A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum

As some of you might have guessed, I've been out of town, specifically Italy. Left is a bit of the Forum in Rome with church in the background. I'm pretty jetlagged so blogging will probably won't begin in earnest until the weekend.

Thanks to the commenters who kept the blog going while I was gone. My mom was keeping an eye on the comments and deleting the advertisements. Thanks Mom! She's getting a pretty good present from Florence for that and for taking care of Democat. Dad too!

I learned a lot about Italy and western politics while I was gone. Upcoming posts will include thoughts on why the Italians are not that religious and what that might mean to the Christian right in the US, why the food is just better in Italy and no one is fat, what oppressive clutter is and why it didn't end with the ancient Romans, do conquerors ever leave anything more than pigeon droppings, and why Italians seem to feel sorry for Americans. I'll also tell you about an American singer songwriter I met and why you might want to check out his new CD.

Here's a few more pictures of Venice, Florence and Rome just for fun:

There is a flounder in my tomatoes

One of the most serious problems with the Bush administration, its supporters like Mark Kirk who claim to be "moderate", and the just plain old right wing thinking that is propagated by their control of the media and large marketing budgets, is that the only thing we can be sure of is that we cannot be sure of proper enforcement of our federal health and safety regulations any more and have little hope of the creation of any new protections, and this is just when we may need it most.

Back in the days of Upton Sinclair who fought for food safety regulations at the beginning of the 20th Century, new regulations were needed to force growing industries to protect the purety of food and and create better working conditions for their employees. Now, we could be dealing with the very future of life on this earth. When I say that, I'm not speaking in hyperbole. I'm talking about genetic modification of our food.

Do you know what genetic modification of food means? Take a look at what the Union of Concerned Scientists say here and here. Here is what the Center for Food Safety has to say. Basically, genes from other species are spliced into the genetic makeup of seeds used for crops. This is being done with potatos, cotton, corn and even soy beans (and you thought the tofu was good for you). They are even trying it with fish.

What they splice in for the most part is the ability to create an internal pesticide. There might be other traits they choose to propagate such as the ability to withstand heat or cold or lack of water or too much water. If the idea is to make it easier and more productive to farm, then what's the problem, right? They just want to feed the world, right?

Well, as with anything corporate, it's not that simple. One of the problems with genetic engineering is that there has not been a whole lot of testing to see if genetically modified (GMo) food is safe for human consumption over the long term. It's also anti-competitive because in a real marketplace, consumers would be able to reject items they don't want, but in the case of genetically modified food, there are no labeling requirements, so consumers don't know what they are getting. GMo foods are foisted upon unknowing consumers. In addition to all this, corporations that sell these products want to protect their R&D investment, so they patent the seeds. That sounds only fair, doesn't it? Maybe, but there is no controlling what happens out in the fields with wind and storms and such, so the GMo seeds often spread and when they do, the companies like to sue farmers for "infringing" the patents.

It gets even more interesting when you consider terminator technology. Plants from terminator seeds do not reproduce seeds like natural plants. GMo companies create these seeds to prevent farmers from replanting seeds created on their own farms, requiring them to purchase new seeds every year. Here is a Canadian website on terminator technology. Here is some information from an American group against terminator technology. The growing use of terminator seeds is bad news for poorer farmers and for consumers because it increases costs. It is also potentially dangerous as terminator seeds could blow into other fields and overtake natural crops. It's also pretty scary that a few corporations may one day control much of the food supply. Ah, but they are doing this to feed the world, right? Uh... not so much. The real reason people still starve on this abundant planet is not the lack of GMo food, but the lack of polical will to distribute food to the needy.

There is some local effort around the country to ban GMo seeds, see here too , and some farming groups vow to boycott them too. One federal judge recently took a stand banning GMo alfalfa until the USDA makes a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the crop finding that the USDA failed to do its job to study this technology.

This issue doesn't seem to have a lot of traction. Few Americans seem to care or even know what it's all about. I find that strange because everyone has to eat. GMo food poses the danger of placing control of the food supply with profit seeking corporations loyal to no one but shareholders and poses a threat to genetic diversity on our planet. It's also expensive for farmers and consumers. It may pose a risk to consumers, but we don't know because no one is really testing it. They probably don't want to know. It will interfere with their profits and our crony-run regulatory agencies wouldn't want that to happen now would they.

No Bush is an Island

There have been several articles in the press over the past few days about republican worries over Bush's unpopularity and the republican debates have featured candidates seeking to distance themselves from him. There was also the White House meeting with the republican 11, Mark Kirk included, that was supposed to have been tough talk on Iraq...well, not really on Iraq, but more on it's affect on their chances of winning re-election. republicans are also strategizing again to divert attention away from
Bush
And
Iraq
And
Gonzales
And
torture
And
global warming
And
illegal spying on Americans
And
the disappearance of 1st, and 4th Amendment rights and habeas corpus
And
paralized health and safety regulatory agencies
And
on and on
by talking about the economy (high gas prices, mortgage foreclosures, lack of health care, international outsourcing and general job insecurity excluded) or the suburban strategy of pretending to protect our children, but mostly protecting them from ideas not in line with their own.

I think they can bend over backwards trying to distance and divert, but it's just not going to work this time because it is apparent to all but the most brainwashed that it wasn't just Bush. Bush never acted alone in any of this. His party of lockstep loyalty was along with him every step of the way and they benefited from blindly backing him by getting republican party campaign dollars and the ability to glom on to the Karl Rove smear campaign against all political opponents.

Hillary was right. It takes a village and in this case it was a village of complicit parties willing to do anything for the power and the campaign dollars. When Congress debated the war authorization resolution back in October 2002, Mark Kirk was right there with Bush going over what we now know to have been lies about evidence of WMD. See here too. Over the years, as war news got worse and worse, we saw few republicans speaking out even simply to better train and equip the troops they now claim to support, the support being nothing more than empty words. The few who spoke out never ended up standing behind their words in votes. Hagel folded pretty quickly as did Kirk and the other 10 just last week.

When Terri Schiavo lay literally mindless in a hospital and it was time for her to be put to rest, the Bush administration pressed the republican controlled Congress to rush back and pass a law to keep her alive for pure politics. Sure enough, they did it. Few said anything and there were only 58 no votes in the House (and sadly many Democrats were in that too showing how republican smear tactics affected their votes too). Kirk was right there for Bush and the religious right voting to artificially keep Terri alive although he had sold the district on his "moderate" outlook. The autopsy later proved that none of the republican talking points on her condition were correct and they never apologized to Michael Schiavo for the character assassination they perpetrated on him. They riled up the religious right for loyalty and votes and they were happy with the result.

Katrina ripped through Mississippi and Louisiana and we saw thousands of people stranded without shelter, food and water in intense late summer heat and nothing was done. Brownie was doing a heckofajob and, while there was a little discussion of the problems immediately thereafter, mostly brought about by horrified reporters on the scene who never before saw the republican cause that they usually champion so very up close and personal, the republican congress failed to take action to help the people or make sure the situation never happened again. They did manage to legislate relief for oil companies, however.

As for the ever growing scandal at the Attorney General's office, there has been little real outrage among republicans. At first, they mostly bent over backwards to excuse Gonzales and shout how very legal the firings were and how the whole thing is politically motivated (as if they should talk). Now that it is panning out that what happened at Justice wasn't so very legal and Gonzales' credibility is gone, there are a few whimpers from his own party, but they seem to be waiting and watching to see how they should position themselves to fit the expected outcome more than taking active positions favoring honesty and justice. republicans (again) seem angrier about the scandal's effect on their re-election chances than any real problem over the widening possibility of obstruction of justice and vote supression.

We are in a war based on lies. We've lost our health and safety regulatory structure leaving us with the recall du jour. We don't know if we can trust federal prosecutions. We've lost rights that used to be part of what made us Americans. We've neglected our education system and consequently have lost our competativeness. The middle class is saddled with unfair taxation. Our city streets are lined with homeless. We've thrown away science in favor of superstition and gag our scientists like its 1616 and not 2007. Global warming has been not only ignored, but actually actively hidden (and was that not Mark Kirk in an early meeting of global warming contrarians?). We lost our moral authority in the world and much of our national pride. After everything that has happened and everything they have done and failed to do over the years, republicans now want us to think this was just Bush all by himself. They want us to think they are ok and believe they just need to distance themselves from him in order to win re-election.

Since 2000, there has never been any serious outrage among republicans over any of Bush's misdeeds. Why should we allow them to distance themselves from him now?

Eat and Breath Deeply

Melamine.

It killed cats.

It killed dogs.

The hogs lived, so they are feeding them to us.

The Bush FDA says they are ok to eat. The Bush EPA said the air over the WTC on September 12, 2007 was just fine too. Well, we cannot lay all blame on the EPA, Bush administration insiders were controlling their communications on the air quality. Turns out Dr. Rice with her PHD in pandering to Bush had more control over what was said and done about first responder's health than any real MD doctors or environmental sciences.

The problem with the executive branch under Bush is that we cannot trust anything they say or do. Not one of the republican contenders for president wants to restore trust in our regulatory system. This is exactly what they were going for and they have no intention of fixing it. They think they'll convince Americans to once again vote hate and fear and forget the rest and maybe hate and fear will rule the day again next November, but just maybe what Americans hate is bad food and what Americans fear is bad air.

republican Positions on Iraq or My Brain Hurts

Now we get to watch the republicans scramble to position and re-position themselves depending on which 2008 strategy they are going for--keep the base or get the independents. As you know by now, Kirk has positioned himself in the "I am against continuing the war and for getting tough with Bush, but for funding the war and for keeping troops in Iraq and continuing to support Bush because if I make enough anti-war noise in the press, my district will never figure out that I really still mean stay the course because it worked for me before" group. It's a small group because most don't like that they can't fit the name on a business card.

McCain, Kirk's (former?) idol is in the "no one not even the Iraqi government itself can get us to leave" group. Giuliani appears to still be in the "stay the course" group and that would go along with his big "I'm a 9/11 hero" routine even though his decision to keep NYC's disaster response in the World Trade Center was a big mistake. That's ok, though. He can pass the buck as most of them are prone to do.

Romney's in the "I'm against the war and at the same time I'm for continuing it and Bush's strategy was bad, but he is a great leader" group. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says it's Iraq's fault that we invaded them based on lies and he's disappointed that the so-called democratically elected government of Iraq isn't paying back our investment in them fast enough. I suppose, he doesn't count the oil that's been taken. The most confused of the lot is Fred Thompson who seems to think that we're still going to find WMD (well either that or he's working off an old script).

The republican strategy seems to be to confuse American voters into voting for them. I don't think that's going to work for them. What did work for them was lock step loyalty. It didn't work for the country, but it worked for them. Now, they are going around calling each other stupid. Ah, finally some insight.

Vera Drake: Injustice of Abortion Politics

Movie night brought Vera Drake to my attention. It's a British movie written and directed by Mike Leigh. The movie is set in 1950 London where the Drakes, a very sweet and simple family live and work. The dad is a WWII vet and runs a auto repair shop with his brother. The son works in a haberdashery and the daughter tests light bulbs. The mom, Vera, works as a domestic in the homes of wealthy people and looks after several ill and displaced people in her spare time. She has spare time for one more thing, she performs abortions for poor women unable to pay for legal abortions in hospitals.

Vera is particularly sweet and simple and wouldn't think of taking pence or pound for the help she provides to young women (as they refer to it). Vera has her own very personal reasons not involving economic gain for providing this sort of help to young women. It doesn't stop the friend who directs the women in need to her from taking money without telling Vera. Vera's biggest mistake, however, is not understanding basic medical surgical procedure, particularly sterilization, and a young women almost dies from an infection after Vera's visit. This brings the police into the picture and Vera's life and that of her family members go into a tailspin.

The movie shows what happens when a wealthy girl needs an abortion. She pays L150, has an interview with a psychiatrist and goes to a very clean and nice hospital. No fear, no issues, no problems. The women Vera sees are often alone and scared. Vera gives a very simple explanation of the procedure and they get to remain scared until the pain and blood come. Then, they are on their own. We never know how many women get infections and die. Vera doesn't even know.

Of course, Vera becomes the scapegoat for this societal ill and the legal system trounces her. The police seem all nice and comforting to Vera and her family, but in doing so they coax a confession out of her early on and only thereafter tell her that anything she says will be used against her. She's never told she can have an attorney, but after her confession, she eventially gets a soliciter and what looks like our equivalent of a court appointed trial lawyer, or as they call it in England, a barrister. It's English law circa 1950 and I'm no expert in that, but it is stunning to see Vera get a pretty stiff sentence because of her lack of rights and adequate, timely defense.

Sure Vera is guilty and sure she used way more than bad judgment, but the movie is a lesson in what will happen here when the Bush folks who Mark Kirk supports in campaign dollars and general support of party members get their way and overturn Roe v. Wade. Wealthy women will go to Europe for safe and legal abortions and poor women will get the equivalent of Vera Drake.

Vera Drake gets 3 1/2 cat treats and should be required viewing for republicans, but they probably won't care anyway because abortion politics is only politics to them, all about money and control, not life.

republican blues or the rats don't even have to courage to desert the sinking ship

You know your republican congressman is having a bad day when the right wingnut newspaper in town that goes out of its way to endorse republicans is getting pissy on him. I think my favorite part of the article is when they put the word "frank" in quotes when describing the nature of the conversation between the 11 congressmen and the President.

You know I'm always trying to help Mark out here on the blog and I have an idea for him. Maybe he should run on republican's superior morals? He can talk about what they do to protect children from pedophiles? Well no, there was that deal with protecting Mark Foley. Maybe he can talk about stopping prostitution? Well no, several Washington republicans are caught up in the DC Madame nonsense. Ok, he should talk about how great business is doing? Well, no all that great trade with China he supported brought us dead pets and poison fake glycerine is moving around the planet. OK, he can talk about the great opportunites for home ownership. Well, no. Folks are losing their homes to foreclosure at unprecidented rates. Can he talk about how the republicans cleaned up government from those awful Clinton years? Maybe not. Corruption in war profiteering and missing Iraqi oil. Corruption by Wolfowitz at the World Bank. Corruption in congress with Abramoff, Ney, Cunningham etc. OK, now I have it. Mark can campaign on uh uh uh...ok I cannot think of anything, but I'll have Democat ponder on it while I go out and do my errands.

Bush and Cheney seem to be having a lousy weekend too. None of the top universities want to have them as graduation speakers. Cheney at BYU sparked a counter ceremony with Ralph Nader as the speaker. Bush spoke at a small Catholic college and was not only met with protests, but a student purposely failed to graduate to avoid graduating in that ceremony. He did tout taking initiative rather than relying on government to bail you out. Wonder why he didn't take that advice himself? I guess he wants the young graduates to learn from his mistakes.

See, Kirk is not for changing course in Iraq after all

UPDATE:

Madame Defarge was the first to break the story on this blog in the comments. I'm just bringing it up to the front page:

Never believe anything you see or hear from this administration and is sycophants...it is all fake. Even Ray LaHood admitted it this morning on CSPAN. The Decider called them to meet at the White House, not the other way around.

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

Hawkeye caught it before I did. Thanks. Here's the vote. Kirk voted against redeployment.

According to one report, old Ellen was not far off the mark (no pun intended) yesterday when she mused that it was all a media event leaked to the press on purpose:

Two GOP lawmakers said that Rove admonished Kirk for talking to the media about the private meeting.

Ah the fun of watching Marky try to distance himself from Bush/Cheney/Rove after all these years watching him carrying water for them. Well it would be fun if people hadn't died and continue to die for their political games. Now it just another tragedy in this republican bizarro America. Can we go back to regular America now?

Government by and for party

One of the problems with the republican party, particularly Mark Kirk, has been that for 7 years they've had no problem with the lies, lack of support for the troops and mismanagement regarding the Iraq War. Kirk used his background in Naval Intelligence to sell the war to the district and even spread some of the lies on the house floor back in October 2002 to get the vote out for the authorizing resolution. The death and destruction was A-OK with Kirk and his buddies as long as it was part of the fear vote getting machine. Now, it seems some of them, including Kirk who is running scared for 2008 with Dan Seals, a very attractive Democratic candidate, in the background, have finally figured out that the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" vote getting gravy train had dried up. They had a meeting with Bush, Rice, Rove, Snow et. al. to talk turkey about how the war is going to affect 2008.

However, from Russert's report (and I note that we really do not know exactly what happened in that meeting), it seems that their purpose was again just to secure votes in the 2008 election and had little to do with telling the truth or doing the right thing in Iraq or doing the right thing by the soldiers or the American people.

So, while there may be some good that can come out of this meeting (and it might be that I'm just being optimistic here), we need to remain very aware that voting republican in 2008 is voting for government by and for party and not government by and for the people of this country. Governing by this group is for politics' sake only and not to actually govern for the greater good of the country. I remain unimpressed with Kirk and his party.

Reagan's Legacy: Anything for a Vote

I didn't watch the republican debate because I have a sensitive gag reflex. However, I did hear that it was a Ronald Reagan love fest. What none of them likely pointed out is Reagan's real legacy. He was no great leader when it really mattered and he set this country backward on many important issues including energy and the environment, racism, poverty, and AIDS.

I've written about Reagan's legacy on racism and poverty in this country before. Reagan used false images of Cadillac driving welfare queens and referred to African American men as "strapping black bucks" who bought steaks with their food stamps to get votes and it worked. Reagan and his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. Here is an interesting article on Reagan's record on race, fair housing and voting rights and his "grab for the white racist vote." When real leadership was needed to uplift everyone in the country, Reagan chose selfish power plays.

As I pointed out in the prior post Reagan also turned the country backward on energy and the environment. He pointed us squarely in the direction of big oil and auto because that is what oil and auto company tycoons wanted to hear and, frankly, what the American people wanted to hear too. Who needs sacrifice and expense when they can choose short term profits and the easy way out?

Despite all the the above, I think the worst legacy of the Reagan administration is its legacy on the treatment of people with AIDS. He said nothing and did nothing about AIDS for 12 critical years. Here is an intersting article in which the author concludes that Reagan was not indifferent because of any particular religious or anti-gay feelings. He simply did not care and wanted to get and keep votes. That would go along with his record on race, poverty, energy and the environment, so he might be correct.

I think the Reagan legacy of indifference and willingness to do anything to get a vote (and the attitude that votes based on hate are just fine, in fact, better because they are more secure) is living on in the current group of republicans. Bush is the new poster child of anything for a vote with his talk of Islamofacism and tolerance of racial and sexual orientation based hatemongering. Kirk is the local version with his vocal favor of discrimination against young Arab males and the way he chooses issues and individuals to support.

Short Term Thinking on Energy

Gas is $3.32 by my house. What are you seeing near you?

Wasn't it George Bush who said:

Gasoline price increases are like a hidden tax on the working people. They're like a tax on our farmers. They're like a tax on small businesses. Energy prices are -- energy experts predict gas prices are going to remain high throughout the summer, and that's going to be a continued strain on the American people. And so the fundamental question is, what are we going to do?

Of course he went on to tout his oil company crony written energy policy so we knew not to expect too much.

Here's a good explanation of one of their favorite provisions that's been around for a while, but has been senselessly continued by the Bush administration, tax breaks for oil companies. These include the percentage depletion allowance which allows oil companies to deduct a flat percentage of their gross revenues without figuring out it's useful life, and the intangible drilling costs deduction which allows oil companies to write off development costs immediately. There is also a loss tax allowance which allows losses to offset other types of income, something you have not been able to do since 1986. Then, there are the royalties the oil companies need not pay for drilling on our public land. H.R. 6 that would repeal these royalties was passed in the House, but still sits in committee in the Senate.

Bush is still trying to expand drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

When Carter said that achieving energy independence was "the moral equivalent of war" back in 1979, he meant that we needed to reduce our oil consumption and find alternative fuels, not actually starting a war to get more oil. Then, Reagan dismantled the White House solar panels and wood burning stove to the tune of cheers from a very badly led and confused American public that thought they were off the hook just because Reagan said so. Then, Bush II went ahead and started that war for oil and that didn't even work, not to mention all the death, destruction, mysery and loss of trust it created around the world. That's the republican energy policy. Short term thinking and no concept of consequences.

Hello Dalai--The Dalai Lama Comes to Chicago with the Message that War is Obsolete

May 6, 2007 is XIV Dalai Lama Day in Chicago and I celebrated by traveling downtown to see Tenzin Gyatso, the XIV Dalai Lama, speak on the topic of Finding Inner Peace in a World Full of Turmoil (of course, his being in Chicago is probably why it was proclaimed by the Mayor to be XIV Dalai Lama Day). The event was sponsored by the Tibetan Alliance of Chicago and its President, Yeshi Tenzin Dremagang spoke about their efforts "to preserve the Tibetan culture for Tibetans and the rest of the world" and introduced the performers who set the tone for the discussion. I wonder if he'd feel bad that the Tenth re-elected Mark Kirk who believes that the only problem with China is their tendency to violate Intellectual Property law (Kirk seems to have no problem tainted pet food and human food and now glycerine products used in medicines).

First on were the Awakening World Musicians Ensemble, the Percussion Ensemble of Chicago Children's Choir, the Concert Choir of Chicago Childrens Choir and the Chicago Tibetan Children's Dance Troups. Just before the Dalai Lama was a performance of the Homage to Buddha Shakya Muni by the Gyuto Monks. This includes prayers of thanks to the Buddha for "the opportunity to hear and practice his teachings", praises of the Buddha for his unlimited compassion and wisdom that benefits all humans, messages of virtue, understanding and discipline, wishes for all be freed from suffering and ends with a prayer for long life and a healty environment and rejoicing for good deeds. I cannot describe the sound of the Monks very well in words. It was sort of like a chant, but very unusual to me. You can listen a bit here (scroll down, left hand column).

The Dalai Lama (Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshi Tenzin Gyatso, here "Gyatso", see here on Tibetan names) starts by saying hello and the audience says hello back, so it is not totally inappropriate to title the post "Hello Dalai" even though it's probably a tired old joke to him while in America. He does have a tremendous sense of humor and does not present himself with an air of self-importance as do so many of our leaders. In fact, he's very up front about who he is. He said that some people come to see him out of curiosity and that is just fine by him. Some come to see him for a very special message and he feels they will be disappointed. Still others come for some sort of miraculous healing. He says that is absolute nonsense. He prefers to think of his events as informal discussions among friends on the human level.

Getting to the topic, Gyatso started with the basic Buddhist notion that all sentient beings, including animals and insects, by nature want to avoid suffering. Animals have simplier minds, but can distinguish and seek out peace and calm (Democat sure does, but I think would dispute the simplicity of her mind!) Humans from birth seek out happiness and want satisfying lives and everyone has the right to same. Therefore, Gyatso believes that the purpose of life is for happiness. The past can bring memories of sadness and the future is not certain, so it is very important to have hope which is made up of optimism, courage and self-confidence. It is with hope, Gyatso says, that we survive.

Suffering and pain are at 2 levels Gyatso teaches, the sensory level and the mental level. Throughout the ages, we have been pretty much obsessed with the sensory level to meet our physical and material needs. In more recent times, while we still focus a lot at the sensory level, we are able to focus more on the mental level. However, at the mental level, we have ups and downs from worry or expectation. There is promise at the mental level, however, as there is the possibility of improving our physical situation through the power of our brains. Physical discomfort can be more easily endured when happy on the mental level.

Gyatso believes that we need to be less focused on external means for entertaining ourselves. We are always turning on the television or music for external stimulation and seldom just enjoy our inner peace. He observed that many people get very upset when they are delayed in travel. He sees travel delay as an opportunity to sit and think. If sleep does not come easily, it can be looked at as an opportunity for useful analytical thinking. We need to use the miraculous capacity of our brain and find entertainment, refreshment and energy in our own mind.

How do we fix the world? By taking care of our own mental state. It is beyond our ability to solve all the world's problems, but we can reduce problems by reducing disturbances in our own mind. Gyatso tells the story of the master who thought about covering the entire earth with leather to make it easier to walk around. That, of course, was impossible, but if we cover everyone's feet with leather, and the problem is solved for everyone.

Gyatso told a couple of stories about Chairman Mao from the 1950s when he visited with him a few times before being forced into exile. When they first met in Peking in 1954 Mao acted sort of like a father figure to Gyatso. In one story, Mao asked Gyatso if Tibet had a flag and Gyatso replied yes. Mao said that was ok and maybe even useful for Tibet to keep its flag. Now, it is illegal to fly the Tibetan flag in Tibet, but Gyatso still points out that Mao said it is ok. On Gyatso's return to Tibet from Peking, he felt full of trust, hope and confidence. Those were hopefull, happy memories for him. Then in 1956, things began to go wrong and things are very sad for Tibet, but he still feels that their mental training and peace of mind can help Tibetans.

The real danger in the world to Gyatso is the loss of compassion and by compassion he means unbiased compassion. Biased compassion is compassion toward a select group of closely attached people. Unbiased, real compassion, is not limited to those who you are close with and have a good attitude toward you, but everyone including those who do not have a good attitude toward you, even your enemy. Unbiased compassion has a solid basis because it comes from reason and is therefore a source of inner strength. Gyatso believes that we all have the seed of real compassion from birth because our survival just after birth is dependent on the compassion of others. We need to use analytical meditation to develop full compassion.

The real enemy is anger. While it might create some additional strength and energy, it disturbs our peace of mind and eats at our inner systems making problems appear unbearable. To help curb anger, it is helpful to think of oneself as the subject and anger as the object. What's worse? Hatred. Anger and hatred create enemies, so they are the real enemy.

On stopping terrorism, Gyatso said that the hatred is built up over a long period of time. We need to get to the causes and conditions that create it. Close contact, talk and listening, dialogue, is important. Dialogue needs to become part of our education. He calls such an education our "inner disarmament" and it is needed to create external disarmament.

To Gyatso, the world is so small now with international travel and trade that war is really obsolete.

Gyatso's simple message to the world is one of reason, courage, compassion, education and self-confidence. It's a far cry from our own leaders who have been governing with fear and race baiting. I think Gyatso would want us to have hope that this will pass and we will eventually regain our reason, courage, compassion and self-confidence. We need education to make that happen. Liberals, Democrats and Progressives, go forth and educate! That is after all, what we are all about. Tell your congressman, war is out. Education is the new black.

Read more about the Dalai Lama here.

We Need Truth In Fake Activist Advertising

Just about every morning this past week I saw some commercial telling me that some group is looking out for me as a consumer. AT&T is flooding television with advertisements in which it claims that it cares about lowering the cost of my cable bill so much that it needs special protection under their proposed H. B. 1500 to do so. They never say in their commericals that same are paid for by AT&T making it look like they are from a citizens activist group. The real activist group is against this measure and is called Keep Us Connected, a coalition of Illinois nonprofit organizations, municipalities, educational institutions, and PEG (Public, Educational and Governmental channels) Access stations. They are happy to tell you who they are on their website. They don't have the cash to compete with AT&T with television ads.

Then, on Friday I think, I saw another one of those CORE commercials telling me that they care so much about keeping my electric bill lower, they are working to stop the IL legislature from considering a new rate freeze. CORE as you all know is not CUB, the Citizens Utility Board. No, CORE is a group led by Com Ed. That, they never seem to get around to mentioning in the commercial.

Time for these corporations who use their vast advertising budgets to convince people to act against their own interests to be required to say who they are on their ads. That is the legislation needed in Illinois.

uh, by the way...

1. Here's what fake thoughtful and independent leadership gets a district. Nothing more than a blank check for the Bush administration to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Again, we are left to ask: What happened to Kirk's comments to the Daily Herald and Pioneer Press that it is time to "wind down U.S. troops, not increase them"? Was he lying to get a sound byte he thought constituents wanted to hear and they'd forget before they vote in the next election or did he just lose his thoughtful and independent nerve.

2. Maybe Mark Kirk was wrong about only worrying about IP violations when trading with China. A trading partner's behavior toward its own people is a very good indication of what it will do to you. It wasn't just cat and dog food that got contaminated:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA) have learned that byproducts from pet food manufactured with contaminated wheat gluten imported from China have been used in chicken feed on some farms in the state of Indiana. This information came to light as part of the continuing investigation into imported rice protein concentrate and wheat gluten that have been found to contain melamine and melamine-related compounds.

What are the USDA and FDA going to do? Unclear with the current state of our health and safety regulatory scheme under the Bush crony administration. Ok republican commenters, do you really have no concerns for your own food supply. That one time $200 tax cut didn' t buy you your own chicken feed factory, did it?

3. Just because they say it doesn't make it true. As for the republican talking point that the US Attorney firings were completely legal, think again. It's looking like the investigation is uncovering hiring and firing completely based on political affiliation. Apart from the evidence of obstruction of justice which is illegal all by itself, it is illegal to hire and fire based on party affiliation.

4. The United States of the republican Party? Not directly related to US Attorney-gate, but evidence of the same attitude are the violations of the Hatch Act (see here too) , illegal politicking on the people's time with the people's dime.

Happy Belated Law Day

I didn't get a chance to wish you all a happy Law Day on May 1st. I was busy at a Law Day celebration/CLE : IICLE’s Annual Law Professionalism Forum: Clarence Darrow – Crimes, Causes, and the Courtroom! If you have a chance to participate in this some time in the future (you do not have to be an attorney to go), do so. I highly recommend it. The Forum starts with a theatrical performance/one man show starring Graham Thatcher of Periaktos Productions playing Darrow. Thatcher portrays Darrow going through 4 of his most famous cases: Leopold and Loeb (L&L), Henry Sweet, McNamara and the Scopes so-called "Monkey Trial" illustrating various pressing social issues of the day and various professional responsibility themes.

Darrow was particularly inspired against the death penalty and defended in L&L and McNamara to keep his clients from it rather than trying to get them off completely. In both of these cases, Darrow knew his clients were guilty, Leopold and Loeb having had confessed to just about every news source in Chicago, and the McNamaras having left no doubt by putting the costs of the explosives they used on their union books. In L&L, the parents put up a lot of money to get their kids off, but Darrow felt that was not possible and worked to keep them from the gallows by having them plead guilty and arguing against the death penalty and for mercy and even love. They were both sentenced to prison rather than death.

McNamara was more complicated as the union put up the defense money, and some say that they really wanted the McNamara brothers to be found guilty and put to death to add martyrs to the labor movement. Darrow had them plead guilty also to prevent their executions. It should also be noted that Darrow was accused of jury tampering in this case and put on trial himself twice, once aquitted and once getting off on a hung jury for a lesser charge. His guilt or innocence is still disputed in the legal community.

Darrow also fought the good fight for racial justice. In the Henry Sweet case, he defended an African-American family that purchased a house in a white neighborhood. They were confronted with angry mobs in front of their home for a few nights and when it seemed that the situation was escalating, someone shot and someone (white) died. The police arrested all 11 adults in the house. Darrow defended the case on the theory that charges would have never been brought if the defendants were white and the deceased black, and appealed to the better nature of the all white, male jury. Particularly effective was his closing statement pointing out that the prosecution brought over 70 eye witnesses to prove that there was no mob in front of the Sweet home. 70 sounded like a mob to him and the jury agreed. Sad that we still have racial issues in this country and republican politicians seldom seem to shrink from race baiting to get votes. They just don't care that someone could get hurt by a mob they may rile up.

The Scopes trial involved a school teacher who is claimed to have taught evolution in Tennessee that was subject to a law requiring all teaching of creation be consistent with Genesis (turns out that it is disputed whether or not Scopes actually taught evolution in his class--I never knew that!). Darrow went up against famous orator William Jennings Bryant who claimed to be a Christian fundamentalist, although from his testamony, it does not appear that he really believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible at all and was easily tripped up in his testimony. (also turns out that Bryant and Darrow had been friends in their early years--I never knew that either!) Funny how we are still fighting this fight against those who would silence science today.

After the performance, the room was open up to debate on the professional responsibility issues brought up in the cases. We spent much of the time hearing from attorneys in the audience about clients that have not paid and it was generally agreed that if you don't get paid, you failed to manage the situation and the client well. Once refreshing public defender talked about trusting in the system to do her job every day. All very interesting, but I was wondering about leadership.

Darrow, if nothing else, was a social leader of his times. He cared about workers burdened by uncontrolled corporate greed, and blacks burdened by Jim Crow laws, housing restrictions and plain old racial hatred and wanted to help this country get on track with some social progress. He was also vigorously against the death penalty when few others were. He is famous for observing that we do not execute the rich and powerful who pillage and kill. We execute the wretched. Darrow fought the social ills he abhored case by case and gave up a steady job as an attorney for the railroad to do it, but he also stood up as a national leader and not just an attorney defending clients for fees. We don't see that too often any more as many attorneys go for fame and wealth. We even recently saw a judge unashamedly use a case to get a gig as a television judge.

I hope the wake up call we've gotten under the Bush administration and previous republican congress, and maybe even our new Illinois MCLE requirement, will bring out real leaders in our legal community. We may have been lulled into thinking social progress had been acheived, but looking at the cases fought by Darrow in the early decades of the 20th century and looking at what we have now, it is clear that we took a big step backward sometime between then and now. Once again, we need lawyers to take up cases that can help lead the country out of racial hatred and the unfair society sought by republicans working hard to scare Americans into voting against their best interest.

So far, I am concerned. Today's Daily Law Bulletin reports that far fewer cases (61% fewer than in the mid-late 1980s) are being taken up by the Supreme Court. In the article, Lawrence Baum, of Ohio State University explained that it is because fewer cases assert conflicting opinions at the circuit level because the judiciary is far more homogeneous that it has ever been before. Homogeneous conservative due to Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointments. We may have lost our ability to find justice in the courts when it has failed us in the legislature and in the executive regulatory scheme. Now politics controls everything leaving the American people without justice.

Mission Accomplished

On May 1, 2003, Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare major combat operations in Iraq complete in front of a banner that read "Mission Accomplished". You may be surprised to hear that I actually part with common Democratic wisdom here and agree with that banner. The mission was to get us into Iraq despite no good reason to do so and that mission was in fact accomplished.

As Bush vetos the spending bill that would put and end date on the Iraq War, he accomplishes the current mission in Iraq because the mission in Iraq is to stay in Iraq.

Until you get that, you'll never get what is happening to our country.

Asking Permission to be Independent is not Independence

What if instead of this, Thomas Jefferson said:

Uh, Mr. King George, Sir, may we please, if you think it's ok, and you don't mind too much, and it's not really a terrible inconvenience...

Anyway, our "thoughtful and independent" Congressman, Mark Kirk, gets his independence by asking permission of his party leaders, just not when it's too very important. See this article about how republican leaders are using the Democratic majority to permit at risk members to go after fake independent credentials. Here's a bit:

Republican leaders, stung by their defeats in November, have been willing to let members go their own way on politically sensitive votes. And they have encouraged a new generation of conservatives to emerge as the face of partisan combat.

And Mark Kirk is included in the mix of those needing the help, but of course not really able to cut the apron strings from Bush and Cheney in any meaningful way as exhibited by his most recent vote to stay in Iraq indefinitely no matter what:

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, R-Ill., has long cherished his reputation as an independent moderate, in sync with his affluent but socially liberal district on Chicago's suburban North Shore. But high-profile showdowns with GOP leaders have tended to end with him voting for their bills; his career party-unity score comes in at 83 percent.

In November, a practically unknown Democrat named Dan Seals nearly knocked Kirk from power. Since January, those party-unity scores have plunged.

Isn't it funny how Kirk gets a reputuation for being independent simply by calling himself independent while sporting a very loyal Bush/Cheney republican voting record and campaign donation record. That happens because few people pay attention. They hear something and figure "ok, now I know something about my government" without making any investigation or asking any questions. You can say Mark Kirk is good for this or that, but that doesn't make it true. Time to investigate the record before you vote Tenth District. Not doing so has put us where we are with bad policy and bad leadership from a guy who has to ask the likes of John Boehner and Dick Cheney for permission before he acts while claiming he represents us.