Mistake or Reckless Disregard for the Truth

US Intelligence Agencies got a scorecard of "dead wrong" on WMD in Iraq while the Bush Administration gets a pass on manipulating intelligence. However, in a recent blog Will Pitt reminds us of some details that call the report into question.

First, he reminds us of the Chalabi scandal about a group called OSP created by Rumsfeld and comprised of idealogs inexperienced in intelligence gathering that aggresively pushed unsubstantiated theories about WMD in Iraq.

Second, Pitt reminds us of that plagerized British report used by Colin Powell for his now infamous WMD speech before the UN, complete with fake vial of anthrax.

Then, he reminds us of the constant statements about the war being necessary because of Iraq's WMD made by Cheney, Fleischer, Rice and Bush made in 2002 and 2003, well after it became apparent that nothing was going to be found in Iraq.

Pitt's reminders are important because there is a difference between acting on incorrect information and acting with reckless disregard for the truth.

In law, the term "reckless disregard" generally means gross negligence without concern for danger to others. In product liability and some defamation cases, reckless disregard for the truth can be found when a statement is made without reasonable care as to whether it is true or false. In some cases, reckless disregard has been found when there has been a failure to verify circumstances where verification is practical. However, in other defamation cases, courts have had a stricter standard and find reckless disregard only when there is a high degree of awareness that the statement is probably false.

Now, I am just an average citizen sitting in front of my computer after a long day at work and I have no evidence to prove what was known or what was reasonably verifiable, but even without that information, it seems to me that a pretty good case for reckless disregard for the truth can be made here. Looking at Pitt's timeline, one can see that the Administration kept using the argument well after the evidence had been discredited; after Chalabi had been discredited; and after the British report was found to be plagerized from a grad student.

Apart from the timeline, there is the vial of pseudo-anthrax that Sec. Powell brought to the UN. I guess he never actually said it was anthrax, but he used it as a prop. He used a prop to illustrate the amount of anthrax it would take to kill a bunch of people, but this was not a theatrical performance. People were sent to war and people died because of statements dramatically supported by that prop.

The fundamental problem to me here is that the Administration knew it was aggressively seeking evidence of WMD from any source willing to give it whether verified or not, through agents untrained and inexperienced in intelligence gathering, but with ideological reasons to find it. The Administration agressively and dramatically publicized the evidence before it was developed and verified, with no evidence of equally agressive actions to verify it, and continued to publicize this evidence after it was discredited. This behavior seems like reckless disregard for the truth to me, particularly when the danger to others was so clear.

Values Question

There are people who never met Terri Schiavo mourning quite dramatically outside her hospice. I wonder why they weren't around to mourn, faint and rend garmets in front of the White House when they were creating the budget to cut the Medicaid that kept Terri in the hospice. What about those similarly situated to her who are currently in hospice care. Will they get the attention? funding? or is it just no fun when the funds are actually used to care for the person and the press and Tom DeLay aren't out there egging them on?

If I seem cold hearted toward Ms. Schiavo, rest assured that I am not. I feel truly bad for her situation and the circus that was created around her. However, to me, Terri died 15 years ago and was not allowed to rest until today. I am happy for her now.

Mental note to self: get that living will executed!

More on what McCain will not investigate

The story of Abramoff and GOP congressmen gets more interesting all the time. Why won't the impecably honest John McCain investigate? Maybe his credentials are not so impecable.

More on the Culture of Freedom

I did a google search on the phrase Culture of Freedom and got a lot! Here are some of the links that discuss the Culture of Freedom:

Building a Culture of Freedom Our Liberty Must Not Be Taken for Granted

Common Dreams--Building a Culture of Freedom

A Culture of Freedom?

Cultural prerequisites of freedom

freeculture.org

Not exactly what I had in mind, but to some it does mean freedom from duty: A Culture of Subservience

The libertarians get it, but don't: http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2003/libe233-20030810-02.html

Some people don't get it at all: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor64.html

By searching on the Culture of Freedom, I saw how it means different things to different people. I wish people understood that some things that seem like freedom can really be the opposite. Freedom to discriminate, ends freedom for the victims of discrimination, freedom to own assault weapons ends freedom of non-violent people who lose their neighborhoods to violence. Freedom to practice your religion in the courts , in congress and in other public arenas ends freedom for those who believe differenlty.

Freedom comes with responsibility as does democracy.

Powell has to live with it, some have to die with it

Powell said he was "furious and angry" that he had been misinformed about Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction when he laid out the case for war before the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003.

"It was information from our security services and from some Europeans, including Germans. Some of this information was wrong. I did not know this at the time," he told the magazine.

"Hundreds of millions followed it on television. I will always be the one who presented it. I have to live with that."

My question: What took him so long? He could have saved lives by saying this earlier.

They get us because we don't make it our business to know and understand

I met a financial advisor last night who did not know that the Bankruptcy Law had changed. A person in the financial industry had no idea, so how is the average person to know and understand the meaning of these changes.

Here is a short summary if you want to know and understand:

The change in the law is called the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Another Orwellian misnomer, the bill does little to prevent the real abuses of bankruptcy like the protected trusts in which some states allow corporate criminals to stash their ill gotten gains and the predatory lending practices of the big credit card companies and mortgage brokers who lure unsuspecting folks into high interest, risky loans. It doesn't help victims of identity theft or terminal illness either as all amendments to do so were defeated. It also doesn't change the Chapter 11 laws for big business.

What does the bill do?

*It raises the presumption that an individual debtor is abusing the bankruptcy law increasing the likelihood that individual bankruptcies will be dismissed or forced into a Chapter 13 payment plan, denying the debtor the ability to start again with a clean slate.

*It substitutes the current flexible discretionary means test with an inflexible, overinclusive standard that will force debtors out of Chapter 7 into Chapter 13, denying the debtor the ability to start again with a clean slate.

*It eliminate the ability of Chapter 13 debtors to “strip down” liens on personal property. This will eliminate the ability of a debtor without the income to confirm a plan under Chapter 13 to obtain a discharge, again denying the debtor the ability to start again with a clean slate.

*It forces the debtor to use credit counseling services, which of course sounds good, but actually forces a person already plagued with financial problems into an industry with lots of complaints and problems with consumer fraud allegations.

*It makes more debts nondischargeable, denying the debtor the ability to start again with a clean slate.

All this sounds pretty good to you, huh? You are imagining those deadbeats with great cars, taking lavish vacations from their luxury homes furnished by designers. If that were the case, the law would be ok. But that is not the case. This law will mostly affect people facing financial disaster because of illness leading to job loss and medical bills, seniors trying to stay in their homes and pay their prescription drug bills to that other government-protected sweetheart industry, and small business owners just trying to make a go of it.

They used to have debtor's prison. Incarcerating people for not paying their debts timely, of course reducing their ability to pay their debts and get out of prison so they can make money to pay their debts. Debtors' prison was eliminated and the concept of the clean slate resulted in the Bankruptcy Laws we lived under for many years. The idea was that people who get into debt are not all horrible deadbeats, but people trying to live good, productive lives who may have had some bad luck. Bankruptcy provided the safety net that allowed people to recover from personal tragedy or start businesses without fear of ultimate and lifelong financial disaster and allowed people with bad luck start again.

Big business, afraid of the small businesses that could be created with the bankrupty safety net, don't give up their own safety net in this so-called reform act.

Then, there are the credit card companies who paid good money in campaign contributions for the privilege of squeezing out the last drops from the proverbial turnip.

This is why it is important to know and understand what is happening in the Congress. Politics is not all jockeying for power and position. It creates real laws that affect people like you. The bankruptcy law changes will have a real effect upon your life and the lives of your friends, neighbors, business associates and on your community. Know and understand them.

Bring 'em home instead

Mark Kirk proudly proclaims in his newsletter:

I convened an ad-hoc congressional field hearing to focus on the needs of military reservists and their families. In the Cold War, the reserves were a force of last resort, rarely called to active duty. Today they make up almost half of the forces deployed in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost 20 percent of reservists suffer a loss of income when they go on active duty. When our country calls, reservists and national guardsmen should not suffer financially while serving on the front line.

That is why I am introducing the Americans in Uniform Act of 2005. This legislation will address issues ranging from health care needs for reservists and their families to reservist compensation, incentives for employers, transformation initiatives, troop rebalancing plans, pay differential, and equipment and training requirements. The American all-volunteer military has delivered victory after victory for the United States. The kinds of reforms we are outlining are needed to make sure that success continues.

I have a better idea. Bring 'em home. Reservists were tricked into this war. They signed on for sure, but not for what they got--a war based on lies and underfunded in life saving armour and flak jackets, and not for the time period they've been over there--so many there way over their time commitment.

Rep. Kirk, don't use them further by politically capitalizing on their situation and mysery. Bring 'em home.

So much real mysery in the world, no need to create more

Another earthquake in Indonesia with hundreds reported dead (but CNN last night was still on Schiavo and Michael Jackson).

It seems that the desire to establish fundamentalist Christianity is strong here, but is it the religious right or our real established religion, greed?

I see very little out of the Schiavo case that reminds me of real Christianity. There was a whole lot of fundraising going on, but that money was not contributing to Schiavo's care. It went to political organizations for political organizing. Politicians and activists used the tragedy of this case and some sincere devotion on the part of a small group of people as a fundraiser and membership drive.

They, the politicians, experienced some early success and some of what happened will no doubt be used for political advantage in selection of judges and attempts at further weakening the judiciary, but nothing was really accomplished for any greater good, even if you are a Christian fundamentalist and especially if you are truly concerned about Terri the person. The politicians cut and ran when the going got tough and the supposedly religious organizations used the situation to fund and advertise their own agendas.

The whole debacle illustrates why the establishment of religion is dangerous, even if it's your religion being established. Politican's and idealogs used the fundamentalists for their own benefit and disappeared when it turned out not to be so politically beneficial to them. They took from the religion what temporarily suited them and totally ignored its main teachings of love, help for the poor, caring about other people. Only the liberals who spoke against the congressional interference with a state court mentioned the problem with cuts in Medicaid that the case really illustrated. When Bush gets his way, people like Terri will be off the feeding tube for sure even absent family dispute and out on the street.

I suggest we all reject Bush, DeLay, and Kirk's form of established religion and look into how we can help the poor of Indonesia living through yet again another, real, unavoidable tragedy.

Women against their own freedom and success

I just don't get it. I talk about it with my mom and she doesn't get it either. Why are women always their own worst enemies?

Cases in point:

1. The TV show Survivor. OK I stopped watching after a while, but in all the seasons I saw, I never saw an all-woman alliance make it to the end. There was always one or two women who thought their chances were better with the men and they betrayed their female co-castaways.

2. On the Illinois Kerry campaign, a few men were leaving womens' names off lists of grassroots campaign leaders sent to the national campaign. I never had the problem because the campaign already knew who I was, but others complained and complained to me. So, I objected to the campaign and listed all the women who had been left off. Guess what, the complaining, left-off women got mad at me. I supposedly hurt the credibility of the men. What credibility? (still asking).

3. During the campaign for ERA in the 70s, Phyllis Schlafly was one of the loudest voices against it. She, however, did not stay home with the kids and hubby as she admonished other women to do. She ran for Congress, authored books and created a career for herself running around the country telling women not to run around the country having careers.

4. But now it's really serious: See this article about women in Iraq after the elections. Women are losing ground at record speed and one of the major proponents is a woman, Salama al-Khafaji, a woman who risked life and limb to run and was almost killed doing so. She is advocating replacing civil laws affecting women with Islamic Law.

One problem with spreading democracy without instilling the spirit of freedom is that it does not always increase freedom, it just makes everyone subject to current popular opinion. Not so strange that after years of Saddam, Iraq is having trouble embracing the spirit of freedom, but how did women here in the US lose it. Does "land of the free, home of the brave" apply only to men?

Hidden behind religious manipulation and fake morality

See what the corporate PACs have earned for their corporations.

New information on FBI help to Saudis leaving the US after 9/11.

Hey, who won that election in Iraq? Rembmber, the one that proved that the War was such a splendid idea after all.

Maybe all that imperialism of the 19th, 20th and 21st century, doesn't lead to such a great outcome after all, or maybe with all that oil, it's the outcome someone out there wants.

And, last by not least, what do you think all this and this means about how the oil industry has pushed out the neo-cons, and does it have anything to do with recent talk that we might declare that the new Iraqi police force is just spiffy enough for us to start removing troops (via Iran, Syria or N. Korea?)?

Culture of Freedom

The Bush Administration's best talent is that for misnaming events, occurrences, laws and other matters of life in the US to gain a political advantage. Many call this the Orwellian touch. Now, they are talking about our cultural disagreements in terms of the culture of life vs. the culture of death. If you don't agree with the Christian right, you automatically belong to the culture of death even though the culture of life folks are are often found plotting death to gain their culture of life, not to mention their love of the death penalty.

Because it is such a misnomer, I think that Democrats and Progressives need to put their own name on the subject. I suggest the Culture of Freedom because, factually, the argument is more of a clash between the Culture of Freedom vs. the Culture of Servitude.

Bush and co. represent the Culture of Servitude. They want the Federal Government to decide every aspect the most personal parts of our lives from conception to death. Marriage, pregnancy, sexual behaviour, and death are all subject to control in their culture. They don't even trust the states to operate in their normal sphere in these areas resorting to special, personal federal legislation, that is federal legislation that actually names the person and directs federally prescribed action.

Think about it: the {YOUR NAME HERE} BILL to change a state ruling that may have gone in your favor or to direct your actions to fit into their world view.

In addition to very personal matters described above, in the Culture of Servitude, the Federal Goverment will be ending social programs that have been so important in creating a free and independent middle class, free from the slavery of low wage jobs and the cycle of sheer survival. In contrast, the Culture of Freedom brought Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and as a last resort, bankruptcy protection, to secure our futures, thereby giving freedom to our present, freedom to expand our careers, have children, take business risks to create financial freedom, explore the world, all without the fear of meeting a sickly and impoverished end.

In the Culture of Freedom, we make it a priority to provide funding for public schools and financial aid for higher education. The Culture of Servitude balks at funding for education because education creates the stable, succesful middle class and those pesky successful middle class folks do not have to take low wage, high hour jobs in their fast food restaurants and big box stores. They also don't have to join the military becoming the soldiers so needed for the wars that line the pockets of the corporations.

In the Culture of Freedom, we require our media to follow standards of journalism which in a nutshell are to honestly and independently report thoroughly checked facts. Standards of journalism create freedom of choice among honestly described options which is the basis for our democracy. In the Culture of Servitude, news is manipulated so people have no visible choices and the outcome is insured.

In the Culture of Freedom, we have true democracy. In the Culture of Servitude we call it democracy, but we are controlled in body and mind from cradle to grave. I choose the Culture of Freedom.

Kirk in favor of protecting offshore oursourcing

Mark Kirk voted against the Watt Amendment to the budget bill. The amendment would have helped cut the deficit by, among other things, eliminating corporate tax incentives for off-shoring jobs.

As Greg Mysko of the Illinois Tenth District Democrats reported last year, Kirk's sentiments were with the Bush Administration supporting outsourcing. In February 2004, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors issued a report encouraging American corporations to outsource services to low-cost countries like India. Kirk's response to concerned consitutents was not helpful. All he said was: "Many IT companies are investing millions to employ services in countries such as India, China and Russia."

I used to volunteer at the Career Resource Center in Lake Forest. The place was filled with executives whose jobs were eliminated due to off-shoring of jobs. These were mostly men in their 50s with big houses with big mortgages and children off in expensive colleges. I bet a lot of these men voted for Kirk in the 2004 election. They weren't paying attention in 2004. I hope they are paying attention now as Kirk moves further right on the economy, right into the Bushes.

Media snub and media circus

CNN has gone to all Schiavo all the time coverage. The small group of fundamentalist extremists, busy getting their small children arrested in staged symbolic one act mimicks of the passion play, has taken hold of a major 24 hour worldwide news source.

On March 19 and 20, hundreds of thousands of people from dozens of countries and all across our own nation, of all cultures and walks of life, marched to show their deed concern about an unending war in Iraq. The coverage was very minimal.

Even in Chicago where police in riot gear lined the streets five deep, there was very little coverage.

My friends, Steve and Bev took these pictures in Chicago on March 19. I think they deserve more coverage and discussion than they received. Please look at them and say something; here or preferably to your local media outlets.


This isn't news? 

Here is how to get in touch with our local stations:

WLS-TV(ABC)
Ms. Emily Barr
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 750-7000
emily.l.barr@abc.com

WBBM-TV(CBS)
Mr. Joseph Ahern
Chicago, IL 60680
(312) 202-3852
jjahern@cbs.com

WMAQ-TV(NBC)
General Manager
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 836-5555

WFLD-TV(FOX)
Ms. Stacey Marks-Bronner
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 565-5580

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The wall of separation between church and state has two components: freedom to worship and freedom from establishment.

[O]ur rulers can have authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. --Thomas Jefferson, from 3 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 263

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another., Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups or vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state.-- Justice Hugo Black, in the opinion for the court, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Tell Bush, Jeb, Frist, DeLay and Kirk what you think about their theocracy. Take action now:

To oppose faith based initiatives click here.

To oppose politicizing houses of worship click here.

Make a donation to the Americans United for Separation of Church and state by clicking here.

Using faith based intitiatives to establish religion

A report from the Americans United for Separation of Church and state quoted Michigan Governon Jennifer Granholm as she was making a speech about how to bring faith based initiative money--federal funds to Michigan religious groups:

It's a bridge that will physically connect the faith community and state government," Granholm told the gathering.

I brought this up at the Tenth Dems forum with the editor of the Progressive. I asked him if he felt that this money was for the purpose of a republican strategic initiative to establish religion and that religious leaders' desire for this money was allowing them to fall into this trap. He poo pooed me. Well, I stand by my original thought. Faith based initiatives are the worst thing that ever happened to this country and I fear will be its complete downfall.

The first Amendment was created to protect religion from government and government from religion. It's what separates us from old Europe where thousands were massacred over the centuries over religious fighting and from the Taliban today, and we are throwing it away.

The progress report agrees and we may have created a martyr for them

Right-wing extremists and conservatives in Congress are using the Terri Schiavo case to attack America's judiciary and push for "more socially conservative judges and for a socially conservative Supreme Court." If they get their way, Americans – who, by large majorities, agreed with court rulings and opposed federal intervention in the Schiavo case – will have less protection from the courts the next time the federal government seeks to impose its ideology on their private lives. Despite America's disgust with the political maneuvering in the case, a small group of radicals has made Schiavo into a "potent symbol." Indeed, the legal struggle over whether to keep Schiavo alive is "blazing a direct political path from her hospice bed to the U.S. Senate's next confrontation over President Bush's judicial nominees."

It just occurred to me that W and Jeb are taking their loss so very philosophically. They are probably glad their "mission" failed because we will now be handing them an unwitting and possibly unwilling martyr for their cause.

With all this political maneuvering, it's a wonder any actually governing gets done. Maybe it doesn't?

Fight for the third branch

It has been suggested on another blog that despite the seeming defeat of the Bush administration, they actually have obtained everything for which they hoped. First, they are going to use this case as evidence that the judiciary needs to be reigned in. It has been their long time plot to destroy the separation of powers and checks and balances that prevent them from being true dictators. They have the executive branch and congress, so now it's the judiciary's turn. One strategy is to pack the supreme court with religious zealots, but that is not enough to take the control they seek. There are still the lower federal courts and state courts to reign in. Convince people that the judiciary is too independent and you might end up with legislation never concieved before constitutional to weaken the branch. The Schiavo law itself has begun the weakening process as Congress pulled jurisdiction from a state court to a federal court and none of the federal decisions addressed the issue. The Bush people knew they would not as courts never deal with the difficult, politicized issues when they can decide on an easier issue--that is a long standing court tradition.

Second, this has been a victory for Jeb Bush. Lately talk of a presidential run for him was weakening. He was not seen as a strong enough leader. This situation has put him in the national spotlight and he gets to look like a voice of reason, doing heroic deeds for the religious right while, "sadly and unfortunately", unable to change the outcome because of those darned courts.

In the coming months, we'll have to watch out for further attacks on the judiciary. It will be interesting to see if Americans fall lock, stock and barrel for this final push for hegemony or if they will wake up at the last moment and see that an American right out of a science fiction satire novel is upon them, and, if they wake up, will they care?

My Endorsement for Local Elections--Vote April 5th

Village of Deerfield:
I endorse Michelle Feldman for Village Trustee. Michelle brings a youth and freshness that the Village really needs, while being experienced enough to handle the job. She has also worked hard to hone her political and administrative skills and will be an informed and interested member of the Village's governing body.

I do not endorse for mayor. I believe that Steve Harris is competent, but has a connection to Mark Kirk that troubles me greatly. You may wonder what that has to do with Deerfield government. It has a lot to do with the tone of public discourse in the community. Kirk is very pro-war to the detriment of our highschoolers who will be trying to scare up enough money to go to college soon and his influence is also detrimental to the seniors in the community who rely upon social security to keep themselves in their homes. Kirk has made it clear that he has no opinion on social security, so it is likely he will vote as instructed by his boss in Washington. Harris is Kirk's representative in Deerfield, so I cannot endorse him. I was also appalled at Harris' treatment of Ragona at the candidate forum. His hostility was childish and inappropriate for the mayor of this town. I am sorry, Mr. Ragona. I just don't know enough about you to endorse you.

W. Deerfield Township:
I endorse Adrienne Schwarzbach Johnson for Village of Deerfield Trustee. Adrienne has not only proven experience working in her community, but also unmatched leadership and administrative experience.

Adrienne started her career in Public Administration and worked for many years helping young American’s fulfill their dreams of going to college. Adrienne also worked in other positions in the field of finance and banking and understands the importance of fiscal responsibility and, when money is spent, spending it where it will make the greatest positive difference for the community.

I had the opportunity to observe Adrienne as a leader and role model for the Young Tenth Dems, a student group started in Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools. Adrienne provided guidance to the students and helped them understand how to turn their ideas in to action. She was a terrific role model particularly for the young women in the group who saw this dynamic and accomplished woman listening to her community and helping it achieve

To bring excellent administration, fiscal intelligence and leadership to West Deerfield Township, please elect Adrienne Schwarzbach Johnson Township Trustee.

Highland Park:
I endorse Jim Kirsch for City Council. Jim Kirsch is one of those rare individuals who genuinely cares about people. I first met Jim at a meeting in Lake Forest. He was instantly friendly and warm. At first, I thought maybe he was just schmoozing, but it turns out he's just that way and does not forget you after the fact. Jim was very supportive of my political work and always takes the time to check up and see how I'm doing even though I am not a political big shot in the District. Jim also cares about affordable housing which is not talked about much, but is one of the most important issues in the US these days. Jim will not squander taxpayer money, but he does care for those who are not rich and powerful and works for them as much as his more affluent constituents. I don't agree with Jim on every issue, but if I lived in Highland Park, I'd want Jim Kirsch in the City Council to take care of my interests and concerns.

I believe in the right to life

I believe that the healthy conscious men and women fighting in Iraq have the right to life.

I believe that Iraqi men, women and children have the right to life.

I believe that the poor and homeless have a right to life.

I believe that the teen girl, afraid of parents and her judgmental community teaching nothing about birth control, who has to resort to a secret bothched abortion has the right to life.

I believe that the orphan living off deceased parents' social security has the right to life.

I believe that the senior needing hundreds of dollars each month for prescriptions has the right to life.

I believe that people who live near power plants, coal mines, chemical manufacturing plants have a right to life.

A great quote from the Washington Post columnist Dionne:

People who lack access to health care because they can't afford insurance often die earlier than they have to -- with absolutely no national publicity and with no members of Congress rising up at midnight to pass bills on their behalf. What is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within the health care system or by their lack of access to it?

What does it mean to be pro-life? As far as I can tell, most of those who would keep Schiavo alive favor the death penalty. Most favored allowing the assault weapons ban to expire and oppose other forms of gun control. The president makes an excellent point when he says we "ought to err on the side of life." It's a shame how rarely that principle is put into practice.

No complaints, just observations and Star Trek

OK, if you read this blog at all, you know I always have complaints, but I'm not writing about complaints today, just observations.

Had a great dinner with a great Tenth District Dem tonight. The conversation got around to understanding the meaning of religious scripture and history and learning the true lessons vs. dogma and blindly following rules. We observed that too many now take the easy approach by following dogmatic rules without looking for the meaning and too many religious leaders encourage them to do so. Religion is supposed to be about learning, grace, compassion, and faith is supposed to help you go on even in the face of adversity. It is not about blindly following strict rules like some recipe to follow in order to get into heaven.

The Constitution is like that too. It has to be read for meaning and practiced as a living document with a long history of interpretion that must be studied and applied to current situations with thought and care, not avarice. Some of the DeLay folks (when not gloating about how easy it is to use real suffering people for political gain) are spouting that Clause 9 of Section 8 giving Congress the power "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;" means that Congress sets the jurisdiction of the federal courts. There is in fact a statute passed by Congress long ago that does set jurisdiction for the federal courts. However, for the better of 216 years, that has been interpreted to mean and presuppose that there is a federal question involved in the case. A federal question has to be either diversity or subject matter jurisdiction, not just a state case the republican party thinks will generate good PR or that will sell to a religious crowd.

Anyway, all this reminded me of an old Star Trek episode (as all interesting points of government, morality and ethics are illustrated in some Star Trek episode) where Captain Kirk (no relation to Mark Steven) and the gang happen upon a terrible authoritarian society wherein the abused and defeated people keep reciting gibberish. Eventually, our heros find out that what they are reciting is the US Constitution, but that over time and with lack of understanding, it has become nothing more than slurred together and mispronounced words that end up having no meaning at all. Creepy back in the '60s when the episode was made, but creepier now because we are moving in that direction.

A further observation is another Star Trek truth: all this arrogance could very well be their downfall just like Ricardo Montalban as the title character in Wrath of Khan.

Another observation that we made is how lucky we are to live in the Illinois Tenth where even under the adversity of mis-representation in this kirkdom (Mark Steven, not Captain), we have a great and heroic support system of some of the most courageous and tireless grassroots workers in the country; folks who stand for their beliefs hoping to make the US an inspiration to the world again in a district where winning is not a given. They include:

candidates who put themselves out there against difficult odds;

doctors who fight for disabled veterans;

businesspeople who take risks for peace, not profits;

computer experts who bring electronic order to our cackle of meetings, events, alerts and discussion;

teachers who teach their students to think;

students who think, study and work hard;

lawyers who argue for the greater good, not billable hours;

religious people of various faiths and athiests who join together and agree to disagree and work together for humanity, faith, reason, compassion, truth, and just plain old common sense.

Have to spread a good line

Remember when I talked about McCain investigating a swindle of a Native American casino and he was going to turn a blind eye to the republican MOCs who profited from it, well here is a further article about the investigation. Not as interesting without the investigation that should happen, but there is a great line and it is a good description of one of the major problems with the republicans.

Here's the good line: "Many of the young innovators were behaving like people who, having read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative," embraced the conservative part while discarding the conscience part."

Heck, I'll give you the rest of the article because it's just all good:

Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since 1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!" as Abramoff wrote to Reed.

They made at least $66 million.

This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own.

It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them.

I have an idea

Instead of killing kids and moms in Iraq to impose our form of government on them, lets impose our form of government on us!

Read the Constitution.

The Amendments are good reading too.

Schiavo, the Constitution and Life

Since we are so concerned about one life, that we are willing to throw away 216 years of Constitutional Law and Federalism, then why are we ok with killing our soldiers and Iraqis?

If Bush and the congress are so concerned about Terri Schiavo, then why do they want to cut the medicaid that is paying for her nursing care? Will the Bush family take her in when medicaid is no longer there? Will Barbara and Jenna change her diapers?

Of course, they won't and of course they don't care about Terri Schiavo. This is just part of the strategic initiative to insinuate religion into government to control voting and to strong arm the Democrats who are so afraid of looking like ghastly beasts if they vote against the unconstitutional Schiavo law that they are again backing down and acting like lap dogs. It also works to divert attention away from Bush's failure to sell his lies on Social Security and away from the war and continued daily deaths.

The Constututional problems are Federalism and Full Faith and Credit. Section 8 of Article I enumerates out the powers of the US Congress and does not include anything remotely like the Schiavo bill. The 10th Amendment gives the states any powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. So, the Schiavo matter belongs in the state court with jurisdiction.

The constitutional issue of Full Faith and Credit comes from Section 1 of Article 4 which requires that full faith and credit be given to state court proceedings. This is obviously not happening here.

Why is this important? It is important because the US is supposed to be a government of laws, not the whims of aristocrats and folks they can convince to follow them. Today, you might want to see Ms. Schiavo kept alive because you saw the sympathetic pictures of here that make her look like she in fact understands something and is somewhat responsive. However, that is not what the Florida court found and they heard the evidence. We have not. The next time the republican congress wants to promote one of its strategic initiatives, they might butt into your family or a state court ruling that went in your favor. This case provides precedent for them to do it to you and your family. Then, people who have not heard the evidence and do not know the facts will be making decisions for your family.

Bad cases make bad law. The fear of good people allow bad laws to be made.

Just in case you are interested, Bean and Kirk voted in favor of the Schiavo law.

Lessons of Iraq: War is Not the Answer - Pursuing a Vision of Peace

There were two peace rallies in Chicago this past weekend. The North Suburban Peace Initiative (NSPI) and Northbrook Peace Committee joined with American Friends Service Committee, the Episcopal Dioces of Chicago and other organizations to sponsor an event Sunday March 20 at the historic Chicago Temple in downtown Chicago.

Both the main floor and balcony of the Chicago Temple were filled to capacity for the event. The event host was Michael McConnell of the American Friends Service Committee. The speakers were: Rev. Paul Blackwell of the First United Church at the Chicago Temple, Debbie Lucey whose brother Jeffrey committed suicide shortly after returning from Iraq, Abdul Malik Mujahid, President of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, Deyar Gamil, an Iraqi-American, Rabbi Bruce Ekder of Congregation Hakafa, keynote speaker, Lila Lipscomb who was featured on Fahrenheit 9/11 as a mother who lost her son in Iraq, and surprise speaker Jan Schakwosky representative of our neighboring 9th District.

The program began with guitarist Dave Martin. Rev. Blackwell welcomed the audience and discussed the cost of war. He quoted the gospel of Luke, Chapter 14 and Verse 31, saying, "When a king goes to war, he is careful to count the cost knowing he has 10,000 soldiers and he's going to go against 20,000 so that he doesn't get in a battle he might lose." Rev. Blackwell enumerated the cost of the Iraq war to justice, freedom, dignity, lives, infrastructure, historic antiquities, our own schools, heathcare, and other public services, pitting Americans against each other.

A NSPI representative spoke about how the true greatness of the US has always been its ability to inspire the rest of the world, but we have given that up for imperialism and greed. Mr. Majahid talked about the love of the world for the US after 9/11 and how Bush has squandered it and the moral authority of the US.

Then, it got sad. Debbie Lucey talked about her brother and read some passages from his journal. Jeffrey felt like a murderer for what he did in Iraq. She also opened our eyes to the treatment of soldiers upon their return. Jeffrey clearly needed mental health treatment, but fell through the cracks of the system. At first, he was afraid to seek help because he was afraid of a dishonorable discharge from the Army. Then, it got so bad he sought out help, but despite his waiver of HIPPA and other privacy laws, the Vet neglected to tell his family about his condition. Debbie ended by saying that the war has a ripple effect and does not die with the soldier and described herself as one of the ripples.

Ms. Gamil talked about a childhood friend of hers left in Iraq who lost a child and had another child maimed in a bombing. She also talked about her concern that Bush labels any voices of dissent as unpatriotic. She said that it was Bush himself who is unpatriotic and is a threat to our security.

Then, Representative Schakowsky spoke. "It is time to bring our troops home," she said. She told a story that recently she asked Rumsfeld how many Iraqi civilians have died in the war. He answered her that he had no idea and maybe in a couple of years some historian would come up with a rought figure. Rep. Schakowsky also talked about the budget cuts that cut services the veterans who will clearly need medical and mental health care upon their return, the missing $9 million that was supposed to go toward fixing the Iraqi infrastructure and a CIA report that shows that the war is breeding a new generation of terrorists and deepening solidarity in the Muslim worlds against the US.

Lila Lipscomb quoted Dr. King. "A time comes when silence is betrayal." She urged us to speak and keep on speaking. She talked about how her son felt he had to go into the reserves to pay for college and that her family was not eligible for aid because they made $10 too much each month to qualify. She talked about the recruiters sent to the poor schools and got applause when she said that college recruiters should accompany each military recruiter allowed into the high schools. Lipscomb feels that the poor are being used for this rich man's war.

Rabbi Elder closed the program at the Temple by asserting that the war is neither right nor necessary. Rabbi Elder noted that those supporting the war for religious reasons have "more religious certainty than a religious person should have."

The program ended with more songs from Mr. Martin and a procession from the Temple to Grant Park led by a horse drawn wagon with a flag draped coffin and military families. We were all given a flower and the name of a soldier who has died in Iraq. My soldier was Tony Sherman of PA, age 43. I later found his picture on this site.

In the park there were more speeches and songs and the American and Iraqi flags were raised. Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite and Paul Vogel whos son is serving in Iraq spoke. Mr. Vogel visited his son in Iraq and met an Iraqi driver who shared his hopes and dreams for his country with Mr. Vogel. The driver was willing to drive Mr. Vogel into a Sunni area of Iraq despite being Shia because he needed the $50 each day for his family. Mr. Vogel demanded that the troops be brough home for their safety and the safety of Iraqis who are suffering under the escalation of the war due to our presence. He took exception with Democrats in Congress who say they do not like the war, but that we cannot leave Iraq. "We are not the solution", he said, "we are the problem."

Then, there was a moment of silence in which the flags were lowered to half staff to represent the American and Iraqi lives lost. The program ended with people placing flowers on the coffin representing the soldiers whos names we know and rose peddles representing the unknown dead.

The day before there was a war rally that was to begin with a procession down Michigan Avenue, the main commercial street in the City, and end in Federal Plaza. The war protesters were met with hundreds of riot geared police who forced them on the lesser streets of Clark and Deaborn. There were a lot of stories about how the rally started out peaceful, but ended in violence with 5 arrests. I have come to learn from friends who were there that 2 of the arrests had nothing at all to do with violence, but were of the group leaders attempting to negotiate passage on Michigan Avenue with the police. Another arrest was a man whose foot was stepped on by a horse. He was just in pain and, according to my friend, he did not punch a horse as many news reports said. News reports of the March 19th event also included interviews of pro-war ralliers and they got a lot of press coveage. My friend told me that there were about 7 of them, so media coverage of the pro-war protesters was greatly disproportionate to their attendance....and so it goes with the oh so conventional media.

Sunday's rally, by contrast was met with sparse police coverage of our route, no riot gear, no mounted police...just bycycles, open coats and traffic direction...a far better choice for the police to have made.


A group from the Tenth District at the Sunday rally at the Chicago Temple.


An image from the past but the picture was taken today.


Lila Lipscomb talks about her lost son.


Yellow flowers representing the soldiers whose names we know and rose peddles for the unknown dead of the Iraq War.

You'd think those boys at the Pentagon have better things to do

Someone with the domain of pentagon.mil visited this site yesterday. They entered and exited my blog on the page where I have the picture of the little girl holding a No Iraq War sign. Makes me wonder if they have some search engine looking for anything that is against the war, where they are storing this information, and to what use they intend to eventually put it.

Well here's anther picture for them, an image from yesterday's war protest in New York, draped coffins some with the American Flag and others just black cloth because the deaths of Iraqis matter too:

Maybe if the folks over there at the Penatgon spent more time trying to work out a just solution in Iraq and less time trying to stamp out all dissention in the US, everyone would be better off.

My blog is probably fairly mild compared to what is out there and how angry people are over the war. Thousands came out yesterday in 765 towns in all 50 states, and all over the world, 100,000 showing up in London according to organziers. The war is wrong on all accounts:

1. It was conceived by idealogs with a sever case of groupthink long before 9/11 and Bush's appointment to the White House.
2. It was sold to the American people with fundamentalist religious support, emotionalism over 9/11, and lies about WMD.
3. 1 + 2 beg a few questions, don't they?
4. It is monetarily benefiting defense and oil corporations with connections to the administration.
5. It is wasting US resources when there is so much need for food, education, housing, jobs, health care, nursing care and more.
6. If your cynical and thought the war would keep down gas prices, WRONG!
7. It exacerbates an already volatile situation in the region and fuels hatred of the US.
8. It has forced Iraqi women back under the veil.
9. It has taken away any moral authority the US ever had in international issues.
10. Not to mention the thousands of soldiers and Iraqis killed in the war, for nothing.

There is another event in Chicago today:

Lesson of Iraq: War is Not the Answer - Pursuing the Path to Peach
Sunday, March 20th 2005 3:00 pm
Chicago, IL USA

Program at the Temple will be followed by short procession to
outdoor flag lowering ceremony and silent vigil

Hear:
Lila Lipscomb, mother of Michael, who was killed in Iraq. Lila was featured in Fahrenheit 911
Abdul Malik Mujahid, Chair, Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago
Rabbi Bruce Elder, Congregation Hakafa
Deyar Gamil, Iraqi-American
Debbie Lucey, sister of Jeffrey, a Marine who committed suicide shortly after returning from Iraq

Download flyer at http://chicago.afsc.org

If you are over 40, this one will sound familiar

We hold Chicago Mayor Richard Daley responsible for abolishing our rights to free speech and public assembly, for abolishing our right to peacefully oppose this war.

Times They are a-Changing--so why hasn't anything changed

1968 Chicago--Police arrest hundreds of war protesters

The violence centered on two things: the Chicago police forcing protesters out of areas where they were not permitted to be; and protesters clashing with police, and their reinforcements, as they tried to march to the convention site.

2003 Chicago--Hundreds of arrested in war protests

Chicago police arrested several hundred anti-war demonstrators who blocked the intersection of Chicago and Michigan avenues tonight during a protest that wound its way north from Federal Plaza in the Loop.

2005 Chicago--City attempts again to deny peace activists their legal right to rally

As it did last year, the City has once again sought to deny peace activists their legal right to rally on Chicago's near north side and is seeking to force them instead to march down side streets with little traffic -- a move activists says isolates their message and undercuts their rights to free speech and public assembly at a time that First Amendment rights are under increasing attack.

The Times They Are A-Changin' 1964

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

Block off the old chip--my mom fights the Libertyville Library Board. If she can do it, so can you.

There is a library board member who has earned the wrath of my mom. (I could have told him that was a bad idea.) Jack Martin apparently thinks he owns the Libertyville/Vernon Hills Library system. He has been known to pull a pamphlet off the shelf because it did not fit into his world view and now, he is advocating the elimination of the Evergreen Branch, which is used by Vernon Hills residents because it is closer and the Libertyville Library is just too small.

Mr. Martin believes that he can take tax money from Vernon Hills residents, but reduce their use of the library system. He recently did a personal mailing, passing it off as an official library mailing wherein he advocates the elimination of the Evergreen Branch.

Now while my mom has been disturbed by recent world, national and local events, she never actually took action before. Mr. Martin's mailing was what it took to spur her to action. She wrote a letter to the editor to the Pioneer Press. They called her today to confirm that she wrote it, so I think it is going to get in.

I am so proud of my mom for taking action and she has now earned her license to complain. Now, we need to wake up the rest of the Tenth District to situations like the one created by Mr. Martin in Libertyville and Vernon Hills, not to mention the Mayor of Deerfield who thinks he's too good to have a challenger, the Trustees of W. Deerfield Township who think they can do nothing and collect better than $3000 each year, and our own delightful representative, Mark Kirk, who thinks being a CIA agent mixes well with being our representative and won't meet with his constituents on any subject. Rep. Kirk, of what are you afraid?

With friends like that...

Charles Schumer sent this out as part of a DSCC Action Alert:

When I first started the campaign to keep right-wing judges off our federal courts, my friend Sen. John McCain came to me and said, "Chuck, I say this to you as a friend, not as a Republican or a conservative: Don't do this. When the right wing wants something, they will make your life miserable. Look at what they did to me in the South Carolina primary."

They forgot one thing, though. I'm from Brooklyn, and I love a fight.

To me that is offensive and I wonder if McCain was not being so friendly, but making a threat. Anyway, even if McCain was not making a threat, he certainly seems to accept as a fact of live the idea that republicans can and will go after people personally if they disagree with them. This politics of bullying is wrong and offensive and should not be considered acceptable in civilized society.

Cheers to Senator Schumer for not letting McCain or the other republican bullys get to him. My dad's from Brooklyn too, so I hope I have some of that in me.

"Women still live under the shadow of the gun,"

From the Chicago Tribune Article:

Malalai Joya, a 26-year-old woman who created a stir at last year's constitutional convention by calling Afghan warlords criminals, said progress in women's rights was only cosmetic. "Women still live under the shadow of the gun," she said by telephone from her home in western Farah province. "In Kabul, some women now walk to work without a burqa. ... In the villages, there's no change. Women are still victims of violence."

In the US, we still have relatively few women in elected office. We rank 58th in the world for the percentage of woman represented in government. Women are at risk of losing rights such as choice, and much more at risk of suffering with the loss of social security and medicaid.

These are not good days for women.

Extremist House determines that there will be no death with dignity

I thought laws that cover only one particular case are unconstitutional. I'll have to look that up later. I also don't see how the House can act unilaterally. I saw Schoolhouse Rocks "Bill"!

Anyway, to assert their fundamentalist religious point of view, they continue to torture this poor woman.

Have we lost our courage?

We are in the midst of local elections while we approach the 2d anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and there has been a sort of argument going on in my district among Democrats about the Iraq War. Many local Democrats, maybe most, disagree with the war, but some disagree publicly while others want to say less about it in hopes it will satisfy enough of the pro-war Democrats or former-Democrats now on the fence because of the war issue to win their elections. Many local candidates seem to feel that they are in a bind between disappointing the anti-war crowd and their perceived risk of losing an election they would have otherwise won on a national and international issue that has little to do with local planning that is the core of the office they seek.

My question is this: How much do our local candidates owe us to be up front about their feelings about national and international issues that have little to do with the post they seek?

One friend of mine who is running for local office and is personally against the war, said that the war issue has nothing to do with the office, and should not be a part of the discussion. I am not sure I agree with that because people we elect to local office gain positions of leadership in our communities and control, to a certain extent, discourse in the community. The positions to which we elect them give them an audience and forum for discussion like nothing possessed by a regular person. The elected posts also give them a platform from which to run for higher office where such issues are relevant. A candidate's position on the war issue also tells voters a lot about the candidate's priorities and thought processes which are relevant in any election for any office.

Another friend of mine said before his local city counsel last night: "We need public forums to let people listen to the whole story. My goodness, what are we so afraid of?"

If we are not discussing the war issue locally, who will discuss it? where will they discuss it? When will they discuss it?

To the extent that our local leaders are not discussing the war and we are not asking them to do so, have we lost our courage?

Lost History

This is a very interesting article about the lost history of the US involvement in Iraq in the 1980s. It is not so lost if you are paying attention. I was in the DePaul library one day and decided to pick up a volume of old Time Magazines from 1980. In there was the now infamous Hussein/Rumsfeld smiling handshake picture and an article about how Saddam Hussein had just had several members of the Iraq congress extinguished. Apparently, Rumsfeld did not much care how Hussein rose to power so long as he could use him against then enemy no. 1, Iran. Now, Rumsfeld is Bush's Secretary of Defense and presiding over the torture of prisoners. Why are we surprised?

Tell me about Ayn Rand

I had to laugh. I am quoted on a republican blog and the writer suggests I study Ayn Rand; Ayn Rand, my grandfather’s cousin. The problem with republicans endless quoting of Ayn Rand to support their position is that they are reading their own agenda into her work and failing to look at the context of her life.

Ayn Rand started off life as Alice Rosenbaum, growing up in an infant Soviet Union. Alice’s parents were White Russians and were murdered by the Bolsheviks. She came to live with my grandfather’s family in Chicago and they found her most unpleasant to live with, but they felt a duty to her as an orphan and family. From all accounts that I have heard, they were very happy to see her successful, newly renamed after her Remington-Rand typewriter and moving far away from them.

Be that as it may, I never met her, but as a young teen, my mom suggested that I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged because, after all, she was family.

I take issue with Ayn Rand’s belief in extreme laissez faire because she fails to take into account the huge inbalance in bargaining power between rich corporations and their employees. However, I believe that Rand would have agreed with me that there is something very wrong in the current administration. She believed that government interference with peoples’ personal lives was the ultimate wrong. I cannot see her smiling on Soviet style propaganda either. She suffered greatly under the Soviets and hated them. She was also distrustful of religion and would have abhorred recent republican efforts to establish religion in the country.

I suggest these republicans re-read Ayn Rand and then look at what they have been promoting. While I disagree with Rand on many issues, I do think we’d be better off if she were alive today to defend her ideas against the neo-cons who now distort her philosophy and mis-use her name.

LISA! THIS ONE'S FOR YOU!!!

Bernard Ebbers is found guilty on all 9 counts: conspiracy, securities fraud and seven counts of filing false statements with securities regulators.

This will never bring back your 401K, pension, salary, but at least he has to pay the price and faces up to 85 years in prison for ruining your life and the lives of hundreds of other WorldCom Employees.

Know what the crying shame is in all this in addition to the personal loss of the employees, the fact the WorldCom is said to have had superior service and many tech professionals that I know are very sorry that this happened because the competitors to which they had to go are not as good.

Ebbers took a good business and trashed it.

Are we living in a bad science fiction satire novel?

Ever since the 2000 election and even more so since 9/11, I think about how it seems like we are living in a bad science fiction satire novel. I say bad because, had someone told me in 1999 that:

*Bush would be handed an election he did not win by the Supreme Court
*Saudis would attack the World Trade Center and their relatives would be ushered out of the country on planes at the behest of our government
*Postal workers and democratic party leaders would be anthraxed
*Colin Powell would get up in front of the UN and lie about WMB with a vial of talcum powder
*Americans would tacitly agree to a foreign war based on lies
*Social Security would be at real risk of being ended
*I'd be paying alternative minimum tax, but Ken Lay would not
*Just about every federal program that helps the poor would be at risk
*Television news would become nothing more than videos produced by the republican party
*Newspapers would not print comics that criticize the goverment after a better than 200 year old tradition of political cartooning
*a fake reporter would become part of the White House Press Corps using an alias and no one would care
*Dan Rather would be taken off the air in disgrace while Bill O'Reilly continues on
*John Kerry's military career would be called into question while Bush's is accepted
*Enron linked republicans, after Enron trashed the CA power grid during an energy crisis, would push Gray Davis out of the CA governor's mansion replacing him with Arnold Schwarznegger who bragged about his groping of women
*Women would say on television that they feel safer with Bush as president
*The US government fund right wing Christian sponsored social programs and allow them to discriminate in hiring and make services contingent on participation by recipients
*Separation of powers and checks and balances would be near complete collapse

...and more...

I'd have told them they were describing a badly written science fiction satire that had so many issues at one time that it was unbelievable. The writer better do a re-write.

It's nothing better than bad fiction, so let's do a re-write of our messed up country.

Do you know anyone who has an extra $5000 per month?

After taking away bankruptcy protection for individuals with health care emergencies and small entrepreneurs hoping to break out of dead end jobs, the Senate now takes up Medicaid cuts. One of the cuts they are hoping to make is in nursing home funding. This is a serious cut and not just for seniors. Anyone with a family member who needs round the clock nursing will suffer. This could be seniors, but can also be cancer patients, accident victims or anyone else with a serious condidion that requires round the clock care.

Case in point: I have a friend whose 86 mother had colin cancer. The mother could not only no longer live alone, she could not feed herself, bath herself, dress herself, use the restroom herself.... You get the picture.

My friend had to work a full time job to support herself and her daughter also worked a full time job to support herself. It was not that they were uncaring or lazy. They simply could not care for the mother. So, they looked in to nursing homes. They wanted one that would treat the mother well, feed her well, bathe her regularly etc. They also wanted one that was cheerful and reasonable nice. That was their mother and grandmother and they loved her.

Well, they found a reasonable nursing home, not lavish, but reasonably comfortable with what looked like good care. The cost was $5000 every month. This was 5 years ago so now, I am guessing, it would be more.

My friend was just getting by on her salary as was her daughter and neither could afford $5000 every month for the nursing care the mother needed. So, my friend talked to the social workers who helped her understand how she could pay for the nursing care that her mother needed. She found out that her mother would have to use up every red cent in her savings. After all the mother's money was gone, she could apply for Medicaid and Medicaid would then pay for the nursing home if the application was accepted.

My friend also found out that rich people can shelter their money and assure inheritance by their children and other family members and still use Medicaid. All they have to do is pay for the nursing care for 3 years and go on Medicaid thereafter. This is so because the state Medicaid applications only require financial information from a patient for the past 3 years. After 3 years, a patient can recieve Medicaid no matter how much money he sheltered 3 years prior.

So, there a loophole for the rich in Medicaid and that could be a great way to save money in the program. Simply stop giving Medicaid to wealthy families who have sheltered the patient's funds. Not in Bush's America! How do they propose to end Medicaid's woes? By decreasing federal funding by at least $60 billion over the next 10 years and start a system of spending caps. According to the National Women's Law Center, the federal government funds 50% of the Medicaid program in Illinois. So, these federal cuts will leave many poor Illinoisans with drastically reduced funding and, likely, no nursing home care at all. Due to demographics of nursing home residents and Medicaid recipients, the cuts will have a more profound effect on poor women over 80 with no living spouse or close living relatives. Compassionate conservatism: putting lonely, old and cancer-stricken widows on the street, breaking hard working families who, of course, can no longer obtain bankruptcy protection, ruining lives.

John McCain doesn't live up to good reputation, so why does he have one?

John McCain has made a pretty good showing in recent polls for the 2008 Presidential election. Many are relieved that a "moderate" republican like McCain is the one holding his own versus Guiliani and Clinton and look at him as a welcome relief after Bush. I am not so pleased.

McCain got a reputation as a moderate when he ran against Bush in the 2000 republican primary, mostly just for being the victim of a vicious attach by the neo-cons who had already chosen Bush as their frontman/stooge. McCain's moderate reputation continued because he became friends with the liberal John Kerry when they went to Vietnam to end speculation about living MIAs.

However, nothing in McCain's history shows he is a moderate or any way more acceptable as a presidential candidate than Bush. A quick check of McCain on the Issues shows that McCain is anti-abortion, pro-Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, close to the neo-cons on civil rights and civil liberties, pro-big business, anti-health care, anti-public education and supports Bush's scheme to privatize Social Security.

OK, nothing new, so why is this writer bothering to write about McCain now? I write because McCain again shows where he stands. Apparently, John McCain has been investigating lobbyists for Native American casino clients and, apparently, he had found impropriety among republican congressmen including the use of tribal money paid for public relations for lavish trips. However, when faced with "potential 'fraudulent' activities perpetrated against the tribes", John McCain says he will not move the investigation into those activites because they are perpetrated by other republicans. Roll Call reports that McCain told his fellow republican senators "It’s not our responsibility in any way to involve ourselves in the ethics process [of Senators]..."

McCain tries to come across as someone morally above the fray, but when it comes down to it, he is not much better than Tom DeLay.

The rise of facism and totalitarianism in the US

Sorry for the delay in new essays. I've been sick with the stomach flu or maybe it was the news. I have to stop watching CNN in the morning while I get ready for work and go back to Clifford the Big Red Dog Puppy Years.

A friend of mine sent me this from the link in the title of this essay:

March 7, 2005

The U.S. Senate's senior Constitutional scholar has correctly equated Bush with Hitler, and the usual attack dogs are howling. But they are wrong, and Americans must now face the harsh realities of an increasingly fascist and totalitarian GOP.

Octogenarian Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia made the equation in the context of Bush's attack on Senate procedures which might slow or halt his on-going attempt to pack the courts with extreme right-wing fanatics. Byrd said Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."

She asked me what I thought about it and this was my response to her:

I don't disagree with Byrd here (but do note he voted in favor of the "mean-spirited" Bankruptcy Act provisions so he's in my dog house). Whenever you muzzle the press by law or inducement, populate all your speeches only with your loyal supporters and bar others from entering, use fear to control popular opinion etc., coupled with huge gains for big business to the detriment of small business and individuals, you are heading toward facism. There was also a mysticism about Nazism with religious-related beliefs that were supposed to support the murder of the Jews. That is another reason to be so concerned about the current administration's interest in weakening separation of state and religion.

This week they branded all bankrupts as high rollers cheating poor innocent lenders. Most people when asked if it should be harder to go through bankruptcy said they agreed that it should be. They were given visions of people paying for fancy cars and vacations on their Visas, then going bankrupt. The reality is that most bankrupts got there through medical related issues as employer provided insurance has not proved to be all that Harry and Louise promised.

I'll also add here that by manipulating the context, you manipulate the outcome. We lost bankruptcy protection based on manipulated facts illustrated above. We don't have a single-payor health care system because the republicans used Harry and Louise to manipulate people's feelings about health care. I'll never forget how Colin Powell stood before the UN and the world with a vial of talcum powder convincing people it was anthrax. We are in a senseless foreign war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. Now, we learn that Schwarzenegger of California is creating his own videos and passing them off as news stories.

In the above-cited article, the AP reports:

Critics said the tailored-for-TV-news videos amount to taxpayer-funded campaign propaganda.

Last year, the federal Government Accountability Office said the Bush administration violated a prohibition against using public money for propaganda when it created videos made to resemble news reports promoting Medicare changes.

So, I'll add another point to Byrd's comment. They not only cloak themselves in legality, they also stop enforcing the laws that they break against their own. You had better believe if a Democrat did what Bush and Schwarzenegger have done, there would be hours of television press, trials, guilty verdicts, and jail sentences.

Bankruptcy changes, health care--or lack thereof, and compassion--or lack thereof

Orrin Hatch says he doesn’t want Americans to be fools. He said that in reference to the Bankruptcy bill that is set to pass the Senate and will make it harder for people in financial trouble to extinguish debts. I know a lot of people agree with Senator Hatch. CNN conducted a poll on their website today and it shows that about 55% of respondents agree that it should be harder for people to file for bankruptcy.

What is bothering me about the whole thing and that the issue is being couched in terms of deadbeats who charge up a lot of electronics, clothes, automobiles and such and then go bankrupt leaving innocent lenders unpaid. That, however, is not what is happening (and the innocence of the lenders is a whole other issue).

According to David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston; Elizabeth Warren, a professor of law at Harvard Law School; Deborah Thorne, associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Ohio University; and Steffie Woolhandler, associate professor of medicine at Harvard, the largest cause of personal bankruptcies in the United States is debt due to medical bills incurred by people who have had accidents or catastrophic illness. Strangely, these people are not typically unemployed and uninsured, but were employed and insured before their medical problems began. (click on the title link to see the report)

In the United States, we have resisted universal single-payor health care to our own detriment. We have complied with the wishes of insurance companies and politicians they support, so health care is still dependent upon employment. When someone is seriously injured or ill and cannot work, they often lose their job and health care. Spouses and other family members who are taking care of an ill relative are also at risk. Reduced benefits and large co-payments, the result of employers seeking to keep their health care costs down, and outrageous COBRA premiums contribute to the problem.

Had either Senator Hatch or CNN explained to the American people that they were not turning away deadbeats with lots of expensive toys and lavish homes, cars and vacations, but people fighting actual death and destruction of their lives, maybe the reaction would have been different. I would like to think that Americans have more compassion than they exhibited in today’s CNN poll.

If they cannot muster up the compassion for their fellow human beings, there is always the old saying “each poor soul I see there could be me there.” Any one of us can have an accident or become ill. Any one of us could end unemployed and uninsured and needing the protection of the Bankruptcy Act, er the old Bankruptcy Act.

It's this kind of stuff that will end life as we know it and make it life as our great grandparents knew it--remember sweat shops?

CNN reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all drivers.

Little by little, we are going to watch the end of the 8 hour workday, something that was hard won, not in the early 1900s after many died in labor disputes, but only in 1938 under Roosevelt.

Here, retailers like Wal-Mart will argue that it's actually safer to give truckers more time in which to make their runs. They miss the point. Truckers are only supposed to drive what they can safely drive in 8 hours. Soon it will become what they can unsafely drive in 16.

Consequences for mainstream news?

According to a telephone-based survey from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and the Pew Internet and American Life Project, Americans' news habits have changed drastically since the 1996 presidential election. Since then, the number of voters looking to alternative media for political information increased sixfold.

In 1996, only 3 percent of the survey's respondents said the Internet was one of their two primary sources for campaign news. In 2004, that number jumped to 18 percent, according to the study.

Television remained the dominant option for most voters and also enjoyed an increase in viewers, albeit a comparatively modest one, moving to 78 percent from 72 percent in 1996. But the most dramatic change recorded is that the use of newspapers plunged from 60 percent to 39 percent.

Could this be something that the mainstream media failed to predict? Did they realize that their parroting republican party line would eventually render them irrelevant?

How irrelevant? OK, the survey still shows television as the dominant force, but I will note that while war rages in Iraq, while an Italian journalist is shot at by American forces, while better than 50,000 pro-Syrian protesters in Lebanon take to the streets, while predatory lending credit card companies buy changes to the bankruptcy laws, while social security is under attack, while a security breach in the White House goes unaddressed, the networks, CNN and MSNBC gave us all Martha all the time coverage.

My Russian friends joke about the old days in the Soviet Union. There were two news services Tass and Pravda. Tass means truth. Pravda means news. The old saying was "There's no Tass in Pravda and no Pravda in Tass." That being the situation in the old Soviet Union, they simply stopped paying attention. My guess is that soon the top news show in the US will be the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. While they had Martha coverage, at least they had the good sense to laugh at it.

More on Carter, success and failure, right and wrong and our responsibility

In thinking about Jimmy Carter's presidency, I mostly remember his warning about our dependence on foreign oil. In a 1979 speech, he set out his energy plan and made this comment:

"This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

Carter wanted to end energy dependence and wanted Americans to change their energy habits to do it. He drew the line at 1977. In Carter's plan, that year would represent the high mark of energy dependence and American would wean itself off of OPEC oil and never hit that high mark again. He was going to ensure success with quotas and a large financial commitment to research into alternative energy sources. The Texas oil boys did not like that and made sure he was embarrased and sent packing back to the peanut farm.

Carter was right.

We should have implemented his plan in 1979 and re-elected him to keep it going. It would have defused Middle East tensions and possibly prevented 9/11 and two Gulf Wars.

Carter was considered an unsuccessful president.

Reagan, on the other hand, was considered successful. He told Americans they did not have to change anything or make any sacrifice for energy independence. He made former CIA director and Texas oilman George HW Bush his vice president. He also presided over the takeover of the GOP by the religious right and set in motion many of the problems with religious fanaticism in government that we have today. Reagan's obscene military buildup was credited with the fall of the Soviet Union despite the fact that it had been clear for years that the Soviet Union was imploding on its own steam and for the love of American blue jeans and Western rock and roll. Reagan was never called to task on the Iran/Contra scandal or the manipulation of the 1980 election through manipulation of the Iranian hostage situation. Reagan was considered to be a man's man, macho, a success.

I think Americans have to look at ourselves in the blame game of our current situation. We have to look at what we consider success, in individuals and in the world.

Helen Thomas has something to say about Bush...Gannon

Helen Thomas speaks! Of Gannon, she said: "He didn't even have a (Capital) Hill pass or represented a credible, legitimate agency, but he was let in because he was considered friendly (to the Bush) administration."

Thomas also cites Bush for failing to answer questions and she blames the press for letting him get away with it. She also blames Congress for not standing up to Bush on tough issues like the war.

My favorite quote from this article is: "Great presidents don't have to be macho, just great human beings."

My dad said something like this around 9/11: "Now we need a great leader, but this guy (Bush) is just the wrong guy at the wrong time." My dad was right. Bush is nothing more than a conduit for corporations, particularly in military industries, and the extraordinarily wealthy. He cares nothing about Americans or the World. We needed a great leader after 9/11, but we had him, thrust upon us by a Supreme Court that cared more for their partisan desires than the good of the country. He is supported by the corporate media interested in keeping their taxes and their responsibility to the country to a minimum and their profits up. Personal attacks and GOP targeting of candidates keeps members of Congress fearful of pushing an issue. The press publicizes these attacks. So, it basically all comes down to the press....and I learned in college that it was supposed "To serve the public interest", but that was a long time ago. Carter was president, perhaps not macho, but a great human being.

Congressional Democrats ask for answers regarding Gannon and beg a few questions

Apart from the journalistic integrity issue, there is a huge national security issue surrounding the Gannon case. Apart from issues of homosexuality and sexual explicitness, there is the issue of how a person got a White House press pass under an alias.

Of course, the answer is obvious. They knew who he was and what he was doing.

The question is how to get them to admit it. So, several Democratic Congressmen have sent a resolution to the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security requiring documentation on Gannon's security clearance.

The next question is how the republicans will stonewall this request without looking guilty. Or, maybe they no longer care or need to care if they look guilty. All the gay bashers in the republican party will find a way to ignore it or write it off as those crazy Democrats.

The final question is will the American people accept it and go back into their SUV, cell phone credit card debt lives.

Well, maybe they would if their credit card debt wasn't under further attack.

Social Security, Lies and Radio Addresses

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota delivered the Democratic Response to Bush's radio address. Here is what Sen. Conrad had to say about Social Security:

The President says Social Security is headed for trouble. He is right. The Congressional Budget Office tells us by 2052, Social Security could meet only 78 percent of its obligations. Medicare is in even worse shape. The shortfall in Medicare is eight times the deficit in Social Security. But the President has no plan to deal with that. The truth is, we need to confront all these challenges sooner rather than later.
But the President’s budget makes dealing with the Social Security problem even more difficult. Here’s why:

In the President’s budget he takes trillions of dollars of Social Security money to pay for other things. Then he takes trillions more to create private accounts. Those changes only dig the hole deeper.

Although the President doesn’t talk about it, his plan would also cut Social Security benefits by 46 percent. Slashing benefits and hoping to make up the difference in the stock market is risky.

And your private account? There’s a twist to that too. If you set aside $1000 a year for 30 years and earn 6 ½ percent on your money, you will have $99,000 at the end of that period. But wait. That’s not yours free and clear. Why? Because the President’s plan assumes the Social Security trust fund loaned you that money. And you have to pay it back with interest. That’s $86,000 you will have to pay back, not out of your personal account but through more cuts to your already-reduced Social Security benefit.

I’m not making this up. That’s the way the President’s plan works.

Back in my district, a man recently wrote to Mark Kirk in favor of private accounts. He did not say why, just that he wanted to contribute his social security contribution to a private account. I have little doubt in my mind that the writer naively believes that he will get the money from that account for his golden years.

A group of Bloggers is asking for the resignation of Brit Hume for changing some words of FDR to make it look like he favored private accounts. I appreciate their hope for truth, but face it, few who are for this plan even remember who FDR is and truth never entered the building at Fox News in the first place. It would have upset the entertainment value. The question I have is what happens to a person like Brit Hume to make him do something like that? Does he so hate regular everyday working folks that he is compelled to harm them? Is he so concerned about his nouveau riches that, he is unwilling to spend a buck or two to see the common man a bit more secure than the average circa 1700 indentured servant? Or, is he so caught up in his media success that he just doesn't care or even notice what he says? Anyway, support the call for resignation if you still have hope in your heart that there ever will be news at Fox:



Hume notwithstanding, Social Security is doomed if people do not understand where the money is going now and where profits from private contributions will eventually go. Social Security only lacks funds because they are going to the war based on lies and to tax cuts for the wealthy. Private accounts are supposed to make up for the theft, but are also a theft in their own right as both the investment firms and government will take their large cuts.

Grandma and Grandpa had better say healthy, employeed and frugal. The kids better not count on help with college. Don't put all your money into that SUV because you are going to need it.

The book no one wanted to read in book club

I am just about finished with Nickle and Dimed, On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich. No one in book club wanted to read this, but I think it should be required reading in the entire country.

Not only are the poor...well, poor, but they are robbed in every transaction in which they must engage. At work, desperately needed first week's wages are withheld to ensure they show up the second week. Early morning and late evening hours are not counted toward hourly wages. Basically, you have to be there to set up and clean up, but it is not counted as part of your assigned and compensated work. Funny though that the employers benefit nonetheless. What is work anyway? The cost of uniforms and other equipment is deducted from their pay. To get housing, they have to compete in an impossible rental market often ending up in high priced, low everything else motel rooms with no cooking or refrigeration, so all meals are fast food and eating out every day for every meal is expensive too. Sick? Injured? forgetaboutit. You have to show up anyway....and all this was going on during the Clinton era jobs boom. It must be worse now.

We all kind of know this stuff is happening, but to read page after page of it is really scary. What separates the rest of us from living this kind of life? According to most investment professionals the answer is one paycheck.

If all politics is local, I now understand how we got to where we are

Tonight, I attended the League of Women Voters Village of Deerfield candidate debate. There were 2 separate debates, the first between two mayoral candidates and the second for trustee with 5 candidates running for 3 slots.

This local election is supposed to be non-partisan, but it was easy to tell that is was not. The mayor made it very clear that he felt his opponent had no right to run against him. When given the chance to ask his opponent a question, the incumbent simply said that after struggling to come up with a question he could not think of anything he'd want to know about him. The tone was not conciliatory by any means.

It got me thinking about the tone in the country. The republicans clearly believe that they are the only legitimate party in the country and that Democrats running and winning are a national security risk. I think that attitude has been around for years. I saw it in the Watergate hearings (OK I was a pre-teen at the time, but it has recently been reshown on television). Haldeman was asked during his testimony before the congressional commission what national security risk needed to be protected by concealing evidence and he basically answered that the Democrats winning was the national security problem...not in so many words but it was there. Have a listen at: smithsonianglobalsound.org

As the only legitimate party in the country, the republicans believe that the ends justify the means in winning. Burglarizing Democratic headquarters in the Watergate is justified to them, voter fraud in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 is justified to them, starting a war based upon lies is justified to them, using religion to gain voters is justified to them, planting uncredentialled reporters in the White House Press Corps is justified to them. It is hard to imagine what depths they will not stoop to win given their mindset.

That being said, the trustee candidates were all very gracious to each other and answered the questions to the best of their abilities. I am supporting my friend Michelle Feldman who will make Village government accessible to the average resident, but was also impressed with Harriet Rosenthal who has a clear vision for the future.

I have a question for the general public: to what extent do local candidates owe voters an explanation of their position on national issues such as the war and the patriot act?

Why the Gannon/Guckert case is important

I recently received a complaint that the yahoo group I monitor had too many posts about the Gannon/Guckert matter and that it was a silly sex-scandal unworthy of our attention.

I disagree with that statement on many levels.

First, the story represents the degree with which standards of journalism have eroded. From the glory days of Edward R. Murrow, American journalism has quickly sunk to the depths of punditry and propaganda. Journalism.org has a pretty good simplified list of journalism standards. Here is the list (the detailed list is linked to this post):

Common sense
Honesty
Impartiality
The Golden Rule: "We don't do gossip"
Caution
Propriety

Basically, a journalist is supposed to use her best judgment and honestly and independently report thoroughly checked facts. The Gannon/Guckert case shows how today's journalists have abandon these standards. This needs to be discussed widely to help us get back to reliable journalism, fundamental to a real democracy. If he was serious about real Democracy, Bush would care about this a lot.

Second, the sex-scandal element of Gannon/Guckert case illustrates the hipocracy of republican leaders in their claims of moral leadership. Clinton has an encounter with an intern and it becomes an issue of national security proportions, but when a sex-scandal is uncovered about a paid republican shill in the White House Press Corps, there is silence. republicans argued that the press had to tell the Clinton and Lewinsky story to keep the public informed about a breach of morals, but now they either defend the privacy of Gannon/Guckert or remain silent. A young woman needing health care in Kansas no longer has privacy, but a scandal ridden pseudo-journalist passing off propaganda for news in the White House is protected. That is the morality of the republican party.

Third, the Gannon/Guckert case reminds Americans that they have a hand in the deterioration of journalism standards with their interest in sex-scandals and lack of interest in issues that really affect the people of the world. Clinton was impeached over Lewinsky. Reagan and Bush HW had little trouble over the very real and serious Iran/Contra scandal. Perhaps if the Contras were naked when they used US weapons to murder children in Nicaraguan, the average American would have paid attention, Reagan would have been impeached and Bush HW would have never been president. Maybe not, though. republicans would have argued the Contra's right to be naked while murdering little Nicaraguan children; Democrats would have passed the whole thing off as just a silly sex-scandal and the American public would go about their daily lives unconcerned about little Nicaraguan children catching peaks of naked actors on TV dramas.

The Third Stage of American Empire by William Rivers Pitt

This is a fabulous article.

According to Pitt, we are now used to perpetual war.

"Perhaps, someday, a powerful society will rise that understands the lessons of history. Empires fall, always. They consume themselves, slowly at first, but then with ever-increasing speed as military solutions fail to resolve threats and drain the resources of the core. Perhaps, someday.'

I also dream of a day when racism is abandoned. Created by the rich and powerful to keep the various lower class groups down, it is time to understand our national history of racism and abandon it to work together to uplift everyone.

I am thinking about that a lot today because Judge Lefkow found her mom and husband dead in their home last night. Judge Lefkow had presided over the trial of Matthew Hale, founder of the white supremacist World Church of the Creator. This is what happens when hate and religion combine with just enough encouragement of extremism from the administration in power.