Thomasina Paine

The Murder of the Inner Child: Ted Rall Tells It Like It Is

2011-01-30T09:25:00.000-08:00

Includes partial list of Obama's broken promises. Check it out:

http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/01/28/syndicated-column-how-obama-helps-murder-our-inner-child

Ted Rall column

Obama's Record: Change or Betrayal?

2010-04-29T04:38:00.000-07:00

I couldn't have said it better:

The Center for Constitutional Rights: CCR's Assessment of the Obama Administration's Record. http://www.ccrjustice.org/obama-record

Book Note of the Day

2009-10-28T09:47:00.000-07:00

Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America,
by Barbara Ehrenreich

So far this one gets my attention more than the others in my reading queue—Nader's Only the Rich Can Save Us, Derrick Jensen's Walking on Water, Michael H. Stone's Anatomy of Evil. This may be because she speaks to a phenomenon I have noticed myself, and so in reading Bright-sided I experience a happy recognition, as when a stand-up comedian says what we've all noticed but haven't articulated yet—"Oh, that's so true!" I'm thinking.

I must beg to differ with her on one point, however. On page 25 she writes: "No one among the bloggers and book writers seemed to share my sense of outrage over the disease and the available treatments." Well, while I realize I am a mere whiff among the great winds of the blogosphere, I have been here, kvetching my head off, nevertheless: "Losing body parts to breast cancer was pretty much the opposite of fun." http://thomasinapaine.blogspot.com/2008/08/trekking-through-disease-capitalism.html

UPDATE, November 5, 2009:

On one website I find this, in response to the book:

"I am truly happiest when I am thinking positive.
This book will be in the dollar bin by christmas.
Who would read such crud?
Is there an audience?"

The response:

"Being 'happy' is not necessarily the highest of high values. Being real, being truthful, being in touch with reality, is sometimes the healthiest place to be. Before you can effect change, you must face reality; otherwise, you may be nothing but a happy idiot, while the world falls apart around you.

Ehrenreich has truly faced an important reality with this book, and in doing so, she has offered us an insight which has the power to heal and bring a healthy new understanding to the culture. You should read it before you ignorantly dismiss it.

Don’t forget: As St. Augustine said, 'Hope has two beautiful daughters—Anger and Courage; anger over what’s wrong and the courage to change it.'"

I am particularly grateful to Ehrenreich her fascinating discussion of the "New Thought" movement, its Calvinist origins and its various cultish dogmas promoting self-alienation, ultimately—I would call it phoniness. "All is God, or Mind, or Goodness, or Whatever—except for that asshole who just slammed into my bumper—but oh well, after I've let him know what a loser he is, I'll choose to be happy for the experience." Lah-tee-dah.

I myself have been to enough sales meetings to have experienced first hand the anxiously aggressive, tyranny of positivity training; while you are being pummeled with the likes of, "EACH PERSON ON PLANET EARTH IS ABUNDANTLY AND INNATELY CAPABLE OF ATTAINING BREATH-TAKING HEIGHTS OF HAPPINESS AND FULFILLMENT," you are simultaneously subjected to negative supervisory habits and judgments. Your boss wanders about with a button that has a red slash across the word NEGATIVITY, while she simultaneously complains about "the numbers." Sheesh!

Also, it occurs to me that Obama's oft-repeated excuse for letting Bush, Cheney, et al, off the hook for torture and war crimes, that is, "We're looking forward, not backward," must have arisen out of the positivity movement. I'm thinking, he talked to Oprah! So now the Justice Department is making rule-of-law decisions based on Oprah-Think, but only where powerful elites are concerned. Everybody else gets prosecuted and held to account.

Health Care Letter to Mr. Obama

2009-10-22T18:01:00.000-07:00

"If the corporation is a 'person,' what kind of person is it?" Sketch by Laurie Menard

Dear President Obama,

In your speech to Congress on September 9, you said, “Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable.”

Question: With respect, how did we come to this place, where those who injure others in a for-profit scheme, or system, remain in our good graces, to escape a designation as “bad people?” And when did making a profit become a justification for policies that injure American citizens?

Mr. President, what would America look like today had Lincoln said, “Well, the slave masters don’t do it because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable.”? What if he had said, “If you’re starting from scratch, then liberation from slavery would probably make sense. But managing the transition would be difficult. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive.”? How would that work for you, Mr. President, had the federal government not recognized the essential immorality of slavery, that is, bad people doing bad things to innocent people? We’d be in pretty sad shape, it seems to me.

And we are in sad shape now, with regard to health care. While 44,000 Americans die each year for lack of access to health care, the CEO of United Healthcare hustles off with a compensation of $3,241,042 million, and he remains in our good graces. If 44,000 Americans died by terrorist attacks in one year, would we be so blind to the true character of the terrorists? No. But deaths for lack of access to health care hugely outnumber deaths by terrorist attacks. I ask you: who are the bad guys, Mr. President? Who are the worst of the worst terrorists?

It seems to me it is time to act on a vision for an ethical and moral America, and that means recognizing the character of an industry for what it is, before we decide how to deal with it.

Perhaps we have a very different hierarchy of values. In mine, profit, wealth and power are not above the moral, human values of care, respect, equality and justice. To my mind, any person, CEO, corporation, or politician that places private wealth above those more human values, and injures others in the process of conducting business, is a bad person. Sure, nobody’s perfect, but unless we are willing to shame the underlying mentality and character of people who do bad things on a grand scale, how can we ever eliminate their power to injure and control us?

Perhaps it is time for us to examine the notions that permit the suffering caused to others by the quest for profit: the notion of “greed is good,” for example; the notion of entitlement to wealth, undeterred by conscience, that is, “it’s not personal, it’s only business;” the notion that wealth connotes virtue, no matter the corrupt, inhumane practices that might have produced it.

I understand that you have met insurance executives and perhaps found them to be charming and intelligent. But please consider what the Canadian psychologist Robert Hare has brought to our understanding of human psychology, a check list of personality and behavior traits common to psychopaths. I do believe these traits are not only common to criminal psychopaths, but also to professional sociopaths in business and politics:

superficial charm
grandiose ego
conning or manipulativeness
pathological lying
lack of remorse or guilt
lack of empathy
failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions.

These are traits fostered and nurtured in the business world, on Wall Street, and even in politics, are they not? Isn’t it time we question “values” that promote sociopaths into successful careers, where they feel free to injure the rest of society for their own selfish ends?

Mr. President, you also said you want to be the last president to work for health care reform. You want to fix the system. I believe you, but it saddens me to see your being undermined by your own good, practical nature, your desire to work with the system we’ve got and the people who profit from it. I am sorry to say, this path will not make you the last to work for health care reform; that can only happen when we see a REAL alternative to the current system, in order to eliminate the corrupt power of insurance companies. Without an option that would provide health care for minimum wage workers, the homeless, and the jobless, that is, all human persons, America will remain a cruel place to live for millions of people. Only a national healthcare system, like that of Canada, or France, or even England, will do the job.

You say you don’t want to eliminate the insurance companies. But you must know that’s a spurious concern, one that ignores the fact that in countries with national health care systems, insurance companies still exist.

Please stop making nice with the bad guys, Mr. President.

Obama's Gitmo Scandal: Torture Unabated

2009-05-19T13:12:00.000-07:00

This Government Subsidy: The Answer?

2009-05-15T13:59:00.000-07:00

The City of Escondido in California ponders the question

At a recent Escondido City Council meeting, a former city council member stood up and reiterated the advice often offered by right-wing conservatives to the poor, the unemployed, the uninsured and the powerless, which is, “Government is not the answer.” If only someone had shouted, “Tell it to the corporations, Sir!” Or, with reference to the specific case now most foolishly under consideration by the city council, the Marriott Hotel deal, “Tell it to C.W. Clark!”

Clearly, to private entities such as C.W. Clark’s La Jolla based real estate development company, government is very much the answer. Should the city approve the deal, the city will fork over a $19 million subsidy out of a budget already in deficit, while also leasing the land tax free for ten years, by assuming, dubiously, the franchiser will stick around once it becomes clear there’s no market for the beast in downtown Escondido.

Given the recession, revenues and hotel occupancy rates for local hotels are already suffering. Best Western’s occupancy, for example, currently wavers at approximately 25%. The other hotels are not hugely better off.

To complicate the questions begged here, it has to be noted that the city has not revealed an inclination to require the franchise Marriott to hire local residents, nor to provide living-wage jobs, nor any other benefits to employees such as pensions and health insurance; and since the Marriott, corporate or franchise (2/3rds of all Marriotts are franchises), is not unionized, this government will satisfy yet another gift-wish of the corporate mind—profits made of poverty wages.

This is what is known as, I do believe, a “sweetheart deal.” But why ask the question, “Unless visitors are having trouble booking rooms, why put up another hotel?” Why ask the question, “In a democracy, shouldn’t the taxpayers have the right to say No to boondoggles that do nothing to improve the community or represent sane economic development?” The answers are irrelevant— where politicians are allied with business—both in spirit and personally—there will be subsidies to business, especially if the benefits are going to a company and its stockholders, at the expense of taxpayers, with no loss of skin off the corporate nose (Clark’s).

Notice that apparently the corporate Marriott is not interested in Escondido—perhaps because Mr. Marriott knows it would not be a prudent choice, given the market?

Item: “Hotels do not draw tourists to a region; they simply compete with each other for the tourists’ trade. Furthermore, hospitality industry jobs tend to be among the worst paying jobs in the economy: chambermaids, desk clerks, food service workers, etc...They do more harm than good for the residents of a city.”

Item: “ If the market is really there, you don't need public assistance. And if it's not there, don't build. All you do is hurt the hotels already in the market, and that's what's been happening for 20 years."

Still, why? What has possessed Escondido’s City Council? Whether the city council members who support this deal sincerely think a franchise Marriott hotel will provide revenue to the city and help balance the budget; or whether they are handicapped by a habit of mind, unable to think outside a free-market, cool-aid box toward enlightened, green economic options and new ideas for a rich, sustainable future; whether they might be getting kick-backs or gifts (not an unheard-of possibility)—well, who knows? The agreement will be negotiated “in closed session,” i.e., behind closed doors, as usual—no vote by citizens, no citizen oversight, no citizen voice present and holding sway over corporate and pro-business mind-sets. No transparency. We are left to wonder, and wonder we do, with letters, emails, blog posts, polls, and speeches by pro-community entities—pro-police union, pro-firefighters, parks, recreation areas, library, etc.—hoping common sense prevails.

We are left to wonder, to trust our elected officials to do the right thing. If they don’t, what will the city say to under-staffed and under-equipped police and firefighters; to kids unable to find safe and attractive parks and recreation areas to play in; to parents of kids without any place to play but on streets occupied by gangs; to residents who can’t find living-wage jobs; to students who find the library is closed just when they need it most? What will the city say— “So, how is that Marriott working out for you?”

In truth, good government can be the answer; bad government—engaging in double standards, socialism for wealthy developers but a cruel-world ideology for taxpayers and ordinary citizens—must not be the answer. Good government is not socialism; instead, it is a mixed economy, where a balance of private and public interests prevail.

The Chimp Cartoon: Stop, Look Both Ways...

2009-02-23T18:08:00.000-08:00

...before you and free speech get flattened by that run-away bus.

      I am thinking of the cover of the June 1978 Hustler Magazine, where a female was being cutely processed through a manual meat grinder (go find it yourself), legs and bottom balanced above at the funnel, with the ground-up product accumulating below on a plate. I remember being outraged by the illustration. I remember feeling the collective humiliation of my gender, understanding that the hatred and fear informing such a cartoon was our world, where disgust, loathing and shame have their way with us every day —rape, battering, lower wages— where, on the cover of a national men’s magazine, Woman is rendered into meat.
      Ten years later, the Supreme Court would defend Hustler and Larry Flint. You can read all about it yourself, but for the purpose of today’s post I give you this from the majority opinion: “The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.”
      Since then, it became a comfort for me to place the value of free speech and political discussion above the values of civility, equality, and even dignity. It was a matter of growing up.
      And the world has seen many such challenges to our faith in freedom of speech. For example, in 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten Jyllands-Posten published twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, leading to a cultural clash between the Western tradition of free speech and Islamic tradition prohibiting pictorial representations of Muhammad. The outrage of believers was everywhere—protest, death and terrorist threats, murder. I cheered the newspaper and condemned the protesters—hooray for free speech, down with religious idiocy!

      Now we have a national newspaper publishing an invidious cartoon, where —and this is my interpretation— the authors of the “Stim” are likened to a chimpanzee. I say “authors,” because to my knowledge the Stim was not authored by one person, President Obama, but by Democrats in Congress. This may be too literal for some and seeming to avoid an obvious implication, still, here we go again—the wild rumpus has begun, with wounded outrage spilling onto the streets: “We are not monkeys, we are not monkeys!”
      One has to honor the wound expressed there, however. The horrors of white racism are so egregious, it is simply beyond reasonable to expect blacks to accept racist speech, even if unintended, without a protest; it is just too sensitive. Certainly, within the metaphor of America as family, we cannot ignore the injury of profound humiliation found in simian depictions of blacks, comparisons which continue to compound the collective, undermining shame blacks must resist on a daily basis. So, of course, there had to be a response.
      Still, it might be important to step back and consider a few realities. First, even if the intent of the cartoon was an insult to Obama himself, we have to remember that he is the President of the United States, not a second-class member of a dysfunctional family. He is no powerless, helpless, oppressed child of the realm. He, as a public figure, must now accept the verbal and visual attacks natural to his position. Certainly, I doubt we will witness President Obama’s personal outrage over this incident. He knows better than to honor such insults with a response. He knows the First Amendment to the Constitution; he will not tell the newspaper what it can publish and what it cannot publish—he’s not George W. Bush, after all. (Who, by the way, was likened to a chimp on a daily basis.)
      I sense here a headiness of new-found power in some of the protests. It is the will and spirit that oppressed people sometimes discover, once their oppressions fall away, and they find themselves in power. It is that which transforms them into those they previously despised in another life, to turn around and do to their oppressors what their oppressors had done to them. Where their rights were abused, they will abuse rights in turn.
      I sense the creation of a sacred cow too —speaking of animal metaphors— a people who consider their sufferings so far above any other in this world that they must never be subject to the same rule of law as other ordinary citizens. Israel comes to mind. They should be forever above criticism, too sensitive for normal democratic relationships and ordinary respect for the rights of others.
      Let's be careful of that, lest censorship be granted a right, by virtue of special-case sensitivity. Ask the Palestinians if this has worked for them.
      Finally, I have to admit I cringed, not at the cartoon, but at the protestors’ knee-jerk identification of chimpanzee as self, as if they had internalized the message so powerfully as to own it. Perhaps this is wrong-headed and insensitive of me, a white woman, but, I have to ask: if you recognize yourself in a representation, aren’t you projecting your own self-definition onto it? For example, if a public figure reads a novel and complains to the press that the villain in the book is there to insult him, hasn’t he admitted his own culpability? While I realize blacks are recognizing someone else’s racist definition of blacks, the risk is still there—by recognizing themselves in the visual metaphor they validate and empower the insult, and complaining about it makes it true, in the most ironically unfair way. When Richard Nixon protested, “I am not a crook!” didn’t we smile —not unfairly in that case— but we smiled just the same.
      I think it might be better to claim the insult as a compliment—hey, we all share DNA with chimps. 98%. We are primates, so how about we celebrate our primatehood?
      As for me, I think chimps are superior creatures...and, by the way, the chimpanzee in question had been medicated by his idiot owner with Xanax, an anti-depressant. What chimp oppressions he’d had to endure before he attacked is unknown. But that’s another story, and right now I would rather think the 2% difference between chimps and us is perhaps what makes them superior—at least they don’t go around turning us into pets!

—L.M.

Democrats Soft on Bush Crimes: No Looking Back, Please

2009-01-11T13:20:00.000-08:00

Apparently, the Democrats are content to allow Bush and Cheney's crimes to go unpunished. They have generously decided to forgive all, in a spirit of "looking forward, not backward." (Biden)

Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald should drop the Blagojevich investigation in the same spirit, so that he can focus on the future, not the past. Maybe all criminals should get off scot-free, since focusing on past crimes is such a waste of time and resources.

No? Oh, I get it: The crimes of the Big Guys must remain invisible, must be ignored. It's an entitlement of power. The bigger the crime, and the greater the status of the perpetrator, the more we have to pretend nothing happened. Ordinary criminals—now that's a different story. Without them, how could we pretend to honor the rule of law?

What an insane culture this is.

—L.M.

Obama’s PNAC: B.A.R.F.F.

2008-12-10T20:32:00.000-08:00

“When you wake, you will remember nothing of this...”

      Sparrow, in the December issue of the Sun Magazine, suggests changing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to the Federal Bureau of Introspection. He writes, “Imagine if, instead of collaring suspects, lingering in pizza parlors, and muttering into walkie-talkies, our agents simply sat in dark rooms with eyes closed, searching within?”
      I sense a kindred spirit there. But how lovely such a change would be. Not only would Americans be safer from the violations of their constitutional rights by government agents, those made all the more egregious during the Bush Administration —the Patriot Act, etc.— American citizens would be in a position reminiscent of Mother: “Go to your room right now and think about what you’ve done!”
      Instead of FBI agents —the not-so civil-libertarian kind— projecting their dastardly tendencies toward tyranny onto hapless, innocent citizens, they’d have to sit there and look inward. What a radical, new idea for them!

      As one of those lonely, still-disappointed-in-Obama progressives, I would like to suggest a foundation which will do for the Obama Administratin (BOA) what the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) did for the Bush Administration, that is, expose the philosophy and spirit behind the madness. This would be the “Barack Amnesiac Reflexive Forgetting Foundation, or, BARFF. After all, it is going to be important for all Obamniacs to pretend everything is changing for the better, that President Obama is fulfilling his promises, that there’s reason for hope, that they can maintain their perky positivity, without fear of being disturbed by us party-pooper, reality mongers who keep jumping up and down, waving our hands in their faces and trying to ruin their moods with facts and reminders about what Barack promised.
      With BARFF, the whole idea will be to forget and forgive all, no matter how difficult it becomes, no matter how the stomach churns.
      But it won’t be all that difficult, to wit: I noticed recently, in an NPR news report, how the “reporter” allowed Bush to get away with saying they’d had “bad intelligence” on Saddam’s supposed WMD’s, and that the war in Iraq, therefore, wasn’t his fault. No correction was made, no mention of the Downing Street Memo, which reported that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” or how contradictory intelligence from the CIA was suppressed and ignored, or about the outing of Valerie Plame, that whole scandal. This cooperation by the media, with reflexive forgetting and willful amnesia will make the job all the easier.
      It will be up to Obamniacs to continue to forget in this way, as they learned to do back when Barack appeared (“appeared,” because this reality is quickly dimming from consciousness) to betray his promise to filibuster any attempts to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution, when he flip-flopped, voted Yes on the FISA bill anyway, without even the mere peep of a filibuster, granting the telecoms immunity, in service to the notion of hopeful forgetting, I suppose—and change. After all, Obama promised change, so.... he changed! What’s the problem?
      BARFF will give excellent cover for Obama’s failures to fix Bush-era legislative atrocities. It will further the cause of ignoring the death of civil liberty in the United States.
      Take, for example, AETA, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, passed by Congress and signed by Bush in 2006 in a staggering moment of collective, ethical forgetting and feeble-mindedness. The Center for Constitutional Rights has this to say about the law: “The Act is part of a trend known as the ‘Green Scare,’ which refers to the recent crackdown on environmental and animal rights activists under the guise of the current administration’s so-called ‘war on terror.’ Passed at the behest of corporate interests [including the American Psychological Association] that profit from animal torture during the research process, but encompassing any business that uses animals or is related to such a business, the AETA penalizes and drastically criminalizes any activity that affects the physical or economic operation of an animal enterprise, even without any loss to the business.”
      This means that if you discover your kitten ended up at a research lab and is being...whatever horrible torture!....and you decide to hold up a sign outside the lab, you can be prosecuted as a “terrorist.” Disregard that “there have been no documented incidences of injury or death caused by and environmental or animal action in the U.S.” (CCR)
      See, in case you didn’t know it, humans —that is, humans making a profit— come before animals and their little feelings. End of story. Of course, WE FORGET that animal feelings are not less than, nor unlike, our own, and may be felt all the more intensely, given animal confusion, helplessness, and vulnerability (added suffering)— and it is basically immoral and unethical to cause the suffering of an other in order to further one’s own life, for whatever reason; but forgetting and unknowing is our business, and we do it well.
      What does this have to do with the Obama Administration? Well, surely the “change” we were hoping for was the end of such injustice, those Bush-era injustices where profits always come before people, animals, and the environment, where the real criminals, corporate and otherwise, triumph at the expense of decent people and decent values. The hope of such a restoration of justice, in support of ethical values, was implicit in the Obama victory. It was part of what we longed for. But, we have yet to see if Obama truly shares our values and will eliminate the excesses of the Bush Administration, excesses such as AETA. The impression we’re beginning to get from Obama track record so far is that he is big on PR, but small on delivery. We suspect two faces there, one that looks good to us, the other that looks good to the right-wing and corporate America, and it’s the latter that is the real Obama.
      I can see it now...
      BOA will, in the face of pressure by environmental activists and animal rights activists to overthrow AETA, suggest hearings, invite letters, and Obama himself will speak movingly about the need to protect animals from needless suffering. However, behind the scenes, BARFF will effectively render the protests impotent, through propaganda —ads, for example, showing clever cartoons of happy cats and dogs on their way to the research lab, a soft landscape of gentle brooks and meadows peopled by scientists dressed in cozy, PJ-like outfits— and by stigmatizing any and all stirrings of conscience with regard to animal suffering, by the infusion into the media of negative stereotyping and labeling: “Violent Old Ladies with Cats (VOLC);” “Animal Coddler-Terrorists;” “Anti-science Cult Killers,” etc., which would be the stick, aside from the prosecutions. The carrot would be the blessed sleep of forgetting and unknowing— “President Obama’s in charge...everything’s going to be okay....”

      Sweet dreams...enjoy your Obasms.

L.M.

Don't Worry, Progressives: Obama Will Lead the Way (wink, wink...)

2008-12-02T12:39:00.000-08:00

By Joel Mittlemann
San Diego, California

      Responding to criticism that he has failed so far to appoint even one progressive from the “Democratic wing” of the Democratic Party to his team, President-elect Obama insisted during his press conference yesterday that the change he envisions will come from his leadership, not from his staff or cabinet.
      “Don’t look at the people I surround myself with. Look to me. Ultimately, policy decisions will emanate from me, by the spirit of change I have promised and intend to honor.”
      He then repeated much of what he had said in ads and campaign speeches, with some important differences: “Instead of prosperity trickling down, pain has trickled up. Working family incomes have fallen by two thousand dollars a year. We're losing jobs. Deficits are exploding. Our economy's in turmoil. Simply put, laissez-faire capitalism is a failure. Let’s face it—it isn’t working. We cannot possibly drive down the very same path. Instead of giving hundreds of billions in new tax breaks to big corporations, the wealthy elite and oil companies, I plan on restoring a mixed economy, with serious regulations on big business. Then we need a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, to restore workers’ right to form unions. Instead of more tax breaks for corporations that outsource American jobs, I'll give them to companies who create jobs here. Instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest -- I'll focus on the middle class and the poor. We’re going to end NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the IMF, HMO’s, as well as create a single-payer health care system.
      It doesn’t matter that the people I’ve got on my team have been hard-core, right-wingers and central players in the economic and moral crisis that faces America—they’ve seen the light, and it is held by me. I will lead the way, don’t you worry about that.”
      Asked why, if he intended on ending Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans immediately upon his inauguration, he appeared to be abandoning that idea to say he might simply allow them to expire in 2011, President-elect Obama said that given the economic crisis, he needed to focus on “more pressing issues.”

UPDATE:

      President-elect Obama has reportedly charged his economic team to develop a plan for the future implementation of the Greater Regional Advantage Free Trade Agreement, or, GRAFTA. He assured reporters the plan would include safeguards for American jobs, the environment, and the human rights of the poor all over the world. This reporter thought President-elect Obama winked when he said that, but others thought it was just a twitch.

Eric “Chiquita Banana” Holder as Attorney General?

2008-11-19T17:29:00.000-08:00

Excuse me—it’s been lovely, but I have to scream now...

      This morning I woke with a headache felt mostly in my left eye—a symbolic gesture, I suppose, referring to the pain of disillusionment I’m feeling, after my surrender to Obamaphoria in the moments just before and after the election. But don’t get me wrong—I’m not blaming Obama. I knew perfectly well his promise wasn’t real, and I chose to ignore my instincts.

      Let me exaggerate —after all, it’s so much more fun than tempering my reactions— to wit: the experience of waking to the realization that I’d compromised my integrity with my vote for Obama is the hyperbolic equivalent to the cultural joke where a guy wakes beside an ugly girl and realizes he was too drunk the night before to discern her true qualities; but in this case the characters have to be reversed, where it would be the girl who had too many margaritas and, seeing the guy though a tequila-induced blur, swooned, fell into his arms, then awoke to see the mistake she’d made—a snoring beast beside her in his beer-soaked, wife-beater T and reeking like a camel in rut. (“To court females and intimidate rivals, rutting males [camels] drool and spit and urinate like leaky fountains. They reek of an oily secretion that flows copiously from scent glands on their napes.”)

      I mean, I realize a mere two weeks after the election is not enough to make an absolute judgment; but the trend in Obama’s pre-presidency is not smelling right so far —in fact, it’s smelling a whole lot like the oily secretion off the nape of some sort of hairy beast’s neck—perhaps the hairy beast of betrayal comes to mind?

      First, Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff—this stinks pretty bad; certainly it’s no change on U.S. support for Israel’s crimes of occupation and siege, for starters. Plus, he has close ties to the conservative, corporate-leaning DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), meaning no change on “free” trade and every other sort of corporate and hawkish policy, and representing no threat whatsoever to America’s right-wing powers-that-be.

      But this one really reeks: Eric Holder as Attorney General, who has represented Merck (Vioxx/Fosamax) and Chiquita Brands at the D.C. law firm, Covington & Burling.
      No exaggeration: Obama's choice of Eric Holder for attorney general is deeply disappointing, even disturbing, given that Holder was directly involved in negotiating for Chiquita Brands the slap-on-the-wrist it received for funding death squads in Columbia.
      Alberto Gonzalez was bad enough, but did he represent corporations that funded murderous terrorist organizations? (Not a rhetorical question.)

      More evidence of foul odors rising from team Obama can be found if you go to Democracy Now! online, where you can find this, first the heading, “Ex-CIA Officials Tied to Rendition Program and Faulty Iraq Intel Tapped to Head Obama’s Intelligence Transition Team;” then, “John Brennan and Jami Miscik, both former intelligence officials under George Tenet, are leading Barack Obama’s review of intelligence agencies and helping make recommendations to the new administration. Brennan has supported warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition, and Miscik was involved with the politicized intelligence alleging weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.”

      Not to mention how Obama sent Madeline Albright to the G20 summit, the same Madeline Albright who said the price —death— of half a million children in Iraq due to Clinton sanctions was worth it.
      Furthermore, when Henry Kissinger is happy about the prospect of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, no kidding, I smell a rat.
      And here comes Tom Daschle who, in 2006, endorsed the warrantless domestic surveillance program conducted by George W. Bush and the National Security Agency. Hello? You call this change?

      I am so tired of watching progressives swoon over Obama. How many times does he have to prove he is immune to pressure from the "grass roots," before progressives stop saying, "Well, we just have to organize and put pressure on him to do the right thing." It's clear: no matter his election mandate, no matter how big the marches get, and no matter how many times he responds by sweet-talking us about bringing change to America, change is not what we're going to see. Sure, he'll make a few good moves, but fundamentally, it's going to be the same ol' same ol' corporate empire, the same ol’ same ol’ military industrial complex, or, “America, the United States of Amnesia,” as Gore Vidal describes it.

      As for me, from now on, I refuse to go amnesiac for Barack, ever again. I want to see a few true progressives in his cabinet. When that happens, I might temper my disgust. Until then, I won’t be sipping the kool-aid, whether it’s laced with poison or the mere stuff of boozy dreams.

UPDATE:

The great journalist, Jeremy Scahill, has posted an excellent piece on Obama's foreign policy probables, with the title, This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House. (At Alternet )

However, Glenn Greenwald defends the notion of Eric Holder as Attorney General, saying at Salon, “Anybody who believes in core liberties should want even the most culpable parties to have zealous representation before the Government can impose punishments or other sanctions. Lawyers who defend even the worst parties are performing a vital service for our justice system.” (At Salon's blog )

I normally agree with everything Greenwald says, but in this case, no. It’s one thing to defend a client; it’s another to negotiate a sweetheart deal that basically lets corporate criminals off the hook. You cannot tell me Holder’s heart wasn’t on the side of Chiquita Brands. Also, you cannot compare the defense of a powerless or poor defendant with that of a mega-powerful defendant, as Greenwald tries to do. Eric Holder was not forced to work for a corporate law firm that would require him to defend the likes of Merck and Chiquita Brands. That was his choice, a choice that represents his values and core allegiances.

Ralph Nader would agree with Greenwald’s point that all defendants deserve a vigorous defense, but would he put himself in a position where he had to be the one to defend corporate criminals? Impossible to imagine. It would never happen. And that’s the difference: Holder’s allegiance, revealed by his choice to represent corporations against the interests of victims of corporate crime, is with private, corporate power; Nader’s allegiance is with public —ordinary citizens, workers, victims of corporate crime— power, that is, government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Judging by Obama’s choices so far, and regardless of the sweet-talk, it’s clear Obama will ignore the notion of people-power. Too bad he didn’t consider the likes of Ralph Nader (but there's nobody quite like Ralph) for Attorney General. But he didn’t. And that tells us a great deal.

UPDATE II

Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secy...worked for Kissinger & Associates, the IMF...need I say more? I rest my case. (For an enlightening discussion, one you'll never hear in mainstream news, of Obama's economic team, see Democracy Now! 11/25/08.)

—L.M.

Dove Tale for Veteran's Day

2008-11-11T14:19:00.000-08:00

      Yesterday, I spotted a dove resting in the middle of my garden. I nearly missed her, for she was perfectly still and camouflaged against the dry soil and grayed oak planter behind her. I thought, “What a smart dove you are to choose that spot to rest in—what predator would see you there, so quietly blending with your surroundings?” But why she was there at all, I couldn’t tell.
      It was such a rare event. Doves visit my place regularly, to eat from the feeder on the balcony, or to sit in the pine tree, but never do they stay ground-level for more than a minute or two. Cats are always present; coyotes, occasionally. The orange, polydactyl feral cat, my adoptee, was there yesterday too, napping on the patio bench, then later moving to her look-out tree to groom herself—without once noticing the dove.
      I kept an eye on her for two hours, while I read my book, until about 5:30 p.m. During that time, I worried over her, using my binoculars to get an up-close view. She hardly moved, except for blinking her perfect round eye and rotating her head this way and that; I could not see if she was wounded, or stunned, or just plain frozen with fear. I was tempted to approach her to get the answer, and rescue her if need be. But something held me back— “Let’s trust in nature’s wisdom and just wait and see...” I would go out, but only if a predator approached.
      Then, as day’s end and darkness approached, she began to relax, to test herself, moving to another position, extending her wings, flapping them briefly, tentatively; and that’s when, with a long stretch of her neck toward the near-by pine, she took off, up into the branches, where she disappeared.
      I don’t know exactly why this event made me as happy as it did. Most people wouldn’t be attached to a mere bird’s success, so very happy about a dove’s flight to safety, after a long, fearful wait. It’s one thing to be relieved and glad for the bird. But such dancing for joy...I don’t know.
      Perhaps the event reminded me of something. Perhaps it just felt right, coming after last week’s political revelations. After all, wasn’t it so true— spirit long suppressed; spirit finally released?

      Eighteen American veterans per day die by suicide. Let me not, in my happiness, forget them.

—L.M.

Leaks Unplugged on Obama Appointees

2008-11-10T11:10:00.000-08:00

Picks for poetic justice, though improbable, are Nice Dreams for progressive Obama supporters

By Mistee Laurie, C.P.I

Despite all efforts to plug leaks as to who is to do what and where in the Obama Administration, a few surprising names have trickled out, to the astonishment of all.

But, why not?

Just as Bush had set off alarm bells for progressives with his appointments —for everything from the U.N. ambassador and the top state department post for Latin American affairs, to his appointment of a convicted Reagan administration official to head a National Security Council office, to Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, “Heckuva-job Brownie” Michael Brown, Monica Goodling, Swift Boat Veterans donor Sam Fox, where competence, experience and qualifications for the job were less important than crony status, donor status, or ideological conformity— Obama is setting off alarm bells for the far right.

Progressives still remember the wacky world of life during the G.W. Bush Administration—the surreal zealotry of Justice Department prosecutions, best exemplified by the conviction of Tommy Chong for the sale of bongs, Bushite contempt for accountability, felt most acutely by Cindy Sheehan when her request to meet with Bush was denied, and her question, “What was the noble cause my son died for?,” went unanswered; remember the frenzy of kitschy outrage over Natalie Marin’s mere exercise of her First Amendment rights, and the banning by Clear Channel of the Dixie Chicks from country western stations all across the nation; remember the faith-based initiative, how tax dollars were funneled to religious —read, Christian— organizations, where proselytizing to poor folks was the norm; remember the freak-out during the election campaign over Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers?

Well, if the leaks are true, perhaps Obama has decided to embrace the precedence Bush set with his appointments, to make a few not-so qualified —but well deserved— picks of his own:

Tommy Chong, Administrator of the D.E.A.

Dixie Chick Natalie Maines to head the F.C.C.

Michael Moore, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Cindy Sheehan, Secretary of Defense

Whether the leaks prove true is yet to be revealed. We can only hope.

My Values Vote for...

2008-11-05T09:48:00.000-08:00

...and why I'm so happy to have been wrong.

What could make a person, a Democrat who had been critical of Barack Obama, be so happy over his election, and so happy to be wrong about my fears the Republicans would steal the election again, and get away with it, again?

First, what happened in my polling booth... it was a rainy morning. I still hadn’t decided whether I would vote for Ralph or Barack. But, somehow, in that booth it occurred to me that I didn’t want to come to the end of my life and realize I hadn’t voted for the first Democratic African-American President of the United States. And so I found myself filling in the oval next to the name, Barack Obama. Was it racist, a kind of reverse Bradley effect, to vote for someone because of his race? Maybe. All I know is that the long-suffering of Blacks in America —and healing it— seemed more important to me in that booth than the recent suffering of the American people via Bush’s spy program, that Barack approved with his vote on FISA. (Which had been the last straw for me, where Obama was concerned, and what sent me running to Ralph.)

So, as to the fears: I am always happy when my fears turn out to be unfounded. In this case, because Republicans managed to cheat their way into the White House in the past two presidential elections, I had reason to believe they’d do it again. I wasn’t about to set myself up for another disappointment, where I believed the polls and simply went on faith.

Obama’s victory, while not restoring my faith in the Democratic Party, or in his intentions to make the right choices and policies —not quite yet— does restore my faith in election integrity. At least the thing works when so many people come out to vote that Rovian crimes fail. That’s something to cheer about— the restoration of democracy...at least in so far as a two-party system can restore it.

Best of all, though, was the beautiful, beautiful sight of tears on faces —Jesse Jackson, Oprah, and everyday African Americans— and knowing what this moment in history means for them. Imagine the children, how being Black and being proud has come to life in a whole new way. For them, I am very, very happy, indeed.

—L.M.

YAY!!! I WAS WRONG!!!

2008-11-04T21:49:00.000-08:00

More to come...

—L.M.

Election Eve Fear and Loathing

2008-11-03T20:34:00.000-08:00

Republican election fraud—practice makes perfect:
Will this one be stolen too?

Watching Countdown tonight, it was so frustrating to listen to Keith and What’s-his-name talking about how McCain’s campaign offices are all lonesome and bleak, lacking the bustle and enthusiasm of Obama’s campaign offices. So I’m thinking, What does McCain and his staff care? They know they're going to "win"... by CHEATING!

I hope I'm wrong, but what has changed since 2000 and 2004 to prevent the Republicans from stealing yet another election? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except that they're practice-perfect now. Get ready for a big, stinking upset. How do I know? Check this out, today’s interview with Mark Crispin Miller: DemocracyNow!

Tonight I received an email from John McCain. But when I went to unsubscribe from the mailing list, the unsubscribe feature was set up so that you couldn’t unsubscribe without checking a reason —that is, four or five choices offered. Every choice of reason began with, “I am a John McCain supporter, but...” Naturally, I wasn’t going to choose any of those, so I just hit “unsubscribe.” It wouldn’t go. I had to go back to the email and send a reply, requesting they remove my email address from their list. Bastards! A Republican prank?

—L.M.

Little Lies and Big Lies

2008-10-20T13:38:00.000-07:00

Derrick Jensen is right:
our way of life requires a taboo against telling the truth.

      Let me tell you a little story, to start. It was during the weeks after the attacks of 9-11, when it seemed my entire city was waving the U.S. flag and wanting to bomb the hell out of somebody, anybody.
      I was skeptical about it all, from the start. I hated the flag-waving and the lack of any sort of historical self-awareness that would temper the blood-thirsty patriotism all around me. (I live near Camp Pendleton, after all.)
      A huge American flag was pinned to the wall in the lobby where I worked; tiny flags went up at our stations, and patriotic posters were put up on the walls. One poster in particular caught my eye. It was a photo of a Marine, saying good-bye to his little daughter. While I appreciated the sadness of the reality depicted there, I also recognized the poster as propaganda: left out of the picture, but present in my mind, was the horror about to be inflicted by that soldier and his army on innocent Iraqi children, mothers, and sons; left out of the picture was the uselessness of trying to fight cult criminals with an army.
      But my main problem was with the company’s response to 9-11, what I felt was the imposition of right-wing politics and jingoism on our environment, as if all the employees had to be gung-ho for the war or just shut up.
      My mistake was that I let slip my disapproval to a temporary supervisor. I didn’t say much, only that the picture was sad, but it was propaganda, and I thought such propaganda had no business being up on the walls in a work place.
      A week later, I happened to drop in to talk to our manager for a separate reason. I walked in rather meekly, as I remember, for this woman had demonstrated a capacity for ruthlessness on many occasions, and I didn’t want to rile the beast. She looked up when I spoke and gave me an amazing stern look. I remember she said, “That’s interesting...I’ve been mad at you for an entire week!” Cindy had told her what I’d said about the poster.
      So, still recovering from treatment for breast cancer and not wanting to lose my health insurance, I lied: “Oh no...not at all...” I said, and she took that to mean I was as gung-ho for the military as she, and the whole thing was a misunderstanding.
      Needless to say, Cindy got the cold shoulder from me for awhile. “But they told me I had to report everything!” she said.

      In A Language Older than Words, Derrick Jensen writes, “In order for us to maintain our way of living, we must, in a broad sense, tell lies to each other, and especially to ourselves.”
      There ya go, Cindy...
      While I was maintaining my way of life, that is, working, and telling my little lies to management, I noticed the lies told by management as well, and the internalization of those lies by employees, all of which then became a blueprint for conflict—gossip, cliques, power struggles, shouting matches, cold shoulders, reprimands, and various degrees of verbal and psychological abuse.
      The first big unspoken lie that seemed implicit in corporate life, among the many, is that profit-making is the highest virtue. Within that lie is another: “we are an aggressive, predatory, ruthless and competitive species.”
      Another lie is that people are motivated by “self-interest,” that such interest is without of concern for others, entirely selfish and focused on the base values of the first big lie.
      Then there’s the hierarchy lie—that we are pack animals and must, in service to our basic natures, organize according to our sacred texts: upper/middle/lower; top/bottom; winners/losers; leaders/followers; victors/the vanquished, stars/average Joes/flunkies. (It's not that I think the notion that some people are better endowed than others is a lie; it's that such "superiority" entitles those with higher rank to humiliate others and deprive them of human dignity—that's the lie.)
      The most obvious lie behind management rules is that employees are stupid, lazy and wicked, and management’s job is to manage them—control, teach, discipline, exploit.
      None of these are new insights. I realize that.
      But I think even those of us who claim to have better values, at work or at home, behave in ways that honor those lies. It is nearly impossible to be free of them. Thus a relationship that could have provided human comfort and peace in an otherwise nurturant culture not bent on “success,” or productivity, or victory over others, instead goes cold, or hostile, or violent, or hateful, or, at the very least, passive-aggressive.
      Prof. George Lakoff claims that 95% of thought and emotion is subconscious. If true, this would explain why it is impossible to confront indirect hostility, because people who do it are hardly ever aware they’re doing it; thus you might hear your friend say to you, “But they said I had to report everything!” but you don’t want to lecture her on what should have been her loyalty to her peers, rather than to management—after all, that would be patronizing.
      You felt the stab in your back, but you would not convince her it was a stab in the back; she didn’t mean it that way, not consciously. And, anyway, could you possibly expose the lie that she supported by betraying my confidential remark, the lie that tells her that thinking for herself is a no-no and will get her fired? You cannot. You must instead protect the taboo against recognizing cooperation with power as a lie, as a detriment to well-being.
      Derrick Jensen concludes the same paragraph by saying, “And so we avoid these truths, these self-evident truths, and continue the dance of world destruction.”
      This means to me that all the little lies are like cells in the body of the big lies of our monster system, all serving to support the life of denial, our way of life.
      The myth of self-responsibility serves such denial too, it seems to me, on behalf of the system at large. Take, for example, my attempt to include the competitiveness feature of our culture as blameworthy in family conflicts as well. In a conversation with a family member, this notion had to be immediately recognized as “not taking personal responsibility” for one’s choices, behavior, personality flaws and so forth. This to my mind is the lie of personal power and responsibility that we all buy into, while ignoring all the factors in life that have the power to crush personal power and personal will—the fear of getting fired, for example, or poverty, inequality of education, opportunity, encouragement; cruelty, unfairness, injustice, competition, and hierarchy itself—all creating low self-esteem, discouragement, depression, helplessness and hopelessness. In such a system, somebody always has to be the loser. This lie of self-responsibility is among the lies that block consciousness, collective or not, of the truth about a way of life that is destructive of authentic happiness.
      Thus, the system functions freely, without exposure of its lies, and at our expense. Then happiness becomes something you have to drug yourself to achieve, especially if you’re not “happy,” according to the definition of happiness in our culture: rich, successful, famous—but, it was your choice not to be “happy,” anyway. Which reminds me: that definition of happiness? Another lie. (a reminder not to take blogging too seriously as a means to happiness)
      What it comes down to is this: we simply must not think certain thoughts, among them the primacy and possibility of nurture—in families, between friends, in business and in government—as fundamental to our character and values; nurture, not as from parent to child, but between co-equals, with interest in the well-being of both ourselves and the other, with respect for each other’s human rights, and each other’s psychological, emotional, and physical needs.
      We must not have this thought: that above all else we are nurturant, altruistic, and equal by virtue of our basic humanity. To have it, to express it out loud, is to invite accusations of being “soft” on...whatever—communism, drugs, crime, and blah blah blah. Essentially, to have it is to threaten the god of masculinist capitalism, for want of better words, and all the lies that occupy that territory.
      Consider, more specifically, on the microcosm level, the wife-beater, how his definition of masculinity includes the lie that to be a man is to control and dominate —be above— a woman, or women. Nowhere listed in the sad, furious wife-beater’s definition of manhood will be the word nurture. This is why, to my mind, he is more pitiable than vile—think of the curse he has taken from his culture, a curse that condemns him to relentless evidence to the contrary of his “masculinity,” and perpetual slavery to having to disprove such evidence.
      It is no less true of our way of life, it seems to me. Corporations are not in the business of nurturing employees, or customers; policy-makers are not in the business of nurturing indigenous peoples in other countries, or sentient creatures, or the living world; war-makers are not in the business of nurturing the enemy—it’s kill, kill, kill, then drill, drill drill.
      Have you noticed McCain’s rapid and continual blinking? That’s beacuse he’s lying, constantly.
      I’m thinking it might be a good idea to start nurturing corporate CEO’s, to find a way to combat the lies embedded in our way of life. After all, they have grandchildren too. I have to believe it is not too late to raise the consciousness of even the most blind among us. It’s a bit patronizing, but can it be helped? Better to be patronized than bombed, right?

That’s all folks, for today...

—L.M.

That Was the Final Debate? Were they Joking?

2008-10-16T09:51:00.000-07:00

Here’s Ninja Granny’s WhoopAss Report:

      John McCain, eyelids a-flutter, lurched into a spry attack from the start. “Why would you want to put tacks on anybody right now?” he asked. “We need to encourage entrepreneurship, so that people can start reproducing by machine as soon as possible.”
      McCain also bore in on Obama’s support for the right to privacy and Roe v Wade, saying, “What a joke that is... or maybe it’s a comedy...no, a tragedy...no, it’s a hysterectomy, and we know you’d be speaking in Islamic pentameter too!
      “Worse that that, nobody’s talking about how you voted for the Emasculation Proclamation,” McCain insisted, while continually slapping the tireless hamster in his cheek.
      Both Obama and McCain addressed their remarks directly to “Joe the Golfer,” who had lost his balls in gopher holes on his favorite golf course, all because of “those extremist, environmentalist gopher-lovers.”
      “It’s pretty surreal, man, losing my balls down gopher holes,” Joe had told both Obama and McCain. And each candidate commiserated with great and profound sympathy, acknowledging the horror of it all.
      But the candidate’s shared-compassion was short-lived. McCain, barely able to restrain his eye-roll reflex, responded to Obama’s reference to Nicaraguan deaths of labor organizers, by saying, “Damn, don’t you know anything? The Constitution of the United States was adopted to secure domestic hostility, both here and abroad!”
      Obama couldn’t resist: “Why John, you’re sounding more and more like George W. Bush every day!”
      “Hey you,” McCain retorted, “I am NOT President Bush—well, I do come from a long line of rapists and pillagers, proud servants of the Empire, but how dare you question my character—my mother died in infancy! Not too many people know that. And not too many people know I was born in a log cabin which I built with my own two hands!”

      That’s about it, Folks, except for that damn echo— “Where’s Ralph...where’s Cynthia...where’s Ralph...where’s Cynthia...?" the ghostly vibes of democracy long gone. Heck, can you imagine the difference, if Ralph Nader had been there? Can you imagine the joy of watching McCain’s face as Ralph exercised his unfailing ability to cut the crap and focus on the essential truths of the day, as he did today on Democracy Now? Can you imagine how he would shine next to Obama’s tongue-biting, pale congeniality? Can you imagine the bright moment, when he told the world who the real terrorists are —George W. Bush and Dick Cheney— and what they deserve, with a call for accountability for corporate and state terror?

—N.G.

The Progressive's Rorschach Test

2008-10-10T10:19:00.000-07:00

What do you see in this picture,
and what does it make you
think about?

      In her most recent post at Toddlerspit (well worth reading), Jen wrote about an interview she heard on NPR: “...He was talking about how the new books were inspired by a drawing his five-year-old made on a restaurant napkin, of an elephant dropping flowers on the head of a pig. ‘Why is he dropping those flowers on the pig?’ Breathed asked. ‘Because the pig is sad, and doesn't know it,’ answered his daughter.”
      I mention this because, as most of us know, lacking an explanation from the artist, it is impossible to make sense of art, without projecting ourselves —our wishes, dreams, fears and personal meanings— onto it.
      So here comes my copy of The Progressive this month—McCain and Obama kissing. “Yay!” I said to myself. They got it so right! Perfect. Brilliant. And McCain is clearly enjoying it the most. I thought, “That’s The Progressive’s best, all-time cover,” and I could hardly wait to read the cover story.
      But, I couldn’t find a cover story. I looked and looked, searching for that one article to fulfill my expectations—about how McCain and Obama have merged in a big wet one over increasing the military budget, nuclear power, bailouts for Wall Street, war, increasing troops, continued occupation, tolerance of Blackwater, FISA/immunity, Israel, corporate allegiances, offshore drilling, “clean” coal, the Patriot Act, closed debates, industry-centered healthcare plans, the ignoring of police-state repressions during both conventions, and making various populist noises which always turn out to be lies.
      Other than a few mentions here and there of Obama’s move to the right, that one article wasn’t there.
      I searched for my other possibility— about the Obama-McCain clique, where all the other candidates are excluded from the debates, from the circle of love—media attention, how the election system itself is exclusive and anti-democratic.
      But no. Nothing focused on that, either. (though the article about the Cynthia McKinney campaign does touch on this issue and Obama as a “status quo” candidate.)

Later in the week, I got opinions on the cover from Jen and Nancy, both great people, both Phd.s.

Jen, who adores Obama: “Is that real? Or did you make that? Yeah, it looks like Obama’s sort of forcing himself to do it. McCain looks like he’s been waiting for it. For a long time.”

Nancy: “1. It’s hard for me to believe it doesn’t plan on a kind of homophobia-induced shock for effect, and I find that problematic. I’m sure it merits more reflection. 2. A lovers’ embrace seems like a pretty heavy handed overstatement of their similarities, especially right now. The image is not good especially if there is no clear cover story. 3. I nevertheless agree with the two things you would have liked to have seen.”

See, we didn't know if there was an elephant in the room, or flowers, or if the pig was sad or happy. And we couldn't find out. All we could do was project, as I did, our wishes, our biases, our fears, and wonder.
But, the beauty of it all, of putting the illustration out there without a cover story, was to discover just how many literal-minded liberals, Democrats, and progressives would be disturbed about the notion of a black man and a white man kissing. Perhaps —mixing my metaphors a bit here— it was a good time to shake that thing loose and see what fell out, that thing being the unconscious, or unspoken and denied, racism that surely will play a part in the election ....or?

—L.M.

There’s Plenty of Good Reading Along the Way to Our Final Kaput

2008-10-04T07:16:00.000-07:00

lkfgjlsdkfjalkgj
         I am in the middle of Derrick Jensen’s, The Culture of Make Believe. This is preliminary reading for me, before I get to Endgame, his most recent book.

         I love this guy.

      In his chapter Giving Back the Land, he writes of a conversation he had with television critic George Gerbner. He quotes Gerbner as saying, “Because most scripts are written by and for men, they project a world in which men rule, and in which men play most of the roles. Television and movies project the power structure of our society, and by projecting it, perpetuate it, make it seem normal...
         Let’s say you try to countercast, or change the typical casting in a typical story. A woman, now, is going to wield power. She is going to use violence. Suddenly, you can’t tell any story other than the one that describes why this is so. The story has to revolve around why a woman is doing things that seem scandalous for her, yet seem normal for a man.”
         This is so true. And it is true whether violence is a factor in the story or not. Take the fact, for example, that the majority of scripts where an older man is sexually involved with a younger woman: the story is never required to be about the discrepancy in their ages; their age difference is often not an issue, may not even be mentioned, and the story —some other issue— functions, regardless. That is because, as Jensen might explain, the predominant “power structure of the society” is not threatened there. In contrast, just try to find a script where the woman is in a sexual relationship with a younger man, but the story is NOT about their age discrepancy.
         Consider two movies, say, Last Tango in Paris (perhaps a loaded choice) and The Graduate. Consider the controversy surrounding Tango: butter. Not rape, not age difference. No. We all sat there, watched the movie, and absorbed —gave tacit agreement with— rape, brutality, and the reduction of a human psyche —the young woman— to that of an irrelevancy, but got upset over the mention of butter. It is clear: Brando’s character had entitlement, except where butter is concerned; his victim was serving in her proper role, and, if I remember correctly, complicit and not terribly damaged by it all.
         Consider, by contrast, Mrs. Robinson’s place in culture, her fate; how she was reviled— remember Simon and Garfunkle’s taunting melody, “Hey, hey, hey...every way you look at it you lose...” and poor graduate, seduced and manipulated by the vile bitch? The thing is, we cannot have this, a woman upsetting the “natural order of things;” how men may use their wiley ways —beguile, tempt, seduce— or mind rape, or even rape, as in Tango; but a woman must remain passive and receptive, or, if she is over the age of, say, thirty-five (and that’s being generous), she must simply fade away.
         There have been exceptions. Harold and Maude comes to mind. But...wait a minute: the issue of their age difference was central to the story! Yes, it was presented delightfully, and Maude is one of my favorite, all-time characters, but, just the same, there you are—how a young man recovers his equilibrium, in love with an old lady. And she had to die in the end. Suicide, no less. Of course!
         Harold and Maude was no exception to the rule; it proved the rule— you cannot tell a story about an older woman and a younger man, without explaining how this heretical thing happened and what the consequences of it must be.
         Further along in the same chapter, Derrick Jensen quotes Gerbner again: “Violence...is a demonstration of power, and the real issue, once again, is who is doing what to whom. If time and again you hear and see stories in which people like you—white males in the prime of life—are more likely to prevail in a conflict situation, you become more aggressive, and if you are in the same culture, and a member of a group or gender that is more likely to be victimized, you grow up more insecure, more dependent, more afraid of getting into conflict, because you feel your calculus of risk is higher.
         That...is how we train minorities. People aren’t born a minority, they are trained to act like a minority through that kind of cultural conditioning. And women, who are a numerical majority of humankind, still are trained to act like a minority. The sense of potential victimization and vulnerability is the key.”
         I watched part of a movie today that illustrated this very point. I say “part,” because, after I got the gist of the horrible thing, I fast-forwarded through the rest of it, stopping now and then to pick up the plot, just in case it got interesting. It didn’t. The movie was Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, with Sting and a pack of actors whose unintelligible British accents required subtitles.
         Here’s what I noticed though: all the characters were men, save two— a pole dancer in the background of one scene and a woman who occupied a couch in a semi-conscious state throughout several scenes, also mostly just as background to the main action; that is, until, in one promising scene, she roused herself to consciousness, having heard a ruckus in the room, seized her opportunity to save the day by grabbing an AK-47, then stood up and battered the room with three or four minutes of automatic gun fire, shredding the room and sending the bad guys diving for cover. While this was happening, I was thinking, “Hey, you go girl...” but when it was all over, and she stood there in rapt silence over the destruction she had wrought, or, hath wrought, the main bad guy stood up, said something like, “Where’d SHE come from?” then knocked her out with one punch. In short, the message was, When women are violent, it’s all so ineffectual, so ineffective; women simply cannot do what men do; in the end, they fail.
         Yuk, yuk, yuk...and the guys watching this movie get to have a lovely moment of male bonding over the reinforcement of their mutual agreement about what it is to be male—which requires, first and foremost, that they are superior to females; and that they are leads, not only in the movie, but in life as well. (Think of that— “the lead” in a play or movie; it’s going to be a man, right?)

         I used to be able to predict the fate of female characters who dared to be freely sexual —death— or at least some other equally damning or degrading end. That’s social conditioning too.
      Or, think of women who dare to fight back or try to defend themselves, after years of humiliation, abuse, and rape: they must suffer similar ends, the ultimate punishment of death. I’m thinking in particular of Aileen Wuornos, the subject of the movie, Monster. The title says it all, doesn’t it? Those of us who felt sympathy for the woman —after learning how most of the men she killed had threatened to kill her first, had raped her, or tortured her— understood the irony of that title. However, it seems to me a more just title would have been, "Monsters," to make reference to the men she killed and the society that rendered those men devoid of conscience, or devoid of a consciousness of women —even prostitutes— as people. Certainly, without conscience, or consciousness, one must be a monster and ultimately do monstrous things.
         And Wuornos? A monster? I don’t think so. Her crimes were crimes of self-defense. But how dare she? So we killed her. Let that be a lesson to all you uppity bitches! Just sit there and take it, and then, shut up about it.
         Jensen offers insight to this injustice to say, in effect, you are not allowed to hit back, UP the hierarchy. The crimes against you by those above you in the hierarchy are sanctioned by society; yours against them are to be condemned.
         Even the sympathetic duo, Thelma and Louise, had to die. Imagine the outrage had they managed to survive, face justice and win, to live out their lives in dignity and respect. No, no, no...we can’t have that!
         The only place we find this paradigm consistently upended is on Lifetime TV, where the victims of abuse, usually women, do manage to have some measure of revenge. But, hey, these are “chick flicks.” The guys know better not to watch those, and they’re usually pretty bad movies with awful acting, anyway; so the powers-that-be are not likely to be threatened, especially since such movies, where women are victorious, are inferior in quality, to match the audience. Still, that’s where women learn a different lesson, behind the backs of their “superiors.”

         I am reminded of Susan Griffin’s, Pornography and Silence. She says, “Yet in order to see our lives more clearly within this culture, we must question the meaning we give to certain words and phrases, and to the images we accept as part of the life of our minds. We must, for example, look again at the idea of "human" liberation. For when we do, we will see two histories of the meaning of this word, one which includes the lives of women, and even embodies itself in a struggle for female emancipation, and another, which opposes itself to women, and to "the other" (men and women of other "races," "the Jew"), and imagines that liberation means the mastery of these others.”
         Sometimes I read this stuff for corroboration of guesses I’ve made as to the why of certain things, not that I don’t also read for the special insights of those authors. For example, I myself had thought about rape as a hate crime, but not as hatred directed at the victim, but as hatred the rapist feels for himself. That is, the femininity he sees in the “other” which he cannot obliterate in himself, which he cannot control or govern, is wished to be obliterated and mastered through rape—a case of projection. Given that no man exists who does not have vulnerabilities, who does not have weaknesses, cares, loves, and all those other human aspects we designate as “feminine;” and given that no man exists in this culture who has not been taught to disdain those qualities, it is no wonder that some men must split off from themselves to become ignorant of the truth about themselves, and, in the process, become less than whole beings; and, when confronted by a being who represents their own denied, humiliating aspects, some men cannot deal with it and become enraged.
         Perhaps as I read more, I will come to understand how we got to this point, how the yin and yang of things, the balance of male and female, got way out of whack in favor of the male side of things. How this happened, and how to correct it, is unknown to me; but I do think if we keep this up, nature, which always strives for the perfect balance, will one day just up and spit us out and be done with us. It’s going to be a huge hacking sound, a rumble in Earth’s chest, then it’ll be, “Spitt-oo-ee!!!” and we’ll all be goners.

         Derrick Jensen is the role model for the required change of mind and heart, it seems to me, the direction all men and women must go, if we are going to live in harmony with a healthy planet. I do love this book, except for one comment there, which I cannot find at the moment, where he quotes Thomas Paine to show him as an advocate of slavery. I would disagree, as one essay of Paine’s shows, where he says, “But to go to nations with whom there is no war, who have no way provoked, without farther design of conquest, purely to catch inoffensive people, like wild beasts, for slaves, is an height of outrage against humanity and justice, that seems left by heathen nations to be practiced by pretended Christian. How shameful are all attempts to colour and excuse it! As these people are not convicted of forfeiting freedom, they have still a natural, perfect right to it; and the governments whenever they come should, in justice set them free, and punish those who hold them in slavery.”
         Still, I am looking forward to Endgame.

Democratic Capitalism as an Oxymoron

2008-09-26T11:28:00.000-07:00

Detecting a neocon crapshoot with our futures

      I am not an economist. I have never taken even one course in economics. I do, however, have a highly sensitive, built-in crap detector, and, after having lived through 40 years of laissez-fair, “free” market, trickle-down Reaganomics, and spending a great deal of my free time reading about politics, the antenna on my detector is quivering like mad.
      I wrote an email to the real deal recently, the Chair of the Economics department at a local university. His response was reassuring. He said, “I expect that the financial meltdown will be prevented from getting worse.”
      Okay...that sounded good. But then McCain bailed out of the debates; then the Republicans bailed out of the bailout...then Paul Krugman said, this morning on DemocracyNow!, it’s looking “scary.” So, I am beginning to wonder what’s next.
      This question arises: would a complete meltdown of our entire economy really be a bad thing in the screwy mind of the neo-con? Think about 9-11. Didn’t that disaster lead to the fulfillment of many of their wildest dreams?
      Consider how this historic tidbit, from Greg Palast about Chile, economic collapse, and Pinochet, rings familiar: Palast

      It was fascinating to hear G.W. Bush refer to “democratic capitalism,” as the “best system ever devised.” I mean, considering the reality of American life today, where union membership has reached an all-time low; where Congress, increasingly indebted to corporate support and influenced by lobbyists pushing corporate interests, chooses again and again to ignore the interests of ordinary citizens in favor of corporate America; where the will of the people —expressed on the streets during the Democratic and Republican conventions, with calls for impeachment, an end to torture and the war in Iraq and Afganistan, healthcare, a living wage and all manner of progressive changes— was ignored by the corporate media and denied constitutional rights —of speech, peaceable assembly to petition the “government for a redress of grievances”— by unidentified riot police who looked and acted like police-state goons; where, if you’re “the people,” ordinary citizens trying not to go bankrupt, well, you’re on your own, as Obama says about Bush’s “ownership” society; but, if you’re Wall Street —corporate America— well, hey, here’s 750 billion dollars for you! You know what I mean. So, isn’t the notion of “democratic” capitalism an oxymoron? Just how much influence do we demos have, anyway?
      No. Better terms would be totalitarian capitalism, given that our previous mixed economy is moving closer and closer to a condition of absolute intolerance of regulation and democratic controls on industry (thus, you have the Republicans bailing out of the bailout because they want more(!) de-regulation); or fascistic capitalism, given that corporations and government are nearly completely merged, i.e. gone fascist.

      Here’s what I wrote to the chairman of the economics department: “I don't share your confidence that the ‘financial meltdown won't get any worse,’ however. For a long time now I've been watching the de-regulation trend —laissez-faire, "trickle-down" Reaganomics— and those who have been doing their best to destroy the New Deal and everything good about it; and this current crisis seems totally consistent with their anti-democratic desires. The next thing, after they add this next hundreds of billions to the government's already huge debt, will be to say, Oh so sorry, we're going to have to privatize Social Security now, i.e., destroy it— the funds are gone...oops!" I mean, it's all so obvious. So, that's what I mean by ‘worse;’ and, it would be unbearably worse for me, since I am living off my Social Security benefits now.”

      I hope I am wrong and he is right. Let’s see if McCain suspends his campaign entirely, when the bailout completely fails. It wouldn’t surprise me, given his weird threat not to attend the debate tonight, if that’s not a hint of things to come. Will Bush’s sudden fear-mongering over the economy morph into an excuse to delay the election, when he can make a case that the economy is in collapse?
      Just connecting the dots...but remaining hopeful that these are merely the natural, though unfounded, fears that trickle down during times like these.

The One True Maverick

2008-09-24T16:29:00.000-07:00

...which cannot be said of McCain or Palin

      Let’s get one thing straight: The only true maverick running for president this year is Ralph Nader.
      How do we know Nader is the maverick and not just another opportunistic politician (McCain and Palin) trying to con the American people and corrupting the language in the process, or some nut-case, waving his arms from the sidelines? Well, aside from his life-long record of system-bucking battles against entrenched wrongs on behalf of you and me, consider his exclusion from the debates; consider how he is reviled not only by conservatives —his natural enemies— but by Democrats as well, those who, in a better world, would cherish him as kin and as the most steadfast advocate and hero of their ideals, you know, democratic ideals and principles, those little things the Dems left behind, like wussies in accordance with power, corruption and corporate allegiance?
      See, that’s the thing about mavericks—they’re outside the mainstream. McCain and Palin? Hello, there’s nothing outside about them: McCain has voted to support Bush policy 90% of the time; has been a constant nurturer of the conservative “nanny state,” of “free” market, laissez-faire, totalitarian capitalism, i.e., those good ol’ powers that be; Palin fulfills both the authoritarian leader and follower mold, which, by definition makes her a blue blood of conformity and allowed her to fit in quite easily at her former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, where they talk in “tongues,” that is, babble in bull doo-doo. No. To describe either McCain or Palin as a maverick is not only to put lipstick on that metaphorical pig; it is to give it a complete make-over and a nose job to boot.

Why Voters Should Not Trust John McCain’s Word on Anything

2008-09-20T13:11:00.000-07:00

“Well, it’s quite simple,” said Condi Rice today in her testimony before the Senate Ethics Committee. “You see, he was forever telling us that this...

...was eight inches.”

—L.M.

Fun Encounters at the Post Office

2008-09-13T10:52:00.000-07:00

The satisfactions of not biting my tongue

      The woman in line ahead of me at the post office said to her two children, “Stop it. Stand still, or I’m going to pinch you hard.”
      I noticed the woman had some sort of Christian literature to send; I noticed the hard expression on her face; I noticed how her children’s faces went from happy innocence, as they giggled and jostled each other, to fear and foreboding after their mother’s threat.
      Then I heard her respond to something one of them had asked: “No...” she answered harshly, as she stepped away from the line to go up to the counter, “...that wouldn’t be Christian!”
      “...and neither is pinching your children,” I said. The timing was perfect. She heard me but didn’t have a chance to hit me over the head, like she probably does to her children behind closed doors.
      Many parents think they own their children and think nobody has a right interfere with their parenting. The are wrong; children belong to themselves first, but because abused children grow up either to be problems to themselves or to society, you and I have a right to correct parents, when parents abuse their children in our presence. In fact, not to speak up is a way of condoning abuse.

      After I reached the counter and my package was being processed, somewhere during the lively conversation I was having with the postal clerk, I heard myself say, “thank goodness for FDR and Social Security!” This seemed to strike a simpatico chord with the clerk, who then leaned forward to whisper a tidbit from his own political mind: “Can you believe women voters are so stupid they would vote for a woman, simply because she’s a woman?!” Well, I tried to tell him it was all media lies, that mainstream women aren’t going to vote for what I call the McCain/Palin-Comparison ticket, but he was on a roll— “What a pack of idiots, eh?”
      The fallacy here, the one the media tend to use, is the notion of the pack. The real idiots are the ones who say, “The American people...” this or that. Or, “Women want...” this or that. “White males...” vote this way or that. I don’t think you can generalize in that way. I think there is far less homogeneity out there, and people are way more complex and individual than that. Having said as much, I will now contradict myself by saying right-wing conservatives do tend to behave as a pack, whereas liberals do not. As Jim Hightower once said, “Trying to organize Democrats is like trying to load frogs into a wheelbarrow.”
      What do you think?

—L.M.

St.Paul, The Little City that Could ....Be Fascist

2008-09-07T16:15:00.000-07:00

If your police look and act like
militarized, American-style jackboots,
you just might be a police state

      Given the assaults the City of St. Paul perpetrated against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution during this week's Republican National Convention, I could complain at length, reminding city officials of their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, that is, America. However, they know these things, and, they don’t care. Clearly, they planned from the start to engage in political repression; they had every intention of violating the Constitution and continuing to do so, regardless of the consequences, which they knew would be minimal—the city had made a deal with the Republican Party prior to the convention, one that rendered the city immune from lawsuits, to the tune of $10,000,000, the amount the Republicans were willing to cover for whatever lawsuits were incurred over Republican-approved, civil-liberties violations by the police.
      Thus we saw the city attorneys, the mayor and the police chief employing a twisted logic in arresting, charging and detaining journalists, photographers, protesters and those who were on the streets of St. Paul to bear witness and hold the city to its responsibility to protect civil liberty in a free society; that is why we saw the law in St. Paul represented by American-style jackboots, bearing nunchucks, clubs, assault rifles, tasers; dropping concussion grenades(!), smoke bombs, and all manner and means of repressing speech and dissent; that is why we heard first-hand testimony by victims of police who engaged in torture behind closed prison doors and in public, where the police apparently thought they had permission to bully political activists. Clearly, the city was guilty, and they planned on denying their guilt and pretending to be concerned about "terrorism," when it is America's movement toward a Pinochet-style dictatorship they defended.

      I would be happy if anyone can prove me wrong. If the charges are dropped against Amy Goodman and any and all journalists or peaceful protesters, who did nothing but exercise their Constitutional rights, and we never again see such a brutal demonstration of militarized police in an American city, I will say, “Sorry, I was wrong.” I will be happy to say it. However, I see dark clouds forming— incrementally, the American people have been programmed to accept the militarization of our police and the normalization of attacks against and violations of our civil liberties, and so the authoritarians are secure in the assumption that the American people won’t make a stink. Just take a look at the program “Cops,” if you doubt it. House raids by SWAT teams, SWAT, which was originally intended for “high-risk operations that fall outside of the abilities of regular patrol officers,” have become the norm, as is seen regularly on TruTv, MSNBC and elsewhere. This should be stopped. The use of SWAT teams against civilian demonstrators should be stopped too, now that we see just how creepy and terrorizing it is; but it won’t be. I think the signs are clear: we are here, now—the fascist state has arrived, and there’s no turning back.
      Some say the behavior of the police in St. Paul and Denver seemed like practice for something worse to come—soon. I would not be at all surprised. The Bush administration and the Republicans, with Democratic help, have pulled off every criminal thing they could think of, without consequence. What’s to stop them now from postponing the election and installing their version of the Third Reich, that is, a third term for the Bush dictatorship?
      It doesn’t hurt to repeat myself, and these days it is even more important to remind people that the other side of the coin of paranoia is naiveté. Let’s not be naive—government of, by, and for corporations —fascism— is our reality, and that oppressive reality will stop at nothing to have its way.
      Bless their souls, the ACLU is busy with lawsuits over these things. That wonderful organization needs our help now, more than ever.

—L.M.

Kvetching toward Bethlehem, or Slouching toward Extinction?

2008-08-31T13:06:00.000-07:00

How the history of courage, rage, and change got lost during the Democratic National Convention

      Hillary Clinton had some nerve, harking back to the civil rights and women’s suffrage struggles in her speech before the Democratic National Convention—as if she and the Democratic Party were today’s party of the people, as if she were in a position to equate herself, her Party and the teachers, nurses and police officers she referred to in her speech with those activists of the past! Sorry, Hillary—it’s a specious comparison, and shame on you for your dishonest exploiting of history to propagandize your audience.

Clinton:
      “These women and men looked into their daughters' eyes, imagined a fairer and freer world, and found the strength to fight. To rally and picket. To endure ridicule and harassment. To brave violence and jail...This is the story of America. Of women and men who defy the odds and never give up.”

      This, while outside the convention Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, Code Pink, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and thousands of true activists —today’s equivalents of those who struggled for equal rights and the vote in the past— faced the oppressive forces of Homeland Security, FBI, and nunchuck-carrying, CS gas-spraying, unidentified Denver police—and Hillary ignored it all, making nary a peep about Denver’s “free speech” zones, nor about harassment of dissenters, nor about protest cages...not to mention torture for detainees, secret rendition, illegal wiretapping, violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or any of the other crimes of the Bush Administration.
      Regardless, you would think Barack Obama was the second coming! This, despite the fact that both he and Hillary Clinton have supported “free” trade, with its nasty effects on the human rights of indigenous people and the economic lives of millions of American workers. This, despite his rhetoric in support of “clean” coal, as if there is such a thing, as if the coal industry, “clean” or otherwise, does not damage the environment and the lives of hundreds of thousands Americans every day; this, despite his intention to send more troops into Afghanistan, kowtowing to the delusion that military force and occupation can ever bring peace there; this, despite his support for Israel, which has become what it —and we— despised during the Second World War, that is, a right-wing occupier and human rights abuser of people it doesn’t honor, whose land and property it wants to own.
      Sure, it was wonderful to see an American candidacy for president represented by a black man. This is great. It heals deep wounds. Still, it does not erase certain facts, and Obama’s skin color is less important than his allegiances. And we now know what those are, given his dishonorable and corrupt betrayal of the American people and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution with his Yes vote for the FISA bill, which gave immunity from prosecution to At&T and other telecom companies, for illegal wiretapping of American citizens; At&t, which was one of the corporate hosts of the Democratic Convention. (Funny how that works, isn’t it?)
      Millions of Americans are snagged on Obama’s gossamer threads of rhetoric about hope and change, and from there are taken on a heady ride, where all things become possible. The problem is, that’s not how change, the kind of change that will turn this empire back into a democratic republic, usually happens. It’s not happy, hopeful thoughts, or some supernaturally endowed, great leader, that will get the job done. The powers that be do not care about your hopes, your dreams, or what your charismatic leader thinks would be a damn fine thing to do; it is not by the goodness of their hearts that anti-democratic forces in culture change their ways. No. Change happens when ordinary people get damn angry enough to demand it, and demand it in loud, kvetching, furious, complaining tones.
      The women who fought for the vote did not wait for an Obama, nor did they worry about being labeled as extremists, or radicals, or commies, or socialists, or threats to the all-American, patriarchal family. Nor did they feel they needed to couch their demands in nice, lady-like, diplomatic terms, to avoid seeming like angry hussies, which I’m sure they were called. Instead, their Declaration of Sentiments has a list of seventeen complaints, each beginning with “He has”, and so forth, a list of human rights abuses done for so long by men against women that anger had to be the only proper tone of their declaration.
      We face equal and worse threats to human rights, democracy, economic security —the life of the planet!— today. You would think the people would wake up, as Dennis Kucinich’s clarion call at the Convention so eloquently urged us to do— and take to the streets, or at least support those who do put themselves at risk there. But no. To the average American, to conservative Democrats, which includes Hillary Clinton, and to Republicans in Congress, those activists are “extremists,” “radicals,” “persons of interest,” persons to put on a list of possible terrorists, persons to violate. And so we get the same ol’, same ol’, crap—politicians posing as sweet-talking progressives, likening themselves and their supporters to heroes of the past, who then make a sharp turn to the right, as soon as they’ve nailed the election. Thus, nothing changes, and here we go again, seduced and abandoned, slouching toward extinction.
      I am going to remember that anger over injustice is not a sign of depression or some sort of new psychological disorder needing the latest pill; remember what St. Augustine said: “Hope has two children, anger and courage; anger at the way things are and courage to make them better.”

—L.M. (and please feel VERY free to make a comment)

Waking Up Radical

2008-08-26T10:01:00.000-07:00

Nightmares during the Bush Administration, a first person narrative

“An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal.” —Abraham Maslow via Viktor Frankl

      One morning last week, I broke out of a dream in a panic, breathing hard and fast, as if I’d been running, as if I couldn’t get enough air. Of course, I hadn’t been running; I was in bed asleep, stuck there motionless, like in the dream, where I tried to run for help but couldn’t, while a fish I loved (!) began to drown in the bowl of tap water I had put him in. Unable to get help, or to find the de-chlorinator that would enable him to breathe in tap water, I gathered him in my two hands, where he fit snugly, and began the dream-state option of artificial respiration, compressing and releasing his rib cage, and watching his gape and bulging eyes for signs of recovery. It was almost working. But then I began to internalize his struggle—I couldn’t breathe either, and my panic set in.
      This was not at all like my usual experience of waking, where the mixture of dream and reality is so lovely I want to prolong the event, finding powers there I never have when I am awake. Instead, it was a desperation to breathe, while realizing, gratefully, it was only a dream.
      Then, as I recovered my breath and woke up, I began to think about the part that was not a dream, the part about the tap water, the sad reality that we have so badly contaminated our environment, we need to put chlorine in the tap water to make it safe to drink; but, in the process, we have made this water unsafe for fish. You do not want to put your goldfish in a bowl of chlorinated tap water, not in Southern California. You either need to let the water sit for a day and let the chlorine evaporate, or you have to add de-chlorinator to it, which neutralizes the chlorine, so that delicate cells in fish gills do not die.
      I don’t want to start sounding like Grandma, but, back in the day —let’s say, in the 50’s— you could fill a fish bowl with tap water and plop your guppies in it, no problem. And the water tasted like water is supposed to taste—yummy. Now we have to filter it to get a tolerable taste, or we opt for bottled water, which isn’t any safer than tap water for drinking.
      This situation, our plight, is normal for us now, while the memory of what used to be our blessing —clean water brought to us from far away— fades from consciousness, and we accept this lesser life without question.

      Leaving aside the basic symbolism of my fish dream, where perhaps I expressed fears for myself after breast cancer, and considering the possibility that the dream arose during a sleep apnea incident, I wonder about this fish—how I loved it, how it was about to die, how I was losing it, how nobody could be found to help, how nobody cared, how it was terribly important, how I couldn’t save it, and how its life was slipping away. Isn’t that how I feel about so many things these days—the life of the planet, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, democracy, the balancing power of Congress, the Supreme Court and Justice Department, accountability, a free and independent press, the rule of law...peace...even a president I can believe in? (Now we see Bush exposed as a relapsed alcoholic, and Pelosi still makes no move to impeach!) Isn’t a dream like that the natural consequence of the frustration, helplessness and oppressive quality of life during the Bush Administration? That is, it’s not as though politics, and the public values I love, are external to my life. I don’t think so. They are central.
      Just before I woke up this morning, an old Asian woman in my dream, a shopkeeper, shook her fist at me and demanded, “What about Iraq—how do you like that? And Gaza, what is it? It is nothing but a concentration camp!” and on and on. It was as if she held me responsible, as if she took me for a Republican, someone she had a right to rail at. I felt embarrassed and offended to be taken for a conservative, and yelled back, “Hey! I’m not the enemy! I hate the war! I hate the occupation! I hate George W. Bush...”
      Even in my dreams...

      I also wonder about the panic and urgency expressed in these dreams. It reminds me of an old advertisement I used to see in the New Yorker. Each month, a stylized cartoon would depict a frantic character racing around a room, desperately trying to arouse the attention of the other characters in the cartoon as to a fire, or some other dire threat, while being totally ignored, because everybody is reading the paper. I believe the caption was, “Everybody Reads the Post,” but my memory is fuzzy on this. (and Google search fruitless) In any case, a lot of us feel like that frantic character. Amazing bad things are going on, but most Americans are too busy with their favorite diversion, or entertainment, to notice. Many of us are too somatized (remember Brave New World?) to have the energy and passion to stage a protest, let alone start a revolution—or, better yet, restore the meaning of the first revolution.
      I wish I could say the optimists, all the hard-working people out there who are trying to bring about progressive change, all agog for Obama, are helping. It amazes me how many Democrats prefer not to know what is going on, choose not to question reality or authority, do not search voting records, refuse to listen to outside voices and alternative news programming, prefer not to read about politics, fail to connect the dots, abandon the notion of ethics and accountability in favor of “forgiveness” and “looking forward,” and manage to float happily through life, being nearly as uninformed, conforming and brainwashed as the conservatives they feel superior to. Apparently, it is best to tip-toe around the doggy-doo of doubt, dissent, and dread, that is, the truth, so as to keep the tidy shoes of denial stink-free. One does not want the odor of negativity, which has come to translate as depression, even insanity, following oneself around. It’s just so off-putting, you know? You don’t ever want to smell like a “conspiracy theorist.” For example, so what if nothing makes sense about the official theory of the collapse of the World Trade Center and building #7, like NOTHING; better to scoff at the unbearable alternative, so as not to look like a nut. Well, you’re an American—gotta be chirpy; gotta be up-beat.
      I used to wonder how the German people allowed Hitler and the holocaust to happen. Were they also averse to thinking the unthinkable truth about their government? Did they also engage in a reflexive denial that said, “Oh, that’s impossible.” But now that I have watched Democrats veer farther and farther toward the right, working so hard to avoid being stigmatized —extremist, left-wing radical, commie, conspiracy nut, hippy, unpatriotic, anti-semitic, terrorist sympathizer— that they abandon true democratic values, liberal values, in favor of conservative values, I understand. The labeling is out there; they hear it, and they resist, not by exposing it as shaming, as a manipulation, but by being manipulated, by identifying themselves as “centrist,” to ensure they are not a member of that outside, “dishonorable” group, by moving to the “center,” which today is, in actuality, a right-wing position. I do believe this is self-inflicted social control. Rather than fighting back, by coming up with rhetorical jabs in response —conformist, sheep, fascist, naive sleep-walker, corporatist, unpatriotic, oppressor, torture lover— the timid among us say, “We are above such negativity. We are peace-loving, caring, people, and we will not stoop to their level.” Nonsense. Such talk is a rationalization, where fear, brainwashing, and powerlessness have taken hold. Nor do they defend democratic values in the George Lakoff manner, through better framing, to claim they are: Jeffersonian democrats, critical thinkers, free thinkers, patriotic, human rights advocates— and to stand up for liberal values, to educate others as to what those liberal values are.
      And so, America continues to inch toward a third-world reality with a dwindling middle class, a huge gulf between rich and poor, as, far away, polar bears are drowning, and war is waged forever on behalf of power, wealth and empire.
      All the clichés —outrage fatigue, learned helplessness, crisis of courage, failure of imagination— are true, and here we are, stuck, unable to do what needs to be done to rescue ourselves, from ourselves.

      In the meantime, the circus plays on at the Democratic National Convention, where there’s a lot of rhetoric about change, while nothing changes, except the gradual move toward a police state in the streets of Denver, where the real heroes of democracy are protesting. Unfortunately, we cannot find their point of view in the coverage of the mainstream media. We do, however, have alternative sources of information —clean, uncontaminated, pure, oxygenated good journalism! Dive in. I promise— the water’s fine.

—L.M.

Trekking through Disease Capitalism Where, "Oh Well, Everyone Dies."

2008-08-10T09:48:00.000-07:00

“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” —Albert Einstein

      Losing body parts to breast cancer was pretty much the opposite of fun. Nevertheless, in 2001 I had a partial mastectomy on my left breast, and in 2007 a full mastectomy of my right breast—two different kinds of breast cancer.

      My current oncologist suggested awhile ago that I go on the drug Aromasin, now that I am done with chemo and radiation for the second time in my life.

      In 2001 my first oncologist wanted me to take Tamoxifin and became incensed when I told him I didn’t like the idea and would be getting a second opinion. The second opinion agreed I should go on Tamoxifin. I said, “But the drug is a carcinogen.” She answered, “Oh don’t worry about that. We’ll keep an eye on it.” I thought to myself, “What does that mean? You’re going to know the day before I get endometrial cancer?”

      The next oncologist wanted me to take Arimidex; yet another suggested the drug Femara.

      I cannot help wondering why each doctor has a different plan for me—could it be they just don’t have any idea what they’re doing? Naw-w-w...

      Tamoxifen has a black box warning label now and is listed as a carcinogen. The other drugs are “aromatase inhibitors,” and whether or not they are carcinogens has yet to be determined. My understanding is that these new drugs are supposed to limit the body’s production of tumor-feeding estrogen by “deactivating the aromatase enzyme,” an enzyme that converts androgens into estrogens, a perfectly normal aspect of my body’s functioning, one that protects me from osteoporosis.

      Aromasin does something the other drugs do not do, that is, the deactivation it performs of a cell’s aromatase enzyme is irreversible—what is morbidly referred to as “suicide inhibition.” Add to that a myriad of bad to worse side-effects, which my oncologist didn’t mention but which I found in reports on the internet, such as hot flashes, severe joint pain, painful feet, sleeplessness, increased aggressiveness, and on and on, meaning that a strong percentage of patients decide the fear of a recurrence of breast cancer is worth enduring, if only to have a return of the quality of life, and freedom from the miseries caused by this pill.

      What ever happened to “first do no harm?” I already have hot flashes, joint pain, sore feet, and occasional insomnia—how would taking a pill that causes more of such misery be harmless? Also, it turns out Aromasin is used by body-builders. It’s a steroidal drug! So, besides the sweat, pain, sleeplessness, and hostility, I should go Arnold too?

      Doctors sometimes get frustrated with me. I am supposed to ignore facts and trust them. I am supposed to have a flat learning curve and just go along with the program. I am not supposed to connect the dots, not supposed to think critically about their treatment plans.

      I used to trust my doctors. Then began my journey through menopause. I wasn’t particularly bothered by this natural transition of womanhood, but apparently my primary care doctor, an internist, was hugely disturbed by it. It was as if not to go on Hormone Replacement Therapy, specifically estrogen, was to wither away from true womanhood toward something unspeakably hideous and diseased. He had just the thing to fix me. He even called me at home to advocate on behalf of Premarin, going so far as to argue with me about it.

      Eventually, I gave in, and once I was “addicted” to the pill, every subsequent doctor over a ten-year span gladly filled my prescriptions, and I unknowingly became a guinea pig in what one author referred to as The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed on Women. No proper studies had been done on HRT at the time I first began taking it, no randomized trials, but, based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, all the doctors went crazy for it. Only recently have we have had the proper studies, and the results were not good:

According to the Million Women’s Study, for one (The Lancet):
• Estrogen-progestin use increased breast cancer by 19 per 1,000 women.
• Estrogen-alone use increased breast cancer by 5 per 1,000 women.

      Regardless, in the year 2000, according to IMS Health, U.S. doctors wrote 23,454,000 prescriptions for Premarin.

      Okay, correct me if I'm wrong: 23,454,000 @ 5 per 1000 women = 117,270 extra cases, among the prescription holders who will get breast cancer, assuming the group stays on Premarin more than five years—this, from the use of Premarin alone.

      But physicians and gynecologists are still prescribing it, still advertising it in their offices, and still lamely defending its use, as if they don’t look like ethical morons to claim that stopping hot flashes is worth the risk of developing breast cancer. The FDA still has not banned this horrible drug, nor limited its use.

      So there I was: I had been using Premarin for ten years when I was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a shock I still have not recovered from fully. Certainly, it was something I never anticipated: no woman in my family had ever had breast cancer; I have two older sisters who are breast cancer free (they never took HRT); I was not a drinker nor a smoker; I didn’t eat red meat—heck, I was a vegetarian. Did any of my doctors apologize for this medical atrocity, which left me missing body parts and bereft of confidence in my future? Nope. Not one word of remorse. In fact, one charming oncologist, upon hearing my complaint about being robbed of my golden years by HRT, said, “Well, everyone dies.”

      Let’s face it: we live in a culture where greed is good and the profit motive is sacrosanct. As patients we like to think the pharmaceutical industry that instructs and assists our hapless doctors in treating us are good people who would love to rid us of our diseases. But the reality is that breast cancer is an industry, a cash cow for the entire medical industrial complex; and, whether those who profit from our sickness admit it or not, they don’t want to find a cure for cancer— think of the profit losses, were a cure to be found!

      Paranoia? Conspiracy theory?

      Consider this example: DCA, dichloroacetate, is a drug that shows real promise as a cure for many kinds of cancers, including breast cancer. Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the University of Alberta Department of Medicine in Canada, is currently researching this “inexpensive, relatively harmless,” drug. Has the pharmaceutical industry rushed to fund this research, or to do the research itself? Gosh O golly, NO! Don’t you know DCA is not patented—there’s no profit to be made off the drug? Did you think the industry would be interested in finding a cure anyway, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of you and me? Are you dreaming? As reality has it, Dr. Michelakis will just have to scrape up the funds for his research from independent donors. The big guys just don’t care.

      Consider another example, as a clue to the moral character and motives of the corporate owners and managers who bring our world of chemicals and pharmaceuticals to us:

• In 2000, Novartis —insecticides, the herbicide, atrazine— and AstraZeneca —agro-chemicals and pharmaceuticals— formed Syngenta through the merger of their agricultural divisions.
• Syngenta makes and sells both aromatase promoters and inhibitors, both atrazine and Arimidex, for example.
• Atrazine, a widely used weed killer, is an aromatase promoter, an endocrine disrupter. Atrazine was denied regulatory approval in the European Union—it’s banned in Europe. It CAUSES breast cancer.
• The United States uses about 80 million pounds of atrazine every year. It is in the water, folks.

      How tidy is that vicious cycle? With one hand, they cause breast cancer, by contaminating the environment with atrazine; with the other hand, they treat the breast cancer they caused in the first place, with aromatase inhibitors, to the tune of billions: “Worldwide sales of aromatase inhibitors have increased from approximately $340 million in 2001 to more than $1.2 billion in 2004, representing an annual growth rate of 52%.”

      Of course, Syngenta denies that its product causes breast cancer and has bribed researchers and quashed the findings of honest researchers, using the full force of its power to attack the truth about atrazine. You would think, if the CEO’s and managers at Syngesta cared about the health and safety of people and the environment, they would listen to bad news about the dangers posed by their product and remove it from the market. You would think...but that would be in a world where people come before profits. This, clearly, is not that world.

      You would also like to hope that Syngenta, and companies like it, would not want be responsible for contributing to an epidemic of breast cancer. But that would be a world where corporations were peopled by folks with consciences, where corporations are not peopled by sociopaths. This is not that world. Instead, this is a world where killing people for profit isn’t personal— it’s business, so that, if people die, well, “everyone dies”. Why not make a profit, while the gettin’s good?

      Just between you and me, it seems to me that if corporations insist on being legal “persons,” with all the rights afforded to persons in the Constitution, then they ought to be judged as persons in the criminal justice system—that is, if they kill people for profit, then try to suppress the evidence, they should be prosecuted for murder. The CEO’s, managers and boards of directors of these criminal entities need to go to prison. Enough of this lawsuit crap; they just count those losses as part of the cost of doing business. (Although verdicts can serve to validate the common sense finding of damage done.) No. They need pay a real price for first contaminating the environment, then, when we get sick, profiting again from our sickness.

      I discussed a few of these facts and issues with my oncologist the other day. I asked him how oncologists decide which aromatase inhibitor to recommend. Quite honestly, he said there was no logic to it, no evidence of one drug being any better than any other; sometimes the decision is based on whether or not a drug company has charity programs for patients. He laughed: “We just don’t know!”

      He also listened to my complaints about drug companies and agreed with me. He took notes on my information about DCA and web sites devoted to patient experiences with aromatase inhibitors. Best of all he didn’t push Aromasin on me. Then he kissed me on the cheek, when we said good-bye.

      I do think he is one of the good guys. Some do care, some are as frustrated as their patients with the industry, the system. I want to think I am in good hands, but I hesitate.

      Ralph Nader said, “The profit motive corrupts all things." Sadly, trust is among the casualties, as in, collateral damage.

—L.M.

A Crack in Job Hell and How the Light Gets In

2008-07-16T12:38:00.000-07:00

If you are working poor, you are not alone

      In her odyssey across the landscape of the working poor in America — Nickel and Dimed — Barbara Ehrenreich didn’t find any university graduates to write about. (Does Bait and Switch make up for that omission?) It was the first thing I noticed about Nickel and Dimed, because one of the things I found in my own miserable experience as a college grad working at low-wage jobs was that I was never alone; college graduates were everywhere I went—young, old, single, married, including some with advanced degrees.
      Rebecca N____ and Chet N____ are good examples; they were a married couple who had been teachers for many years, then gallery owners, and then, when that failed, eight-dollar-an-hour customer service representatives, which was where I met them.
      Equally common in my experience were the day-to-day, petty humiliations and reminders of one’s powerlessness, served up by supervisors and bosses whose own lack of education seemed to be irrelevant. That is, power, and the enjoyment of it, has no educational requirements. Once you get there, you’re good to go.
      Way back when, I worked for a guy I thought must be the sinister incarnation of Ichabod Crane—tall, gaunt Bob W____. Bob once said to me, with a malevolent smirk on his face, “You’re a socialist, aren’t you?” It was a rhetorical question. And it was an insult, since the world according to Bob had socialists as among the most vile of the vile. Not that the assertion came as a surprise to me; after all, this was the same boss who introduced me to his wife on my first day with this odd —and wrong— parenthetical “compliment” about me: “...and she is ‘pro-life!’” which should have been my cue to offer a parenthetical middle finger to the ass and go find another job. But I was desperately needy for work —he knew it— and rendered cynical by experience; given the job scene in my area, San Diego’s North County, who was to say my next job would be any less populated by wackos, ghouls, and ethical polliwogs? This was pot-luck, and I would have to take it.
      Yes, I should have been stronger and more courageous, but by then such positives had been lost to necessity; you get to a point where you must have compassion for yourself and do what you have to do to survive—which is another version of courage, it seems to me. So, there I was, working for a fundamentalist Christian patriarch, a small business owner, who often shamelessly demonstrated his racism and discriminatory behavior, and who had the freedom to try to shame me with the label of “socialist,” or hover over me, pressuring me to go faster, and various other indications of the perverted nature of his mind.
      Well, he had the power. Businesses are not democracies, not organizations dedicated to “liberty and justice for all,” and I had checked my civil liberties at the door when I took the job—I had no freedom of speech. There would be no honest rejoinder to his “insult,” such as, “No. I am a small-d democrat. But you, Bob, are a fascist, right?”
      Ah, retro-visions of truth and glory...
      I did manage one happy moment of triumph in my trek through job hell. One sales manager, a squat guy with a skinny mustache and slicked-back hair, told us that if the “numbers weren’t up by Friday,” his manager said he might have to “change the oil.” So, when on Friday the numbers still weren’t up, I marched up the stairs to the manager’s office, opened the door onto a meeting, interrupted and said to the manager, “The next time you decide to change the oil, maybe you should take another look at the dip stick.” Then I walked down the stairs, out the door to my car and drove home, happy as can be.
      Funny, I ran into that former boss sometime later. He laughed about it and said that from that day on, he was referred to by everybody in the building as “Dip Stick.” This is the saddest thing about job hell—most folks have good souls; it’s just that the whole system is designed to undermine our best qualities and replace them with our worst. You start out as a loving person with a desire to contribute good works, and then one day you hear yourself saying to your underling, “You were one minute late. You know the rules. You’re fired.”
      That’s because the basic frame governing the work place is that workers are dishonorable people, fundamentally and as a class. According to the frame, workers were born bad, and they will die bad, and so you have to motivate them with threats and intimidation. Regardless of the enlightened frames found in management training courses, most American businesses operate according to the conservative model.
      Which reminds me—in a wonderful book with the awful title, Man for Himself, Erich Fromm writes this: “We are concerned with man’s character not with his success...but what is 'power'? It is rather ironical that this word denotes two contradictory concepts: power of = capacity, and power over = domination... Power = domination results from the paralysis of power = capacity. 'Power over' is the perversion of 'power to.' ...Where potency is lacking, man’s relatedness to the world is perverted into a desire to dominate, to exert power over others as though they were things. Domination is coupled with death, potency with life. Domination springs from impotence and in turn reinforces it, for if an individual can force somebody else to serve him, his own need to be productive is increasingly paralyzed.”
      I should have posted that one on the bulletin board at my last job in the composing department of a major publishing company, where the frame “workers-are-evil-spawn” governed all employer-employee relations.
      First came the drug testing, as it was required for employment; then came the time clock, modified eventually for a hand scan, so that they could keep track of your hand’s comings and goings, to the second, and have proof if your hand was one second late, three times in a row, which mandated your being fired on the spot.
      Given that the publications we produced had advertising, with text and images, the company placed a high value on accuracy; any ad that went out with a mistake meant that the client would get the ad for free. Thus, not only were individuals tracked and records kept on those of us who worked on ads, but the entire department’s error rates were mapped on graphs, graphs which were pinned to the wall directly adjacent to the time clock, where we could admire our mistakes as we waited by the clock to leave for the day. These graphs would show our progress, month to month, and some would give numbers as to the amount of profits lost to errors.
      Keep in mind that this was a company that would hire anybody off the street who expressed an interest in Photoshop and experience with Macs, not necessarily a proficiency in Photoshop, or even a fluency in the English language, for that matter. The pay was minimum wage, with a three month probation, after which Blue Cross benefits kicked in; full health care coverage was the main reason to put up with the negatives, of course. Still, the probation period was rough; you had to be a quick study and able to dodge the myriad, petty opportunities to be fired. I stayed there ten years, managing eventually to earn a whopping $10.50 an hour.
      We had to attend yearly “climate survey” meetings, where we were encouraged to vent our complaints and suggestions without fear of reprisal. The company always engaged in heavy PR to the employees about how they bent over backward to be a great employer and how lucky you were to work there. Everybody knew the real purpose of the meetings was to manage morale in the department and to snuff any possible threats of law suits. They rarely made changes based on our complaints, except in one instance, after my comments to the upper management guy about the “stick” we always received for mistakes. I wanted to know where was the “carrot?”
      This was something I said in a conversation I had with our personnel manager and him after the meeting. I also said that if we were going to be shown graphs with our mistakes and profit losses, we would also like to see graphs comparing company profits over the past twenty-five years, as well as graphs showing employee wages and department profit losses from mistakes over the same time period. Would they show us those graphs?
      Well, soon after, all the graphs came down, and we were never again humiliated in this way over our mistakes.
      Could it be that I was onto something? Given that the company had always paid its employees at the minimum wage (cost of labor), but over the years the cost for ads had most likely risen exponentially (profits), well, just how badly was our department, with our little mistakes, costing the company? And how much were company profits enhanced by our low wages? If we had been able to see charts revealing just how bogus management’s complaints about our mistakes were, and, more importantly, just how badly we were being cheated out of a fair wage, one that kept up with inflation, how long could the company control the “climate” of our discontent?
      Sadly, the company continued to enforce its rules about mistakes. I will never forget Joe, a hugely over-weight but perennially sweet Mexican guy, who was a “closer,” the last person responsible for checking ads before they went to print. He missed three mistakes in one week. Though he’d been with the company for years, he was fired. Joe visited us a few months after his firing, and I hardly recognized him, for all the weight he had lost. I asked him how he’d managed to lose so much weight. He said, “I’m not eating. Can’t afford it.”
      Our supervisor, the one who had fired Joe, a woman who believed in ghosts and the paranormal, once expressed to me her disdain for Mexicans— “they move into your neighborhood, and before you know it gangs are everywhere.”
      She and I didn’t get along very well, needless to say. But that’s story for another time.

The Crack and the Light:

      Leonard Cohen’s song, Anthem, gives us these lines: “There is a crack, a crack in everything / That's how the light gets in.” Those words came to me the other day, as I drove down I-15 listening to KPBS, and heard a report about the city’s winning “the first case against a company for violating the city’s Living Wage Ordinance.”
      Hello? Living Wage Ordinance? Wait a minute—the city of San Diego? Amazing. The city of San Diego managed to let some light get in through a tiny crack in its conservative reputation, apparently. Could this be true?
      It is true. The ordinance was passed in 2005, when I wasn’t paying any attention. So now, any company contracting with the city must pay its employees either $12 an hour or $10 plus health insurance. How cool is that? Of course, there was a big battle over it. Obviously, corporate welfare queens prefer keeping their workers in poverty, while they reap the excess profits.
      Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Congress would now pass a similar law, a national, living wage law?

—L.M.

In “Good Faith” With Telecom Companies and Lawless Bush Administration, Senate Passes FISA:

2008-07-09T19:00:00.000-07:00

A message to Senate supporters of HR 6304

To Pro-HR 6304 Senators:

      Today, with the passage of HR 6304, I mourned the death of the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, and I grieved for the loss of any conviction that I am a citizen of a democratic republic, governed and secured by the principle of the rule of law. Today you forced me to realize, once and for all, that I am not free, not a citizen with inalienable rights; today you disabused me of any trust I had in my government, by showing me this: whatever an administration and corporations want to do to me will be supported by you, as long as they act in “good faith” with each other, as opposed to acting in good faith with the American people and the Constitution of the United States.
      Today I grieve over your abandonment of the notion of government of, by and for the people, in favor of government of, by and for criminal corporations.
      Watching you over the past two days, as you defended your position in support of HR 6304, I grieved as your hearts bled for the telecom companies; as you pretended 9-11 was a legitimate and factual excuse for the President’s warrantless surveillance program, even though you knew he had begun the program immediately after his first month in office; as you granted unprecedented legal authority to the executive branch to violate the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, fixing the executive branch as the sole judge of its own behavior and removing the judicial branch as a check on executive power; as you sided with the likes of Kit Bond (R. Missouri), who framed telecom immunity as “liability protection” and bemoaned the possibility of holding to the rule of law as “penalizing the companies” with “frivolous lawsuits.” What is the matter with you that you approved such garbage?
      I grieved, and my stomach turned, as the bill passed, with only twenty-eight good Senators voting against and holding fast to the Constitution and the rule of law, a mere twenty-eight true patriots, compared to sixty-nine lumps of Senatorial cowardice and shame.
      I have to ask of Barack Obama and his Democratic comrades who voted for the Feingold-Dodd Amendment, which would have removed telecom immunity from the bill, but failed, and then went ahead and voted for the bill itself, which contained telecom immunity —a profound contradiction— why would you do that? So, your distaste for telecom immunity was a whim of the moment, which changed for the final vote? Or, was it the other way around? No. You knew what you were doing. Clearly, you wanted to have it both ways, so that you could say, “Well, it’s too bad about immunity, but I want conservative voters to know I’m tough on terrorists.” Sir, you have no moral compass, no profound or ethical position to offer as reason to vote for you. You are lost. I, for one, will never forgive you, never vote for you again.
      The most frightening aspect of this dark moment is that of precedence—you, Senators, have set the stage for what? What’s next after this? You have now established that a mere executive-branch say-so can be sufficient justification for lawbreaking on the part of a company, so, why should not the Bush administration, or any other administration, use other private companies to do further harm to our liberty, our privacy, our fundamental human rights? Now that you have given Bush, as well, license to gather up whole masses of communications between Americans without warrants, in violation of the 4th Amendment, why should he not go whole hog with his vile intentions against freedom, democracy and the rule of law and break more laws than he already has?
      Today you have done what Al Queda could not have done with all their miserable, ragged might, without your help—you have taken the essence of American freedom and liberty and subtracted it from the body politic; you have injured the soul of America.
      Shame on you!!!

—LM

ACLU on this subject

Judge Walker

Comic relief: Mark Fiore on the subject

Obama's "Change" Offers No Hope for Civil Liberty

2008-06-29T13:19:00.000-07:00

His new position on FISA, in effect: as long as we are safe, we don’t need to be free.

      Yesterday, June 28, Barack Obama spoke before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Referring to the immigration issue, Obama made the point that McCain “deserves credit” for the work he did alongside Obama on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform. There was a problem, however, according to the Democratic candidate: “When he [McCain] was running for his party’s nomination, he walked away from that commitment. He said he wouldn’t even support his own legislation, if it came up for a vote. Now, if we’re going to solve the challenges we face, we can’t vacillate; we can’t shift, depending on our politics. You need a president who will pursue genuine solutions, day in and day out, in a consistent way. And that’s my commitment to you.”

      Beautiful. Apparently unhampered by self-examination, he stood there, making a promise not to vacillate, not to shift, but instead to be consistent with his commitments—this, while my built-in crap detector clanged over the contrast between what he had just said and the fact of his newly adjusted position on telecom immunity.
      I guess we were supposed to forget his previous position on telecom immunity, his earlier stated commitment to the rule of law, as well as the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. To wit:

Then:—Barack Obama, February 26, 2008: “The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.”

Now: Barack Obama, June 26, 2008: “...the issue of the phone companies, per se, is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.”

      That was in answer to the question as to why he was going to support the FISA bill that will be voted on in the Senate after the July 4th holiday, the bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecoms.
      So, sometimes it is okay to vacillate? Sometimes it’s okay to shift your commitment?
      Certainly, when it comes to one challenge, the one where he expressed, in January and February, a strong commitment to the ability of the American people to “trust their president to value principle over politics” and justice over “unchecked power,” then it’s perfectly okay to turn tail and make a beeline for political expediency.
      The challenge of the rule of law, and the basic civil liberties of the American people, is not important; it does not override security. Hello? As long as we are “safe,” we don’t need to be free?
      So what else is new? Did you expect a politician to stick to his stated principles?

      It is interesting to watch the struggles with cognitive dissonance now being experienced by the Obama faithful—poor Keith Olbermann, for one. He thinks everything’s going to be okay, since John Dean said the bill didn’t preclude prosecution of telecom companies by the Justice Department, after Bush leaves office. Obama has a secret plan...
      Oh brother.
      Plus, Olbermann thinks Obama did himself proud by not “cowering to” the Left, a retreat from Olbermann’s own powerful statements against granting telecom immunity. As if the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law were left-wing issues and not values all Americans should hold dear. No. What we’re seeing is how people go into denial to be able to accept the shameful behavior of someone they wish desperately to admire.
      C’mon, Obama has not done himself proud, and neither has Olbermann, for that matter; after all, to betray one’s own principles is about as shameful thing a person can do.

      Whatever protections for our civil liberties are granted in the FISA bill, they become meaningless, as long as telecom immunity is granted as well. After all, the original FISA legislation had those protections, but the Bush Administration ignored them, with the help of the telecom companies. The bottom line is that the telecom companies broke the law; to grant them immunity from civil suits now is an invitation to this lawless administration, and the next, to ignore the law again. WHAT CONSEQUENCES FOR LAW-BREAKING DOES AN ADMINISTRATION FACE, IF CONGRESS GRANTS IMMUNITY TO LAWBREAKERS? The message becomes this: as long as the government gives a company a piece of paper, with instructions to break the law, warrantless spying on Americans can go on as before. Congress will always grant immunity.
      Wishing and waiting for prosecutions by the Justice Department is naive, a self-delusion. It won’t happen. It’s a “war on terror” without end; we can kiss our civil liberty good-bye, without hope for its return, ever.
      To vote for this FISA bill, with immunity granted, is a betrayal of the American people. And I am far more threatened by lawless executive and legislative branches of our government than by al queda, by far.
      I doubt Obama would abandon his corporate friends or the ruling class once in the White House. It would not fit his pattern: when courting the Democratic electorate for his Party’s nomination, he spoke like a civil libertarian; once secure as the nominee, he abandoned the civil liberty stance and caved to the fear factor. This is not behavior that deserves an optimistic, hopeful, trusting response from us. It is "change," alright, but not change I can believe in.

—L.M.

UPDATE: My comment to Keith Olbermann's Special Comment of June 30th: Sorry, there's a problem with Keith's logic: Obama's voting against the FISA bill would not preclude his also prosecuting the criminals, once he gets into office. We should have both—civil AND criminal litigation.

There's NO excuse whatsoever for Obama to vote for the bill, and no solace whatsoever in the distant and doubtful promise of Obama-presidency prosecutions. And who is to say Obama is going to win the presidency, anyway? Think about the fix we'll be in then, when McCain is in office, and we don't even have the option of civil litigations!

Tonight's Special Comment failed—too much bending over backward to make an Obama betrayal of the Constitution and the rule of law okay. It's not okay. Civil litigations are how ordinary people hold corporations and the government accountable. For the Federal government to remove them as an option is a hideous act of betrayal against one democratic means of redress.

Shame on Obama, if he doesn't vote against the bill; shame on Keith Olbermann for making excuses for him.

PREVIOUS POST ON THIS SUBJECT: If Obama Votes Yes

The Human Bond of Duh

2008-06-24T11:21:00.001-07:00

And how I miss George Carlin

      Arrogance is the first form of stupidity. I love to say that.
      But, hold on. I also have a distaste for hierarchy—so, can we say one form of stupidity should out rank any other? Aren’t all of us equally stupid, in our own, special way? After all, whether you like it or not, everybody, each frail and faulty human, has moments of duh, where the duh factor engages despite all our pathetic efforts to the contrary. But I promise you, your moments of duh are no worse than mine, and vice versa. This is the human bond of duh.
      I won’t mention my most egregious acts of duh, the disastrous ones. Those, I call deep duh. The relatively harmless ones have to do with math and technical stuff. I mean, forget it. I’m never there, when I’m there. Those fall into the category of congenitally ill-equipped duh—it can’t be helped. And then there’s the inevitable daily duh, like walking down the street to pick up my mail, then remembering it’s Sunday.
      George Carlin would have appreciated this. In one of his stand-up routines he said, “You ever notice how all day Wednesday, you keep thinking it’s Thursday?” He had led up to this comment with an introduction that began, “I’d like to talk about some things that bring us together, things that point out our similarities, instead of our differences...but I also like to know I can come back to these little things we have in common, little universal moments that we share separately, but things that make us the same. They’re so small we hardly ever talk about them.
      Do you ever look at your watch, and then you don’t know what time it is? And then you have to look again, and you still don’t know the time. So you look a third time, and somebody says, 'What time is it,' and you say, 'I don’t know?'"
      Our human bond of duh—right, George? Are you with me here?

      The big problem is that as a species our collective duh is coming close to ending us. Our world is in such a fearsome condition we’re finding our very futures in jeopardy; more and more, each day that the powerful among us ignore the signs—after all, those guys deny the duh that compels them— things fail to work on our behalf, and on behalf of the planet.

      It’s like this:
      What values best support us?
      Duh...those of laissez-faire capitalism?
      Duh...masculinist values?
      Duh...authoritarian values?

      What is our hierarchy of values?
      Duh...profit first, before anything else?
      Duh...whatever my authority says?
      Duh...me first?

      How do we fix what is broken?
      Duh...privatize everything?
      Duh...de-regulate?
      Duh...drill, blast, bomb, torture, deny?

What a loss George Carlin isn’t here to make us laugh about it all, to get things straight and clear, to distill sanity from the fruity din—if you will pardon my duh.

—L.M.

If Obama Votes Yes on FISA Bill

2008-06-22T09:18:00.000-07:00

Tell me why I should vote for him and not Ralph Nader?

      The Blue Dog Democrats have done their hangdog business in the House again this week, cowering on the floor to hand over yet another wet-dream of a bill into Republican hands. ( Greenwald )
      To sum it up, my understanding is that if the Senate passes the bill, the telecom companies will receive immunity for their law-breaking, which essentially means the rule of law in America is meaningless. The excuse the hangdog Dems are giving, such as Diane Feinstein, is that in the hysteria of 9-11, it was understandable for the telecom companies to want to help the government. Isn't that so generous to the telecoms! What these Democrats are ignoring is that the spying went on for years; the companies have massive legal budgets and plenty of lawyers who could have explained the law; and at least one company, Quest, managed to reject the Administration's attempts to seduce them into breaking the law—they said NO!
      The Republicans refer to the law-breaking companies as "patriotic." Somehow they've forgotten what it is to be patriotic—that is, to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, as they pledged to do.
      All this is happening against a background, where the government can name any citizen whatsoever as an “enemy combatant,” detain any citizen whatsoever, and render —disappear— any citizen whatsoever to Syria to be tortured.
      To give the telecom's immunity, is to give it to the Administration as well, as far as future prosecutions against the Administration are concerned. And, how the Administration will be cautioned against breaking this new FISA law, to again conduct warrantless spying, is beyond me. Where's the downside for them?
      Amazingly enough, Barack Obama might vote for this FISA bill. So much for his background in Constitutional law.
      Thus, I see no reason whatsoever, if Obama goes ahead and votes for this bill, or doesn’t try to stop it, why I should not go ahead and vote for Ralph Nader, who is closest to my heart, anyway.

—L.M.

UPDATE: June 29 post

Conventional Wisdom, Common Sense, Uncommon Patriotism

2008-06-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

In gratitude for Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler’s defense of democracy

      The Florida Sun-Sentinel recently posted an editorial criticizing Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler for their calls to impeach G.W. Bush. The editorial began with an enumeration of our current national ills —wars, unemployment, Americans going without health insurance, gas prices— and then somehow failed to connect any dots whatsoever as to who is responsible for our sorry situation and how crimes were committed to get us here.
      The editorial would be laughable, if so many innocent lives and national treasure had not been criminally wasted by the very hand of the person the editorial board defends in its opinion.
      This is the Pelosi-inspired, denial-based, conventional wisdom now: calls for accountability for the most egregious, obvious and blatant crimes by officials of the government in American history are to be treated as if they are tantamount to the hysterical and whiney demands of toddlers. “You don’t like Mommy and Daddy’s rules? You want to make noise? You are grounded for wasting our time.” Or, more to the point, it is as if Daddy has been sneaking into bedrooms at night to molest his children, Mommy knows it, but stopping him is off the table—Sh-h-h-h-h!.
      We are supposed to think that it’s only common sense to dismiss impeachment as an option— “it’s too late; it’s a distraction from important issues; we don’t have enough votes, etc.” But it isn’t common sense; it is common campaign strategy. Underneath the excuses is this truth: the Democratic leadership thinks impeachment hearings will alienate the electorate —they are wrong!— and so they want to play a waiting game. And conservatives love it. Their guy is getting away with it.
       I am thinking of another kind of common sense, the kind of common sense that built this nation, the common sense of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, the common sense that created a great Constitution, where the exact remedy for the sort of crimes George W. Bush has committed was put there, so that America could breathe free of would-be tyrants and empire-builders like George W. Bush. I have to wonder what happened to this kind of patriotism. Is it tucked away inside the namby-pamby back pockets of editors and journalists, pundits and politicos across the nation, where it is sat upon and smothered to death beneath their lackadaisical butts?
      Reps. Wexler and Kucinich have accomplished an uncommon thing: they have managed to retain their patriotic common sense. It is the shame and tragedy of this nation that such patriotism is so rare, now that we need it so badly. We are in jeopardy of enabling a tyrannical epoch in American history, but we are surrounded by fools and cowards.
      Albert Einstein's familiar quote, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds," comes to mind here. Wexler and Kucinich are great spirits, and they will be remembered in history as such; as for the editorial board of the Florida Sun-Sentinel—their opposition to such greatness is apparently all they can manage, given who they are.

      Personally, I think impeachment is not nearly enough; the thugs should be prosecuted for murder. Apparently, I am not the only one who thinks this.

—L.M.

Torture by Photo Op

2008-06-08T19:20:00.000-07:00

Say No to Four More Years of It

      Among the worst lies George W. Bush has told is the one where he insists, “we do not torture.” That was a doozy.
      I don’t know where he gets that. I mean, he tortures me every time his goofy self appears on television. All it takes is the sight of his bow-legged cock-strut across the White House lawn, and my face goes twitchy, just like Clouseau’s torture victim, Chief Inspector Dreyfus. Then, as soon as he opens his mouth, and his words wrangle their way toward my ears, hinting of a sloppy, sottish past (is it past?) —”Thish is an impresshhive crowd -- the havezsh and the have morezsh. Shome people call ya th’ elite -- Ah call you mah bayshe.”— well, I’m in agony. It is so-o-o painful.
      I don’t know if I can make it to January 20, 2009, without some kind of intervention. Like impeachment.

      Help. Please, all you voters out there, bring us a President who at least honors the office of the Presidency —for a change— with eloquence, a resonant voice, and, even if he isn’t going to bring us Medicare for all, even if he supports “clean” coal and “free” trade, at least he has the ability to think on his feet and speak coherently.
      I think you know who that is. It is NOT John McCain.
      McCain. Think about that. It’s bad enough that he is painfully uncomfortable in his own skin, that is, physically and metaphorically, meaning his ethics, values and opinions, but the spector of McCain in the Presidency is nearly as horrifying as that which resides there now; we’re talking asymmetrical, puddin’ face, stiff-joints, a nasal tonality and an inspirational deficiency that simply will not improve with time. It’s only gonna get worse, Folks. You vote for McCain, and it will be nothing but four more years of Bush crimes against our aesthetic sensibilities. Don’t do it.

      What it boils down to is this: do you want four years of goose bumps, or facial tics? The choice is clear.

JOHN MCCAIN MEDICAL RECORDS REVEAL EMBARRASSING DETAIL

2008-05-26T11:06:00.000-07:00

by Mistee Laurie, C.P.I.

Questions about McCain’s suitability for the Presidency surfaced again today, after it was revealed during a cursory look at his medical records that he still wets his bed.

A.P.’s Jeff Mungo verified the story, saying, “Despite my having only three hours to fan through 400 pages of his medical records, and not being allowed to photocopy anything, I did see urologist Leikkur’s note of December 14, 2004, which stated, ‘John complains about incontinence, especially while sleeping...wets bed on a regular basis.’”

Although McCain scoffed at the story and wheeled out his 96-year-old mother to back him up, he bristled when Hillary Clinton threatened to fuel speculation, with the claim McCain had revealed to her at a dinner party that he laughed so hard “he nearly peed his pants!”

McCain’s bed-wetting habit continued to reverberate in the latest news cycle. A spokesman for the campaign accused the “liberal media” of “trying to stigmatize a condition which millions of Americans suffer from and making John McCain the poster-boy for Depends.”

Thus, the slow-motion scandal of McCain’s secrecy over his medical records fast-forwards, as his campaign continues to withhold documentary evidence of his ability to bomb Iran without wetting his pants.

Dr. Leikkur was unavailable for comment.

American Burqa

2008-05-20T14:58:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on the hiding of American womankind, behind the veil of uniformity

     A family member once told me his wife “is going to need a face lift soon.” I had responded, “No she isn’t.” But he was adamant.

     I happened to come across a B movie the other day, one starring Melissa Gilbert in a role requiring her to speak in a foreign accent. Melissa, to my fascination, was nearly as unidentifiable in this movie as the accent she used. In fact, I am not exactly sure how I managed to recognize her, given how drastically some porcine-pawed plastic surgeon had transformed her face since the last time I saw her. This was not the Melissa Gilbert I knew, whose thick eyebrows and quirky, unique features had distinguished her from the pack. Instead, here was a generic female type, pretty, but somehow reduced, somehow absent.
     Here was a nose I call snout-nose, eyebrows reduced to near-nothings, and lips some critics of plastic surgery have described as “trout pout.”
     Trout is not the fish metaphor I would choose. But this one, to the right, whatever it is, seems an apt choice.
     To you plastic surgeons: this is NOT the look you want to give your patients.
     But they do. One web site advertises the lip-job their plastic surgeon performs as “Paris Lips!” “You can “plump up thin lips for as little as $475!” On the same website, we are treated to a before and after, where a middle-aged, intelligent-looking woman has been transformed into a middle-aged, startled-looking dim-wit.

     These are anecdotal examples, but they speak to something I have noticed in many different places. Something is happening to the image of womankind, as it is portrayed in the media, and it reflects the entire culture, even while it infects it.
     Consider an example from Fox’s House, M.D., where Hugh Laurie plays a genius diagnostician in a hospital, among a mixed cast of characters, both men and women. Well, it’s a good show. But that doesn’t keep me from noticing the something I am thinking of, which is revealed in the difference between the male characters and the female characters, that is, between the male doctors and the female doctors. Here is the difference: the males are interesting actors whose looks vary from bordering on ugly —Dr. House, in particular— to decidedly unattractive but intelligent looking, to one young doctor who is nearly pretty, he is so cute; but the female characters are ALL pretty, in conventional ways —you won’t see an Ava Gardener or a Meryl Streep there— and, if they weren’t cast as doctors, you wouldn’t think of them as especially intelligent ladies. They’re just pretty women, lacking any particular uniqueness or variety in their looks. That is, they are uniform in their bland, ordinary prettiness.
     What’s up with that? Why are the men allowed to be ugly, to be different, to be intelligent and interesting —to be free?— but the women are not? Why do the female characters seem so generic and without character?

     Leaving the complex analysis to those who enjoy such activities, I will sum it up this way: what we’re dealing with is the American burqa.

     American culture did not need a bearded patriarch to come at women with a stick, to enforce our second class status on us. No Taliban mantra was inflicted on us, to berate us, our nature, our unique selves. Physical bullying, corporal punishment—none of it was necessary to beat us into submission. Only a sexist reality was required, though a less stupidly expressed one than that in Taliban society, where the value of a woman is found only in her appearance, an appearance that must conform to a standard, a male-defined idea of feminine beauty, or she is without value. The eyes should be just so far apart; the nose just such a shape and size, within strictly defined parameters; the mouth must be “full,” “sensual;” the chin this and not that; forehead so high, so wide. She must be only so old, and no older. Should she stray outside this contemporary, American standard of beauty, she will not only be rejected in certain areas of life, but she will gradually learn to hate the way she looks and want to change, to hide, to become someone, anyone other than herself, even if it means becoming a nobody with an anybody face, a generic American female.
     Our culture did not require celebrity women to wear cloth burqas to hide themselves. Instead, culture provided casting directors who only cast according to the standard; then came the plastic surgeons to fix the errant, lidded eye, or the rebellious, fierce nose, those fully trained and conditioned doctors who would find the Barbie in the face and body of every patient, those who could render them invisible, behind the American burqa, a face and body distinguished only for its lack of individuality and uniqueness.
     The sickness is not restricted to celebrities. Somehow my family member experienced no shame in declaring his wife to be in need of lifting up, while gravity would be allowed to have its way with him all the way to his grave. It was the culturally acceptable thing for a husband to require, in fact. Apparently, he should not have to endure life married to a woman who looked her age; but he could look as old as he liked, and did.
     Another guy I know said he decided to marry the woman who eventually became his wife, because he could see all she needed was a make-over and new clothes. I guess she was a sort of fixer-upper.

     Once, while waiting in the doctor’s office, I heard two little boys talking about the details of a poster they were standing near. The poster contained photographs of boys and girls. Pointing to a child in a photograph, one boy said to the other, “Is this one human, or a girl?”
     Is it possible a boy could grow up in our society, believing that males are human, but females are not, that females are another thing outside the notion of humanity, like animals?
     Does a woman acquiesce to such a belief, when she decides to have a facelift?

—L.M.

Love Your Mother—Earth

2008-05-11T16:09:00.000-07:00

Killing the lawn and other Earth-loving endeavors.

      I grew up in the 50’s in the suburban neighborhoods of the San Fernando Valley —North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Panorama City, Woodland Hills— where lawns were as ubiquitous as the tract homes they adorned, or the dog poop in the clover. Something like that.
      Anyway, the fact of lawns was not something I questioned as a kid, except to grumble when it was my turn to mow the grass—pushing and pulling our reluctant, rusty lawn mower over stubborn, overgrown clumps of grass was not something I wanted to do on a Saturday, and neither was scraping dog poop off the wheels. That lawns were everywhere, like clean air and plentiful water, made them invisible as issues, as concerns. We never gave it a thought; we played on our lawns, that’s all, trading cards, playing Simon Says, cowboys and Indians, or horsie, rearing, bucking, grazing green grass like real horses.
      Everything happened on the lawn: our male dog, Buck the Airdale, got stuck for an hour in my uncle’s female dog, Leesha the Boxer, while she investigated the lawn, nose in the grass, oblivious of her panting caboose, while I ran to the adults, sounding the alarm about Buck’s predicament, and while the adults worked hard at ignoring me; Buck —there’s so much Bucklore— raised his leg behind my girlfriend’s clueless brother and took a piss on his pants (now a real-estate attorney), while we sat in the grass and giggled; I smoked a cigar I found there, a cigar my step-father had lost during one of his meandering, upside-down treks across the lawn on his hands, and I smoked it until nausea put a stop to my smoking days, once and for all.
      Still, as I remember one neighborhood in Van Nuys, our lawns were never kid heaven, compared to the vacant lot down the street. Well, it wasn’t really vacant; in fact it was overgrown with tall trees, bushes, and, best of all, hip-high (on a kid) grass, which we yanked up and out of the ground for our dirt-clod wars and for weaving into the sides and tops of our forts, for privacy. Of course, this was before home-owner associations, when nobody cared if there was a neglected plot in the neighborhood; it was also before the current days of paranoia, TV addiction and video games, when children could disappear for hours and nobody worried, when children actually played outside. (In my neighborhood now, I rarely see children playing outside, though children do live here.) It was the vacant lot, with its nooks and crannies, paths, jungle terrain, forts and faraway feeling that did the trick, allowing for stories to emerge—plot, character, adventure, places for childhood imagination, where all things were possible.
      The point is this: children and other living things do not need lawns.

      Now, here comes today. The air is unclean; water is now a finite, contaminated resource. Gasoline is finite too, as it is dirty, as we have come to understand; we are shocked, and some are ruined, by the price of gasoline. We buy our produce from super markets, or small, family-owned markets, or even local farmer’s markets, but many of us haven’t tasted a real, home-grown tomato in years, if ever; we are shocked at the price of organic produce. But lawns are as ubiquitous as ever, regardless—no matter the upkeep, no matter they require an egregious amount of water, gasoline to run power mowers, Round-up to kill the weeds and other unwanted things like birds, insects and human beings (cancer), fertilizers, so the green grass can grow all around, all around, so the green grass can grow all around. No matter that this miraculous soil is capable of growing everything, but it is allowed to grow only one thing—grass.

      I am certainly not the first to write about this. Far better thinkers than I have discussed how we are going to have to change to love our mother, Earth (links, below); but many of us are doing what we can for the sake of the environment: minds are changing, and habits are changing; some of us, those who can afford it, are going cold turkey, ending bad habits and “going green” in various ways; others are moving incrementally, while some still drag their feet, in denial but finding less and less support for such folly.
      As for me, I try, though I cannot afford to put solar panels on the roof or buy a hybrid car, and I haven’t much room on my little lot for growing vegetables. I do have two large pine trees —oxygen makers, carbon holders— and a variety of plants, mostly overgrown, a garden with indigenous plants, succulents, ice plant—but, no lawn. Some might say my pond is a problem, that is, running a pump constantly; I say I make up for it, not driving much and planning my errands and visits with conservation in mind, being a vegetarian, and recycling practically everything, etc.
      Lucky for me, my son and daughter-in-law in Normal Heights (we call them “the Normals”) in San Diego County, have decided to kill their lawn. Well, decided might be the wrong word. They have toddlers, and keeping the lawn watered was not a priority in the past few years; let’s put it that way. Let’s say the lawn died a slow, natural death, and the soil is in the process of returning to its original state, as you can see. But, the beautiful part is that they have decided to turn their substantial yard into a vegetable garden, not one with rows and regimented sections, like Puritans, but one with meandering paths and “rooms,” one with an organic design and shape, and one where there will also be space for the children to play.
      I say “lucky for me,” because, you know, they’ll probably produce more than they can eat, and that’s where I’ll step in...but then, they’ll probably have more work to do too, more than they can possibly manage, and, no doubt, that’s also where I’ll have to step in, which is fine by me, since I won’t have to mow the lawn.

      Happy Mother’s day.

—L.M.

Edible Gardening
Waste
Energy
Transport
Water
Shopping
Edible Estate
Michael Pollan

On the Limits of Toleration

2008-05-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the struggle for enlightenment

      I am reminded of a public service ad I saw awhile back. I’ll call it the El Wheato Ad, because those were the offending words spoken in it by the lead character in the ad, a bigoted white guy, to the hapless Latino who was serving him.
      Mr. Bigot, frustrated by having received something other than the wheat bread he had asked for, and mocking what he thought must be the waiter’s ethnicity, said, to clarify as to the kind of bread he wanted, “You know, el wheato?” Then, noticing that the other diners were looking his way, he said something to the effect that if these people want to work here they should learn the language, adding, “You know?” So the diner he addressed responded, “No Sir, I don’t know,” with an unsympathetic look on his face.
      On one level, I liked the ad. It reinforced the notion that one should not give positive reinforcement to bigots. When you witness bigotry, you should do something, say something. The values of toleration and respect should be exercised whenever possible.
      On another level, however, I am not so sure. How much toleration should we extend, where those with different cultural values disrespect and even violate, for example, our core values of secularism, human rights, animal rights, equality and individual liberty? Does not toleration, a profound liberal value, sometimes go too far? Shouldn’t the case for education and cultural assimilation be made, on behalf of core American democratic values and the rule of law? Not that the bigot in the ad was correct to be rude to the waiter for not having learned to speak English yet. But, what is to be done in another situation, where, for example, a doctor finds that a female child has been “circumcised,” her genitals mutilated by way of traditional Islamic cultural practice? Is it bigoted to oppose the ways of religious and cultural communities, when human rights within those communities are being violated?
      Is it bigoted to require immigrant cultures to assimilate, to require a broad education of their members in the values of the enlightenment, rather than allowing communities to perpetuate crimped, backward and ignorant values, where children are hidden away in private religious schools, never to know human liberty, never to make progress in their lives toward civilization? Would it be bigoted to expect citizens to come out of the dark ages and comprehend the notion of freedom?

      Have I taken a wrong turn to the right? I don’t think so. I am making a case for progress, a case for balance, actually. Excessive toleration is an out-of-balance path away from progress, in support of all sorts of evils—oppression, ignorance, abuse.

      I am encouraged in these thoughts by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the author of the memoir, Infidel. Despite her having gone over to the mad-capitalist side in her fellowship with the American Enterprise Institute (sad, but I understand, now that I have read Infidel. She was vulnerable and frightened, when the Institute came to her “rescue.” It seemed like her only option, if she wanted to stay alive, to live and work in Holland. Perhaps someday she will see what they’re all about and find the courage to leave them), she remains an authentic voice for the enlightenment of Islam, for freedom and the emancipation of women, children, and even men within the Muslim community. She understands the necessity of confrontation and resistance to the oppression inherent in the religion; she objects to the role of tolerance by governments and Western culture in the horrific violations of human rights, of women’s rights, that Islam commits in the name of Allah.
      It is tolerance that tolerates the crimes of this religion; without tolerance, progress could be made toward freeing millions of women, children and free thinkers from the burdens they bear, within a culture that does not value freedom, equality, education, individual rights, or the pursuit of happiness here in this life.
      I do not mean to say I approve of intolerance, of violent, cruel or hateful behavior toward Muslims. I do not mean to say I approve of the Iraq war, or the “war on terrorism,” as it is being waged thus far. I do not mean to say I am in favor of obliterating Islam.
      I do mean to say Islam needs to have a mirror held up to it, so that it can see itself and recognize the truth; it must begin a questioning of its ways, to initiate its own enlightenment. Islam, after all, has never had one, an Enlightenment. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has lived within the confines of Islam, has studied it, and she knows— the religion is stuck in backwardness. According to her, this infant must not be coddled. It has become a tyrannical, tantrum-throwing brat. We need to tell it, as we would a misbehaving child, “I understand: you want to do these things; but you cannot do them, because you are hurting people.”

      The same thing needs to be said and done with the Bush Administration, which is another tyrannical brat. Toleration of their crimes by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, who keep insisting impeachment is impractical, is a kind of permissiveness that can only lead to abuse and the entrenchment of anti-democratic rule.

      Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a great read. You won’t be able to put it down.

—L.M.

OBAMA: Wrong on Wright

2008-04-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

But he's right for his time and place in history

        A funny thing happened to me as I meandered through this week of news and conflagration: For a brief moment, I lost faith, and I lost hope. I lost the faith I had been nurturing in Barack Obama, a faith based in part on the denial of my skeptical side, and the desire to be part of a progressive movement, to see the positives and give him the benefit of the doubt; but, I also lost hope that the Democrats can win the Presidency in 2008.
        Pretty scary.
        So, please forgive me, O Gods of Positivity, Faith, and Hope— and those still-hopeful and faithful within my progressive, liberal sphere. I could not help myself. I could not deny my very eyes and ears, to pretend Obama did not respond exactly consistent with his role, as Rev. Wright had described it—as the politician he is.
        Reverend Wright should hold a news conference and say, “I rest my case.”
        What was it my eyes saw and my ears heard? Well, on Monday morning I turned on C-Span and caught Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s entire speech before the National Press Club. What I saw were standing ovations, an energetic, wry and humorous exercise of free speech; and what I heard was a great deal of truth, spoken with the lack of shame, timidity and doublespeak we’re used to hearing out of the mouths of politicians and pundits. What I heard was opinion and a point of view. What I did not hear was an attack on Barack Obama.
        But the truth is often treated as an attack by the entity it exposes. This is human nature and the nature of human organizations, governments, corporations, clubs, political parties, families, the media, and the rest of it. It would be nice to remember that simply because one is offended does not mean the offending event was false!
        It would be nice to remember the First Amendment of the Constitution too. It would be nice if we ask ourselves about truth. But instead we kill the messenger of truth.
        It would have inspired me better and restored my faith in Barack Obama, if he had stood up and defended Rev. Wright’s right to an opinion and educated the American people and the media about the First Amendment to the Constitution, rather than being defensive in a near-pathological extreme, by smearing him and rejecting him personally, completely, and for all time.
        Of course, the mainstream media welcomed this denunciation, for it calmed the Beast of American Empire, where the rule of silence, the taboo against knowing what we are, reigns supreme. Obama could in no way sanction the truth expressed, for example, in Rev. Wright’s comments about 9-11 being a matter of the reaping of seeds sown, of retaliation for the State terrorism the United States has heaped upon foreign others, of “blowback,” as Chalmers Johnson so prophetically wrote about before 9-11 in his book Blowback, the Costs and Consequences of American Empire. Obama simply did the prudent, polite —to the powers that be— thing, the politic thing, the only thing to do, where the cultural de rigueuer requires a certain honoring of lies, in particular the lie of the innocence of the United States government where 9-11 is concerned.
        I sent an email soon after I heard Rev. Wright’s speech, saying, “I LOVE HIM!” This is remarkable, given that I am a non-theist and not known for my attraction to religious leaders. (to put it mildly) Imagine my bafflement, however, when I tuned in to watch Countdown and heard Keith Olbermann say that Rev. Wright had “thrown Obama under the bus.” I mean, had we watched the same speech? But this take on Wright’s speech was everywhere in the mainstream media; no hide nor hair was to be found of what I had seen and heard—not here, nor there, nor anywhere—except on DemocracyNow! DemocracyNow!’s coverage, in keeping with the alternative news program’s way of giving a more in-depth picture of events, showed lengthy portions of Rev. Wright’s speech, Obama’s response, and then had a debate on the subject between one Obama supporter and one Obama detractor. Not that they had a Rev. Wright supporter on the show, which would have been even better. But it was on DemocracyNow! that I finally heard somebody say something positive about Rev. Wright’s speech. It was Adolph Reed Jr., Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, who said, “...what is clearly a dog pile-on campaign at the national level against Wright...,” and, “I also agree with much, if not the vast majority, of what he had to say, frankly. And I think he’s also correct—Wright, that is—I think he’s also correct that Obama couldn’t embrace him, couldn’t do anything except distance himself from that largely astute analysis of American power and other contradictions of the governing regime of both parties, because of the warrants of trying to win an election in which the discursive center of gravity is much farther to the right.”
        Hallelujah!
        There it is: Obama is a politician and speaks as politicians do, just as Rev. Wright said. It happens to be the truth.
        Deal with it.
        And what made me think neither Democrat could win the Presidency now, beyond the fact they have soiled the Democratic Party’s nest better than any Republican ever dreamed of doing? Here’s the thing: these two, in their eagerness to win every heart and mind of every persuasion, no matter how wrong-headed that persuasion may be, by moving to the right, trying to out-do each other on religion and feisty threats against Iran, have given the right exactly what the right will capitalize on—”hey, McCain is the true Republican!” Rather than being a contrast to the right, being true progressives and liberals, they try to identify with the right. Rather than respecting the notion that religion has no place in politics, that no politician should ever have to pass a religious litmus test, they pander to conservative Christians. Rather than giving us truth, they perpetuate lies. It’s the same ol’ same ol’ politics.
        Am I sick of it? You bet. Do I need to take a bath and relax? You bet. (Thanks, Donald, for that rhetorical thingy.)

        So, I’m back from my bath. And what a difference a bath can make! All I had to do was to get a different perspective, a wider view—the big picture, as they say. This came with my reading in my bath (bubble) of an article in the beautiful Orion magazine, entitled, “Revolutions Per Minute, Radical transformation is all around us,” by Rebecca Solnit. There, she points out that positive radical changes have happened incrementally over time, so that we hardly notice how far we’ve come: “Sex before marriage. Bob and his boyfriend. Madame Speaker. Do those words make your hair stand on end or your eyes widen? Their flatness is the register of successful revolution.” And she makes a case for patience: “This is why we need training in slowness, and the long attention span that makes it possible to see the remarkable changes of our time.”
        It was then, while reading the article, that I thought, “A woman and a black man are running for President! Wow. Where did that come from? Whatever, I’m glad I lived long enough to see that one!” I also realized Rev. Wright was correct in another way. Rather than condemning or criticizing Obama for saying things politicians tend to say, for being a politician, he was forgiving him instead. He was saying, “That’s okay—it’s how you are right now. It’s your role speaking, not you.”

        America is adjusting to seeing new faces in old roles, and we are having growing pains. Therefore, I can afford to forgive Obama too, as Rev. Wright has, for not being perfect. Anyway, sometimes politicians change in accordance with the will of the people, once they get into office. It hasn’t happened in a long time—gr-r-r-r—but, given that we don’t have much time left to fix our gravest problems, it must happen this time. Long attention span for social change is fine; long attention span on global warming just ain’t gonna work.

Is Anyone "Pro-Abortion?"

2008-04-27T10:33:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, after his conservative guest referred to the pro-choice community as “pro-abortion, Thom Hartmann said, “nobody is ‘pro-abortion.’”

This was in keeping with the way liberals frame the issue of abortion by insisting we want to keep it “safe and rare,” a frame that gives credence to the opinion that abortion, as the word implies in its essential ugliness, is an evil, though a necessary one sometimes. This is the key to liberal framing of the issue itself; I’m guessing Thom Hartmann corrected his conservative guest in this way to support the more palatable and politically correct frame, “pro-choice.”

Still, I wish he had expanded on the subject. I wish he had defined what he meant by “nobody is pro-abortion.” Did he mean to imply, “nobody loves ‘killing babies?’” And if so, didn’t he confirm, by implication, right-wing Christianity’s belief about abortion as being evil, by his squeamishness toward the idea of being “pro-abortion?” Can we safely assume he too defines abortion as “killing babies?” Otherwise, if he had a more positive, ethically based, and reasonable definition of abortion, would he be able to make the comment, “nobody is ‘pro-abortion?’”

While I realize Thom Hartmann’s thinking on the subject is probably nuanced and more complex than that, on its face I have to say I disagree with the statement, “nobody is pro-abortion.” In fact, many of us count ourselves as being pro-abortion. That’s because we do not define abortion as “killing babies,” especially since abortion is illegal after viability, except to save the life and health of the mother.* Instead, the meaning of the word, for us, is as a surgical procedure deemed necessary by a woman and her surgeon for the life, health —mental or physical— and well-being of an adult person, a woman, where a non-viable embryo is removed from the woman’s uterus, her body. In fact, the connotations of legal abortion abound with positives —self-determination, responsibility for our lives and choices, freedom, liberty, opportunity, equality, relief, joy, expansion, and the possibility of having wanted children when it makes sense to have them, when they can be loved and supported as they deserve to be— thus, the frame, “Pro-choice.”

To this writer, not to be “pro-abortion” is not instead to be “pro-life,” but it is to be anti-life in all the ways that the absence of choice, freedom, liberty, opportunity, and equality would mean; not to be “pro-abortion” would mean being pro-oppression, pro-inequality, pro-tyranny, pro-forced-maternity and all the suppressions of the human spirit that bring depression, implosion of life’s possibilities, trauma, poverty, child abuse, and a whole world of ugly realities. Sure, for the woman who carries a pregnancy to term and has a happy experience, such ugly realities may never come true—her child is a beautiful reality, and nobody can deny it. But for many, many others, those who are coerced into completing an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy by guilt or by wrong-headed authority figures, by poverty or non-access to health services, the result can be ruinous to their lives and tragic for the lives of their unfortunate children. (Especially since conservatives thwart legislation that would be pro-the actual-lives of these children in any practical sense.) Furthermore, where a woman has no power to control her reproductive destiny, it cannot be said she has equal status in society with men, or she has equal opportunity. As it has been said, to underscore the absolute undesirability of being a slave to one’s biology, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a holy sacrament.

If we are not willing to own abortion, ugly as the word may be, don’t we corroborate the right-wing connotation of abortion as “baby-killing?” If we are unable to testify, give witness, as to the positive values derived from abortion, we avoid the discussion and avoid spreading the good word.

Finally, not all women suffer from guilt over their abortions, either before, during, or after the abortion. And the women who do not suffer mental distress are not uncaring, low-class people with messy, irresponsible lives.

I remember the day I accompanied a professional woman I know to her abortion appointment. I remember how she emerged from the surgical room into the waiting room with a big smile on her face, how she proudly strode through the clinic doors to the car, happy and free as all women have a right to be. She never cried. She never had a moment’s regret over her decision. And the children she eventually had were wanted; they were chosen.** If you believe in God, and you believe God is in charge of everything, that God works in mysterious ways, perhaps abortion is one of those mysterious ways. Who is to say what and who God wants? Without abortion, this woman’s chosen children would never have been born. Can anyone say it was wrong for them to be born?

—L.M.

* from Wikipedia: “The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester ‘in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health,’ and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable (‘except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.’”) Dictionary definition: Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.” The etymology of the word has it as “disappear, miscarry.”

** This in no way means I think the children who result from unplanned pregnancies are necessarily unwanted, nor are they any less precious than the children who result from planned pregnancies. This is a paradox the anti-choicers have difficulty comprehending. To them, the issue is a simple, black and white one, without paradox, without complicated nuance, without layers and shades of gray.

Conversations Between Two Christians and One Godless Infidel, Me

2008-04-20T18:07:00.000-07:00

Recently Barack Obama, a Christian, said, “We are not just a Christian nation—we are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation, Hindu nation, and we are a nation of atheists and non-believers.” (CNN, Compassion Forum) He made the statement by way of explaining how candidates of religious faith must use a “universal language” that translates for universal consumption, for all Americans.

It’s about time a candidate said it out loud, at least by implication—we are not a Christian nation. And the inference I gleaned from Mr. Obama’s remarks was about the wisdom of the separation of church and state. I think we can trust him to honor this notion and to take every opportunity to explain it to those who just don’t get it.

I hope more of the “faithful” will take his edification to heart. However, I have no illusions, no expectations they will cease insisting —illogically, meanly, ignorantly— the Founders of this democratic republic were Christians, and this is a Christian nation.

I have to admit the faithful have a way of driving me, the godless infidel, nuts. Well, maybe it’s more than one way; it’s more like many ways, but the one way I’m thinking of is the one where they say, “I’ll pray for you.”

I realize these are well-meaning people. But, when I heard this condescending remark one late night last summer during the admissions process to the ER at UCSD Medical Center, I had to muster all my compassionate restraint to keep my head from exploding, a head which was already suffering a high fever—that is, contain my contempt for the belief system that allowed the pleasant young admissions clerk to say such a thing to me.

You see, she hadn’t said “I’ll pray for you” because she was concerned about my health. Instead, she was concerned for my soul, since I had chosen “none” as my religious preference. To be fair, I had started it. I had said, after she asked about my religious preference and I had responded, “I trust that doesn’t offend?” It had given her the opening to say, “No, I’ll pray for you.” So, rather than ignoring the opportunity, I decided to get more information from her. I was the only patient being admitted, and my symptoms weren’t urgent, so we had time. And she was willing.

I asked her about her religion. She was a Christian of generic denomination. I said, “I’m curious. When you say you’ll pray for me, do you mean you think God needs your plea on my behalf, because without your plea he will send me to burn in agony for all time, since otherwise he would have no reason to spare me?” To that question, she talked about God’s willingness to give me a chance to choose heaven or hell, without answering how her praying for me would assist in providing me a chance to choose. I asked, “With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility your God is an insecure, self-centered, petty and cruel tyrant to insist we worship Him or suffer in hell for all eternity?”

I’ve forgotten her answer to that. Anyway, it was a rhetorical question. But I do remember her answer to to this question: “Can you tell me where you were before you were conceived?” She seemed to sincerely search herself for the answer to this question. Then she answered, “Perhaps I was a thought in God’s mind.” This begged another question from me: “But were you in heaven or hell?” After further searching, she said, “I was not in heaven or hell; I was nothing; I was nowhere.”

Ding, ding, ding!!! Good answer. I felt encouraged.

I continued, “since you have been nowhere already, neither in heaven nor hell, as nothing but a loop in God’s mind, why do you deny the possibility of being such again? Why do we have to be afraid of nothingness after death?” For one small moment I had the feeling this young person was experiencing a true quandary, caught between the security of the Biblical debris in her head and a new possibility.

Then she said, “I don’t know. I never thought of that.”

With this, I am reminded of a conversation I had with another Christian, a conversation carried out over a period of months. This other Christian was a fundamentalist Lutheran, a woman I knew at work. From time to time I would ask her a question about her beliefs, both religious and political, and she would answer with sincere enthusiasm, confidence and enjoyment, presumably in hopes of revealing “truth” to this doomed person and saving me from eternal hellfire. She never asked questions about my beliefs, perhaps because early on I had told her I didn’t believe in the Devil, or hell, or in any of the threats offered by Christianity for my failure to conform, and that was all she needed to know. I, for my part, hoped eventually to know her well enough to make well-founded judgments about where she was coming from. I didn’t want to assume. When I finally wrote the following long letter to her, I knew who I was writing to and felt it was time to respond to the assertions she had made, which I had previously heard but not answered. Perhaps it was an imposition; but I long ago decided these conversations have to happen, otherwise, those who listen to James Dobson (who is as a lesser god than God Himself to her, but still a god) and Rush Limbaugh (whom she likes a great deal) will think theirs are the only ideas out there. I considered my letter to be push back, for the sake of balance in this world.

Open Letter to a Christian Fundamentalist:

“Dear A_______.
The way we coexist in peace, despite our differences and disagreements, is a good thing. For me, it satisfies the notion of peace.

You disagree. You have a “higher” notion of peace, as you have professed it to me, where you abandon anger and animosity to “love and forgive” others, by surrendering selfish will to “God’s will,” which is pure, spiritual love, I presume.

My definition of peace is more practical. It only requires that we —all of us, all peoples— coexist without violence; that is, we know —perceive, understand— our differences, know our anger, our possible dislike of certain others, our humanity, our imperfections, and yet remain non-violent. Our commitment is to ethics, to civil behavior, where physical fighting and abusive, unlawful retaliation —war— is unacceptable. Your definition of peace, for example, would have my worst enemy love and forgive me, and I him in return; my definition of peace would not wait for such perfection but would be happy that each of us is prevented from bashing the other over the head with a baseball bat. That we can live and work in peaceful coexistence is all, it seems to me, we can reasonably expect, as adults.

I do admit yours is a notion of peace I wish were possible. I too long for “love between my brothers and my sisters...all over this world,” but alas, I’ve come to accept reality: the human spirit is such a complex thing and wonderful in its way, that to expect people to renounce their personal values to love and forgive each other as a condition essential to peace, would be —knowing human nature and the dynamics of human psychology— simply impossible. Rather it is more likely, if an edict were to come down from on high to enforce such a peace, we would only be repressing our animosities in a phony pretense of love and forgiveness to avoid punishment. This would not be peace; it would be a lie. We human beings should never be expected to to deny our true hearts, but we can be prohibited from acting out physically. Love and forgiveness is a wonderful thing; but to require it is unrealistic, if not plainly childish.

Perhaps you will think it childish of me that this morning when I woke up, an old joke came to mind. I'm sure you've heard it before——you know, the one where a man is tending his garden, when a Clergyman comes by and exclaims, "My oh my what a beautiful garden you and God have created!" And with that the gardener responds, "Yes, but you should have seen it when God had it all to himself!"

I want to present this joke to transition to other things, to use it metaphorically, not as an exact analogy, but in a loose poetic sense, as imperfect as it may be.

You believe God is in charge of everything. You believe God put George Bush in power. You believe all’s well and moving along according to God’s plan. You do not feel obligated to inform yourself about current political events, nor are you alarmed by what you do know about them. I, in contrast, see myself as a citizen gardener of our constitutional democracy. I take the words “government of, by, and for THE PEOPLE” seriously; I say, if it is government BY the people, then I had better do my part to govern, to be an informed citizen and to work this garden of humanity, of life and civilization, tend it and make sure it satisfies the promise of its Constitution to uphold the general welfare, and the liberties and core American values we hold dear. For me, not to try, not to take responsibility, is to abandon the whole notion of civilization and the values I hold dear— social justice, ethical norms, health, happiness, fairness, security, respect, tolerance, peaceful coexistence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the democratic republic itself, human rights, prohibitions against cruelty of all kinds, and on and on. And so I ask, when we leave our public life up to “God,” how can we expect anything to result but the very chaos, corruption, and lawlessness that is represented symbolically by a neglected garden?

To extend the metaphor, and to make a case for the importance of our dialogue, I would say that this airing and discussing of our differences is the symbolic equivalent of companion gardening, that is, planting the marigolds among the broccoli, or the garlic among the roses, which makes for a stronger garden, one less subject to infestations of pesky varieties which can weaken and destroy the garden. It’s about balance, essentially.

Somebody once said —who?— that if you want a healthy world, don’t talk only to your friends about your concerns, talk to your enemies. Well, I wouldn’t say we were enemies, but we are different; and this difference is the same difference that is manifesting world wide in historic ways—I would say, with dire consequences; but I see you are quite content with the way those in power are tending things.

So here’s my garlic for your rose, or my rose for your garlic, however you like it to be:

You believe "God is in charge of everything that is going on." You have put it just that way, so I have to ask if you mean to say to say God is responsible for everything that is going on. I ask because that just wouldn’t work, would it? It wouldn’t work, since you also claim, for example, God was not responsible for slavery, that slavery was just a practice at the time. You couldn’t have it both ways, right? You couldn’t say God is responsible (that notion of “in charge”) for everything that is going on, and then say God was not responsible for slavery and/or other bad practices and events in history and the present time. It wouldn’t be logically consistent. I’m sure you agree on that, at least.

You have said, "Too bad people can't see the good but only the slight pain inflicted for a short time to get their attention and eventually give them complete peace and good." I understand, but I have a problem. I’m not good at denial. I can’t pretend I don’t notice something. I hear “slight pain,” and I can’t push it away; I can’t keep real images out of my mind or curtail my imagination. I could not say "slight pain," where the penalty for working on the Sabbath was to be stoned to death. I couldn't call it "slight pain," where in Numbers 15:32-36, a man who picked up sticks on the sabbath was stoned, "and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." I wouldn't be able to dismiss his suffering as "slight;" I would not be able to turn off my empathy, nor turn off my distaste for a “God” who could be so petty, cruel, unloving, and unreasoning. Plus, it certainly begs the question: If that is slight pain, what would be cruelty?

I would not be able to think about Armageddon as “slight pain.” I would feel it not as "slight pain," but as severe pain; even just the notion of destroying the planet, the environment, all the sublime creatures of the world, nature’s gifts and bounty—well, such destruction would be a sickeningly immoral act, one wholly avoidable and unnecessary. To call it “slight pain,” disrespects truth and rationality; clearly it is a minimization in the service of denial. But, you disagree.

You have said that Jesus did not condone slavery, that he was using a parable. (in fact, nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned by God or Jesus, right?) However, my source, a Biblical scholar, said this: "the entire context (Luke 12:41-48) shows that this is not part of a parable--it is the explanation of a parable, after Peter asked a question. But even if it were a parable, it would carry the same weight as a teaching of Jesus. The word 'servant' above is 'doulos,' which means 'slave' in Greek, and is correctly rendered 'slave' by the NRSV, NAS, Scholar's Version, and others. 'Shall' meant 'should.'"

Again, I would be in trouble with myself if I were to read the 32 virgins story as being about girls being employees, for example, as you have claimed. If I interpret "32 virgins" to mean girls who would cook and clean, as you say, I would get a jolt from my built-in crap detector; I'd know I was ignoring reality. I should know it as a rationalization, shouldn’t I? If nothing else, I'd recognize that those human persons had been turned into SLAVES (they were taken to serve involuntarily, right?), and, again, it would defy reality to say otherwise. (slavery offends the value of love, of freedom and liberty, right?)

I could never see how a child raped by a father, or a pastor, has endured "slight pain." I could never believe God decided to allow this to happen because, as you have written, "He will allow only what is ultimately good for that person to happen to them." (A statement which implies you do in fact think God is RESPONSIBLE for everything!) This is unthinkable, for me. Sure, nature allows terrible things to happen, IN THE WILD, in the jungle, in the forest, but we don’t have to allow such “slight pain” to happen in our realm, our garden, whatever the supposed “Godly” benefit (mostly to the perpetrator!). Surely you do not think God would allow such a thing as being “ultimately good for” that child? This is inconsistent with all sorts of values, but especially truth —obviously, no reasonable person would claim rape to be good for anybody, let alone a child— and moral compassion. I’m sure you can see my point on that?

Accordingly, I cannot see how the suffering your President has brought to the world, supported by his consultations with your God in "prayer," or how the torture, sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib (homo-erotic abuses and torture ordered by Rumsfeld and condoned by Bush and Cheney), and the unnecessary suffering of the Iraqi people, which he and his Administration are responsible for, or the thousands of political disappearances and renditions to torture states this Administration has conducted since 9-11, how that is "slight pain." How many values—morality, ethical treatment of human beings, liberty, love and compassion— are offended there?

I am unable to dismiss the war in Iraq as "slight pain." We're talking about hundreds of thousands of innocent people mutilated, blinded, ripped apart, losing body parts, fetuses, losing life, losing mothers, children, brothers, sisters, fathers, whole families, and good American soldiers killed, wounded, coming home with PTSD——such suffering and barrels & barrels of blood, and for NO GOOD OR VALID REASON. I see those barrels of blood, and I cannot deny them. (offenses against the value of life, moral ethics, reason, love, peace, coexistence, compassion, etc.)

I surely could not love a god who does not love all humanity, including Muslims. I could not love a god who cannot love all the flowers of human religious belief, but instead wishes us to destroy all flowers but one. “We will have roses, but not daisies, not tulips, and certainly not birds of paradise!” I’m sorry. The mind of such a god is apparently smaller than the most petty child. I could never love such a hateful and sadistic god. (as such a god offends the value of tolerance, compassion, peace, and reason.)

I would not be able to close my eyes and trivialize the suffering of others, then vote for the man who created such suffering, just because he claims to pray to God and claims to want the government to be in control of women’s reproductive lives; that he prays and makes Biblical noises would not be enough to erase from my mind the suffering he has inflicted through his policy decisions. I couldn't keep from my imagination the reality of, say, an American missile, sent through an Iraqi home, where it rips through a pregnant woman's belly, to drag her fetus across the room to be shredded against the wall (this has happened in this illegal war, as I have read a real account of the scene). I could not call it "slight pain" inflicted by God, or decide I couldn't judge the policy-makers responsible for it because God might have done it through them. It might help me pretend all’s well, but I’m not good at denial. Instead, I would call it murder. I would call it war crimes.

That’s because I value truth and the rule of law. That is because to my mind the degree of suffering resulting from actions is what determines the relative morality of those actions, not whether such actions are written in the Bible as being sinful.

Yes, the crime of terrorism is a threat; but it is certainly not the worst threat we have ever encountered, and it is a creature that grows more heads each time we try to chop off its head with stupid policy decisions, especially military force and occupation, which is generally the cause of “terrorism” in the first place: in fact, what the majority of suicide bombers, for example, have in common is not Islamic extremism; it is nationalism and the spirit of resistance to foreign armies occupying their lands. Yes, the majority of “terrorists” are not Muslims at all. They are nationalists. Anyway, with regard to Hussein, we know he was no friend to Islam or al qaeda; he was not a Muslim. Iraq before the war was a secular state. And now, most of the terrorists in Iraq are not extremists from outside Iraq; they are Iraqis who want us to leave their country. What we need to figure out is that people hate us because we continue to invade their lands to force “democracy” on them—code for invade and occupy their lands to exploit their natural resources, and so a few people can make a profit. (I’m sorry. You have been sold a view of the world that is false because your leaders want you to be terrified, so that the war profiteering can continue. Your fear is just plain “good fer bidness,” as Bush might say.)

I cannot ignore the crimes of the Bush Administration. The corruption scandals, the violations of U.S. and international law, the war profiteering and fraud, the unending lies told to a gullible and misinformed American public, secret detentions, the outlawing of habeas corpus protections and several amendments to the Bill of Rights, the felonious disregard for F.I.S.A. law, the lust for torture and imperial power—if such does not qualify as impeachable crimes, what does? Sure, politicians are human too. But it is our duty to complain, to protest, to force them to stop. We cannot sit by and say, “Who am I to criticize? I am not perfect!” No. As imperfect as I am, I have never done anything so heinous. We the People are the government, and we must govern. We must demand the rule of law be upheld. Our constitutional democracy has rendered it reasonable to do so.

Somewhere in the Bible, it says that “rebellion” is tantamount to witchery, correct? If we believed such words to be a prohibition against resistance or opposition to authority, we wouldn’t have achieved any of the great advancements we enjoy today (or used to enjoy, before the Bush administration): civil liberties, the vote for women and minorities, the democratic republic itself, the eight-hour day, week-ends, etc. Rebellion against oppressive, or irresponsible, or unaccountable, authority is essential, if we are to be happy and breathe free.

You have said you continue to read the Bible and some of it is a “mystery." Here again, I would be unable to give such benefit to my doubts. You value faith, mystery, and submission to authority. I value critical thinking, autonomy, self-governance, fairness, and reason. (not that you don’t value these things, but less than you value faith and the values you take from the Bible, correct?)

We have talked about a Molly Ivins article, one where she observed that policies do matter, using the Katrina disaster as an example. Your response was to say, happily, "but she's assuming death is a bad thing." Since, yes, I'm sure Molly Ivins thinks of suffering and dying a terrible death IS a bad thing, especially death that could have been prevented had the Bush Administration not cut funding to shore up the levees, I'm also sure she never considered the upside, as you did. If she did, perhaps she might further develop such an attitude, where death is a value, and she could apply it elsewhere, say, to the notion of fire prevention, or forest management, or laws that protect us from pollution, or labor standards and laws—hey, if death is not a bad thing, why bother passing environmental laws to keep corporate polluters from killing us all, while they enrich themselves?! (talk about terrorists!) My dear A______, is this how the conservative mind works? Let the strongest kill the weakest: death is a value—keeps the government programs to a minimum and fewer poor people on the dole? Is that a ‘family value?’—Death? (Only if you are a sadist. Are you a sadist?)

Then, onward and downward toward Armageddon? So what if the planet dies; Jesus is coming? I can't go there. It's not in my nature. I experience that kind of thinking as hopelessness, as a violation of my conscience and ethical spirit, my highest spiritual leanings. To buy into the notion of heaven & hell and the benefits of death and destruction, for me, is to deny life, love, and the Jesus of social-justice and peace. Instead, I would have to hate this precious earth and the blessing and promise it is to buy into your beliefs. Truly, it seems you would give up on the progress we have made toward enlightenment and allow the greedy to destroy life on earth; I want to stop them and rescue the planet from our excesses. We have a choice: choose life and hope and possibility, or death and destruction.

If I were to support politicians who talked about “life,” and “freedom,” and “democracy,” but all the while DID death, torture, war profiteering, illegal spying on Americans, lied, cheated, stole elections, and failed to protect the Constitution as well as promote the general welfare of the citizenry, as the Constitution demands of them, I don’t see how I could be comfortable with myself.

No, the Bible is not for me, if it would lead me to abandon my vision for, and my responsibility to, our garden here on earth, in hopes of fulfilling a fantasy of perfection somewhere in the distant future. You don't see any problems with the Bible and find it satisfying somehow. As I see it, I am the gardener who wants to pull up weeds from the root (corrupt politicians and political processes, a President who wants absolute power, who thinks he is above the law, etc.,), who wants to have a diverse garden, where any plant that wants to dominate the scene and choke out others is not allowed to flourish (corporate dominance of government, monopolies, fundamentalism of all kinds, etc.), who wants to make the garden inhospitable to blossom-destroying pestilence (violence against and disrespect for women and children, war, sexism, racism, authoritarianism, classism, laissez faire capitalism, etc.), and so forth. You would leave the garden to the biggest and strongest (the wealthy, neo-con ideologues, greedy, huge corporate America, religious authority, patriarchy, etc.), the pestilences of this world. "Let 'God' do it," it seems. And we end up with no clean air to breathe, no clean water to drink, no diversity, no wealth of abundance, no equality, no freedom, no jobs, recession, no security, no peace—just massive debt, war, death and destruction.

You think a theocracy would be a nice way to tend our societal garden. I would have a hard time pretending, if it came to that, that we would then have freedom of religion, or speech, or that someday I wouldn’t find myself before Congress, being asked if I knew any witches. I mean, theocracy has been tried already, and that's why America was born, in part: to free humanity from the intolerance of the “faithful” and their domination.

It’s not religion I object to, however. It’s fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalists of all religions have many things in common, but the most important is a mind-set that insists its religion is the One True Faith, that all people who do not conform to that faith will suffer in hell, or whatever equivalent, a mind-set that will kill, or allow killing, for the fulfillment of its goal of domination. It’s not the religion that is the problem; it’s the mind-set, whether it is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. It is authoritarianism that is the problem, not faith. It is the love of power that is the problem, not faith.

None of this means I consider myself to be superior or perfect, not by a long shot. I struggle with myself all the time. My anger is sometimes irrational, and sometimes it is founded in intelligence. If I am rageful toward a child or a pet and punish them violently, that is irrational; if I am angry over unfairness and express it verbally, that is rational. It requires courage too, since most people side with status and power, and I may stand alone. But that’s okay—if, to be true to my values, I tell the truth and I am labeled “nasty,” or whatever other “loving” characterization comes to mind, so be it.

I think about the good souls that by your Biblical training are burning in hell this very moment for thinking outside the box, with, in this case, the box being the Bible: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, Aldous Huxley, John Adams, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Galileo, Tolstoy, Thomas Paine, Christopher Reeves, Frank Lloyd Wright, Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, Robert Frost, and on and on. But of course, we can be confident they are not burning in hell; that is, unless the universe is ruled by a psychopathic sadist gone wild with irrationality, and I’m sure it is not.

You believe your religion is of the “love and forgiveness kind.” I know you believe this, and it comforts you to think it. However, I say respectfully, I can’t help considering that belief and juxtaposing it next to your political choices and mind set, and I do not see consistency. I could be wrong, but there seems to be a serious contradiction between your personal, private behavior and your real political choices, between what how you act publicly and what you do privately: it seems, with all due respect, you have sided with the violent, unloving side of politics and with hypocrites, rather than with those who actively work for peace, tolerance, and compassion. But has not your Bible (your individual emphasis, interpretation) conditioned you to accept war, death, destruction, and the lies & corruption of the politicians you support, rather than to require your politicians to promote coexistence in peace, to say nothing of love and forgiveness of our enemies? In short, how is peace, that “higher” version, served by your political choices? That is, I am sorry to have to ask you, as the bumper sticker does, “Who would Jesus bomb?”

I am only asking, if rhetorically.

What worries me, in listening to your own words, is that the Christian right-wing of the political sphere is unfriendly to diversity and to accepting a co-equal place in America’s cultural landscape, that is, to coexisting peacefully within a context of freedom, where the religious and non-religions share equal protection under the law as Americans. You have said you want your religion to be the national, state religion; you would allow other religions, but those others would be subject to the laws of your religion. That is, you want the power to force your religion, and what ultimately comes with it I am sorry to say —the cruelty, bigotry, ignorance, superstition, immorality, and puritanism— on the rest of us, and I do not think you will stop until our constitutional democracy is destroyed.

If I judge this movement unfairly, I am sorry. But it’s clear this movement is more dangerous to America and to core American values, as distinguished from authoritarian values, than Muslim extremists (which have authoritarian values too), by far. What are authoritarian values? Authoritarian values: patriarchy, dogma, conformity, supremacy over “inferiors,” and “outsiders,” jingoism (citizen fanatics, like sports fans, as different from patriots who are educated citizens who know, love and support the constitution), militarism, power in the hands of a few elites, power worship, corporate power in government, labor suppression and oppression, secrecy (as opposed to freedom of the press) anti-intellectualism, anti-art, anti-science, police-state government (as opposed to the rule of constitutional law), indoctrination over education, etc.

Authoritarians love to say liberals have no “values,” as if their authoritarian values are the only values they can imagine. So, if nothing else, I hope you begin to question the validity of such prejudice against us: we have wonderful values; some coincide with yours, and some are different from yours. But they are values—equality (all people are equally worthy of dignity and respect by virtue of their basic humanity.), fairness, constitutional democracy, co-equal family arrangements and government institutions, progress toward enlightened social reform and social justice.

I would hope your religion brings you comfort and joy, privately at work, at home, and at church. I only wish you would understand how it cannot be the truth for everyone. Other citizens should never be expected to adopt it or any other religious dogma. It’s called the First Amendment to the Constitution. It’s called freedom. It’s called liberty. Beautiful, beautiful words, words to live by. Sacred words. Words that will never die.: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
(end of letter)

A______ never responded to this letter. No surprise there. But, will you?

p.s.: echoes from history: Hermann Goering, fascist, April 18, 1946, "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

—L.M.

The Emperor's New Clothes: Cheney Finally Tells the Truth

2008-03-25T19:08:00.000-07:00

In the beginning, Cheney draped himself in lies. For example, on August 26, 2002, he said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

More lies came later. In September 2003, Cheney said the Iraqis were "providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization." In October 2003, He said, "Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons."

Later still, more lies. On June 14, 2004, he said Saddam "had long established ties with Al Qaeda."

To many of us, these were transparent lies. We could see the emperor had no clothes. We could also see the purpose of those lies—to manufacture consent, as Noam Chompsky has described the manipulation of populations via propaganda. Cheney, back then, still had to consider We the People; he was still operating within a democratic frame, where he needed public opinion to be favorable to his aims, where the public could be as driven by fear as he was by greed, power-lust, folly and self-delusion.

Then came the election of 2006, Nancy Pelosi and her declaration that impeachment was “off the table,” and the gradual realization, ending in today’s sickening reality that the thugs were going to get away with it—nothing would ever be done to stop them.

Cheney hasn’t missed the message either. He sees he is immune from impeachment, immune from prosecution; immune from censure of any kind. He is safe from the normal checks and balances built into the Constitution of our once lively democratic republic. Thus, he now can tell the truth. He can unveil himself in all his sloppy, corrupt nakedness. He is now free to ignore We the People and expose his utter disdain for democratic rule. Thus we see his smirk, as he smugly responds to the reporter’s question— “So?”

The American people want an end to the war? So? The Iraqi people want us to leave? So? We torture human beings? So? “Listen up,” he is saying, “the people are irrelevant. The people are powerless. Only We the Rich, We the Elite, We the Corporations, We the Criminals have the power.” He might as well have said, “Eat S_ _ _ _ and die!”

Instead, we have Dick Cheney’s truth, as clear and concise as it could possibly be. So?

Speech by Robert Byrd on The Emperor's New Clothes.
Cheney to Martha Raddatz of ABC News.

Winter Soldier, Spring Suburbanite: The Fragility of Peace of Mind

2008-03-20T14:27:00.000-07:00

Odd juxtapositions interest me: a stream of sewage in Iraq, a medic holding an Iraqi child, the face of an Iraqi schoolgirl; a cool, suburban pond in America—clean water, electricity, pampered koi, space for peace, quiet.

It is early morning. A Marine helicopter flies overhead on its way to Camp Pendleton, its propeller-driving, no-heart thudding, a sound like canon shots in steady succession, while I tend to the small pond in my back yard in the North County of San Diego. I go back inside, turn on the television to watch Democracy Now!, as is my habit each weekday. All this week, beginning last Friday, the independent news program has covered “Winter Soldier - Iraq and Afganistan,” a sobering, heart-breaking repeat of the hearings held in 1971— same name, different war.

Each day, with each soldier or Marine telling his story, exposing his heart, his conscience, his sorrow over the atrocities he saw, or was forced to commit, or committed with mindless adherence to orders from above, I begin to absorb, viscerally, and to comprehend —as well as a civilian can— the profound wound that is the Iraq war and occupation. Not that I didn’t see the crime of the Iraq war and occupation before this. But now I am closer to feeling it in my bones, though I won’t claim to know what those who have actually been there know down to the marrow.

Furthermore, I have part of the answer to my doubts about Joey (previous post, March 9, 2008). Now I know he was telling the truth: he committed murder; he not only had permission from above, he had orders. But whether he has since recovered his lost soul and being, his conscience, the integrity he lost somewhere along the way at home or in Iraq, is still in doubt. I remember showing him some literature from Iraq Veterans Against the War, the IVAW. He insisted there wouldn’t be any Marines on the list of names. When I showed him the names of Marines on the list, he shrugged his shoulders, continued polishing his car, and said, “...traitors to the corps.”

Jon Michael Turner, during his testimony at the current Winter Soldier hearings, said this: “There’s a term, ‘Once a Marine, always a Marine.’ But there’s also the term, ‘Eat the apple, F the corps, I don’t work for you no more.” Then he stripped off his medals and ribbons and threw them toward the audience.

Last Thursday I had a little drama of my own—sold all my beloved koi, witnessed what was for them a violent capture, and fretted all day and night over their transport and introduction to their more humane (larger) and heavenly, new pond and home. That night I couldn’t get to sleep, still worrying about them, imagining their koi sufferings, remembering how scared they were, the scraped scales, the repeating image in my mind of one koi who had flipped herself into a prickly potted plant while being caught.

Well, we all have these little worries, and some in our cities and suburbs suffer real tragedies and grieve throughout life over profound losses, such as the loss of a beloved in Iraq. But civilian life does not require that we act in opposition to conscience; we are never forced to commit atrocities, acts which condemn us either to a numb psychopathology or to a life of PTSD and its many manifestations— alcoholism, homelessness, despair, nightmares, flashbacks to horror, guilt, suicide, and more. For me and my suburban koi experience, it’s one night of tossing and turning an hour or two before finally falling into a peaceful sleep; for the winter soldier, it’s a lifetime of memories eating away at his peace of mind, whether awake or asleep. A soldier may find treatment, or honor through bearing witness, or solace through activism on behalf of truth and an end to war, but in fact, the wound will remain throughout his or her life.

I disagree with the mind-set that defines toughness in our culture as an ultimate value. Sure, it’s great to be strong, great to be able to do what needs to be done. But we are so much more than that—we ache; we bleed; we love, laugh, cry, and all the rest of the human things we do, and are. Peace of mind is fragile. I lost a moment’s peace over fish. I cannot imagine what it is like to lose peace of mind over some horrific act I have committed, or have seen. However, the loss of peace of mind described by those at Winter Soldier must also be seen as evidence of conscience, soul, of a moral sensibility, of goodness, courage, strength, integrity and liberation from denial. The winter soldier must take heart. He is a fine man; more, he is a human being, worthy of our profound respect and thanks.

When I say, “thank you for your service” to the winter soldier, an Iraq veteran against the war, the service I am referring to is service to truth, to the conscience and soul of America. I am sorry for the wound they have had to bear for the rest of us; I love them and wish them well. Whatever they have done, it was done by us all.

Jon Michael Turner also said, “I just want to say that I am sorry for the hate and destruction that I have inflicted on innocent people, and I’m sorry for the hate and destruction that others have inflicted on innocent people. At one point, it was OK. But reality has shown that it’s not, and that this is happening, and that until people hear about what is going on with this war, it will continue to happen and people will continue to die. I am sorry for the things that I did. I am no longer the monster that I once was.” This, to my mind, is how a Marine supports and defends the Constitution of the United States, how he honors his duty and his own humanity.

These Winter Soldier testimonials are the most important stories in the news this week. Has the mainstream media covered it? Nope. Not even Countdown. C-Span covered one panel, the one with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!. Good, but that was it. And, they identified the event without mentioning its true title, “Winter Soldier.” Plus, they failed to list it in their schedule or provide video for re-play, which they often do with their broadcasts.

True to mainstream media’s support for the Bush Administration at the expense of the First Amendment, and in keeping with their lack of coverage of anti-war protests, the media fails us again. They disappear the conscience of our culture. They’re big on sex scandals, sports scandals, and the back-and-forth insults of Presidential campaigns, but the true life stories about the human cost of war? Forget it. Those stories don’t exist for most Americans, thanks to the media. On Wednesday morning, for example, a woman who was in favor of the war called in to C-Span and said, in effect, that “these left-leaning people” who think we are over there murdering Iraqis are wrong—”it isn’t happening.” Well, if the media were doing its job and broadcasting Winter Soldier testimonials, she wouldn’t be able to say that. And even though most Americans are against the war and would probably appreciate hearing the stories coming back from Iraq, many others also go about their cozy lives in ignorance, tuning in to watch World’s Wildest Police Chases, or 24, or American Idol, without a moment’s loss of peace of mind. If challenged, some may even defend their apathy, having bought the silly notion that we’re “fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here,” which can only be believed by a person who knows nothing of the corporate-driven reasons for this war, of history, of reality.

Thomas Paine wrote, “THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.” Cheney would no doubt twist those words to suit his propaganda, which works on some in our population — “Freedom is not free” — who either forgot or never knew what the American revolution was all about— the who, and what, was the tyrant and the tyranny, that is to say, a king and government in league with corporate power. Today, everything Cheney stands for is the very same tyranny this democratic republic was founded to thwart; but here it is, the same tyrannical, corporate-powered spirit, back again, infecting our world. In response to a reporter’s comment that two-thirds of the American people think the war isn’t worth it, Cheney smirked, with undisguised pleasure and self-satisfaction, “So?” Hello? The man doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the American people want. He wants his power, his profit, the delusion of benign intent. It’s what he wants, and that’s all that counts—besides, we haven’t put a stop to him yet, despite his crimes. Why should he worry?

In the meantime, the Bush Administration has cut funding for the VA, where the prevailing attitude has poor character as the defining factor in PTSD.

These too are times that try men’s souls, but, if you are a media mogul, or George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney, or Condi Rice, your soul will not be tried— in your folly, your lust for power and your greed, you have denied your soul, and now it is beyond reach. Let there be no doubt—you are the monsters.

—L.M.

A Gangrene on the Body Politic

2008-03-09T12:16:00.000-07:00

After Joey returned from Iraq he bragged about how the war allowed him to commit murder and get away with it, how he had permission all the way from the top, from the President himself. He told me this with a smile, but I couldn’t tell whether this was his dark sense of humor, and bait —he knew I was against the war— if it was bravado, or the absolute truth, a revelation of his utter lack of military ethics, conscience, heart and soul. I couldn’t know the truth about Joey, since I didn’t know him well, and I wasn’t with him in Iraq to witness his behavior.

I did notice one thing about him, however, derived from his body language—the way he responded to noise, to a door slamming, a clap, or even someone saying, “Sh-h-h-h-h” behind his back. It’s not that he would jump and run for cover, nothing so obvious. It was more a flinching, an involuntary startle-response, a quick turn of the head toward the sound, all with a seriousness and tension, though fleeting, one couldn’t miss.

Some say war makes victims of us all. So, perhaps Joey was a victim in the sense that he probably had PTSD; however, he may not have been a victim of the power of war to destroy the conscience and humanity of soldiers. He may have been a murderer at heart to begin with, by choice, and he simply found an excuse in the war to satisfy his murderous bent.

A certain percentage of soldiers and Marines are of dubious character. The standards for acceptance to the military have been lowered significantly, so that individuals with criminal records are signing up. Perhaps such individuals are more vulnerable to the stresses of war and may tend to be pushed more easily toward the dark side. I don’t know if it is a fair thing to say; I am a liberal, so I want to have compassion for bad behavior to a certain degree. So, perhaps we can consider these troops as victims of war too, along side the soldiers of conscience who have mental breakdowns and suffer PTSD as a result of what they see or are forced to do.

But were the Marines in Iraq who threw a puppy off the cliff into a ravine victims of war? Were they fine young men originally, then rendered stupid and insensible by war? Or, were they the same nasty little bullies we’ve all encountered in our childhoods, all grown big now, the ones who enjoyed torturing frogs, or cats, or other children? I think it is the latter. I suspect these “men” are still boys, still cowardly bullies, who have managed to achieve adulthood without ever being taught by their fathers, or uncles, or brothers, or the Marines, or teachers, what it is to be a man, to say nothing of what it is to be a human being. Based on their body language, I must conclude they conduct their lives according to a definition of manhood that includes sadism, heartlessness, and bullying. Perhaps they were victims of something, sometime during their lives —violent parents, or the influence of a culture of cruelty, where a TV program like 24 thrives— but it was not war. And do I care? At some point we must hold them responsible, while hoping to dismiss them as unusual, as aberrant, as merely the gangrenous baby toes on the body politic.

George W. Bush used to torture frogs as a kid. Now he orders up torture of human beings, then lies about it. Attorney General Michael Mukasey cannot bring himself to say water-boarding is torture. That is, he is willing to go along with and enable torture and rendition, to sacrifice ethical and moral principles, so that the Bush Administration can be protected from prosecution. How is this possible? This is 21st century America, not 15th century Spain! And what is happening to us that our institutions tolerate such criminality, allow such vile individuals to remain in power?

The DCCC —Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee— called me again yesterday. The unfortunate volunteer gave her pitch, and I waited patiently for the close, something to the effect of, “Would you be willing to give a donation...?” My answer? “No. Not until they put impeachment back on the table.” Reading from her script, she responded that the Democrats in Congress do not have enough votes for impeachment, to which I said, “I didn’t say I’m demanding conviction—impeachment is a process; the nation needs to hear the evidence presented and the issue debated!”

Do we not have a gangrene on the body politic, progressing not from the toes up, but from the head down? This idea — “from the head down” — where Bush himself becomes the central metaphor, is useful in describing a sickness in the culture and society itself, where the extremes of a masculinist, cold-hearted ethic have infected our world. Shall I count the ways? But no, you know what I mean, the examples of profit-before-people-driven industries and government policies— the coal industry (strip-mining, pollution), the health care industry (Can’t afford health insurance? Then die!), “free” trade (environmental, labor, economic abuses and injustice), news-as-entertainment media (exclusion of voices), wars of aggression, and on and on. Gangrene is the proper metaphor too: the only way to stop it is to surgically remove it—cut it off!

Perhaps the Democrats in Congress think it’s smart to just muddle along, make “peace,” and hope for the best. But such indecisiveness and inaction only leaves the condition to fester and grow.

Boy soldiers who murder and torture puppies should be prosecuted and sent to prison. By the same token, the big boys and politicians who torture and enable torture of human beings should first be impeached, then convicted, then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well, and then sent to prison.

Bush likes to say 9-11 changed everything. How thrilling it must have been for him to think everything had changed, with everything gone that might have impinged upon his own murderous bent, everything vanished that might have kept his sadistic impulses under check. Of course he was wrong. The truth didn’t change, and he is a war criminal, a traitor to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a threat to the rule of law and justice. He does not have truth on his side; he does not have the soul of America on his side. He will fail, ultimately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/law-and-resistance-the-republic-in-crisis-and-the-people%E2%80%99s-response-by-prof-francis-a-boyle/

It looks like we are going to have to wait for justice, however. Given that fact, it would be easy to give up hope. As for me, I am going to try to be patient. As long as fine soldiers and Marines exist who have chosen not to be victims of the war, not to allow the war to render them monstrous; as long as young men and women choose to resist going to war —the ones who refuse to sign up for military service during a time of illegal war and occupation; the ones who go AWOL, move to Canada, or decide jail is a better place than any place where the abandonment of the soul is required— as long as veterans speak out against the war, and women soldiers who have been raped in the Military tell their stories, and whistle-blowers leak the documents, the DVD’s, the photos of torture and abuse; as long as there are good people of conscience —the healthy elements of society— I believe we will recover.

Terror Over Terrorism: Meeting the Enemy

2008-03-01T10:08:00.000-08:00

Awhile back, I called my California State representative’s office. A staffer answered the phone, of course. At one point in our conversation, I told him I was far more fearful of having a bridge collapse during my trip home on the freeway than of being killed in a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. He responded with alarm: “You’re kidding!” he said.

Obviously, he was a Republican. But I wonder if his reaction had more to do with the shock of encountering a citizen who had not sufficiently ingested —to the point of being stuffed to the gills with fear about terrorist attacks— the daily diet of terror served up by the Bush Administration, than with his own fears about Al Qaeda. But maybe not.

Lots of us are worried about terrorism. It’s somehow incredibly easy for Bush and his criminal gang of thugs to inspire the fear of strange, unknown and exotic threats —easier and far more useful— than it is to get people to pay attention to ordinary reality and put things in perspective. My Republican staffer, for example, probably never thinks about the more common deadly threats in the U.S., such as death by auto accident —38,588 in 2006— or heart disease —652,486— or cancer —553,888— or accidents in general —112,012— or diabetes —73,138— and all the other ways of dying in this world, including pollution, which causes 40 percent of deaths worldwide. Instead, he probably drives to work in the fast lane at 80 m.p.h., slurping a super-sized Pepsi, then he stops at his local junk food provider for a cheeseburger and fries, then goes home after work and sprays Round-up on his driveway, never once considering how his own BRAIN threatens his existence far more seriously than Al Qaeda ever could. He should be saying, “I have met the enemy, and it is ME” (and the corporations that enable his bad habits, pollute his environment, and profit from his disease), but he won’t. It’s gotta be Al Qaeda.

Then we have the fear itself. Franklin Roosevelt was smarter than we thought, when he said, “The only thing to fear is fear itself.” It turns out that fear and all its locales and manifestations —negative projections, hopelessness, humiliation, the ills of poverty and job loss, lack of health care, low-status, feelings of rejection, etc.— correlates to all sorts of deadly encounters, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, infections, high blood pressure, and on and on. The culprit is apparently the physiological response to stress, something having to do with the “cortisol response,” which wreaks havoc with the immune system in ways I am unable to explain myself. (read Margaret Kemeny, UCSF, or Rbt. Sapolsky for the scientific explanation.)

Beyond what Bush Administration policies do to increase stress among citizens to the point of killing them by degrees, perhaps we can also conclude that Bush is killing an awful lot of us with terror over terrorism! (to say nothing of the horror of seeing and hearing him on T.V.)

...and then there’s Bush’s removal of tens of thousands of children from SCHIP; disinterest in poverty, denial of science, denial of global warming, deteriorating infrastructure, slashing of staff and budget for the EPA, etc., the Iraq war and occupation, torture-lust, hundreds of concentration camps inside the USA built to include potential U.S. “terrorists”... camps and I’m supposed to be more fearful of Arab nationals than I am of what my own nation —I refuse to call it Homeland, Hitler’s word— has done and is capable of doing?

And now it turns out our water is laced with pharmaceuticals of all kinds. Whew! What next? After awhile you tire of all the things in this world to worry about. I've been so outraged, it's gotta be affecting my health. I'd say it's time to step back, take time out from outrage, time out from terror and worry of every other kind. It's time to do some "guided imagery," time to take time out for meditation— close the eyes and take a little trip across a world at peace, a clean, healthy, happy world, where there's room for coexistence in peace, justice, and all good things and opportunities available to all. It's a beautiful place, a healing place. You might try it yourself.

“It’s Been Lovely, But I Have to Scream Now”

2008-03-01T09:59:00.000-08:00

Lovely, indeed: Congress is busy holding athletes accountable for using steroids. Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution sits waiting like an abandoned child in the Judiciary Committee.

Let me see if I can make sense of this......of course! Breaking the law to give one’s supposedly inadequate masculinity an edge over that of other hyper-masculine, freak-jocks is bad; but breaking the law —need I count the ways?— to invade a sovereign country for no valid reason and based on lies, to violate the U.S. Constitution, to disappear people, torture them, illegally wiretap American citizens, etc., etc., well, that’s just peachy?

Ah-ee-ee-ee-ee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary or Barack, Dragon Slayer for the Left? Don’t Count On It.

2008-02-19T12:30:00.001-08:00

If you expect either Democratic Presidential candidate to suddenly morph into a hero of the left, once he or she occupies the White House, you are in for a major disappointment. Despite the rhetoric —both Hillary and Barack have bemoaned the outsourcing of jobs via so-called free trade agreements (forget that each supported free trade legislation)— the Democratic Leadership Council still holds sway within the Party, and it continues to use its power to enforce a conservative taint on the Party. It’s a shame, but true— while you will never see the Republican Party going left to gain liberal support, the Democratic Party has done the equivalent: they have abandoned the Democratic Party as the party of the people, in favor of the Democratic Party as a corporate-friendly, companionable enabler of Republican crimes and misdemeanors. Rather than building a plan to educate the American people, or forming liberal think tanks to re-frame the issues to reflect liberal values and world view, or to influence the media, smartly and slowly, as did the Republicans beginning thirty years ago, the Dems decided to cave: “Oh gosh, I’m not winning—guess I’ve gotta drop my values for the sake of being popular and getting along.”

I am not the first person to notice the problem. But some of us continue to be in denial about it and continue to imagine the Party is on our side. Some of us are plainly ga-ga over the candidates, deliriously cheering them on the campaign trail. Fine. I understand. But to those progressive, liberal Democrats who find themselves in love with a candidate, I respectfully ask you to pay attention. For example, the next time the Party comes to you for support, look closely at their literature and the tale it tells, such as the following tale:

Awhile back, I received fund-raising literature from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, including a letter from Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the current Chair of the Committee. I had never heard of the Congressman, so I looked up his voting record. Interestingly, he recently voted Yes with the GOP and contrary to the Democratic position on the Peru Trade Agreement, the U.S. Chile Free Trade Agreement, the USA Patriot Act Re-authorization, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Based on those votes, I felt it was safe to conclude Van Hollen was a conservative Democrat. And this is the person who was chosen to be Chair of the DCCC! (Bizarrely, conservative Democrats are referred to in the media as “centrist.” I say No. Centrist is Thomas Jefferson and all those who represent government of, by, and for the people, not corporations. That’s our center, our soul.)

So there you are. Now I had information to help me judge the survey. For example, this promising question appeared in Part V: “How aggressively should Democrats investigate potentially illegal and unconstitutional actions by the Bush Administration?” Regardless, nowhere in the entire survey was I given the impeachment option.

Part IV of the survey inquired about priorities for the Democratic Party. Glaringly absent were such choices as restoring the civil liberties lost under the Bush administration—habeas corpus, due process law, the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution—the restoration of human rights to detainees and prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and the banning of kidnapping and torture by the CIA. In fact, none of these things were mentioned in the survey at all.

Also, the Party did not appear to think outside the right-wing, neo-con box, given the above and given the way the survey framed its questions. For example, under part IV, terrorism was framed as a major issue, but military spending was not, nor the budget for the military at the expense of funding for infrastructure; then the question of 9/11 was framed as if I should buy into, or had already bought, the conclusions of the “bipartisan” 9/11 Commission, as opposed to providing an option of an independent and thorough investigation of 9/11, one where all are sworn in and must testify in public and where all testimony is done in public and included in the record, unlike what was done by the Commission—secret testimony by Bush and Cheney, without transcripts, and no public scrutiny.

The question, “Which of the following would strengthen our nation’s economy?” came in Part VII of the survey. There, tax “relief,” a conservative frame, is an option, as opposed to an option that would recognize the reality that tax breaks for the wealthy and expenditures for the Iraq war were, in part, the cause of the massive Bush deficit. Nowhere are we given the option of a tax on the top 3% of the wealthy population and/or an end to the occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of Iraq by multinational contractors and corporations.

Then, in Part XI on health care, the survey failed to give us the option of choosing a single-payer system of health care, making Medicare available to all. Instead, all options assumed the inclusion of the insurance industry, providing only government assistance to buy into industry plans. I don’t know about you, but this tells me the Democratic Party is committed to industry, not to citizens.

This opinion survey was clearly an instrument of propaganda and manipulation, designed more to steer the survey-taker away from thinking and toward the donation than to elicit an opinion. Certainly, it reflected some of my concerns but ignored, underplayed, or mis-framed my most urgent concerns.

The survey did tell one truth about today’s political climate. It corroborated my sense that the Democrats have lost not only their moral compass but have abandoned their promise to protect and defend the Constitution. Otherwise, the survey would not have had to ask what’s to be done about Bush Administration crimes—impeachment hearings would already be underway, habeas corpus and civil liberty would already have been restored. As it is, the Democratic-controlled Congress’ failure to act on these issues has left the Constitutional wrongs in place, and we are supposed to be reassured by the short shrift given them in the survey.

None of these guys, neither Congressman Van Hollen, Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton, are going to rescue us —or the Democratic Party from itself— to say nothing of slaying the neo-con dragon of death and destruction that grips our world today. It is discouraging—however, it is not hopeless. Humbly, I am reminded of what Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Perhaps one has to start with one’s own thinking, to start thinking outside the box, and then... insist your representatives do the same. Send them your vision.

My vision includes the following:

• De-funding of unilateral wars of aggression and occupation by the United States
• A trend away from privatization toward community values and responsibility (government of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations)
• A trend away from the power of the military industrial complex (cut budget)
• Public financing of elections
• FCC must require all media outlets to provide free advertising for Presidential candidates. (the air waves belong to the People)
• Paper ballots and the banning of electronic voting machines
• Election fraud and trickery prosecuted
• Single-payer health system
• Protecting people from governmental authoritarianism, i.e., surveillance of American citizens, harassment and oppressive measures which sacrifice our civil liberty and privacy.
• National Public Broadcasting returned to the public and removed of its corporate influences. WE MUST HAVE A NON-CORPORATE MEDIA SOURCE.
• Restoration of regulation as a means of holding corporations to ethical and community norms.
• An end to the notion of corporations as “persons.”
• Restoration of protections for American workers: the right to organize unions must be protected; corporations who outsource jobs should have a severe tax penalty and be required to pay foreign employees the same as their American counterparts.
• End NAFTA AND CAFTA, or, at least enforce Fair Trade Agreements.

Perhaps it is also possible to be the hero you wish to see in the world. For shy people like me, that’s quite a challenge. But maybe it’s time to go there, not like dragon slayers but —mixing metaphors here— like drops of water on stone, being so persistent that finally a hole appears in that stone. (I hope it doesn’t take that long!) All I’m saying is that even if one’s heroism is barely noticed, eventually the job will get done.

Hillary or Barack, Dragon Slayer for the Left? Don’t Count On It.

2008-02-19T12:30:00.000-08:00

If you expect either Democratic Presidential candidate to suddenly morph into a hero of the left, once he or she occupies the White House, you are in for a major disappointment. Despite the rhetoric —both Hillary and Barack have bemoaned the outsourcing of jobs via so-called free trade agreements (forget that each supported free trade legislation)— the Democratic Leadership Council still holds sway within the Party, and it continues to use its power to enforce a conservative taint on the Party. It’s a shame, but true— while you will never see the Republican Party going left to gain liberal support, the Democratic Party has done the equivalent: they have abandoned the Democratic Party as the party of the people, in favor of the Democratic Party as a corporate-friendly, companionable enabler of Republican crimes and misdemeanors. Rather than building a plan to educate the American people, or forming liberal think tanks to re-frame the issues to reflect liberal values and world view, or to influence the media, smartly and slowly, as did the Republicans beginning thirty years ago, the Dems decided to cave: “Oh gosh, I’m not winning—guess I’ve gotta drop my values for the sake of being popular and getting along.”

I am not the first person to notice the problem. But some of us continue to be in denial about it and continue to imagine the Party is on our side. Some of us are plainly ga-ga over the candidates, deliriously cheering them on the campaign trail. Fine. I understand. But to those progressive, liberal Democrats who find themselves in love with a candidate, I respectfully ask you to pay attention. For example, the next time the Party comes to you for support, look closely at their literature and the tale it tells, such as the following tale:

Awhile back, I received fundraising literature from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, including a letter from Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the current Chair of the Committee. I had never heard of the Congressman, so I looked up his voting record. Interestingly, he recently voted Yes with the GOP and contrary to the Democratic position on the Peru Trade Agreement, the U.S. Chile Free Trade Agreement, the USA Patriot Act Re-authorization, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Based on those votes, I felt it was safe to conclude Van Hollen was a conservative Democrat. And this is the person who was chosen to be Chair of the DCCC! (Bizarrely, conservative Democrats are referred to in the media as “centrist.” I say No. Centrist is Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. FDR, and all those who represent government of, by, and for the people, not corporations. That’s our center, our soul.)

So there you are. Now I had information to help me judge the survey. For example, this promising question appeared in Part V: “How aggressively should Democrats investigate potentially illegal and unconstitutional actions by the Bush Administration?” Regardless, nowhere in the entire survey was I given the impeachment option.

Part IV of the survey inquired about priorities for the Democratic Party. Glaringly absent were such choices as restoring the civil liberties lost under the Bush administration—habeas corpus, due process law, the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution—the restoration of human rights to detainees and prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and the banning of kidnapping and torture by the CIA. In fact, none of these things were mentioned in the survey at all.

Also, the Party did not appear to think outside the right-wing, neo-con box, given the above and given the way the survey framed its questions. For example, under part IV, terrorism was framed as a major issue, but military spending was not, nor the budget for the military at the expense of funding for infrastructure; then the question of 9/11 was framed as if I should buy into, or had already bought, the conclusions of the “bipartisan” 9/11 Commission, as opposed to providing an option of an independent and thorough investigation of 9/11, one where all are sworn in and must testify in public and where all testimony is done in public and included in the record, unlike what was done by the Commission—secret testimony by Bush and Cheney, without transcripts, and no public scrutiny.

The question, “Which of the following would strengthen our nation’s economy?” came in Part VII of the survey. There, tax “relief,” a conservative frame, is an option, as opposed to an option that would recognize the reality that tax breaks for the wealthy and expenditures for the Iraq war were, in part, the cause of the massive Bush deficit. Nowhere are we given the option of a tax on the top 3% of the wealthy population and/or an end to the occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of Iraq by multinational contractors and corporations.

Then, in Part XI on healthcare, the survey failed to give us the option of choosing a single-payer system of healthcare, making Medicare available to all. Instead, all options assumed the inclusion of the insurance industry, providing only government assistance to buy into industry plans. I don’t know about you, but this tells me the Democratic Party is committed to industry, not to citizens.

This opinion survey was clearly an instrument of propaganda and manipulation, designed more to steer the survey-taker away from thinking and toward the donation than to elicit an opinion. Certainly, it reflected some of my concerns but ignored, underplayed, or misframed my most urgent concerns.

The survey did tell one truth about today’s political climate. It corroborated my sense that the Democrats have lost not only their moral compass but have abandoned their promise to protect and defend the Constitution. Otherwise, the survey would not have had to ask what’s to be done about Bush Administration crimes—impeachment hearings would already be underway, habeas corpus and civil liberty would already have been restored. As it is, the Democratic-controlled Congress’ failure to act on these issues has left the Constitutional wrongs in place, and we are supposed to be reassured by the short shrift given them in the survey.

None of these guys, neither Congressman Van Hollen, Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton, are going to rescue us —or the Democratic Party from itself— to say nothing of slaying the neo-con dragon of death and destruction that grips our world today. It is discouraging—however, it is not hopeless. Humbly, I am reminded of what Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Perhaps one has to start with one’s own thinking, to start thinking outside the box, and then... insist your representatives do the same. Send them your vision.

My vision includes the following:

• De-funding of unilateral wars of aggression and occupation by the United States
• A trend away from privatization toward community values and responsibility (government of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations)
• A trend away from the power of the military industrial complex (cut budget)
• Public financing of elections
• FCC must require all media outlets to provide free advertising for Presidential candidates. (the air waves belong to the People)
• Paper ballots and the banning of electronic voting machines
• Election fraud and trickery prosecuted
• Single-payer health system
• Protecting people from governmental authoritarianism, i.e., surveillance of American citizens, harassment and oppressive measures which sacrifice our civil liberty and privacy.
• National Public Broadcasting returned to the public and removed of its corporate influences. WE MUST HAVE A NON-CORPORATE MEDIA SOURCE.
• Restoration of regulation as a means of holding corporations to ethical and community norms.
• An end to the notion of corporations as “persons.”
• Restoration of protections for American workers: the right to organize unions must be protected; corporations who outsource jobs should have a severe tax penalty and be required to pay foreign employees the same as their American counterparts.
• End NAFTA AND CAFTA, or, at least enforce Fair Trade Agreements.

Perhaps it is also possible to be the hero you wish to see in the world. For shy people like me, that’s quite a challenge. But maybe it’s time to go there, not like dragon slayers but —mixing metaphors here— like drops of water on stone, being so persistent that finally a hole appears in that stone. (I hope it doesn’t take that long!) All I’m saying is that even if one’s heroism is barely noticed, eventually the job will get done.

To Scrutinize

2008-02-13T10:39:00.001-08:00

It is grinding unbearable to witness the continuing dishonoring of the rule of law, of the Constitution, of the principle of the separation of powers, and all the other lies and crimes of the Bush Administration, where Bush and Cheney are not held to account. There must be scrutiny, accusation, sanction or punishment —impeachment— otherwise how can we call ourselves a democratic republic?

One person, alone, cannot stop the fascism that has overtaken our nation. However, to act as witness, for truth, is one way one person can do the job those in power have failed to do. To do art, to fix the truth in time is to scrutinize, to accuse, to sanction and to punish; it is to hold another accountable, to impeach.

Scrutinize the two sides of the President’s face...which side is the real George W. Bush?

If James Dobson Had His Way...

2008-02-13T10:16:00.000-08:00

Let's-Be-Fair Capitalism

2008-02-02T08:55:00.000-08:00

When my mother, a new-deal Democrat turned living-on-Social-Security conservative in her old age, was still alive, I understood my visits to her to be an interruption in her addiction to Rush Limbaugh. My mother’s world-view had shifted far from the one she had back when she enlightened me in the 1950’s about the errors of the McCarthy hearings, loyalty oaths and the like. Sadly, so deeply had her world-view changed, she had become someone who rejected much of my own life —my life style, spirit and politics— simply because I represented the liberal she heard vilified on a daily, even hourly, basis. Ultimately, I found it difficult to be around her.

If my mother were alive today, I’m sure her days would be informed by the steady influence of Fox News as well, her companionable gift from the Republican Party in alliance with Rupurt Murdock, the FCC and the corporate heads that control the media. Access to her chosen version of “free speech” would be easy, whether she would be sitting at home or driving in her car.

Now, being a liberal, I am the last person to begrudge another person the right to whatever entertainment they wish to choose, however full of lies, bigotry, misinformation, and anti-democratic ideology it may be. The choices made by people like my mother matter little to me, as long as I am also free in my own choices. This would be the democratic way. But here’s the rub: in this nation, liberals do not have the same freedom as conservatives to choose media programming that reflects their political orientation. Liberal voices do not have the same freedom to be heard, to speech —not even close— compared to the generous opportunities granted to conservatives. For example, I do not have a major news network on television acting as a daily conduit of Democratic-Party talking points, issues and concerns, nor can I turn to a liberal station in my car while driving.

As for NPR, despite right-wing screaming points to the contrary, it is in no way “liberal media.” The most I can hope for there is a balance between the extreme on the right and a position moderately left of center. Rarely, do you hear anything on NPR from any group as far to the left as the American Enterprise Institute is far to the right.

I know of only one voice in the corporate media that speaks for me—Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. But that is only one among the dozens of conservative, mainstream news anchors and talking heads.

My city, San Diego, did have a wide-range of liberal talk on Air America Radio for a couple of years at 1360 AM, though with a weak signal. But now Clear Channel has killed this lonesome, solitary voice of the left and replaced it with sports programming and a stronger signal. So there goes my neighborhood.

San Diego is effectively behind a Berlin Wall of political speech. Liberal speech has been censored. That I am “free” to go online to download whatever radio programs I wish to is no consolation; since I cannot afford a high speed connection, it takes an hour and a half for my downloads, and I have to stay in one room to listen. Is this “equal protection under the law,” or even simple equality? Is it freedom, and whose freedom is it?

Consider this: the other side of the coin of conspiracy is naiveté.

A reporter I spoke to said I should complain to the FCC. Hello? The Republican-packed FCC, headed by Republican ideologue Kevin Martin, the very Kevin Martin who has just passed a ruling allowing FURTHER consolidation of the media, so that the media will be even more corporate-dominated, with news even more corporate-influenced and owned than it is right now?

Trust me. If the powers-that-be (conservatives) wanted a radio program to survive, it would. They would make sure it had a good signal; they would hire a top-notch sales force and get the job done. They would fund it. Don't be naive. Think about it. Think about Clear Channel and what it is. Think about San Diego and who owns it.

Barack Obama talks about change. The nice thing about this abstraction is that the listener can project her personal hopes and dreams onto it and come away feeling satisfied. And I am no different.

My hope would be to see in our near future an enlightened rejection of “laissez faire” capitalism —the fundamental ill of our society and world—in favor of an economic system that recognizes greed and power-lust as counter-productive, as a threat to freedom for all, as even a threat to capitalism itself. I would like to call it, “Let’s-Be-Fair” capitalism. And this healthy, democratic version of our economy would, at its core, re-institute and enforce regulation of corporations, while working to reverse the current priorities —profits before people— so that, instead, people would have priority over profits. And by “people” I do not mean corporations. In Let’s-Be-Fair capitalism, corporations would not be given equal rights as “persons;” only human persons could be described as legal persons. It simply would not be fair to pit the interests of whole uber-corporations against individual, human persons. It is not fair now; it would not be fair then.

In my dream for our future, Clear Channel would not be allowed to dominate the publicly-owned air waves; that company would be broken up to make way for a more democratic balance of ownership. In my dream for our future, the Fairness Doctrine would return, perhaps with different rules, where somehow a balance of liberal and conservative talk-radio stations would be made possible.

Right now, corporations have all the freedom—corporations and conservatives. This cannot go on forever.

But hoping and dreaming are not going to do the trick.

Among the reasons Fox “News” is able to thrive, despite its egregious excesses of speech, would be that liberals and progressives tend to be a tolerant bunch—we value toleration of others’ rights. That is the reason we, unlike our counterparts in the conservative camp, are not inclined to call advertisers to complain, nor demand the disappearance of such voices, nor encourage Congressional censure of the hate speech emanating from Fox and the likes of Limbaugh. Instead, we simply move on.

This tolerance is changing. We have had enough.

As St. Augustine said: Hope has two daughters, Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and courage to make them better.

—L.R.M.

Correcting Republican Propaganda

2008-01-30T13:31:00.000-08:00

Imagine my amazement upon reading a recent email message from my representative in Congress, Brian Bilbray (50th District, previously represented by Randy “Duke” Cunningham, now in prison). Imagine my disbelief, when I saw the credit he gives to the so-called “Republican revolution” for the balanced Federal budget that should rightfully be given to the Democratic Administration of Bill Clinton! Imagine how I immediately recovered from my amazement upon reminding myself of the Republican habits of amnesia, rationalization, lying, self-delusion, trickery, cheating, fear-mongering, cruelty and outright criminality in the pursuit of absolute rule and profit-making for their cronies and the ruling elite.

With all due respect to my Congressman, I wish he would stick to reality when he writes to me and his other constituents, as such communications are not the same as those he might send to his diminishing Republican base, the small minority who still fall for the lies and propaganda of the Bush Administration, where you can twist the facts without fear of embarrassment.

The disaster of Republican governance over the past thirty years is better described as an anti-democratic take-over than a “revolution.” When a small but wealthy and determined group, who hates democracy (government of the people, by the people, for the people), hates government, has disdain for the rule of law, gains power by ownership of the media, electoral cheating, and seduction of the electorate by lies, fear-mongering and appeals to the worst aspects of human nature, what results is not a movement from the grass roots that serves the people, the environment, and the notion of liberty and justice for all —a true revolution— but rather an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor, an ever-decreasing middle class, gross violations of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, oppressive labor realities, a damaged environment, massive federal deficits, the co-mingling of corporations and government (fascism), weakening infrastructure, war and disaster profiteering, police-state tactics and trends at home, torture, militarism, and a power grab by the Executive branch that deeply wounds the principles by which our beautiful nation is defined as a democratic republic.

As criminal as are the radical elements of the Muslim faith, I consider such criminality a far lesser threat to us than Republican rule in the United States, which has become as authoritarian in its goals and methods as any extremist religious group I know of. The current Republican President now claims the right to label any American an “enemy combatant,” deny that American habeas corpus rights and due process rights, and order that American to be tortured, as he has done already. This damage done to liberty and our democratic republic is what should be the focus of my Congressman’s outrage and his energy. Where is his conscience? What is he doing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by serving as a counter-balance to an out-of-control Executive Branch? When was the last time he criticized the President or Vice President on the floor of the House? Never.

And the Attorney General failed us again today—he will not admit water boarding is torture.