March 26, 2007

Eleven Democratic Senators Thumb Their Noses at the Less Fortunate

While it is true that the Democratic tent is very large and lock step politics is unlikely at the best of times, there are some issues that, historically, have enjoyed wide and solid support. Differences of opinion within the Democratic party on the issues of abortion and the war in Iraq are expected. However, Democrats standing up for the working class is something which, at least until now, had been pretty much a given.

During the recent budget debate an amendment drafted by Senator Sanders (I-VT) would have rescinded the recent tax breaks granted to the top 1 percent in order to fund several programs to benefit those on the very bottom, and to help curb the growing shift of federal funding responsibility from federal to state and local governments. Senator Sanders presentation was fact-filled and impassioned, comparing the size of the tax cuts for single families with the cost of programs which would benefit millions of individuals.

When the results of the vote were announced, 47 Republicans had voted no. Two Independents and 36 Democrats voted yes. Two Democrats and two Republicans didn’t bother to vote. Then there were the Eleven.

Eleven Democrats voting against the amendment were: Max Baucus (MT), Maria Cantwell (WA), Thomas Carper (DE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL), Kenneth Salazar (CO), Jon Tester (MT), Jim Webb (VA) and Ron Wyden (OR).

I voted for Jim Webb. I let him know what I thought, and wondered how many other letters he might receive. But then I saw no mention of this vote either in mainstream media or news blogs. I wonder how few of the working class folks who voted for one of these eleven Senators are aware of what happened. How many would be writing or calling to express their displeasure if they were aware? How many might think twice before voting for these particular Democratic Senators again?

We hear with some regularity that the average American isn’t smart enough to vote properly. I disagree. I think that the problem isn’t lack of intelligence, the problem is lack of information.

Now I continue to wonder. The information is out there. What will be done with it?

January 19, 2007

With the Supreme Courts upcoming review of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform which tries to keep people who are outside of a candidate’s campaign out of the electoral process, maybe it’s time to reflect on a different approach.  Let’s face it, there is no law that will ever stop rumors, and there is no way to stop the press from reporting them. So, like the famous “swift-boat” ads, and the “caught red handed” ads, and the outrageously racial ads in Tennessee, stuff is going to happen. The question is, is it libel, and what do we do when it is.

In a nation that honors free speech, a lie in court will put you in jail. In a predominantly Christian nation that cites “Thou shall not bear false witness,” as one of its most precious precepts, slander or libel of a candidate for elected office should do the same. The problem we have is that the courts take too long to be of value during a campaign. That condition could be addressed with a special court to address candidates’ charges of slander or libel against each other or any third party. In the case of slander and libel of persons running for elected office, these should be criminal offenses with punishments equal to the destruction of the electoral process which is done by them. Such a court would be in session 24-7 in the months before a national election.

When charges are brought, the premise of such a hearing would be simple. The person or group charged with slander must immediately display the evidence on which any questionable statements were based, and unequivocal proof that the information distributed about a candidate was true and in proper context, or go directly to jail and pay for the distribution of ads in all of the places where the lie was presented which; 1) admit to the deception and 2) present the truth as determined by the court. If we value our electoral process, the jail time won’t be short, and the cost of corrective ads will come directly and only from the guilty party(ies).

Now to put the shoe on the other foot. The person charging slander or libel should not be able to do so risk free. That would only fill the court with frivolous gestures so that an opposing ad could say that so-and-so was charged. In order to reduce the likelihood of this scenario, if the original material was found to be not slanderous or libelous, the plaintiff at his or her own personal expense – not campaign contributions – must immediately distribute equal time ads in the same markets admitting to the truth of the original.

If such a court was operational, money and time could not protect those who would corrupt the legislative process with lies and innuendo. It would not stop everyone, of course. There are always those who believe they can get away with anything. That’s why the punishment for such a crime should be swift and severe.

The U.S. has many special courts for special circumstances. I suggest that anyone who says that this can’t be done simply doesn’t want it done. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reed and the appropriate House and Senate committees could do this if they wanted to.

Just maybe . . . . . .

 

November 11, 2006

There's light on the horizon, it's a new day.  I was holding my breath waiting for Burns and Allen to sign off.  They weren't very funny this time anyway.

The elections over -- but what does that mean to us?

Yes, the Democratic party is in charge, but coming out of the election it’s a different party than it was going in. This Democratic victory was in no small measure due to those who managed to overcome their personal identification with a political team in order to cast a ballot for “the other guy.” Those folks are now independents, and it took a lot of frustration and a lot of courage to make that move. You can be sure that they are going to be watching carefully to see that they didn’t make a mistake. 

Just to set the stage, in the past both parties seemed to huddle in dark corners to come up with a platform which would entice voters. The object of the election, from the party’s point of view, was simply to get enough votes to stay in power. Two things have happened which might indicate the beginning of a new political culture and an end to that scenario.   

First, Howard Dean’s outreach to individuals for contributions has paid off big time. Until now, both parties have been beholden to the lobbyists and corporations who have been their major contributors. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that in the past they have legislated accordingly. Along the way they gained the label, “The best government money can buy,” which was certainly hard earned and well deserved.

However, Howard Dean’s outreach did more than just attract funding. What happened is that people dug into treasured savings, gave up nights out and turned the stuffed furniture upside down to find the money to buy the government back from special interest groups. We may still have the best government money can buy, but the number of owners is now too large to allow for narrow legislation.

Second, groups such as MoveOn.org, surveyed the membership for consensus on what needs to be done, and then backed those politicians most likely to work for those goals - regardless of party. The result is that the Democratic Party must now be even more responsive to its voting constituency, and the long criticized “large tent” of the democratic party is even larger today. You can bet that tomorrow’s news will be full of critics who will still say that there are so many opinions that nothing will ever get done.

BULL! Finally enough voters have said ENOUGH! Finally enough voters have decided that “My way or the highway” is the wrong way – that we have to find some other way. We are seeing the beginning of a move away from divisive politics. Apparently fed up with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the attack on civil liberties here at home, and a political strategy intended to inflame rather than enlighten, enough people are willing to consider compromise on some issues in order that progress is made on the most important ones.

For example, under the Democratic tent are pro-lifers and pro-choicers. I believe both the extremes in these camps – those who are adamant about abortion on demand, and those who demand birth at any cost, will finally be silenced in an effort to find ground rules acceptable to the majority. It’s about time.

I said many times before that “the future is in our hands” – meaning literally that the buttons pushed in the voting booth would determine our future.

It was, we did, celebrate and get over it, the jobs not done.

Today, the future is in our hands in a more figurative sense. Now we have to pay attention to what our new representatives do with the power they’ve been given. History has taught some hard lessons. One is that no matter how hard we try to elect honest and honorable people, some not-so-nice folks slip through. Another is that even the finest people can sometimes be corrupted.

It has been our history to ignore Congress after the elections and trust that what we thought would happen would in fact happen. Well, it doesn’t. We still have a job to do. The job description has changed from selecting candidates to appraising performance, and we can’t let it go.

Have no doubt – if we don’t pay attention, we will certainly pay penance.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

It seems now that I have no choice but to accept the fact that I’ve gone mad. It’s the only possible explanation for it. There can be no other. No matter how hard I try, I can’t arrange the pieces of the puzzle to look the same as the picture the editors of my local paper come up with.

When I first entered what is now undoubtedly an asylum, I began to work with the puzzle pieces and put the round pegs in the round holes and the square pegs in the square holes, and when I finished I would tell myself I’d done a good job. A lot of my friends agreed that I had done a good job, but those folks who write the reports always looked at my work, shook their heads and clucked a lot. Today I understand. The object was never to match the peg with the hole. The object was to rise above that simple reality. The feat was to recognize that a tool was needed. A pocket knife. Something to help shape the blocks and the board into something we imagined they could be.

So, for all these years that I’ve been reading the paper, searching for separate but related news items and trying to discern what was real, I’ve been doing it wrong. Now I know that what I was supposed to do was to decide what reality was before reading the paper, search for those items which might be useful, trash anything which might get in the way, and put the results together to make my picture – the way I want it. I can’t do that, so by all comparison with the norms of the editors, I am mad.

Not just mad, I’m really mad. Even though I understand what I’m supposed to do, I just can’t. No matter how hard I try I can’t bring myself to change the shape of the pegs to fit the holes, or to turn the board upside down and hide the holes. I am obsessed with the idea that square pegs go in square holes and so on. But, the editors keep trying to teach me better.

Case in point, The Virginian Pilot editorial on October 25 on endorsing a candidate for the House of Representatives. Here are the first two paragraphs of that editorial.

“Thelma Drake, the U.S. representative from Virginia’s 2nd District, has grown in her job. She knows what she believes, and knows what she thinks, and impresses with her articulate, genial manner.
“She knows that the War in Iraq must be won, no matter the cost. She knows that Virginia’s coast must be opened to drilling by oil and gas companies. She knows that America needs a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. She knows that tax cuts to benefit the richest Americans must be extended. She knows these subjects backward, forward and sideways. And on every one, Rep. Drake is wrong.”

Now, it seems to me (which is why I must be mad) that given this information, I assume that even a three legged dog that barks with a lisp is better than someone who will 1) vote to endanger the environment, 2) amend the constitution to strip part of the population of their rights because of their choice of life partners, 3) steal from the poor to enhance the bank accounts of the already rich, and 4) vote to deny the right of habeas corpuses. (I just had to throw that in, but I’m mad, so just ignore it.)

Just to prove that I’m mad, the editors at the Pilot followed their first two paragraphs with this:

“Despite that, the first term congresswoman deserves to be returned to Congress over her opponent, overmatched Virginia Beach Commissioner of the Revenue Phil Kellam, who seems to be running a campaign built on the fact that he’s not her.”

Duh! What did I miss? Isn’t not being her precisely the idea? Evidently not.

I refused to use my pocket knife again, so the idea that Phil Kellam isn’t running around telling everyone exactly what he will do before he gets all the inside information doesn’t bother me. What bothers me are a lot of little things.

You know, those really trivial, not worthy of much concern things we would rather not talk about. Like, protecting the environment, saving jobs, paying as we go instead of mortgaging our children’s future, remaining a constitutional democracy – with all it’s associated rights, responsibilities and privileges. Remember those? To be secure in our person and protected from unreasonable search and seizure. To be able to practice the religion of our choice, and not be forced to follow the dictates of another. To be protected from incarceration without recourse to the courts.

But, by the Pilots own admission, the needs of the community far outweigh the concerns of a nation. (It’s the typical NeoCon I-Me-Mine extended to a close group of friends.) And, our incumbent has proven that she can elbow her way up to the trough with the best of them.

But, I’m mad, and I shouldn’t be bothered by those minor, insignificant things. Or – the guys in the white coats are really inmates who have taken over the asylum, and I’m the sane one. Who knows? Who cares? The way things are going I’m not likely to find out anytime soon.

 

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

So, you think the leaders of the Administration are short a few high cards do you? Think again. It takes brilliance to appear totally incompetent while advancing a hidden agenda. This Administration is incredibly adept at creating situations in which singular, highly emotional events dominate our thinking, and keep our focus on events in isolation.

The nation is divided on Iraq. “Stay the course” versus “cut and run” are the slogans used to elicit an emotional response and minimize rational thought. When emotions are set aside, the question of why this administration would ignore the obvious outcome of attacking Iraq and refuse to fully staff an occupying military must be asked. More than enough people with sufficient information to determine that Iraq could not sustain even a short period without central leadership came forward to object well before the first bomb was dropped.

Former President Bush made it clear that the U.S. was unprepared for such an undertaking when he did not oust Saddam Hussein in 1991. Even as the current administration was planning to invade Iraq, several high-ranking military leaders were vehement in their pleas for enough troops to contain the peace. The warnings were ignored and Iraq is now in a state of anarchy. It must be clear by now to anyone who considers the question seriously that this was the intended outcome. The question is who has gained, and who will continue to gain, from the current condition.

The U.S. has entered in to “Free Trade” agreements with various parts of the world which have resulted in astronomically high balance of payment deficits and the loss of thousands of good paying American jobs. Again, the title “Free Trade” elicited an emotional, rather than rational response, and provided for a discussion not on merit but on feeling as the agreements were debated in congress. Initially, partner countries were monitored for compliance to agreements on the status of labor in the exporting nations, but not anymore. Requirements for fair labor practices have been ignored and reports of child and slave labor are being talked about on the floor of the Senate. Talked about, but ignored by the Republican leadership. American workers cannot compete against this kind of workforce and maintain a hard won standard of living. Again the question is who has gained, and who will continue to gain.

In the past five years, new laws have been passed which erode freedoms and protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Pharmaceutical manufacturers cannot be sued if hastily distributed vaccines harm the user. Gun manufactures cannot be sued if their laxity in controlling weapons in their factories results in the distribution of firearms to criminals and innocent people are injured or killed. As of last Thursday, non citizens, even if in the U.S. legally and in possession of a green card, can be arrested and detained indefinitely without formal charges and without access to legal recourse. Wiretapping without a warrant seems innocuous by comparison, but it is an erosion of the rights of Americans none-the-less.

Other new laws simply sock it to the working class. In the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the government is forbidden to negotiate for lower prices. When the same drugs are shipped from here to Canada and sold at half the price, we are forbidden to buy from Canadian sources. The administration tells us it’s for our own good because the drugs haven’t had the benefit of FDA oversight. Who honestly believes that Canada doesn’t have a similar program just as able to provide oversight? Get real.

While we are at war, taxes for the richest Americans have been cut dramatically as the debt continues to rise. It’s ok though, because we won’t have to pay the debt, it is being passed on to the next several generations. At the same time, pension plans have become a source of income for corporations in need, while the needs of workers are being disregarded with disdain by the Congress. Labor can no longer rely on the National Labor Relations Board for relief from overbearing companies. Unionization is at its lowest ebb in six decades. The middle class is disappearing.

Just to be sure that no one pays too much attention, the Administration and the Congress talk about abortion and gay rights. They don’t talk about ways to minimize the impact of these issues, but rather they go out of their way to create major points of argument between differing segments of society. David Copperfield couldn’t perfect a better misdirection.

Once again the question remains, who is it that has gained, and who will continue to gain, from the current condition.

As I said at the start, when advancing a hidden agenda, the trick is to get everyone to look at events in isolation. However, once a person steps back from their own personal agenda and looks at events in totality, that which was hidden begins to become visible. In the past I talked about a class war between the worker and a moneyed aristocracy. True, but incomplete – because it doesn’t clearly identify the participants. The provoking participants are the nearly invisible, super rich, super greedy, super miserly, principal owners of multinational corporations. They alone stand to benefit now and in the future by each and every one of the conditions outlined.

The idea of national sovereignty, even as we argue about the viability of the United Nations, has been all but totally eroded by multinational corporations. Make no mistake, the military unrest in the Middle East and political instability in the Americas is promoted because it makes it easier for corporations rather than governments to take control of the vast natural resources of the affected regions. It’s not just a problem for the United States, but it is the Constitution of the United States with its attendant large, well educated, working middle class which is the greatest obstacle to corporations in their efforts to exert an even heavier hand in world governance. Why, because a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is simply inconsistent with corporate tyranny.

As a result, it is the Constitution of the United States which is under attack. In the past five years every aspect of the constitution has been challenged. From individual rights to states rights to the balance of power between branches of government and the separation of church and state, not one area has been unscathed. All of this has been done with such brilliance that the nation has been complicit in its own demise.

In the past several years we have been goaded into attacking the constitution with an amendment to define marriage which would clearly negate contractual rights for some. The attempt to pass an amendment against flag burning was clearly an effort to negate freedom of speech for others. Religious arguments over abortion and near-death medical decisions would clearly trample the rights of other individuals to control their own bodies. No, these efforts didn’t succeed – this time. But, the process did provide a momentary diversion for the hapless public.

To top it all off, our right to elect the individual of our choice for the various positions of power in government has been severely eroded by electronic voting machines without a voter verified paper trail. As things stand today no one can be sure that those in power were ever the peoples’ true choice. Unfortunately, those on the “winning” side don’t care enough to complain and those who do complain are seen as poor losers and rebuffed as malcontents. So much for government of the people.

If the attack on our Constitution is to be thwarted, and the rebuilding of the great American middle class is to begin again, we must first fix the election process. Election day must be a national holiday – everyone must have a chance to vote. No person directly affected by the outcome of any election must be allowed to participate in the planning or control of that election.

Every vote must be accurately tallied and if called into question, all votes must be able to be recounted.

 When, and only when this is done, can we be sure of installing in office representatives of our own choosing. If we are to survive as a nation we must have Senators, Congresspersons and a President who will honor, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, domestic, religious or corporate.

Our fate is still in our hands – at least for now, but maybe not for long.

 

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

Thursday, September 7, 2006

I’m outside, away from the TV so I won’t be tempted to get up to see what’s happening in the Senate. The past two days have been so full of things to write about that it’s impossible to pick just one. In fact, there was so much to baffle the reasonable mind over the past two days, that by the end of the day yesterday viewers had to have been in a state of “Shock and Awe.”

We got shocked and awed on Tuesday when George Felix Allen pushed his way ahead of Dick Durbin to present an amendment as his own that Durbin had tried to pass on an earlier bill and was preparing to present again. Durbin had little choice but to allow the amendment to go forward with Allen being the author of record. We have known for some time that the central core of the Senate majority has no shame. Now we know that they have no honor either.

Yesterday it began again. The shock was that the Democrats have finally gotten off of their collective backsides and have begun to speak strongly about their dissatisfaction with the Administration in general and Rumsfeld in particular over the conduct of the war in Iraq. The awe was in watching the collective gall of Republicans who immediately criticized Democrats for speaking out at all.

As usual, it was John Cornyn, Ted Stevens, Jon Kyle, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum and Saxby Chamblis who were the most dismissive of reality in their responses. In essence their response was to repeat the lies of the past – that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, that just because WMD’s weren’t found doesn’t mean that they weren’t there, that the administration is fighting the good fight protecting us from the “terrorists” keeping the fight off-shore, we’re safer today because of it, and anyone who would speak out against the conduct of the war in Iraq is somehow unpatriotic and bordering on treason.

Not one Republican had the nerve to say yesterday what they’ve been saying in public for weeks – that Rumsfeld has gone too far and needs to be replaced. The Republicans did have the nerve to use procedural tactics to keep Harry Ried’s “Sense of the Senate” resolution from being voted on. The only plausible reason for the action was to keep the public from seeing how many Republicans have gone as far as they can go in support of a failed Administration.

Enough on that subject.

Yesterday evening the last speaker was Jay Rockefeller. By this time it was hard to imagine that there could be one more “Shock and Awe” assault on the senses of the American people. It happened anyway. Rockefeller is the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. His complaint was that for the second year in a row the Intelligence Appropriations, which have been part of the Defense Spending Bill since the early ‘70's, has been dropped from the bill by the Majority Leader, Bill Frist, for the second year in a row. We know that the Republican leadership doesn’t want to conduct oversight of the Administration, but the brazenness of this tactic, refusing to give the committee the power to function, is more than the people should be asked to endure.

Today Senator Rockefeller is going to present an amendment which would reinstate the Intelligence Appropriations in the current Defense Spending Bill. Reasonable Americans can only hope that the Senate will recover, and then exercise the power to oversee the actions of an out-of-control, loose-cannon Secretary of Defense. His decisions have cost much too much in terms of money, prestige, international allies, and world leadership – not to mention the 2700 lives of our military and the thousands of innocent civilians.

9/8 Addendum:    Jay Rockefellers amendment  was "withdrawn" by the Majority Leader - it didn't even get a vote.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Good old Superman. Every day at 6:15 he would fly around inside my radio. Muscles bulging from eating Kelloggs’s Pep, he always knew when he was needed to defend “Truth, Justice and the American Way.”

As a kid I was sure that I knew what those things meant. Today, I’m not so sure. And, you know, I don’t think our government knows either.

Truth should be easy to define, either what is said matches reality or it doesn’t. If it does it’s true, and if it doesn’t it’s not true. Simple enough until we are told so many lies that reality gets painted over and lost to all but the most insistent searchers. Who was it attacked us on 9/11/01? And why did they do that?

Justice always seemed easy to understand. If you did something wrong and got punished – that was justice. If you didn’t do it and got punished, or if you did it and didn’t get punished that was not justice. Easy, right? Not exactly. The Supreme Court recently punished a whole lot of folks who simply had the audacity to own property that some rich folks wanted.

Now, as for The American Way, it doesn’t look at all like I remember. I remember Superman, Tom Mix, Sky King, The Cisco Kid and a host of others who spent all their time protecting people from the intrusion of others. To be an individual, and to let others be individuals, was the key. As long as people understood and honored the line between their rights and the rights of others they were acting in the American way.

So, what does it say about the American way of life when our government intrudes on the rights of individuals to raise a family or not, to live in pain with an incurable disease or not, to set up housekeeping with the person of their choice, or not? I know, by recent polls, that most Americans still believe in the old definitions, but far too many seem to feel that their rights supercede all others, and their rally cry is “My way or the highway.”

As the song says, I have to wonder “whatever happened to Randolph Scott” and the rest of the heros who taught us values? Today we have Pat Robertson telling us to love our neighbor, but kill Hugo Chavez, and Jerry Falwell telling us that his God punished New York because gays lived there. What’s astonishing is that these guys weren’t ridden out of town tarred and feathered and hanging from a rail.

It’s true that the old heros didn’t teach us about a god, but they did teach us how to live in a way that, unless someone followed us around, no one would ever guess we didn’t go to church every Sunday. Our new “heros” get some of us to do and say things that make other people wonder if we ever saw the inside of a church or even heard of Jesus Christ.

Come next November we’ll all get a chance to see if in Virginia, and elsewhere, the old American Way is a reality or a myth. We will find out then if the staunch individual who respects other individuals is really the hero America wants, or if exercising authority over others and demanding “My way or the highway,” is the new American Way.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

In the field of dreams that is the United States,

some are yanking up the flowers of democracy by the roots

The flowers of democracy are the informed citizens who exercise their right to vote. The soil the flowers grow in is made up of the multitude of media outlets known around the world as America’s free press. The nutrient in the soil is truth. The more truth, the more growth. The method of distribution is the journalists and editors who see to it that the whole truth is told about the things we need to know.

In some parts of the United States the soil is good, the nutrients are well distributed and flowers grow brilliant and tall. In other parts of the United States the soil has become rancid and the nutrients have lost their strength to provide sustenance. In these areas the flowers don’t bloom and the field of dreams begins to fail.

I have learned this week that the soil where I live is rancid. This is how I know.

Not long ago I got a call from MoveOn.org organizers. They were planing to run some political ads in my area, and were looking for someone to be the local spokesperson. I had joined the MoveOn group online some time ago and had submitted a few thoughts about what the direction should be, etc. Evidently someone liked what they saw and they called me about joining the upcoming events. I agreed, and the fun began.

The Congressperson in my district had cast several votes in the House of Representative which clearly favored various lobbying groups and also received significant campaign contributions from these same groups. While this is not incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing, it is far from a stretch for a reasonable person to question the possible connection of these events, or even draw a more definitive conclusion.

A series of three ads were run. The first one not only irked the congressperson, but also the largest newspaper in the area. The paper ran an editorial highly critical of the MoveOn ads as misleading, but said nothing about even more misleading ads the congressperson had released against both the previous and current opponents. I thought it a little biased, but dissenting letters were printed in later letters-to-the-editor and I let it be.

At the same time the editorial was run, events were covered by the newspaper staff and were reported in a manner any journalist would be proud of. Clear and complete articles were published. No one was misquoted and nothing was taken out of context. The soil had begun to smell, but the carriers of the nutrients were able to get the job done.

The second ad passed with a few short articles about the “over-the-top” and misleading MoveOn ads, but no serious breaches of trust on the part of the media.

The third, and last, ad was released last week, and vinegar began to replace the water in the irrigation ditch.

The congressperson’s lawyers sent threatening letters to all media running the ad. ABC, NBC and CBS replied by stating that there was nothing about the ad to cause them to pull it, and the ad continues to run on those stations. The response of the local cable distributor was quite different.

After beginning to run the ad on Wednesday, they decided at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon to comply with the congresspersons request and pull the ad. MoveOn was not contacted before the action was taken. On Monday a prominent article appeared in the aforementioned newspaper telling the community about the cable company pulling the “misleading” ad. Several attempts on my part to glean some information from the company were met with polite stonewalling.

The local newspaper ran another scathing editorial which included references such as “a left-wing advocacy group (think Michael Moore)” and “liberal wacko.” One columnist did a piece which in which her dislike of liberals was plainly stated. She also has a blog, where all of her articles are posted and can be commented on. I went there and took the time to get a password and of course add my two cents to the half-penny column. When I went back later to see if my comment was posted, I found that the column had been pulled from the blog. All of the columns before and after were still there, only the one I responded to was gone. The air was getting worse.

On Monday I submitted an article. On Tuesday I was contacted to say that it would run on Wednesday. Here things got sticky. Because I was representing MoveOn, I let the organizers know and they asked for time to review the piece because they were planning some legal maneuver and it might have an impact. Time passed, and MoveOn asked me to hold off on publication for a day. I called the editor I had spoken with and, although he seemed disappointed, he agreed.

Later that day I learned something new about the cable company exec who pulled the ad. He had made significant personal contributions to the Congresspersons political party, and so had another exec from the cable company. It was getting hard to breathe.

This morning I learned from the newspaper that my column presenting the MoveOn position wouldn’t be run - that the news department would handle any new activity. At noon we had called a press conference to let the people in our town know that we weren’t going to take this sitting down. The press had always shown up before, but not today! When we refused to shut up, they took away our megaphone.

Not much chance for the flowers of democracy to grow here, the soil’s gone rancid and the field of dreams is in serious peril.

How 's the soil in your neck of the woods?  

May 4, 2006

Who is minding the Virginia Beach municipal wallet?

When I left the house to vote Tuesday, I imagined using the punch card system that Virginia Beach has been using for years. Although a bit out-dated, the system has worked well and did provide a sense of security that tallies could be recounted should there ever be a question about the electronic tabulation. The ability to recount if necessary is important to me. So much so, that on July 19, 2005 I went to Richmond to address the Joint Subcommittee to Study the Certification, Performance, and Deployment of Voting Equipment. At that time I spoke in favor of a requirement for a Voter Verified Paper Trail.

I was very happy to learn that on January 11, 2006, SB 424 Electronic voting equipment; pertaining to procedures and requirements was introduced in the Virginia Senate.

Summary as introduced:
Election procedures; pollbooks, voting equipment requirements and audits, and recount procedures. Requires (i) that electronic pollbooks provide a contemporaneous and continuous paper printout of the voters' names and identifying information as their names are recorded and that the local electoral board conduct a postelection audit of the electronic pollbooks; (ii) that direct recording electronic devices be equipped to produce a paper record of each vote that can be verified by the voter and used in recounts and that audits be conducted of a percentage of the equipment; and (iii) that the source codes for software used in voting equipment be placed in escrow with the State Board of Elections prior to certification of the equipment for use in Virginia and that the source codes be examined by technical experts. The bill also prohibits any form of wireless electronic communication capability on any direct recorded electronic voting machine, optical ballot tabulator, or other voting or counting device and requires that a percentage of paper ballots be audited during recounts.

Then, on 01/31/06, Senate: Continued to 2007 in Privileges and Elections (13-Y 0-N)

So, the Bill was presented and would be addressed in 2007. However, the sense of the committee had been delivered to the Senate. Imagine my surprise to see Diebold Electronic Systems ACCU-VOTE TSX voting machines where the punch card stations used to be. The warm sense of security that my vote could be recalled and recounted if necessary was gone in an instant. I hurried home to my computer.

After some online research, I found that The Virginian-Pilot did report, on June 15, 2005, that Virginia Beach would switch to these machines before May 2006. The title of the article was “In Chesapeake”, so I’m not surprised I missed it. (http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6002)

However, on July 27, 2005, California Secretary of State Denied Diebold AccuVote-TSX Machine Certification citing problems in testing, (http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/Bruce-DieboldMcPhersonLetter.pdf) and made the test results public. (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ voting_systems/vstaab_volume_test_report.pdf)

And then on August 3, 2005, an article in the Daily Review stated “Diebold’s Problems Worse Than Reported, Tests Find.” (http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6257)

All of which leaves me with a very nagging question.

Why would Virginia Beach buy 899 ACCU-VOTE TSX voting machines, at a cost of about $2,900 each, when

1. The machines didn’t pass California testing requirements.

2. They may not meet Virginia requirements in the very near future.

At $2.6 million couldn’t we have waited one more election round in order to make sure that our money was spent wisely? Maybe those who were elected by voters using these machines will do a better job of looking out for our wallet. We can only hope.

 

April 28, 2006

The noise at the pump isn’t the only sucking sound you hear.

For five hours yesterday, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) stood his ground demanding a vote on his amendment to the Emergency Spending Bill now before the Senate. He says that his amendment will generate more than twenty billion dollars in revenue from oil companies to partially offset the 97 billion in emergency funds requested by President Bush. Senator Wyden talks about eliminating diminished royalties and sweetheart deals which were setup with oil companies at a time when oil was in short supply and the cost was around $16 a barrel. It was an interesting five hours.

In the first place, it took a while to really get a feel for what the situation was that Senator Wyden was trying to fix. The way I see it the situation is this. Sometime back in the early ‘70's I remember that OPEC raised the price of its oil and cut output. I was on a road trip, and the price of gas went from 22 cents a gallon to 43 cents a gallon overnight. We needed to do something to reduce our dependence on OPEC, so we reduced the speed limit to 55mph and agreed to let oil companies drill on public lands. This is where things get really murky.

I listened carefully, but I never did hear just how much the oil companies pay us for the oil they suck from our property. Yes, I said our property, yours and mine. In this case, what we are talking about is a natural resource that belongs to the U.S. Government, which is us.

Evidently, whatever price we thought was OK for the oil companies to pay when the market value was $16 a barrel is still OK at $75 a barrel. Senator Wyden takes exception to this idea and so do I. Unfortunately, We-The-People seldom get to see the actual words that describe what our Senators say they are trying to do, so we have to make some assumptions. Since I don’t know exactly what is written, I assume that if the amendment is passed we will begin to receive a fair market value for the oil we own.

Based on Senator Thad Cochran’s (R-MS) many refusals to agree to a vote on the amendment, and Senator Pete Domenici’s (R-NM) insistence that these provisions don’t cost us anything, some in the Senate are insisting that whatever deals were made with the oil companies remain in place. The fact that Exxon made about 35 Billion dollars last year and nine Billion already this year doesn’t seem to faze these Senators.

To be fair, Senator Cochran seemed to be doing the job of a good soldier and following marching orders from Senator Frist. Having said that, I have to note that he was certainly not reluctant to do so. Senator Domenici took a different tack, and stated that Senator Wyden’s amendment was unnecessary because the deals with the oil companies don’t cost us anything. I guess that means that since it’s oil and not cash that’s flowing into the oil companies coffers it doesn’t count. Or maybe it’s because if the oil stays in the ground we don’t get anything for it at all. I don’t know which reason he used, but either way the logic sucks as much as the pump.

Obviously, the oil reserves in the Arctic won’t be such a prize for the oil companies either. If they have to pay us full value for the oil, maybe they won’t want it. As far as I’m concerned, that’s just too bad. But, there is something else that is also too bad.

Senator Wyden stood almost alone during his five-hour filibuster. The only substantial support came from Senator Durbin (D-IL) who took the time enter into a mock debate, which Senators often do to make a point when both parties are on the same side of the question. Had a few others helped in this way, maybe he could have gotten agreement for a vote. Unfortunately, it was apparent that his cause was not important to other Senators who simply wanted him to give up the floor so they could propose their own amendments.

Senator Wyden relinquished the floor at 3:20 yesterday afternoon with the comment that evidently he will never be allowed a vote on his amendment. I hope he is wrong. He took it upon himself to champion a cause for us. He has been rebuffed. It is we who stand to lose. I, for one, will be watching carefully to see how this plays out.

The November elections aren’t that far off. Maybe if enough people pay attention to what each Senator is doing, more of them will do what’s right for us.

A final note for the Senate. I know it sounds better to call it public lands, but that’s our oil the oil companies are sucking up from our lands. Work with us here. Make them pay full value for it.

 

 

March 12, 2006

On Capital Hill, the game is called on account of rain.

The game was not going well on Thursday, when Billy had a tantrum. He had gathered with his friends for a little game of give and take, but they just wouldn’t follow his rules. So, little Billy rained crocodile tears, ranted that the other side wouldn’t play ‘fair’, and stopped the game. Since he’s the leader, it is his house after all, he can do that. "And, since I can, I will," seems to be what he told the rest of the kids who came to play.

No amount of adult counseling made any difference. The game could not continue. But, that was not the real tragedy. The spectators didn’t even seem to care. Maybe that’s because the sports writers only interviewed their favorite players, and then chose to take sides rather than report the game. If it were a Major League game, the fans would have stormed the field if the players wouldn’t play. Obviously, this wasn’t the Majors, it wasn’t even the Minors, it was just a sand lot game on Capital Hill.

The stakes in the game this week were high. Rules are needed for the younger players in the game because there is no such thing as a common agreement of the definition of sportsmanship. The new players have, most assuredly, proven to the fans that any display of honor and integrity is just for show. So, now rules are required. Players must be told how to act. You might think that this would not be necessary, but in reality, the players in this game are subject to the same foibles as players in the Majors. Some hot shots just won’t accept being subject to the same rules as the rest of the team.

The other prize this week was just as great. Billy’s uncle George was making a deal to turn over part of the playing field to a foreign government. Not a foreign company, a foreign government. Most of the players seemed to be in agreement, they wanted to stop the deal. But, Billy’s uncle George had already been embarrassed enough by the players in the other game, and that’s when little Billy threw his tantrum.

Since Billy and his friends have gotten control of the game, only one team gets to bat. It doesn’t matter anymore how good a player may be, how much experience he or she has, or how many fans support them, if Billy doesn’t want them to bat, they can’t bat – and that’s the end of that. What fun is there in watching this sort of nonsense?

Fans today ignore the game.

But, why should anyone complain?

No adult can save the day

when little Billy wants his way.

As little Billy hangs his head,

and crocodile tears are shed.

He mutters that ‘they’ won’t play fair.

It makes me want to pull my hair.

It used to be a grown-up’s game,

in the days before the children came.

February 17, 2006

Watching the Senate, If Only it was just a Movie

One of the few movies I’ve seen in recent years was The Horse Whisperer. I really enjoyed it. But, it was enjoyable only after having turned away from much of the first fifteen minutes. The visual description of events leading up to the horrific accident, which was the foundation for the movie, was agonizing. The audience watched the truck and horseback rider as they moved closer and closer to the ultimate and unstoppable disaster. Finally it happened – the gut wrenching impact in excruciating slow-motion detail.

When I left the theater, I told myself that I never wanted to see anything like that again. Yet every day I record the Senate on C-Span. Every day I am transfixed by the events which have already reached the point of disaster-in-slow-motion. And, this time I’m not watching an accident. What I see is the contrived destruction of the Senate as a deliberative body. Day by day and bit by bit Senator Frist, in his position as majority leader, denies and disregards the rights of other duly elected Senators to participate in the legislative process. Yesterday was no exception.

When Senator Feingold was denied the opportunity to propose an amendment to the Patriot Act, the horse’s head hit the grill of the truck. Senator Frist spent several minutes lamenting what he called obstructionism on the part of the minority. With tedious disingenuous sincerity, he disgorged a litany of phony crimes committed by the minority. At the same time Senator Frist was presenting meaningless amendments of his own simply to “fill the tree,” which seems to be some rule about how many amendments can be scheduled to be heard. But that was not the worst of it.

Several Senators spoke about how Senator Feingold’s amendments should be heard, repeatedly citing that the purpose of the Senate is be a participative deliberative body. The key word being participative. As I have watched the proceedings of the past year I have heard many speeches. However, discussion and debate on the floor of the Senate have become nearly nonexistent. By abusing his authority as majority leader, to manipulate who gets to offer amendments, and by insisting on cloture motions before any meaningful debate can take place, he has halted the legislative process. In its place, Senator Frist has instituted a President's Rubber Stamp Entourage of political zealots.

Yesterday, the minority was complicit in the implementation of Senator Frist’s new PRSE. When Senator Frist made a motion for cloture on the Patriot Act, which should truly be renamed the Un-American Activities Legalization Act, the PRSE approved the motion 97-3, and meaningful debate was terminated. Several provisions of the Act clearly undermine provisions of Constitutional Amendments 1, 4, which have already been declared unconstitutional in Circuit courts. So much for the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of the failings of the Act, cloture should have been denied by the minority solely on the basis of ensuring the legitimacy of the legislative process.

By disregarding this opportunity to put the brakes on the abuse of power by Senator Frist, the truck hit the rider, and the rider is badly injured. Our duly elected Senators are in a state of shock. Walking and talking but unaware of their surroundings, they need to wake up - soon. Who will whisper to them?

February 15, 2006

News or Views?

Where you get your news can cause you to reflect, or cause you to react.

Yesterday the Senate voted to uphold a point of order on S852, a bill addressing problems with asbestos litigation. The result of the vote returns the bill to committee for reassessment. A comparison of the reports of two major news sources provides some insight into what readers are up against in their search for understanding.

In the New York Times, a report by Steven Labaton on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, carries the headline “Asbestos Bill is Sidelined by the Senate.” From the Washington Post, the headline of a report by staff writer Shailagh Murry, on the same day reads “Senate Foes Block Proposed Trust Fund for Asbestos Victims.” One headline states a bare fact, the other presents that same fact with an emotional kicker.

The opening paragraphs are also different in the same way. From the Times we are told, “with powerful interests on both sides [the vote] did not break down along party lines.” But, the Post tells us that the vote was “a victory for Democrats and their trial-lawyer allies who waged a relentless campaign to defeat a bill that took five years to negotiate.”

Following the opening paragraphs, both articles provided numerous quotes from both sides and a clear understanding of the issues, what occurred and why. However, the headlines and opening paragraphs provided two completely different windows on the news. The Times window was clear and unobstructed while the Post window had a definite republican red tint. Before presenting the news, the Washington Post article emphasized “a relentless campaign to defeat a bill that took five years to negotiate.” The only purpose for making this statement is to elicit emotional response, and shade the content which follows.

Purely as an aside, who cares how long it takes to build something that doesn’t get the job done? This argument was restated ad nauseam on the floor of the Senate. It’s a bad argument. When a wheel chair is needed, a crutch just won’t work, no matter how long it took to manufacture.

When I write I want to elicit emotional response. I want people to see my point of view, so I use adverbs, adjectives and nuance to set the stage for what I want to say. I know that if I can adjust the perspective of the reader, I can change the weight of information to either emphasize or diminish its impact . But, I am not a news reporter, I editorialize. I know it and you know it. You take that into account when reading this article. I don’t call what I do ‘reporting the news’, and neither should anyone else who does what I do.

Therefore, I will end with this thought. Editorial comments are not only a right, but an obligation of all major news sources. After all, who else has access to as much information and the time to read and analyze it? Shading editorials is expected, how could it be otherwise? But, readers beware, the difference between education and indoctrination can be almost indiscernible when presented by a trusted and skillful source. When a major news source shades the news, either red or blue, they do an immense disservice to the journalism profession, and to their readers.

February 15, 2006

A little more Roosevelt to Rove

Elected in November 1932, three years into the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the 32nd President of the United States in January 1933. Beginning with a nation of farmers and wage-earners permeated with a sense of hopelessness, he ended with a nation filled with hope. In twelve short years he transformed the political landscape, and in January of 1945 he proposed a ‘Second Bill of Rights’. This second bill of rights would ensure that everyone in the United States would share in the benefits provided by the vast resources and wealth of a great nation.

On April 12, 1945, he died. On that day an effort began on behalf of the moneyed interests in the United States, to undo each and every social program he introduced. It was an enormous task. The ideas which FDR presented in the Second Bill of Rights had taken hold, and much new legislation to achieve his goal was already in the planning stage.

In September of 1945 I started school. FDR was history on the day I began watching the hope for a real Second Bill of Rights dissipate, and the original Bill of Rights viciously attacked. It took the wealthy oligarchs fifty-five years of working behind the scenes to prepare for the dismantling of a government dedicated to sharing the wealth of the country. On December 12, 2000, the battle was engaged in earnest.

On that day, the Supreme Court took it upon itself to interfere in the contested election of a President. As defined in Supreme Court opinion No.00-949, issued on December 12, 2000, the Court found for the plaintiff and stopped a recount in process. The concurring opinions all stressed the letter of vague Florida law, while the dissenting opinions stressed the intent of the law, and the right of the lower court oversee the process. To an outside non-lawyer, my interpretation was, and remains, that the judgment was predetermined and the law was searched for corroboration. The effect of this decision was that a candidate who did not win the popular vote, nor win the election according to exit polls, was placed in the office of President of the United States.

A review of the evidence which has been on full display in the public forum leaves is only one rational conclusion. The United States government and the American people have been, since January 20, 2001, under siege by a moneyed oligarchy fronted by a so-called Neo Conservative movement. Outrageous, you say! Yes, it most certainly is outrageous.

With phase one completed, that of acquiring the Presidency, the Neocons began to implement a series of moves intended to marginalize, if not fully decimate, the Legislative Branch of government. A somewhat Neocon Supreme Court had already begun the process of redefining some Congressional legislation and simply dismissing other pieces of legislation as ‘unconstitutional’. The result of these decisions minimizes the power of the Legislative Branch of the federal government by shifting power to the states.

In addition, President Bush’s use of “signing statements” at the time of signing bills into law, further marginalizes Congress in the eyes of the public. What good is a law if the ultimate enforcer, the President, can choose which parts of which laws he will or will not enforce? The result is that the Congress becomes a ‘weak sister’ instead of an equal partner in the government.

The Neocons know that an educated and aware public could do something about this situation at the polls. Therefore, it was necessary to keep the public ignorant of the truth, angry at Congress and, at the same time, otherwise engaged in purely emotional issues. Under these conditions it is easy to diminish the value of government in the eyes of the electorate.

There are a number of ways to do this, and the Neocons have used them all. Our once rich nation is now broke and in debt to our most formidable economic adversaries. How did it happen? First, the treasury was raided by a ‘tax return’ which gave a few pennies to the farmers and wage-earners while showering huge amounts of money on the already rich. Second, we were conned into a war which expended our military assets which then had to be replaced. Third, we were besieged by theft, graft, and corruption by the mercenary corporations hired to do the jobs our military should have done for itself. The result of all of this is an empty treasury and a national debt that generations of farmers and wage-earners will pay for in poor health care, low wages and no retirement.

To make matters worse for the nation and better for the hidden oligarchy, Hurricane Katrina presented a marvelous opportunity to further diminish the public’s faith in our government. By doing almost nothing, by performing badly when something was done, and by opening the flood gates to more graft, corruption and thievery, it was demonstrated to everyone that not only the Legislative Branch, but the Administrative Branch as well, is uncaring and incompetent.

Why, then, should anyone vote? Why, then, should anyone take the time to investigate candidates so a good choice can be made? If you think these thoughts, the Neocon process is working just fine.

But, that’s not all. Just neutering the U.S. government only takes care of a small portion of the worlds farmers and wage-earners. In order for the oligarchy controlling corporate interest to fully succeed, national borders have to be negated. Again this means overcoming an FDR initiative which came into being shortly after he died. In 1945 a meeting was held in San Francisco attended by representative of fifty countries. The UN charter was drafted. It was ratified on October 24,1945.

In recent years, Neocons have launched attacks on the United Nations at every opportunity. The fact that it was under funded, limited by the veto power of the Security Council, and that some of its members, including the United States, were susceptible to corruption, helped a great deal. The Neocon effort to marginalize the U.N. is well under way.

In addition, our government either aided in, or choreographed the destruction of several neighboring democratic governments which were properly elected and led by advocates of the people. There isn’t room here to present the evidence, so I’ll leave it to the interested and concerned reader to do a little research.

Why did it take forty-five years to prepare for this onslaught? Simply because none of it could have been done from positions outside the governments which needed to be dispensed with. It took a lot of planning and organization to get enough Senators and Congresspersons elected who would be complicit in attaining their objectives. Attaining the Presidency in 2000 by any means possible was an absolute must. Placing Neocons on the Supreme Court and in positions of power in the U.N. have just about completed this phase of conquest. There is little left to do except to administer the Coup de Gras.

Many, maybe even most readers, will dismiss these words with ridicule. How could this be? Such a long drawn out conspiracy is unimaginable! It is unimaginable that people such as Senators, Congresspersons, Supreme Court Justices, and Ambassadors to the U.N. would participate in such a process! It’s lunacy!

I sincerely hope that those people are correct, and that my analysis of events is utterly wrong. I would even accept ‘Idiotic’. Unfortunately, everything I have seen and heard since I started paying attention in school sixty years ago, and especially everything I have seen and heard in the last six of those years, says I’m right.

If I’m right, we have no more than a few short years, as an enlightened and aware electorate, to excise the Neocon cancer from our government through the electoral process. After that it will be impossible. If I’m right, we may soon find ourselves in a world controlled by corporations which can ignore national governments, buy and sell natural resources and people at will, and even wage war with corporate armies. If I’m right, in a future of corporate governors, corporate laws, corporate police, and even corporate armies, the world of George Orwell’s 1984 may very well be dreamed of as paradise.

I don’t think it would be wise to simply hope that I am wrong.

February 14, 2006

The Presidents Apologist

In an interview on cspan this morning, Senator Kyle defended the President’s initiative of warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. He did so in the same fashion as has been evident in much of the press coverage. What’s wrong with wiretapping in a search for terrorists, he asked? The answer to that question is obviously that there is nothing wrong with wiretapping in a search for terrorists. There is a problem, however, with doing it without a court order. It says so in the Bill of Rights. But, that question was not addressed this morning, and will never be addressed by an apologist for the President.

“Partisan politics” is a phrase which was repeated many times during Senator Kyle’s speech and in the Q&A which followed. Pointing to “the Democrats,” Senator Kyle suggested that the people who call for investigation and even possible impeachment of President Bush are doing so because they are Democrats. That is simply not the case. In fact, he’s got it backwards. They are Democrats because they believe in the principles of the “New Deal,” “the great society,” and the Bill of Rights.

There is one thing common to all Democrats. They insist on being individuals. Because of this, one of the favorite lines for a Republican is that Democrats have no central core ideology. Well, that’s right. Democrats don’t look at party politics as a religious endeavor. They are people who think alike and have banded together. They are not people who banded together to learn how to think.

When a Democrat thinks through an issue and then speaks their mind, and is then accused of being ‘partisan’ - simply parroting the party line, that individual has received the ultimate insult. Senator Kyle should be ashamed of himself. Surely, he wouldn’t want his careful deliberation reduced to such a level. However, since Senator Kyle has opened the door, I have this to say about that.

As I watch C-Span, I find that much of the apologetic rhetoric which attempts to justify the excesses of the President is about as shallow as a puddle of water on a glass tabletop. Therefore, I find those arguments without reflective thought and clearly partisan. I find Senator Kyle’s effort in this regard to be on that same level. It is amazing, to me, how easily Senator Kyle avoided all mention of the one salient underlying issue during his speech. I didn’t hear him once mention the Fourth Amendment, which clearly and concisely prohibits unwarranted searches.

The President does not have the authority, no matter how much he wishes he did, to disregard the Bill of Rights. Saying he has the right does not make it so.

It’s one thing for political pundits, and even corporate news editors, to engage in spin, obfuscation, misdirection, and all the other methods used to redefine reality. It’s quite another when a Senator, someone who should be demonstrating the epitome of honor and integrity, uses these same tactics.

February 13, 2006

Neocon is not Republican

Who was it that tattled on the President for spying on us? The Neocons are hot on the trail. When they find that despicable individual who couldn’t keep his mouth shut I hope he gets just what he deserves – The Congressional Medal of Honor. While we wait for that to happen, though, we are getting another lesson in the propaganda process of the Neocon movement.

To be sure, not everyone who voted for Bush/Cheney has had a change of heart. Many are getting exactly what they wanted and expected. However, major news polls show us that, as prices rise and wages fall, the number of voters in that group is dwindling. What is a good Neocon to do? The answer is out there in the news.

Nobody wants to have to admit they were ever wrong about anything. So, the thing to do is to give people a quick comeback which is so outrageous that it stops rational thought long enough for them to get away. That way they never have to admit to themselves or anyone else that they were complicit in their own destruction.

A lot of good God-fearing people are still repeating the Neocon lie that Iraq was involved in 9-11. But, a lie is still a lie. People talk about how Republicans support our troops. But, in Iraq the troops don’t have enough body armor. If troops buy their own armor, the military threatens to strip death benefits if soldiers die while wearing it. (See Soldiers for Truth) Neocons support the military/industrial complex, not the troops. Neocon support for the troops is a lie.

The President tells us he has the right to spy on us. Congress disagrees. Congress wrote the legislation, so the President is lying. But, you still hear the lie repeated in the press.

And, how about the “I care about seniors,” lie. I turned 65 last year. As I prepared my taxes this year, I was more than a little upset. This is the first year I can remember that being 65 didn’t qualify as an additional dependent deduction. So much for the “I care about seniors,” lie.

What can you say to the person who insists on repeating a lie simply to keep from saying “I made a mistake?” Nothing. When a person tells you the water is cold, sticks their hand in it and gets scalded, and then still tells you the water is cold, there is nothing to do but shake your head and pity them. Any expectation of those folks ever becoming thoughtful, informed voters is sheer idiocy.

A few Republican Senators appear to have come to the conclusion that lies have influenced their prior thinking, and that Neocon values are not Republican values. They are saying so on the floors of Congress today. We can only hope that their change of heart is the result of soul searching, and not the November elections.

Outside of Congress there are a number of articles still being written which excuse the Presidents’ crimes and lies. That’s the beauty of the Neocon strategy. So many people seem to rely on lies to defend having voted for the Neocon regime. Believing the lie saves face.

I might suggest that those folks are pouring good money after bad, but unfortunately a whole lot of them are broke. Buying the lies, saving face and losing your shirt. What a shameful epitaph for the democratic system.

By the way, what was that Commandment about lying?

February 11, 2006

What about that asbestos bill?

The Senate Judiciary Committee finally launched S852 on the sea of the Senate last week. After days of assault from all sides, asbestos or not, S852 is burning badly, and there may be just too many holes in it to keep it afloat. A juggernaut, S852 was commissioned to conquer the many problems associated with asbestos litigation.

S852 has an icebreaker bow, intended to plow through the frozen court system. Breaking the ice consists of stopping all litigation immediately, unless it is being heard by a judge or jury. In the process, it capsizes Amendment 7 of the Bill of Rights in the bow wave.

Buried in its dark and almost impenetrable hold, is a collection of monetary notes called a ‘trust fund’. How it was determined who will pay, and how much they will pay was established by a subcontractor of the design committee. Unfortunately the subcontractor who designed the ‘trust fund’ had to be subpoenaed to find out how it was constructed. This part of the design has been classified ‘Confidential’, so repairing it may be quite difficult.

S852 is intended to sail for 50 years on the fuel provided by the notes in the hold. Unfortunately, actual fuel consumption data is unavailable and many believe the ship is destined to flounder before it completes its journey. In its wake, along with the dashed hopes of those who have been preparing for court, but not there yet, will be Amendment 7 in the Bill of Rights.

The best thing about the S852 is that it has a deck for many victims who had been left adrift on an old slave ship. By government decree, anyone who was contaminated with asbestos while performing military service could not sue the government, or anyone else, for damages. So getting those people off of the slave ship and on the deck of S852 is a really good thing.

Watching the battle, as a fleet of destroyers attacks S852, is a sad reminder of real life on Senate Sea. There are so many destroyers engaged in attacks, and so many shots from S852s tenders, that the waves are just too high to build a solid dry-dock platform on which to fully inspect the juggernaut.

A really conscientious design team might do this:

1. Scuttle S852.

2. Redefine the mission as: Fully protect all victims of asbestos poisoning at a minimum cost, without endangering the rights of citizens to petition the courts.

3. Using the examples of those states having already made progress in reducing and streamlining litigation, remove any statute of limitations on the right to petition, and institute a ‘pending’ docket for anyone not presently showing symptoms of asbestos disease.

4. Require ‘doctor/patient’ relationship between the certifying physician and the claimant.

5. Set limits on awards which ensure that victims are ‘made whole’ for past and future medical expenses and lost wages, but eliminate a jury’s ability to assess punitive damages, or windfalls for ‘pain and suffering’.

6. Set attorneys fees at payment for ‘billable hours’, to be assessed and paid separate and apart from the plaintiffs’ award.

7. Create a trust fund similar to S852 to ‘make whole’ the military personnel who were exposed to asbestos products manufactured by the same companies being sued in civil court, but are themselves denied access to the courts.

8. If, in the course of a hearing, corporations are found to be criminally negligent or indifferent to the harm caused, they are to be charged and prosecuted in criminal court.

If these design criteria were used, the resulting ship would likely sail effortlessly through the courts and deliver its cargo of compensation to all victims of asbestos disease until the disease has run its course. However, the battle continues with a number of tenders and destroyers fully engaged. No seaworthy flagship, with a contingent of conscientious designers, is to be found. The battle will end, but there is little hope that the war for the relief of asbestos victims will end well.

If S852 is sunk, the military victims of asbestos will remain on their drifting slave ship, waiting for some other ship to rescue them. If S852, with its destructive wake, survives, it may very well not make all the intended ports of call, leaving far too many victims of asbestos to survive on their own. Even more unfortunate, there is no other ship in the builder’s yard.

If only the fleet would raft together, calm the sea, and design a proper ship for the task.

 

February 8, 2006

Like most Americans, I get a lot of requests for donations to political campaigns. Every day someone is telling me what’s wrong, and how they need my money to fix the problem. Each letter or email addresses one or two issues that happen to be in the limelight at the moment. Not one of them addresses the underlying problem. Today the buzz word is asbestos legislation or the Fair bill, which seems about as fair as the games at the local carnival.

I detest frivolous lawsuits, and the get-rich-quick litigants who expect far more than they deserve for compensation of sometimes nearly imperceptible harm. Even more, I detest the huge unwarranted and monopolistically imposed 30-40% attorneys’ fees. However, over the past several years, under the guise of correcting this problem, our government has been instrumental in moving money from the poor to the rich, and destroying the right of the people to petition for redress.

Today the Senate is discussing another bill, the third in a series of legislative initiatives, which accomplish this goal. First it was the arms manufacturers, then it was the pharmaceutical industry, and now it’s the asbestos industry. Systematically, the right of the individual to challenge corporations in court is being written out of our laws. But, these things only hint at the problem.

Couple these efforts with the effort of the President to amass power in the Administrative Branch, and his dismissal of the Bill of Rights, our democracy is being marginalized by the very people we expect to protect it.

It is absolutely mind boggling that so many of our Senators and Congresspersons are willing to support measures which dismiss the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. There can be only one reason for their actions. The United States is fully engaged in a civil war between the haves and the have-nots. Only one side knows the war is raging. It is painfully evident that very many of those we elected to fight for the people have become mercenaries of the have-mores.

Consider this:

Efforts to pass legislation to protect the electoral process from abuse can’t get to the floor of either house. The only possible reason for this is that such legislation would guarantee the proper function of the democratic process. Enough evidence exists to seriously question, if not prove outright, that major elections have been stolen in recent years.

Entitlement programs, which were initiated to ensure that even the poorest in our nation would share in the wealth derived from our tremendous resources, have been decimated. At the same time, the richest are given tax breaks they don’t need. Is it so that the rich can hoard money they can’t possibly live long enough to spend in even the most reckless fashion? No. The purpose can only be to bankrupt and minimize a government which gets in the way of corporate interests.

Further, secrecy has become the byword of the majority in congress. It appears evident that the only purpose can be to ensure that any information which might truly enlighten the people of the United States is kept from them.

The painful truth is that only a democracy of the people and by the people will ensure that our government is, and remains, for the people. A fully functioning democratic republic, with elected representative who truly worked for the people, would not stand for the kind of legislation passed in recent years.

There are a number of champions of the people in Congress. They work hard to support average Americans on each piece of legislation. However, not one of them has addressed the undeniable cumulative effect of the legislation in total. At least not in a public forum. The true danger to average Americans can be seen by anyone who will take the time to look carefully at Congress in action. Our representative government, and the right of all individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is under siege from within. The war is fully engaged. Only one side is aware, even though casualties on the other side mount as health care becomes more expensive and less available.

We can all see by their voting records which side of the war each member of Congress is on. What we can’t see, is whether or not they are aware of the cumulative effect of their votes. Are they truly complicit in this civil war, or are they simply marching with their party, oblivious to what is happening?

To those members of Congress who regularly ask me for donations to their campaigns I ask, when are you going to begin to talk about the elephant in the room? It’s a class war. You have the evidence. You can display the casualties. You can describe the battles and the tactics. From time to time it gets mentioned almost in passing on the floor of the Senate. But, that’s not enough. It’s time to do what only members of Congress can – pull the pieces together and talk. Talk about issues in the context of the real, tangible, class war that is being waged against working class Americans by our own elected representatives.

By the way, President Bush just slipped a Social Security Privatization Plan into his new budget. In terms of the class war, would you call that a tactical assault, or a strategic maneuver?

 

February 6, 2006

Is it News or is it Propaganda

An article in the New York Times on February 6, 2006, Calling Clinton ‘Angry,’ G.O.P. Chairman Goes on the Attack, is a story in itself. It reports an event, an interview of Ken Mehlman by George Stephanopoulos. It is news because the speaker is a prominent political figure. There is nothing in the article to cause anyone to question the truthfulness of the report itself. That's the beauty of it.

The following three paragraphs from that article tell another story which, based on a lack of reporting from other sources, goes virtually undetected.

“"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," Mr.Mehlman told George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program "This Week."

Referring to Mrs. Clinton's assertion that Republicans were running Congress like a plantation, he said, "Whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger."

"There's a lot of talk about a new Hillary Clinton, but if you look at the record, it's a very left-wing record," Mr. Mehlman said, adding that her record did not reflect the values of most Americans.”

Nothing wrong there, right? Look at the exchange again. The country has just been given a lesson in the application of the Neocon debating formula. Take note that these are Neocon, not Republican, debating rules. They are not the kind of tactics used by my Republican friends, but the ideas are often repeated as fact. Which, of course, is the intent of the debating formula in the first place.

Note: This writing is not a pitch for Senator Clinton. I don’t live in New York, and 2008 is still a long way away.

Here are the rules:

1. Create a false foundation.

2. Place the subject firmly on the foundation.

3. Vilify the subject with a carefully crafted distortion.

4. Reinforce the first lie with another lie.

For the record, I consider anything which is not totally factual, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to be a lie. Looking back at the interview, here is how it worked.

False foundation – the American people don’t elect angry candidates. Consider the anger of the Republican Party about corruption in government, how that anger was expressed, and who won control of the Congress in 1994. So much for the false premise.

Associate the subject – “seems to have a lot of anger." I don’t think even Mrs. Clinton would argue about that, but - it’s the association with the initial false and misleading premise that is important.

Vilify the subject with a distortion – Hillary Clinton has a very left wing record. The question here is the word “very.” Obviously, as a Democrat, Senator Clinton is left of the Neocon position on just about everything, but not that far left of moderate Republicans. She stands to the right of the extreme liberals on abortion and solutions for Iraq, and in working with Republicans on several issues.

The closing lie – Senator Clinton’s record does not reflect the values of most Americans. This is a double score in the debate. It introduces the catch word “values” and helps make a lie seem like the truth. In fact, according to several polls, Senator Clinton’s record is consistent with the views, sensibilities and values of a majority of Americans. For confirmation, I refer you to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/ to review her voting record for yourself, and to any of the nationally recognized polling sites to see what Americans really think.

The effect of the process is to alter the publics' perception of reality. Unfortunately, it works. It works well. But, it is only part of this story. The other part is the news media. What facts did the reporter uncover? What information did the article present that anyone really needs to know? How does this article help anyone make the kind of informed decision required of a voter? Why was the article printed in the first place?

If this were a single article presented in a single U.S. news outlet, these questions would be no more than good discussion points for a journalism class. However, articles like this have become increasingly more evident in the past several years and have significantly shaped the political landscape. Attacks in this format have been the undoing of the likes of Max Cleland, John Kerry and John McCain. In all cases, the attacks were presented as ‘news’ by the media, and given much more time and space than the efforts made to correct the misconceptions.

There is only one plausible conclusion to be drawn from this. The major news outlets which are complicit in this kind of pseudo-journalism are no longer the unbiased protectors of truth that they once were. Honor and intellectual integrity are values which have been discarded by corporate owned media in favor of politically motivated propaganda.

That’s the story behind the story –

Now the Epilogue.

America is in dire need of a national political news outlet which will present the truth substantiated by fact, and refuse to participate in the convoluted pseudo-journalism which has decimated our faith in the industry. A very costly endeavor to be sure. Who among the wealthy will take up the cause of restoring honor and intellectual honesty to the Fourth Estate? Who will lead the effort to ensure that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, does not, as Lincoln said, perish from the earth? Is there anyone?

 

February 1, 2006

Solving the Riddle of the State of the Union Speech

 At times it looked like a High Catholic Mass with all those well-dressed folk sitting, standing, sitting, standing ad nauseam while the preacher spread the word. That’s as far as the analogy goes, however. There was a lot of colorful content in the President’s speech. And, since the audience was wearing colored glasses – a different color for each faction – it’s no surprise that the true colors of the presidents words were not easily discernable.

The truth is carefully hidden. The trick is to find out what color the president’s glasses are. That is not an easy task, because he doesn’t want you to see what he sees. But, it is possible. By watching those whose glasses you can see, and paying attention to how colors mix to create new colors, you can get bits and pieces of the picture from the audience. What you have then, is a box of fragments – like a jigsaw puzzle with no picture on the box.

When you shake the box to view the pieces, a lot of different images come to mind. No matter, it’s part of the game. Just keep shaking the box until one image comes to mind more often that the rest. But remember, you are also wearing colored glasses. You and I and our neighbors, each with different colored glasses, will then try to convince each other that what we see is the true picture. But, is there only one true picture? No. There are several, so what do we do now, argue about which is more true than the rest? That is what usually happens. Let’s try something different.

Let’s imagine that each picture can be etched on a sheet of glass. Then let’s put all the pictures in a pile, line them up, and see if we get a new composite picture, or just a nonsensical blur.

There is a picture of America engaged in a righteous and glorious war against terrorism in Iraq, for which $350 billion well-spent dollars and 2300 soldiers lives have been paid.

There is a picture of America engaged in an imperialist adventure in Iraq, which has wasted 350 billion dollars and destroyed many thousands of innocent lives.

There is a picture of a strong American Economy with high corporate profits and high return on investments.

There is a picture of a failing American Economy with stagnant or falling wages and rising cost of necessities.

There is a picture of a strong American President using the full constitutional power of his office, boldly leading the country to preserve freedom, spread Democracy and protect the homeland.

There is a picture of a President overstepping his authority, taking us to unnecessary war, spreading American corporate interests, and doing little to protect the homeland.

There is a picture of a President urging Congress give him rightly needed new authority to gather intelligence on Americans because some of them might be working for the enemy.

There is a picture of a President already abusing his authority now demanding new power from Congress to spy on his personal enemies and any Americans who might not approve of the direction of his leadership.

There is a picture of a President championing the cause for strong support of Christian values, which are the values of the majority.

There is a picture of a President demanding that the rights of some are trampled for no better reason than ensuring the support of the self-righteous.

There is a picture of an American President working hard to unite the country by providing clear goals which should appeal to everyone.

There is a picture of an American President carefully manipulating his words and the legislation he suggests to create and maintain deep divisions in society.

There is a picture of a President asking Congress for the power of Line-Item-Veto in order to help stamp out pork-barrel-spending.

There is a picture of a President who is demanding Line-Item-Veto power in order to disregard those compromises of hard-working members of Congress that don’t fit his purposes.

There is a picture of a President asking congress to balance the budget by reducing spending for entitlements.

There is a picture of a President asking congress to renege on earlier promises to assist those most in need.

There is a picture of a President asking for tax cuts for the nation.

There is a picture of a President asking for tax cuts for the rich.

When the pictures are finally stacked, one on the other, there is little doubt about the underlying reality. There are two clear and indisputable images which show through all the conflicting visions of right-wrong, good-bad, peace-war, etc. The images are of the movement of money from the poor to the rich, and the movement of power from Congress and the Court to the Presidency. The combined effect of these movements is to concentrate wealth, and to ensure that the voice of the people, acting through Congress or the Court, will soon be too weak to do anything about it.

President Bush’s State of the Union Speech was carefully crafted to present the proposals which keep these processes moving. At the same time the speech was intended to blur our vision with images which played to our emotions of fear, hatred, greed, and self-righteousness. The speech was extremely well written, and President Bush presented it with the skill of a great orator.

The future is now in the hands of those who still have the power to reverse these movements. Only if they have the wisdom to perceive, the desire to act, and the determination to prevail, will we avoid a future in which a very few enjoy the fruits of the labor of a vast majority.

You've heard my answer. Did I solve the riddle or not? The most important question is -- what do you think?

January 29, 2006

A Time For Impeachment

Why is America so politically divided? Could it be that a game mentality has replaced wisdom in our government? This should be a rhetorical question, but unfortunately it is not. Winner-take-all may be good for baseball, but definitely not for a democratic government. Far too many citizens seem to feel that when "their side" wins an election, the elected representative is responsible only to them. The representative also relies on this bizarre notion to press the agenda of the party they represent. This position is selfish, childish and extremely destructive to our form of democratic government.

Many recent elections have been decided by an extremely thin margin. The adolescent winner-take-all mentality demonstrated by a majority of Senators and Representatives today allows them to dispassionately disregard up to 49.9% of the people they are supposed to represent. The voting records which substantiate the positions taken by each Senator and Congressperson are available at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/. Unfortunately, the decisions of the Executive Branch are classified secret and have been impounded.

In the past five years of dominance over both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the Republican Party has taken this high school definition of winning to a degree seldom seen outside the arena of spectator sports. One thing is certain, the opinions of half of the population of the United States today are having little impact on decisions which affect them.

The latest cries of Bush-won-so-give-him-what-he-wants, is an extreme example of adolescent thinking. When we elect a President we understand that he will have leanings toward one position or another which are different from many of us. However, we do not expect the "losing side" to be ostracized from the political process. We do not expect that the President will act like some college football star and insist that his way is the only way, and only the wants of his team matter. We do expect the President to be an example of wisdom and statesmanship. We expect that his leadership is such that not one citizen feels that their opinion didn’t matter, even when decisions are made contrary to that persons desire.

President George W. Bush shows every indication of desiring Coronation. His use of recess appointments and signing statements demonstrate a contempt for the will of the people which is further demonstrated by his condescending doublespeak. There can be no doubt that our President lied us into war, we have documentation to prove it. There can be no doubt that his agenda trumps ours, and he keeps his agenda carefully hidden. There can be no doubt that he perpetuates a divided electorate in order to keep us busy fighting amongst ourselves so we have little interest in watching him unravel our Constitution. The smirk on his face, when presenting his position was once considered an unfortunate mannerism. The performance of his branch of the government in times of crisis leaves not a hint of doubt that his smirk reflects his security in knowing that even if we can prove he is lying there is nothing we can do about it.

To make matters worse, reflections of the President’s condescension can be seen on the faces of far too many members of Congress as they disregard confirmed facts during their speeches in favor of uttering hyperbole when justifying their positions. Those congresspersons play the adolescent game of follow-the-leader instead of demonstrating the compassion, understanding and wisdom we should hope for and expect to find in those elected to such high office. Every day that passes brings us closer to the destruction of the government our founders formed and fought for.

That fight, the American Revolution, was necessary, as we know, in order to get out from under the contemptuous rule of their own King George. Our government, and the very essence of who we are, is at risk today. It is past the proper time for impeachment, but not too late to get the job done. If we don’t do it now, we may very well not have sufficient rights remaining to get it done in the future. In the game being played today there will be only one winner. If it is the President, he will assume winner-take-all. For all our sakes, the winner must be "We the People."

January 23, 2006

Are those books for Education or Indoctrination?

 

Due to our public schools failure to prepare young adults for participation in our government, the phrase, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," is little more than a collection of pretty sounding words which convey a warm, fuzzy feeling. Our constitution tells us we are a "nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Abraham Lincoln’s question of whether "any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure," is being answered in the negative as we watch.

Today we are in a class war, but only one side knows it’s raging. We are in an economic war, but only one side understands the rules. Our government is waging war against itself, but it is being ignored because the average voter believes they have no voice in the matter. A lot of prominent people and a great many ordinary citizens have stated that most voters aren’t smart enough or aware enough to properly exercise the duty and responsibility of voting. That’s a very harsh pronouncement. The fact is that the electorate is intelligent enough, but woefully uneducated in critical areas. The vast majority appear to be simply ignorant of exactly how our social, political and economic systems work.

High school students are prepared to work and earn a living in society, and that’s good. But, they are not taught to be critical of the social, political and economic system they live under until they have had a chance to cast their first ballot. Probably most, by that time, have adopted the political party and social attitude of their parents or peers without a second thought. Then, if they attend college they may begin to discuss these issues. The discussion, unfortunately by that time, is undertaken with extreme prejudice.

There are three basic lies taught to every public school child. These lies are incessantly repeated and reinforced until graduation. 1) America is a classless society. 2) Anything which is good for business is good for the working people. 3) Judges, Congresspersons, and the President work equally hard for all citizens. Anyone who believes even one of these lies is not prepared to function as part of "We the People" when it’s time to vote.

This situation was born in the late 1940's, after the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the end of World War II. In the years prior to that time, our society and our economy were becoming more and more socialist, as the Congress and the President worked to ensure the well being of all citizens. Then, under the guise of keeping our country safe from our enemies, Senator Joe McCarthy launched his campaign to drive communism out of the country. No one was beyond the reach of his powerful committee, and by the time the committee was disbanded there wasn’t a grade school student in the country who could define democracy, socialism, capitalism or Communism as a unique idea. Capitalism is the economic system of a democracy, which is what we have, and it is good. Socialism is the economic system of Communism, which is what they have and it is bad. The accepted definitions were so muddled as to be meaningless for any purpose except political indoctrination.

We see the results of this kind of education in the news every day. Questions concerning the authority of Congress, the role of the Supreme Court, and the power of the President are being discussed, and commentators and editors are making their feelings known. Unfortunately, much of the discussion is simply beyond the scope and understanding of the listener. It is well past time for a change.

Senator Joe McCarthy has been denounced for his excesses in routing out communist sympathizers. Times have changed, so we are told. However, public schools, still seem to avoid discussion of alternate economic theories beyond indoctrination levels, or even discuss capitalism in depth without political overtones. The result is that the majority of the working class does not have sufficient foundational education to even be concerned about what is happening around them – or to them. To add real-world clarity to a discussion of capitalism, our children, the next influx of labor, need a working definition of capital which will help them think more clearly about what they are told.

Historically we have said that capital is the money which is used to purchase or create the means of production. This is a good definition for looking at an abstract process, but it lacks both depth and clarity when it comes to teaching about the impact of capitalism on society. When we talk about capital, we should be teaching that it is the money that some people have in excess of what they need for food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and a little bit for leisure activities, which is used to purchase the means of production.

This is money that the majority of the working class will never have. As a result, by definition workers are not capitalists and the vast majority will never become capitalists except in the sense of political attitude. The essence of capitalism is that capitalists, those with capital, buy the servitude of those without capital at the lowest price possible in order to use their labor, manual or intellectual, to amass more money. Everyone who cannot exist for the extent of their lifetime with only what they have in the bank today is a member of the labor pool. The fact that some of the laborers can live for an extended period of time without additional funds can hold out for a higher price, does not remove them from the labor pool. This condition simply allows them to enjoy a less obvious position of servility. The result is codified class slavery as was the case when the word was coined. 'Slavonic captive': the Slavonic peoples were reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century.

When we think of slavery in the United States, we imagine a person captured from a foreign country and sold to an individual to do labor for that individual. Most people would add that the labor is done for free, but that was never the case. No money changed hands, but if the slave owner wanted work done, the slaves needed food, clothing and shelter, as well a some level of health care. After all, how much work can a hungry, sick person do?

Amendment XIII of the constitution refers to the elimination of slavery in the United States. Section 1 states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Section 2 states: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." But the laws have not eliminated slavery, only bondage. A form of slavery, however benign, remains the essence of our economic system.

Everyone who lives from paycheck to paycheck is enslaved to some degree. Selling whatever talent they have to the highest bidder in order to obtain food, clothing, shelter and health care, they enter into an undeniable slave/master relationship. That relationship becomes astoundingly clear when we look closely at our political parties and their platforms. Historically, the Republican Party’s form of capitalism has been based on maintaining a starving workforce with an absolute minimum ability to confront the owners of the means of production for the betterment of wages or working conditions. Both of these things require either additional capital or reduction in profit. The Democratic Party has historically insisted on a more moderate form of capitalism. The Democratic Party’s brand of capitalism is based on the principle of a content workforce, and as such embraces some socialistic principals to some degree, which might be considered a more humane application of capitalist principles.

Neither party will speak about the inherent owner/slave relationship of the capitalistic economy. What they do speak about are things which can be done at no cost to the rich. How much does it cost to limit marriage to a man and a woman? How much does it cost to refuse an abortion to the victim of rape or incest, or someone who simply can’t provide the basic necessities of life to the newborn? How much does it cost to provide social freedoms to people who have been denied such freedoms by bigotry and hatred? The answer, of course, is that these things cost nothing. As a result, keeping their real objectives secret, the political parties go to great lengths to use their cost free principles to divide and conquer the electorate.

During this last run of Republican political dominance, the economic principle, that of keeping the workforce in need and powerless, has reached an extreme. It was during the tenure of President Franklin D. Roosevelt that the conscience of the government reached its apex in favor of the working class. With FDR’s passing, the wealthy reacted immediately to reverse the swing of the pendulum. The question is then, how long will it take the working class to begin to reverse the swing of the pendulum this time?

So what does all this talk of politics have to do with education? Well, the working class has recognized that something is wrong. Unfortunately, when they are told that the problem is rampant unfettered capitalism many react as if the very idea is unpatriotic. This response is not founded in education, but in indoctrination. If they cannot get past the political indoctrination to deal with economics, whose fault is it? Well, it is not their own fault. Neither is it the fault of their parents. How can a parent be expected to recognize what is missing from an education when what is missing was never a part of their own?

For the same reason, it’s also not the teacher’s fault. When it comes to democracy and capitalism, we have all been subjected to indoctrination since the 1940's. The responsibility for this lack of awareness of economic principles – and how the use and misuse of these principles can affect the lives of American citizens – rests directly, and heavily, on the educational system.

In order for our form of government to survive, every high school graduate must have a thorough, not a cursory, understanding of our government and our economic system. By allowing political and economic ignorance to exist through high school, the educational system fails in its duty to fully educate. Students graduating from high school today understand DNA and RNA, which very few will ever need. How their economic system works, and how their government – the best ever conceived – is supposed to function, appears to be beyond them. This is a national disgrace.

Based on all available evidence, the majority of today’s electorate lacks a solid understanding of the social, political and economic principles which underlie our society. This, unfortunately, includes those who become journalists and use their profession to spread their misunderstanding. Our only hope for the survival of our nation, a nation created to throw off a tyrannical rule, is that the public school system begins very soon to educate rather than indoctrinate.

January 13, 2006

Dear Senators,  In regard to Judge Alito . . .

After eighteen hours of listening to Senators question Judge Alito, very little has changed except that what was once just hearsay is now first hand evidence. Judge Alito, if given the opportunity, will vote to decimate Roe v. Wade. He will, if confirmed, support the Presidents’ power to ignore the laws passed by Congress. As a Justice, Judge Alito will strengthen the power of law enforcement to intrude on the lives of ordinary citizens. A Justice Alito can be expected to enrich corporations at the expense of the rights of workers, and reverse gains made by women and minorities. He will, if given a share of the final and unquestionable authority of the United States Supreme Court, diminish the ability of Congress - and the Supreme Court itself - to oversee the actions of the Presidency.

No, not even once did Judge Alito directly confirm any of these statements. He also did not, even once, choose to deny them. Instead, hiding behind some supposed ethical tenet which keeps us from knowing his position on the law, refused to answer direct questions. But, in his refusal, his careful choice of words left his innermost beliefs unmistakable. Samuel Alito, the man, showed himself to be extremely sincere and intellectually honest. So much so, that even as he dodged issues, he could not bring himself to even feint toward a belief he doesn’t truly hold. The result was that what he did not say provided volumes of solid information.

Judge Alito is undoubtedly a warm hearted, gentle and humble individual who obviously believes he is not following an agenda. The glowing testimonials delivered by his fellow judges made it clear that, in their minds, Judge Alito is the epitome of self-restraint in his application of the law. However, we must remember that they too spend their lives in the intellectual pursuit of dissecting the words of earlier decisions in order to apply the ones which strike them as most reasonable.

Therein lies the rub. What Judge Alito honestly believes to be reasonable is quite different from the vast majority of his peers, especially when it comes to individual rights, corporate responsibility, Congressional authority and presidential power.

Those who would support Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States primarily on the belief that Roe v. Wade must be overturned would be well advised to consider carefully the total long term cost of that action.

To those who would say that Judge Alito's digressions from mainstream thought have been minimal in number and should be disregarded, I suggest the opposite. Judge Alito's digressions from mainstream thought have been, and will continue to be, tremendous in impact, and should carry tremendous weight in the Senate's decision.

Senators, the rest is up to you.

 

January 3, 2006

Preparing for Nov. 7, 2006 Election: 10 Months to Study for the Test, and Only One Chance to Pass

This morning each one of us woke up as one of 300,000,000 citizens of the United States. Two hundred twenty million of us are old enough to vote, and are supposedly responsible for our own well being. Five million of us are old enough to fight and possibly die for our country, but not yet old enough to drink. Some of us pray for the rest of us, and some of us prey on t