What, no receipt?

Most major media corporations, companies, dime stores, fast food restaurants, and even families would take pause at unchecked spending that fails to bring positive results. Most companies would require a receipt before reimbursing $72.40 to an employee who ran out to OfficeMax for needed business supplies. You wouldn't leave the Whole Foods checkout line without a receipt.

Yet, last week, when Bush asked Congress for an emergency $72.4 Billion for the Iraq war, there was little media coverage and little comment or questioning from anybody. The request was made in what is called Defense Supplemental Bill No. 6. It will be up for a vote in just a few days if the House ever goes back into session.

Kirk will surely vote for this "emergency spending" without comment or question. If pressed (unlikely unless you question him yourself), he'll claim he's supporting the soldiers even though our soldiers are more in harms way than ever as a civil war in Iraq is now a fact with, as the Washington Post now reports, not the early reported 100 dead, but 1300 Iraqi dead in the surge caused by the bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine...and our US death toll continues to rise as well, without any positive results to show for all the waste, death, and dismantling of our beloved Constitutional Democracy. It is unlikely he will be required to produce specifics, but he is sure to keep our feet to the flame of eternal high terror level emergency as his bosses in Washington demand except, of course, when it involves giving a lucrative 21 ports management and security contract to one of their terrorist-supporting, money-laundering, gun and drug running Sheikh friends.

We are entitled to more than empty cliches of "Support the Troops"..."Stay the Course"..."9/11".

We need to demand Kirk bring the people of the Illinois Tenth Congressional District a plan for ending this war with some benefit to the Iraqi people, reducing terrorism around the world and how exactly this additional money will be used toward those ends and those ends alone.

Call Mark Kirk and tell him he needs to show us his plan for a positive outcome in Iraq before he approves of one more penny toward this ill-conceived, illegal war.

DC Phone: 202-225-4835
Northbrook Phone: 847-940-0202
Waukegan Phone: Phone: 847-662-0101

We need a receipt!

WDTO Candidate Forum Part 2 -- Lake County Board, Treasurer, and Governor

I guess I could be discussing Bill Frist's flip flop on the UAE deal and port security now claiming it's A-ok, despite mounting evidence that UAE laundered money for terrorists, 3 involved in 9/11, and ran drugs and guns for the Taliban, just because the president says so, but, since his infamous video diagnosis of Terry Schaivo as alert and responding, it's just too easy. So, I'll move on to the other races discussed at Sunday's WDTO Candidate forum.

Lake County Board

Arnie Silberman (pictured right) is running against incumbent Carol Spielman for the District 22 seat. Silberman spoke first. His background is in Human Resources and Real Estate and he has a lot of volunteer experience, but no experience in government. Silberman concentrated his comments on the budget. He wants to demand job analyses in the budget for every job in the county, cut employees and demand greater efficiency and generally streamline county government. He is concerned that the republican dominated county board is a mere rubber stamp organization.

Carol Spielman (pictured left) explained to Mr. Silberman and the audience that the county board does not have home rule powers, is subject to the 3.3% property tax cap and does not raise revenue at will, most of the revenue increase being explained by taxes on new construction, and that only about 7 cents of the tax dollar goes to county government.

Spielman went on to discuss her accomplishments and goals for her next term if she is re-elected. Spielman worked to achieve an increase in the allowable income for the senior property tax assessment freeze that allows about 6000 more seniors to benefit from the freeze and stay in their homes. She has also helped provide healthcare benefits for the uninsured including the upcoming opening of the new Health Center in Highland Park and prescription drug benefits through the National Association of Counties. Carol's goal for the future is to expand her efforts to create greater coordination between private service providers, townships and state and federal resources. A pilot of this effort trained township employees to enroll families in the state's KidCare program.

I was not going to endorse in the primaries, but this one is a no brainer. Mr. Silberman is probably a very nice man and rightfully concerned about our tax dollars, but he appeared genuinely confused about county government procedure. Carol Spielman is a true asset to Lake County residents as one of the few very active members of the board. She cares about resident's needs and knows how to accomplish results for them without waste. I do endorse Carol Spielman for Lake County Board District 22.

State Treasurer

W. Deerfield was not fortunate enough to have the state treasurer candidates, Paul Mangieri and Alexi Giannoulias, at the event as both were campaigning around the state. However, they did send surrogate speakers. Amber Buchanan spoke for Paul Mangieri. We learned that Mangieri was a JAG officer from '84 to '85 and was deployed overseas twice. He later settled in Galesburg, IL and served as Knox county states attorney for 3 terms. His big issues are predatory lending, identity theft and fraud.

Dimitri Giannoulias spoke for his brother, Alexi. Alexi has a degree in economics and is a community banker at Broadway Bank. He was a professional basketball player in Greece. Giannoulias feels that he is best suited for obtaining the highest rate of return on state funds for Illinois, protecting Illinois consumers, creating Illinois jobs and investing in Illinois communities, not New York banks.

Governor

No, Rod wasn't there, but it sure seemed he was because even his opponent Edwin Eisendrath could speak of nothing else but him.

State Representative Karen May spoke for Governor Blagojevich. May told us how it is, much easier to serve under a Democratic Governor than a republican. The priorities are just different. May discussed Blagojevich's commitment to women's health, choice and contraception, health insurance for needy Illinoisans and children, creating the first program in the country guaranteeing health care to all Illinois children. She also mentioned increased funding for education, stricter standards for mercury emissions and required clean-up from power plants and Blagojevich's wish for an increase in the minimum wage to $6.50.

I'd like to tell you about Eisendrath's goals and positions on the issues, but I cannot. He failed to discuss much about them, leaving his pitch to a personal attack against Blagojevich and a warning that he will be too bogged down in charges and litigation during the November election cycle to effectively campaign.

When pressed for information about his own ideas, Eisendrath was persuaded to mention that he feels the increased funding for education was not enough and that Illinois should move education funding away from the property tax. May responded that local communities do not generally like the idea of statewide school funding because it takes control away from the local communitites.

Don't forget, you can vote now, early, but not often, and you cannot change your mind once you turn in that ballot. Now, you have no excuse to not vote!

WDTO Candidate Forum Part 1 -- Sheriff's race

On Sunday, I attended the West Deerfield Democratic Township Organization's candidate forum and am on total information overload. I'm going to go race by race for the next couple of days.

One race that looks particularly interesting is the race for Lake County Sheriff. The candidates are Lawrence E. Oliver and Mark Curran.

Larry Oliver (pictured left) is a 26 veteran of the Lake County Sheriff's office having served in the Highway Patrol Division, the Metropolitan Enforcement Group, Criminal Investigations Division and Administrative Division. He also mentioned that he has SWAT team experience.

Oliver is concerned with lawsuits alleging corruption against the current sheriff and the absence of leadership. He is running for sheriff because of a void that he sees in victim care and social services that he believes he can fill and because he wants to see a special operations unit not tethered to 911 and a more proactive approach to law enforcement. The Democat was pleased to hear that he hopes to start an animal welfare unit, his concern being the 95,000 horses (could I have that number wrong?) imported to Lake County.

Mark Curran (pictured left) was an prosecutor for about 15 years serving as Special Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Illinois Attorney General, Supervisor of the Criminal Bureau, Gang Crimes Section and an Assistant Lake County State's Attorney. Later, he became a defense attorney. Curran is also concerned about corruption in the department with 2 deputies indicted after a 2 year probe, and mismanagement in the current Sheriff's department.

Curran wants to make Lake County safer by professionalizing the Sheriff's Department and believes his administrative, business and supervisory experience will help him do that. Curran identifies as a lifelong Democrat because he believes we need to help out the small guy and more needs to be done in our jails to prevent them from becoming a revolving door.

Oliver sees himself as the independent professional law enforcement officer and did not become involved in politics until this year. He chose the Democratic Party because he better identifies with the party's values including wanting to see the department do more work within the community and with youth pointing out that there is currently only one commuinity officer and one officer assigned to the schools.

Curran also wants to see increased involvement of the department in the schools because he'd rather reach out to today's youth in the schools than wait to lock them up later.

I asked both candidates 3 questions that are important to me:

1. What should the role of the Sheriff's Department be related to Homeland Security?

CURRAN: He is concerned about this because currently there is only 1 person assigned to the task and little knowledge in the department. He wants to help increase communication with citizens so they know what to do in an emergency and increase the sheriff department's coordination with the federal government.

OLIVER: He sees the department as the first responder in case of an emergency, but is concerned that programs have not been translated down to the department which has an antiquated system for handling emergencies. He wants to see the Sheriff's Department become the lead agency in creating an emergency plan for the county.

2. What about your background makes you the better choice for Lake County Sheriff?

OLIVER: He believes that his background as an officer will gain him greater respect among the other officers and his experience in actually doing the job makes him better able to execute and have the others trust his decisionmaking. Oliver feels that being in their shoes makes him the better leader in the Sheriff's Department.

CURRAN: He believes that his leadership and supervisory experience will help him gain respect in the department and become its leader. He sees his administrative business experience as helping him make the better budgetary and administrative decisions. He also feels that an attorney will be better able to make necessary legal decisions that prevent cases from being thrown out.

3. This area has a lot of people committed to ending the Iraq War and they engage in peaceful protests in the area. What do you think the Sheriff's Department should do with respect to peaceful protests on the streets of the County.

CURRAN: He is also hoping to see a conclusion to the war and believes in the first amendment rights of county residents. He believes that peaceful protest should be freely allowed.

OLIVER: He also believes in the first amendment and would freely allow such expression in an orderly fashion with established guidelines, such guidelines being related to having the protests in an area reasonable for such.

Heart of the Bush administration

Much is being made of the February 19, 2006 Francis Fukuyama article in the New York Times Magazine in which the former neo-con declares the movement dead and the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war against rogue nations with weapons of mass destruction in shambles.

Fukuyama is a graduate of Cornell University and Harvard and was part of the the Project for the New American Century having signed their now famous 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He is also the author of the 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man in which he argued that the end of the Cold War brought the end of the progression of history, meaning that the ideological evolution of mankind has ended and, while there will still exist historical events and non-democratic regimes, the nations of the world will eventually settle on liberal democracy and free market capitalism as the most prevalent forms of government, economics and society. He does not argue the case for liberal democracy as progressives and liberals would argue, but what he calls modernization, "technologically advanced and prosperous — society, which, if satisfied, tends to drive demands for political participation."

Fukuyama now claims the failure in Iraq lies in the absence of good intelligence and the administration's naive optimism that the Iraqis would embrace the US soldiers and the inevitability of liberal democracy as the only satisfactory end for their country. He bemoans the failure of the "idealistic effort to use American power to promote democracy and human rights abroad," and the problem that such failure will lead to isolationism.

I'm not moved. I have no idea what this guy is talking about. The twin notions that Bush's America, with spying and other warrantless searches, holding citizens indefinitely without charges or speedy trial, torture, vote fraud and loss of freedom of speech, religion and assembly, even approaches some ideal of liberal democracy and that the invasion of Iraq was some idealistic quest to bring it to the rest of the world are just as full of cat litter box contents as the hogwash coming from the white house on a daily basis. What Fukuyama fails to mention in his article is all the lying, stealing, cheating, propaganda and misuse of the American, Israeli and Islamic people in the promotion of fear and mistrust that allowed the administartion to execute its pre-determined agenda and the inevitable effect of all that on the outcome. Maybe the neo-con movement that began in New York in mid- to late 1930's and early 1940's had some idealism, but by the time is reached the ultimate imperialists and corporationists that now make up the Bush administration, it lost all that.

Al Sharpton said it better back in 2003 when, in response to the administration's assurances that war with Iraq was both necessary and imminent, he used the old adage: "You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Sharpton fearned that the war would go badly for America because the decision to go was based on intentionally faulty reasoning and the morality of the objectives was unclear.

Here is Deepak Chopra's explanation set forth in an article in at Huffington Post. I agree with his idea that part of the problem was arrogance, but not with his conclusion:

The red states believe that the U.S. went into Iraq to bring democracy and prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. Many still believe that, while cynics say this is all about oil. Both sides are mistaken: this was about a right-wing world view that thought it could alter the course of history with the mere wave of a hand. There was no follow-up plan after the Iraqi invasion toppled Saddam because the neo-con world view said none was needed. It also said that the Middle East was ready for democracy. And that the U.S. was a shining model of peace despite our horrific arms buildup.

I find Chopra's conclusion more than a bit charitable to the administration. They may have sold the red states on the democracy idea, but they never really believed it themselves (remember they see themselves as an elite part of society to which none of the rules that apply to the rest of us apply). The Bush administration wasn't overly optimistic about Iraqis embracing American democracy or even merely arrogant in thinking they could make it so through sheer force of will. They just plain old did not care about the consequences in Iraq as they eyed the advantages of chaos in the region: oil, money, control, money, fear to keep them in power for a good long time, money, expansion of their business interests and, of course, money.

Why do I disagree with Chopra and bring it all down to the lust for money and power? Because of the combination clues from the Medicare D program and the Dubai Ports World deal. These are both examples of the power of corporate interests brought slowly over the past several years, but ultimately in the Bush administration. There is no interest in uplifting Americans with the freedom that comes with civil rights and liberties, adequate work, pay, security and health and then exporting that to the world. It's all about propagandizing benefits to the people while eliminating government and corporate accountability to allow the free flow of benefits back and forth between those with political power and corporate interests. They don't want to export American liberal democracy to the world. They want to import unacceptable strife, world human rights violations and labor conditions to us.

The neo-con movement may be as dead as Fukuyama proclaimed it, but the corporationist movement is alive and well and at the heart of the Bush administration.

Breaking...Administration makes own argument against its destruction of the Constitution

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England :

The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite.

Alrighty then.

Now that we are all in agreement, Bush can stop:
1. torture
2. arresting and holding US citizens without charges and a trial
3. NSA spying and other types of warrantless searches
4. pressure on the press not to print stories
5. votes to extend the Patriot Act (hey, we can scrap the whole thing)
6. calling the Constitution a damn piece of paper.

As a loyal follower, Kirk can stop working the religious institutions in the district hoping to use fears about tensions in the Persian Gulf and Middle East to pitt folks in the district against each other. And while we are on the topic, Kirk may want to read this from Americans United for Separation of Church and State speaking to an IRS report "detailing its enforcement of the federal tax law barring partisan political activity by churches and other charities" before he goes to his events this weekend:

The report notes that the IRS examined activities by 132 non-profits from 2004 as part of its initiative. It reports that “fewer than half” were churches. The IRS concluded that in many of the cases, significant violations of the law had occurred. The tax agency also announced plans to vigorously enforce the law during this election year.

“This report proves that the IRS intends to fully enforce the law barring houses of worship from intervening in political campaigns,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Pastors tempted to follow the Religious Right’s siren song into partisan activity need to sit up and take notice.”

Continued Lynn, “Churches have no business becoming cogs in a candidate’s political machine. It damages the integrity of the church, and it violates federal tax law. This report indicates that the IRS takes allegations of violations seriously.”

A Friday Skit

W: Uncle Cheney? It's me George...Uncle Cheney?
Cheney: Cut it out, George. I'm not going to shoot you!
W: Ok, Secret Service men, you can go.
Cheney: Stop trying to be funny, George.
W: And everybody thought I was the drunk.
Cheney: Knock it off, George. We have serious business here. Can't I be gone a couple of days without you getting into trouble?
W: What did I do?
Karl: Well, George, you just made our move too soon. We are happy to turn US ports and their longshoremen over to a company operated by the government of the UAE. After all, we can say that it's a constitutional federation of seven emirates, even though it is run by 8 wealthy Sheikhs and has a terrible track record on labor issues and human rights a model for what we are trying to accomplish here. But, George, you needed to be more subtle, set the stage so to speak.
W: Oh, sorry uncle Karl.
Cheney: Where's Condi.
Karl: Lebanon, Sir. Setting up our war with Syria in case Iran doesn't come through.
Condi: No, I'm here sirs. In the next room.
W: I asked her to sort out my rolodex, take out some of the people I don't know.
Condi: Out with Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, Lay.... Sir, you're down to John McCain, 5 Democrats, the twins and Barney.
Karl: You'll have to take the twins out too, Condi. All that broken resolution stuff and handing out condoms might go against our evangelical friends.
Condi: I can't believe I have to do this stuff. If I were a white man....
Karl: Stuff it Condi. We're setting you up to run for president in 2008. You should be glad to do a little desk organizing.
W: And when you run against McCain, remember he has a Black Baby...
Condi: I don't think that one will work for me sir.
W: Why not, worked great for me!
Condi: I'm Black, Sir.
W: You're not Black, Condi.
Condi: Am so...
Cheney: Cut it out. We have work to do on this port matter. It's important that we complete this deal or other repressive governments with ties to terrorism will think we don't want to do business with them anymore and it will spoil our plan to sell off all American industry to our international friends. We'll just have to lay low for a while and complete the deal during the World Series or last few rounds of American Idol. The Olympics didn't provide enough cover. That girl just had to fall...twice....
Karl: US Ports run by the UAE will be just what we need. Free trade. It will cut wages here and open up our doors to China. Our workers will be making little Chinese flags for 20 cents an hour before you know it. Start with the Longshormen, get them working for UAE. Cut their wages. They can't strike. We were careful to lay the groundwork for classifying strikes and picketing at our ports terrorism. I love irony.
W: I-rony?
Karl: Sure, George. American longshoremen will be the terrorists while their UAE bosses with ties to al-Qaida and bin Laden will be our allies in the war on terror. Now, that's irony.
W: Oh, I thought you were making a crack about Iraq. They are not in civil war, you know! Just a little lockdown so they can meditate...and pray.
Karl: Of course they are not in civil war, George. (snicker)
Cheney: What is important here is that we caused the chaos in the Gulf Region and in the Middle East. We've got most of the country willing to set aside, shall we say, the Constitution for their protection. We cannot now tell them that security is NOT a concern. When it most certainly is a concern, our security that is, our security in power. George, why did you do this now? Why didn't you stick to the schedule for selling the country to multi-national corporations from the Middle East.
W: Well....you're going to be mad.
Cheney: Just tell me, George.
W: Ok, ok. I guess I can tell you as long as you promise not to tell anyone else.... I thought Dubai was in Iowa. You know, Dubai, Iowa.
Condi: Arg. I'm leaving Ken Lay in the rolodex.

Not too far off the Mark

Wrote this late Tuesday night:

Maybe the whole incident says more about corporationism than security. When multinational corporations have ultimate power over people, profit motive rules all decisionmaking and all the consequences, war, pollution, unemployment, crime, amorality, fall on the human bystanders. The port company sale is just a symptom of the ultimate problem with the Bush administration, the fact that they sold our country to the corporations.

Wednesday morning I downloaded Tuesday's Randi Rhodes show off iTunes and she said something similar adding that the cost benefit analysis done by most corporations doesn't include the human component. Then, I heard David Sirota on Keith Olbermann's Countdown tonight. Sirota said that the reason that Bush has been so adamant in his commitment to allowing the Dubai Port deal has to do with free trade issues being pushed by Treasury Secretary John Snow. Snow has connections to DPW Snow as former chairman of freight rail company CSX Corp., which sold its global port assets to DPW for $1.15 billion in 2004 -- the year after Snow had left the company for the Bush administration. However, that may not be the reason that Snow wants the administration to defend the DPW deal. Sirota doesn't think that Snow is all that concerned about small amount of trade we have with the UAE. He believes that Snow is concerned over much larger free trade issues and the precedent that could be set by bringing security issues into them. He used China as an example saying that Bush's large corporate donors do not want to see the US require analysis of security, and possibly broader issues such as workers rights and human rights, in potential future trade deals with China.

Sirota may have hit this directly on the mark. Mark Kirk has been very careful to state that his House U.S.-China Working Group has no position on any key issues on China. Unlike prior US policy to require basic human rights from its partners around the world, this committee has not position. It won't be discussed. This fits what Sirota believes Snow is trying to accomplish with UAE. No issues that affect people can be allowed to affect free trade; not forced labor and trafficking of of children; not unlivable working conditions; not speech supression or forced labor in China.

Sirota ended the segment by telling Olbermann that these large corporate republican donors are willing to sell out our country's security to assure their future free trade deals. Makes sense given that Kirk's House U.S.-China Working Group will discuss none of the serious issues the US has with China including security and human rights. They only discuss the corporate friendly issue of intellectual property rights. Protect patents. Forget people.

Left to speculate and mail it with a Benny stamp

In what seems to be a stunning marketing blunder the likes of which has not been seen since the release of Gili, the Bush administration has introduced Port Management by Dubai, that is Dubai Ports World based in the United Arab Emirates, home of 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. Even Bush's strongest allies in the abdication of responsibility capitol of the world known as Congress are crying foul, and crying it long and loud, because they have to run again and he doesn't. republicans generally don't seem to keen on the idea and most Democrats are just watching from the sidelines.

Bill Frist insists that Congress has to be involved in the process and has vowed to introduce legislation to put the deal on hold. House Homeland Security Committee chairman republican Peter King asked the President to put the deal on hold pending investigation and, at Bush's refusal and threatened veto of legislation targeting the deal, said he was "absolutely mystified" pointing out that UAE recognized the Taliban when Saddam Hussein's Iraq hadn't. King has teamed up with Democrat Chuck Schumer to introduce legislation to stop the deal. Florida House republican Clay Shaw, chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, wants to introduce legislation to prevent foreign entities from operating U.S. seaports. Even Illinois 19th District republican Rep. Shimkus, while trying to defend Bush's actions, had to admit to a constituent that he shares his concerns. Hastert wants to stop the deal. The mayor of Miami demanded an investigation and a Florida company is suing. Rumsfeld is pleading ignorance despite Scotty's gaggle assurances that DOD was deaply involved in the decision. Mark Kirk is busy getting post office approval of a Jack Benny postage stamp.

Regardless of what folks may think about allowing port management contracts to be held by the UAE, they have to agree that this is strange. The entire governing strategy of the Bush administration is marketing and the entire marketing strategy of the Bush administration is fear and security with supporting characters of racism, nationalism and misguided patriotism. So, we are left to speculate why they came up with this one.

Some have speculated that Bush simply wanted to use a new word he learned, veto, in a full sentence.

Others say that its much ado about nothing because the company is not restaffing from the sale, so maybe Bush (Rove) just wanted to give congressional republicans the chance to distance themselves from him for 2006 elections.

Fox New's Cavuto's claims of "country profiling" seems to indicate that Bush is trying to look unbiased and make the Democrats look like the racial profilers, but he forgets to mention that most of the criticism has come from republicans.

Usual Bush apologist Michelle Malkin has speculated that the deal was approved because David Sanborn, new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, was formerly the director of DP World's Europe and Latin America operations. If she's correct, cronyism won over marketing here as it did in New Orleans. Marketing is essential, but you still have to pay those bills.

Maybe the whole incident says more about corporationism than security. When multinational corporations have ultimate power over people, profit motive rules all decisionmaking and all the consequences, war, pollution, unemployment, crime, amorality, fall on the human bystanders. The port company sale is just a symptom of the ultimate problem with the Bush administration, the fact that they sold our country to the corporations.

Lucky we can still count on Hershey

UPDATE: Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking about Medicare D today. This mornings Washington Post reports that only "1.4 million people, a fraction of the 8 million eligible for the new coverage." The complexity of enrolling has had the Bush administrations's desired effect of pushing some of the neediest people out of the program.

There has been much written on Medicare D, the Bush administration's prescription drug benefit that Mark Kirk still proudly embraces, and the situation is showing little sign of improvement. I'm writing about this again because I'm still hearing complaints, concerns and downright anger over Medicare D. It has become what we feared, a benefit for the pharmaceutical companies and a burden for the seniors who were supposed to benefit.

Even after all the explanatory meetings sponsored by current Rep. Kirk, seniors in the district are still frustrated over Medicare D. Among the complaints are the random choices and the bum's rush seniors are given to enroll in a plan. Kirk touted choice as being the strongest part of the new benefit, but it is hard for seniors to appreciate choices when there are too many of them and the differences between plans are so random. Meaningful comparison between plans is impossible.

Why the rush? If seniors don't enroll by May 15, 2006, they will be penalized, even if they do not currently need the coverage, but need it later. So, right away healthier seniors lose because they have to start paying insurance premiums for a benefit they do not yet need, but are likely to need some time in the future. There are also special risks in hastily choosing a plan. Different plans cover different drugs and under different conditions, restrictions and costs. Some plans also prefer particular pharmacies which may not be convient to seniors who might not be mobile and rely on others to do their shopping. The rush is also causing a chaotic marketing blitz with plans quickly disseminating confusing information. There are also concerns that criminals may take advantage of the situation by offering non-existent plans to collect personal information from seniors and using it for identity theft crimes.

But isn't it wonderful that seniors have better access to needed medications? Sorry, health care workers are complaining that Medicare D is actually decreasing access to prescription drugs. Dr. Steven A. Levenson, who works with nursing home patients told the New York times; ''We have seen signs that Medicare drug plans are using management controls to deter access to medically appropriate drugs, including drugs on their own formularies...''
The American Society of Consultant Pharmacists has written a paper on concerns over barriers to access. In the paper, they describe these barriers:

• Excluded medications are those excluded by Congress, through the Medicare Modernization Act (Congress decided that certain drugs such as Barbiturates or Benzodiazepines should not be paid for by the government, but what if you need one of them?)
• Non-formulary medications are those excluded from coverage by particular plans using formularies which are simply lists of covered drugs (This becomes a real problem for seniors using several medications or who need a new one after choosing a plan, and the plans can change and take out particular drugs without warning.);
• Formulary medications restricted by Part D by plans through “utilization management” techniques (this is what Dr. Levenson was talking about), which usually require the physician to intervene on behalf of the patient to obtain coverage for the medication. (Among these cost saving techniques for the plans are tiered coverages that increase the customer's share for formulary, but non-favored drugs. This leads to physicians being asked to prescribe a plan favored drug over one the physician would medically choose. There are also quantity limits. All these UM techniques affect the physician/patient relationship by controlling what the physician can prescribe over what she would medically choose.)

It is not surprising that the Bush administration would go for access restrictions as that has been their general plan for all government programs, push needing folks out of the plan.

And the savings? I cannot find a single senior who claims savings. Under the plans, seniors have coverage for part of their prescriptions' cost, but there is a monthly premium for the plan and drug costs have risen far more than the savings. With conventional health care insurance, the insurance companies can use their bargaining power to negotiate lower costs. However, under Medicare D, Medicare is forbidden from using its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices. The idea was supposed to be that competition between drug companies would keep costs down. However, that assumes real competition among drug companies where there is none in reality. Costs have risen exponentially and seniors and American taxpayers are footing the bill, including the cost of reimbursing 44 states for costs incurred during the chaos.

Then, there is the famous "donut hole", the cost saving cap in coverage excluding from coverage "seniors' prescription drug expenses that fall, for the year 2006, between $2,250 and $5,100 (the upper figure rising in the "out years" 2007 to 2013). This gap will mean a serious level of cost sharing—more than $3,400 during 2006 for many Medicare beneficiaries (and rising with each out year)—despite the Act's 75 percent coverage below $2,250 and 95 percent catastrophic coverage above the upper limit."

Some states have moved to protect their seniors with emergency Medicaid coverage and other seniors have given up and are going to Canada for prescriptions, exactly what the Bush administration was trying to prevent when they turned on Blagojevich for his buses to Canada. A friend of mine recently witnessed a local Tenth District pharmacist on the phone actually begging a drug manufacturer to provide a prescription to a customer who could not afford it. These are desperate times.

The real kicker here is that Medicare D was just another republican ruse to have taxpayers fund their corporate friends and campaign contributors. The bill another one of those bills passed in the middle of the night with voting illegally held open for 3 hours while arms were twisted. Read Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown's descripton of that night in congress back in 2003 here. Mark Kirk's arm never needed twisting though. He always thought the plan was just terrific. Maybe the $53,000 in campaign contributions from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industry in the 2004 election cycle had nothing to do with it.

Well, now they are telling us that chocolate is a health food. Good thing. You can still get a Snickers bar for under a buck in most places, no pre-registration required.

and the honors go to...well maybe not

Henry Kissinger shared a win of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for negotiating a cease fire in the Vietnam war. What really happened was that Nixon had promised South Vietnamese President Thieu continued and even escalated bombing, but Congress refused to pay for it. Under fire from Watergate, Nixon was pressured to make an agreement with Congress to stop the bombing on August 15, 1973. Thieu no longer had the support he needed and was forced to compromise with North Vietnam. Nixon simply lacked the ability to fight against a congressional override of his veto with all the Watergate fuss swirling around him. Watergate ended the US involvement in Vietnam. Kissinger got the credit. It seems that no one mentioned this at Kissinger's award ceremony or the fact that Kissinger and Nixon had spent 1969 through much of 1973 planning a secret escalation of the war. The only real peacemaking Kissinger managed during this time was in response to Nixon's suggestion that they use nuclear weapons. Kissinger said "That, I think, would just be too much." No small wonder that Kissinger's co-winner Le Duc Tho of N. Vietnam refused to accept his half of the award.

George Tenent and Paul Bremer received the Medal of Freedom in 2004. No mention of the Tenent "slam dunk" WMD in Iraq comment or the $9 bil missing in Iraq under Bremer's watch.

Now, Mark Kirk is sending out his press releases about his recent award, the Arctic Medal of Courage, from the Alaska Coalition for his work in "to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling". Oooopsie. I'd bet that at the awards ceremony they forgot to mention that Kirk actually voted to approve drilling last spring. Kirk voted yes on the 2006 House Budget Conference Report (H Con Res 95) and his vote was important because it passed 214 - 211. Republican Congressman Chris Shays voted against H. Con. Res. 95 because of the inclusion of the ANWR drilling.

Kirk very carefully worded his "blog" entry about the award. He said:"I successfully led an effort to remove a drilling provision from last year's budget and opposed its inclusion in the defense appropriations bill." Notice he said nothing about the 2006 budget. He also doesn't mention his vote in favor of H. Res. 639, a procedural bill waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2863, the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. That means that the House could go ahead on 2863 with the ANWR provision attached. Oh, and by the way, the ANWR provision was tucked into it in secret, at the last minute, and the waiver of points of order was debated in the middle of the night and finally voted on at 4:10 AM. It passed with Kirk's vote 214 to 201.

In my opinion, this does not show the leadership Kirk claims on this issue, and shows that there were probably people more deserving of the Alaska Coalition award than Kirk. At most, it shows Kirk has the stamina to stay up until 4:10AM and listen to his fellow congressmen argue. He didn't say much that night. On the conference report itself, he voiced only "reluctant opposition" according to the Congressional Record for the debate Page H12266, December 18, 2005.

Kirk voted against the defense bill itself H R 2863, but his vote was not needed there. It passed with plenty of room to spare 308 to 106. Kirk's vote for 639, the procudural vote, shows that his commitment to republican party leadership is greater than his commitment to the country. What really stopped the ultimate inclusion of ANWR drilling in the 2006 budget was the Senate under threat of filibuster.

ANWR was not saved by Mark Kirk, but Kirk is hoping confusion about ANWR drilling votes will save him in November.

Olympic flame barely burning while rest of the world is aflame

Is anybody watching the Olympics? According to the AP, American Idol "crushed" the Olympics on February 14th, 27 million viewers to 16.1 million, according to Nielsen Media Research, and according to Bloomberg News, the ratings have not recovered much since Idol went off the air.

Part of the problem could be the coverage. I tried watching a bit on Sunday, February 12th, moguls and pairs skating. They showed one or two contestants for either event, paused for commercials, went the the other event, went to Olympic News and back and forth like that. I lost track of who was who, so I turned it off. I might have watched a bit yesterday, but there was all day NASCAR instead. MSNBC or CNBC had some curling, but I still haven't warmed up to the idea of ice floor sweeping any more than the idea of sweeping up stray litter from the Democat. There were a few hockey games, but who needs the Olympics for that when we have the Wolves.

Another issue is all the lack of heartwarming stories. The story of Lindsey Kildow who took a bad fall early on, but recovered to sky again, and crash again, has not proved enough of a story to keep Olympic interest alive. The gambling scandal ridden Gretzky informed his team that the world wants Canada to lose (he gave a similar speech in 2002, but with a young hungry team and without gambling scandal, it went over better) to a less than enthusiastic response. The over-exposed Bode Miller is O for 4 after all the hype and bravado about his greatness, despite the further bravado that he went to the Dick Cheney school of sportsmanship (drink first, sport later). Then, there's that drug raid of the Austrian cross-country skiing team. Although there is still no evidence of doping within that team, it is bad for overall Olympic morale and enthusiasm.

Also bad for Olympic morale and enthusiasm is the world condition. The evergrowing animosity between the West and the Islamic world to the point where cartoons can spark deadly riots; the release of additional torture pictures taken at Abu Ghraib; the warnings back and forth between the US and Iran; and the verbal sparring between Condi Rice and Chavez of Venezuela don't exactly scream world harmony and Olympic spirit. Countries appear to be hunkering down behind real or psychological fortresses, and closing themselves to the rest of the world. Agression, war, lack of caring for the sick, the poor, children and the weaker folks of the world, is making this world cold and hard and countries are isolating themselves from each other. As leader of the free world, is this the world George W. Bush wanted, the one he set out to create, or is it just another consequence of mishandling, mismanagement and incompetence?

Candorville

Candorville has a good strip today on faith based initiatives.

Bring 'em home

No picture of Cindy Sheehan. My camera battery failed to keep going and going in the 2 degree weather. I should have used an Energizer.

However, I did finally get to meet Cindy Sheehan at Independence Park on the corner of Irving Park Road and Hamlin near Rham Emanuel's office this morning where the California mother of deceased soldier Casey Sheehan froze to bring her message of government accountability for continuing the Iraq war. Cindy reminded us that we can not just vote Democratic and go home. We have to set a benchmark for our leaders of any party and if they vote to continue to fund the Iraq war, we need to make our voices known to them, even at the ballot box.

Cindy helped kick off a new organization, Anti-War Majority, a coalition of several peace groups including North Suburban Peace Initiative, Northbrook Peace Committee, North Shore Anti-War Coalition, and the American Friends Service Committee. The event began with Kathy Kelly, author, activist and co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness, who talked about her visits to Baghdad. Kelly asked us to think about the hardships faced by the people of Iraq without an adequate infrastructure. As cold as we were standing out there this morning, at least we can go to our heated cars and homes. Many in Baghdad have no heat and it does get cold there. The next speaker was Juan Torres who talked about his inability to find out how his son died in Afghanistan. No one in the government will help him find the truth.

After the speeches, the group walked over to Emaunel's office and a few more words were spoken by Sheehan about the need to require our leaders to support H.R. 4232, the End the War in Iraq Act, sponsored by Rep Jim McGovern (D-MA), to stop the funding for troop deployment, provide equipment for Iraq security forces, allocate funds strictly for a safe and orderly withdrawal, and for continued reconstruction. Sheehan correctly pointed out that the Vietnam War ended only when Congress finally stopped funding it. I just read about that in Ellsberg's book, Secrets. In 1973, with Watergate and the Ellsberg trials going at full throttle, the Pentagon Papers showing the lies that got us into Vietnam and Nixon's secret plan to not only stay the course, but escalate hostilities and bombing of innocents, printed in over 30 newspapers nationwide, Congress finally grew embarrassed at the prospect of continuing to fund the Vietnam war and finally voted down the funding. With zero political capital left, Nixon couldn't do anything about it and the bombs finally stopped falling in N. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. It took 2 more years for the US to fully withdraw.

It's time for Democratic leaders to put their votes where their supporters are and where their consciences should be, and join Rep. McGovern in sponsoring H.R. 4232 and refuse to give Bush the additional $65 billion he has asked for war. It wouldn't be a bad idea for republican leaders to do the same. Doing the best thing for this country and the world should not be party specific. The good news is that Sheehan reported that Emanuel finally called her back and told her to speak to his scheduler.

How many deaths, how many scandals must we have for this Congress to finally be embarrassed enough to do its job under the Constitution as the only branch actually authorized to declare, or not, war.

Where's the restroom?

Yesterday, my co-worker defended Mayor Daley's No Photo-Opportunity Left Behind Program to me.

"There are a lot of bad people out there," she said. It made me wonder why she is so trusting of government officials and so mis-trusting of her neighbors.

Daley's plan is "to require every licensed Chicago business open more than 12 hours a day to install indoor and outdoor cameras." This will be in addition to 2000 existing cameras and 250 more already on the way from an earlier homeland security grant (but are they searching shipping containers yet?). It's all going to be unified into one "homeland security grid". Daley says that communities want the cameras to cut down on crime.

It got more interesting when Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce President Jerry Roper suggested that businesses would require tax breaks for purchase and installment of the cameras. That means we get to pay for surveillance of us.

I asked my co-worker, who also agrees with the Patriot Act and NSA spying, why she wants to create a hell on earth for her children. She looked at me like I was nuts. So, I started to think about how to try to make her understand what this living hell would entail. A lecture seems like it could sound trite or cliche. The only way to see the result of acquiescing to what our governments say is for our own good is to try to imagine the day to day life of an average Chicagoan, say in the year 2020, with cameras, Patriot Act, and NSA spying all in tact together with anything else they may come up with, all of course for our protection, safety and good. What might it be like?

1. Alarm wakes you up. Homeland security grid notifies officer assigned to you.

2. You go into the bathroom and take a shower, brush your teeth etc. Hurray, the bathroom is off limits, but they do know the toiletries you have purchased in the past and use the info to sell you other products you neither want nor need. You just have to put up with the sales emails and calls, non-cooperation is noted, catalogued and frowned upon.

3. Done in the bathroom, you decide to make a little breakfast and check your email and blog. Your ISP advises the federal agent assigned to you that you are on the internet. Your mom emailed you, but in 2005 she was a member of a group the president of which was once in the ACLU or NLG (you cannot remember which), so you delete the message. Just not in the mood to be associated with all that today. Your friend Steve emailed you with a picture of the fish he caught on vacation in Mexico attached to his email, but, naaah, a year or so ago a Mexican official said something against the current vice president. Not worth the potential trouble. You delete that email too. You check the government approved news site and notice that Paris Hilton's grandaughter, Amsterdam, is wearing pink today and just purchased her fifth chihuahua.

4. Time to leave the apartment and go to work. You check your hair because you never know when your picture will end up on some website or sent to your boss.

5. You get into your car and start it. The agent monitoring GSP is notified and your route is monitored and stored in the database. You're ok because you just drove to the train station.

6. Train stations can be dangerous places, so the cameras are all around. You are mindful to watch not to fuss with your clothes too much or wipe your nose lest it get around.

7. You see an old high school friend at the station, but since you're not sure what he's been up to since graduation you don't show any recognition of him at all. He notes the same about you and follows suit.

8. On the train, you get your book out of your bag. Since you took it out of the local library, it's in your data file at Homeland Security. You are reading Old Yeller. You wanted to read Franny and Zooey, but J.D. Salinger is considered iffy. Your second choice was The Razor's Edge, but Somerset Maugham? Forgetaboutit.

9. Off the train, you walk to the office, monitored, so you don't stop at Cereality for that Coco Puffs with the M&M topper as it could get into the database and affect your medical insurance costs.

10. At work, you are fully monitored, except for that bathroom break.

11. The way home is about the same as the journey there. You don't remember Old Yeller being evangelical, but hey, it's a new world.

12. Home at last and you just want to relax and be entertained. The 1961 verson of the Parent Trap is on...again. TV has gotten pretty mild since folks have become nervous about the recordkeeping of their viewing habits.

13.The phone rings. It's the RNC wanting money for the next election. You'd rather not contribute, but know if you don't that counts against you in a myriad of governmental agencies, federal and local. You really want to keep your driver's license this year.

14. You decide to check your investments on the internet. Doesn't matter if you use the monitored internet because the government already knows what you own, how much and has already databased it for tax time. Now, they do your taxes for you, but you still have to pay for the service, of course.

15. You're not tired but with nothing to watch, nothing to surf, nothing to read or listen to other than the mild, watered down stuff that won't get you into any trouble, won't raise any question, won't get you talked about, you decide to go to sleep. But...bed is not on the list of camera free areas, so...you go to the bathroom.

Robert Byrd had a few things to say about the presiden't spying programs in the Senate yesterday. Here's a quote:

In the name of "fighting terror" are we to sacrifice every freedom to a President's demand? How far are we to go? Can a President order warrantless house-by-house searches of a neighborhood, where he suspects a terrorist may be hiding? Can he impose new restrictions on what can be printed, broadcast, or even uttered privately, because of some perceived threat to national security? Laughable thoughts? I think not. For this Administration has so traumatized the people of this nation -- and many in the Congress -- that some will swallow whole whatever rubbish that is spewed from this White House, as long as it is in some tenuous way connected to the so-called war on terror....

I plead with the American public to tune-in to what is happening in this country. Please forget the political party with which you may usually be associated, and, instead, think about the right of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a private life. Forget the now tired political spin that, if one does not support warrant-less spying, then one may be a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden.

Yes my coworker, there are some bad people out there, but we handle it the way we always handled it before. We investigate and punish real crime, not remotely potential crime. We work to get to the roots of crime to prevent it. We get to know, work and socialize with our neighbors rather than isolating ourselves from them. We build up our communities and the businesses within them rather than stifling them.

Life Daley's way, or Bush's way is pretty lonely and sad. We might as well spend our days in the bathroom.

Media Democracy Chicago

Did you know that there is a group in Chicago championing a free and independent media? It's called Media Democracy Chicago and their website can be found in the title link.

One of the main goals of MDC is to help citizens find a voice in media policy. Had ordinary people had a say back during the Reagan Administration, we might not be where we are now with a very tightly corporate controlled media that somehow no longer seems interested in news and prefers to stick to violent, preferably sexual, crime, fires, weather and oddities.

If you surf over to CNN tonight you'll find out that a dog from the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show escaped at JFK Airport and see some nonsense on Paris Hilton. On ABC, you'll see a story about Saddam laughably insinuating that there still may be WMD in Iraq, something about Entwistle who is accused of murding his wife and daughter and Willie Nelson's ode to gay cowboys. You won't see a whole lot about the 9/11 hijacker identified by the military unit called 'Able Danger' 13 times prior to the attack or Robert Byrd's explosive speech on the Senate floor today calling for an investigation into NSA spying. There's nothing on the local Chicago media about Cindy Sheehan stopping off in Chicago and Evanston this weekend and no one in the media is questioning Mayor Daley's plan to make Chicago the Big Brother house of the Midwest. What passes for political analysis in the media these days is an interview of some guy from Field and Stream on the difference between buckshot and birdshot.

Check out Media Democracy Chicago and learn how to demand the fourth estate do its job.

Might as well face it, you're addicted to...

After a long break I'm back to reading Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg. I'm finally at the part where he starts to talk about the Pentagon Papers, the now infamous 7,000-page, classified Department of Defense history of our political and military involvement in the Vietnam from 1945 to 1971. It's 1969. Ellsberg is back from Vietnam, recovered from his case of hepatitis and back working at Rand:

Ellsberg originally worked on a Vietnam War history beginning in 1956, but some time in the fall of 1969, he began research that took him back to 1945. As he read, he remembered a Vietnamese acquaintance had once told him that, to the Vietnamese, their independence had been achieved in 1945 when the Japanese interned the French rulers. At the time he first heard that statement, he simply passed it off, but as he read the earlier history, he started to learn the truth.

Ho Chi Min was the communist leader of what was really a coalition government that began governing Vietnam when the Japanese abruptly left in 1945. The French decided to go back into Vietnam and re-colonize it in 1946. Roosevelt either turned a blind eye or was too preoccupied with other aspects of WWII, and despite reports that he did not support French re-colonization, started the policy of non-recognition of Vietnam which Truman continued despite that fact that other post-WWII former colonies were being recognized as independent countries. Ellsberg says that Truman and Eisenhower continued the policy of non-recognition of Vietnam to show voters that the Democrats were not soft on communism during the era of cold war and Joe McCarthy. By 1949, the French had finally given up in Vietnam and wanted to leave, warning the US to learn from their mistake and stay out, but the US, smarting from the 1948 fall of China and still full of bravado from WWII, wouldn't listen. They'd say "Better Dead than Red", but those spouting the slogans, as usual, weren't the ones at risk of dying, now were they?

The US began its Vietnam War by pressing the French to stay and providing supplies and advisors, but eventually ended up replacing the weary French troops whose leaders continued their warnings to the US to stay out of it. The US official interpretation of the warning was that the French did not want to be shown up (again) by the superior US military. Ellsberg wrote of it in 1969:

It meant, don't try: because you might show us up, might show that our failure was not inevitable for Westerners, that it really flowed -- as Americans believed -- from the taints of colonialism and bad faith, from racism, from weakness, a rigid, ill-adapted army with a history of failure , an inadequate air force and a divided public: from all of which, Americans were sure, we were free. And it meant: since you will try anyway, allow us the pleasure, to ease our own defeat, of having told yours in advance.... Thus no use, we thought, to listen closely to a Frenchman, to look closely at what, exactly, the French had done, and what happened to France in its war in Tonkin (North Vietnam). The differences were too great; analogies were irrelevant or mischievous, likewise French Advice.

So, Americans happy to bash the French, but not think too deeply beyond that, allowed their leaders to send troops to Vietnam, bomb and napalm its people who mostly supported what they saw as a nationalist, not communist, movement. Then, there was stalemate and it seemed that winning was impossible. Funny no one not French thought of that before thousands of American and Vietnamese died. The question became how to get out and the concern was mostly over how to get out and save face, not lives. The war slowed down; the bombing of North Vietnam stopped; Johnson decided not to run for re-election in 1968 leaving us with the choice between Nixon and Humphrey, both of whom seemed likely to quietly end the war, or so many thought.

Nixon won the 1968 national election (but not my grade school's mock election), and as we now know, never intended to leave Vietnam without a victory. He was still living in 1945, worrying about the spread of communism without ever understanding or attempting to understand what that really was or what that would have taken on the part of the then existing communist regimes that they could never have provided. He believed the strategy of threats would work and began bombing Cambodia as a threat to the Vietnamese that things would get even worse for them if they continued their insurrection (to us), defense (to them).

As my train hit the station and brought me back to 2006, it occurred to me that we got ourselves bogged down in Vietnam because we wanted to feel the euphoria of victory and the superiority over Europe that we felt in 1945 when we won WWII and our impression of the alternative was not much more than unbearable embarrassment.

For the mostpart, the current administration wants us to believe that we are fighting a war in Iraq to spread democracy and fight terrorists, same boogeymen, same lack of research and understanding, different name. Administration opponents say we are in it for the oil and military industries. Likely for some convoluted Rovian strategy no one can or will ever be able to figure out, Bush said in his State of the Union address that we are addicted to oil. I am beginning to think it is far simpler than all that. We need the euphoria, the superiority, the contest far more than the oil. We are addicted to war.

Someone wrote a book about it too.

Holy bill of rights, Batman!

Mark Kirk is talking about China again. They are working on intellectual-property rights and a hotline between the Department of Defense and its counterpart in Beijing, a Batphone.

It's likely they won't be sharing notes on providing greater rights to workers. Kirk says he has no position on any key issues on China which sort of begs the question of what exactly this House US-China Working Group is all about. Since the role has been left open to speculation, I'll take a stab at it.

China has been cracking down on free speech lately limiting the use of Internet blogs and cell phones at first and then went after the Beijing News having removed its editor Yang Bin last month in revenge for some reporting on a government cover-up of a benzene spill and violent demonstrations over a land dispute. The Christian Science Monitor reported:

The sudden move on Beijing News is part of a systematic effort by the central propaganda department in Beijing to more-closely police speech and expression. In the past year, the party initiated the broadest ideological education campaign in a decade. In part, that campaign discourages liberality and freedom of expression. The official news service Xinhua this week, in fact, selected this party campaign as its No. 1 story of 2005, calling it "a massive political and ideological education drive among more than 68 million CPC members to maintain their moral and socialist ethical superiority, a new, great project to promote Party construction."

and further reported on the issue of Internet control:

The success of Beijing's strategy - to harness the network's business potential while minimizing it as a conduit for free speech - has some concerned that it has established a medium and new censoring tools that other countries can adopt.

"The biggest danger is that China creates a very large market and testing ground for surveillance and filtering software," says Danny O'Brien with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

The "party initiated ideological education campaign" in China could be compared to Bush's 1.6 billion dollar propaganda campaign described in a recently released GAO report requested last year by a group led by Nancy Pelosi after disclosures that the administration had paid PR firms to produce "covert propaganda" to advance several of its initiatives including the scandal involving columnist Armstrong Williams being paid to tout No Child Left Behind. GAO found that the biggest media spenders were the Department of Defense and National Institute of Health, apparently pushing anti-choice propaganda.

Chinese controls on the Internet are not too very dissimilar to recent efforts by large administration supporting telephone and cable companies to privatize the Internet, take it away from the activists in this country and database our every webpage surf.

Since the Cultural Revolution, Beijing has specialized in using its media to create its own reality. The US is fairly new at it and Bush probably could use some help in his creation of his "I don't know Jack Abramoff.", "Martin Luther King was my friend.", "I'm not breaking the law spying because I get a court order, no I don't, well I don't need one anyway" world. Hence the Batphone between the Bush administration and China, for Bush to use when he need tips on media control just as Commissioner Gordon used the Batphone when he needed someone to help him fight the Joker.

Aiming at the wrong target

UPDATE 2/14/2:00pm-ish CST: Silly me for believing that Cheney's hunting accident was as minor as originally reported. He really got the guy who has now had what is being called a minor heart attack from birdshot that lodged in his heart. They'll even lie about an accident involving one of their friends. How low can you go?

Caught a few minutes of Little Russ Sunday morning while cleaning the oven. They were talking about the NSA spying scandal. The they included Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) and Ranking Member Jane Harman (D-CA). They all, Democrats included, said they simply loved NSA spying and that it either was legal or needed to become legal to protect us from the terrorists. Republicans preferred the argument that it was legal under the September 15th authorization for war in Afghanistan. Democrats preferred to gush over the spying while maintaining that it still required additional legislation.

No one mentioned the large pink rhino in the room. In 5 years of spying, no one has found Osama. Lots of elderly cookie-baking Quakers have been found, but no Osama.

In the meantime, Dick Cheney shot someone, a millionaire, attorney, Texas republican to boot.

The Bush administration like always is aiming at the wrong target.

Harman and Daschle are strategizing rather than representing. Can't blame Little Russ this time. He gave them every opportunity to stand up for the Constitution. They chose to yipe yipe yipe under the republican tough on terrorism apron. Only one caught today was that poor guy who got shot. Don't worry, he'll be ok. Problem is, so far, so is Osama.

Let's put a stop to the sweatshops

Must we sew and sew solely to survive/So some low so-and-so can thrive?/NO!!!/He'll fry in Hades/If it's up to the ladies/Waistmakers' Union Local 25./Unfair!" ~~ Sheldon Harnick, Fiorello!, 1959.

Back in 1959 when the musical Fiorello won a Pultizer Prize for it's depiction of the life of Fiorello Laguardia, champion of workers in New York, many looked with pride on the labor movement that began in the late 19th century and brought safe and livable working conditions, the end of child labor and fair wages to millions of Americans. American workers thought they finally won the worst of the labor battles, but no. Last week, I heard John McLaughlin on The McLaughlin Group declare OSHA an stranglehold on American business that had to be eliminated to create a global level playing field in business. No one in his "group" disagreed with him either.

I yelled at the television, but only the Democat heard me. Doesn't it all depend on the type of country you want to live in? Wouldn't most Americans rather pay more for goods than see their neighbors' grandchildren chained to looms. Isn't the real answer to competing in a global economy, not to eliminate American labor protection laws, but to require similar laws in nations with which we trade. Nope, I can see it now. It's going to be a gop talking point: American business cannot compete with current labor laws. It has nothing to do with the lack of national health care the cost of which burdens American businesses far more than the cost of bathroom breaks and keeping rats out of workplaces.

After they are finished convincing Americans that they have to give up their Fourth Amendment right to a probable cause warrant, they are going to work on convincing Americans that they have to live as their ancestors did, in sweatshops, for the good of the economy. A few will live in luxury, while the rest will live in chains, sometimes literally. It will be patriotic. We can tie kids to looms with material from American flags.

Mark Kirk, co-chair of the US-China Working Group in the House of Representatives, is working to increase understanding and trade with China, but hasn't made an issue of labor conditions there, doesn't even mention it. Kirk has stated that biggest problem with American/Chinese trade is lack of protection of intellectual property rights in China. Pirated software, not people, is the real issue to Kirk.

I was wondering why republicans are suddenly so interested in trade with China. Could it be that among the reasons is a little discussed legal victory for Chinese laborers brought to Saipan during the last decade to avoid both US tariffs and labor laws?

During the 1990s, with the help of Jack Abramoff and blessing of Tom Delay, Chinese businessmen brought laborers, mostly young women, from China to Saipan, part of the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, promising them good US jobs, but delivering indentured servitude contracts and deplorable working conditions. Doing business from Saipan was advantageous to Chinese businesses as it help them avoid US tariffs on trade from China with the bonus of being able to claim a "Made in the USA" label, but without enforcement of the US labor laws. However, several workers created a class that sued some of the large textile and apparel companies under US labor laws, some settled and recently some won in court. Now, companies in Saipan are subject to real enforcement of US labor laws invalidating their indentured servitude contracts and requiring compliance with workplace condition and fair wage laws. The jig is up in Saipan, so where will the cheap forced labor go? Back to China.

Kirk is working on a 2009 Year of China in Chicago, the year to be devoted to cultural festivals, working on our common goals and solving our shared problems. However, Kirk doesn't see the labor conditions in China as an issue, so what are we in Chicago to think of this upcoming Year of China. Will it be merely dim sum, lo mein and paper dragons or will we work to solve some real problems for labor in both China and in the US?

Long ago...

...in a galaxy not too far away.....

There was a girl. She lived in a world where fear and mistrust both bound and separated the people, hurt their prosperity. Rich and powerful people on both sides benefited from the tension and were not about to allow it to be explained or diffused.

The girl went to school, and worked hard and eventually became a talented speaker and teacher. She decided, not to teach math or language, but to try to teach people how to get along. To accomplish her mission, she made appearances across her region talking about injustices in the world and learning love and trust. In her work, the girl ran across both good and bad people. She knew that sometimes she would have to work in communities with some bad or troubled people to understand their issues, help them improve their situation, help them be trustworthy and help the others understand and learn to trust them. Her message was of peace, understanding, help and trust.

One day the girl was invited to speak in a fortunate community that had seen little injustice, but was educated enough to know it existed and had prior generations of people who had lived through extreme injustice. Her topic was very narrow; a provision of a new law taking away civil liberties from the people ostensibly for their protection against bad people. She and many others in the community believed that the law took away liberty, but gave little protection and failed to deal with the issues of what made people do bad things.

A few people in the community recognized the girl and advised others that the girl knew some bad people who were unfriendly to the community and potentially contributing to other groups of very bad people. Others in the community questioned the source of the information, known to be extremist and often untruthful all by itself, and knew that the girl's message was only of peace and understanding and felt she should be allowed to speak. What to do?

One side of the community wanted to hear what the girl had to say. They thought a dialogue between the sides might help. The other side of the community said no. Allowing the girl to speak would give a voice to the bad and unfriendly friends of the girl. Were they the girl's friends? Was she helping them? Was she one of them? Who knew!

The highest elected leader of the community, a man connected to the rich and powerful planetary leadership and the representative to the planetary governing body, saw an opportunity. He didn't really care about the group that feared the girl and her alleged friends. He didn't really care if the girl could help the groups get along better. He only wanted to gain more loyalty in the community. His strategy was to increase fear in the community against the girl and any group she was or may be associated with, even if she really wasn't. Then he could look like he was the only one who was protecting the community and they would be forever grateful and give him their full, unquestioning loyalty. This seemed like an easy way to gain power and hurt his opponents. However, he was afraid to totally lend his name to one of the sides in case he had some loyalty on the other side. So, he had his assistants send out a strong message that if the girl was allowed to speak, his followers would use that to claim those who let her speak represented bad people and destroy their standing in the community.

It doesn't matter what happened. The girl's message of peace, understanding, help and trust was lost in all the hubbub. No dialogue would happen. No trust increased. No understanding had. No help for either group was given. The questionable new law never received the scrutiny it required. Distrust increased. Harsh words, some true, most not, were spread in the questionable news organizations that were sources for the information to begin with. The status quo prevailed and the only one who gained anything was the leader who cared little for his community in the first place and his wealthy and powerful friends, all squeezing the prosperity out of the planet.

A Friday Skit -- Regrets, if any

Late one night in the White House. The bar is open...

On opposite ends of the couch...
W: You know, Condi. I never wanted to be president.
Condi: Swallows Hard and Winces. Sir?
W: I'm so good at it. I'm loved by all. I'll go down in history as a great president... with Lincoln and Washington. Ya know Alberto told me that Lincoln and Washington used electronic surveillance, monitored electricity, kept databases. Just like me. But you know, Condi, being president...it's not what I wanted to do. I wanted to be a CEO. I wanted to play golf with Kenny boy and Lee. I wanted stock options. I wanted to clear brush at the ranch. Did you know that black people don't like me, Condi?
Condi: I like you sir.
W: But you're not black.....

At a table across the room...
Karl: Know what really hurts, Dick? It was all so easy. Hardly needed my talents at all. So many went along. So many truly believed; the others went along anyway...a political necessity, expedient to just go along and hope to be left standing to take the leftover crumbs. All it took was one slogan: "A post 9/11 world...nothing will ever be the same." People bought it and anyone who argued against it, we just had to merge their faces into Osama's on TV. Hee hee. Who knew it would be so easy?
Cheney: Take heart, Karl. We needed you. The country still needed that push. The world needed to feel the pressure.

The Muslims needed those cartoons republished. The first time, no one paid attention. Republishing them was the key.

The Jews needed Israel in turmoil and at risk. They fought for civil rights and liberties, fought for the poor and disadvantaged for years, but you got them so worried that they sided with the same Evangelicals that want to see them converted or dead in an armageddon. You got them to side against their own interests and with real anti-semites, all by labeling as anti-semitic anyone who questioned accusations by Fox News and David Horowitz or questioned the war.

Christians. They needed to be proven right...lost faith in faith and wanted scientific proof so they could claim the moral authority. We let them know that if science didn't prove Christianity, we'd change science for them.

Soccer moms. They were the easiest. All they needed a nuclear Korea and Iran. You gave it to them. The men? Just keep them going back and forth from baseball, to football, to hockey and worried about their jobs, add a few macho images of Bruce Willis in Die Hard pretending he knows something about real war and they suddenly see the sense in a tough, if incompetetent, offense as defense game, so long as they don't have to join up themselves.

Karl, you gave everyone what they needed and kept the tensions high when another man might have diffused them, felt responsible to the country...to the world...to diffuse tensions, talk reason, mediate differences. Not you, Karl. You played it up and played it brilliantly and still do....

From across the room...
W: ...and the White Sox don't love me either. Chicago...still full of Democrats. Gangsters and Democrats. Karl...get on it!

Calling across the room:
Karl: Guillen's from Venezuela. That's Pat's department.
Brief silence.
Karl: What's bothering you, Dick?
Cheney: My toe.
Karl: Hee hee. Scooter will be ok. He'll be pardoned.
Cheney: No, I really meant my toe. Scooter knew the risks. No, that's not bothering me. I have few regrets, Karl. Wish Halliburton got into health care. There is going to be a pile of money in health spending accounts as a substitute for real health insurance... and multimedia. Be the news and control the news. I should have thought of that. That's all.

A quiet moment back on the couch:
Condi: What am I going to do when this is all over?
W: lalalalalalalala
Condi: Will I be able to go home? Chris Darden was on Oprah still stunned that his own community abandoned him for OJ.
W: lalalalalalalalalalalalal

The room darkens:
Cheney: I am glad for the break. Two weeks of solid sports coverage on TV. The Patriot Act is safe. The War is safe. Fourth Amendment is dead. We can re-write the Constitution. After all, we protected them from that second terrorism waive in 2002.
Karl: Smiling. The one back in 2002 that we just made up.
Cheney: They'll believe that and that no health insurance is health insurance by the time your through with them, Karl.
Karl: I am good.
Cheney: If lying and spinning were an Olympic sport, you'd be the gold medal winner.
Karl: ...and the world will be watching.

W: The Olympic team likes me, don't they? They'll come to the White House. Who needs that foreigner from Chicago anyway. We've got the Olympic spirit. Na na na na na na na....

Hello Wisconsin!!!

Folks from Massachusetts and Virginia generally get the credit for our national consciousness of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, privacy and the three branch checks and balances government. However, most of the little rational thought coming from our leaders these days is coming directly from Wisconsin, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

We can no longer tease our neighbors to the north about cheese, beer cheese, chocolate fudge cheese and Bucky Badger cheese because Senator Feingold was the only Senator that voted against the Patriot Act. It was only Feingold who had the strength to urge Americans not to get caught up in the powerful emotional spin that was leading us down the path of constitutional destruction. It was only Feingold who had the courage to say no when the others were too afraid of being painted un-patriotic in republican attack campaign ads. He was re-elected in 2004 anyway...a lesson for other Senators.

Feingold objected to the Patriot Act because he could see that it was only a first step for the Bush administration. That if we gave them this, we'd soon lose all our civil liberty protections. In a speech given on October 12, 2001 to the Associated Press Managing Editors Conference in Milwaukee, Feingold discussed the Bush Administration's unwarranted and artificial time pressure on Congress to pass the Patriot Act and noted several troubling provisions containd therein including a definition of "federal terrorism offense" including crimes not related to terrorism, noticeless searches not subject to error correction, unlimited computer monitoring, rules allowing indefinite detaining of immigrants and a general acceptance of government fishing expeditions on anyone for any reason. He warned Congress that they will have only fulfilled their duty to protect Americans when they protect "both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society." Congress ignored his plea and took the lazy and short-sighted, politically expedient route.

Fast forward to 2006 and Bush has taken the boost he got from the political fear vote in 2001 and turned it into a large scale national spying operation with no accountability and no oversight. The temptation to turn this apparatus against his political enemies is so extreme with so little consequence that it is doubtful it hasn't yet been used as such. Congress is again bowing to administration demands, a couple of meaningless squaks from Arlen Specter and a tiny baby hearing-lett without even swearing in the star witness. Again it is only Feingold with an unwaivering voice (in this speech he's referring to Bush's defense of the NSA warrantless spying program in the State of the Union Address):

The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.

How is that worthy of applause? Since when do we celebrate our commander in chief for violating our most basic freedoms, and misleading the American people in the process? When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law? In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.

Congress has lost its way if we don’t hold this President accountable for his actions....

The President was right about one thing. In his address, he said “We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.”

Yes, Mr. President. We do love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. We will fight to defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. And we will fight to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans against intrusive government power.

As the President said, we must always be clear in our principles. So let us be clear: We cherish the great and noble principle of freedom, we will fight to keep it, and we will hold this President – and anyone who violates those freedoms – accountable for their actions. In a n