started in 1996 when Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. De-regulating radio opened the door to companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus to own hundreds of radio stations and to dominate local markets. The Bay Area survived as long as it did because of the strength of KGO and the commitment of General Manger Mickey Luckoff to strong local programming (and because Mickey bought KSFO to give regressive talk a place to go). Over 50,000 jobs have been lost in this industry, not because local radio wasn't profitable, but being able to control hundreds of stations and put syndicated product on enabled these corporations to sell the overall listening tonnage which was even more profitable. As he did with NAFTA and GATT, Clinton gave no consideration to the local community...no consideration to the public good...no consideration to diversity of opinion and no consideration to the public airwaves and the obligation of radio stations to give back to the community.
This move by Cumulus was not about ratings. I heard Karel, and have been told Ronn Owens said the same thing, saying this is about declining ratings and a company bleeding money. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Karel pointed out the key demographic which stations are interested in is people between the ages of 25-54. He says he is getting good ratings in this demographic and has a lot of female listeners, which is also desirable to station management. If Cumulus' move was due to ratings, why not move Karel into an everyday slot? The precedent for such a move is well established at KGO. For KGO, weekends and late nights were places to grow new talent. It was intended to produce a bench to draw from in the future. Ronn Owens was on 10p-1a for years and then moved to days when Owen Spann left. Michael Krasny was replaced by me. (who started doing Godtalk on the weekends) I was replaced at 7p-10p by Gene Burns, who came to KGO to substitute for Ronn when he was out on strike. Ronn's contract dispute also led to the development of Dwayne Garrett who eventually moved to the 7p-10p slot replacing Lee Rodgers. Jim Eason was replaced by Gene Burns; and when that didn't work out, they brought in Pete Wilson. Shawn Nix was the first full time woman on KGO from 10p-1a and she came from weekends as well. If Cumulus wanted to boost ratings, they could have moved Karel and Pat Thurston and Christine Craft into weekday slots. Why didn't they do this? It's because this was never about ratings.
A company like Cumulus, which owns KNBR, KSFO, KGO and a number of FM stations in the Bay Area, doesn't sell ad time based on individual program or station ratings. They sell tonnage. They tell a local business if you advertise with them, your message will be heard across the entire swath of their stations and reach a huge audience. They will sell the raw numbers not ratings. This is the model which has been adopted ever since Clinton sold out local communities across the country. Since Hanbaugh et. al. came on the scene, they never had better ratings than any show on KGO. Local programming trumped syndicated every time. We were #1 for 29 years, the last 15 facing syndication constantly. The irony here is Hanbaugh, Beck, the Winer and others succeeded not because they got better ratings and beat the competition, but rather it was because their competition was eliminated in every market in the nation. If regressive radio had to compete against local talent in every market, it would lose 9 times out of ten.
This move by Cumulus isn't about a company or station bleeding money. Cumulus was able to buy KGO because Citadel Communications went bankrupt. They went bankrupt because they took on too much debt as the depression hit and ad revenues, and station values, plummeted (the whole ABC/Citadel sale was a tax scam to begin with). Citadel didn't want to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in capital gains taxes for the appreciated value of ABC's holdings and ABC had to come up with a way to mitigate that or there wouldn't be a sale. ABC sold 49% of the radio network to Citadel so it could take over but avoid the taxes. You have to love corporate America's patriotism) KGO was still making money, but Cumulus had a problem. It could make more money by getting out of local talk, but face a firestorm of criticism. They decided on a two-step process to achieve their goals. First, fire all the full-time hosts (they would have fired Owens too except for the fact he was smart enough to have a contract which didn't allow it...I bow to his negotiating skills) and pretend to change to an all-news format. Keep some talk on the weekends where niche shows do well. In about a year or less, they will contend they are still losing money and cancel the all-news format and move to syndicated programming. By this time, the passionate listeners who could cause them licensing problems will have moved on. They will abandon any pretense about the local community and bring in shows with no local concerns whatsoever. Cumulus' Thursday night massacre was a bloodletting disguised by a format change in order to get where they really want to go.
If you want proof of my theory, watch and listen. News will be constant from 9am-midnight. Up until now, the news blocks were 5a-9a and 4p-7p. With an increase in news coverage one would suspect KGO would hire a number of new reporters and anchors. They will re-open a bureau at San Francisco City Hall and the Hall of Justice (this was my beat for many years). They will have a Sacramento bureau staffed full-time (this was done by Pat Davis for years) They will have and East Bay bureau (formerly staffed by Greg Edmonds) and an expanded South Bay bureau. (once dominated by Gene Rusco) If they are serious about going all-news, they will spend money, sending reporters to breaking news stories all over the world and nation. (Greg Jarett went to Iraq. I went to Kosovo and Macedonia. We won national awards for our coverage of the L.A. riots and the East Bay Hills fire) The test of the sincerity of the new owner's intentions will become obvious as they spend money on investigative journalism. (Susan Kennedy won a Peabody for her series on Muni and she and I won the Scripps Howard national investigative journalism award for our series on the Catholic Church in the Bay Area.) The reality is almost none of this will be done. They might hire a new anchor, but more reporters, new bureaus, investigative stories and national coverage will never happen. Instead the news product will lighter and fluffier and will involve ripping and reading more than anything else. (This is no knock on the KGO news. It is still a great department with wonderful people who are very talented. However, they will get no help expanding the product and will be hamstrung by lack of resources) This wasn't about ratings or people meters or loss of money. This is about a corporate model which takes advantage of the public airwaves (owned by you) to make a huge profit while ignoring any commitment to the local community. (It’s no accident the new owners dropped the Leukemia Cureathon and tried to get their hands on the money from the Thanksgiving Charity Drive)
The Bay Area is the 4th largest media market in the nation. It will soon be without any place to talk about the issues of the day. (to quote Gene Burns) This was the last market to have local programming. You can't go to New York, Chicago, L.A. or most large cities and find local Monday through Friday local talk, and if you can it is regressive only. This is not an accident. Hanbaugh et. al. aren't great at what they do. They have no competition. Progressive thought has no access. Imagine if, instead of a Fairness Doctrine, every radio license demanded a percentage of programming be locally originated. Hundreds of talk shows would pop up across the nation. They would span the entire political spectrum. Where the hosts were good, they would always beat syndicated product. A diversity of ideas and viewpoints would proliferate. Women and minorities would increase their presence. It would be a tonic for a nation bogged down by a media which starts every debate somewhere near the middle and then regresses.
What happened at KGO is exactly what the Occupy Wall Street movement was trying to highlight. What happened at KGO was designed to benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%. You watch. There will be syndicated programming overnight. (Red Eye Radio...really? Have you listened to it? It is regressive pabulum at its worst) Oh, you will hear some say the new all-news format will still take calls when there is an earthquake etc, but you and I know the truth. They will take calls on soft, inane topics. (How 'bout them Kardashians?) They will have phone opinion polls on whether Christmas decorations go up too soon? They will conduct interviews and in the end, the Bay Area will be ill served.
There are those who say what happened to KGO was inevitable. It wasn't. They will say it was the natural course of events. It isn't. What they won't say, at least no one who still has a job, is this is corporate greed crushing the needs of the local community. (Oh and KCBS must be laughing and breaking out the champagne)
So what do you do? Seek out local content. Peter B. Collins has daily podcasts and you can listen. Much of this is going to have to done on the Internet and other devices. That is the wave of the future and you can create a local marketplace for content if you are willing to subscribe. I know for me, it will be possibly the only avenue available and I intend to pursue it vigorously even as I fantasize about pulling funding together for another station, staff it with great local talk and kick ass.
What happened at KGO was corporate rape disguised as a change in format, and it was done to maximize corporate revenues for companies who already don't pay their fair share of revenue to support the inner workings of this nation. I have told you deregulation is always designed to hurt the consumer and fill corporate coffers. What happened at KGO is just further proof of the accuracy of this observation.

P.S. Please pass this on to any KGO listeners you know so they too can understand what has really happened.

The Lion's first reaction about KGO firings...

2011-12-05T22:27:00.000-08:00

We received a brief communication from the Lion with his initial reaction to the KGO firings; below is a short quote. He says he will have a full blog on this very soon. ED the IT guy.

Quote from The Lion:
"I will write something (very soon). This change makes no sense and means there will be no local talk in the fourth largest market in the country. Red Eye Radio, sucks and I listen to it from time to time. There is no there there. I'm not surprised by Owens. He has a contract they can't end, so he is sitting pretty. I was amazed at Karel's take on all of this, that its just part of the business etc. Those who are still on the air have to tow the company line. It would be career suicide not to do that, but it doesn't mean others of us can't comment and point out the real facts about community commitment etc."

A Note From ED the IT Guy on the KGO Firings. Also regarding comments and emails.

2011-12-04T20:45:00.000-08:00

I'm sure we've all been shocked by the KGO firings this week. First of all be assured that Girl Friday and I have forwarded all of your comments on this matter that have been made by the time of this posting to our Lion already, as well as a couple of news stories and a few of the emails, and we are anticipating his comments on this matter just as you are. As soon as we get a response from him it will be posted here. This is certainly a dark time, and I invite all of you to use this blog site as an area to rally on this issue through posting comments. These will forwarded to our Lion as quickly as possible, especially at this critical time. For those that are concerned, here is what we've been doing in the last few months regarding comments and emails; comments have been forwarded periodically, and ALL COMMENTS DO GET FORWARDED TO THE LION. I will have to admit that emails have been a bit less regular, and I have a backlog of them to forward after the end of our school semester in about two weeks (Girl Friday and I have both been back in school for about the last year and a half). Our communication with the Lion is limited to text emails only, no images and no links, as all he has access to is text emails from a very limited number of people, and no other form of internet. As best as I know there is no way to get such things as you tube videos to him, and I know that he has been invited to Linkedin, but he has no way to utilize such a resource, though I will make sure and make him aware of all such invitations as soon as I am finished with finals. I have trained Girl Friday to do the postings and returning of comments to the Lion, but emails are still my responsibility, and I apologize for not being more on top of this, being a little overwhelmed by the responsibilities of school for the first time in many years since dropping out of high school. (Girl Friday, who is going for her second degree, is a far better student than I am). So in closing on this note, I am listiening to The Doors song Strange Days in the background, and part of the lyrics seem particularly appropriate regarding this issue, and I quote, "STRANGE DAYS HAVE FOUND US, STRANGE DAYS HAVE TRACKED US DOWN--THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY OUR CASUAL JOYS--WE SHALL GO ON PLAYING OR FIND A NEW TOWN...AND THROUGH THEIR STRANGE HOURS WE LINGER ALONE....!!!" Remember let's all hang togeather or we'll hang alone, and as a gentleman I once knew who flew with the RAF in WWII once said, "Fly low and avoid the radar"! My best to all of you, and please post any and all thoughts you might have on this matter below.

FOR WHAT?

2011-11-15T17:22:00.000-08:00

Cindy Sheehan asked the seminal question about the war in Iraq. "What did my son die for?" In her new book, Condoleezza Rice says the war was the spark that ignited the uprising known as the "Arab Spring". By invading Iraq, the United States inspired freedom-loving Arabs to rise up against their oppressors following the example of the United States removing Saddam Hussein. Rice is whistling past the graveyard of history. Along with her boss, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet, the Bush national security team is trying to re-write history in their favor and they are doomed to failure.
With President Obama's announcement all U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year, our long national nightmare is over. There is no metric currently available that would contradict the conclusion this war, and to a great extent the war in Afghanistan, was a complete failure. The butcher's bill is striking in its scope. Almost 4,500 dead soldiers, over $1 Trillion spent, as many as 100,000 wounded physically and untold hundreds of thousands wounded mentally, as many as 1,000,000 Iraqis dead or wounded or fled from the nation, a military machine which is severely broken (perhaps irreparably), and a nation left in tatters and ready to explode again. All of this the result of a concerted campaign of lies perpetrated by the White House, with the corporate media's assistance, to convince the American people to support a foreign policy not in its own best interest. (Oh and don't forget a feckless Congress including Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry, who voted to give Bush permission to go to war).
As the last troops exit, what do they leave behind as a testament to their blood and lives sacrificed in this glorious effort? Iraq's infrastructure is still dysfunctional. The government cannot provide electricity for 24 hours a day. Clean water is iffy if available at all. The three warring parties, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, are still at each other's throats. There is no oil revenue sharing legislation. The Kurds in the north don't recognize the power of the central government. Attacks between Shiite and Sunni are on the rise. Prime Minister Malicki is trying to violently purge Sunni's from the government. No one believes Iraq's army or security forces can keep the peace and Sunnis don't trust them and fear them. After 9 years, and the loss of so much blood and treasure, Iraq is on life-support and the patient appears to be coding.
Geopolitically, the situation is even worse. Iran, which was a minor player in the region when Saddam was in power, is now the dominant force. Malicki is seen to be courting Iran and its influence on Iraq is growing. In an act of unbridled hypocrisy, regressives criticize Obama for bringing the troops home citing the increasing influence of Iran. The same hawks who said Iraqis should be free, should be a democracy, should control their own fate and used young Americans as cannon fodder to accomplish their goal, are now getting the vapors at the thought of an Iraqi government with close ties to Iran. America went to war with Iraq and Iran won. (These same hawks are now pressing for a military attack on Iran...it never ends)
Turkey recently invaded Iraq to attack the bases of Kurdish separatists who demand an independent nation in Turkey and are engaged in a series of cross border attacks killing Turkish soldiers. The ongoing conflict could turn into open warfare if not contained. Turkey is a NATO ally and which side will we be on if hostilities break out? Iraq seems incapable of addressing the situation. The war in Iraq has de-stabilized the region to the detriment of United States' national security interests and goals.
We now know, the war in Iraq is a direct cause of the disaster that is Afghanistan. The Bush administration diverted valuable resources from Afghanistan to prepare to invade Iraq. At a time when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the run, Bin Laden and Mullah Omar trapped in Tora Bora, the country's fate up for grabs, Iraq dominated Bush's attention and Afghanistan slipped into an abyss of inattentiveness and apathy. (My favorite example is the decision to move some elite special force units, who spoke Farsi and Arabic, to Iraq and replace them with troops who spoke Spanish)
Anyway you measure, Iraq is a tragic and unnecessary failure. The military planning was inadequate and intelligence non-existent. Bush's senior staff didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. General Tommy Franks thought troops would be coming home in less than six months. The dissolution of the Iraqi army, failure to secure arms depots, de-Bathification of the government and failure to have enough troops to control security on the ground, led to a bloody civil war with American soldiers in the middle.
We all know the lies by now. We knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. What's worse, we know Bush knew it too. In October of 2002, the CIA station chief in Europe reported this news to the administration. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported the same thing. U.N. weapons inspectors, who had removed or destroyed all of Saddam's WMD's in the 90's, reported that fact. Scott Ritter, one of those inspectors, told anyone who would listen there were no WMDs. He was pilloried by the White House and derided by the corporate media. We now know the White House invented the WMD strategy to sell the war. Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair it was the only story they could think of to get the American people on board. Former treasury secretary Paul O'Neil wrote at the first cabinet meeting of the Bush administration, Iraq was on the agenda. The Downing Street memos show the decision to go to war was made as early as June of 2002. As the memo stated,"...the Bush administration says it just has to cook the books to move the policy forward." We know every assertion made by Colin Powell in his famous speech to the U.N., a speech Chris Mathews proclaimed made us all believers now in the war, was a lie. Powell has never recovered his reputation from that ignominious performance.
Rice et.al. can try to revise history if they like. Maybe it helps her sleep better and not have to confront the blood on her hands, but history will conclude, the decision to go to war in Iraq was a disaster and the policy a failure which the U.S. may never recover from.
Ms. Sheehan, your son died for nothing except to advance a foreign policy, which left the United States broken and weaker economically and spiritually, and which continues to take the lives of young Americans to this day.

GIVING THANKS...

2011-11-12T17:31:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is the most un-American holiday of the year. Americans have been raised on a series of myths that portray this land as specially selected by God for great things. Americans are rugged individualists, pioneer stock, who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and became great. Republican presidential hopefuls speak of "American exceptionalism". This is the greatest country because we worked hard, persevered and accepted God's will we would come out on top. American school children learn about "manifest destiny", and discover it was our fate to conquer the whole nation and it was our job to supplant the native peoples so as to reap the rewards the land had to offer. We have earned the wealth, standard of living and dominance on the world stage. It's called "pride".
Thanksgiving is a celebration which requires humility to truly enjoy its meaning. It demands an acknowledgement of how lucky we are and how blessed. It recognizes the happenstance of events that led to so much prosperity. Thanksgiving is at its best when people admit so much of what they have is fortunate and could easily have turned out differently.
I know what it's like to suffer from excessive pride. I was an American success story. I was convinced I had earned or deserved the success I had achieved, the family that loved me and the material wealth that surrounded me. It's worse than that. Not only did I believe all this was earned, I was concerned others were getting what was rightfully mine. I was jealous of co-workers who received better treatment from management in my estimation. Less talented folks who were preventing me from my much deserved place in the sun. I chaffed at not having my talents recognized. A loving wife and caring children were a given. I swallowed the American myth hook, line and sinker. I was incapable of appreciating my luck and good fortune. So many Americans are like me in this excess of pride. They look disparagingly upon the poor and disadvantaged. It's their fault they are in the circumstances they find themselves in. My comfortable life is all my doing.
Thanksgiving is a seditious holiday if observed sincerely. It encourages us to take personal inventory and requires a humble honesty without which all the turkey and yams, the cranberries and mashed potatoes, the green bean casserole and apple pie, the family and friends gathered around the table, serve only to reinforce how much we deserve and how good it feels to be a "have" rather than a "have not". Nothing could be more un-American in this day and age than to admit that there but for the grace of God, I could lose everything, hurt my family, wreck my reputation and surrender my freedom because of a lack of gratitude and the absence of humility.
Thanksgiving has defied commercialization that increases its un-American nature. The best America can do is to turn the day "after" Thanksgiving into the biggest shopping day of the year. However, the day itself frustrates the American mythology. It is a day where the only purpose is to gather and give thanks. Unfortunately, much of that gratitude is about all we have and how hard we worked to achieve it.
I will tell you a secret I have discovered over the last 3 plus years. The job and the recognition, the cars and flat screen TV, the house and perks which come with economic success don't encourage humility and don't open the door to happiness. As this Thanksgiving dawns for me, I will wake with gratitude on my lips, and in my heart, for a wife and children who love me despite a thousand reasons why they shouldn't. I rise healthier physically than any time in the last 25 years. I have been blessed with words of kindness from so many of you, most of whom I have never met. I live in amazement at literally thousands of letters and cards from strangers encouraging me and deciding to go on this journey with me. At night, after a show, I would go home and sit in a room and feel lonely, dissatisfied and angry about not having more. On this Thanksgiving morning, I will awaken with a cross-section of people many of whom have shown me great kindness in an environment that encourages callousness and self-interest. I will hear voices of people I love over the phone. I will marvel at how lucky I am to have finally reached a place where all I have is a blessing I don't deserve nor have earned. My life is rich and full and this is still true even after the long, embarrassing and devastating fall my pride caused.
Thanksgiving celebrates values and emotions American exceptionalism downplays or outright derides. It reminds us how lucky we are and asks us to acknowledge all we have been given and we neither deserve nor have earned any of it.
May I ask you a favor? On Thanksgiving will you spend some moments in un-American reflection about all the reasons you have to give thanks and chronicle the real blessings in your life? Could you humbly offer a prayer of thanks, as you look around your table cognizant of all the bounty and gifts you have? Will you forsake the false pride that permeates our American ethos and gratefully accept what you have been lucky enough to experience?
I will give thanks for you and so many others who have shown me what friendship and caring are all about and I know I don't deserve any of it. I am a lucky man who some would say lost everything, but in reality re-discovered a humble spirit and has now found a priceless treasure.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING.......

THANKSGIVING PRAYER 2011

2011-11-10T22:45:00.001-08:00

Lord, on this day grant us the humility to recognize all the gifts we have been given and acknowledge all the reasons we have to be grateful in our lives. It is so easy to let daily trials and tribulations convince us we have little for which to give thanks....nothing could be farther from the truth.
Thank you for the gift of life. Often we take our existence for granted and don't see it for the miracle it is. We have been born into a land of plenty and even as we struggle to keep food on the table, a roof over our heads and clothes on our backs, there are those so much worse off for whom each new day is a struggle to survive. For them, loneliness, despair and loss of hope are daily companions. As millions of Americans face poverty and our nation seems to be more selfish, thank You for those who care in our lives and for the generosity of strangers towards those in need.
Thank you for those we gather with on this day. We join family or friends or perhaps we reach out to strangers, please bless all who gather today in love and fellowship.
Thank you for all those who provide food on this day. Bless the farmers, and all who get it to our table. Thank You for those who spend hours and days lovingly preparing and creating the table we will all share. We are so grateful for the stories and tales, the laughter and joy, the love and care we will experience today.
Oh COMFORTER, we know it is difficult to be thankful with tragedy and economic storms battering our world, but we refuse to give in...refuse to become callous...refuse to lose faith.
With the knowledge we can make this a more bountiful land again, and belief in the basic goodness of people, thank You for all who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit prisoners and heal the sick, for through them the WORLD IS ALIVE WITH THE GRANDEUR OF GOD.

NO OCCUPANCY...

2011-10-08T04:28:00.000-07:00

The corporate media have no idea what to do with the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations happening all over the country. They now call it the Tea Party of the left. They at first dismissed them as hippies trying to re-live the "be-ins" of the sixties. When that didn't work, they ignored the hundreds, and then thousands, gathered in lower Manhattan. Now, they criticize it as a ragtag movement without a message. It lacks cohesiveness. The regressive Hanbaugh wing of punditry attack their patriotism and the criticism reached its tipping point when Ann Coulter accused them of channeling Nazis.
In a recent piece, I asked if working Americans were willing to fight back against the class war that has been going on since at least 1980? 1% of Americans control almost 25% of the nation's wealth while the median income for American families has crumbled back to levels not seen since 1996. Perhaps the "Occupy Wall Street" protests could be the spark necessary for average, gum-chewing Americans to find their voice and demand a bigger piece of the economic pie.
The corporate media loved the tea partiers. Their message brought joy to front offices from Faux to CBS. The regressive partiers screamed for less government, less regulations, more corporate freedom and un-regulated capitalism. As AT&T tries to swallow up Verizon and monopolize cellular communications...as fewer media companies own more and more content...as Facebook and Google eliminate privacy and insurance companies want to put electronic spies on our cars to watch us drive, the last thing any of them want is government regulators looking into their business practices. But, what do they do with angry Americans who want their voices heard? Voices calling attention to an economic system weighted to benefit the few at the expense of the many? What do commentators and anchors do about Americans who want to rein in corporations, end their domination of the political process and demand a change? CNBC and Faux Business Channel are apoplectic about this turn of events and what it could represent.
It is fascinating to see the intellectual bankruptcy of the media class as they confront this little, minor, dirt-poor and badly organized movement. They try to relate it to the Tea Party, but know how disingenuous they are. The Tea Partier's call for smaller government, less federal spending, rolling back environmental and financial regulations, is a call to return to the Gilded Age at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is regressive by definition. It harkens back to a time when the gap between the rich and poor was of Grand Canyon-like proportions. They long for a time when white men ruled with impunity. The "Occupy Wall Street" crowd demands jobs. It rails against the shrinking middle class, corporate bailouts, rapacious banks and the continued erosion of the American dream. It is no surprise folks like the Koch brothers, Bush brothers, Bass brothers and the Mellons and Scaifes have opened their wallets to fund the Tea Party. It is also predictable the OWS is run on a shoestring, and a frayed one at that.
The latest criticism is those wishing to occupy Wall Street have no message, no theme...they are just anarchists with no hook or tent pole for supporters to rally around. Though I doubt they need my help, perhaps a few possible poles seem ready for a very big tent.
Push Congress to pass the President's jobs bill. Put Americans to work refurbishing schools and public buildings, building roads and bridges and manufacturing a transportation system. End the Bush tax cuts and impose a 5% surtax on the richest 1% of Americans. Modify all home mortgages held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so principals are reduced and they represent no more than 25% of a family's monthly gross income. Stop any new trade agreements from passing. NAFTA has been a failure and GATT is a disaster. Even supporters of these new pacts admit they will help agriculture but cost jobs in the tech sector, textile industry and manufacturing.
More specifics?...Strengthen, rather than water down, financial regulations. If necessary, break up banks that are too big to fail. As corporate America sits on over $2 trillion in cash, and refuses to hire new workers, and since so much of that money is held overseas, tax it. For every American they hire they get a rebate. Make it easier for American workers to organize. It is no accident America's prosperous middle class rose at the same time union membership was at its highest levels. Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq now. Tell our NATO and other allies to put up...increase their defense budgets...or shut up because we are not going to do all the heavy lifting from now on. Make a college education free. Let middle class families send every child to college and without the burden of oppressive debt or massive borrowing.
Right now, it's a rigged game. Money is the mother's milk of politics and 1% of Americans own all the cows. The corporations and the rich will never surrender their power and unless politicians fear average Americans more than they want campaign cash, nothing will ever change. It isn't a coincidence one year after the passage of the Dodd/Frank financial reform bill only 45 out of 400 regulations have been written and those are watered down pabulum. It isn't luck when 3 trade agreements are set to move through Congress, bills that will cost Americans more jobs, but a jobs bill is dead on arrival. It isn't fate when corporations report record profits and the rich get richer while the middle class shrinks and an entire decade of income progress has been lost.
The Tea Party stands for regressing and returning to a time when robber barons and captains of industry stomped across the land. The nascent "Occupy Wall Street" movement could represent progressing towards the goal of a growing middle class and an economic system where there is the possibility of moving up and improving one's standard of living. The Tea Party has deep pockets. The OWS have no pockets at the moment.
As you watch and listen to the corporate media, see which side gets validation and which side is ridiculed and dismissed. If you stay on the sidelines of this war it will go exactly as it has for the last 30 years and many of you will end up as collateral damage. Right now, at least, someone is fighting back.

THIS LAND IS NOT YOUR LAND...

2011-09-25T23:46:00.000-07:00

I have taken U.S. history classes all my life. In each of these the same message was conveyed. The United States, bristling under oppression by the British, demanded freedom, fought for it and was finally recognized as controlling its own land and destiny. Why then, does the United States have a problem with the Palestinian people asking for the same thing?
In 1948, Israel asked for a vote from the United Nations for partition. They wanted their own nation. They took land legally recognized as belonging to other nations and carved out their own. The United States led the lobbying to win this vote. Now, both Israel and the United States want to prevent the very same vote from occurring and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.
President Obama told the U.N. General Assembly there is no shortcut to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. He told members a vote for a Palestinian nation would not bring peace or solve the dilemma the two peoples face. He is correct. Ultimately, there will have to be negotiations. The Palestinians will have to recognize Israel's right to exist and give up the right to return, and Israel is going to have to agree to negotiate from pre-1967 borders and, most importantly, stop the building of illegal settlements and surrender many settlements already constructed on Palestinian land. There are other questions too ranging from water rights to whether the boundaries of the new state will be contiguous and all will require give and take.
None of these disputes addresses the fundamental question of whether or not the Palestinians should be recognized as a separate nation. The answer is clearly yes. There is no question about their ancestral connection to the land. Historically they were left out in the cold when Israel was created. They were rejected by Jordan and Syria and became a displaced people. It is time to end that wrong.
President Obama says the United States will veto any attempt by the U.N. Security Council to grant membership to the Palestinians. Why? The simple answer is pure politics. Recently, the Democrats lost a House seat formerly occupied by Anthony Weiner. It had been in Democratic hands since the 20's. It contained a large number of Jewish voters who are angry with Obama for a perceived lack of support for Israel and his demand for a freeze in settlement construction and for using pre-1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations. With 2012 shaping up to be a very close election, Obama cannot afford to alienate Jewish votes in the key battleground state of Florida. Thus, the veto threat.
Israel's supporters cheered when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publically upbraided Obama in front of a joint session of Congress. Netanyahu continues to support the building of more illegal settlements. He refuses to even agree to a starting point for negotiations. He supports continued construction in East Jerusalem knowing it makes the Palestinians more intransigent in their demands. He is on the wrong end of history and he is attempting to stop what will eventually occur.
Netanyahu could get away with stalling and posturing in the past, but that time is over. The change in governments in Tunisia and Egypt, particularly Egypt, could leave Israel totally isolated in the region. While the military government of Egypt says it will honor the peace treaty between them and Israel, there is no guarantee a new democratically elected government will agree. Turkey has withdrawn its ambassador from Israel and relations are chilly at best. Syria and Lebanon are unstable and Iran's influence is increasing not decreasing thanks to the U.S. war in Iraq. The plight of the Palestinians is the spark that could set off a whole round of repudiations of Israel and create a serious national security problem.
The United States has for years supported dictatorships willing to be friendly to Israel. The Iraq war was fought to get rid of Saddam Hussein because of his support for the Palestinians. Some Jewish interests in this country attacked President Obama for throwing Egypt's Mubarak under the bus. They had no concern for the freedom of the Egyptian people. With Mubarak in charge, Israel had a leader who was willing to maintain the peace between the two nations even as he crushed his own people. So much for freedom loving Americans.
It is possible the Palestinians could win a vote in the General Assembly to be upgraded to observer status. The U. S. could not stop such a vote. Observer status, among other things, would allow the Palestinians to control their own air space and give them access to the International Criminal Court in the Hague where they can press their case Israel has been committing war crimes. This might generate even more pressure on Israel or isolate it further and could also push them to restart negotiations. As of now, Netanyahu has shown no such willingness.
The Palestinians have a moral right to their own nation. The Israelis have a moral right to live in peace. As long as Israel and the United States continue the hypocrisy of promoting democracy and freedom for any people, other than the Palestinians, this conflict will be a flash point in the Arab world and a threat to U.S. national security.
The Palestinians will get no help from Obama. He is deathly afraid of alienating the Jewish vote and will not pressure Israel to open a new round of talks prior to the election of 2012. Republicans will try to attract Jewish and evangelical voters by unconditional support for Israel and condemnation of the Palestinians. Ironically, they once again will choose the wrong path as they have done for the last 11 years. It's a position that weakens American security but plays well politically. Now that is the definition of appeasement.

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES...

2011-09-25T23:43:00.000-07:00

As governor of Texas, he wants to be president of the United States. He has no foreign policy experience. He believes in American exceptionalism meaning we can act unilaterally and damn the consequences. He runs against Washington and supporters say he will surround himself with the best and the brightest to fill in any gaps in his resume. He loves corporate America and doubts global warming and evolution. He got mediocre grades in college and Texas is at the bottom in everything from infant mortality to education funding. It is easy to think this is a trip in the wayback machine to the campaign of 2000, but the reality is Rick Perry is the mirror image of George Bush and once again an intellectual homunculus is asking the American people to let him lead this nation.
Perry gave a speech in New York that showed he learned nothing from the massive failure which was the Bush foreign policy. Even worse, Perry appears to be channeling the Project for a New American Century. The only thing missing form his speech was a reference to the axis of evil. He accused President Obama of advocating a policy of appeasement in the Middle East. (Interesting choice of words given he was surround by Jewish supporters.) Obama is appeasing the Arab street at the expense of Israel according to Perry. He, and regressives in general, see a chance to peal off Jewish voters from Obama by supporting Israel unconditionally even at the expense of American national security. (In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz wrote a paper arguing for an invasion of Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein and strengthen Israel's Likkud party. George H. W. Bush fired him over it. In 1998, the paper turned in to a document signed by the majority of Bush's national security team supporting an invasion of Iraq in order to use Iraq as a "strategic pivot" to put pressure on the entire Arab world and force concessions for Israel. The result was an American tragedy.)
Perry's speech could have been given by Bush or Cheney. He attacked Obama while surrounded by Jewish supporters. Obama had been too quick to pull support from Mubarak and Gaddafi and the regime in Tunisia. He had been too slow to support revolution in Syria and Iran. Perry came off as a toady to Israel and totally lacking in any sophistication or nuance in his view of Middle East policy or foreign policy in general. He is another Texas governor willing to waste American blood and treasure for dubious if not immoral reasons. The only question he has to be wondering about is whether or not he can conjure up another September 11th to use for cover.
It was frightening to think after 8 years of foreign policy disasters, the only lesson Perry absorbed was to march in lockstep with Likkud and offering intellectually vapid critiques of the Arab Spring and its implications for Israel's future. No one asked Perry how his policy would be different or what he would do as president to foment revolution in Iran. Perry showed no understanding of how U.S. overt interference could backfire and strengthen the Iranian rulers and allow them to label all opposition as tools of American foreign policy. Was Perry willing to go to war with Iran like Bush and Cheney threatened? What would he do to stop their nuclear proliferation different than what Obama is doing? If Assad steps down or is thrown out in Syria, who will replace him? If there is civil war how does that affect Lebanon and Israel and Iraq? Does Perry think there are military solutions to these problems and what does he do with a military that is broken, some say irreparably?
Obama has actually built coalitions in contrast to Bush's ersatz "coalition of the willing". He waited to go after Mubarak until other Arab countries were on board. In Libya, Obama refused to take the lead and insisted NATO and the Arab League shoulder the biggest roles. In Syria, Obama has let Turkey and Saudi Arabia attack Assad and call for an end to the violence and for political reform. He has been able to get Europe and China to support strong economic sanctions against both Syria and Iran. Bush could not get European support for any initiative. Perry wants to go back to a policy which was an unmitigated disaster for this country.
To quote Santayana has become a cliché, but even clichés contain an element of truth. The Bush policy in the Middle East will go down as one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in history. He allowed Netanyahu to run roughshod over the Palestinians and watched the peace process disintegrate. Even as Israel expanded illegal settlements, built a wall through Palestinian land and invaded Lebanon again, Bush had nothing to say and no roadmap to offer. By invading Iraq and Afghanistan, he played right into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and made recruitment of terrorists a snap. While we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran sat back and, without firing a shot, emerged as the new power in the region. Today they have undo influence in Iraq and Syria and Hezbollah controls much of Lebanon and Iran had been fomenting problems in Bahrain and other Gulf states.
Perry appears not to have learned any of these lessons. He is as tone deaf on foreign policy as he is on Social Security, global warming, evolution, homosexuality, separation of church and state and the economy. It is truly frightening to envision him as commander in chief. He is an intellectual baby pool...30 feet wide and an inch deep.
Supporters of Israel do themselves no favor hitching their wagons to Perry. America was severely hurt by the foreign policies of George Bush and so was Israel. As the Arab Spring takes hold, Israel is more isolated than ever. Perry wishes to compound the problem. He is not unique. Other than former Utah governor John Huntsman, none of the Republican candidates have articulated any coherent vision of the world or offered any specifics as to how they would operate differently than the President. Is it possible none of them has learned anything from the Bush debacle?
Is Rick Perry to stupid to be president? No. However, if you asked me if he has the wisdom to lead this nation, my answer would be quite different.

IT'S NOT CLASS WARFARE...IT'S MATH

2011-09-24T16:04:00.000-07:00

In the history of this country, the rich have never willingly given up income or power. The creation of the middle class was done over the weeping and gnashing of bright, white teeth. In 1928, the top 1% of Americans controlled 24% of all wealth in America. With the onset of the Depression, Roosevelt's election, World War II and the rise of unions and worker friendly legislation, the top 1% controlled only 9% of the nations wealth in 1976. In 1980, war was declared with the election of Ronald Reagan, and today the richest 1% are almost back to their high water mark as they control 23.5% of the nation's wealth. Warren Buffet is quoted as saying, "...there is a class war going on in this country and my class is winning."
According to former labor secretary Robert Reich, from 1947-1979 all lower income classes did better than the richest 20%. Since 1980, this trend has been reversed. Middle and lower class Americans continued increase their productivity, but wages did not keep pace. They continued to spend and drive the economy only because more women entered the workforce and, when that added income couldn't fill the gap, they borrowed themselves into serious debt. The end result is since 1980, no class of Americans has done better than the top 20%. Do you think this is an accident or coincidence?
President Obama has proposed a plan to create jobs and reduce the nation's debt. It relies on large cuts to government programs and on tax increases for the wealthiest of taxpayers. America's rich currently enjoy tax rates that haven't been this low since the fifties. Taxes from the wealthy and corporations are generating the same amount of revenue to the treasury as they did in 1950. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, the top income bracket will see their tax rates return to the levels the paid under Bill Clinton. If the "Buffet" tax increase is implemented, the richest Americans will still be paying taxes 55% lower then they were in 1960. While Warren Buffet and his ilk pay about 16%-19% of their income in taxes, middle class Americans, due to fewer deductions...higher payroll taxes and increasing sales taxes, pay a real tax rate closer to 26%. Face it. They have won the war.
More and more wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The people with the greatest economic power make the rules on how the economy works. With the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, the rich can give unlimited sums to political campaigns and continue to run a rigged game. Since the Depression of '08, they have been paying millions of dollars into Washington to beat back efforts or re-regulate Wall Street and reduce the risks they take. Just this week a report will be issued on how Washington will implement the so-called Volker rule, which was intended to prevent banks from making risky investments, the type which caused the global economic meltdown, with your deposits. The Wall Street Journal reports the rule has been watered down so much; banks will still be able to do anything they wish and take the very same kind of risks that caused so much harm. In the face of corruption, fraud, theft, profligacy and unprecedented greed, the attempts to rein in a financial industry out of control have failed and they will once again be free to start the roller coaster moving.
Before the ink was dry on Obama's proposals, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, pronounced the President's ideas as class warfare intended to hurt those who create the jobs in this country. What's wrong with class warfare? It's been waged in earnest since 1980, what's wrong with fighting back?
What do regressives say when we point out to them we have been trying it their way since 1980? In 1981 and again in 2001, Presidents Bush and Reagan cut taxes on the richest Americans. (the job creators) What happened? For Reagan it was the depression of 1982. In the first four years of the Bush administration not a single net job was created. The eight years of Bush produced the worst job numbers in 30 years. President Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1992 (without a single Republican vote). Over 9 million jobs were created in the next eight years and he turned over a budget surplus to President Bush. As my grandmother used to say, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.
Raise taxes on the rich, get out of two immoral wars, force corporations to actually pay any taxes and reduce government spending and you have the recipe for recovery. Make it easier for Americans workers to organize. Make health care available to everyone (taking away a huge cudgel employers use to force workers to choose between higher wages or higher health care costs). Make college free and improve public education by attracting better teachers with better wages. Rebuild our infrastructure. Re-invent the electrical grid. Spend money on basic research and green research and take back the manufacturing of everything from wind turbines to high-speed rail. All of this and more could be done but won’t be as long as the rich and powerful control the political process.
When someone declares war on you, you can either surrender or fight back. Why won't working Americans fight back? How is it so much anger is directed at government spending but not at government policies that give more and more wealth to the rich? American workers continue to increase their productivity and get no benefit in return. Corporate profits are through the roof, yet the median American household income has dropped back to what it was in 1996. An entire decade of progress lost while, at the same time, the richest 1% have seen their income skyrocket. How is it the Koch brothers and Joe Coors and Richard Melon Scaife and so many other of the uber-rich can pour money into the tea party movement and regressive think tanks and there is no pushback from working Americans? The billionaire Koch brothers have created an organization, Alec, which is designed to write legislation for state legislatures across the country. It will enable regressive politicians to bust public employee unions, ransack pension funds, pass right to work laws all aimed at preventing Americans from organizing and acquiring any political power to check this march to economic inequality. Where are the groups and organizations that represent average working Americans?
We need class warfare in this country. We need to take back the government currently in the pocket of Wall Street, bankers and the ultra rich. Will you fight so your children can have a future where they can see their economic boats rise, provide for their families, compete in the global economy, have hope for a better life or will you roll over and play dead? The rich Brahmans of this nation do not have your best interests at heart. They want to increase their wealth at you and your family's expense. They oppose anything that will lessen the widening gap between them and you. (Unions, social security, Medicare, minimum wage, 8-hour day, 40-hour week, OSHA are just some of the ideas they tried to destroy in the last 75 years) If you don't believe me, look at the most recent crisis in Washington. Regressives don't want to fund FEMA, (Federal Emergency Management Agency), unless Democrats agree to cut the budget for a program designed to research energy efficient cars. They are willing to let FEMA's coffers run dry even as this nation experiences an unprecedented year of natural disasters.
Huzzah to President Obama for firing the first shot in an overdo reply to the war started in 1980. We have been at war for over 30 years. One thing history has taught us is if the gap between the rich and the rest of us continues to grow, there will come a day when those on the bottom have nothing to lose if they simply tear the whole system down. We became the great nation we are because we spread prosperity to all segments of society. We fall when only a few continue to benefit at everyone else's expense.

AD HOMINEM...

2011-09-16T18:45:00.000-07:00

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman posted comments on his blog claiming the memory of the events of September 11, 2001 have been poisoned by those who exploited it to start two wars, and played on America's fears to advance a regressive agenda diluting or eliminating over 75 years of court decisions expanding civil liberties in this country. I had written a similar piece more than a week before the anniversary. In last week's Newsweek, Andrew Sullivan writes about his reaction to that day and ends up in the same place I did as well. He bemoans how he, the punditocracy, and Americans in general, let fear lead them to support calls for war and excoriates the corporate media for shirking its responsibility to act as a check on government excess and falsehoods. He says he is embarrassed he found himself "trusting" the government. Along with Sullivan and Krugman, the publication The Week had on its cover a fortress America with the question, "Did We Overreact?". Once again, sentiments echoing my piece. It warms the cockles of this incarcerated heart to see my mind and perspective have not gone to seed yet. It is also proof what should have been a defining moment of unity in this nation; instead became a political instrument used to irreparably damage America economically, politically and spiritually. (Yes, this is a bit of a self-serving pat on the back, but believe me there haven't been many opportunities for such self-aggrandizement over the last 3 years)
I'm sure Mr. Krugman will not take much solace knowing he and I agree, nor will my words help him weather the tsunami of criticism which inundated the blogosphere in the following days. According to Politico.com, "liberal" bloggers did not rise enthusiastically to his defense and regressive bloggers had a field day criticizing him. I have no idea why progressive bloggers wouldn't have agreed with everything Krugman wrote but I understand perfectly the vitriol from regressives.
What is most interesting is the nature of the criticism. The attacks on Krugman by the likes of Michele Malkin and Faux and Friends attacked his appearance..."ugly little man with a beard."...Patriotism..."how can one hate his country as much as Krugman must?"...Work ethic..."he only wrote 181 words which is an insult to his readers"...and timing..."how does he post this on the 10th anniversary of the attacks?" What I could not find, and did not see, was one attempt to address the meat of Krugman's piece. The criticism was all ad hominem attacks with no substance. In fact, if you read the more prominent regressive voices, they seem to have ceded the field to Krugman when it comes to the central point of his argument.
Osama Bin Laden knew us better than we knew ourselves. Sullivan writes Bin Laden baited us, set a trap and we fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Bin Laden said one of his goals was to bankrupt America's economy and he also apparently knew our history. Whenever Americans are scared, the first thing they do is abandon the Bill of Rights and look towards a benevolent dictator who will both assure them and keep them safe. 10 years later, not even Bin Laden dared to imagine his plan would work out so well. America is weaker today than it was 10 years ago. Our economy is in shambles and our military is irreparably broken. We have squandered over $1.5 trillion on two unnecessary wars. (Ironically, exactly the number the congressional super committee must cut from the federal budget further damaging a fragile economic recovery) We are at each other's throats on almost every domestic front. We are paralyzed and appear incapable of producing resolutions to vital economic and political problems.
Maybe Bin Laden read the PNAC document Cheney et. al. signed in 1998. Maybe he was a genius and knew given the chance, Bush and Cheney would implement the provisions calling for an invasion of Iraq and projecting American power in the Middle East to protect the Likud party and Israel. His plan would have failed had Al Gore been president. Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Gore would have opposed most of the Patriot Act's worst provisions. Gore would have killed Bin Laden at Tora Bora cutting the head off of Al Qaida and the Taliban. (Mullah Omar escaped at that time as well) He would have finished the job in Afghanistan and not diverted resources to Iraq and we wouldn't still be there today. Gore would not have cut taxes for the rich to the tune of almost $2 trillion in lost revenue to the government. He would not have eviscerated environmental and other regulations and he would not have set up secret prisons to torture nor the continuing eyesore that is Guantanamo. For Bin Laden to succeed, he needed Bush, Cheney, Giuliani, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Fife and Tennant in power. They did exactly what he wanted. They "poisoned" the memory of September 11th by so politicizing and manipulating it. Today it is a symbol of a tragedy not caused by terrorism by rather by self-inflicted wounds.
If I have one criticism of Krugman, it would be for turning off the ability of readers to comment. Donald Rumsfeld was forced to tweet. (I love that image) He was cancelling his subscription to the Times. Yes, the comments would have been nasty ad hominem attacks on him and his patriotism, but he also would have read many agreeing with him. More importantly, the dialogue would have been good for us and he could have taken great joy in provoking his enemies and giving succor to his friends.
The butcher's bill rung up for September 11th is still growing. When will it end?

WE HAD TO DESTROY THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SAVE IT

2011-09-08T23:42:00.000-07:00

On the morning of September 11, 2001, my wife woke me and turned on CNN. I watched the second plane hit the tower and I watched the twin towers collapse. I saw the damage done to the Pentagon. We kept our children home from school and I spent the next 12 hours glued to the television. That night at 10 pm, I opened my program with a guest and asked whether American foreign policy played any role motivating the terrorists. In the middle of a commercial break, my boss called me and told me I was committing career suicide. "This is a time for being warm and consoling and sympathetic. People are scared. It is not the time to be asking about blame or suggesting we brought this on ourselves." He would call back 2 or 3 more times, each call more apoplectic than the last. He didn't think listeners could handle the questions being asked. He felt they needed to be coddled and handled with kid gloves. He knew I would be accused of insensitivity at best and treason and hatred of country at worst. He was right about the aftermath. The accusations flew fast and furious. He was right about the jarring nature of the presentation that night. He was right when he observed people were sad and distressed and wanted comfort. He was wrong about my career or my read of my audience. My ratings skyrocketed. People wanted an adult discussion. They wanted to explore and understand and they listened night after night. I killed my career... of that there is no doubt...but it didn't happen on September 11, 2001. On that occasion, I showed the respect for my audience they deserved. I refused to pander and I was convinced we had ignored the consequences of the "Gore in the Gulf" and other policies in the Middle East and Muslim world. Unfortunately, my audience proved to be the exception to the rule.
Newsweek's cover has the word "resilient" plastered across it; referring to the American people and their reaction to the events of September 11th. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My listeners refused to be afraid and demanded answers. Americans in general were just the opposite. The last thing they wanted was answers. They were scared and what they wanted was someone to promise to protect them and get those responsible for attacking us. They wanted to strike back. They wanted the fear to stop and anyone who promised to meet those needs was embraced. The American people aren't resilient. They aren't rugged individualists. They aren't continuing the line of good pioneering stock that won the West. The American people are easily frightened and easily stampeded and they don not want, to this day, to be confronted with uncomfortable truths about the nature of the world and our role in it.
Do you remember what happened to Bill Maher when he observed you could call the attackers murderers and terrorists, but the one thing you couldn't call them was cowards? He noted someone willing to die for their cause may be crazy or misguided, but they aren't cowards. For this, he lost he show on ABC and was drummed off the air even after engaging in a humiliating tour of media outlets apologizing profusely for committing the unforgiveable act of telling the truth.
Within months of the attack, Congress passed the Patriot Act and the "resilient" American people cheered. Have you ever asked yourself how a body which can't get out of its own way, was able to draft and pass and send to the President a comprehensive anti-terrorist piece of legislation in such a short period of time? Most members hadn't even read it. When civil libertarians raised questions about the wisdom of giving the government the power to spy on its citizens, sneak into their homes, bug their phones and computers, seize their library records and eviscerate the 4th and 5th amendments, and do all of this in secret, they were greeted by shouts of " appeaser" and "traitor" and accused of being "soft" on terrorism by those same "resilient" Americans.
We now know the corporate media was scared to death of the "resilient" American population. Dan Rather and other journalists have admitted they were intimidated and wary of asking the White House and Congress attacking...aggressive questions for fear of losing viewers or readers angry at the way their protectors were being treated. President Bush was given a free pass when he implied Iraq was involved in the planning and execution of September 11th and faced no scrutiny, except by Joe Wilson, when he claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. For years, he and Cheney et. al. would get away with lying and manipulating the facts to justify starting two wars, and the dismantling of most of our significant civil liberties.
In December of 2001, President Bush ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to being to illegally monitor all phone and electronic media used by American citizens. He told them not to worry about warrants or the need for probable cause. Because a feckless Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and with then Senator Obama's assent, agreed to give the telecom companies immunity from prosecution or lawsuits, we will never know the extent or the breadth of this illegal activity. The Congress was afraid to stand up to the "resilient" Americans and the people accepted all of this as if it were a pacifier to be suckled and embraced. These rugged individualist descendants of John Wayne and Paul Bunyan were willing to throw away the very protections the terrorists hated the most, because they were scared and were willing to give up any freedom to get a little security.
Give President Bush and Vice President Cheney their due. In 1998, they signed on to a document by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) that concluded the American people needed a new Pearl Harbor to scare them into accepting war with Iraq and a dramatic dilution of their civil liberties. 3 years later, they used the irrational reaction of Americans to turn this nation into a shadow of its constitutional self.
Americans are still scared. They can still be stampeded into accepting legislation and foreign policy that is crippling this nation. They have accepted a Department of Homeland Security which is sucking up resources with little to show for it. President Obama will ask for over $80 billion to fund the national security/anti-terrorism programs of our government. You can still be assured of garnering headlines and votes by waving the bloody shirt of terrorism and watching Americans kneel in fear. If you doubt this, just watch Congressman Peter King (R. NY). He raised money and politically supported terrorists (IRA) when they represented his political and personal views, but now gets front-page treatment any time he uses the word terrorism even if it is to oppose a mosque and community center being proposed for New York City.
September 11th proved one absolute truth. No one can ever lose politically by overestimating how easily the American people can be manipulated through the use of various bogeymen and their collective fear. Newsweek is wrong. A resilient people would have stood up, dusted themselves off, gone back to work and refused to be used to advance a regressive agenda which leaves the nation worse off 10 years later. A resilient people would have fought to protect their basic rights. A resilient people would have been outraged to find out their government was torturing people in secret prisons. A resilient people would never have supported two unnecessary and immoral wars and the loss of so many soldiers and treasure just to feel a little more secure. This anniversary would be worth celebrating were we a stronger and more mature nation because of the attacks. Unfortunately, just the opposite is true.

WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS...

2011-09-03T00:02:00.000-07:00

President Obama promised a different foreign policy than his predecessor. Obama said the U.S. would walk softer and seek to rebuild alliances and trust internationally. He rejected the unilateral, go it alone, cowboy policy of the Bush/Cheney crowd. He saw the damage this policy had caused and how it had hurt our prestige in the world. For all the criticism Obama takes on domestic policy, he has followed through on this campaign promise, and has achieved a significant number of successes.
The latest success is the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya. While it is proper to raise questions about why get involved militarily in Libya and not in Bahrain or Yemen or Syria, it is also true Obama's strategy worked. He refused to have the U.S. take the lead. He demanded NATO play the central role in any action against Gaddafi. Not only did NATO take over command and control, but numerous Arab nations, especially Qatar and the U.A.E., also participated. The U.S. did not put any boots on the ground. England and France sent some special forces into Libya, but the United States refrained. The United States led other nations to recognize the transitional government and, along with Italy, France and England, agreed to unfreeze Libyan assets and make them available to the new government. Libya is in a position to restore order and revive its oil industry and begin to transition to a democratic state. It will not be easy, and nothing is guaranteed, since Libya is a tribal nation and there will be jealousies and disputes. Democracy is a messy business. There is also the possibility of Islamic forces trying to hijack the process. However, the Arab world watched as the U.S. encouraged its allies to force Gaddafi out. The standard radical Islamist line used by al Qaeda, the Taliban and others, accusing the West of abusing Muslims and supporting dictators who are friendly to the West, can no longer be used for propaganda. The Libyan people know what the U.S. role has been and they know without it they would not be free.
Obama's successes don't stop with Libya. His approach to Syria is also paying dividends. Despite criticism he waited too long to condemn Assad and call for his ouster, Obama waited until voices in the Arab world and until Muslim countries were also willing to condemn Assad. Syria's propaganda line has been that the unrest in the country has been caused by the U.S. and Israel. By waiting, Obama lined up numerous Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, to call for the violence in Syria to stop. Turkey has led the call for reform and publically criticized Assad. Secretary of State Clinton has gotten European nations to agree to sanctions against Syria including refusing to buy Syrian oil. Even Iran, and its surrogate Hezbollah, are starting to hedge their bets in case Assad falls. If he does, Iran loses its chief provocateur in the region and Hezbollah would lose a sanctuary that would be a great victory for Obama and Israel. While Russia continues to oppose sanctions, Obama has gotten China to soften its opposition that has been crucial.
Obama's success cannot be chronicled without talking about the killing of Bin Laden and the decimation of al Qaeda through drone strikes in Pakistan. Just recently, al Qaeda’s number two, and its operational leader, was killed in Pakistan. Obama's policy toward al Qaeda has led many analysts to downgrade its ability to be an operational force against this country.
In a change in policy, the United States no longer automatically provides military aid and foreign aid to Pakistan. A new series of conditions have been put on the delivery of such aid. Obama refused to turn a blind eye to the treacherous double game Pakistan has been playing. They take our money while at the same time providing aid and comfort to Bin Laden and the Taliban. Pakistan is protecting the Haquani network and Pakistan's intelligence service has been cut out of the loop when it comes to American actions in Pakistan, due to the belief they are tipping off targets of value and hurting our campaign against both the terrorists and the Taliban. This is a complete about face from the Bush administration, which spent almost $8 billion in Pakistan with nothing to show for it.
Perhaps the biggest successes of Obama foreign policy involve Iran and North Korea. The United States has led a campaign to get the European Union, Russia and China to agree to tougher economic sanctions against Iran in an effort to stop their ongoing nuclear weapons program. Recently, Germany sanctioned a bank accused of laundering Iranian money. Technology sales are prohibited to Iran. Iran's economy is being damaged which is making its population restless and limiting the government's ability to mitigate the impact on everyday Iranian's lives. Bush and Cheney openly talked about going to war with Iran. Obama has cobbled together an alliance which stands the best chance of changing Iran's policy about nuclear proliferation. Since all experts agree a military strike would fail, Obama has led and come up with a viable alternative policy.
Recently, North Korean leader Kim Jung Il indicated publically a wish to restart the 6 party talks aimed at reducing or ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program. He had been adamantly opposed to such talks just a few months ago and thought he could pressure Obama into caving. Instead, the United States has stepped up sanctions, seized ships heading for North Korea that contained banned technology, engage in joint military exercises with South Korea and put pressure on China to bring North Korea back to the bargaining table. Obama let it be known, no new talks will occur until North Korea makes some concessions concerning its nuclear program. It seems to be working.
All is not sunlight and roses for Obama on foreign policy. His Afghanistan policy is a disaster with no possible victory in sight. We are disengaging with Iraq, but might stay if asked which would be a terrible decision. We don't know yet what will happen in Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab spring nations.
It should also be noted regressive Republicans have opposed Obama on almost every foreign policy front. They criticized him for condemning former allies, like Mubarak in Egypt, too quickly and throwing them under the bus. They suggest we should prop up dictators even when their own people want them gone. Our national interests are more important than someone else's freedom for these freedom-loving Republicans. They tried to stop his foray into Libya and would have sat back and watched Gaddafi crush the rebellion. They had faint praise for killing Bin Laden and they accuse Obama of not acting fast enough in Syria. What is clear is in the current field of Republican pretenders to the throne, they all universally would continue the Bush policy of unilateral action, continued criticism of the United States and NATO, and a confrontational diplomatic mission, all of which was a disaster for 8 years and left the United States isolated and despised across the globe. In less than three years, Obama has been able to reverse much of the damage. Do we really want to go back to the diplomatic version of the Texas two-step?
Unfortunately, the election of 2012 will not be decided on issues of foreign policy. If it were, Obama would win in a landslide.

GOODNIGHT IRENE...

2011-08-30T02:21:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul thinks the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should be eliminated. He and his colleagues for the Republican presidential nomination are on the record promising to dismantle as much of Washington's power and, in particular, to eliminate every federal regulation possible. They claim the regulations kill jobs and are ineffectual and intrusive. Then along comes Irene. Irene arrived in the shadow of the 6th anniversary of Katrina. The response to these two hurricanes contrast dramatically and represent the different governing philosophies which will be on display in 2012 and the clear differences have serious ramifications for the future.
In 2001, President Bush, reflecting a similar regressive bent as the Paul/Bachman/Perry wing of his party, demoted the director of FEMA and downgraded the agency. He appointed "brownie" to run it and we all know the end of the story. President Clinton had raised the profile and efficiency of FEMA and received high marks for the government's response to emergencies. Bush tore it down because he listened to those who attack any agency or program originating in Washington. The people in New Orleans were given a real time opportunity to see how regressive philosophy affected their lives and homes.
We have watched a summer of historic natural disasters throughout our land. The flooding along the Mississippi, Red and Missouri rivers, tornadoes which cut a murderous swath across parts of the South and Midwest, unprecedented droughts in Oklahoma and Texas, wildfires in Arizona and New Mexico and more. Not once, during all of this carnage has anyone criticized the federal government's response. Contrast this with Katrina or contrast it with Japan. They are about to get a new prime minister because of the failure of the last one to adequately respond to the earthquake and tsunami, which so devastated that nation. More importantly, or maybe ironically, the same "" red " states which produce and support the Perry’s, Paul’s, McCain’s and Palin's are the same states who welcome billions of dollars of federal aid. The day after a tornado destroyed a good portion of Joplin, Missouri, FEMA was on the ground setting up centers and beginning the cleanup. (The biggest complaint at the time was the failure of the government to better warn people about dangerous tornadoes in a timely manner.) Along the Mississippi, it was the Corps of Engineers, implementing a plan developed in 1937 by the Roosevelt Administration, which blew a hold in a levy and opened spillways to divert hundreds of millions of gallons of water to farmland in order to protect states like Mississippi and Louisiana from being inundated. The Republican governors of those states certainly didn't complain about Washington interference at that point.
It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy. They want to run against Washington and proclaim how useless and oppressive federal regulations are, until some disaster happens and then they have their hands out and will scream bloody murder if they don't get every ounce of money available.
I know I sound like a broken record when I remind you about what de-regulation has done to this country. The list is endless. From the weakening and elimination of financial regulations leading to the Depression of 2008, to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to salmonella and E.coli outbreaks, the common denominator is weak or non-existent oversight. The deregulation of the energy market in California has California ratepayers paying some of the highest electricity rates in the nation for the foreseeable future. Anytime you hear someone advocating getting rid of regulations, they are usually toadies for the rich and the powerful businesses in the nation.
The latest target, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA) It is the favorite whipping boy on the Republican stump these days. The same politicians who live and work near the Potomac, a river so polluted humans weren't allowed to swim in it or eat anything they caught out of it, and which has now been cleaned up almost back to its more pristine shape, all due to federal environmental regulations, are the same people demanding the agency by neutered out of existence. Do you really want to go back to an environment before the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act? Would you want to return to the days of lead paint and lead in your fuel? Today, energy companies are pumping toxic chemicals into the ground to free up natural gas. Do you want to trust them when they say there is no danger to the aquifer and water supplies? Do you trust P.G.& E. when they tell you Diablo Canyon is perfectly safe from a large earthquake? Why are Americans seduced by this anti-regulation rhetoric? Average, gum-chewing working Americans are the beneficiaries of regulations, which hold the avarice of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the most evil organization in the nation) and its members in check. Moderates and independents should applaud the Obama Administration's attempts to beef up the EPA, SEC, National Labor Relations Board, and numerous other government agencies gutted by Bush and Cheney.
So, here is my proposal. President Obama cuts off federal aid to any state with a Republican governor or legislature. Perry and Paul say states are too dependent on the federal government. Ok, cut 'em off. Obama can justify this by claiming he is just following the will of the people and their leaders in those states. They won't get a dime of federal aid for roads, bridges, education, health care, law enforcement, unemployment or to help recover from disasters. No small business loans or disaster loans at low interest rates. Military and other government bases would be closed. The estimate is Irene did about $7 billion in damages. The federal government is prepared to pick up about 75% of the tab. Wouldn't you love to be in the executive mansions in Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, New Jersey and other red states when they receive the bill for services rendered?

PS Michele Bachman say the recent spate of natural disasters and the earth quake on the east coast were signs of God's disapproval of the moral climate in this country. She better hope she is wrong about God or she may be in for a very warm reception when they eventually meet. President Bachman...really?

Rick Perry says he wants to do for America what he has done for Texas. Houston is the most polluted city in the nation. The oil and gas industries are virtually unregulated by his state. Worker safety and environmental oversight are a joke. Imagine him and the damage he could do if he was in charge of the EPA, FDA, Agriculture Dept., Interior Dept, etc

GOODNIGHT IRENE...

2011-08-30T02:21:00.000-07:00

ODDS 'N ENDS

2011-08-14T22:08:00.000-07:00

--Arnold Schwarzenegger’s daughter told a magazine she escaped to London to get some perspective on the scandal and divorce of her parents. "It isn't as big a story over here," Katherine Schwarzenegger said. She goes on to say, "...I've always been way closer to my mother." Ouch. No matter what he has been through so far, hearing comments like that has to be crushing. One of my biggest fears, was my actions would cause my children to disown or pull away from me out of anger and embarrassment. I was lucky. We are still close and love each other. I hope Arnold can repair this. To lose the love of one's children is a fate I wish for no one.

---Michele Bachman says she is a "submissive" wife. She is alluding to her brand of fundamentalist Christianity that quotes St. Paul telling wives to be submissive to their husbands. We already know she suffers from migraines which her staff says have rendered her unable to work for days on end and now we face a possible president who has to check with hubby to make sure he approves of her decisions. Too harsh or reason to worry?

---This is the hottest July and most probably August in Texas' history. They are in the middle of an historic draught. We have had the worst tornados in over 100 years wreaking havoc in the mid west and south to go along with floods of biblical proportions throughout the center of the country. Glaciers are melting at rates unseen in the last century and a Northwest Passage has opened for ships. Yet, 47% of Americans say they don't believe the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.

---In San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee became mayor because he promised not to run for a full term. Now, he says he changed his mind and is going to run. Are you surprised a pupil of Willie Brown would go back on his word? Does it matter? Did he lie or con the people who appointed him or the people in the City? Can you think of a politician who has ever been punished for going back on his word? Don't we get the elected officials we deserve?

---Is anyone watching Keith Olbermann on his new network? Is he increasing the ratings? Is the show better or worse?

---Obama takes a lot of heart over his lack of negotiating skills. Has anyone looked at Biden lately? Perhaps it's catching or they are two peas in a pod. He goes to Congress to negotiate on the debt ceiling and doesn't get tax increases. He talks Democrats into supporting an extension of the Bush tax cuts. He doesn't get any agreement to close tax loopholes and gives in on changing Medicare and yet somehow comes out of all this unscathed with Obama taking the blame. Did Biden find Reagan's Teflon suit?

---Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposed a budget plan, which the House passed with only Republican votes. The GOP cited it as proof they had ideas too and said it was a blueprint for what they wanted to do when they gain control of Congress and the White House. Among other things, Ryan's budget would privatize Medicare out of existence and shred the nation's social safety net. Yet, when nominees for the debt ceiling "super" committee were revealed, the fair-haired golden boy was conspicuously missing. Is his name and plan that toxic a political liability now for the GOP?

---If you go to the Iowa straw poll, GOP presidential hopefuls will pay the $30 entry fee, feed you, entertain you, even provide air conditioned tents to get you to vote for them. How is this not bribery or vote buying and is it legal? (Sorry, I tried to use legal and Republican in the same sentence. My bad.)

---In Britain, they are trying to figure out why people engaged in days of rioting and looting and stealing what they could not buy or get in any other way. In America, Goldman Sachs is trying to figure out how to recruit the best of the looters.

IT'S A GIRL?

2011-08-14T02:52:00.000-07:00

In its quest to control the population, China limited the number of children in a family. The result was conscious decisions to abort female fetuses in favor of males. In India, between 4.2 and 12.1 million abortions were performed due to the fact the gender was female. In many Middle Eastern and Islamic fundamentalist nations, similar preferences are expressed. We in the industrialized, first world, West are shocked and scandalized by such decisions and preferences and dismiss them as resulting from backward, primitive, sexist societies. We take smug satisfaction we have evolved beyond such things.
USA Today is reporting on a new technology that can tell pregnant women the sex of the baby they are carrying as early as 7 weeks into the pregnancy. This technology has been available in Europe and is about to be made available in this country. Women would know months earlier than ever before the gender of their baby. The technology will be invaluable for women with high-risk pregnancies where the baby could have genetic anomalies or diseases. However, ethicists are concerned parents could use the early knowledge to abort a fetus because it is the wrong gender.
Every so often, the values or morals which lead humans to make certain decisions totally elude my understanding. As long as the baby is as healthy as possible, what difference does it make what the gender is? Is it a valid concern to think American parents would choose to end a pregnancy because the baby would be female? There have been concerns for years genetic testing could be used to produce designer babies. Parents will want blond hair and blue eyes. They will want to control genes and effect weight and height and intelligence. Some scientists think you could control for sexual orientation. Aldus Huxley's Brave New World has arrived. I have not seen evidence to support a significant number of designer babies brought forth in this country. It wouldn't be the first time my naïveté has blinded me. Of all the reasons to control a pregnancy, or end it, the gender of the baby seems beyond the pale.
I know sexism is alive and well in America. Christine Craft calls it the invisible "ism", and says America decided to attack racism in electing Obama president, while leaving sexism, in the figure of Hillary Clinton, to be fixed another day. There are still glass ceilings and women at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (the most evil organization in America today) are few and far between. Should ethicists really be concerned American parents will end a pregnancy because they don't want a female baby?
The "choice" about what to do about any pregnancy must be left up to the woman. I never cease to be amazed by the regressive rhetoric of government being too big, too intrusive, too powerful and yet they are quite willing to have the government tell a woman what she can do with her body and the kind of family she will create. The same principal that allows the government to "prevent" someone from having an abortion can also "require" someone to have an abortion. The problem with choice is that with freedom comes license and it means people can make choices some of us feel to be unethical or even immoral.
It saddens, worries and angers me to think someone would think so little of female life...value it so little...feel loss if their child will be a girl and decide based on gender alone to end it. So, I ask you. Do you think ethicists have reason to be concerned? Are we no different in our sexism than India and China? How valuable or respected is the female gender in this country? Will prospective American parents use this technology to produce fewer females? Would anyone end a pregnancy based on the knowledge the fetus was male?
There will be those who feel the pendulum has already swung away from males and now females are in the catbird seat in this country. They will cite statistics showing the majority of college graduates are female. Law school and medical school classes are also majority female. They will look at rates of high school graduation and other indicators to show women are no longer a downtrodden minority, and males are the ones suffering from the competition. Even with this evidence, or because of it, is it time to produce fewer females and more males? Could you ever see you and your partner deciding to end a pregnancy because you didn't prefer the gender of the baby?
I am not an innocent bystander in this debate. I have a dog in this hunt. I have two daughters and two sons. I love them all beyond reason. My daughters are sharp and funny and intelligent. They are witty, compassionate and full of life. My sons are warm and open and bright. They are empathetic, loving and spontaneous. I cannot imagine life without them. (I wish I had been a more responsible and loving parent in choices I made) We were excited and thrilled by the news of each pregnancy. Doesn't everyone feel the same way? If not, why not?
I will not bemoan this new technology. I choose to believe most Americans will use it the way it was intended. We have not reached that level of hubris yet which would lead us to believe we can "design" the perfect family. Choice means allowing shallow or venal decisions to be made, but the same freedom gives opportunities to rise above petty needs or prejudices to something better. Do you agree?

WHO DO MEN SAY I AM?

2011-08-07T19:42:00.001-07:00

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw a quote from Bill O'Reilly in which he contends the confessed assassin in Norway could not be considered a Christian. "...No one who believes in Jesus could kill like Anders Behring Breivik did." Either Bill and his ilk think their audience is stupid or ignorant or they just don't care whether what they say has any semblance of truth within it. It is fascinating to see the regressive Christian movement try to distance itself from this act of lunacy when the reality is Breivik acted well within the traditions and norms of fundamentalist Christianity.
Is O'Reilly ignorant? No. Is he well read? Yes. Did he know how surreal his statement sounded and how completely contrary to history it is? I suspect he, like Hanbaugh, Beck, Ingram, Coulter and company, is willing to say anything to deflect attention and criticism from a belief system which cannot hold up in the light of scripture and through which more harm has been done throughout the world than by any other religious system. No one who believes in Jesus would commit an act like this? He can't be a Christian, because true Christians don't act like this. Really? We don't have enough room to list all of the examples BillO and the rest ignore, but at least some need to be pulled forward for a re-examination.
Where to start...How about Manifest Destiny...it was the dominant Christian belief of the 19th century. God intended for the United States to own and control the entire continent. The movement to expand across the US was driven heavily by the belief it was what God intended. It was this religious fervor, which allowed, and then justified, the massacre of the native peoples who occupied the land God intended for the good white Anglo Protestants. These were heathens and God or Jesus had no problem with either wiping them out, or converting them. Americans went to church on Sunday and started Indian wars on Monday. Good Christians were the founders and charter members of the slave trade. How many thousands, some say millions, died on coffin ships during the trip from Africa to the West? Ironically, "Amazing Grace" was written by a slave ship captain who had finally seen the error of his ways. His fellow English Christians excoriated him and his beliefs. Germans went to war in World War II wearing belt buckles emblazoned with "Got mitt us". The Roman Catholic leaders in Austria and Hungary and Poland welcomed the Nazis with open arms and assisted and approved of their final solution concerning Jews. Good Christians were the foundation of Jim Crow and segregation throughout the South. Self proclaimed Christians blew up black churches and lynched and burned out those fighting for civil rights. Yes, Martin Luther King was a Christian, but go back and read what regressive fundamentalist Christians had to say about him and the attacks he endured because he proclaimed non-violence to be the central message of the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth.
What is perhaps the ultimate in hypocrisy is to hear these pseudo-Christians like O'Reilley and Ingram and Hanbaugh talk as if Jesus' teachings have some role in their lives. No communities in this nation more epitomize living out the Christian ethos than do the Amish and Mennonites along with the Catholic Worker movement and numerous others, and yet these are the very same groups which regressives, like the afore mentioned pundits, attack ceaselessly for their naïveté and foolishness and their lack of patriotism because their religious beliefs lead them to embrace pacifism and non-violence and to oppose American foreign policy. President Bush's church, the Methodists, as well as the American Catholic bishops, opposed the war in Iraq. Did their opinions affect Bush? Did good Catholics like Santorum and Gingrich and many others change their positions when their church declared the war to be immoral?
The dirty little secret is a fundamentalist Christian carried out the attacks in Norway. The same strain of fundamentalism is alive and well in this nation. The murders of doctors who perform abortions...the bombing of clinics like the ones in Georgia...the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma...violence against gays and lesbians...are from the same cloth. The nativism and jingoism expressed by the man in Norway is a mirror image to the rhetoric we read or hear on a daily basis in this country. Look at the immigration debate and try and deny the language is eerily similar. The criticisms of Islam and the opposition to mosques and community centers could have been written by the same man who produced 1,500 pages of tripe in Norway. Do BillO and the rest ever listen to themselves? Do they have such disdain for their audience they think we don't listen? A man tries to blow up his underwear, another his shoe, still another a car in Times Square and all claim to be Muslim. Does regressive talk radio make any distinction between them and the vast majority of Muslims who have never attacked anyone? Do they distinguish between fundamental Islam and the mainstream? Or do they lump all Muslims into the same batch and declare it to be a philosophy, which encourages violence. Could there be a more violent religion on earth than Christianity as practiced by the fundamentalists for whom Jesus is an excuse to kill anyone who disagrees with them and whose banner regressives proudly hold aloft?
What regressives and regressive corporate media are concerned about tamping down is a discussion about the difference between fundamentalism and the main stream in religion. Bachman, Cain, Romney, Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, and Gingrich, along with Fox, the Wall Street Journal and anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, The Weekly Standard and much of corporate media cannot afford to have real Christianity arise in this nation. Can you imagine a budget debate, immigration discussion, foreign policy decision made by Christians who read Matthew 25 or are committed to turning the other cheek, loving their enemies and forgiving an infinite number of times? What would our economy look like if consumers refused to buy the next great thing or gadget or go into debt to maintain the lifestyle fundamentalist Christianity touts?
Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-democratic, anti-pluralism, anti-intellectual, intolerant, and judgmental. It is un-American, pro-autocratic regimes and certainly opposes equality of the races or sexes. It is no different than fundamental Islam or fundamental Judaism. When you are right and everyone else is wrong, violence is an acceptable means to accomplish your end of everyone believing exactly like you or else. The tragedy in Norway is another wakeup call for all who oppose fundamentalism in any form to rise up and lend their voices to a campaign to address it wherever it rears its head including the media and politics in this country.
Do I think Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian? What do you think?

THE DEBT CEILING PRAYER (with all due homage to Mark Twain)

2011-08-05T18:48:00.000-07:00

It was reported a number of regressive Republican members of the House of Representatives retreated to the quiet confines of the House chapel to ask for divine guidance on how to vote on the upcoming debt-ceiling issue. A "highly" placed source has shed some golden light on the content of their prayer.
Heavenly Father we humbly gather here to ask You to give us the wisdom and courage to make the right decision on raising the debt ceiling. Oh great God, steel us and give us a way to preserve the wealth and power of our "job creator" supporters. Help us to beat back the Obama-led hordes jealously trying to undo Your will.
Eternal Triune God, we know those who have been blessed with success and power enjoy your approval. The most successful have taken advantage of all You have given them. They do Your will every day when they collateralize debt, monetize opportunities and securitize negotiable bonds. Their continued wealth is proof of how much You love them and how much You love and care for the United States of America. Now, however, there are dark and sinister forces trying to destroy Your kingdom. They do the "evil one's" bidding as they press for socialistic taxation and communistic equitable distribution of wealth and they spread the heresy of a rising tide which can lift all boats.
Blessed Lord, show us the way to defeat those who reward the weak and lazy, slow and plodding, those who have not been in your favor, and instead find themselves at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder because they refuse to acknowledge Your preference for a free, unregulated economy. Oh Great Protector, show us how to live up to your Son's command to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Help us to maintain the world in which Jesus admitted the poor will always be with us and help us oppose the devil's henchmen who hide behind programs to educate everyone, aid the poor, clothe the naked and feed the hungry knowing full well those are the very people You do not love and care for or they would be like us.
We face difficult decisions in the House where our opponents are led by a female Papist, and who want to tear down all you have accomplished in gated communities throughout this great land.
Oh Comforter, to Thee we cry...we know you agree Social Security, Medicare and all these other "social programs" are intended to thwart Your will and the natural order You have established on earth. We know you will reward us for protecting those who made this country great by following Your will against those who want to tear it down by advocating for the great unwashed. Please give us the grace to cut spending and end give-aways. Help us to vanquish all who would take from your favorites to help those who refuse to help themselves. We know Your Son would never be in favor of their efforts. Remember the rich young man who refused to sell all he had and follow Your Son? We are sure he went on to own more crops and property and have more slaves and workers for his vineyards just as You would want. Help us to make as courageous a decision as he did.
Thank You, gracious God, for listening to our prayer and guiding us to keep America the greatest, most blessed nation on earth for those who have the wealth to enjoy its bounty.
We ask this through Your Son Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever.... AMEN

ETCH A SKETCH...

2011-08-05T18:39:00.001-07:00

"...More than anyone, Mr. Cantor drew the House Republicans bright red line in the negotiations, which was that the final deal couldn't raise any taxes. Significantly, that line held in the end." (Gerald Seib...WSJ)
Is it possible in the debt ceiling "compromise" a similar observation could be made about President Obama's performance in the last months of the debate? Can you think of any bright red lines he established and held? A commentator on CNN said he would love too buy a car from Obama. "...He would demand $50,000, and I would offer $10,000 and he would say fine it's yours."
I listened to John Rothmann defending the President after the deal was closed. Obama was being hammered by callers with many saying they feel betrayed and will not consider voting for Obama again. John's defense was the Republicans are worse and Obama is better than one of " them" getting into the White House. If ever there was a definition of damning with feint praise. The bar has been lowered so far in relation to Obama, we are left with, "...well at least he's not as bad as they are." Now that is a campaign them to be proud of.
Of course, John is right. If a regressive, and all the GOP candidates are radically regressive, were to occupy the White House, whatever is left of the social safety net would dissolve. Obama has made two good appointments to the Supreme Court. He has ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his justice department will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same sex marriage. His appointees to the National Labor Relations Board have returned some balance to an entity that formerly rubber-stamped anything employers wanted to the detriment of working Americans. His health care reforms and financial services reforms could turn out to be landmark pieces of legislation, but they are in danger because of Obama's seeming aversion to fight for anything even as his opponents try to kill both measures through death by a thousand cuts. Recently, the big automakers agreed to fuel economy standards of over 54 miles per gallon by 2025. The EPA is about to issue new pollution rules aimed at dealing with climate change chemicals. There are more examples, but none of this would have occurred with a regressive in the White House.
It is just so painful to watch Obama in action. The pattern is so easy to see now. The other side stakes out extreme positions and Obama gives away much of the fight before it even starts, enabling the other side to control the terms of the debate. Once he abandoned the single payer concept for health care, the reform debate was doomed to niggling around the edges of any real reform and the health insurance companies were saved. In the debt ceiling debate, Obama did draw some lines in the sand. He said he would not accept a deal which did not raise new revenues and wouldn't accept a short-term solution. Once again, his lines in the sand are brushed away by one wave. In this "compromise" Obama gave much and got very little in return. The jury is still out on whether independent voters will reward him for being the only adult in the room come November 2012. It may not make any difference if his actions have so alienated his base they stay home like they did in 2010.
The corporate media says the extremes on either side of the political spectrum are upset with the deal. They have to portray the outcome this way to obfuscate the truth. Those of us who call ourselves progressive are not extreme and yet the deal abandons most progressive principles. In order to get our fiscal house in order, I am willing to accept a change in eligibility rates for Medicare and Social Security. The income cap on Social Security should be removed with the wealthy continuing to pay a percentage of their income into the system no matter how much they make. Requiring anyone who has health insurance to use it first before Medicare kicks in would be an idea worth looking at. Lowering corporate income taxes while raising personal income tax rates is also a viable idea. None of these are extreme positions. They are quite in the middle. However, because Obama refuses to control the debate...because Obama refuses to draw more extreme lines in the sand...because Obama seems incapable of fighting for hat he believes in, or more importantly what we elected him to believe in, these positions are labeled extreme by the very same people who voted for the Ryan budget which would have ended Medicare, made the Bush tax cuts for the uber-rich permanent, and would have shredded what was left of the social safety net. Talk about extreme.
How sad and dispiriting is the argument you must vote to re-elect the President because at least he isn't as bad as "they "are. One of the most glorious moments in 2008 must have been going into a polling booth and voting "for" someone rather than holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. How often down that happen anymore in our elections? In 2012, you cannot afford to stay home or make a protest vote. You saw what happened in 2000. Does anyone believe President Gore would have left the nation in the shambles the way President Bush did?
There are still battles to fight. The President has been seduced into fighting for more trade deals with South Korea and Columbia, which will cost more Americans their jobs. This special congressional commission charged with finding another $1.2 Trillion in spending cuts will not increase taxes so cuts will fall on the middle class again unless you oppose it. (They don't want this commission to work because if it fails, "automatic" cuts occur while preserving the lowest personal income tax rates since 1950) AT&T cannot be allowed to merge with T-Mobile. It would destroy competition and drive cellular phone rates to the roof.
I don't get to vote. However, if I could I would vote to re-elect the President because the alternative would be a disaster. (Just say President Bachman or Romney out loud a few times). I am just sad President Obama has ended up resembling Bill Clinton and not Franklin Roosevelt.

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO...

2011-07-26T17:45:00.000-07:00

Of the 535 members of Congress, we know there are one Muslim and a number of Jews. The vast majority call themselves Christians and there is not a single atheist in the bunch. At least there is no one who will admit to it. Many of the most regressive members, Bachman...DeMint...Ryan...Boehner...Shelby...wear their religion on their sleeves and claim it helps to inform and direct them when they are faced with moral decisions. It is their religious beliefs, which lead them to oppose abortion and most forms of contraception. Their reading of the Bible leads them to want to break down the wall, which separates church and state. I take them at their word and thus I can see a solution to the current budget deficit/debt ceiling impasse...Matthew 25:31-46.
It's the end time and all the nations have been gathered before God. They are separated with one side getting paradise and the other eternal damnation. The criteria are quite simple. "I was naked and you gave me clothing, hungry and you gave me something to eat, thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me, sick and you healed me, in prison and you visited me. Whenever you did this for the least of your brothers and sisters, you did it for me." If you helped the least of society you were in. If not, God called you accursed and rejected you. Since so many members of Congress claim to follow Jesus, read the Bible and live by its precepts, how does this help solve the latest boondoggle?
Congress and the President have to accomplish a number of tasks. They have to raise the debt ceiling to maintain full faith and credit in our treasury notes. They have to set budget priorities to bring our fiscal house into order. They have to create jobs and grow the economy. They have to promote the general welfare.
It's why I'm baffled by the Christian regressives. If they have their way, the social safety net of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid go away. (I'm not being histrionic they have said its their goal). They would end Head Start and food stamps as they now exist. They want to eliminate the earned income tax credit for the working poor and job training for workers whose jobs were taken overseas. They oppose expanding Pell grants for poor students. At the same time, they refuse to raise taxes on the rich even though tax rates haven't been this low since 1950. They want to cut taxes for corporations, many of who pay no taxes now. They continue to support an ever-increasing budget for the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security and the DEA. I'm confused. Matthew 25 says the key to salvation is providing for the least of our brothers and sisters. Do you sense some kind of disconnect? Could it be these are cultural Christians, people who claim to believe to fit in, rather than people of faith? How would rich or privileged atheists differ with their "Christian" members of Congress on these matters?
What would a fiscal plan look like if it were proposed by the sheep rather than the goats? It would raise the debt ceiling in order to keep our word and pay our debts. It would look forward and return tax rates back to their level in 1992. The Pentagon would see a smaller budget even as the Veterans Administration budget would have to grow to handle all those hurt and damaged over the last 10 years. Social Security would increase its eligibility age to 68 over 10-15 years. There would be no income limit on how much you have to contribute. Medicare would also increase its eligibility age and costs brought under control through comprehensive health care reform. Health care reform would reduce the demand for Medicaid. Between Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Pentagon and along with interest on the national debt, you have covered 3/4 of the entire budget. As for the rest, it's simple. Programs which help the least of our brothers and sisters get funded. Educational opportunities are expanded. Vocational training expanded. Basic research, the key to innovation and jobs, is funded. Budgets for the EPA would increase. (How could improving our health and environment be un-Christian?) Anything, which ignores or abandons the stranger, the naked, the hungry or those in prison, is anathema. Imagine the impact these Christians and their gospel could have in the immigration debate and the issues of surrounding the poor and strangers pouring into this nation.
No one has to be a Christian. There is no religious litmus test to be a member of Congress is there? (Ok, ok my tongue is firmly inserted into my cheek.) How can you claim to follow the little Jewish carpenter and yet ignore one of the key tenets of salvation? Imagine if our budget debates and our discussion of national priorities started with the criteria laid out in Matthew 25. Imagine our country with health care and education and jobs and food available to all. Imagine national policy based on what is best for the least of our citizens rather than a policy designed to help the haves have more.
Of course such policies would be condemned as socialism or communism or some ism and the condemnations would come on Sundays from pulpits and congregations all across the land...and when it's time for reckoning they will say, "When did we see you naked or hungry? When did we see you thirsty or sick, a stranger or in prison? (If we had seen you we would have helped!) Whatever you didn't do for the least of your brothers and sisters you didn't do for ME."
Should we be a nation of sheep or goats?

TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT...

2011-07-25T23:59:00.000-07:00

The current scandal involving Rupert Murdoch, his media empire, the British police, and the political establishment raises troubling questions about the nature of a free press and its role in maintaining a healthy democracy. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude this is a uniquely British problem and even more dangerous not to acknowledge the very same concerns about the press in this country.
I.F. Stone once said he didn't want to eat, drink or socialize with the people he wrote about in Washington. He didn't want to be friends with the politicians he hectored. He felt distance, and some alienation, assured his ability to be objective and call a spade a spade no matter whose ox he gored. Every year my stomach turns as stories and video emerges of the White House Correspondent's Dinner. While there doesn't have to be open warfare between the press and the powerful, there should at least be healthy suspicion and skepticism and the dinner is an example of the line between the two sides not blurring, but ceasing to exist.
This is not going to be a tirade about Murdoch and Fox and his genius in founding a news network based in ideology rather than journalism. Murdoch simply took to its logical conclusion, what had already happened to the corporate media in America. When General Electric bought NBC; Cap Cities bought ABC; Lowes Corporation bought CBS; all three demanded their news departments turn a profit. They cut back on anything, which didn't draw viewers. That moment was the beginning of the end of a vibrant, skeptical, press capable of acting as a watchdog on the rich and powerful. Making a profit equals a race for ratings. Ratings means getting people to sit and watch. Attracting viewers means covering stories, which grab their interest. It wasn't too long before the tabloidization of the news was off and running and this was long before Murdoch. White House reporters became millionaires. Networks shied away from controversy and any story which might alienates viewers. Investigative reports dwindled, unless they were about Lindsey Lohan, and foreign bureaus disappeared. Proof of how we have slipped is contained in the recent coverage of the Casey Anthony story. Can anyone explain the reason this story dominated network and cable news for weeks and months? We all know the answer. She was a cute, white woman and the victim was a child and the cast of characters was right out of central casting. The story was salacious and titillating. It was a slam-dunk.
As corporations bought up the news networks, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulating the electronic media and removing caps on how many radio and television stations corporations could own in any market. This allowed for even further concentration of media in fewer and fewer hands. Ironically, the Hanbaugh's of the world owe their existence to Clinton and de-regulation and to the elimination of their competition. They aren't where they are today because they defeated the competition, but because there was no one left to compete against. KGO is the proof of the pudding. Not once did any of these leading lights ever get better ratings than the locally produced content carried on this station.
Look across the nation today. Look in California today. What television station news department has a bureau in Sacramento? Does anyone have beat reporters anymore? Reporters who covered the cops and city hall? Reporters who knew where bodies were buried and what questions to ask? The only time these venues are covered today is when some print source raises a question or scandal and we all know the trouble print journalism is encountering. Can you think about a future in which only the electronic media were left to keep watch?
Murdoch is a cynical, amoral, despot who ruled in Britain through a combination of fear and intimidation. Even as the phone hacking scandal emerged, Newsweek is now reporting most of the media in Britain either ignored or played down the story. The police refused to take it seriously and maybe even covered it up and politicians turned a blind eye all because they were afraid of what Murdoch would do to them should they rock the boat. Murdoch was about to purchase all of B Sky B network and obtain a virtual monopoly on cable and satellite media. (Anyone seen any stories lately on what would happen if AT&T is allowed to buy T Mobile?) If it had not been for the Guardian newspaper, he would have gotten away with it all. Don't feel smug. It's happening here too.
We now know the entire corporate media was cowed by the Bush administration after September 11, 2001. They were terrified of criticizing or raising questions about Bush et. al. because they didn't want to be accused of being soft on terrorism or unpatriotic. The big media corporations were hoping the FCC under Bush would further deregulate and allow them to increase their holdings and antagonizing Bush could put all of that into jeopardy. Dan Rather has been quoted as admitting no one wanted to ask a tough question. We now know the Washington Post and New York Times were burying stories critical of the war on terror and which raised questions about the justifications for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Judith Miller, in a cozy relationship with Scooter Libby, was writing false stories and repeating Bush propaganda on the front pages of the Times. Stories raising questions about Bush administration assertions were buried on page 18 of the Post if they were published at all. The networks fell into lockstep. Does anyone remember the media love fest after Colin Powell spoke at the U.N.? Despite lying over and over again, no one in the media challenged him or the case he made. Actually, that is not entirely true. In the alternative press, Mother Jones...the Nation...the Progressive...Washington Monthly and others, questions were raised but ignored by the corporate media. Hell, Walter Isakson, then the head of CNN, ran up to capital hill to apologize to Republicans for CNN's coverage of politics and promised to do better. Really?
All Murdoch has done is be more ruthless and unethical. In his world, journalistic standards do not exist. In the rest of the world they are slowly being diluted. For him the end justifies the means. There is no journalism practiced at Fox. It is 24 hours a day of propaganda with the theme set each day by Roger Ailes. However, the rest are not much better. They are all competing for viewers or readers and this drives the discourse to the lowest possible denominator. The political debate always starts from the center and regresses. They are constantly looking for the next O.J. and Casey Anthony story. Do you think Nancy Grace cares about journalism? We now know the networks are paying for stories and interviews exactly the same way as the tabloids. Checkbook journalism is alive and well. Murdoch does it better perhaps, and with relish, but the rest aren't far behind.
The reason freedom of the press was enshrined in the first amendment was the founder's understanding democracy cannot function without a rigorous and independent press. They would be shocked to see the neutered eunuchs who pass for journalists these days. The one hope continues to be the alternative press. Search it out. Read it. Get informed. Subscribe and donate to keep them alive.
Do you want to know about Anthony Weiner, or about the billions being spent to defeat Dodd/Frank and the attempts to prevent financial services reform from being enacted? It is up to you. You get what you pay for and demand.

DUCK, DODGE, AND DISMANTLE

2011-07-20T19:46:00.000-07:00

Most Americans would not be able to point out how failing to raise the debt ceiling would affect them. However, if the regressive plan proposed by Republicans in the House were to become law, every American would quickly be able to feel its sting. The focus grouped, "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill would require $400 billion in cuts each year for the next 10 years, cap spending at 19% of GDP, (despite Congressional Budget Office projections showing spending will need to rise to 21-22% in the next 10 years) and it would result in the end of Medicaid, (health care for the poor) and Medicare. It is truly a breathtaking proposal, as it would roll back and end the progressive agendas of the 20th century and return America to the Gilded Age of a weak federal government, low or no taxes on the rich and a Grand Canyon sized divide between the wealthy and the working poor.
If you ever wondered what our national priorities would look like if the regressive/tea partiers were to gain the Senate and the White House, it is now crystal clear what their vision of the future contains. The gap between the rich and everyone else would continue to grow. The social safety net would cease to exist. Education would become the purview of those who could afford the rising tuition. Innovation would dry up as spending on basic research drops precipitously. The Pentagon would continue to suck up huge amounts of resources and environmental gains of the past would quickly reverse.
All I have laid out isn't a secret. It has been the goal of regressives since FDR implemented his New Deal. Regressives have been quite vocal about their goals. In 1982, Reagan budget director David Stockman did the unthinkable when he committed truth. Stockman admitted the purpose of Reaganomics was to drive up the deficit and national debt so there would be less money available for social programs. They wanted to "starve the beast" to "cut off its oxygen". By driving up the deficit, regressives could attack socially progressive policy under the guise of fiscal discipline thus avoiding a political backlash among affected constituencies. "Don't blame me, we just don't have the money to fund these extravagances any longer." Regressive anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist says the goal is to starve government down to a size where he can drown it in a bathtub. Just as few people believed Hitler when he laid out his agenda and goals and philosophy in Mein Kampf, regressives have been clear their goal is to return government to how it looked in 1900 rather than 2000. Why don't we believe them? (Ironically, in 2000 America was prosperous, President Clinton turned over a surplus to George Bush and over 8 million jobs had been created during his presidency.)
"Cut, Cap and Balance" is political theater at its best. It has no chance of passing and regressives just want it for political talking points. The proof of the pudding is Democrats in the House tried to pass the budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, a proposal which included the end of Medicare as we know it and contained most of what cut, cap and balance is said to accomplish, but Republican leaders rallied members to vote against its passage. The last thing they wish to do is incur the wrath of voters. They want to slowly suffocate the progressive agenda under the aegis of fiscal discipline. Regressive columnist David Brooks, bemoans the fact Republicans are overreaching. He says they have already accomplished so much. They have blocked any tax increases on the rich, forced Democrats to accept cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, blocked much of the financial Dodd/Frank reform bill from being implemented, stopped funding of regulatory agencies tasked with oversight over industry and manufacturing and agriculture, but are now getting greedy by opposing a raise in the debt ceiling. No truer words were ever written.
If you want to test my theory, just compare President Obama's proposal to Republican and House Majority Leader Eric Kantor's ideas. Obama proposed a $4 trillion reduction in spending over 10 years. He proposed $3 in cuts for every dollar in revenue increases. Kantor wants less than $2 trillion in spending over the same 10 years with no revenue from tax increases and massive across the board cuts, except at the Pentagon, and reducing benefits in both Medicare and Social Security. Kantor does not want to truly get us back on a fiscally sound footing. He wants to protect the wealthiest taxpayers and corporations and end the progress of the last 80 years.
When President Clinton raised taxes on the richest 1% in 1992, not a single Republican voted in favor. Newt Gingrich et.al. predicted the end of the world. Jobs would disappear. The economy would crater. Poverty would increase and personal wealth decrease. Taxing the "job-creators" (a euphemism for the rich) would be a disaster. As we now know, the opposite occurred. Job creation exploded. The economy grew red-hot. The wealthy got richer and the middle class grew and poverty decreased. In 2001, President Bush cut taxes on the richest 1% costing the treasury over $2.3 trillion. He started two wars, which he refused to pay for through increased taxes. Those wars will cost over $4 trillion when all is said and done. For the first six years of his presidency, he did not create a single net new job. The deficit and national debt ballooned. The economy went into a depression not seen since the 1930's from which we still haven't recovered. Between Clinton and Bush we have textbook examples of the effects of progressive vs. regressive policies.
We can’t keep spending at current rates. However, we can't keep tax levels for the rich at 1950 levels either. Anyone truly interested in a solution would embrace spending cuts and tax increases as the best way to put the nation on a good fiscal foot. (However Social Security shouldn't even be a part of the discussion as it doesn't add to the debt at all and pays for itself) Regressives aren't interested in a good fiscal footing which maintains the status quo. They want to end Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security as we know them. They want to eliminate health care reform. They are reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions from the financial industry, corporations and the uber-rich so they can cut financial reform and regulations under which industry chafes. They are philosophically opposed to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), Federal Reserve, FDA (Food and Drug Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), FDIC (federal deposit insurance corporation), FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and any other form of government regulation. They refuse to staff the new consumer watchdog agency. (What is so interesting is how they blithely accept the expansion of the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, TSA, and the DEA, which threaten our privacy and civil liberties. This is despite their constant mantra that the government governs best which governs least).
President Obama is actually drawing a line in the sand for once. He won't accept a short-term debt ceiling increase. He wants to do more. He needs to call the Republican bluff. He should oppose Mitch McConnell's Plan B; which allows him to raise the debt ceiling between now and 2012 and which would give the Republicans ammunition to use against him while they protect the rich from paying their fair share. However, the war on progress will continue unabated until the American people rise up and declare their preference for moving forward not regressing. I have little confidence the electorate will wake up and send the m message progress means life and standing still or regressing is political and economic death. As always, however, I live with hope.

A SNITCH IN TIME

2011-07-18T16:57:00.000-07:00

This month marks the end of the Harry Potter movie saga. I am sorry to see it end, as it was a medium, both books and movies, which opened a world I could share with my children. The arrival of a new book or movie was a moment to contemplate the past, appreciate the present, and anticipate the future. Much like pencil marks on a doorsill, each additional episode of the Harry Potter story marked how much they had grown and encouraged me to consider on how we as parents had changed and evolved as well.
There is a treasure trove of memories, sitting right in front of me as I ponder the release of the last movie. I re-read the final volume to immerse myself again in the world of Hogwarts, wizards and magic. It isn't just a parallel universe. It is a world my family and I journeyed through along with Harry, Ron and Hermione and each memory is as precious as the sorcerer’s stone and as tasty as butter beer.
My dad died shortly before Thanksgiving in 2001. The first volume of the series had just been released in America. I knew almost nothing about it. I was staggered by my dad's death and this would be the first Thanksgiving without him. How do you have Thanksgiving without your dad? On the appointed day, I was once again at St. Anthony's Dining Room for our annual broadcast and the culmination of the Thanksgiving charity drive. Eighteen Thanksgivings were spent in that amazing place of hope and inspiration. It ended about 4pm. I walked out into the waning sunlight drained, tear stained, and morose. I looked up and there was my wife parked at the corner of Jones and Golden Gate. She said get in and off we went. I discovered we were not staying in the City for Thanksgiving. We were driving to Disneyland for a long weekend.
Each child had carved out a space in the car. They each had a backpack filled with books and games and snacks and each was wrapped in a cozy sleeping bag. They were snug and warm in their own personal space. I was sad and melancholy and welcomed switching with my wife and taking over the driving chores. We were on I-5 and she opened a box of cassettes. She inserted the first one and in the darkness of that car, traveling, maybe running from the reality of my father's and their grandfather's loss, we were introduced to the Dursleys and Privet Drive and the world of Harry Potter.
It was magical...as if a true spell had been cast. We were in our own self-contained world and we met Harry and Ron and Hermione and Hogwarts. There wasn't a sound in the car except the rhythm of the road and the sound of each new chapter. At some point, one of the kids sheepishly asked about dinner. Afraid, possibly, of incurring the wrath of the others for stopping our wizarding experience. We ended up stopping and having Thanksgiving dinner at a Denny's. I don't remember much about the meal except for a pervasive cloud of sadness resulting from the comparison between this Thanksgiving and the fifty or more presided over by my dad. I do remember how the kids rushed back to the car, climbed in, wrapped themselves in their cubbies and anticipated the start of the next cassette.
It took 8-9 hours of driving to arrive at our destination, yet it seemed to pass in an instant. The rest of the weekend was fun and it was a good idea to get away for a few days, but until the day I die, I will never forget how close we seemed, how in our own world we felt, how special that time felt and we owed it all to J.K. Rowling and her brilliant imagination.
There are lots of other stories, which feature Harry Potter and our children. One volume came out as we prepared for a vacation in Tahoe. No one was allowed to start the book in the car. We all started at the same time once we arrived in Tahoe and only swimming interrupted the consumption of Harry's travels and travails. On one occasion, my daughter, Darcy, came to work with me. The latest book was to go on sale at midnight. A caller told me we could get it for half off at a Safeway in Strawberry Shopping Center in Marin. At 1:30am, the two of us went and bought two books, went home and stayed up for hours reading. When the Goblet of Fire movie was released, the children and myself decided to go to the 3am showing in 3D at the Metreon. We walked out into a sparkling sunrise so proud we had seen it before almost anyone else and drawn closer again with the shared experience.
I have missed sharing the last two movies with them. It's one more reminder of the consequences of stupidity and an inability to appreciate all I had been given. They are all quite grown now, and a chance to share a continuity of experiences which stretch from their childhoods to the now evolving adults they are becoming, won't be possible ever again. I missed it or blew it or tossed it away without understanding what a rare and valuable gift it truly was.
I and we will always have that night on I-5, speeding through the dark as Quiddich matches, and shopping trips to Dragon Alley and battles on brooms and with wands happened in a universe at once far away, yet as close as the love we felt for each other. Harry was no longer alone and maybe we knew from that night, we would never be either.
I am grateful for the memories, which mark each volume of Harry’s journey to adulthood. Visions of different faces, my son's and daughter's, flood into my senses as I think about each book. I'm grateful to a wife who was committed to exposing my children to reading and stories and who understood immediately the power of this particular story. I miss my dad. I miss my family, but I live in the hope these memories never disappear and we will be re-united one day.

JOSE CAN YOU SEE?

2011-07-03T21:41:00.000-07:00

Writing about freedom and independence when you have neither is an interesting exercise. Yet, the nation celebrates its 235th birthday and the occasion should be a moment to reflect on our inalienable rights and where we are as a people in achieving the vision articulated in 1776.
Baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet's aside, 235 years after its founding, how well is this experiment in republican democracy working? (No, don't freak, I am not saying the Republicans founded the nation or they bear any resemblance to the founding fathers...ok maybe some emerged from John Calhoun’s loins, but that is grist for another mill.) We have a representative form of government designed to make the will of the people the law of the land. Really?
According to Thomas Jefferson, our creator, (note no reference to God with a capital "G") endowed us with certain rights. We are given the right to life. (That cheering you hear is from regressives saying we finally got him...he is now in favor of a right to life). For some Americans, life is getting longer, but for others, particularly people of color, the working poor and those at the bottom of the economic ladder, their lives are stagnant and any gains incidental. It turns out for many so-called "patriots", you have a right to be born but afterwards you are on your own. In almost any metric of childhood nurturing, the United States lags close to last among the industrialized nations of the world. From infant mortality to low birth-weight babies, to pre-natal care and nutrition, we are not exactly leading the pack. If by some unfortunate quirk of fate, you live in Texas, most of the South, or any state controlled by regressives, your right to a life of potential and fullness is in jeopardy. For the second half of the 20th century, you had a chance to live a life with better economic potential than your parents and the belief your children's quality of life could exceed your own. Progress was on the march and the middle class thriving. Today, after 70 plus years of class warfare, what would most Americans say about their progress pursuing life?
Perhaps none of the rights listed by Jefferson is more under threat than our right to liberty. Since World War II, there has been a war against liberty...a war conducted by the moneyed interests, the powerful and the corporatists against everyone else. Whether it was the McCarthy witch-hunts and loyalty oaths, blacklists and faux patriotism, interning American citizens in concentration camps, or an FBI and CIA running amok among average citizens, your liberty was curtailed. The government ran COINTELPRO, a counterintelligence program, aimed at our own people. In San Francisco, the FBI produced a coloring book, which attacked the police, and then passed it off as originating with the Black Panthers to crush a children's breakfast program the Panthers were running for poor people in the Fillmore. The CIA infiltrated peace groups and instigated violence. Even though the Church Commission exposed the out of control nature of the nation's law enforcement and intelligence services, no one could have envisioned how much worse things would get after September 11, 2001. With the passage of the Patriot Act, illegal electronic data mining, wiretaps on email, cell phones and internet activity, national security letters, and expanded FBI powers to come into your home, bug your computer, subpoena your library records all without your knowledge, the 4th amendment has ceased to exist. The first amendment is under siege, the 5th amendment has become window dressing and no nation except for China has more of its citizens behind bars. Cell phones are now designed to track your every move and insurance companies want to bug your car. Along with On-Star like systems, there is nowhere in the nation you can travel in privacy. There is more and more pressure to create a national ID card and laws in Georgia, Arizona and Alabama will require all residents to carry "papers" to prove their citizenship. Can you imagine Jefferson's take on all of this?
Your creator endowed you with the right to pursue happiness. Can we arrive at a definition of what it means to be happy these days? In 235 years, what is the American definition of achieving happiness? In your pursuit of a right given to you by your creator, and so precious it cannot be taken away from you according to Jefferson, do you have the right or can you have the expectation of a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back? (No, sorry that's socialism) In pursuing happiness, should you be able to gather together with fellow workers to petition for a safe workplace, just salary and equal rights for all workers? (The answer is no in Wisconsin and other states where regressives want to end the right to collective bargaining) Can you pursue happiness if constantly worried about an illness, which could bankrupt and destroy your family's economic health? Is a good education a piece of the happiness puzzle? As schools for the middle class and poor fail, (they don't fail in Saratoga, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Ross or Moraga), as college gets more and more expensive, as community colleges turn students away, what are working Americans supposed to do? The corporate media has spent billions over the last 60 years to convince us happiness is best pursued consuming and buying. (2/3 of our economy depends on you spending money you don't have) We will be happy if we have the latest flat screen TV, Smartphone or iPad. We will experience ecstasy if we wear the latest fashions and keep hot pockets in the freezer.
I am a flawed and sinful man. I fell for many of the siren songs of consumerism, egotism and selfishness, which are sold to us daily. I am a cautionary tale to be avoided at all costs. I am not unique, just slower on the uptake than most. However, when studies about happiness and liberty and quality of life are conducted by reputable firms, the United States is never first. It's not even in the top ten. Why? I was once asked by Sean Hannity if America is the greatest country in the world. I responded "for whom?" This comment got me a mention in his first book as an example of a liberal who hates his nation. It really is true; patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. (I wish I could remember who coined that) Real patriotism means you love your country enough to fight for its best notions.
So, on this fourth of July I want to celebrate a nation which enables all its citizens to have a life...a long life, with potential and possibilities...which inspires and enriches...is free of fear and whose only limits are self imposed. 235 years later, I want to live in a country whose citizens won't trade personal liberty for the illusion of security. Liberty should be the third rail of politics, not social security. We should be safe in our person and papers. A politician who won't defend our personal liberty, who is easily stampeded by peer pressure and media hysteria, should hold no office. It's time to stop being afraid of whatever current boogey man the government and media thrust upon us. Nothing can harm you more than waking up one day wondering what happened to the liberties Jefferson envisioned and the Constitution enshrined. Finally, I want to celebrate a nation which defines a happy life as one free from the fear of homelessness, hunger, persecution and materialism and instead encourages pursuing loving relationships, a rising tide lifting all boats, an admission it is in loving and caring for others we receive love and care for ourselves. I want to live in a nation where my children can seek their dreams and achieve more than I ever thought was possible.
As you grill the hot dogs and burgers, smoke the ribs, eat peach cobbler or chocolate cake, I want you to take a moment to remember what Jefferson wrote, what Lincoln fought to preserve, what Roosevelt envisioned in his New Deal and what Obama's election represented and please find a way to fight for it, agitate about it and demand its promise be fulfilled for all Americans...one nation with liberty and justice for all.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA......

AFPAK

2011-06-29T19:52:00.000-07:00

By the end of the year, 10,000 American soldiers will be brought home from Afghanistan and 90,000 will remain until at least 2012 and possibly until 2014. President Obama is trying to have it both ways and he cannot. His generals tell him not to withdraw troops quickly because we could lose gains we have made on the ground. Politically, the American people, by a majority of 57%, want it over now and all the troops brought home. He is running for re-election so he is trying to split the baby down the middle and billions will be spent and lives lost in the meantime and, at the end of the day, Afghanistan will still be a broken country unable to control its own fate.
The generals tell Obama to leave as many troops as possible for two more fighting seasons. They point to progress in driving the Taliban out of southern Afghanistan, killing their leaders, and restoring some normalcy to the area. The problem is the Taliban are native to Afghanistan. They wont go away. As long as they can retreat into Pakistan, they live to fight another day. They are being encouraged to join the political process, but there is no indication they will. Even more troubling is Pakistan doesn't want them to negotiate. The last time it was revealed some Taliban leaders were engaging in secret peace talks, the Pakistani intelligence service arrested a number of them. The message was clear. Pakistan sees the Taliban as their surrogate in the fight to keep India from gaining influence in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not interested in peace if India gains because of it. The real war has always been in Pakistan not Afghanistan and American troops don't effect that equation in any real way.
What the generals also fail to mention, is the corruption of the Karzai government negates any military gains on the ground. There is no government to turn over control of the nation to and without popular support, military gains are meaningless. Karzai's's brother is still a major drug dealer in southern Afghanistan. Karzai's's relatives looted Afghanistan's central bank. Just this week it was announced the head regulator of the bank had fled to the United States for asylum out of fear for his life because his investigation showed higher ups in the Karzai administration were involved in hundreds of millions of dollars in bogus loans. He had to get out of dodge or be killed by the people in charge. The same people we will say will run the country after we leave. Karzai stole the last presidential election and is so despised, many opponents of the Taliban joined with them driven to an alliance by the criminal enterprise which is the Afghan government. No matter what our troops accomplish, they have to hand the nation to Karzai and he can't hold it together. (The parallels to Viet Nam are striking here.) Without a solid central government, supported by the people, the military gains are all an illusion which will disappear the moment we leave whenever that is accomplished.
Politically, the President may get away with kicking this problem down the road for the time being. Some of his Republican opponents cover themselves in hypocrisy as they attack him for not bringing the troops home sooner. These are the same members of Congress who had no trouble abandoning the Afghan effort so George Bush could invade Iraq. These are the same feckless wonders that refused to raise taxes to pay for two wars and supported the increase in troops in Iraq. Now these chicken hawks have become deficit hawks squealing about cost as a reason to end our involvement in Afghanistan. (By the way, this is the same Iraq currently engaged in talks with Iran increasing Iran's influence in the area as the U.S. withdraws and Afghanistan and Pakistan are also meeting with Iran and talking about future alliances. We go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran wins. Well done, President Bush.) With the Republicans in disarray about Afghanistan and Libya, the will find it difficult to use either as on issue against Obama in 2012. However, the lack of political courage on the President's part is not attractive.
It is time to bring the troops home. The generals are wrong. The military gains they sight are fool's gold. With little popular support, the Karzai government cannot take advantage of the Taliban's defeats. Pakistan doesn't want peace and certainly doesn't want to see a strong democracy in Afghanistan. A democratic Afghanistan would naturally gravitate toward alliances with the strongest economic power in the region...India. Pakistan has nothing to offer the people of Afghanistan. India can offer economic aid, trade, and an improved life. Pakistan knows this and they will advise the Taliban to wait us out. The extra years, and extra loss of blood and treasure, will be wasted in the end. With the death of Osama Bin Laden, it is time to declare victory and come home. Unfortunately, President Obama is unwilling to take this step for ear of being attacked by the Pentagon and the likes of John McCain during an election year.
If pressed, I wonder how President Obama would answer Cindy Sheehan's iconic question? What cause are American men and women dying for in Afghanistan? Do you think he would have an answer?

The Wayback Machine...(An Homage to Mr. Peabody)

2011-06-29T19:50:00.000-07:00

Eight of them stood on stage in the hope of being their party's nominee for president. For more than an hour they attacked President Obama's failures, especially his inability to re-kindle a vibrant economy and add jobs to a bleak employment scene. The punditocracy fell in love with Rep. Michele Bachman and made note of the fact no one on the stage offered counterproposals to the Obama strategy. The analysis was self-serving, in the case of Bachman (remember the corporate media need a horserace with controversy to make money), and wrong in their summary of the candidates positions.
Every person on the stage that night in New Hampshire proposed to "roll back", "eliminate", "end", "repeal", and otherwise stop government regulation of everything. It was a consistent mantra from the extreme regressive side, (Bachman, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain) to the less regressive side, (Romney and Pawlenty). The root of all problems in this nation is government regulation according to the future standard bearers of this major political party. (A recent survey criticized American students for their lack of knowledge of American history. Given what occurred on that stage, America's students have an overabundance of role models to choose among.)
We turn on the "Wayback Machine" to see what we can discover. In the 1930's, President Roosevelt established a series of firewalls between Wall Street and Main Street. He created the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Comptroller of the Currency and the Glass-Steagle Act separating commercial banking from the speculative operations we have become so familiar with. From 1940 on, regressives slowly chipped away at all of this regulation culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagle in 1999. The result allowed banks to take depositors savings and speculate and gamble with them. The SEC had been neutered by the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. The Fed was run by a Republican appointee, Alan Greenspan, who loved the anarchist Ayn Rand and did not have a problem with the Bush Administration cutting trillions in taxes while spending billions on military adventure. He hated regulation and he left Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., J.P. Morgan et. al. to their own devices. You know how this all turns out.
President Bush pushed a $750 billion bailout of Wall Street (with no oversight as to how the money was spent so these same banks didn't have to lend it to main street). President Obama passed an $800 billion stimulus package, which was too small; but which put the banks all back on their feet. We are reaping the whirlwind of the rolling back of federal regulations and we continue to suffer for years to come.
The Wayback Machine is working to perfection and now we can watch President Reagan de-regulating the savings and loan industry. Ah, I remember how that worked out. Taxpayers spent over $500 million to bail them out too. (Do you remember the Bush involvement in Silverado Savings and Loan?)
It is impossible to find a single example of de-regulation where the average gum-chewing consumer has benefitted. The opposite is usually the case. President Clinton de-regulated radio and television in 1996. Over 50,000 jobs were lost. The regressive onslaught of talk radio would never have happened without de-regulation. Limbaugh, Hannity, the Weiner would all be local radio hosts none of whom would be number one in almost any major market. Their competition was eliminated not defeated. California de-regulated energy. The resulting rolling blackouts, loss of billions of dollars and electricity bills ranging from $200-$1000 a month were common and we are still paying the highest rates for electricity in the nation many years later. Lack of regulation has made our food less safe and allowed drug companies to test and monitor drugs which killed people who used them. There is no reason to beat a dead horse, you probably could come up with numerous other examples including how well P.G.& E. was regulated concerning its thousands of miles of gas pipelines.
Capitalism is a simple system. The capitalist wants to invest his or her money and receive a profit in return. Anything which reduces that profit is anathema. Therefore, true free market capitalists long for the Gilded Age. It was the time around 1890-1910, when the federal government was weak, corporate America ruled, the gap between the rich and poor was enormous, the middle class small, no income tax existed and regulations were a communist or socialist plot. The capitalist class opposed unions, minimum wages, collective bargaining and anything which raised their labor costs. They fought any attempt to make the workplace safe and made sure they could dump a cocktail of toxic sludge into any available river or stream. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the most evil organization in America today, fought against child labor laws and laws expanding job opportunities. They and their cronies were not called robber barons for nothing. More recently they waged an epic battle to prevent regulators from making autos safer, food safer, drugs safer and to protect the status quo as much as possible.
The true capitalist pines for a product that requires no employees and returns pure profit. Regulations are obstacles to overcome or subvert. Look at how the Bush administration put representatives, of the very industries being regulated, in charge of the regulatory agencies. Watch as the chamber and its allies attempt to weaken regulations governing the financial services industry. Corporate America will always fight any attempt to force it to pay better wages, under safer conditions, without ruining the land. (Have you seen what mountain-top coal mining does to an area?) After the gathering in New Hampshire, it appears they have won at least half the battle. What I don't understand is why Americans would go along with such dreams.
The middle class of this nation exists as a result of actions taken by the government over the last 100 years. Whether it was the right to organize workers, demand better wages, have access to higher education, use an interstate transit system which dramatically reduced the cost of moving product to market or research funded by government grants, the end result was the rise of a robust and solid middle class. Today, as the gap between the rich and poor widens and the middle class shrinks, and there is a direct relation to the weakening and elimination of regulations and laws that forced the capitalists to share more of their profit with average Americans. Yet, those 8 people on that stage in New Hampshire think they can be elected president by asking working Americans to cut their own throats, and past experience says they might be right.
I don't claim to understand how middle class Americans can vote for a party whose most recent leader reminded his supporters how he represents,"...the haves and the have-mores." How do you vote against you own enlightened self-interest? The 8 people on that stage believe you will do precisely that and have to hope you do not have access to a Wayback Machine so you can see what this country was like and will be again if they have their way.

THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT...

2011-06-16T19:10:00.000-07:00

It is not lost on me; my rising to anyone's defense, particularly a Democratic progressive, on a sex-related issue could be the kiss of death. It is like Bernie Madoff recommending a financial advisor. Still, I could not let the firestorm over the actions of Congressman Anthony Weiner pass without comment. The reaction to Weiner is disproportionate and reflects a disquiet or fear that is pervasive in our culture.
According to published reports, Congressman Weiner sent pictures of himself to women online in various stages of undress and arousal. We also know he flirted and engaged in sexually themed text messages. We know most of this activity took place while he was single, but some after he recently married. The women involved were all adults. It is safe to assume some of them sent Weiner pictures and engaged in sexy repartee with him in return. Weiner never physically met any of these women. These were all virtual exchanges.
The Republicans have naturally called on Weiner to resign as have most Democrats including the President. The Republicans are just hypocrites. The Democrats are craven. They are mad at Weiner for stepping all over their attacks on Republicans for the disastrous Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it. Weiner has taken them off message and for this he must go. The same Democrats who defended Bill Clinton, whose transgressions were real not virtual, are screaming for Weiner's scalp. It is not a chapter for profiles in courage.
Weiner should not resign. He should finish out his term and stand for re-election. If his constituents are disgusted with him, they can then turn him out. There is a bigger picture here which is much more interesting. For 2 weeks, there has been a media frenzy. (thus the Democrats anger at Weiner) You couldn't turn on the news without hearing about this scandal. Ask yourself what go more coverage, Weiner or the massacres happening in Syria right now? What dominated the news cycle...Weiner's sexting and tons of Weiner jokes or the fact millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes and the economy might double dip, China is near war over the South China Sea, the nation faces possible default if the debt ceiling is not raised and speculators have driven the price of oil into the stratosphere? Now ask yourselves why this is happening?
Weiner did nothing illegal and if you want to pick nits about him being married during this activity, isn't that between him and his wife? I seem to remember a series of stories from the L.A, Times about Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was accused by at least 6 women of grabbing them, pinching them, touching their genitals and overall predatory school-boy, locker room behavior. His wife countered the stories did not show what a good father and husband he was and came to his defense. Many of you voted for him. Weiner's actions pale in comparison, yet the Times was attacked for publishing the stories...for trying to influence an election. for printing salacious rumors and innuendo and the media coverage was brief and didn't even make it to the tabloids. The calls for him not to run were few and far between. Why?
I don’t know how congressional Republicans look at themselves in the mirror. Recently, Newt Gingrich stood on a stage in New Hampshire running for President. This is a man who dumped his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He dumped his second wife while having an affair with wife number 3 all while leading the attempt to impeach President Clinton for immoral actions. Really? Weiner's behavior is worse than that? Sen. John Ensign of Nevada had an affair with a member of his staff, bought off her husband, broke federal law and did not resign nor did the Republican leadership call for him to do so in any forceful way. He stepped down only because the Senate Ethics Committee was about to refer his case to the Justice Department. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has been re-elected despite paying for high priced hookers and despite being poster boy for hypocrite of 2008. He is anti gay marriage, pro birth, regressive evangelical Christian who wears his family values on his sleeve, wants new laws to make divorce more difficult and yet broke the law and engaged in prostitution, actions which were barely mentioned in the media and on the campaign trail. It is not a cliché to say the list is endless.
We live in a culture where everything has been sexualized and we are not comfortable with the freedom associated with this evolution. Catholic University just announced it is returning to single sex dorms because the coed dorms led to too much "hooking up". Their next step will be chastity belts. In some ways, the more open and tolerant we are, the more Puritan some people become. Someone has to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes and acknowledge something is amiss in our society and it scares the hell out of us.
I can tell you for a fact, millions of Americans go online every night and pretend to be someone else, or assume different personalities and engage in every fantasy, fetish, and fabrication known to man. There is an illusion of anonymity, which creates the sense you can say or do anything because no one will ever find out and it’s all virtual or make believe anyway. You will never meet the person at the other end. Ironically, Weiner wasn't acting anonymously. The women he engaged asked to follow him via his Twitter account. He was more transparent than 90% of all other denizens of the cyber world.
Before he was married, Weiner doesn't have anything to apologize for and since he was married, he and his wife have to figure this whole issue out between them. One piece of advice to him and everyone: If what you are doing online you wouldn't do with someone looking over your shoulder, it has the potential to come back and bite you in the butt.
Weiner says he is taking a leave of absence for "treatment". What on earth is he going to get treatment about? He isn't a serial philanderer like Tiger Woods. He didn't do anything illegal. He showed terrible judgment and he lied about what he had done. He was embarrassed when his activities were discovered. So, is this the new standard now? Anyone who makes these mistakes must resign? Would there be anyone left in Washington or any marriages or relationships left to defend under this new code of ethics?
Maybe this is all a symptom of a fear gripping some Americans. Sex is everywhere. Traditional cultural milestones are going the way of the dodo. Marriage is losing popularity and if people choose to get married, divorce is seen as a convenient way out. People are choosing virtual fantasy and sex over the real thing. The Internet is this black hole of temptation and opportunity where people can put on any identity, be a physical Adonis or Venus, engage in any experiment, communicate anonymously without any attendant commitment or attachment. We seem to be so frightened of what we know is going on...so intimidated by the freedom this represents in millions of homes every day, we think righteous indignation and outrage will somehow bring it under control before the next generation succumbs.
Could it be Weiner is the collective symbol of our own hearts of darkness? (There, but for the grace of God go I.) Perhaps if the powers that be come down hard on the Weiners of the world, the genie can be put back in the bottle. Maybe we wonder what would happen if our darker selves and our less-than-angelic behavior were to surface? Is attacking Weiner the equivalent of a cry to "Stop us before we do this again?"
Funny isn't it? That's what the Puritans thought when they burned witches, banned books, pinned on scarlet letters and tried to control people's private thoughts and deeds. How did that work out?

JEOPARDY 2

2011-06-13T20:03:00.001-07:00

Answer: The elites in Washington and the lame-stream media tried to shove their views down the throats of average, God-fearing Americans in order to destroy the right of the citizenry to do whatever they want with their own personal property.

QUESTION: What did Sarah Palin say when asked to explain the Civil War?

Answer: Yes, we did have other leaks and yes, we can't find any records we ever tested the pipes, but it isn't like anyone thought the problem was dangerous.

QUESTION: How did PG&E react to news they had gas pipe leaks in the area near San Bruno and they didn’t tell anyone?

Answer: We demanded longer sentences, refused to build more facilities, provided sub-standard medical and mental health care, and built a system resembling a Soviet gulag...picky, picky, picky.

QUESTION: How did California officials respond to the Supreme Court saying the prison system violates the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

Answer: Paul Ryan is a Democratic party stealth weapon designed to insure the re-election of President Obama by making it look like Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it and throw the elderly to the wolves.

QUESTION: What did the chair of the Republican National Committee say after the GOP lost a special congressional election in upstate New York in a district which has always voted Republican?

Answer: You need a good pair of garden sheers.

QUESTION: What did Hillary Clinton say to Rep. Anthony Weiner's wife when asked for advice about his sexting activities?

Answer: W.W.J.D.

QUESTION: How did the Archbishop of San Francisco respond to voters putting a proposition on the ballot outlawing circumcision?

Answer: It's going very well. I'm here because it's so difficult to deal with the constant demand for autographs and pictures from my devoted fans and followers.

QUESTION: What did Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi say from his underground bunker about how the war is progressing?

Answer: I am a man of humble beginnings, an army brat, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and I am the perfect person to identify with the struggles and difficulties facing average Americans in this terrible economy (plus my third wife loves bling).

QUESTION: What is Newt Gingrich's new campaign pitch after it was revealed he had a $500,000 tab at Tiffany’s?

Answer: Yes, they are last in health care spending, second to last in education spending, execute more people than any other state, are anti-choice, bring guns to church and don't want Martin Luther King or Caesar Chavez in their history books, but the business community loves them and we could learn a lot from them here in California.

QUESTION: What is the sound of Gavin Newsom selling out by praising the way Texas treats its corporations?

Answer: We brought it on ourselves. Yes, we were greedy, rapacious and didn't care about the consequences. Yes, we played both sides so we made money even if the economy tanked. Yes, we were all too big to fail, and yes, our largest shareholder is now the American taxpayer...Your point is?

QUESTION: What did a spokesman for GMAC say when asked about reports the company is engaging in bait and switch and other illegal tactics to kick Americans out of their homes and have taxpayers pay them to foreclose?

Whitened Sepulchers

2011-05-28T19:08:00.000-07:00

For 22 years, no institution gave me more material and subject matter to talk about than the Roman Catholic Church. They are still a gift, which keeps on giving. While I'm sure they believed my voice was silenced, and they didn’t have to worry about hearing from me ever again, I'm sorry to upset their plans or their psyches.
In Christian scripture, one of the best ways to incur Jesus' wrath was to be guilty of hypocrisy. In a confrontation with the Pharisees, Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy and called them "whitened sepulchers"...pretty on the outside but dead on the inside. A number of news items crossed my bunk recently, which cried out for comment and outrage; and I am only too glad to accommodate.
The National Catholic Bishops commissioned a study by John Jay University Law School investigating the cause or causes of the sex abuse scandals, which have plagued the Church for so many years. On the plus side, the study concluded neither celibacy nor homosexuality were causes of the scandal. The report pointed out as more and more gay priests were ordained, the incidents of abuse actually dropped. However, their main conclusion amounts to blaming the 60's for the actions of abusive priests. The report points out most of the priests engaged in abuse were educated in seminaries in the 40's and 50's and were not prepared for the world they encountered as the 60's hit full throttle. The change in sexual mores, the liberation of cultural standards, moral relativism, changing gender roles and an anti-authority ethos overwhelmed these priests and left them with few moral guideposts to depend upon. Most had gone into the seminary after the 8th grade at age 13 and were developmentally stilted and emotionally walled off and when you combined their naïveté with the free sex, no rules, sex...drugs...rock and roll milieu of the 60's, the resultant abuse grew. You can choose to accept their conclusions or not, but the bishop's money was well spent. The report at no time speaks to the real reason the scandal grew out of control. There is no mention of the role Catholic bishops played in covering up and hiding the actions of a few priests. We now know bishops paid hush money and threatened and intimidated parents and demanded non-disclosure agreements in return for monetary settlements. We now know they moved priests around from parish to parish and we now know they were more concerned with the Church's reputation than they were with the victims. Yes there would have been some sexual abuse in the 60's for the reasons stated. What is totally ignored is an examination of how the damage would have been limited and stopped if the bishops had not acted as they did. Where the hypocrisy rises to new levels is Pope Benedict XVI trying to quickly canonize his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, even though he turned a blind eye to almost every report and every accusation of abuse directed at priests throughout the world.
The Bishops of Wales and England are calling on Catholics in those nations to refrain from eating meet on Fridays all year round. As I grew up, we were not allowed to eat meat on Fridays. This was said to be a small sacrifice to honor the day on which Jesus was crucified. The reality is this prohibition was started in Italy as a way to bolster the fishing economy of the country. The practice was abandoned after the Second Vatican Council and is now only followed during the 40 days of Lent. The Welsh and English bishops are concerned with the drop in membership numbers of the Church and in particular the decreasing numbers of young people joining or remaining in the church. They point to studies, which show, as churches become less demanding of their members, membership drops off. They also point to the fact dietary restrictions are one way to set ones group off from others. Kosher rules distinguish Jews from other religions and these bishops want some practices reinstated to distinguish Catholics from Protestants. The Pope is adding his touch by making it acceptable to have Latin Masses throughout the church. The Latin Mass fell into disfavor after Vatican II because the priest stood with his back to the people, the language was foreign and the people were spectators. The Pope thinks returning to such practices will re-invigorate his church. If the Pope and bishops wish to know why there are fewer young people than ever going to church, perhaps they might look at the fact the average age of a Catholic priest in America and Europe is over 60. The average age of new priests is almost 40. There is no ministry leadership in the church, which has any idea how to appeal to or to cope with the world of my children and their generation. Young females have to participate in a church, which treats women as second-class citizens, and the Church's message to young people has little relevance to the world in which they are immersed. Rather than open the ministry to women, encourage a married clergy and speak in a voice relevant to the times, the leadership is rolling out meatless Fridays and unintelligible religious services.
Finally, House Speaker John Boehner has been invited to give the commencement address at the Catholic University of America. His invitation was approved by bishops and cardinals who sit on the board of trustees of the university. In protest to his invitation, more than 75 faculty members of CU and other Catholic universities have written a letter to Mr. Boehner accusing him of shepherding a budget bill through the house, which will hurt the poor, the elderly and the most vulnerable of American society. They remind Mr. Boehner, his budget fails to uphold basic Catholic teachings. "Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance with one of the church's most ancient moral teachings," the letter goes on to say "...from the apostles to the present, the magisterial (teaching) of the Church has insisted those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. They go on to say his record on this principle is one of the worst in Congress and they call his practices "anti-life". Now here is where the sepulcher gets a good white washing. A spokesman for CU defends the decision to invite Boehner by saying there are diverse viewpoints within the Catholic Church over these issues. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. It smells like cafeteria Catholicism.
Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, Senator John Kerry, Senator Ted Kennedy and many other Catholic politicians have been attacked, as has President Obama, for being invited to speak at Catholic universities because they support a woman's right to choose. Regressive Catholics call them anti-life. Some bishops have even called for them to be denied communion because they disagree with the Church on this issue. Apparently, there is no allowance for diverse viewpoints here. Catholic politicians voted to go to war in Iraq, despite the National Conference of Catholic Bishops declaring it an immoral war. What did the Church say about their vote to authorize the use of force and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis undoubtedly including pregnant women? Were any of them denied communion or opportunities to speak at Catholic schools or institutions? The Church is opposed to the death penalty, but it has never excoriated a single Catholic politician who supports execution. Pope John Paul II said unregulated free market capitalism is immoral and yet regressive Catholic members of Congress and the Senate have worked for 40 years to deregulate our financial industry and the resulting depression didn't elicit a single word of criticism from Rome. The gospel of Matthew says if you want salvation you must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and visit those in prison. Whatever you do or don't do to the least of your brothers and sisters you do or don't do to God. In your lifetime, have you ever seen or heard of criticism of a sitting Catholic politician for supporting policies, which make the rich richer and the poor poorer? So, if you oppose abortion you are pro-life in the eyes of the Catholic Church and there is no allowance for divergent viewpoints. However, if you pass budgets which hurt the poor and vulnerable...if you vote for wars which kills hundreds of thousands, if you support execution, the building of vast stores of nuclear weapons and work to bust unions and drive down wages while passing tax cuts for the most wealthy, you are a Catholic in good standing because there are divergent viewpoints on the moral importance of these matters. Boehner, with the worst pro-life voting record in the House, is welcomed at by the bishops and cardinals running Catholic University; but Ted Kennedy is anathema.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy of the leadership of the Catholic Church. They sit back silently as more and more regressives, including people like Newt Gingrich (oh he of three wives), join the church because they feel at home and feel comfortable with its theology and policies. I'm tired of a church, which has strayed so far officially from the vision of its founder; and I understand perfectly why numbers are down. Young people spot hypocrisy faster than most and they just can’t stand it anymore. I watch as church leaders become the new Pharisees living as whitened sepulchers supporting a pro-birth movement while the quality of life of the nation's neediest and most vulnerable is eroding under the practices of people like Boehner and you don't hear a word of protest from them.

THE EMPEROR'S NEW GLOW-IN-THE-DARK CLOTHING

2011-05-28T00:27:00.000-07:00

ITEM: The Japanese government announced it has abandoned its goal of getting 50% of the nation's power needs from nuclear energy. The prime minister said they would seek to increase alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric energy.
ITEM: As American nuclear power plants come up for re-licensing, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been accused of being too cozy with the nuclear power industry. Too many industry insiders have been appointed to the commission over the years and its regulatory policies are considered lax.
ITEM: The Japanese Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency says the Fukushima Daiichi reactor was damaged much worse than originally thought and a meltdown of fuel rods occurred. Tepco Electric Power Co. admits one of the plants six reactors suffered substantial meltdown on DAY ONE. All three nuclear reactors are leaking radioactive material.
ITEM: A commission on what to do with nuclear waster wants to build steel and concrete buildings above ground to store the waste admitting the plan to bury nuclear waste is a political non-starter.
ITEM: Nuclear fuel began melting much sooner than had been previously thought in the damaged Japanese reactors. Much of the chaos and many of the most serious mistakes were made by engineers BEFORE the tsunami struck.
ITEM: An engineer at a Minnesota nuclear plant warned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that crucial emergency vents, designed to relieve pressure at crippled Japanese nuclear plants, were seriously flawed and could fail in an earthquake. His warning came 5 years before the meltdown in Japan and the NRC rejected his warning and did nothing. The same vents are used in American nuclear reactors.
ITEM: A review of emergency plans in American nuclear plants found them out of date and many poorly designed to deal with multiple crises as occurred in Japan.
You can't turn on the program of Dr. Bill Wattenberg without hearing glowing tributes and passionate defense of the nuclear energy industry. He is not alone. President Obama and some environmentalists have also included increased nuclear plants into their mixture of energy policy in the future. Construction on at least three new plants is currently underway right now in this country. It is so alluring. It's relatively cheap, does not contribute to global warming and is so much prettier and safer for workers than ugly coalmines.
Unfortunately, when the lights come on and everyone sobers up, the picture is much less attractive. We now know the agency in the Dept. of the Interior whose job it was to regulate deep water oil drilling was a joke. It allowed the oil industry to write regulations. Federal employees were winded and dined by oil and construction companies and the result was the Gulf Oil spill. The Securities and Exchange Commission was a fox guarding the henhouse. Because so many of its commissioners and regulators moved back and forth between Wall Street and Washington, the SEC was a walking conflict of interest. It was soft on Wall Street and ignored people like Bernie Madoff even after being warned. In fact, we now know the entire financial regulatory industry failed to protect our interests resulting in the financial meltdown of 2008 the effects of which we are still feeling. The Food and Drug Administration allows pharmaceutical companies to pay for and run their own tests for new drugs. The Agriculture Department does not inspect a tenth of all meat and poultry and egg processing operations. A recent Federal Communications Commission member, who voted in favor of the merger of Comcast and NBC, quickly resigned and went to work for Comcast. Now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is accused of the same problem. The commission is too cozy with the industry it regulates. It overlooks serious problems when re-licensing old nuclear facilities. It doesn't rigorously review emergency protocols. There is a revolving door between the commission and the industry. This agency tasked with ensuring the safety of nuclear plant design, approving emergency procedures, and forcing the industry to produce a safe product no matter what the cost, is just as corrupt and inept as almost all other federal regulatory agencies. That should make anyone living near Diablo Canyon or San Onofre sleep better at night.
The ultimate reason why nuclear power must be abandoned is the problem of waste. For years the answer was to bury it in Nevada. President Obama has abandoned this plan when it was discovered the deep caves leaked, and the political will to force it down Nevadans throats didn't exist. Now, a commission is proposing building aboveground waste containment buildings. Why not just hang out a large neon sign saying "TERRORISTS ATTACK HERE"? What city or state would want nuclear waste repositories anywhere near them? What would happen if one of these buildings got hit by a 9.0 earthquake or a 200 mph force 5 tornado? Oh, they would be built to withstand such possibilities right? Who would oversee this process to ensure it was done right? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Congress, of course. There is no solution about what to do with nuclear waste. Right now it is stored in pools alongside operating nuclear plants. How safe is that?
It is time to admit the truth. Nuclear power plants and nuclear power have to be abandoned as answers to our energy needs. They are not safe and the nuclear power industry will always be trying to build them as cheaply as possible. They will water down regulations and spend millions to lobby Congress to prevent strict oversight. They will fight anything viewed as too stringent or onerous and the federal regulatory process will allow them to continue unabated. They will act like typical American corporations. There is no solution about what to do with nuclear waste. It is only a matter of time before someone with bad intentions gets their hands on some or an accident or natural disaster causes an environmental nightmare.
In Joplin, Missouri, residents say despite being hit by the biggest tornado in 60 years, and losing a third of their city, they will rebuild. There is a debate about whether anyone will be allowed to live within 12 miles of the Fukushima Daiichi plant EVER again.

THE RAPTURE RAP...

2011-05-28T00:16:00.000-07:00

If you are reading this, one of two truths are in play. Either the world did not end on May 21st, or the rapture occurred, but you didn't make the cut. Welcome to 7 years of pestilence in which reading my musings and observations may be considered the first few rings of hell.
Where I live, everyone is a guest of the federal government. As such, there are plenty of subjects, which rise to the level of conversation. It is no small matter to be sitting at lunch or dinner and have an entire table debating and discussing the possible end of the world and all associated matters. What is it about this concept of the world ending which causes so many to talk for so long about so little?
In Christian scripture, discussion about the end times comes under the title of the "perusia". We are not plowing new territory here in 2011. After the resurrection, early Christian communities were obsessed with the "end times" and the second coming of Jesus. They believed the world would end next week. St. Paul says not to marry, spend time in prayer and don’t get distracted by worldly things or you will miss it. There was urgency to the spreading of the "good news" as no one knew when Jesus would return and they wanted to save as many as they could. Eventually, after the apostles and disciples die, the world goes on and these religious communities had to reset their expectations.
There have been plenty of examples of "prophets” announcing they know when the end times will occur and calling for their followers to prepare. People sold all their worldly possessions, fled to the mountains and waited, only to be disappointed time after time. Despite a 2000-year track record of failure, these apostles of doom and Armageddon are still able to attract followers. How is that possible?
Death scares the hell out of us that's how. Americans spend billions of dollars each year trying to forestall the inevitable. 90% of health care costs are incurred in the last 10% of people's lives. Death is the great equalizer and no one can avoid it. Those who preach the end of the world are selling certainty in a sea of doubt and fear. You don't have to wonder. You don't have to worry. You know exactly when it's going to happen. The uncertainty, and the anxiety and angst which co-exist with it, is what really sets people off. Knowing when death will appear can be very appealing to some.
An additional wrinkle is added when you proclaim to know when the end will happen and you announce there will be a privileged few who will be taken directly to heaven to bask in God's glory. The "rapture" is a way to propagate an exclusive club where members go directly to paradise, do not pass Go and don't have to worry about collecting $200. Being part of the rapture is the ultimate cosmic razz berry, taking aim not only at death, but also at the secondary fear about what will happen to you after you die. The rapture is a supernatural velvet rope. If your name is on the list, open the pearly gates. If not, you get left behind to suffer everything from war and pestilence to the rising of the anti-Christ who will torment human kind for eons to come (sort of like an being required to watch a never ending loop of Jersey Shore). Most traditional raptures say 144,000 souls will be saved. Talk about exclusive.
In the last couple of weeks, you may have joked with friends about the end of the world, seen billboards proclaiming its arrival, watched CNN parse and chew on the subject and, if you are honest, gave the slightest of serious thought to what if its true. Why? Death is always on our minds.
There is nothing in scripture to support a physical ending of the world. There are plenty of references to Jesus' return, the end time and lots of spooky stuff in the Book of Revelation, but none of it is about existence ending. If you think about it, why would God continue to create only to bring all life to an abrupt and untimely end? She would have no motive. If you believe God created each of us on purpose and to love and be loved in return; a sudden world ending makes no sense. If you imagine a loving God who creates for tens of thousands of years, billions of souls, only to save 144,000 you have a better imagination than me; and besides, your God is not one I would want to have anything to do with anyway.
There are hints in Christian and Hebrew scripture about what the "end of the world" could mean. Perhaps no clearer insight comes from Jesus and His Sermon on the Mount. As you listen, you first conclude He must have been on some serious drugs that day. Peacemakers are not blessed and the meek won't inherit anything. No one can look at this world and say the poor will be blessed and rewarded and being persecuted for righteousness just gets you killed. These are the harsh realities of the world. Yet, Jesus persisted. He imagined a world where peacemakers are blessed because we are all committed to peace. The meek will be blessed because we will all be meek of heart towards each other. The poor will inherit the kingdom because when you let go of "stuff” you can live and care for each other...even the least of your brothers and sisters. The "end of the world", in Jesus' view, is the end of the world as we know it...replaced by a world where the rich and poor and peacemakers et. al. reign supreme.
All of this talk about the world ending is fun because death doesn't scare me anymore. It did. I was obsessed with it most of my life. I ruined my 50th year of life because I was devastated to realize most of my life was over and I would die. However, after you lose everything, get your ego crushed, get embarrassed and humiliated in front of the world, have friends abandon you, wake up to all the ways you have blown it and know all the pain you have caused those you love and who love you, the only thing left to do is spend time in reflection until you have that epiphany and realize what is really of value in your life. What could death have in store for me that is worse than my own fine choices to screw up my time in this world?
In the gospel of John, Jesus says, "...I come to bring you life and life to its fullest." He isn't concerned about what comes next. His kingdom is now. His values are about now. His wisdom is about living a full life now. If, like me, you were lost or had your priorities messed up...if you bought the message He who dies with the most "stuff" wins...if all you can imagine is the pleasure and perks you enjoy and hope to acquire more...then death has to be a very frightening specter hanging over your shoulder. However, if you can forgive when you are hurt, love without reservation or condition...if you can pursue a full and abundant life...if you are grateful everyday for all you have been given and realize all life is a gift...if you are meek of heart, committed to peace and willing to witness to what is right...your life will be full and loving and warm and death will not be something to fear.
So, to those of you who were lucky enough to be in raptured, congratulations. The rest of us will muddle along, trying to improve the world, love our family and friends, reach out to our enemies and hope for a full life. I leave it up to you to decide which group is for you. I've made up my mind.

WAG THE DOG

2011-05-27T23:23:00.001-07:00

As Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint meeting of Congress, Israel was finishing plans to add 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem. As the prime minister lectured President Obama about a proposal to start peace talks with the Palestinians based on pre-1967 borders, new settlements are starting and others expanding in the West Bank. As the United States gives billions of tax dollars to Israel, Jewish donors here in this country are threatening to withhold funds for the President's re-election campaign if he doesn't soften his stance towards Israel. As the song goes, with friends like these.....
Since the war in 1967, a war that Israel did not start, the Israelis have occupied the West Bank and built thousands of illegal settlements. This was not an accident. Israel knew the only way they could hold on to this territory was to populate it and make it a de-facto part of their nation. When Netanyahu says the pre-1967 borders are indefensible, what he doesn't say is this has been part of the plan from the beginning. Other than the Israelis, no one in the international community believes the settlements are legal. Even American presidents have agreed with that characterization. They are a deliberate design to annex the West Bank and have it subsumed by Israel. The billions of dollars America has given to Israel were used to offset the expense of building these settlements and to find the Israeli military to enforce their continued existence.
Israel is in a tough spot. As the revolutions of the Arab Spring continue, they face new leadership in Tunis, Egypt, Yemen, and possibly Bahrain, Libya and elsewhere, who are not interested in maintaining the status quo. Egypt brokered a deal between the PLO and Hamas on the governing of the West Bank and Gaza. They say they will open the border with Gaza to allow trade and commerce to resume. Israel faces a demographic time bomb and within a few years could have a Jewish minority ruling over an Arab majority in a new form of apartheid. In September, the United Nations will vote on whether to recognize Palestine as an independent nation. Unless the United States vetoes the proposal, it is expected to pass. (Some think Obama's recent speech calling for a return to the pre-1967 borders as a starting point was an intended to assuage European nations and give them a reason to vote against the UN resolution) Yet, in front of Congress, Netanyahu raised every boogey man and threat scenarios to create a picture of a besieged Israel threatened with destruction daring American politicians to waver in their support and face electoral doom.
According to Netanyahu, Israel must maintain the strongest military in the region, built on American tax dollars and using weapons given to them for virtually nothing, while the Palestinians must be de-militarized. Israel must keep the land annexed in the West Bank while Palestinians live within the claustrophobic boundaries Israel allows. Israel must maintain control of the air; while Palestine asks permission to have their own airport and Israel must be free to cross into Palestine at any time for security reasons as it builds a wall to prevent Palestinians from encroaching on Israeli territory. This asymmetry is the basis for any peace talks so far as Israel is concerned. Therefore, no peace talks can resume and Palestine will be recognized as an independent state and Israel's security will be weakened and imperiled.
On the other side, this is what must happen. The Palestinian authority must recognize Israel's right to exist and that means convincing Hamas to agree as well. There cannot be negotiations if one party doesn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the other. Palestinians displaced by the wars on Israel will not be able to return. That ship has sailed. Palestinians must halt rocket and other attacks on Israel and show they can control the security in their land. Jerusalem has to become an international city under the auspices of the U.N. open to all faiths and not the private refuge of Jews, Muslims or Christians.
In his speech to Congress, Netanyahu had the chutzpah to threaten American politicians who support the rights of the Palestinians. They are selling Israel out and are soft on terrorism. He drew a political line in the sand daring any member of Congress to cross it. Any wavering on supporting Israel is appeasement and will lead to Israel's destruction. Any talk of negotiations is code for weakening Israel and you do so at your own political peril.
President Obama has staked out a clear position. Peace talks start with the pre-1967 borders as a basis of discussion. Land swaps will be part of any talks, but at the end of the day, settlements will have to go and the buffer, which is the West Bank, must change. The President and American taxpayers need to tell Mr. Netanyahu if he disagrees fine, but he does so sacrificing all American foreign and military aid. Obama has to let American Jewish donors know he will not be intimidated nor will he sacrifice American national security to protect an Israel not interested in peace.
We now reach the crux of the problem for the president. America's national security and its ability to fight terrorism hinge on a settlement between Israel and Palestine. Right now Israel is the tail wagging the American dog. American support for dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and other nations in the region was based on maintaining the status quo with Israel. Our national security is compromised as long as this current standoff continues. Over 5,000 Americans died and hundreds of thousands wounded in Iraq because President Bush's national security team, Cheney...Wolfowitz...Pearl...Feith...Rumsfeld...Libby..Hadley...Bolton et. al. were signatories and supporters of the Project for a New American Century which had as its centerpiece policy invading Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein because he was a threat to Israel.
I have no illusions any American politician will threaten to cut off aid to Israel. President Obama will court Jewish donors and will soften if not abandon any real attempts to pressure Israel. The status quo will remain. However, the U.N. will vote to recognize Palestine. (What will the US do?) New leadership in many Arab nations will be less supportive of the current situation. The Arab population in the occupied territories will continue to grow and our national security will continue under threat. A two-state solution is the only answer. There must be a solution guaranteeing Israel's security and recognizing the rights of the Palestinians. However this cannot happen as long as Netanyahu leads Israel and American politicians are scared to take him on.

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING

2011-05-15T19:43:00.000-07:00

America's youth are failing at civics. You remember civics class. It was about government and who runs it and how it was established and who your representatives are and how a bill becomes law. I can never think of civics without hearing that schoolhouse rock song, "...I’m just a bill a lonely bill going up on Capitol Hill." Unfortunately, according to a new study, most of the youth of this nation are woefully lacking in knowledge about the workings of their government.
According to former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, we need to redouble our efforts at teaching government to our children. She says they can’t fully participate in this nation if they are ignorant of its beginnings and its functions and how they can influence its direction. I thought I would help Justice O’Connor and present you with my new curriculum for civics. Feel free to forward this to any middle or high school for their use.
One of the weakest areas of knowledge, according to a test, was knowledge of the Bill of Rights. Students didn’t know its origins nor what its importance is or why it was included with the Constitution to begin with. We need to teach them about the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. We need to develop lesson plans which will stress how corporations are considered persons even though the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this. These corporate "persons" have the right to inundate the political system with anonymous money so their voices can be heard. That this tsunami of money drowns out any ability of average citizens to have an impact on the political process is just an unintended consequence of enforcing corporate constitutional protections. The first amendment is cited constantly on regressive talk radio. They have to be free and unfettered to say anything they wish and any attempt to widen the debate smacks of censorship and totalitarianism. Students need to learn how one corporation can own 1,000 radio stations and newspapers and TV networks and how this lack of competition squeezed out any message other than the one Hanbaugh et. al. want you to hear. It's their first amendment right.
We need a PowerPoint presentation on the latest debate over the 2nd amendment. In states all over this nation, proposals are being put forth to permit students to carry guns on campus of colleges and universities. These are companion pieces to legislation allowing guns in churches, bars, sporting events and those guns can be concealed. Students need to know this latest iteration of the Supreme Court, which expanded first amendment rights for corporations, believes the founders wanted everyone, everywhere to have a gun and any attempt to register or control the supply is un-American and an affront to the Bill of Rights. We are a nation standing in gasoline up to our armpits and the 2nd amendment is designed to give everyone a book of matches.
One of the surprises our students will learn is there is no 4th amendment to the Constitution anymore. It has been rescinded in practice and soon in principle. It is supposed to protect Americans from unreasonable search and seizure of their person and property without probably cause and a warrant. Stop it; I can hear you laughing from here. Yes that is what it says. I know it was rendered moot by the Patriot Act. I know the government can listen to your phone, read your mail, mine your email and Internet activities and never have to ask you for permission or even ask a judge to rubberstamp their activities. I know your employer can make you prove you don’t use drugs with random tests and the police can set up checkpoints in which you are assumed to be guilty until you prove otherwise (actually this also renders the 5th amendment moot...well another chapter covered too). Justice O’Connor wants students to understand why the Bill of Rights is so important. She wants them to know it protects the minority from the majority...it protects the individual against the power of the government...it places limits on power...unfortunately what she wants them to know is as quaint as rumble seats and buggy whips.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has announced he wants to be president. He says his campaign will be based on the cornerstone of the 10th Amendment. It reserves for the states any powers not articulated by the Constitution for the federal government and gives them to the states. Gingrich used to call this "New Federalism". In his vision for America we would go back to the day when states were more powerful than the federal government. You remember that golden era don’t you? Jim Crow was alive and well in the South. Women had no voting rights. There were no child labor laws, no 8-hour day or 40-hour week. The world of Newt did not have equal access to education or medical care. Prayer and prejudice were comingled in public schools. Clean water, clean air and a healthy environment would be a thing of the past. Gingrich is the one who said if a school votes to establish prayer, it should be their right and the majority should rule. Perhaps Justice O’Connor could include him in her class.
We should all know more about the Bill of Rights. Like any endangered species, the only way to save it is to call attention to its possible demise. The death of Osama Bin Laden is a reminder of how much we have wrecked one of the great documents of all time in the name of safety and security and because true freedom scares the powerful elites to death.

SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL

2011-05-13T20:30:00.000-07:00

Back in the day, the news about the separation of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver would have found me engaging in non- stop schadenfruede. When I would refer to Arnold, I used to call him the "boobengrabber". I couldn't believe voters ignored all the stories about his loutish and sexist behavior on movie sets. The L.A. Times faced withering criticism of trying to mess with the outcome when they published their story on all the accusations just days before the election. At that time, Maria defended him completely. Despite the revelations, or at least the rumors, he was re-elected and got a fair amount of the women's vote.
I knew Maria Shriver in passing. I taught her brother in high school, was a guest at her house on occasion and worked with her mother, Eunice, on a project to help reduce the number of teen pregnancies and increase the number of full weight babies born to teens. The few times I encountered her in Washington D. C. or when we were both covering news events, she was aloof, prickly and full of herself. She was in many ways the opposite of her mother and father.
Given such background, and given I thought Governor Schwarzenegger was a disaster for California, the fact of their separation should have been great grist for my mill. Instead, my first reaction was one of sadness. I spent a good portion of my professional life judging others and feeling free to cast aspersions and question personal morality. I was quick to condemn and didn't make much of a separation between the person and their politics or policies. I could be vicious and relentless. I'm not in the judging business anymore. Part of this shift in perspective is a result of my own fall from grace (the old people who live in glass houses adage). I worry people will ignore the majority of my life and reduce it down to one mistake. It's an easy way to put someone in a comfortable box and enjoy their struggles. I don't fit in a box. There was a me before my disastrous mistake in judgment and I resent being reduced to a caricature by some. Having now walked a few miles in the governor and his wife's shoes, I will make a distinction between their public and private selves and allow they could be vastly different.
The other reason my reaction to their separation is subdued is because "...there but for the grace of God go I." When my fall became public, it was both national and local news. It is impossible to describe the humiliation and embarrassment my family had to go through. At that moment, I offered to divorce my wife. It would be a symbolic act signifying she had nothing to do with my behavior, condemned it, and was kicking me to the curb in reaction to it (all of which is true as to her reaction except for the final conclusion). I thought a divorce would protect her from being tarred by fallout caused by my stupidity. She looked me straight in the eye and said, "...I married you for better or worse, and this is the worst ever, but I am not going anywhere." There is not a soul who would have criticized my wife for divorcing me. It made good sense and she would avoid being dragged underwater by the tsunami of coverage and condemnation coming my way. Yet, she did not choose this option. In no way am I trying to suggest we are somehow superior or better than the Governor and his wife, I'm just saying a marriage is a very private and complicated structure and presuming to know why two people act in one way or the other is a dangerous activity to engage in.
The great actor, Jimmy Cagney, was married for 50 years. As Hollywood marriages go, that is extraordinary. He was once asked his secret. His response was one word..."expectations." He said our expectations about marriage are unrealistic and no marriage could live up to the picture painted by the movies and in the minds of romantics. He and his wife kept their expectations reasonable and rode out the highs and lows. Marriage in our culture has become an institution in name only. It is almost easier to end one than it is to start one. We live in a disposable society where we discard anything no longer useful or relevant and move on to something new. It should be lost on no one; the states with the highest divorce rates are below the buckle of the Bible belt. Religious fervor or fundamentalist beliefs are no predictor of a long marriage. It is also ironic one of the most contentious debates in society today is whether or not to allow two people of the same sex to marry. At a time of high divorce rates, and rising rates of people not marrying at all, you would think we would cheer to see a segment of our population fighting for the right to marry.
I have no idea why Arnold and Maria have separated. Perhaps she had played the good wife while he was in political office, but now that it was over she felt it was time to act. Perhaps she was constrained by her Catholic faith in which the Church is opposed to divorce and remarriage. Who knows? Maybe they just fell out of love. The Catholic Church believes every sacrament has an outward sign. The sign of marriage is the love between the two people. If it is no longer there, perhaps there is no marriage anymore. Maybe they will figure out a solution and an accommodation and be able to stay married. They have four children, as do my wife and I. My children are blessed with a mother who decided to try and hang in there and keep the family together and I am committed to rebuilding the damage I have done to our relationship. I hope, no matter what the ultimate outcome, the four Schwarzenegger/Shriver children are loved and cared for by both parents.
There is no joy or satisfaction watching a 25-year marriage disintegrate. Too often, as we argue and attack over political issues, we forget the other side is populated with people the same as us. We want to portray them as the "other" because it makes it easier to demonize them and fun to enjoy their failures and defeats. I will still attack and condemn regressives and expose the harm their policies will cause this nation, but I will try much harder not to portray them as "other" and to commiserate with their sorrow or pain whether they return the favor or not.
The tabloids will have a field day with this latest scandal. It will not be something I want to read about or advance any prurient curiosity in any way. I'm sad a family is in turmoil and it has to be played out in public. It is not an experience I would wish on my worst enemy.
I am a lucky and blessed man. I could have been thrown under the bus and had to endure this trial by myself. Instead, I have a loving wife and children, a marvelous extended family, and friends like so many of you. The gratitude I feel, and the knowledge it could have been so different, causes me to be sad when a marriage ends, when families suffer, when children are left to wonder about the future and my only regret is I didn't have this perspective a long time ago.

WWJD

2011-05-06T19:14:00.000-07:00

Many Americans claim the United States is a nation founded upon Christian principles. A Christian principle is a tenet or belief with which Jesus of Nazareth would agree. Regressive Catholics excoriate their progressive colleagues for picking and choosing which moral precepts they will follow or ignore. These "orthodox" believers derisively refer to these dissenters as "cafeteria Catholics". I wonder how many other Christians find themselves picking up trays in the same cafeteria these days.
This country has seen celebrations crop up all over the land and celebrating the killing of Osama Bin Laden. So, I now ask the question...if pressed, would Jesus have approved of the decision to find Bin Laden and kill him?
Scripture couldn't be clearer on the subject. Jesus demanded his followers love their enemies...turn the other cheek...forgive an infinite number of times...He declared the dictum "...an eye for an eye", outmoded, to be supplanted by a new command...love God with all your heart and all your soul and your neighbor as yourself. When Peter cut off the ear of one of the men sent to seize Jesus in the Garden He rebuked Peter. He forgave the soldiers who crucified Him and envisioned a world where peacemakers are blessed and the meek inherit the earth. His title is Prince of Peace and yet the actions of the U.S. Seal team on Sunday were anything but peaceful.
President Obama claimed Bin Laden had been "...brought to justice." A columnist for the Wall Street Journal bristled at such a suggestion. According to him, this was an act of revenge, plain and simple and Americans should be proud of a President committed to avenging the attacks of September 11th. Where do you think the majority of Americans come down on this question? Where do Christians stand on this? Was it justice or revenge?
Play this in your own mind. Walk with Jesus as he eats with tax collectors, takes water from a Samaritan woman, refused to condemn the adulteress to death, and calls on His apostles and disciples to let go of the beliefs of the past and embrace a philosophy of total love and compassion. Get His attention and ask him, "...Rabbi is it proper to seek out Osama Bin Laden and kill him?" What would He say?
If we had taken Bin Laden in to custody and gave him a life sentence without the possibility of parole, how many Americans would have been shouting, "...USA, USA" and gathering all over the nations to celebrate? How many "Christians" would have demanded the death penalty?
No one has to be a Christian. However, if you are going to call yourself one, and then ignore the most fundamental tenets of the founder, what does that say about you? What would Jesus say about a nation, which invades another, lies about its motives, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and does so in His Mother's name? As our drones assassinate at will and we torture and devastate claiming the end justifies the means, how would Jesus react? So many of the same "Christians" who want to claim special status for this nations's founding principles, are thrilled today with the death of Bin Laden.
What about church leaders? What has the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops have to say about the killing of Bin Laden? What about the head of the Southern Baptist Conference or the United Methodist Church, have you heard from them? From Catholics to evangelicals, Lutherans to Baptists, the silence is deafening.
If you are honest and sincere in your understanding of the little Jewish carpenter, you know he would condemn the actions of the Seal team just as He would condemn Bin Laden’s actions as well. To claim otherwise is to bastardize the life and death and resurrection of this man. Those who want to claim this is a Christian nation have no problem ignoring most of what Jesus taught and have folded, spindled and mutilated His simple philosophy into something unrecognizable today.
So, lets admit a few truths. I too felt elation when I heard the President's announcement. It was an act of revenge. Americans would have been disappointed had he been captured and to killed and would have demanded his death anyway. I consider myself a Christian, but I am flawed and sinful. Sin is a Greek archery term which means, "...to miss the mark." I miss the mark frequently. I wouldn't be where I am today if I hadn't missed the mark badly. However, I can ask for forgiveness and promise not to do it again. I can try to implement as much of Jesus' philosophy as possible. I can strive to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and visit those in prison. I can have a goal of doing the most for the least of my brothers and sisters. I will still sin, but also continue to draw myself closer to God and feel Her closer to me as I struggle to live the best way I know how.
The question today is this the way most "Christians" approach life or are we a nation of cultural "Christians" who jettison Jesus anytime He becomes a hindrance to what they really want to do anyway?
You are walking with Him and ask Him, "...Master was it right to kill Bin Laden?" What would He say and how would you react?

FRIENDLY FIRE

2011-05-06T19:10:00.000-07:00

As we watched the President announce the death of Osama Bin Laden, a fellow federal guest remarked he was amazed at the damage one person could do to the United States. I realized Bin Laden had done relatively little damage himself. The real harm was the result of friendly fire.
It is estimated Bin Laden spent about $500,000 to conduct the attacks of September 11th. In return for t his investment in terror, almost 3,000 people were killed, the World Trade Center destroyed, the Pentagon hit and employees killed and a field in Pennsylvania was damaged. The death and destruction were horrible and tragic, but even Bin Laden himself could not have imagined the ripples of fear and paranoia, which washed across this land fomented by Americans themselves. Or could he?
Did Bin Laden time his attack to coincide with the administration of George W. Bush? Did he know Bush and Cheney, and the Project on a New American Century crowd (PNAC), would seize upon his action to gin up an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time of his attack, America had a budget surplus, low unemployment and there were talks of a peace dividend. After his attack, Bush pushed through tax cuts for the rich to the tune of $1.3 trillion and started two wars, which will cost well over $2 trillion when, and if, they are over?
Was it just regressive serendipity the attacks of September 11th occurred with Dick Cheney in office as America's first prime minister? Cheney, still angry the first President Bush didn't go to Baghdad and take out Saddam Hussein, (Bush said Hussein wasn’t worth one additional American life), considered the Presidency a weak-kneed, sissy-nancy compared to the days of Reagan. Congress had eviscerated the Executive and he was on a quest to restore it to its former glory. Bin Laden allowed Cheney and his acolytes, Chu...LIbby...Feith...Wolfowitz...Ashcroft...Rumsfeld...Hadley...Rice...Pearl and others, to promulgate policies which resulted in seriously weakening the civil liberties of Americans and weakened the system of checks and balances the founding fathers considered so crucial to preserving the republic. Signing statements rendered the legislative branch impotent. White House counsel opinions allowed the President to engage in torture and ignore treaties we signed and international law we championed. Secret, warrantless wiretaps and Internet surveillance eliminated judicial review over the executive.
When Congress did act, it was as a rubber stamp for administration initiatives. Is it a coincidence within months of September 11th, there was finished legislation written which codified into law every regressives wet dream...the Patriot Act? This lightening quick congressional action battered the 4th amendment beyond recognition. The party of limited government now signed into law a bill which allowed the executive and its agencies to enter your home, bug your computer, mine your email and internet activity, listen in on your cell phone, require all cell phones to have a GPS chip, demand your library records and all of this without every having to inform you or allow you to contest this massive invasion of privacy. The FBI was able to use national security letters, which we now know they abused repeatedly, to investigate citizens and incarcerate anyone who revealed they had been asked questions or provided information about you. American citizens were arrested and put in jail without access to counsel and with no right to Habeas Corpus. Now that is what you call terrorism.
We will never know what Bin Laden thought would happen after September 11th. He knew one attack would not destroy this country. Did he also know American are easily frightened and they will genuflect to anyone who comes along promising to protect them? Did he know us that well? Did he know a $500,000 investment would enable a cabal of like-minded folks to weaken this country from within? No enemy of America ever invested so little and got so much in return.
The America which ended Bin Laden's life is weaker, more divided, less secure and less hope-filled than it was the morning of September 11th. Almost all of this damage has been self-inflicted; we did it to ourselves; Bin Laden had nothing to do with our current condition. As you rejoice in his demise, ask yourself where the real threat to the nation's security resides? Was Pogo right?

KINDA SORTA WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE

2011-05-03T00:11:00.000-07:00

Osama Bin Laden is dead, but in the midst of all the celebrations and congratulations is the bitter knowledge he could have been killed almost ten years ago and thousands of lives spared. America's leaders were more concerned with going to war in Iraq than they were with getting Bin Laden. President Obama called former President Bush to inform him of Bin Laden's death and when he hung up, the former President has to know Obama has cleaned up his mess and accomplished something Bush wasn't particularly interested in finishing.
When American forces invaded Afghanistan in 2002, they quickly chased the Taliban out and discovered bin Laden, and his second in command Dr. Zawahiri, along with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora. They were hiding deep in caves from which there was no exit, but which would require a dangerous operation to go in and root them out. It would have resulted in many deaths for those in pursuit of these terrorists. Instead of using American special forces, the ones used to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan, President Bush opted to allow Afghan troops to take the lead. The result was someone was paid off, or possibly sympathetic to Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, and they were allowed to slip away over the border into Pakistan. Had Bin Laden been killed at that time, Al Qaeda would have fallen apart. Its ability to morph into a worldwide brand and to franchise its terror would have been impossible. The ability to recruit new fighters would have been far less successful. Instead, as the CIA reported in 2006 and again in 2008, Al Qaeda was stronger than ever and had reformulated itself into a more widespread operation, more decentralized with Bin Laden still at its center.
At the time of the Tora Bora operation, President Bush and his national security team had already decided to invade Iraq. Resources were already being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. One of the few military units which spoke Pashtun in Afghanistan was replaced by a unit which contained foreign language experts, except they were experts in speaking Spanish. Satellite and other electronic surveillance were shifted to the Iraq theater as well as large numbers of intelligence assets. The end result is the initial successes in Afghanistan were lost, Bin Laden et.al. escaped and were able to wreak havoc in Iraq for a number of years as well as in other countries. No one will ever know how many Americans and Iraqis died because Bin Laden was able to continue to operate and coordinate his terror forces.
Some would say this is all sour grapes. We should be celebrating the death of Bin Laden and to bring up the past is just partisan and has no value now. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The obsession which Bush and Cheney had with Iraq resulted in a series of decisions and actions which directly led to the fiasco which Iraq became, caused the lies and propaganda campaign which the Iraq Study Group in the White House conducted to convince the American people to support the invasion, and was the reason for the half-baked effort in Afghanistan. 100,000 American troops are in Afghanistan today, suffering unacceptable levels of casualties, because of the Bush administration abandoning the effort in Afghanistan in favor of the disaster which became Iraq. Trillions of dollars were spent unnecessarily and are still spent to clean up what Bush and company left behind.
The death of Osama Bin Laden is a day to celebrate. He wished to be a martyr and his wish has been granted. His religious fundamentalism, like all religious fundamentalism, had nothing to do with God or Allah but rather with trying to force his version on the Muslim world and he was willing to use violence to accomplish his purpose. He killed innocent people because, in his religious zealotry, no one was innocent who disagreed with him. Fundamentalism is still a grave threat in this world whether it is Islamic or Jewish or Christian. Bin Laden should have died in Tora Bora, but other fanatics, those in the White House, were too obsessed to do their job and protect this nation from a genuine threat.

HE IS RISEN!!!

2011-04-20T19:05:00.000-07:00

They sat frozen in fear, wondering if they were next. They looked at each other and saw the tears and felt the abandonment and wondered what it all had meant. There were no profiles in courage among the occupants of that upper room. They had run and hid while their friend and teacher had been taken away and executed. What was it He said? What do they do now? No one wanted to venture outside. All expected to be arrested. Worst of all, all of them were haunted by doubts about Him and His message and what would happen to their lives.
Sometime after that "good" Friday, these same friends, once scared of the sound of their own voices, went out to the people in Jerusalem and proclaimed they had some Good News. Their friend wasn't dead. He wasn't gone. He is alive and death has been conquered. They began repeating His message. They were full of such joy. The fear, which had paralyzed them, was gone. He had promised He wouldn't leave them. He guaranteed if they followed His lead, they too wouldn't have to fear dying and would have abundant lives. You couldn't shut them up. They spread out all over the region and beyond. They continuously proclaimed the life, death and resurrection of their friend Jesus and they said His message, His closeness to God, His love and forgiveness were available to anyone...to us today.
The apostles and disciples weren't just convinced Jesus' memory and message would go on. They were transformed; they were transfigured, by the experience of the risen Jesus. He was dead, but now He is alive. He wasn't a ghost either. They tell stories about him eating and drinking. This wasn't an apparition. It was Jesus. The experience of encountering Jesus caused them to tell anyone they met what had happened. Can you imagine?
There are not a lot of post-resurrection stories in scripture. What there are have one thing in common. Those who encounter the risen Jesus don’t recognize Him. Whatever resurrection is, it is not cosmic mouth to mouth returning you just as you were before. Whatever "it" is, we are different. The essence of who we are, our soul some would say, goes on. Eventually, the apostles in the upper room, the women at the tomb and the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus and their joy is impossible to conceal. They weren't guessing. They weren't repeating hearsay. They weren't claiming to have been visited by a spirit. The experience and contact with the risen Jesus ended their fear, tears, anxiety and doubts. The question on this Easter is whether we will open ourselves to the same contact with the same result?
One of the best homilies I have heard on Easter was based on one sentence. "He is risen." "He"...is Jesus of Nazareth. Born to Joseph and Mary. A carpenter's son. He had traveled though Judea proclaiming the message of God and living such a radically loving and caring life, He became as close to God as a son to His Mother. This human opened up a new relationship with God. The distance between God and us had been eliminated. "He" was human, and now all of us could get as close to God as He was. We could lead an abundant life. "He is"...Those scared and cowering friends living in the upper room changed when they re-connected to Jesus. Their message is He is risen. It isn't an event in the past. It isn't something to wait for in the future. This Jesus is with us now and 2000 years later he still is. On Easter, we don't celebrate an event, which happened 2000 years ago. Jesus is as present and relevant and available now as he was on Easter morning. Those of us, who claim to be Christian, aren't reminiscing about some event in the past like the 4th of July or the birth of a friend or loved one. The same Jesus, who so energized and transfigured this ragtag group, is as real today, alive today, available today, and inspirational today, as He was in the upper room. "He is risen"...they were convinced He was alive. The same Jesus who they saw laid in the tomb, behind the stone, is the same Jesus who they encountered and reveled in His presence. He definitely was dead. They were devastated. He isn't dead anymore. This wasn't speculation. He had promised and He kept His word.
We are Easter people. Without Easter there is no Christianity. Christmas is the birth of another Jewish boy without Easter. Without Easter, there is no Good News...no gospel. Death no longer defines human existence. How many of you, like me, think about death and can't get beyond its finality? How many of us have lost someone we love and miss so much there is a hole in our hearts? How many of us, aware of our own mortality, struggle to put off the inevitable any way we can? The message of Easter is one of great joy. Death is not the final answer. We go "on...." We can touch the same grace which energized Jesus. We can be as close to God as Mother to son or daughter. We can have an abundance in life, which does not end. That is the good news...that is why we celebrate...that is the message of Easter...we can all participate. In the end, it doesn't matter what you call yourself...Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist...what matters is how you live your life. If you can love your enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive an infinite number of times, treat the least of your brothers and sisters with love and dignity, the grace and promise of Easter is yours.
HAPPY EASTER. HE IS RISEN. ALLELUIA, ALLELUIA!!!

JAMES CROW

2011-04-16T18:38:00.001-07:00

One hundred and fifty years ago, millions of Americans were willing to go to war against their cousins, brothers and friends in order to protect the institution of slavery. On April 14, 1861, they fired on Ft. Sumter and the Civil War began. It ended in a courthouse at Appomattox, but it still haunts us to this day because we have never admitted to the dirty little secret about America. It is a nation built and established of white people, for white people and by white people.
In a recent poll, 40% of people in the formerly Confederate South, still believe the South was right to secede and to fight Northern aggression. Why? At Appomattox, Lee laid down his sword, Grant allowed Confederate soldiers to keep their rifles and horses, and Confederate generals still in the field, who could have carried on a guerrilla action and extended the war for years, surrendered and went home. The war was over. They fought the good fight and almost were victorious. Why or what are these people in the South still trying to articulate or preserve? If Lee and Longstreet, Beauregard and Davis accepted the end and went back to life in a "United" States, why cant today's occupants?
Slavery had existed since the dawn of time. It was not an alien institution to our land. It was an accepted part of the human condition. In a remarkable paradigm shift, slavery was outlawed in the Western world by the middle of the 19th century. Yes, the south had fought to preserve it. Yes, they thought ending it would destroy their culture and way of life. However, their views on slavery were no different than those of Washington or Jefferson. Even the Catholic Church in America owned slaves. Defending slavery was not an extraordinary leap of logic. In and of itself, fighting to preserve slavery was an example of Americans defending a deeply entrenched value. If Lincoln could have prevented war by leaving slavery in place, he gladly would have accepted that deal.
The reason the Civil War still haunts this nation is because after the South was defeated, after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after the Constitution was amended to make former slaves US citizens, something new arose which continue to perpetuate most of the rudiments of slavery, just under a different name...Jim Crow. Despite proclamations, amendments and the failed experiment called Reconstruction, America still remained a nation of white supremacists. African Americans were no more welcome in the North than the South. Opponents of slavery often condemned the institution, while opposing attempts to integrate African Americans into society. In the South, this new suit of prejudice and bigotry was put on but with new tailors. Laws were passed to prevent black people from voting, having access to the courts, living wherever they wished, engaging in free market capitalism or taking advantage of the rise of land grant colleges and universities. Separate and unequal became the law of the land. Former slaves, or the descendants of slaves, declared non-persons by the Dred Scott decision, were still non-persons and all of America participated in the process.
Those 40% of Southerners, who identify with the Confederacy, aren't doing so for states rights or because of antipathy towards the Federal government. They were thrilled to allow FDR to bring electricity and power to their rural homes. They loved the economic benefits of the interstate highway system. They took advantage of the G.I. bill, Social Security and Medicare. They applied for FHA mortgages and student loans. What they couldn't abide was a federal government, which attempted to dismantle separate but equal. They resisted a government mandating an integrated military. When the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed, along with the Public Accommodations Act, then President Lyndon Johnson is quoted as saying the Democrats just lost the South. Richard Nixon and the Republicans developed a "southern strategy" in which they promised not to enforce civil rights laws in return for political support. The South became solidly Red in no time.
At the same time, in the North, cities like Detroit and Chicago became the most segregated cities in the country. African-Americans, who had migrated north for jobs, didn't find much difference in attitudes. Ghettos were commonplace. Police and fire departments were all white, corporate America was white as the driven snow. Even the great American pastime, baseball, was segregated and separate. Despite a war to end slavery...despite over 600,000 Americans killed...despite almost destroying the nation...the reality remained this country is white and no others need apply. The one big difference was residents of the North were not as wedded to the romantic historic revisionism of the Civil War as those were in the South.
The 40% of Southerners, who romantically long for the glory of the Confederacy, see themselves as victims. With the ascendancy of African Americans, Hispanics and Asians, they feel left out and taken for granted. Even worse, they have no claim to superiority. They blame the federal government for their plight. However, the culture of white supremacy they long for is till singing its siren song in all parts of this nation not just in the South. Yes, we did fight to end slavery, and then we simply turned our heads and pretended not to notice a proxy system, which accomplished the same goals of slavery, under a new name.
It is romantic and acceptable to defend the Confederacy as a champion of individual and states rights. It would also be wrong. Those who display the Confederate flag on t heir license plates and hold tribute to Southern leaders annually, do so because they know they can't openly mourn the end of Jim Crow and segregation and institutional racism. The Confederacy, and its role in the Civil War, becomes a euphemism for the sorrow many whites feel about their loss of prestige and pride in the light of the Civil Rights era.
The historian, John Hope Franklin, told me until America can admit this nation was built on the principle of white supremacy, there can be no meaningful dialogue on race.
Was he right?

JEOPARDY

2011-04-15T15:56:00.000-07:00

ANSWER: We thought it was safe and no one could have anticipated a disaster of this proportion.

QUESTION: What did the spokesperson for P.G.&E. say after the 8.9 earthquake and ensuing tsunami hit the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant and caused the evacuation of most of the central coast of California? (P.G.&E. is asking for a 20-year extension for the operating license of Diablo Canyon despite its antiquated design, location over and earthquake fault and no plans to upgrade the facility)

ANSWER: Yes, medical care will not be available to all and some care will deteriorate, and over time some might die because of an inability to afford care, but it is unfair to call this just a longer form of death panels.

QUESTION: What did Rep. Paul Ryan say when asked what the consequences will be if Medicare is privatized?

ANSWER: We are fighting against a government that denies us basic rights, is corrupt, taxes us without our consent and refuses to listen to our pleas for help.

QUESTION: What did the mayor of Washington DC say as he was being arrested for blocking the entrance to the Hart Senate Office building after Congress prohibited the district from using any funds to help poor women obtain an abortion?

ANSWER: If we really wanted to have fair trials, that would be one solution.

QUESTION: What did White House Press Secretary Jay Kearney say when asked why President Obama doesn’t just fly a federal judge to Guantanamo and conduct the trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others under constitutional guidelines instead of using military tribunals?

ANSWER: There is only so much Metamucil any one show can sell.

QUESTION: Why did Fox cancel Glenn Beck's show after ratings show his audience is older than dirt?

ANSWER: "I’m shocked, shocked, anyone would lie about this, but don’t blame me, Scooter Libby was just so cute and I wanted to help my soul mate.

QUESTION: What did former New York Times reporter, and now Fox analyst, Judith Miller say when she heard her Iraqi intelligence source known as "curveball" now admits everything he said about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were lies intended to give America an excuse to get rid of Saddam? (besides everyone knew I was crazy who thought they'd buy it?)

ANSWER: Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

QUESTION: What did Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom say at a recent ribbon cutting for a new Jiffy Lube in Brisbane?

ANSWER: "Taxes are the price Americans pay for not being rich or a corporation."

QUESTION: How did General Electric's CEO Jeffery Immelt react when the news broke his company made $15 billion in profit and received a $3.2 billion rebate from the IRS? (His response came from his new office in the Obama Administration)

ANSWER: "We will not allow a despot in Washington destroy our way of life, take away our guns and ability to resist, and tell us who can be an American citizen.

QUESTION: What did the commander of the attack on Ft. Sumter say when he ordered southern guns to open fire? (or what did Michele Bachman say just last week?)

DUFFY

2011-04-12T23:19:00.001-07:00

A member of my family died last week and this loss will be felt by all of us for some time. This is a strange obituary for me to pen, as "MACDUFF the Thane of Calder" was a 175 pound English Mastiff who died from a heart attack at age 9. I feel awkward writing about the loss of our dog. Some of you may think it is a frivolous exercise, or my time could be better spent commenting on the serious struggles faced by our nation and community. However, "Duffy" was a loving , caring , gentle member of our family who added to our quality of life and taught us a great deal about unconditional love. If a eulogy to a beloved pet is not your cup of tea, now would be a good time to stop reading.
"Duffy" was brought home as a 6 week old puppy. He was a beautiful Fawn color. (almost a golden silver) He was the third Mastiff to grace our family. We have lost all three as Mastiffs generally live about 10 years. They are a huge breed related to St. Bernards and Great Danes. They slobber incessantly and are not the most graceful of creatures, but they are wonderful with children, gentle, funny, loving and loyal. (if I had been more like Duffy, I wouldnt be a guest of the federal government)
Within a year, Duffy weighed over 100 pounds. He was a gorgeous dog who could stop observers in their tracks as they inquired about him and wanted to get close to him when he would be out for a walk. At home, his typical M.O. was to hang out wherever we were. He just wanted to be in the same room as any member of the family. He was energized by our presence. Duffy was not the sharpest knife in the drawer and was the victim of a terror campaign by our two cats on a regular basis. They would tease him and run up to him and bait him and he would always rise to their bait and wonder why it was he could never get close to them to exact some comeuppance. They ran circles around him and he never figured them out.
I won't go into daily details, but suffice it to say, Duffy loved his family, thought laying at your feet was as good as it got, and was a source of great pleasure and a great deal of laughter. At his size, grace and dexterity were in short supply. His tail could be a deadly weapon. On more than one occasion, groceries or other items I was carrying went flying as that wagging tail, signifying his joy at seeing me come through the door, would whack a very sensitive part of the male anatomy causing intense pain and chagrin. I was not his only victim over the years. He would look at you with his head tilted, mouth open, tongue panting, totally oblivious to the damage done. He was just happy you were home.
I hadn't seen Duffy in about three years. My wife and daughter had said he was slowing down and not doing well, but the news of his death still hit hard. If you haven't had a companion, a pet, this may be as interesting to you as golf on the radio, but this creature was a source of joy who challenged us to be as glad to see each other as he was to see us. I grieve his loss.
When my wife was in grammar school, her dog, Baron, died. She was educated by the Ursuline nuns, and a discussion about Heaven ensued. She expressed her belief she would be there with Baron. The nun quickly disabused her of that notion, telling her there are no animals in Heaven. At that moment, she rose up to announce to sister that if Baron wasnt going to be with her in Heaven, then she wouldn't want to go there either. I don't have any better insight today than she may have had all those years ago. I do know Duffy was a loving creation of a loving God. Duffy knew what love was and gave without measure or limit. God chose Duffy to exist and I loved him. A love like this does not cease because of death. It goes on.
We will be celebrating Easter soon. I will write about it more extensively soon, but the message of Easter is death is not the final answer. The essence of who we are, the love we experience and share, goes on. In the Catholic faith, we talk about the "communion of saints", the idea we will be in communion, in league, in touch, in intimacy with those we love and care about and this communion lasts beyond death. Is this the definition of Heaven? I don't know. What I do know is at the essence of all God's creation is a source of love and it transcends the loss of our containers...our bodies.
Duffy was an intimate member of our family. Maybe being separated from my family amplifies his loss, but our lives are less bright without his presence in our home. Unlike me, he didn't hold grudges, or seek revenge. He never disappointed his family or let us down. He didn't get jealous, ok he would forcefully defend a bone he was gnawing on, nor did he treat any of us any less or with less enthusiasm no matter whether we treated him the same way. Unlike me, he would protect those he loved from risk or harm and he seemed to forgive immediately.
Perhaps this large, gentle, creature was sent to be a mirror to us about how we should treat each other. Perhaps, Duffy's purpose was to teach us how to love unconditionally. Perhaps, his time on earth was intended to fill our world with joy and give us a glimpse at his creator and the purpose of our own creation. All I know is his death creates a hole in our family and I will miss him a great deal. Well done Duffy.

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK

2011-04-09T22:39:00.000-07:00

The history of the 20th Century is one victory after another for Progressives. From the creation of national parks, the busting of monopolies, rise of trade unions, and child labor laws, to the civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement, rise of the middle class and the creation of Social Security and Medicare, the 20th century represents a people moving forward and spreading the benefits of economic prosperity and freedom. Every one of these advances was opposed by Regressives. Regressives fought to maintain the status quo of the "Gilded Age". It was a time of a weak federal government, no income..corporate...or capital gains taxes, a huge gulf between the rich and poor and no middle class to speak of. They opposed every step forward and protected institutions like Jim Crow, nativism and the concentration or wealth in as few hands as possible. (this is the age Newt Gingrich salivates over when he talks about new federalism and states rights)
in 1940, Franklin Roosevelt tried to ramp up production of war materials for a country unprepared for the war which was to come. Regressive corporate leaders, who opposed Roosevelt's entire New Deal, refused to cooperate until they were paid off with legislation granting them huge profits and a tax structure which allowed them to write off their expenses. Their refusal to cooperate almost gave Hitler his victory in Europe. Had the Soviet Union and England been unable to hold on in 1940, WWII could have resulted in an Axis victory. Regressives cared more about their interests then the country as a whole and the pattern has not changed in over 50 years.
It should be no surprise the war between Regressives and Progressives is still going on. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, they are winning more than they are losing. Labor is severely weakened. The environment under attack as regressives in the House attempt to weaken the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. A Regressive Supreme Court majority overturned years of precedent giving corporations and the rich the ability to contribute as much as they wish to political campaigns drowning out the voices of opposition. Legislation to weaken collective bargaining, cut taxes for the rich, weaken child labor laws, undermine the minimum wage, reduce government oversight and reverse the gains of Social Security and Medicare has been introduced in Congress and state houses across the land. The gap between the rich and poor is growing, the middle class shrinking, and at a time when corporations are paying no taxes on billions of dollars in profit and moving more jobs overseas, they are lobbying to lower corporate taxes even further.
The latest assault comes in the form of a budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan. In it, Medicare as we know it would be eliminated by 2022. In its place would be a block grant program giving subsidies to Americans over 65 to purchase private health insurance. There would be no guarantee the subsidy would be enough to cover costs, no guarantee it would be tied to inflation, no guarantee insurance companies wouldnt raise their rates to eat up the subsidy. It would guarantee health care for the elderly would once again be a scary and iffy proposition. It would be a huge step backwards and as a nation we would regress a step closer to that "Gilded Age" which is the holy grail of everyone from Ryan to Gingrich to Boehner.
The latest Wall Street Journal poll found 54% of Americans willing to tinker with Medicare, but not much more than tinkering. Over 65% of older Americans say leave it alone. Medicare is a success story. Its overhead is the lowest of any health care provider. Its costs rise at a slower rate then health care costs in general. The satisfaction level of Americans on Medicare is over 70%. If Medicare were allowed to use its buying power appropriately, it would force drug companies to reduce the prices they charge for prescription drugs saving billions of dollars. (Congress specifically prohibited Medicare from doing this exact practice when it passed their prescription drug program). Means testing Medicare so those in the highest income brackets pay more, would save billions more. Computerized records save billions, and having other insurance pay first, backed up by Medicare, would save even more.
In 1965, when Lyndon Johnson proposed Medicare, over half the population over 65 lived under the poverty line. They had to choose between medical care and eating or paying rent. Since then the number of people over 65 living below the poverty line has dropped significantly. They dont have to choose between eating and medical care. Their quality of life has been enhanced. Since 1965, Regressives have sought to reverse those gains. In 1996, then Presidential candidate Bob Dole bragged about voting against Medicare and promised to eliminate it if elected. In 2011, Rep. Ryan has picked up the gauntlet and is continuing the war.
Are you a progressive or regressive? It cuts across party lines and is not exclusive to Democrats, Republicans or Independents. Is this nation better off progressing forward or retrenching back to another era? Are we a more secure nation with a large middle class, healthy seniors, universal education and the jobs which come with it, or are we better off with 1% of Americans controlling over 40% of all wealth...the middle class shrinking...educational opportunities going only to those who can afford them...dirtier air and water...corporations making billions and paying no taxes, banks too big to fail and the haves becoming the have mores?
The war on Medicare and Social Security is really a war against progress. If the 20th century was America's century, it's because the promise and benefits of America were spread to as many people as possible despite the kicking and screaming of regressives who fought tooth and nail to hold on to their money, power and privilege. Whose side are you on? As you analyze the upcoming election season, simply ask who represents progress and who doesn't. It will keep the battle lines clear.

DONT SQUEEZE FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE TUBE

2011-04-07T23:30:00.001-07:00

In 1970, 85% of US consumption of goods and services came from labor income. Today that number has dropped to 61%. In 1970, 75% of US personal income came from salaries and benefits. Today they dropped to 64%. The income gap in this country is rising and the middle class is being squeezed into oblivion. It is not a coincidence in 1970 union membership was at its highest levels and today is at its lowest since the early 20th century.
An eroding middle class is a great threat to our national security than terrorism will ever be. A shrinking middle class is a much more serious values and morals issue than gay marriage or gun control or even immigration. Yet, since they took control of the House, Regressive Republicans don’t seem troubled by the widening income gap and shrinking middle class. Do you remember Bush's famous line..."we represent the haves and the have mores."?
Since they stormed back in the Speaker's chair, Regressives have not made a single proposal to increase jobs or income for working Americans. They fought like junkyard dogs to preserve taxcuts for the richest 5% of Americans. (40% of consumer spending is generated by the top 20% of the richest households). They used unemployment benefits to blackmail the President to get their way. After achieving this laudable goal they have proposed a budget, which would cut $60 billion from the federal budget and increase unemployment, derailing an already fragile economic recovery. They have passed laws to exempt the dumping of pesticides, by agricultural corporations, from the Clean Water Act. They are trying to kill a program to help Americans facing foreclosure to stay in their homes. They want to de-fund the health care reform legislation and gut the new Department of Consumer Affairs. Despite opposing every every proposal offered by the President, and despite doing nothing to create a single job, the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.8%. It's still horrible but gradually improving and Obama should get the credit and they should be ashamed.
In Iowa, Regressive candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 2012 lined up to make their case to their base. Mississippi Governor Haley Barber ignored millions of out of work Americans, two wars (maybe 3), and the revolutions in the Middle East and proudly announced his state is the safest state in the country for an unborn child. He failed to also mention, Mississippi is the worst state in the union for a child after he or she is born. Newt Gingrich, unable to offer a single idea about putting Americans to work, told Iowans to be wary of another Obama term. He said Obama could push policies, which would result in his children inheriting a secular, atheistic country dominated by Islamic extremists. He was not asked how an atheistic, secular nation could be dominate by religion, but who noticed?
Republicans want to cut $60 billion from the budget. They won't touch the Pentagon. They won't raise taxes on the rich and they want to cut corporate taxes even more. (G.E. made $15 billion in profits last year and not only didn't pay any taxes; they got a $3.2 billion rebate. Exxon made $19 billion in profit and paid no taxes and got a rebate.) The $60 billion is to come out of Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security. (by the way, Social Security is solvent until at least 2043 and even then will still pay out 90% of all promised benefits. It is neither broken nor bankrupt. The reason the government borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund is to pay for the over $2 Trillion in tax breaks passed by the Bush Administration for the top 5% of the nation.)
While failing to offer one new proposal to put Americans back to work, Regressives have not been idle. Across the nation, they have proposed a series of bills to crush the labor movement once and for all. Bills to gut collective bargaining rights are springing up faster the Gingrich ex-wives. Legislation to weaken child labor laws and reduce the national minimum wage are waiting for action. Attempts to further limit a woman's right to choose are gaining momentum. Donald Trump wants to see Obama's birth certificate.
In 1970, a working American could make enough to own a house, send the children to college and look forward to a world where future generations can surpass their parent's economic achievements and success. All of these hopes and dreams are in jeopardy and the progress made in the 20th century to close the income gap and expand the number of American who can share in the economic promise of this nation, is shrinking. It really is a battle for the future of this experiment in self-government and as Warren Buffet has said..."...there is a class war going on in this country and my class is winning."
What do you think Americans will do about this?

A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

2011-04-07T23:26:00.001-07:00

I will turn 60 years old this week. It is impossible to reach such an iconic age without some reflection. As I look into the mirror, I see a man who has been humbled, embarrassed, chastened and separated from family and friends. All of these consequences I have to take responsibility for causing.
60 years old seems ancient to me. I came of age at a time when we were told not to trust anyone over 30. As I turned 50, I went into a depression realizing most of my life was over. Now I turn 60, as a guest of the federal government, missing a wife and children who I haven’t seen in almost 3 years, wondering if there is any future left and knowing this is all my fault and resulted from my failure of character and judgment. To say one couldn't fall much lower would be an understatement. To say this is a complete disaster and crushing defeat would not be entirely true.
In the last few years, I have experienced acts of kindness and generosity, which defy explanation. The friends who help me keep this site going...who take the time out of their crazy, busy schedule to post what I write, maintain the site, write to me and boost my morale and send me information...are two gracious souls I have never met in person. In fact, this is a pattern over the last couple of years. I have received letters, books, cards, articles and financial help from total strangers whose only knowledge of me came thru the nightly ether I occupied Monday thru Friday and on Sunday mornings. The couple who post this blog for me, whom you know as Girl Friday and ED the IT guy wrote to me to express their support and asked if they could help me. This blog is their gift. I have lost count of all the letters and cards. (I have also failed to write back frequently enough and hope to rectify this flaw if you will keep writing)
Inside this system, a place where you would expect charity and generosity to be in short supply, just the opposite is true. I have met some extraordinary people. In Texas, when I was most scared and fearful, in tears and holding on by my finger nails, colleagues gave me clothing to stay warm...food to supplant the meager amounts provided by the system...lessons on how to stay safe and hours and hours of time spent listening to me and creating a sense of hope and community where none should exist. Here in California, once again total strangers exhibit kindness and caring in quantities that seem limitless. There is a sense of taking each other where we are. Judging each other is suspended for the most part, and evaluations are based on the quality of your character. Who'd a thunk it? In the "real" world, we judge and are judged constantly, and not with kind intensions, and yet in here it is quite different.
For a short time longer, Fr. Louis Vitale OFM is here with me. He is such a gift and a source of inspiration. He joins me in two scripture groups made up of people seeking answers and succor the same as me. It is quite powerful. I am a grateful person now. I wasn't out amongst you. I thought I had "earned" every success and achievement in my life. I "deserved" all the good luck and I was jealous and petty and resentful there wasn’t more and hated to see others get what I thought was rightfully mine. I am a 60 year old man who has had to admit how badly flawed his views on life were and how disrespectful I was of all the blessings I had been given. This is when it is hardest to look into that mirror. I have to face my failures of character and my failing to care enough about my family and friends to protect them and not disappoint and let them down.
My wife and children have never waivered in their love for me. They were, and probably still are, angry with me for being stupid and irresponsible. My actions turned their lives upside down and created fear and anxiety and terror they didn’t deserve. Nothing is the same. They had every reason to throw me under the bus and walk away. Instead, the first letter I received from my oldest daughter, Cait (while in solitary confinement), quoted a Psalm in which God promises never to forsake us and she added, "...and neither will we dad." Their love is a total gift, which only now I appreciate in all its grandeur.
My siblings, also embarrassed, disappointed, hurt, angry and amazed at my lack of any sense, have also stayed the course with me. They have counseled and helped my children in my absence, supported me, and 4 came to visit me earlier this year. It was the first visit I have had since surrendering two plus years ago and until that day, I didn’t fully grasp the love and power of family and the willingness to overlook even shortcoming of my Olympian level.
My friends, and I had no idea there were so many, have been rocks of support and I now have hundreds of new friends, most of whom I have not met, (I look forward to the day when that is possible) with whom I correspond and whose mail I look forward to and delight in its arrival. These people, you people, have been unwilling to let one mistake define me in your eyes and have been forgiving and caring in reaching out to me. None of you had to do it, and yet you did. Why? How do I explain all of these actions? Where does this reservoir of kindness originate?
I'm a 60-year-old convicted felon and everything of value, according to society, has been taken from me. I am sad a lot and wonder if there will be life beyond these fences some day. I ache. I miss my family so much, and worry about the damage I have done to them. However, as this anniversary of my birth comes and goes, I realize I am also lucky and blessed. I have family and friends who love me, a mind which still works, a spirit seeking my God and hoping to draw closer. I have experienced random, selfless acts of kindness. My health is improved, and I will return to my wife and children a better man than I left. (I hope) I once wrote on this site, I now understand the key to life is not avoiding adversity, but rather the key is whether you can get back up after being knocked down, and continue forward. Thanks to all of you...thanks to my family and friends...thanks to a loving God and thanks to so many prayers, maybe I will be able to get back up and lead the rest of my life in a way you can all be proud of and my family can point to as an example of a husband and father who learned from his mistakes... lost a great deal... but regained a heart and soul open to the grandeur of God.

TOO DANGEROUS AT ANY SPEED...

2011-03-24T23:33:00.000-07:00

Dave Dureson had it all. He had a super bowl ring and a world's championship. He had been an All-Pro defensive back for the world champion Chicago Bears and he had made a lot of money. When he killed himself he left a note begging his family to donate his brain to the NFL's Brain Bank. From reports and interviews with family and friends, Dureson was worried he was experiencing the early onset of Alzheimers or some other memory loss disease and couldn't imagine what the future might hold for him. While we don’t know the autopsy results on his brain, it is time to admit football needs to be banned for anyone under the age of 21.
The University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research issued a report claiming NFL players are 19 times more likely to develop Alzheimers or other brain encephalopathies. Additional research is showing a history of concussions can make it harder to recover from each subsequent incident and the cumulative effect can change the nature of a human brain. Most disturbing, is the belief, among some researchers, brain "bumps" not rising to the level of a concussive event, can also eventually result in brain deterioration. Symptoms are showing up in younger and younger players. A freshman football player at Penn University committed suicide and upon autopsy, it was discovered he had the same traumatic encephalopathy as older NFL players' brains. His parents said he had had a concussion while playing high school football, but no other injuries to his head.
It is time to admit no one under 21 should be playing football and perhaps hockey. There is no way a minor, or a minor's parents, can give informed consent about the dangers these sports represent to the future health of the child. It is also clear, you cannot make equipment, which would mitigate some of the danger. Recently, Senator Udall of New Mexico, introduced legislation mandating helmet manufacturers update their standards and technology and produce helmets which better protect football players from head injuries. Under a voluntary program, the industry had not changed its standards since 1973. Senator Udall’s idea will not change the danger because the whole purpose of better equipment is so players can hit each other even harder. Former San Francisco Forty Niner Ronnie Lott is quoted as saying, "...if they took away half my padding, they would take away half my power." The better and sturdier the equipment, the harder the hits.
I coached high school football at a fairly high level. We were undefeated and the #1 team in California one year. Simple blocking and tackling drills resulted in plenty of head contact. We practiced or played six days a week. Many of these young men had played Pop Warner or Pee Wee football prior to entering high school. They had been banging their heads for years and as of today, the research suggests even simple head trauma adds up. If you knew playing football might lead to early onset of Alzheimers or other memory diseases, would you let your child play? The frightening thing is we don’t know enough, so how do you give informed consent? How do you evaluate the dangers to your child? What do you do if you are wrong?
In the last couple of weeks, the NFL owners approved a rule change moving the kickoff to the 35-yard line. It will insure more kickoffs into the end zone resulting in fewer kickoff returns. Kickoff returns produce some of the most violent collisions in the game. (Kickoff returns are also one of the most exciting plays in the game especially if returned for a touchdown) This is an attempt by the owners to reduce opportunities for concussions and other injuries. Last year the NFL handed out hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for illegal hits to the head. All 32 teams will now use the same regulations to evaluate concussions and a player may not return to action without a doctor signing off on his health. All of this is closing the door after the horse is already gone. The proof of how the NFL owners really feel about the issue of player's health is seen in a proposal they have made to add two more games to the regular season. (a total of 18). They have also refused a demand by the players association for lifetime health insurance benefits for NFL players. Hockey faces some of the same questions and NHL owners have refused to adopt European rules which prohibit fighting and blows to the head out of fear Americans will stop going to the games if the threat of violence is not present.
It is no accident football players are referred to as warriors and gladiators. It is no accident a society as violent as America loves football. It is no accident the length of the average pro football career is 3 years and it's no accident fans have been screaming about how the game is being ruined by punishing players for illegal hits to the head. However, football as currently played, has to be banned for anyone under 21.
It is impossible to produce a helmet, which will truly protect the brain. It is impossible to play football without consistently butting heads with an opponent or with teammates in practice. How many times has the brain experienced trauma in a young man who started playing football when he was 9 or 10 years old? No one knows how many bumps a brain can take before damage is done. Dave Dureson was so scared of what the future entailed, and aware of what his past actions had involved, he killed himself rather then go through the ordeal of losing his mind, health or both. What parent could ever let their child face such a Hobson's Choice some day in the future?
My son played football for 2 years in high school. Knowing what I know now, I would not have let him participate despite his protestations. I can only hope the damage was minimal. The nightmare is not knowing.

THOUGHTS WHILE SHAVING (With all due respect to Herb Caen)...

2011-03-22T01:07:00.000-07:00

-The Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives for almost 3 months. In that time, they have secured tax breaks for the richest of the rich, attempted to radically restrict a woman's right to choose, cut funding for food safety inspectors and Wall Street watch dogs, but so far they have not proposed one idea about how to create more jobs. Since they came into power campaigning against Obama and the Dems for their failure to cut the unemployment rate, how does the public let them get away with it?

-A while ago, I wrote the Progressive Insurance Company is going to ask customers to let it spy on them. Now I look at the latest issue of Newsweek and there it is. They call it "snapshot". Isn't that cute? Will you sign up?

-Charlie Sheen, Julian Assange, John Galiano, Mel Gibson...what is up with all the anti-semitic remarks by celebrities? I don't understand prejudice against Jews. I know its ancient roots, but how were any of these men harmed by the existence of the Jewish race?

-Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker wanted public employee unions to contribute more to their health care premium, restructure their pension system and modify tenure. The unions said no. He then introduces legislation to wipe out all collective bargaining rights and the unions agree to his initial demands. Now, that is how you negotiate. Unfortunately, it turns out her really wants to bust the unions which will come back to haunt him, but can you imagine how the health care debate would have progressed if Obama's opening gambit had been to propose eliminating all health insurance companies and going to a single payer health care system?

-Speaking of negotiating...with all the turmoil in the Middle East, Israel is getting concerned about its ability to defend itself. It is going to ask the United States for up to $20 billion in military hardware. At the same time they ignore President Obama's calls to freeze construction in illegal settlements and East Jerusalem and his call to restart the peace process with the Palestinians. I know Obama isn't much of a negotiator but isn't he holding all the cards at the moment?

-Regressives in the House voted to gut funding for National Public Radio based on a tape of an NPR fundraiser allegedly saying the tea party is racist and xenophobic. I thought truth was always the ultimate defense in such cases. Oh, and why does the corporate media ignore the tape was selectively edited, as was a similar tape used to attack ACORN, from two hours to 11 minutes and is a complete set-up job intended to create false impressions? Is NPR that big of a threat to them?

-I just read an article on Howard Stern in Rolling Stone. Is it me, or did he stop popping up in conversations the moment he went to satellite radio? Have you heard a baba booey caller on any talk show in a long time? He's making a lot of money, but his cultural impact seems to be diminishing.

-The people running Lehman Brothers hid $50 billion in debt from regulators and investors. It was fraud on a level Bernie Madof could only dream of, and yet Madoff is in prison for the rest of his life but the SEC has announced no charges will be filed against anyone at Lehmans. They destroyed the company, wiped out life savings, cost the taxpayers billions and not one of them will go to jail. As Yakof Smirnoff used to say, "...what a country."

-Finally, an apology to James Howell of Cloverdale who frequently comments on this blog. He had written to me enlisting my help in bringing attention to the scandal of how PFC Bradley Manning is being treated. I did not do so soon enough and I'm sorry. This is the worst type of unconstitutional abuse of power by the government. Manning is accused of blowing the whistle on the State Department and leaking documents to Wikileaks. He has not been convicted. Yet, right now he is kept in solitary confinement and has been for the last 10 months. (Amnesty International says it is torture and a war crime to keep someone in solitary for more than 90 days.) He is stripped naked every night and has to sleep that way because the military says he could harm himself. (They offer no proof) His prison psychiatrist says he should be treated like any other prisoner and put in the general population. He is being tortured by our government. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley lost his job for committing truth when asked about Manning. Crowley said his treatment is "...ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid."
Despite running for office on the promise to end torture by the government, President Obama says Manning treatment is "...appropriate." I'm sorry James. You were right. This is a disgrace. Manning is being singled out and tortured because he had the audacity to bring some sunlight into the dark corners of how our government conducts diplomacy. There are petitions circulating calling for justice and an end to torture for Bradley Manning. I hope anyone who reads this will tell others about it and sign one of the petitions. I hope you will also lobby your member of Congress to end this disgrace. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, with the Constitution being our ultimate protection. We are not supposed to be a nation composed of a bunch of judicial vigilantes.

DON'T FLY, DON'T PASS GO, BUT PLEASE LEAVE...

2011-03-22T01:05:00.000-07:00

The first attack was by the French. Cruise missiles then followed from American warships in the Mediterranean soon to be followed by jets from Qatar and the Emirates all aimed at stopping Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on his own people. It should not be lost on anyone the attacks come on the ninth anniversary of the beginning of the war with Iraq. This time, however, is much different. The United Nations voted to establish a no-fly zone over Libya and approved any means necessary to protect civilian life. President Obama supported the resolution and was immediately criticized by critics for dawdling while Libya burned. These same critics gave no thought when they approved invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but they have the testicular fortitude to attack the President for deliberating too long before coming to the aid of the Libyan people.
The President inherited two disastrous wars and has expanded one while winding the other down. Obama has not been a profile in courage on the Afghan war, escalating the US presence at a time when the Afghan government is rife with corruption, the Taliban is protected by Pakistan and he has no definition of what victory would look like. The Libyan crisis, along with the crises in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain are all his and he appears to want to actually deliberate before he acts. It's a trait his predecessor was incapable of grasping.
Obama's critics say he should have acted more than a week ago. If he had, he would have had to order American military strikes on missile defense systems ringing Tripoli and other cities...attacks on ground forces including tanks, APC's and ground troops, and Libyan civilians would have died along with some American military personnel. He would have opened America to more criticism in the Middle East and the Arab world, accusing America of being the enemy of Islam. Gaddafi would have used the situation to portray himself as another victim of the West's attempt to destroy Islamic countries. Instead, by waiting, Obama moves against Libya with UN support. He also moves with the support of the Arab League, which he did not have one week ago. It was only the last week, as Gaddafi's violence against his own people escalated, the Arab League and the UN were moved to condemn him. It is not an accident both China and Russia abstained rather than veto the resolution. Gaddafi's actions frightened or worried them enough to sit this one out. A week ago, their vetoes would have been automatic. Now, Obama is calling on Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to lead any establishment of a no-fly zone and their jets are expected to patrol along with French and British fighters. All of this is possible, including asking the Arab league to foot the bill, because of the UN resolution and because Obama waited.
Obama still faces some serious complications. He justifies his actions against Libya by claiming the purpose is to protect the right of citizens to peacefully protest and bring about democracy and regime change. In Bahrain and Yemen, two countries that are allies of ours, protesters site those same goals and yet the US does nothing when the governments of both countries use violence to quell protests and the US doesn’t protest the use of Saudi troops to put down protests against the government of Bahrain. The word hypocrisy will be flying fast and furious through the region.
When the Serbs were trying to ethically cleanse the citizens of Kosovo, to prevent them from declaring independence, I was opposed to the use of NATO forces to stop the slaughter. It wasn’t our fight. Then I was sent to report on the conflict and went to Macedonia and Kosovo and saw for myself the untold carnage which had been loosed on the people of Kosovo. I watched women and children and families torn apart and die right in front of me. I changed my mind. I welcomed the intervention of NATO to stop the killing. Soon after they intervened, the Serbian leader capitulated and stopped the attacks. I was wrong. These innocent people needed someone to protect them from a butcher. Gaddafi is also a butcher and his people need protection. He possesses weapons and an air force, which are game changing if not opposed by equal or greater force.
I am not Obama's biggest fan, but it is clear, waiting to get the UN and the Arab League on board...waiting to let events on the ground drive the debate...waiting to give Gaddafi enough rope to hang himself has paid off. If President Bush, or more importantly members of Congress, had waited for the inspectors to do their job and waited to give permission go to war, thousands of Americans would still be alive and hundreds of thousands wouldn’t be wounded, billions of dollars saved and we wouldn’t still be fighting two unnecessary wars. People like David Gergen, John McCain, John Kerry and others who were so wrong about Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong again now. We don’t know the end game yet, but in this case waiting is exactly what we should expect from the commander in chief and letting others take the lead is good politics. Nine years ago, it would have been good politics as well.

GLOW LITTLE GLOW WORM...

2011-03-22T00:37:00.000-07:00

A coalmine explosion in West Virginia kills 20-30 miners. A drilling platform explodes in the Gulf of Mexico killing nine and befowling the environment. A nuclear plant explodes, melts down and an entire region may be off limits for the next 200 years. All of our choices about energy carry risks, including exacerbating global warming, but nuclear power is a choice where one mistake will result in devastation for generations to come. Some things are too big to endorse.
The crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is illustrating all the problems associated with nuclear power. It also shines a light on the reality many of these problems have not been adequately solved; and yet President Obama and even some environmental groups, are supporting the expansion of nuclear power plants in this country. At the top of the list is the question about the physical plant itself. Japanese officials admit the plant was designed to survive a quake ranging in size from 7.0-7.5 on the Richter scale. They site scientific findings which claim that range is the highest quake possible from the fault line near the plant. We now know, more recent scientific data was not factored in to any upgrades in the plant structure. (Data, which show a much larger quake, was possible.) We also now know they did not take into account the affect a large tsunami would have on the physical integrity of the plant. This from the nation who gave us the word to begin with. As radiation reaches the West Coast, a 200 mile evacuation zone is being created and the crisis enters its second week. Defenders of nuclear power ask you to pay no attention to the nuclear plant behind that curtain. They say "trust us", it couldn't happen here.
The Diablo Canyon Nuclear reactor sits almost on top of the San Andreas fault and the San Onofre reactor is within five miles of a major fault line. Spokespersons say San Onofre is built to withstand a 7.0 quake and Diablo Canyon up to a 7.5. This is not welcome news. You and I know the San Andreas Fault could easily produce an 8-9 sized quake as could the fault near San Onofre. As of this writing, no one from either plant has spoken about how the reactors are, or if they are, protected from a tsunami. A 9.0 quake off the Pacific Coast, an area scientists say is ripe for a big quake, could produce a huge tsunami reaction. What would happen to these plants then?
The physical integrity of the nuclear reactor is not the only concern. One of the biggest worries in Japan are the pools containing spent fuel rods and their ability to keep these rods cool and submerged. The Fukushima plant is ringed with such pools and plant workers have been unable to keep water in the pools from escaping and exposing the rods. The resulting radiation leaks and potential for fire and explosion are a clear and present danger. Why are these pools, containing hundreds of spent rods, ringing the nuclear plant? The answer is because there is no way to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Every nuclear plant in the world has similar pools. The dirty little secret of the nuclear power industry is this waste is a huge danger and no one knows what to do about it. There was an attempt to bury waste in the Nevada desert in deep salt caves. When they tested how secure the caves were, it was discovered they leaked and over time the radioactive waste would get into the underground aquifer and contaminate it throughout the state. There are even those now who propose shooting the waste into space to get rid of it. The defenders of nuclear power never talk about the waste and they know there is no place to put so it sits in pools and needs to be constantly cooled and covered in 30 ft of water to protect radioactivity from escaping.
P.G. & E. run Diablo Canyon. This is the same company, which claimed its natural gas pipelines were safe. It is the same company which has failed to produce safety records and test records of its thousands of miles of pipelines and its the same company which claimed it used seamless pipes under populated areas. We now know the pipe in San Bruno was not seamless and a faulty weld could have been the cause of the recent disaster which killed 8 people. Do you trust P.G. & E. when they claim Diablo Canyon is safe?
A coalmine disaster or oil platform explosions are both terrible events, which have huge costs in human lives and environmental damage. However, they don’t come close to the calamity, which would be caused by a nuclear accident. Until the problem of the structural integrity of nuclear plants is solved...until a solution is found for what to do with the spent fuel rods currently stored at these plants, the last thing we should do is build more of them and place time bombs all over this nation any one of which could do more harm to this nation than a dozen terrorist attacks similar in nature to the attacks of September 11th.
We control our own fate on this one. Don't we?

NEVER FEAR! New posts comming soon!!!

2011-03-20T05:35:00.000-07:00

We have heard from "Our Lion" and he says he has been a bit preoccupied with personal issues and just hasn't been focused much writing. However he asked for info on nuclear plants and is doing research as we speak and expects to have a new post ready any time now, so keep checking back. Thank you much for your support.
Yours Truly ED the IT guy! :)

HOW FULL IS FULL?

2011-02-27T01:41:00.000-08:00

I was sitting with a group of men discussing a passage from the Christian scriptures. It was from the gospel of John and concerned the good shepherd. One verse said "...I came to bring you life and life more abundantly." This line has been one of my favorites for many years. I was raised a fundamentalist Catholic and our goal was to get to heaven. Everything was geared towards this goal. We could even get special deals, indulgences, to make it easier and we had a bus stop, purgatory, to hang out and get things right in order to continue to the pearly gates. However, as an adult it became clear to me the message of scripture, actually the message of all moral systems, is the same. The reason to adhere to any one of them is because you can have life and life to its fullest. The reason to love your neighbor and enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive an infinite number of times and be the most human you can be is because your life will be amazingly fulfilling and joyous and wonderful. Heaven may be cool, but the promise of Jesus and Buddha and Mohammed as well as the promise of great humanists is the promise of an abundant life.
As the discussion continued, and this is such a powerful gathering every Sunday night which includes Fr. Louie Vitale OFM for a few more months, I asked if anyone could define what it means to have an abundant life...what does it mean to live life to its fullest...what is the definition of a truly filled existence? Everyone had their own take on it. I thought it would be an easy question to answer. Yet, the more we talked the more I realized how elusive the concept is. I had what looked to most like a full life. A wonderful, accomplished wife, 4 children each with so many individual gifts and strengths who I love with every ounce of my being, a great job which gave me a forum to voice my opinion, stroke my ego and even help some who couldn't help themselves. I lived in the best city in the world surrounded by other family and friends and had all the material goods we say define success. It is obvious to me now, something was missing. I was chasing something which I couldn't define. The joy, which should have been ever-present, was intermittent and anger showed its ugly head frequently. (Any of you who listened to me know, if you are honest, I could be terrible to callers and would get so angry and so worked up it became unlistenable at times) Whatever it was which was missing, led me to take risks and ignore warnings and make stupid decisions and ultimately I threw everything away and left my family in utter ruin and disappointed and embarrassed my friends and family.
So now I ask you this same question. What does it mean to have an abundant life? What does it mean to live life to its fullest? Please give this some thought. There is a temptation to answer it quickly with clichés and possibly even flippantly, but it is the key to everything I believe. We know what our culture says defines a full or abundant life. We know what a lot of famous preachers say and I think in our hearts we know that any life which is not full or abundant will lead us to chase it even if we don't know what it is we seek. I ask you to ask your family and friends this question. Don't let anyone, or yourself, off easy on this. It's too important. It's so important; Jesus says it is why He was sent to us to teach us and tell us and show us. I suspect Buddha and Mohammed and Moses and Confucius and many others would say the same thing.
At the end of John's gospel, he says he could have included a lot more stories but picked the ones he did so that you might believe and have life and life to its fullest. Are you living an abundant life now? If not why not? How do you know if you can’t define it? Have you spent much time examining what it might mean for you and yours? I spend every day trying to answer this question convinced I have to have an answer before I return to the real world. Our everyday lives leave so little time for contemplation and reflection. I'm giving you permission to stop and take some time because this is just too important to put off.
I wish I had taken this time before and avoided the stupidity and mistakes, which I brought on myself. I am so grateful to be able to write and to share with you and maybe help to remind you this is a quest well worth engaging. I look forward to your thoughts and please encourage anyone you know to add theirs. I wish you could join us on Sunday nights. It's truly an extraordinary time.

A CRISIS IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE...

2011-02-20T21:21:00.000-08:00

The Republican governor of Wisconsin wants to use the state's budget crisis to break the teacher's and public employee's unions. 40 other states are watching to see if he gets away with it. If he is successful, it will be a victory in a war against working- class Americans that started in the early 20th Century. This last battle started with Ronald Reagan, and will be finished by regressives in state houses and in Congress. Under the guise of a fiscal emergency, Wisconsin's governor has proposed eliminating the ability of teachers and state workers to collectively bargain for wages and benefits. Without the ability to collectively bargain, unions cease to have a function. Without collective bargaining, employers can play groups off against each other, pick off weaker employees and prevent workers from banding together to demand a fair wage, decent working conditions, health care and some kind of provision to provide for them when they can no longer work.
In the late 50's and early 60's, when America was at its economic zenith, union membership was close to 40% of the American work force. American workers earned enough to create the largest middle class in the world. Unions proved Marx was wrong when he said there had to be a war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. He said capitalism would create great wealth but the capitalists would never share that wealth with the workers. Unions forced the capitalists to share some of their profits through the use of collective bargaining. The entire work force has more bargaining power than any individual. As unions fought for 40-hour workweeks and higher wages and better working conditions as well as pensions and health care, even non-union workers saw their boats rise with the tide. Putting money in worker's pockets created consumers and those consumers became 2/3 of the economic activity of this nation. The capitalists hated it. They hated having to bargain. They hated not being able to impose their will. They hated bending to demands and they fought and were willing to kill to prevent it from happening. When Franklin Roosevelt signed legislation allowing for collective bargaining, corporate America increased their political contributions at the fastest rate in history in order to defeat him in 1936. That record will be broken in 2012 when corporate America attempts to retake the Senate and the White House. They really don’t like to share.
The campaign against workers and unions has been so successful, working Americans are willing to turn on each other in a death spiral of eroding earnings, hazardous working conditions (can anyone say Deep Water Horizon or the Upper Branch Mine?) and gutted pension systems. While the richest Americans enjoy tax rates not seen since 1950, while the richest 1% see their taxes cut, working Americans tax burden continues to rise and the money pays for less and less in terms of government services and aid. In Madison, Wisconsin average Americans turned out to attack teachers and state workers who were protesting the loss of their bargaining rights. In the 1920's, corporations paid private cops and local thugs to break up labor rallies and stop the move towards workers rights. Today, so many Americans have swallowed the corporatist's kool aid; they are willing to attack other workers fighting to preserve the few bargaining chips they have left.
Their is a belief in this country our fiscal woes are the result of greedy, ungrateful workers. As we watched trillions of dollars transferred from Main Street to Wall Street, as we watched the bonuses and salaries being paid at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and even AIG, as American's had more homes foreclosed in 2010 than any time in history, there is this myth, which has taken root, we are in economic trouble because of the unreasonable demands of workers. Wall Street is back to pre-depression highs, corporate profits are soaring, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in "cash" and yet unemployment sits at 9%. Why should they hire someone when they are making so much money as things are now? Even as the protests continue in Wisconsin, the US Chamber of Commerce is pushing Obama and Congress to approve new free trade pacts with Columbia, Panama and South Korea. Even as more jobs are taken overseas and America's manufacturing base withers and dies, corporate America fights to preserve tax breaks they get by keeping profits offshore and push for new agreements to take more jobs from Americans. They are even pushing the president to cut the corporate tax rate. Even as the rich and powerful pour hundreds of millions into regressive campaign coffers, they seek to dilute and eliminate the one counterweight to their greed and rapaciousness.
The governor of Wisconsin talks of the need for "shared sacrifice" even as he and his fellow Republicans refuse to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%. They rule out any additional taxes on corporations. They refuse to invest in the country's infrastructure and ignore the jobs that would be created. "Shared sacrifice" is a code word for continued attacks on unions and continued erosion of the working middle class. Regressives excoriated Obama for propping up General Motors and Chrysler. They didn't care about the hundreds of thousands of jobs they represented; a decision that has paid huge dividends for both companies, returned taxpayers money with interest and added 56,000 jobs in the industry. They wanted to share in government largesse but the workers would do the sacrificing.
Will public employees have to accept pay cuts and layoffs? Yes. Will they have to contribute more to their pension plans? Probably. Will they have to pay more for health care? Not if we had a single payer health care system not dependant on individual states as employers. Since we don’t, the answer is yes they will pay more. Should they be able to collectively bargain to make the best deal, to protect the most vulnerable, to make sure the sacrifice is shared not dumped on their backs? Absolutely. Taking away collective bargaining is only necessary if you want to bust the unions. It is not necessary to get workers to make the sacrifices we all know need to be made to get our fiscal house in order.
It is no coincidence as union membership declined, the gap between the rich and working Americans widened. It is no accident as workers turned on each other, the richest 1% increased control over at least 60% of the wealth in this nation. It is not happenstance Wall Street was bailed out, while workers had to fight for help for companies like General Motors and it is not bad luck a government program aimed at helping Americans stay in their homes is called a failure and faces cancelation while corporate America is reporting earnings not reached since 2006-2007. If we want a healthy, vibrant and strong America, we have to have a healthy, vibrant and strong middle class and collective bargaining aids in that goal. That's why regressives hate it and unions so much. What do you think?

NOW THAT'S PROGRESSIVE...

2011-02-11T19:33:00.000-08:00

Most Americans don't deserve America. A nation founded on basic principles of freedom and civil liberties is a nation where its people should have a healthy skepticism about the reach and power of government. Instead, Americans have diluted and diminished and given away their liberty and privacy out of fear and indifference.
The latest assault on privacy comes from auto insurer Progressive Corporation. The company is offering up to a 30% discount on auto insurance if a customer will allow them to attach a small device to the car's on board diagnostic computer. The device would measure when customers use their vehicle, how far they drive and how hard they brake. Progressive would use the information to determine which drivers are less likely to get in an accident. So far at least 25% of customers who are eligible have signed up to participate. Allstate, State Farm and other insurers are rushing to follow with similar offers.
I know some claim we have no privacy left anymore so why worry. The Wall Street Journal has run a series of articles chronicling all the ways advertisers are spying on you every time you go online. They are now able to "fingerprint" your computer and track where you go, what you see and search, and what you buy whether you want them to or not. The "cookie" is now so yesterday. Cars are sold with On Star and other services connecting you to some central control. Your cell phone can be tracked even when it's off and even the Fast Pass you use on Bay Area bridges tracks your movements and the information is available to be subpoenaed.
There are companies like Foursquare which reward you for "checking in" to a store or restaurant and letting others know you are there. Add Facebook and Twitter, and maybe it would appear those under the age of thirty find privacy to be an outmoded concept. Now, to save a few bucks, you can allow insurance companies to monitor how you drive. Really? Insurance companies?
It doesn't take any kind of psychic abilities to see the potential abuse of this latest "advance". At first it will be voluntary. Eventually, it will be mandated to get auto insurance. The devices will get more sophisticated and measure speed, driving habits etc and all of this information will be stored and available to the government and to any lawyer with a subpoena. If this had existed after September 11th, can you imagine what Bush and company would have done? They would have demanded every piece of information about every driver under scrutiny or maybe just every driver in the country. We know corporate America will cooperate and they don't even require a warrant.
I have to admit I'm baffled by the cavalier attitude Americans seem to have when it comes to their privacy and the right to move freely, talk freely, shop freely, email freely, and search freely without anyone knowing what they are doing. The old saw,"...if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear," is such an anachronism when the people who write the laws, and prosecute and determine guilt, are the same ones watching what you do. Even if it's not the government, the idea corporate America is building profiles on each online user in order to sell products, without any permission, smacks of a big brother Orwell couldn't have fathomed.
The same people who populate Tea Party rallies and scream about intrusive Obama care, are the same ones who championed the Patriot Act and defended warrantless searches, secret national security letters and illegal data mining of private communications and now they are handing over their personal habits and data to an insurance company to make a couple of bucks. Who says irony is dead.
Perhaps this is a fight we have already lost. Will there be a car sold in this country which won't connect to the Internet? In a Super Bowl ad, Chevy bragged about the "cruise" which connects real time to Facebook. Smartphones have apps where the phone can spy on you and apps which allow you to use it to spy on others. However, to save a few bucks I will not be handing any driving information to any insurance company so they can have me in their central file and I will continue to raise alarms about the continued assault on our privacy. The right to freedom of movement and association and personal shopping and other habits...now that's progressive. What do you think?

WALL STREET VS. MAIN STREET

2011-02-11T19:22:00.000-08:00

Eighty percent of the banks and major financial institutions in this country were in danger of failing during the early days of the depression of 2008. This is the conclusion of a federal panel investigating the causes of the economic meltdown. Those same banks are now making strong profits due to some $12 trillion in help from the federal government and Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, a government watchdog reports a program aimed at modifying home mortgages and saving homeowners from foreclosure, is a failure and regressives want to shut it down.

John Paulson, a hedge fund manager, made $5 billion in 2010, as the economy recovered and cheap money made it possible to borrow low, lend high and take advantage of the improved corporate balance sheets world wide. Mr. Paulson is the same man who made $4 billion in 2008-2009 betting against collateralized mortgage securities being sold to pension funds and large institutional investors. In fact, Mr. Paulson helped Goldman Sachs set up one such vehicle called "Abacus". Mr. Paulson was allowed to pick which packages of bundled mortgages would be included in the offering and it appears he picked the worst mortgages to be sold to investors, and then bet they would fail, and made a fortune. No one knew of Mr. Paulson's involvement in "Abacus" which was a clear conflict of interest and caused the Securities and Exchange Commission to sue Goldman Sachs.

General Motors, Chrysler and other corporations were allowed to declare bankruptcy and get rid of a huge amount of debt and got the debt modified and restructured. Airlines like United used bankruptcy to throw their retirees under the bus getting permission to no longer pay for pensions and health care promised to their workers. Citadel Corporation, which owns KGO Radio, was allowed to go into bankruptcy and shed hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and re-emerge to continue operating and to give top executives huge bonuses. Yet, the one program aimed at helping average gum-chewing Americans stay in their homes, is a failure and should be shut down.

Neil Borofsky, the special inspector general for the government's bank bailouts, says the $341 billion bail out worked and returned the banks to profitability. He says the mortgage program "...which was the program that was supposed to help Main Street," is a failure. Originally intended to help 3 to 4 million homeowners stay in their homes, so far it has only helped a little over half a million. One of the worst offenders is JP Morgan Chase, which has modified just 67,722 out of over 200,000 mortgages while the company received tens of millions in tax payers funds to keep it solvent.

There are those who argue many of the homeowners don't deserve help because they borrowed more than they could afford to repay. The federal panel investigating the causes of the depression chronicled multiple abuses of the system, poor decision making by financial institutions, fraud, deception, poor regulation as reasons for the economic disaster. Despite all of these poor decisions...despite taking on huge debt and hiding it in many cases...despite almost destroying the economy in this nation, these institutions were bailed out. No one went to jail and now they are paying out billions in bonuses. Do you smell something rotten in Washington?

This home mortgage modification program is running on fumes at the moment. Main Street is once again being screwed while Wall Street returns to its profligate ways. If you are as outraged as I am, contact your representatives and demand the program be saved. Call, email or text Rep. Darrel Issa, a regressive Republican who chairs the House Oversight committee and demand he investigate JP Morgan Chase and others as to why they refuse to modify home mortgages.

It's called the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Will we really watch as the John Paulsens of the world make billions in bonuses and salary and corporate debt is "modified" in bankruptcy, while Americans, who can pay something, are kicked out of their homes? Wouldn't it be nice if instead of his new initiative to cozy up to corporate America, for once President Obama would draw one of his famous lines in the sand and stand up for Main Street? What do you think?

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

2011-02-06T19:01:00.000-08:00

As events in Egypt continue to unfold, the United States finds itself in the middle of a Catch 22 of its own making. On the one hand, we supported and encouraged dictators and despots throughout the Middle East in the name of "stability". At the same time, we justified starting wars and invading countries because we wanted to spread freedom and democracy throughout the region. At one time stability meant denying client states to the Soviet Union and later it meant preventing the rise of fundamentalist Islam and reduces threats to Israel. These authoritarian governments ruled with an iron hand and became increasingly corrupt. Political prisoners were common. Economically, most were not progressing and new generations were growing up in poverty and full of resentment with no political freedom to redress their grievances.

Within these closed societies resistance took many forms. One of the most common was led by religious leaders. In Poland, the Catholic Church was the source of political resistance to communism with Pope John Paul II recognizing the Solidarity movement and leading the breakup of Eastern Europe. In the Middle East, Islam has incubated nascent resistance movements. When the Shah of Iran was at the height of his power, the Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled to France, but continued to agitate for political change. In Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere, Islamic groups provided social services, addressing the needs of the poor in lieu of the government and continued to agitate for political reform. Leaders were imprisoned and tortured and exiled while the issues they addressed were ignored by corrupt leaders. In Tunisia, Egypt and Iran, for example, leaders, propped up by the US, got rich as their people struggled in abject poverty. In each case, the situation became unsustainable. In the era of the Internet and Facebook and Twitter, the dissatisfaction can spread quickly just waiting for a spark. Pressure mounts to drive the corrupt regime from power. The United States is forced to decide between continuing to support the dictator or support the people's desire for freedom.

In Iran, Tunisia and now Egypt, the United States outwardly welcomed democratic movements. Internally, however, the debate is furious. Regressives call for support for the dictator sighting the rise of extremist Islamic movements as an inevitable result of a power vacuum. Progressives want to support the people. However, whether it's Alexander Kerensky vs. Lenin or the democratic forces in Iran vs. the Ayatollah, we know who usually wins. The side that is most organized, most ruthless and has some popular support will win any election. Just look at what happened in Gaza and the victory of Hamas. (President Bush had called for free elections and then refused to recognize the results)

Catch 22 is alive and well. Because we have sacrificed the principles of freedom and democracy, because we are willing to look the other way as corruption and repression grow, because we didn't press the need for human rights reform, by the time the revolution comes, we have no leverage and no credibility and no way to influence events on the ground. If there are elections in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will do very well. Why? Because they are the face of resistance, because they have provided social services, because they are organized and because they are vilified by the United States which means they must be doing something right in the eyes of the average Egyptian.

There are calls now on regressive talk radio, Hanbaugh and company, and regressive think tanks and even in Congress, for the US to directly negotiate with the Egyptian military. Promise to continue to provide them with money and spare parts in return for their agreement to keep the Muslim Brotherhood from any future elections. This would be a public relations disaster and would fail to marginalize the Brotherhood. The elections would be tainted and seen as rigged. The great bastion of democracy, the US, would be thwarting the will of the people. Hypocrite would be one of the milder terms used and the Muslim Brotherhood would increase its influence.

Ah Catch 22...if we support the ouster of Mubarak and free and fair elections, the possibility of a new government opposed to Israel and our own strategic needs is quite possible. If we support the military and set up rigged elections, our credibility in the Muslim world is damaged even worse than the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and eventually the people will rise up and install a government opposed to us even if it's not in their own best interests. The law of unintentional consequences is alive and well.

We can hope for a transition government perhaps led by Mohammed El Baradei, which will allow enough time for various political factions to organize and oppose the Brotherhood. One thing is clear. We have little to no influence over events unless we want to install another repressive government and there is no guarantee it would succeed. We lost that influence the day we sacrificed principle for short-term political gain. Do you think we will ever get tired of being bitten in the collective national ass because of morally bankrupt foreign policies that trade our principles for "stability"? What do you think?

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY...

2011-02-05T19:59:00.000-08:00

Since the end of World War II, the foreign policy of the United States differed little from that of the Soviet Union. Despite radically different national principles, we talked about freedom and democracy while they had little interest in civil liberties; both nations sought out and supported any dictator and oppressive regime willing to align with them. We wanted freedom and liberty within this country, but showed passing interest in establishing it in a good portion of the rest of the world. We have an unerring record on picking sides. We have always been wrong.

The United States consistently supported oligarchies, military rulers, family dynasties and showed little to no interest in what the people of a given country were concerned about, nor did we concern ourselves with their freedom to determine their own destiny. We supported immoral, corrupt, evil national leaders and justified it with the old line, "...the enemy of my enemy is my friend." We also liked, "...he may be a son of a bitch but at least he is our son of a bitch." The end result has been disaster after disaster and years of unnecessary hatred and enmity directed at this country by people victimized by our neglect.

The current crisis in Egypt is a classic example of this failed policy. For 30 years, we have sent hundreds of billions of tax dollars to Hosni Mubarek because he has kept Egypt "stable". Stable meant he would pretend to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. Stable meant he would fight extreme forms of Islam while at the same time using the Arab press to demonize and vilify both Israel and the United States and allowing some of the most virulent anti-Semitism to be spread throughout the region. The price of this stability was the steady, crushing, repression of his own people, the reality is America was seen invading Moslem nations to "spread democracy" while spending billions propping up dictator after dictator. We armed these same despots with American weapons, not for defense, but to control their own populations and make a nice buck for the military industrial complex. So, now the United States sits and watches the people of Egypt and Tunisia rise up against their corrupt oppressors faced with a Hobson's choice. Do we support democracy and the overthrow of our "friends" knowing it will wreck our shaky credibility with other Arab regimes? If we side with the people, it is possible any new leadership could be much more anti American, not interested in our need for stability or our security needs.

The list of wrong choices made by Democratic and Republican presidents is long and the results consistent. We knew Chiang Kai-shek was corrupt, represented the rich elite and was hated by the people, we propped him up anyway paving the way for Mao's sweep to power. We backed Bautista in Cuba opening the door to Castro. When the Iranian people democratically elected a leader, the CIA overthrew him paving the way for the Shah and eventually the rise of the Ayatollah. We back Franco in Spain and the military junta in Greece. The Vietnamese fought for independence from the French and won in 1954 only to see the United States step in and support a corrupt and repressive government. Ho Chi Minh was ours for the taking in the early fifties and the disaster that became the Viet Nam war was totally unnecessary. Few national leaders were more corrupt than Ferdinand Marcos, yet he was our guy and at the same time Reagan, Cheney and the rest attacked Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and supported the corrupt and morally bankrupt system of apartheid in South Africa. In the Congo, the CIA assassinated Patrice Lumumba condemning that nation to 50 years of terror, repression and death. In Chile, we arranged for the fall of Salvador Allende replacing him with Augusto Pinochet who murdered tens of thousands of his people to maintain control. Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier ransacked Haiti and enjoyed support in Washington. We backed Somoza in Nicaragua making it easy for the Sandinistas to rise to power. In El Salvador, over 70,000 people died in a civil war we financed, killed by the government we supported, in order to keep in power a political party, the Arena party, who killed and tortured nuns, priests and assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero while he was saying Mass. The reality the rest of the world knows is fighting for freedom and democracy will rarely get you the support of the United States. Fight to protect the elite business and moneyed interests against the average citizen and we will rush to your aid. The people of Egypt know the key roll we played in keeping Mubarak in power and how we have looked the other way for 30 years as he crushed his own people. Now, we are worried what will happen if he goes. Talk about the barn door being closed after the horse has gotten out.

The very existence of Al Qaeda can be directly linked to American support for the repressive and corrupt regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The appeal of extreme fundamentalist Islam is linked to the poverty in these countries, the lack of jobs and economic progress and the knowledge the United States is responsible for keeping people like Mubarak in power. Our policies have led to direct threats against Americans in this country even as we justified supporting dictators because the stability was good for American security. Even when someone does what we want we turn it into something that further erodes our credibility. We called on the Palestinians to have free and fair elections, but when Hamas won, we immediately refused to recognize the results and poured money into Fatah's coffers igniting a civil war in the territories.

I have been listening to regressive talk radio and reading op-eds in the corporate media bemoaning our lack of support for Mubarak. If we had just stuck by the Shah in Iran, there would have been no Islamic revolution and no rise of fundamentalist Islam. They raise the specter of a similar occurrence in Egypt. We should continue this history of disastrous foreign policy and side with Mubarak no matter what he has to do to wipe out his opposition and ride out the storm. The hypocrisy is extraordinary and the result would be to destroy what little credibility America might have left in the region. Hanbaugh and the Weiner and the rest also seem to be more concerned about Israel's security than they are our principles. This cold war policy has resulted in anti-American movements all over the world and yet they still cling to it like Linus to his blanket.

Is it possible things could be worse under a new government than they are now under Mubarak? Yes. The Muslim Brotherhood could seize power and try to impose an Iranian-style Islamic nation on Egypt. Even if they don't, the new government could be more sympathetic to Iran and less willing to do US bidding and Israel could find itself with a much less secure border situation. Goods could flow more easily into Gaza, and Egypt could shift into being an advocate for the Palestinians. Any of these scenarios is possible and the United States will find its influence diminished because we have so little cache left in the region. We supported and support oppression in the name of our national interest despite its effect on the people and their dreams and aspirations and every time we do we come out with the short end of the stick. Stay tuned.

WITNESS (Fr Louie)

2011-02-02T21:41:00.000-08:00

He walked into the housing unit of a federal prison. Over 200 men in the barracks-like setting; all convicted felons, ethnically divided, cynical and some dangerous. He was greeted like a rock star. In mates rushed to greet and touch him. Black, white, Hispanic, they all flocked to him. Awkwardly they said, "welcome back", knowing how strange it sounded in this context. Offers of assistance were fast and furious. " Got soap? Need shower shoes? Want a soup? What ever you need you tell us." The object of all this attention wasn’t a returning drug lord or gang leader or master criminal; it is an 80-year-old Franciscan priest. Yes a priest. This priest is living proof of the power of witness and one person's ability to change others.

Fr. Louis Vitale OFM is back for a return engagement at Lompoc federal prison. He spent 6 months here and was released in July of 2010. He was sent here by a federal judge for trespassing onto a federal institution, to protest the continual development of nuclear weapons. His current 6-month sentence is for trespassing at Ft. Benning, Georgia to protest and try to close the School of the Americas, a training place for Latin American and other dictators interested in learning how to crush political dissent in their country. In all, Fr. Vitale has been in jail or prison hundreds of times because of his commitment to civil disobedience and his conscience driven mandate to witness for peace and justice.

Since his release in July, a debate started among guards and inmates. Why was he doing this? At his age, why doesn't he stop? Is he trying to die in prison? The question causing the most vigorous reaction was, "...what difference does he make?” This last question made people angry. They point out the School of the Americas is still open. America is still building and modernizing its nuclear arsenal. We are not beating swords into ploughshares. IN fact, just the opposite is occurring. We are involved in two wars and the military budget continues to increase while homelessness, hunger, poverty and violence increase on a parallel track. Fr. Louie should stop and retire to a parish and end all of this idiocy.

None of this is new to him. He has been at the forefront of the social justice movement for more than 50 years. He was friends with Caesar Chavez and Dorothy Huerta as they marched and organized for better wages and working conditions for farm workers. He has been involved with the peace movement and the likes of the Berrigan brothers and other luminaries and has been a voice against homelessness and for non-violence along with leading figures like Mitch Snyder. He is known and knows every Bay Area politician from Nancy Pelosi to Diane Feinstein. His message to them has been constant. The richest nation on earth has a moral obligation to fight injustice, attack poverty and hunger rather than cause them.

In San Francisco, Fr. Louie called attention to the plight of the homeless and dispossessed. He lived in the Tenderloin and was pastor of St. Boniface Church. He helped to raise funds for St. Anthony's Dining Room and the St. Anthony Foundation, which has served over 35 million meals since its inception in 1951. He opened the doors of St. Boniface, at a time when most SF churches are locked during the day, to allow the homeless to sleep inside. He called it "sacred sleep" and faced withering criticism for letting "them" in and was warned about the damage "they" would do to his church. It still goes on to this day.

In a federal prison, however, the debate about his sanity and the waste of all this time and talent was most focused. Guards, many former military, resented his message and would get visibly upset when referring to his attempts to stop war and reduce nuclear weapons. "We need these weapons...what is he some kind of commie?...if we don’t fight, our enemies will destroy us...people like him weaken our nation...if he doesn't like it here why doesn't he live somewhere else?" Inmates echoed many of the same positions with many accusing him of being naive and silly and ineffective. Yet, they all wanted information on how he was doing and when his next court date would happen. Many hoped he would just stop. Others, grudgingly would admit you had to admire his principals if nothing else.

When the news broke he had been arrested again and was on his way back, the debate intensified. Shortly after Christmas, he was back and the reaction was extraordinary. Inmates want to talk to him. They walk with him in the yard. They sit with him at meals. He walks around under the protection of so many. No one would dare bother or harass him. He chooses to be in prison. He doesn't have to be here. As much as they dismiss his actions as foolish, useless, crazy, delusional or worse, they want to be near him and talk to him and worship with him. They are quiet when he speaks and his words carry power.

He is frail and his hearing is iffy and he is 80 years old and he knows it possible his life could end inside, yet he is happy and upbeat and joyful and his is ministering to many who are here for far different reasons. Despite the anger and frustration and criticism he engenders, this friar is a living witness to the gospel command to do for the least of your brothers and sisters and his witness has evangelized a federal prison and made it a sacred space. He hasn’t changed the world or stopped rocket launches or reduced the resources devoted to war, but his witness, the actions of one man, have affected this unlikely place in ways no one could have predicted. I leave it up to you to decide if it's worth it or not. I already know what Louie would say.

MOTHER MAY I?

2011-01-31T22:47:00.000-08:00

My wife is a "Tigger" mom. She read stories to our children at dinner. (Cheaper by the Dozen being one of their favorites) They listened to audio books in the car. She never missed a parent's conference or a choir performance and was on the sidelines for every game and lots of practice. She encouraged them to learn "Irish" step dancing and karate and loved it when they brought an art project home. She has raised 4 wonderful children who would be even better off if their father had been a better role model and shown better judgment.

I call her a "tigger" mom as a counterpoint to the current rage, the "Tiger" mother that has opened parenting debates in everything from the Wall Street Journal to the cover of Time and across the cable landscape. A "tiger" mother yells and screams at her children if they don't get A's in school, denies bathroom breaks and food if they don't practice an instrument for hours each day, and isn't interested for one minute in building self esteem. A "tiger" mom runs a boot camp not a home and Time suggests maybe this is why China is surpassing us in academic achievement and economic growth. What a bunch of "bulls-geshicte."

Yale law professor Amy Chua has written a memoir about raising her children like her parents raised her. Chinese parents don't want their children to "feel" good; they have to "be"good. Disagree with your parents; you are "garbage" to them. Don't put enough time into a birthday card, it is crap and thrown away. Want to watch TV, play a computer game or sleep over at a friend’s house? Forget it. The proof of the pudding for these Asian drill instructors is a child at the top of their class academically; a virtuoso artist, and a tough kid ready to take a bite out of life. What's not to like?

A "tigger" mom wants her children to read and write well. They play athletics to learn about being on a team and about winning and losing. She expects their homework to be done and chores finished. She doesn't blame the teacher when a grade is low, but she doesn't hang her child out to dry either. She prepares them for high school and college and hopes they will be successful. Ah, that's the rub. What is the definition of successful these days?

All of the coverage about Chua and her upbringing and that of her children focuses on an older daughter who has performed at Carnegie Hall and a younger daughter who made the varsity tennis team while still in junior high school. If you dig a little into all the euphemisms Chua uses, you discover happiness or success is defined by superior achievement, which will lead to monetary rewards and a big house in Connecticut.

Chua never addresses her children's social skills or if they have developed empathy and compassion. She never says, and not one writer or commentator asked, how peers viewed them or how they related to each other. Chua herself didn't marry another Asian to the despair of her parents and while she is a law professor at Yale, teaching law is not considered a real achievement in the legal world. There, perhaps more than anywhere, the adage those who can't do, teach, is in full force. Her definition of success doesn't match mine or our family's at all.

American culture is designed to emphasize consumption and material wealth. 2/3 of the American economy depends on consumer spending. Politicians and corporate strategists lay awake at night trying to figure out ways to get you to spend more money. America's ethical model is the "top" model. Parents stand in line to get their children into the "top" preschool to get them into the "top" kindergarten in order to get into the "top" grade school, "top" college prep school, "top" university, "top" graduate school in order to make the "top"money and afford all the "top" perks from Mercedes to flat screen TVs to ski trips to Jackson Hole. Brilliant graduates of the best universities flocked to Wall Street to make a fortune making nothing, creating nothing and almost wrecking this nation. A failed parent is one who didn't get their child onto the right track and watches as they become a teacher.

Someone has to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. A successful parent is one who helps their children be as well rounded as possible. A good mom and dad or mom and mom or dad and dad hope for a child who has a big heart and generous spirit. They want a child who possesses the tools to follow their passion and achieve financial stability. As dreamy-eyed and squishy as it sounds, I want my children to be happy. It is clear now, happiness is not found at the bottom of a Kate Spade bag or when wearing a new pair of Jimmy Choo's.

You already know all of this. In your heart of hearts you want a loving, caring, compassionate, competent and happy child. There is no evidence at all that is what a "tiger" mom will get and tons of proof it is what a "tigger" mom strives for.

As for the idea China is ahead of us because we are raising a generation of weak, namby-pamby, nancy-boys who can't compete in the real world anymore....China's economic growth is built on the backs of over 400 million poor people earning pennies a day. China spends a fortune on factories and manufacturing while their people live in poverty with no idea or concept of a safety net. A growing middle class is a threat to Chinese stability, as they demand higher wages. Recent strikes at a number of auto plants are evidence of this phenomenon. China's advantages and ability to make cheap exports for American companies begin to vanish as people demand a better life. American workers fought for 100 years to improve wages and working conditions, and to share in the profits of this capitalist system. Chinese workers are just starting. Ironically, as Chinese workers strive to organize and improve wages, American workers have been under attack and their wages have stagnated for years. Even though Shanghai and Hong Kong student's scores in math and science are so superior to American students, wealthy Chinese parents send their children to America for higher education because the Chinese system doesn't encourage creativity or imagination or flexibility in thinking. These parents know right now Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple or Silicon Valley could not rise out of the Chinese environment as it exists today. It's why they steal so much of our intellectual property.

I am so proud of my "tigger" wife and my children. We are blessed to have them in our lives and their big hearts and expansive spirits are all the success we need. Here's to all the "tigger" moms, and to the day success is defined by the content of a child's character and not the color of their credit card.

STATE OF THE UNION

2011-01-27T23:30:00.000-08:00

(ALSO KNOWN AS TWO SEATS ON THE AISLE)

According to CNN, Americans love optimism. They don't want to hear bad news or pessimism. They want us all to get along and it was such a nice image to see members of Congress sitting together during the State of the Union. Americans want leaders who will tell them things are going to bet better and there is light at the end of the tunnel. Instead of opining the light might be a train or that the state of the union is broken, leveraged, captive of the richest 1%, nor did he say unless the nation spends on education, infrastructure and innovation we will be in deep trouble. His speech was a jumble of calls for investment, but he didn't call out the regressives and tell America to choose between going back and making progress. It was a soft focus speech lacking force or inspiration. Yet, he did lay out some important issues for debate.

The President wants to spend more money on education. He wants improved K-12 and expanded community colleges. He understands fewer Americans are graduating from college at a time when their counterparts in India and China and the European Union are flocking to higher education. He didn't address the cost nor did he take the bold step of setting a goal of free university education for anyone who qualifies. It would immediately stimulate the economy, put money in the pocket of the middle class and allow students more flexibility in choice of profession.

The President wants Americans to ride high-speed rails. He failed, however, to explain how to stimulate American technology to fit this need. Right now, his call for high-speed rail would create jobs in China. The same is true with wind power and other alternative energy industries. We need a Manhattan project for manufacturing. Make grants available to start-ups all over the nation and see what sprouts up.

All Americans need access to high-speed wireless technology at real high speeds, not the phony speeds currently being touted. We need a totally new electrical grid and our roads and bridges are falling down or crumbling. Jobs would be created and the economy improved by better transportation. IN China, they are building huge highways with few cars to use them along with new airports and entire cities for manufacturing. What are we doing?

Most of what the President called for he has proposed before. Unfortunately, there was no urgency and there was no listing the consequences of failing to move ahead on this agenda. Maybe moving to the center means losing all energy and oratorical panache.

The Regressive response was predictable. They rejected any talk of investment. They rattled the skeleton of massive deficits and calls for shrinking the government and cutting spending. Of course they said nothing about the huge deficit a tax cut for the rich creates nor the $250 billion, which would be added to the debt if they repealed the healthcare reform legislation. They ignored the reality if they had gotten their way in 2004 and privatized Social Security, Americans would have lost between 40%-60% of the value of their retirement accounts. Republican Paul Ryan gave their response and decided on the tried and true method of argumentation...lie. He claimed the economic stimulus package was a failure. (Even acolytes of Milton Friedman admit Obama kept the recession from being much deeper and longer) He says his party wants smaller government even as they support new laws in states across the country to restrict a woman's right to choose. He mentioned nothing about tens of thousands of subpoenas issued by the federal government to Twitter, Facebook, Google and others to obtain information about our online activity. As he made Cassandra-like noise about deficits, he did not propose any tax he might support increasing and regressives rejected any attempt to end subsidies for the oil industry.

The regressives don’t want to shrink government. They want to use it to erode the 4th amendment, control what people do in their bedrooms, stop states from easing criminal sanctions on marijuana, impose on families the type of planning they can have, maintain two wars and protect the interests of oil and coal corporations from the wrath of a public fed up with their destruction of the environment.

President Obama didn't draw any lines in the sand, but the feint outline is there to see. Do we progress, expand education, rebuild the nation, create new industries and manufacturing and give our people the tools they need to compete or do we watch the dismemberment of regulations and oversight; the expansion of the hyper-rich at the expense of the middle class; end the social safety net and unleash a social Darwinism unseen since the early part of the 20th century? Regressive will "invest" in the richest 1%, cut corporate taxes, expand the oil and gas industries, reduce access to education and information and claim it's all in our best interest.

I wish Obama had called them out, warned America what the real stakes are and called for 2012 to be a referendum on whether America is for everyone or just for the elite few. He didn't. However, he was right and his direction is accurate and he knows if the regressives win, this nation will see the sun rise on prosperity in Asia and the Far East and set on the American dream.

UNITED WE STAND...DIVIDED WE FALL (ARIZONA #2)

2011-01-23T00:24:00.000-08:00

In his address at the University of Arizona, President Obama called for more civility in our political discourse. The President claimed there is more that unites us then divides us as a nation. At first glance, the tendency is to agree with the president. We want to believe we have more in common with our neighbor and share the same core values. We know instinctively a house divided against itself cannot stand. Our enemies understand this as well. Bin Laden knew his attacks on September 11th wouldn't accomplish any military victory and he knew the physical damage would be repaired. He hoped to terrorize and disrupt us and have us turn against each other. He hoped we would cease to trust each other and erode the ties which bind us. To that end, he won a great victory with the help of a regressive movement bent on seizing the moment for their political gain. The real enemy, the real threat, is not any external force. It is coming from within and the President may have been right at one time, but is he still correct today?

American are not united with it comes to foreign policy. We don't know what we want or the role we should play in the world and we have been manipulated, using our fear, into contradictory positions. President Bush and Vice President Cheney used September 11th to pursue an agenda Americans would never have supported without this new "Pearl Harbor". Bush cynically used the fear the attacks generated to start two wars, give Israel a free hand with the Palestinians, and attempt to spread American hegemony in the Middle East through the use of force. At the same time, they ignored the deteriorating political situation in Mexico while using illegal immigration as another wedge issue. Americans are seriously divided about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and over our policy towards Mexico and immigration. President Obama has not eased these divisions as he expands the war in Afghanistan, maintains the military presence in Iraq and ignores the immigration issue and the failed nature of the Mexican state.

America is more divided than ever when the issue of the Constitution and civil liberties is raised. Shortly after September 11th, the Congress passed the Patriot Act, (a title which former President Bush now says he regrets), which eviscerated the 4th amendment and expanded the power of the government to spy and watch its citizens. In the ensuing years, we now know that the government national security apparatus abused and violated national security letters, conducted illegal domestic spying, subpoenaed library records and used telecommunication companies to data mine our email, phone conversations and internet activity. A prison was established in Cuba precisely so American law couldn't be applied. Secret prisons were built abroad and kidnapping and torture became standard practices for the CIA with White House approval. White House counsel John Yoo, now sucking off the government teat teaching "law" school at Berkeley, wrote an opinion which claimed the President as Commander in Chief can ignore or violate "any" federal law with impunity. Are we a united nation over these issues? Whose fault is that?

On domestic issues the divide grows rather than narrows. In 2004, Karl Rove devised a strategy of gays, guns and God to re-elect President Bush. The regressive mantra was designed to divide and conquer. The homosexual agenda, a desire to be able to marry and have full civil rights, would destroy the family and, according to former regressive senator Rick Santorum, lead to the legalization of incest and bestiality. Fundamentalist evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church fanned the fires of prejudice and bigotry using God as an excuse to hate and discriminate. Even as Yoo and his gang were expanding government power at the expense of the entire Bill of Rights, Rove and regressives seized on guns as the symbol to prove America is under attack. They encouraged more lenient concealed weapons laws, the championed guns in churches and on college campuses and in bars and called on Americans to wear their guns to political rallies.

Perhaps the biggest domestic divide was created over the question of health care. The irony here is most Americans were united on this issue. We shouldn’t be denied care for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies shouldn't be able to cancel coverage when it gets too expensive. People should not lose their homes and savings due to catastrophic illness. Children should be able to stay on their parent’s policies longer, and the cost of health care had to be reigned in. The unity did not last in the face of a summer assault conducted by regressive forces. The campaign to create town yells rather than town halls...the lie about death panels... the fear caused by claims Americans would lose their doctor and millions of illegal immigrants would get government sponsored health care while "real" Americans would be left holding the bag, turned health care into a nasty, divisive, violent subject. The New York Times reports Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s' district had a long history of tension over immigration and health care issues. After she voted for President Obama’s health care reform, Gifford’s' Tucson office was attacked and a glass door shattered by a kick or a gun. She and her aids were so concerned for their safety; they started informing police about their schedule and public appearances. Her opponent in the last election appeared on a web site holding an assault weapon and Gifford herself let it be known to anyone she owned a gun. The office, and the Congresswoman, were constantly receiving threats and they increased as the campaign against the health care bill and the anti immigration bill in Arizona were pressed. Both of these issues were the centerpiece of the regressive campaign to retake Congress by the Republicans, Tea Partyists and aspiring presidential candidates. Add to this volatile mix the rantings of Hanbaugh, Beck, Weiner, Fox, et.al. and the result is entirely predictable.

So, the question remains, are we a nation more united over commonly held beliefs than we are divided by individual issues? What do we as Americans hold in common? I ask you now, dear readers, to take on the question. In your opinion, what do most Americans agree about? Where are we united? Where are we divided? Is there truly common ground we can all support, or is this nation irretrievably broken and fractured? Is the President correct when he claims there is more agreement then disagreement politically in our nation? Please add your comments to this question. Please make a sincere effort to chronicle all which unites us and divides us and your view of the result. I am caught because I'm not sure any more the President is correct and I see political forces deliberately exploiting the divisions to finish what bin Laden started. Do you?