And The Question Is.....

Police vs Protesters (of all sorts)

2011-11-27T22:19:00.000-08:00

I've been watching with dismay as peaceful protesters in a large number of our cities across the nation have been pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, shot with tear gas cannisters, knocked down with flash-bang grenades, sprayed with tear gas, shot with rubber bullets, had sound cannons used on them, run over with motor bikes, pushed, kicked, punched, and arrested for walking on public sidewalks, walking in public streets, camping in public parks, being customers of banks, and just generally exercising their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In addition, they have had their property confiscated and in violation of laws on the books everywhere it has been thrown into garbage trucks, run over with bulldozers, burned, poured water on, deliberately destroyed, or conveniently "lost". These possesions include the usual tents, sleeping gear, clothing and other personal items, but in the larger encampments also include medical supplies and expensive medical equipment, cooking equipment and food with which the Occupy groups are feeding not only themselves but lots of homeless and other food-needy people as well. And at the NYC Occupy, a library of over 5,000 books was apparently destroyed as well.

Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, California revealed that the massive evictions with all the police brutality were a coordinated effort among many mayors. There were also rumors that there may have been assistance from the Department of Homeland Security as well, although that has not been confirmed.

And so, the question is....what are all these mayors and others so afraid of?

This comment was posted on a story on the excellent blog Crooks and Liars

Eric.Arthur.Blair — 11/24/11 9:01am
A friend of mine told me that he got an e-mail with pictures of people camping out at malls and Best Buys and Wal-Marts and Targets waiting for Black Friday.

What a country! People who camp out on private property to profane a supposedly sacred holiday with naked acquisitiveness, greed and commercialism are not only tolerated, but applauded, while those who camp out in public spaces to protest injustice are beaten, sprayed with chemical weapons and arrested.

Point well taken, and given the events of Black Friday where a shopper resorted to using pepper spray on other shoppers in order to gain access to some desired item, even more appropriate than usual.

But I'd like to go a little farther back - to last year. Remember the dawn of the Tea Party? Where the "protesters" would show up in ridiculous costumes complete with tea bags decorating their hats and shirts, and either loudly claiming to or in some places openly carrying guns? These same protesters making loud threats against the President, members of Congress and Justices of the Supreme Court? These same protesters telling us that if they didn't get their way at the ballot box they would get their way by using 'Second Amendment remedies'? A congressional candidate's assistant (he's now in Congress!) who was literally asking people to take up arms and form an insurrection against the government?

And now I ask you, where were the police in riot gear? Where was the pepper spray? All the arrests? The rubber bullets, the tear gas, the beatings, the confiscations, the massed men in blue?

Yes, they were no where to be seen. All that anti-government stuff from the Tea Parties was ignored by law enforcement. Maybe because the Tea Parties were not really a grass-roots uprising but a bought and paid for operation of the Koch brothers, and all law enforcement and city mayors etc knew it all along.

And that is what really scares them about Occupy. It is not funded by the Kochs or anyone else. History shows us over and over again, that when the income disparity gets to great between the rich and everyone else, when the powerful become too much so and the powerless come to feel their powerlessness too much so, there comes a tipping point. And the powerless and poor decide to rise up. At first it is just a few, and they are individuals. But they begin to gather together. And the groups become larger. Soon they become powerful. And when that happens, the tables get turned. Suddenly the rich and powerful are targets and they lose everything - including their wealth and in most cases, their lives as well. Yes, they are afraid. They should be. They have let their greed run amok. They have taken and taken and taken. They have said that there is never enough for them to acquire - they must always take more. More than their share. And the people from whom that share is taken are to blame for their plight. But deep down they always knew that someday would come the reckoning. That day is here.

Occupy is still small. But it is growing, and the attacks on it by law enforcement at the behest of the city governments is actually helping the movement grow even faster. Each time there is an attack - the watchers are galvanized into action. They see the unfairness of the police with all their weapons against the peaceful protesters and it resonates with them because that is how life feels right now. And the protesters are doing something about it. Finally someone is doing something. The watchers are not alone. So they go join up.

I live in a small town. We have a tiny Occupy group. Our police and mayor have decided to let them be. They are camped on the courthouse lawn. They voluntarily left for Veterans Day so the festivities could take place. When they came back, the encampment was much smaller. But we are also a hard winter place. It is very cold here now. Our Occupy group has a really big tent now - and almost all of them are inside that one tent - much easier to keep warm, and interested people can come in and talk, participate in their GA (General Assembly) and pick up some literature without freezing as well. Who's to say that a raid on this tiny encampment might not help them out? Or not.

Our news media has been on the side of the mayors and law enforcement through the writing of headlines. See if you can spot how the bias operates. "Protesters In Altercation with Police At ..."

When you see that headline it kind of sets up the idea that the protesters started something. The way the headline should have read is "Police Attack Peaceful Protesters At ..." because that is actually what happened.

Kind of changes the perspective, doesn't it?

And finally, there is the discussion about the militarization and terrorist-targeted training of all of our police agencies across the country. But that is a subject for another complete post. For now - the protesters are winning - even though they appear to be losing if you only look at the street battles and who is going to jail.

Interesting note: There have been over 5,000 people jailed in Occupy protests across the country so far. More than were put in jail during all the protests in Iran after their so-called illegal elections, and for which our government imposed sanctions and called for the Iranian government to stop suppressing the protesters rights to criticize their own government and to allow free speech. Very interesting indeed!

When the State Murders Someone...

2011-10-02T20:34:00.000-07:00

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the death penalty in the aftermath of a number of incidents in the past few weeks. I am generally opposed to the practice but that feeling has been a general one for the most part. I am opposed because I don't feel that it is a deterrent. I believe it harms the people who have to carry out the executions. And I deeply believe that our justice system is so flawed that we can never be sure that the person we are putting to death is truly and unequivocally guilty beyond all doubt. Recent events have solidified my position and clarified it for me in an almost agonizing way.

In the past few weeks several incidents have come up. The first being the obnoxious cheering by audience members at the announcement by Texas Governor Rick Perry that he had presided over 234 executions during his time as governor. What Perry didn't mention and the press didn't bother to either was that at least one of those executions turns out to be almost certainly of an innocent man - Cameron Todd Willingham. Perry claims he has no problem sleeping at night and doesn't believe that there have been any problems in his state. However the Willingham case was being investigated and Perry fired the chief investigator and ordered the commission that was looking into it to terminate its inquiry. Another board that routinely reviews cases such as this was told that it could review any case in Texas they wanted to - except the Willingham case. So much for that awesome certainty.

Two more executions were scheduled in Texas a couple of weeks ago. One of them was a man who participated in a particularly nasty racist killing, confessed to that killing, refused his appeals and claimed he didn't mind being put to death. Some of the family members of the victim objected to the death penalty in this case.

The other case was stayed by the Supreme Court for some technical issues for a while but then allowed to go forward.

And of course, there is Troy Davis. Troy Davis was no angel. He may have been present when the officer was killed. The so-called ballistic evidence was flawed and proven to be so and testified to be flawed in one of Davis' appeal hearings. Of the nine witnesses who testified against him, seven have recanted, and several of those have pointed the finger at one of the two remaining witnesses as the actual shooter. Many of the witnesses have said they were threatened by the actual shooter, or by the police themselves. No other physical evidence ties Davis to the shooting. Is he guilty? It is a pretty paltry case on which to put someone to death.

My point is this - in the end it seemed like the District Attorney (who said he would have never sought the death penalty if he was trying the case today), the Board of Parole and Pardons (who stated that the witness recantations caused them to have serious doubts about Davis' guilt), the Georgia Supreme Court (who voted 3-2 to uphold his conviction - the dissenters said that the trial was too racially charged to be fair), the US Supreme Court (voted 5-4 not to stay the execution), all seemed more interested in upholding the process rather than interested in upholding justice. And there was the really incredible statement by Justice Scalia that "there is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to set an innocent man free if he has been convicted by a jury of his peers." WTF??? And yes, Scalia was talking about Troy Davis.

Process is the paperwork, the following the procedures, the filing the briefs, the arguments and so on. But doing the things that are "normally" done just for the sake of doing them. Not rocking the boat. And certainly not taking a stand on the actual case because that would be having to admit somewhere, somehow, that someone or a bunch of someones made an awful mistake.

That the guy who really killed that policeman is still walking around out there loose. And he still is - even though Troy Davis is now dead and buried. That all the pressuring the witnesses and lying about those bullet casings and all the rest got someone on death row so they could say they got the guy. Only they didn't. So the family of the slain officer could get closure. Except they won't get that. Killing Troy Davis won't bring back their son/father/husband. Killing the guy who really killed him won't either, unfortunately.

But no one will now ever know the truth. Because Davis is dead. Now everyone will stop looking. The investigation is closed. The real killer got away with it. He's been bragging to people about it.

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

I read a scholarly paper about crime and punishment a lot of years ago. The real deterrent is the swiftness and the surety of the punishment, not the severity of it. Especially here when the death penalty is so unevenly applied, and because of the appeals process, which is also very uneven, and which takes forever. In the Davis case - 22 years.

People who commit horrible crimes are not thinking to themselves "Gee. I shouldn't do this because I will probably get caught and if I do they will put me to death."

No. They are thinking "Gee. If I do this I probably won't get caught, but if I do I can get a good lawyer and he can probably get me off."

That is why the death penalty is not a deterrent. Only about 60% of murders are solved, and only a very small portion of those are considered death penalty cases. Several states do not currently have the death penalty as an option. That fact has not seemed to affect murder rates on those states.

The cost of incarceration is an argument given by some death penalty proponents as a reason to put people to death. However the idea that killing someone to save money is a reason for doing it is pretty abhorrent on its own. Never mind that it is a false premise. The costs of a capital murder trial plus the appeals and the execution process far exceed the costs of even a lengthy incarceration. Estimates range between about $32,000 to $47,000 per year depending on the state and the facility. The cost of a death penalty case from start to finish (which may include a couple decades of incarceration at the upper end of the price spectrum) ranges from a low of about $1.2 million to a high of nearly $3.5 million. So if saving money is your argument then you should be arguing to abolish the death penalty.

But the argument should be on the moral grounds. If we believe that it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to kill, period. It is just as wrong for the state - representing all of us - to coldly and with premeditation and much planning and forethought to kill someone - as it was for that individual to do so. After all, as Keith Olbermann stated, "at least the individual has some excuse, as poor as it may have been, for what he or she did. We, that is, the state on our behalf, do not."

When did Rush Limbaugh Become King of the United States?

2011-09-03T20:19:00.000-07:00

Something happened while I was asleep. Rush Limbaugh became King of the United States. Grover Norquist apparently is his Chief Financial Officer. How this happened is beyond me - but it is a fact.

Here is the evidence. John Boehner, the former Speaker of the House - now just a puppet who mouths platitudes fed to him by King Limbaugh, had received a request from the former President, Barack Obama, to speak before a joint session of Congress. Mr. Boehner said okay. But then King Limbaugh heard about this and he was outraged. Outraged I tell you. He threw a hissy fit. He screamed and yelled as only King Limbaugh can. So of course Mr. Boehner had to pretend that he didn't really say yes to the pretend President. So Mr. Boehner sent a letter to the pretend President and told him that the House would be too busy doing other things like re-naming post offices and stuff and besides they wouldn't have time to do the security sweep that takes three hours even though they were being given a week's notice. So could the pretend President just come another time? And of course, the pretend President said well, yes, of course. We cannot afford to make King Limbaugh unhappy now, can we?

The Republicans are in charge of the nation's money right now. And almost every one of them has signed a pledge given to them by Grover Norquist. One that says they absolutely under no circumstances will ever ever ever raise a single red cent in taxes. And even if it means destroying the country - they are all determined to do just that. They are on a campaign to balance the budget, pay off all our debt and do it all without raising one cent of revenue. Because Grover Norquist says so.

I thought I was just having a nightmare. Turns out I wasn't. I'm wide awake. I keep pinching myself and wondering what universe I woke up in.

HEEEEELLLLLPPPPP!!!!!

Why Are Our Political Leaders Insane?

2011-07-16T18:27:00.000-07:00

You know all this deficit and debt talk is a contrived crisis, right? And the ginned up hysteria around raising the debt ceiling? Which is not to say that it should not be raised. It should. Immediately and without any further delay or any further hostage-taking, grandstanding or budget-dealing, back-room meetings, stupid speeches or anything else.

It takes a bill that is all of one sentence. Ten minutes for each house. A minute for a signature by the President. Done.

What has disappeared in all of this is our sense of morality as a country - our humanity, our spirit of sharing and caring.

We have a much smaller but no less real crisis here in my town. Our local homeless shelter, which is located in a far-from-ideal building succeeded in getting a large grant to build a badly needed new building. They spent months looking for a site, finally identified one, and on advice from the mayor, proceeded to do most of the preliminary paperwork and permitting without notifying the residential neighbors.

Well, the neighbors have now found out and the predictable backlash is in full force. And the loudest objections were because they weren't notified at the start of the process. The cowardly mayor then backed down and told the shelter people that maybe they should find another place because this one was "too controversial". Yeah - it's a derelict bar. On a block with two more bars and a casino. On one of the state highways that runs through town. Not very kid friendly. But it is close to the community clinic, a large grocery store, a bus stop, the hospital, and a school.

Oh wait, see that's a problem. This shelter is for women with children but we absolutely cannot allow it to be near a school!!! The principal of the school even wrote a letter to the editor stating that she did not want to allow any of "those" kids in "her" school! Wow! The whole neighborhood is jumping up and down calling people who are defending this project nasty names and screaming about how sacred "their wonderful neighborhood" is. I got news for them. This is the Northside. As in the wrong side of the tracks. You know what that means. There is nothing wonderful about it. There are probably as many or more people living in cars and little tiny travel trailers in backyards in that wonderful neighborhood as would be housed in this new homeless shelter. But "those" people in that brand new shelter are going to drag the home values down. Down from where? Have you noticed that the banks already did that number on you?

This whole thing just makes me sick. I guess it makes other people sick too. The directer of the shelter organization has now quit. So in addition to trying to find another site, they are now also looking for a new director. And "those people" are still needing shelter.

Still sucks to be poor. It didn't used to be a crime but apparently it is fast becoming one.

Why is AARP Selling Out Seniors?

2011-06-17T13:48:00.001-07:00

The leadership of AARP has announced that it is okay with benefit cuts to future retirees as part of some kind of budget deal. WHAT?

There are a number of problems with this.

FIRST: There is no structural problem with Social Security. A complete and total fix for any so-called funding problems that are 40-50 years in the future is to either raise or remove the cap on earnings. The original design was for 'capture' of 90+% of total earnings. Right now, capture is sitting at about 83%. Raising the cap to get it back to 90% would solve the very far in the future funding issue. Eliminating it altogether would allow for benefit INCREASES! I know, what a concept. Additionally, it might be worthwhile exploring some kind of 'capture' of FICA tax on unearned income - that is, the kind of income that rich people get from stock market investments and the like. And that is only taxed at 15% for income taxes as well...but that is a discussion for another day.

SECOND: There is absolutely zero, zilch, nada, no impact whatsoever from Social Security on either the debt or the deficit. Social Security is also not an "entitlement" - it is an insurance program that people have paid into, and then get money out of. It is completely self-funded and receives no money from general revenues - and thus has no impact on budgets or anything else.

The Republicans are trying to say that because the Social Security Trust Fund is held in Treasury Bills (T-Bills) that will have to be 'cashed in' or 'paid back' that it is part of the deficit and therefore the program must be cut or destroyed because of that. This is not true.

The majority of the deficit is held by us. You and me. It's in our pension funds, both private and public. It's in our mutual funds that are in our 401(k)s and IRA accounts. It's in our stock portfolios (if we have one) in the form of T-Bills and US Government Bonds. So, according to the same logic - that means that because individual citizens, institutions like unions, state governments and corporations, should all be dismantled or ...what...because they also hold instruments of the deficit? And what about China - they too hold about 20%. We gonna tell them they need to do ....what exactly?

THIRD: If you are going into a negotiation - you don't begin by telling the other side what you are willing to give up before you even start. That is a recipe for not only losing on that issue but having to give up even more since that issue will become the starting point for the negotiation. Witness what happened during the health insurance bill debacle. Single payer came off the table before it started. The public option soon followed. Negotiating for drug prices was given away before it started, along with a host of other very helpful things - all because the Democrats signaled early on that they were willing to give these items up. And so they were gone and nothing was gained in return.

SO......the problem is NOT Social Security. What then is the problem with AARP? Well, as usual it is very simple. Money. AARP has gone from an advocacy group to

-Hawks health, auto, motorcycle, home, mobile home, long-term care, dental and life insurance; besides offering discounts and incentives for travel, eyeglass, hearing aid and many other services;

– Sells annuities, mail order prescription drugs and credit cards and has seven no-load mutual funds;

– Has one of the largest mailing lists in the nation and publishes one of the nation’s most widely circulated and lucrative magazines etc

(You can read more about this at Time to Burn My AARP Card)

I join with Professor Eric Kingson, author of the quoted article, in saying if you must join some senior advocacy group then choose one of these:

Alliance for Retired Americans or
National Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare

Both of these fine organizations still remain true to their advocacy goals and positions, have large memberships, and will benefit from new ones and will benefit all seniors by having increased power to lobby on behalf of us all.

Water Weather?

2011-06-03T23:26:00.001-07:00

We are having what I call water weather here in Montana. What is that, you ask? It's a combination of rain, floods, snow-pack melting, snow falling (yes, I know it's June!) and all of the attendant problems.This year we are really having water weather. Our rivers are higher and more destructive than usual.

For example, the Judith River in southeastern Montana took out a railroad trestle - twisting the railroad rails like wet spaghetti noodles. The biggest problem this caused is sort of obvious - the train cannot run across this trestle any more. Here is the real deal. On one side of this trestle - the east side - is the huge coal mine known as Colstrip. On the other side - in Washington State to the far west - is a big customer - a coal-fired power plant complex. There are now empty coal trains sitting on every single siding between the Judith River and the power plant. I'll not get into a discussion about the wisdom (or not) of burning coal here, but suffice it to say that I don't think the power plant has a large enough stockpile to last until that trestle can be rebuilt. Especially since they have to wait until the water goes down before they can even start - and that is not looking like it will happen any time soon.

Another problem. There is so much water in all the rivers that the lakes behind all of our big dams are rising faster than the water can be released. Today - officials began the process of opening the biggest spillway in the Fort Peck dam on the Missouri River. It is expected to cause flooding in North Dakota and all points downstream once they do. Notifications have been going out for a week so people can get packed and move to higher ground. The dam must be opened - it cannot be allowed to be overtopped - that could result in the destruction of the dam itself and the resulting catastrophe would be far worse.

The Kerr Dam on the Flathead River is a major electricity production point. Not only are all the spillways open at their maximum - but the huge turbines are spinning freely - not generating. This is because the resistance for electricity generation causes the water to be backed up - so they are spinning to let more water through. So...no electricity - and the lake is still rising.

It has been cold and rainy and snowing in the mountains all week. Adding more water to the equation. However the forecast for this weekend is for hot, sunny summer sunshine. You would think we would be happy. Guess again.

The forecast 80-degree heat is expected to melt the huge amounts of snow still in the mountains and bring it all down our already flooding rivers and streams all at once.

And this cold, rainy-snowy followed by hot-sunny stuff is expected to continue for the entire month of June.

Methinks we all better have a canoe and a pair of chest-waders on hand.

But of course this has nothing to do with climate change. Nope. Just coincidence. It's just normal (except it's not).

And Eric Can't-or says we will not be eligible for any assistance unless he can find some cuts somewhere else - like subsidies for not burning coal.

What Can We Learn From The Japanese People?

2011-04-23T14:49:00.000-07:00

I was gifted with these ten things by a friend of mine passing along an email.

This was attributed to SKYNEWS. I thought I would pass it along, with some additional commentary (my commentary is in italics).

1. THE CALM
Not a single visual of chest-beating or wild grief. Sorrow itself has been elevated.

Just think of this, the country had just been shaken by an unprecedented 9.0 earthquake. That alone would have been enough to "rattle" this country beyond belief. Roads crumbled, buildings toppled, water mains broken, power lines down, and people panicking everywhere. And about an hour later, a 43-foot tall tsunami washed across major portions of the country that had just experienced that major earthquake. Whole small cities of 10,000 people were simply washed into the sea. Google-Earth images show heavily populated areas with hundreds of buildings before - and moments later, the landscape has been washed clean of any evidence of human habitation, not a road, building or anything left. And then after all that, a number of nuclear power plants in the country began experiencing problems - the most serious of which was Fukushima Dai-ichi. The world focused on Dai-ichi and forgot about the rest of the devastation.
But the Japanese people and their government quietly and calmly began immediately to do what was necessary. They set up shelters and began gathering thousands of homeless people into them. They provided food, water and transportation. There was no question of how to do this. They didn't split families up - in fact they tried to keep families together, sending homeless people to relatives instead of stranding them in cities where they knew no one. Quietly and efficiently.

2. THE DIGNITY
Disciplined queues for water and groceries. Not a rough word or a crude gesture. Their patience is admirable and praiseworthy.

Here in this country, most people act this way during a crisis. Unfortunately, there are a lot of others who don't. And equally unfortunately, our media seeks these situations out and highlights them. So it seems even worse than it is. But why are we so rude and mean in the first place? Why do we think that being rude and mean will help us get what we want faster or better or more? Usually it works the opposite way. And we also seem to feel that being dignified is somehow "weak" because it isn't 'aggressive' or 'manly' enough. Actually being dignified takes far more courage in most situations than being a punk. But enough on that.

3. THE ABILITY
The incredible architects, for instance. Buildings swayed but didn't fall.

Many large cities on the West Coast of the US are just as prone to earthquakes as Japan. We have really good architects and engineers who know how to build wonderful buildings too. But a lot of our buildings probably would not withstand a huge earthquake like this - even the newest ones - because our government doesn't require them to be built that way. And because the corporations who build and own them don't want to spend the extra money. They do just the bare minimum to get by. And then hope. And if it does happen, rely on their insurance company to pay for the damages. If people get hurt, too bad. In Japan - the government has a different attitude about these things.

4. THE GRACE (Selflessness)
People bought only what they needed for the present, so everybody could get something.

I witnessed this in a live interview on Kyodo News during the time immediately after they discovered radioactivity in the water in Tokyo. A woman was in a store buying water for her pregnant sister. She bought 4 small bottles of water. The American reporter asked her why she didn't get more and she replied that she wanted to leave some so that others would be able to get some too. They also showed that day - the same day of the announcement that babies and pregnant and nursing mothers should not drink the water, the government had already set up distribution centers and were giving water to people in those categories. Talk about efficiency!

5. THE ORDER
No looting in shops. No honking and no overtaking on the roads. Just understanding.

I have never understood this. Whenever a disaster strikes, or even just when the power goes out for an extended time, a certain group of people just seem to always see it as an opportunity to steal and vandalize things. It is excused as 'venting rage' or something - but often the victims of the theft and vandalism are not the perpetrators of whatever the thieves and vandals are complaining about. After Katrina, I could understand people getting food and water - but the ones stealing TV sets and expensive sound systems?
Taking advantage of others in the midst of a crisis doesn't help your situation much if at all, and in the long run may make everything worse. That store owner whose store was impacted by the disaster already and then lost even more because of looting may decide it isn't worth it to re-open in your neighborhood afterwards. There go the jobs, and the access to whatever he sells. Maybe he would have been able to stay if not for the looting. Why don't we teach people the long-term consequences of our actions - in everything we do?>

6. THE SACRIFICE
Fifty workers stayed back to pump sea water in the N-reactors. How will they ever be repaid?

This is one of those decisions that those individuals probably didn't have to consciously make - they were there, they just started doing what was necessary, one step at a time. At some point or other, they realized they probably weren't going to get out without getting a possibly lethal dose of radiation, but also realized that if they didn't stay - hundreds or thousands of people faced that same fate. And so they just kept on - for the sake of their families who probably lived within the mandatory evacuation zone, and for everyone else. I hope for their sake that the Japanese government gives them something to recognize that they are all heroes in the truest sense of that word. And I am sure that will happen.
Unlike here where our lovely Congress has delayed and delayed even paying for the vitally needed healthcare for the people who spent weeks and months digging in the wreckage of the WTC pile - after having been lied to by Bush Administration officials about the air quality - and are now sick and dying from breathing toxic chemicals in the air. And even now - those workers are being forced to be run through the terrorist watch list database before they can access the funds for this healthcare as a result of a provision that was attached to the recently passed legislation authorizing those funds. Unbelievable. Instead of medals they get insults on top of death sentences.

7. THE TENDERNESS
Restaurants cut prices. An unguarded ATM is left alone. The strong cared for the weak.

The Japanese people, through their government/business partnership structures and the way their corporate/labor structures work are used to working as teams. They understand that they are 'all in it together'. You know - socialism of the highest order. They get that for all of them to survive three huge disasters all at the same time that everyone must work together to put the pieces back together.
Japan seems to understand in a way that the US does not, the virtue of long-range planning and preparedness. Like the water for babies. They made an announcement and the water was there. Immediately. Not in a week. Right then. They ordered a mandatory evacuation zone around Dai-ichi. And even though the roads had been washed away and the shelters were already full of people left homeless by the earthquake and the tsunami, they got the people out of there. Right away. Not weeks later. Obviously, their version of FEMA actually has plans. Plans that take into account many variables. Plans that all the appropriate people know about and that are not hidden away in the drawers of some private consultant somewhere. Plans that can be and are implemented on a moments notice.

8. THE TRAINING
The old and the children, everyone knew exactly what to do. And they did just that.

It's one thing to have plans. But everyone has to know just what those plans are, and how they fit into those plans. In Northern California where I lived for over 25 years, they have NEST (Neighborhood Emergency Support Teams). In case of a disaster - probably an earthquake - you might be inaccessible because of bridges out, landslides, and so on. So neighborhoods were encouraged to form NESTs to identify resources that everyone could depend on for up to two weeks in that event. In my neighborhood, our house was a water source since we had an active deep water well and a hand pump available if the water main broke and water was unavailable. That's the kind of resource that becomes pretty important.
After Katrina, one of the major problems was the evacuation plan. There were apparently only five copies of the $3.2 million plan ever made. During the Congressional hearings afterwards, not one single person could provide a copy of it to the investigating committee. Not even the private consulting firm who supposedly produced it. As far as I am concerned - if no one has the plan - it doesn't exist. You cannot implement a plan if you don't know about it, if you haven't disseminated it to all affected parties, if you haven't practiced it. You cannot criticize anyone for not evacuating according to some plan they never heard of.
But this failure of long-term planning is pretty endemic throughout this country. We are always in the 'no one could have known' frame of mind. Even though time and again the best minds among us have been crying in the wilderness for years about that very thing.>

9. THE MEDIA
They showed magnificent restraint in the bulletins. No silly reporters.
Only calm reportage. Most of all NO POLITICIANS TRYING TO GET CHEAP MILEAGE.

I would add to this that there has been no 'ass-covering' by the government towards TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, the owner of the Dai-ichi Nuclear Plant). TEPCO was ordered last week to begin disbursing checks to the people who lived within the mandatory evacuation zones. They were told how much to pay and that the checks needed to be paid immediately and given a list.They were also told that this is just a preliminary payment and that other payments will follow. The checks went out.
Contrast this to the BP $20 billion fund to reimburse all the people who lost their livelihoods after the Gulf disaster. A year and a half after that began, people are still not getting paid and still getting hassled for more papers please and the lawyers are getting rich and the fisher people and business people of the Gulf coast are losing everything they own to bankruptcy. Meanwhile BP is writing off the disaster as a loss on their taxes and giving big fat bonus checks to all their executives.

10. THE CONSCIENCE
When the power went off in a store, people put things back on the shelves and left quietly.

The manager of the Dai-ichi Power Plant broke down sobbing at the first news conference when he announced to the world that his plant was releasing high levels of radioactivity and that the plant was in danger of meltdown at at least three of the reactors. His sobbing was not the idiotic grandstanding stuff of John Boehner, but the kind of a person who realizes that a nuclear power plant that he is personally responsible for may just wind up killing a lot of people. At every appearance he has been at since he begins and ends with multiple apologies, and that very deep bow. (The deeper the bow, the more humiliating). He has also been very sick himself - an aide reported that he was so sick that he had a doctor come in and hook him up to an IV, but that he 'hadn't fallen down on the floor' so he continued to work although he was staying in a side room. Yeah - the conscience. Unlike some others - you know who - the list is endlessly long.....>

With their country in the midst of a colossal disaster - The Japanese citizens can teach plenty of lessons to the world.

These examples are particularly sharp for me today because I just read an article about Tim Pawlenty's education commission where they decided that teaching kindergartners to share was bad because it has "socialistic tendencies". What???

I'm sorry but socialism is not a bad thing. In fact, all you right-wingers out there - if it wasn't for socialism you would not even be alive. Sharing is what your parents did for you from the moment of your birth. They shared their food, their shelter, their resources, so you could live. Everything you have achieved in your life is because of socialism. The house you live in, the roads you drive on, the car you drive in, the schools you attended whether public or private, the church you go to (or not), the food you eat, the water you drink, the clean air you breathe, the clothes on your back, the companies you have worked for, even the government you love to hate - all of it and every bit of it is socialist. We are all socialists you and I. And the more socialist we are - the better off we all are.

The Japanese people, through the three gigantic, horrific disasters they are going through right now, are showing us just how true this is.

Why Do We De-Value "Womens" Work?

2011-04-01T21:23:00.000-07:00

I was having a conversation with my mother the other day about all the slashing and cutting the Republicans in Congress and in the Statehouses across our country are doing in programs that affect the poorest people. We started out talking about food - there is a fast going on to protest cuts in the WIC program, food stamps, school lunch programs and several others that will have an effect on the nutritional status of particularly children and the elderly. We continued on a tangent and wound up talking about the fact that my developmentally disabled sister no longer qualified for food stamps because in addition to her SSDI check she has a job that pays her $10.00 per hour for 18 hours per week. This job is a supported employment job - in other words, her employer got a subsidy for hiring her, she has a job coach, and there are a bunch of other things that go along with it. Her job consists of picking up trash, doing laundry, weeding flower beds, and other similar menial tasks. She likes what she does, gets along well with her supervisors and performs her tasks well enough that she has earned several "employee of the month" certificates.

So in the context of our discussion, mom and I were commenting on how "rich" my sister is because you have to really be poor to qualify for food stamps since obviously my sister is now rich since she doesn't.

But that got me thinking about something else that happened not too long ago.

Womens work. You know - the stuff women have always done, care for the house including laundry, sewing, child care, cooking, gardening, nursing, that kind of stuff. Someone once added up all this work that women do for a family at the cost it would be if they hired it done: a nanny, a professional chef, a gardener, a registered nurse, a seamstress, a bookkeeper, a personal shopper, a gardener, a chauffer, a professional housekeeper and so on - and a stay-at-home mom taking care of a couple of children is worth roughly $267,000 per year.

Even though it is now 2011 - and this kind of stuff has been supposedly relegated to "equal opportunity" by the invention of washer-dryer pairs, no-iron fabrics, disposable clothing, fast food and pre-packaged microwave meals, and men cooking and nursing, there is still a devaluation of that work traditionally done by women. And some of that devaluation is done by other women. The career types look down at women who stay home to take care of children (if they have a choice, which most do not). The value of the work that a stay-at-home mom does in a divorce settlement is valued at zero. Only a paycheck serves as any marker of value. But even the experience of a stay-at-home mom managing a household and raising children is viewed in the so-called "actual" workplace as no experience and therefore unqualified to do anything at all.

So here's what happened to me. I am a highly trained and experienced seamstress and tailor. I had been working doing alterations for a local tuxedo rental and sales shop in town - these alterations were mostly not of the 'let the pants up or down' variety but of the type of 'take the jacket apart and rework the way the sleeves were set in' sort. One day the manager of the store casually mentioned to me that there was another seamstress who had offered to do the alterations for less than half of what I charge. And I stopped receiving calls.

There are two issues here. The first one is that prior to this conversation she and the customers had been thrilled with my work. I still get repeat business from some of them. And the customers had never quibbled about my prices. But this female manager decided that it was better to have this much less expensive service so she stopped recommending me to her customers.

The second issue is that this other seamstress was so willing to provide her services for so little. Didn't she understand that what she was doing was much more valuable than that? I might add that this other seamstress was charging $8 per hour. And that I already knew about her - mostly from customers who brought me items to re-do after her failed attempts. Even so, as a seamstress (not a tailor), her time was and is certainly worth at least as much as $10, and probably more. I think that she can probably hem a dress and do regular seamstress work. Isn't that worth at least as much as weeding a flower bed and washing a load of shop rags? So why is this seamstress unwilling to value herself more than $8 per hour?

Then there is the whole career thing. My mother was a nurse. A really good one. She has an MS degree, and at one time was the charge nurse for an entire hospital - one of the largest in our area. During that same time period, my late husband, who never graduated from high school, was a long-haul truck driver. My mom was busy saving lives, he was driving a truck. She got $8, he got $13.

Cooking. What is it about cooking that when a man does it he is a chef and gets to own a fancy restaurant and boss everyone around. When a woman does it she gets no respect and works in a greasy spoon for minimum wage and she's called a cook.

So what is it? And there are all kinds of these cases. Womens work. And women in general. The Supreme Court has a case in front of it right now about women and work. About women not getting equal pay, equal promotions. And from the sounds of the oral arguments the women are going to lose. All the men are voting against them. The three women are voting for. The decision will be 6-3 not to certify the class.

Women make up more than 50% of the citizens of this country. Why don't we have 50% representation in Congress? In any Statehouse? In governorships? Why haven't we had a woman President? Or even a Vice-President? Why aren't there more women on the Supreme Court? In all the Courts? Why are there still so few CEOs in the Fortune 500?

Hillary Clinton was right - the glass ceiling is still there. She put a bunch of cracks in it - but they are still only cracks. Women still have such a long way to go here - and the United States is supposed to be the most progressive nation. Every other developed nation beats us in every single one of those statistics. They have all had women Presidents or Prime Ministers. Women are represented far closer to the actual demographic than they are here in every way both in public and private.

I think a lot of it is about self-confidence. I was asked once how I decided how much to charge for my services. I will admit that it was long hard conversation with myself and with a lot of prodding from my daughter that got me where I am. And that's what it is, confidence. I had to spend time coming to the realization that I am worth it! It's not just a slogan for some hair product - it means something. I AM worth it. I have spent the time for the training. I have spent years practicing my craft. I have hundreds of happy customers. I have created beautiful garments and fantastic costumes for the ballet. I AM WORTH IT.

We women are so busy doing stuff for everyone else that we fail to notice who WE are. We are capable. We are competent. We are knowledgeable. We are smart, efficient, managers. We must start living and acting this way. We must demand more - not just of ourselves but of each other. The things we must demand are respect, and equal treatment. And that includes equal pay for equal work. And also an idea whose time has long since come - an equality of pay across careers, professions, trades and crafts that makes allowances for time off spent raising and caring for children, and that raises the status of "womens work" to the same status as "mens work". Finally.

Why Is It Always Greed That Triumphs Over All?

2011-03-24T04:44:00.000-07:00

I was one of those optimists who cheered when the new Health Care bill was passed and signed into law last year. I know, it certainly wasn't perfect - far from it. But I honestly believed that it was a starting place and that we could expand the good parts and fix the bad ones and gradually, hopefully, wind up with something that looked sorta, kinda, like health insurance that everyone could afford. And I am do want to clarify here. This was never a health CARE bill - it was and is only a health INSURANCE bill.

But it is a year later. Implementation has begun. People who know stuff have been reading all the fine print. The new Republican majority in the House has been taking a budget axe to the thing. And I am becoming more and more dismayed the more I learn.

I get that the thing was about compromise to get it passed. I do. But it seems that the compromises were always about greed and never about what was best for the actual people this bill affected. And you can be sure that the people making the decisions were not and never would be affected by this. Congress is automatically exempt from every single piece of legislation they ever pass. Yup, you read that right.

I won't go into a recitation of all the crap I've been reading lately of all the failures of this bill to do what it pretends to do. Google is your friend. But here is a little story.

I have some friends - a young couple with two young children ages one and three. This young couple both happen to each be very talented artists. But as you can well imagine - making a living doing art is a stretch even when the economy is not in the tank so each of them does another job in order to earn money to support their family. Last year, the wife made a big decision to leave a paying job and work full-time at home so she could spend more time with her children, the youngest of whom had a life-threatening episode shortly after her birth. She came up with a creative business that she is doing in her basement and now employs two part-time workers to help her with the work. The husband is just finishing up with his apprenticeship to be an electrician - a four-year grueling stint of school and work that leaves him little time for his art, but he continues his painting after the kids are in bed and after his long days.

As you might well expect - health insurance for this family is not very good. They have some through the husband's work. But the youngest daughter has already had a major health problem. So they are considered "high risk" and after his apprenticeship he will have a difficult time finding work unless the employer who supported his apprenticeship is willing to hire him permanently. That is not a done deal at this point.

In the last few weeks, their older child has had a couple of normal, childhood accidents. She got her thumb caught in a slammed door. It's broken. It took an ER visit and two visits to two different orthopedists to get a decision whether to put a cast or just a splint on her tiny thumb. (She got the splint). Then, just a week later, she was playing on a chair, somehow tipped it over, and smashed her face on a picture frame. That required another trip to the ER and four tiny stitches in her forehead. And just three weeks before this happened, the husband had a first-time ever migraine episode/panic attack that was apparently brought on by what his neurologist told him was 'lack of sleep, overwork, and stress'. Gee, ya think?

So...where is the health INSURANCE for this family? I had arrived at their home just after the older child's second accident to find the wife sobbing as she tried to get the baby ready, wondering how they were going to pay the medical costs for all this stuff, the child wanting to know why her mommy was crying, and I am holding both of them thinking yes - why is this happening? This is the richest country on the planet and only here! If this family lived in Canada...or England, France, or Germany...or even CUBA for crying out loud, she would not have to ask that question. She would not have to worry about the money. Her husband would not have to keep doing a job he doesn't particularly care for so he can keep a piddly amount of health insurance for his family. He could spend all his time on his wonderful, exquisitely detailed and yes, saleable paintings instead of crawling under houses in the middle of a Montana winter. She could take time off from her business to care for her babies instead of having to take them to day care because she has orders to get out and they need the money to pay the doctors and the hospital - EVEN WITH THE INSURANCE!

This business of every single person in Congress only looking out for their personal bottom line - what's in it for them in the form of campaign cash - instead of what's in it for the good of the country is so apparent right here in this one little story. The sad part is that this one little story is not the most extreme, nor is it the most heart-rending, nor is it unusual. It just happens to be the one that is happening right here to someone I know right now this minute. I'm sure you know someone too. Or you are someone.

I guess my question is when are we going to demand better of our politicians? We sigh and complain. But then we just shrug and walk away because "that's just the way things are". Well, they don't have to be that way. We say, well, we don't have any choice - they are all corrupt. That is only partly true - we currently don't have any choices because we don't organize around making other choices available. A well-organized campaign can be done - if you don't believe me just ask Senator Lisa Murkowski! She not only defeated a well-funded Tea Party candidate in her own party - she spent most of her campaign cash on advertisements that taught the electorate in Alaska just how to properly fill in a ballot for a write-in candidate so that all the votes for her would be correct and would count in the face of what was sure to be legal challenges. It can be done!

So if we truly believe that our politicians are corrupt - we need to figure out a better one - fund them ourselves so that special interests (read big corporations and rich jerks) don't, and get them elected. And then, we need to stay involved by continuing to contact them with information about the issues and demand that they vote the way we want them to. (Another of my pet peeves - pols who vote the opposite of what their constituents want and claim they were sent there to do just that!).

So get active - if there is a fair elections group in your district, community or state - get involved. Let's get the private money out of elections and make them publicly funded. That's the only way to overturn the Citizens United decision. If you think your Rep or Senator isn't doing the job and you aren't happy with the opposition - get your friends together and find a different candidate to run against both of them. And get out the vote! We have the lowest voter turnout of almost any democracy. We complain about who gets elected - but less than half, and in many cases only a third of people actually vote. If everyone votes - the outcomes might just be really different!

Where is the R-E-S-P-E-C-T ?

2011-02-27T20:56:00.000-08:00

Our conversations of late have been filled with discussions about what is wrong with our society. I would argue that it is simply lack of respect. We do not respect ourselves. We then lack respect for others, and that leads to a lack of respect for the planet, the belongings of others whether personal or business, and just about anything else.

We wonder how to disagree without being disagreeable. By being respectful. If you respect that the other person has the right to have an opinion, a right to feel the way they do the same way that you feel the way that you do, then you can have a discussion, disagree on the issue and not wind up calling each other vile names and shouting at each other.

When we respect each other we don't vandalize others' property. We don't litter, pollute, destroy, and pillage the earth and its resources. When we respect each other we don't vilify others who are just tryiing to do their jobs. We don't blame certain groups of people for things that individuals do. We don't criticize others for our own faults.

Respect is something that is learned from a very early age. Respect has to be taught to children. We have not been doing this for a long time. Respect doesn't mean unquestioning subservience. What it means is that you admit that other people have a right to exist. And that they might have an idea or two that are valueable, just as you yourself do. You also must admit that 99.99% of people are working to try to make things better - they just differ with you about they way in which to do that.

We need to begin to teach our children again to respect others. This starts very young. Instead of sending children to school with the message "don't let that teacher tell you anything or I'll give them the what-for", and making teachers afraid to enforce absolutely any kind of discipline, we should teach our children that these adults (and all adults) should be respected. They are adults - and children don't know everything. Children are to learn from them.

Now this is not to say that all adults are perfect and that they should never be questioned. There is a right way and a wrong way to do that as well. But questioning can be done in a respectful way as well. And if we begin to have a respectful culture - adults can be respectful of childrens' questions as well.

Children should also be taught respect for others' things. This includes close family members, the neighbors, and people who you don't know. The lesson is that of the golden rule - someone else did something to acquire that item - and if you destroy or damage it, it will hurt them. How would you feel if someone did that to you? This can then logically extend to care for all things - including the environment. It is just as easy not to throw litter on the ground as it is to hire someone else to pick it up later. It is easier not to pollute the water than to try to clean it up later. It is easier not to pollute the air than to try to fix the mess later on.

Most indigenous people have lived in harmony with their surroundings for hundreds of years. They managed to take only what they needed, being careful not to over-use, and by so doing, had plenty of resources. So-called Western Civilization on the other hand has a history of constantly acquiring vast amounts of resources for no other reason than hoarding vast amounts of it and bragging to each other about it. We have stripped the land of timber and minerals, overharvested fish and wildlife, driven other species to extinction, destroyed whole ecosystems, polluted the water we drink and the air we breathe, and are now on a course to possibly destroy the livability of the entire planet. For what? Not for our needs - for our wants. This displays a complete and total lack of respect for not only the planet but for every person who does not live the way we do, who does not have the lifestyle we have, or who does not even grasp after the lifestyle we want.

So the next time someone wonders what is wrong, let us remember the wonderful song by Aretha Franklin, R-E-S-P-E-C-T, because that is really what this country needs right now. Lots and lots of it.

We Needed to Invade Iraq to Spread Democracy Around the Middle East?

2011-02-06T14:09:00.000-08:00

Yeah, remember that was one of the reasons why we invaded Iraq - to bring democracy to those people there at the point of a gun.

Well, the people in Tunisia and the people in Egypt and who knows how many other countries in the Middle East (Palestinians anyone?) are trying to bring democracy by peaceful protests. And who are 'we' siding with? The dictators of course. We want stability above all. And the dictators who have been our friends ensure stability above all. So we will urge Mubarek to step down in favor of our hand-picked CIA sock-puppet torture-master because we want stability.

In the meantime our right-wing flame-throws around the fact that somehow the Muslim Brotherhood is forming a caliphate with Code Pink and Jon Stewart to take over the world so everyone should be afraid, be veeeeeery afraid.

What is remarkable in all this in Egypt is that the Army has said they will not fire on their own people - and are mostly acting as a 'fence' between the peaceful anti-government protesters and the pro-government violent thugs - many of whom appear to be members of Mubarak's secret police.

The people in the street want a European-style democracy, one with lots of political parties in a parliament. That parliament will elect a Prime Minister in much the same way that Britain, Germany and yes even Israel does. And yes, the Muslim Brotherhood will be one of those parties. But not the only one, and probably not even the most powerful one. Israel has political parties that are more radicalized than the Muslim Brotherhood - they participate in the Likud. All these groups ask is to be heard and to participate - as citizens - in the governance of their country.

I thought that was what this country - the United States - was supposed to be about. But looking at the US lately I am beginning to wonder. The GOP seems to feel that if you are not a member of the extreme right wing of their party that you are a traitor, you hate America, you are un-American, that you are automatically a socialist (not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion), a communist, a fascist, and that you can hold all those contradictory positions at the same time. Anyone who objects to this characterization or questions them is accused of being a hater and vilified for daring to speak up. They are told that they are trying to deprive the GOP and its followers of their constitutional rights, and the name-calling begins or continues louder and in more obnoxious fashion.

Controversies are manufactured where there are none, the talking heads on the networks and the cable shows all chime in and 95 percent of the voices are coming from the right so the entire megaphone of the press magnifies and amplifies all the screaming and self-victimization, the false-equivalency preening and contributes to an almost complete and total disinformation campaign that leaves the average person completely demoralized, disgusted and disenchanted with the entire political process that is so necessary for a democracy to function. And that is the whole point.

The fewer persons who participate the easier it is for the special interests to get, and keep control of our now-broken government.

So how does this relate to Iraq and now Egypt?

Think about it. Iraq was a war for the special interests - Halliburton in particular, oil companies in general, and Dick Cheney and Eric Prince both managed to become very wealthy indeed off the proceeds. How did they do that? Rigged elections, putting idealogues on courts, lots of money in the right places, and it continues to this day with no prosecutions for war crimes.

We have propped up Mubarak because he and his new vice president ran our torture and rendition program for us, they helped us keep the Palestinian problem under control, and they have given us first place in line in the shipping through the Suez Canal. That means billions of dollars to the special interests here in the US.

All of this is one of a piece. Democracy - true democracy is trying to break out all over the Middle East. We - the US - need to get out of the way and let it happen. We need to stop propping up corrupt dictators and overthrowing democratically elected governments just because we don't like them. It's not our decision to make. We have enough problems of our own to clean up.

What Can We Do But Cry?

2011-01-15T20:34:00.000-08:00

What can we do but cry when a child's life ends in a hail of gunfire. When all the promise is cut short. When all that could be will never be. When all that hope for tomorrow will never be realized. When all those dreams will never come true no matter how hard you wish.

According to a report called "Protect Children, Not Guns" published in 2009 by the Children's Defense Fund:

The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,184 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2006—a 6 percent increase from 2005. This means one young life lost every two hours and 45 minutes, almost nine every day, 61 every week.

Of these deaths, 2,225 were homicides, 763 were suicides and 196 were due to an accident or undetermined circumstances. Boys accounted for 2,815 of the deaths; girls for 369 deaths. More than five times as many children and teens―17,451―suffered non-fatal gun injuries.

The really sad thing is that most of these deaths go unremarked. There may be a brief notice in the local paper, but in big cities, especially if the child in question is black, that may not be the case.

This past week we had a national outpouring of grief for the death of a child - we should grieve for her. But why do we not grieve for the other 3,000 dead children. Are they not just as worthy of our notice, our grief, our sorrow? And if not, why not? What makes one child so much more special than another? Each child has parents who have hopes and dreams for their future. Each child has hopes and dreams for their own future. Each child has their own gifts to offer this world.

Where is our grief for each of them?

And when are we going to do something besides cry?

Tis the Season...

2010-12-24T16:30:00.000-08:00

Tis the season to be jolly...oh really. Well, let's see. We are in six wars. Yes - six. Iraq (still), Afghanistan (still), Pakistan, Yemen, The Horn of Africa (which includes about a dozen African countries), and Colombia (yes we have military troops there too). The economy is still in the tank. The real unemployment rate is near 22%. 50 million people are still without health insurance. More people including 1 of every 5 kids is living in poverty. Foreclosures of homes are on the increase, the housing crisis is headed for a 'double-dip'. All but two states are reporting multi-billion dollar deficits that they must close due to balanced budget requirements - meaning they are put in the position of being forced to lay off workers and cut important safety net programs.

The Pope says that pedophilia is okay with Church teachings. O'Reilly and others of his ilk believe there is a war on Christmas between Frosty the Snowman and Santa Claus. Bigotry in all its ugliness is on the rise against all marginalized groups. The Republican party in all its vaingloriousness has shown that the only American People it cares about are the really really wealthy among us. A letter-writer to Dear Abby reported that her niece's hand-made cards were thought of as "cheap and tacky" and one person sent her a check so she could buy "real" cards next year. We are told that even though there is only one job available for every six people looking for one, that the unemployed are lazy, drug-addicted spoiled bums who don't deserve to be 'paid for doing nothing'. Sick people are cut off from organ transplants because it is 'cadillac health care' and the money is used instead to put a new roof on a sports stadium. And for lack of a $75 fee, a family's home burns to the ground while the fire department stands there and watches.

The good news? Well, the banksters on Wall Street are making money hand over fist again. As are the automakers. As are the oil companies - including BP. And the politicians are feeling no pain - whining about having to work for a few more days before the holidays. DADT got passed, the new START Treaty, the Food Safety Bill, and some other pieces of legislation and a few appointments - all of which had been languishing for months if not years due to the obstructionist tactics of the Republicans mostly in the Senate. Oh, and the richest 1% of people in this country got a giant tax cut.

But there really is some better news. I talked to my daughter today. She has a young son, not quite three. When he is asked what he wants for Christmas he replies "a present". He doesn't have a wish list of must have gifts. His mother doesn't let him watch TV all the time. He is involved in activities with his parents and other children his age outdoors and in structured play groups. How refreshing. My daughter has been reading "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" to him. She reminded me that the real lesson of that book is not what a mean thing the Grinch was, but how the Whos in Whoville managed to get up on Christmas morning with no gifts and still celebrate and be happy and realize the true meaning of the season.

(Just in case you think my daughter is a rich soccer mom, no. Her husband is currently unemployed due to the recession. He is working odd jobs and trying to finish his education. She just recently finished an AA degree and is working as a web-designer. They are struggling to pay an underwater mortgage on a house they bought about six months before the housing crash - and as I said, they have a toddler to take care of.)

Maybe we all need to go back and re-read that precious story and celebrate with the denizens of Whoville. Skip all the presents and just be - be with family and friends. Go outside and appreciate the beauty of nature around you. Be thankful for all that you have - because even if all that you have is not very much, it still is way more than most people in the world. Think of ways in the coming year that you can be more thoughtful, more kind to your neighbors, your co-workers, your family members and your friends. Give a few hours to a local charity. Write a letter to the editor or to your congresscritter. Write a letter to a shut-in relative - better yet go visit. Turn off all your electronics and revel in the silence. Talk to someone - face to face. Hug them. Smile at a stranger.

And on earth, Peace...

Oh, The Dems Lost and They Deserved It and They're No Different from The Republicans Anyway.

2010-11-03T14:04:00.000-07:00

Oh yeah, blame the Democrats for everything. They deserve this. They don’t have any plans. They could just wave a magic wand and fix what the Rethugs have been doing for the last 30 years in just 18 months. Riiiiiight.

So – all of you really great knowledgeable people – just once I would like an explanation of just what the Republicans plans are….

Still waiting…..

All I have heard for the last 3-6 months is this:

1) Give tax cuts to the richest 1% of millionaires and billionaires so they can play the casino-stock market some more.

2) Roll back the pitiful few regulations the Dems did manage to pass and get rid of the few regs that were left over so we can have a truly free market – after all the free market rules!

3) Repeal the Health Reform bill. I know you don’t l9ke it. But there were a few good things in there. It was a place to start. But never mind – they’ll get rid of it – one way or another. After all, all spending bills must start in the House – and they now have control so it’s dead. Happy now?
(By the way – there is a really good long-term-care insurance provision that most people have never heard of – I need that and so does my disabled sister – both of us really really need that but now it’s probably up in smoke thank you very much.)

4)Repeal every single piece of legislation that was passed during the 111th Congress. This will be done by de-funding, and since the Republicanss now hold the Constitutional purse strings in the House – they will do this.

5)They will hold hearings. They have already announced their intention to have Kathleen Sebelius and other cabinet secretaries spend the entire next two years testifying before their committees every single day – effectively removing them from office. They plan to try to impeach the President. They plan to try to impeach our two newest SCOTUS justices. They plan to try to impeach Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They plan to hold hearings on every action the administration has taken since Day One. This will result in a slow-motion shut-down of the government. It won’t be like last time – Social Security recipients will still get their checks but everything else will come to a slow grinding halt.

5)They will try to gut Medicare. They will try to cut Social Security – by raising the retirement age and by cutting benefits and they have the weapon to do it – the catfood commission recommendations. Thay have already succeeded in getting massive cuts in Food Stamps in future years for unemployment benefits now. And they will hold that (The Dems had hoped to restore it before we got there). And as much as they have been yelling about their concerns with the deficit - pay-go will go out the window - just as it did whey they got control under Bush 43. They don't believe that massive tax cuts add to the deficit. They do of course.

6)They will pass stuff to kill Roe v Wade. It will be buried in a “Defense Spending Authorization Bill”. They will keep DADT and DOMA. The DREAM act will disappear just like CardCheck and a lot of other stuff we wanted.

7)They will shut down the EPA. There will be zero climate legislation - in fact they have announced a hearing on the "hoax of climate change".

8)The new START treaty will not be ratified because it “impinges on our sovereignty”. Never mind that securing loose nukes and reducing the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons is in OUR best interest - our best NATIONAL SECURITY interest which they are so fond of touting. Besides - it also saves money!

I don’t see anything in there about providing jobs, fixing the economy, reforming Wall Street, providing better health care, cleaning up this financial mess, doing something about the disaster in the housing market. Just “back” to more of the same crap that got us into this horrible situation in the first place – only more of it piled higher and deeper and further right wing and far more dangerous.

Oh, and we will be going to war with Iran.

But there is no difference between the Dems and the Republicans. They are both the same. The Dems didn’t do everything I wanted right when I wanted them to so I hate them and I’ll never vote for them again they are stupid and so I don’t care if the Repubs get in. It doesn’t matter.

Well, we’ll just see about that won’t we. Unfortunately, those of us who understand that every time this rationale has been used – and it has been used several times in the past and in the same predicaments (bad economy, disappointed Dems, etc) the urge to punish the Dems by voting in the Repubs has always resulted in disaster. And it will this time too. Too bad the smart ones among us who know this will have to suffer right along with the rest of you.

Campaign Misogyny?

2010-10-27T21:24:00.000-07:00

I have noticed an interesting phenomenon in the midterm elections. There are a large number of women candidates running for high offices - Senate and US House of Representatives along with State Governorships. This normally would be a major cause for celebration. Right?

Well.....maybe.

Many of these candidates have compared themselves or been compared to Hillary Clinton or alluded to her "eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling" as if they are the natural heirs to her legacy. I would submit that they are not. And it is not because they are mostly running on the Republican ticket.

First, let me qualify myself by saying that while I find much to admire about Hillary Clinton, I was not a political fan of hers, and did not vote for her in the primary. What I did and do admire about her was her willingness to go out and stand on her issues - and stand on them she did. She did not stand behind her husband, although that would have been very easy to do since he was not only a former President but a very charismatic campaigner. She did not cower behind her campaign staff and hide from reporters. She did not refuse to face her opponents, and although her supporters often called out sexist attacks on her she mostly did not and she especially did not when the opponent was attacking her policy positions.

And in this campaign season that is exactly what is wrong. Any attack on one of these women candidates is immediately decried as a sexist attack. Even if it is a criticism of a policy position. These candidates refuse to debate. Or they refuse to face reporters. They refuse interviews unless they can control everything - the questions, the timing, even who gets to ask questions. They hide behind their men - both significant others and staff. And in the end - what do we really know about any one of them? We don't know where they stand on most major issues. We have no idea what they propose to do about the big problems facing our country today. All we know are the "crazy" things. Or that they'll tell us everything after they get elected. What???

We need more women in politics. For a supposedly advanced Western democracy - we lag behind every single other country in representation by women in our legislatures both nationally and at the state and local levels. We have fewer women in our court systems, in our corporate governance and in any other systems of power and influence than any other country. We have yet to elect a woman as President. We need more women in positions of power and influence - I cannot say that often enough. But we also need women who are truly standing on their own two feet - as Hillary did and still does. Women who have ideas about how to do things and are not afraid to express and defend those ideas to their opponents and to the press and to the public they are asking to vote for them. Women who don't hide and run away. Women who earn and demand our respect.

I'm sorry, but all these Tea Party candidates are not those women. I don't know what their motivations are, but they are not good for other women with their anti-choice platforms, their anti-education, anti-child (abolish school lunches, WIC programs, Head Start etc rhetoric) and such, they are not good for families with their anti-unemployment, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare/Medicaid and anti-VA Healthcare for veterans positions, they are not good for the country with their anti-EPA and anti-bank regulations. They are also not good for the country with their pro-corporate stances on trade, on regulations, on energy, and all the rest. They claim they are worried about the deficit - but they want to continue tax cuts for billionaires with no idea how to pay for it, and cut corporate taxes for corporations that already pay no taxes at all. They scream and yell about subsidies for wind and solar power but also don't want to get rid of subsidies to oil companies that have posted the biggest profits by any corporation in the history of the world ever in the past few years. They also claim they want smaller government. But at the same time they advocate for a government that spies on its own citizens in their bedrooms, in their doctors offices, reads their emails, listens to their phone calls, monitors their location on their cellphones and their car gps systems, pores over their library books, mines the databases of their credit card purchases and facebook postings and now wants the authority to force their internet providers to cough up every internet search page you have ever visited. That's smaller government?

I wonder if these women candidates are being used without their knowledge to trick the voters into thinking the Tea/Republican Party is somehow more "progressive" or if they are willingly going along for the ride. Either way - it is a dangerous proposition to fall for the trick.

When Did Subsistence Farming Become A Dirty Word?

2010-09-29T15:12:00.001-07:00

Well, two words actually. Anyway, I just read an article in the Smithsonian Magazine's 40th Anniversary Issue. The issue was filled with "40 Things You Need To Know About The Next 40 Years". Number 17 was titled "In the Fight Against Starvation, One Weapon Will Be the Ancient Grain Fonio". The interviewer was Amanda Benson of the Smithsonian. The Interviewee was Rosamond Naylor of the Program on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University. Ms. Naylor is an economist by training.

Both of these people seem to think that solving the problem of hunger in the world has to do with more technology. Solar powered drip irrigation systems. GMO crops. Figuring out high-yield crops and which markets to get them to. Discovering price strategies. What?

These approaches are actually what has driven millions of people in this world today into hunger and starvation. Using more of them is not going to solve anything. In order to address the problem - we need to be really clear what created the problem in the first place.

So. What caused the problems. There are a huge myriad of causes but the over-arching one that I see is the first-world drive for resources. This took the form of empire and colonization in the 18th century. It included land grabs, slavery, plundering natural materials and agricultural products, forced unequal trade practices and the like. As the third world gradually shrugged off the colonial yokes, the financial ones remained in place. These poor countries depended on the richer ones for support in the form of unequal trade agreements, exploitation of their natural resources for pittances and payoffs, massive corruption instigated in order to procure these favorable resource agreements and so-called development loans.

And finally, in the late 20th century - the institution of the IMF/World Bank Development Programs in which more "loans" were given to these already debt-ridden countries in return for 'austerity' programs that included changes to their agricultural sectors. These changes were a disaster for the food security of the populations since the people were forced off their land, food crops were replaced with 'money' crops like tobacco and cotton so that the nation would be able to repay the new debts, and the people were forced into the cities to find other employment. The jobs available were low-paying, and put the people in a position where they were unable to purchase the wheat in the market - wheat from the US market (subsidized by the US government) that was too expensive. And so the people starve.

At various times, we (the first world, mostly the US) have instituted programs that are supposed to help. Witness the so-called Green Revolution. We convinced the third world that growing wheat, or corn, or rice (the big three) was how to grow crops. These three are all very water dependent, fertilizer dependent, and the way we grow them, machinery dependent as well. Notice anything? Lots of money required for seed, water delivery, and machines. Enriching Monsanto, Caterpillar and John Deere, and further impoverishing the third world. In the process, we convinced them that native crops like amaranth and fonio and all the other stuff they used to grow were nothing but weeds that needed to be eradicated. We sprayed them with weed killer, combined their farms into giant mono-culture fields (gee - kinda like communism dontcha think), sold them tractors and stuff, sacks of expensive seeds and fertilizers, and then left.

The tractors are now rusting in the fields, the 'weeds' are back, the people are gone, the fields are now covered with cotton or tobacco, and no one is being fed.

One of the grains that is put forward in the Smithsonian article is Fonio. It is a type of millet and has been around for thousands of years. It thrives in poor soil, is rich in amino acids and makes a good base for bread, porridge, pasta and yes, beer. The problem with it is - wait for it - the seeds are tiny and we have to figure out how to harvest it. Oh yeah - we have to figure out how to harvest it with a giant combine so we can grow it in giant monoculture fields and make a gazillion bucks off it. So what happened to letting individual families grow it in their garden patches or a small plot and harvesting it by hand like they have since ancient times. It is, after all, an ancient grain.

Then there is the Golden Rice. This is the GMO candidate. According to the article - the scientists have put a daffodil gene in the rice so it will have more beta carotene (vitamin A precursor) and it will presumably prevent blindness in kids in the third world - a pernicious problem to be sure. A laudable goal surely. Unfortunately, I had heard about golden rice before - and not in a good way. So I looked it up again. According to The Golden Rice Hoax , not only will golden rice not prevent blindness in kids - it has the potential to actually make it worse:

In order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult would have to consume 2 kg 272g of rice per day. This implies that one family member would consume the entire family ration of 10 kg. from the PDS in 4 days to meet vitaminA needs through "Golden rice".

In addition, Dr. Vandana Shiva, the author of the above article, says that if the traditional family gardening practices in India were encouraged, plants like Amaranth would provide enough beta carotene to do the job without the GMO golden rice. He gives a complete list of plants that were usually found in a family garden - now mostly missing because of this reliance on mono-culture money crops. Amaranth is a very interesting plant - it has a grain seed-head, the leaves are edible as a salad, and the roots can also be used. The seeds are a very high-protein content, and as Dr. Shiva says, the leaves contain a very high vitamin A content. Robert Rodale wrote an entire book about this remarkable plant called "Save Three Lives" and the Rodale Institute has set up an entire research center to provide more information about it.

Dr. Shiva concludes:

The reason there is vitamin A deficiency in India in spite of the rich biodiversity base and indigenous knowledge base in India is because the Green Revolution technologies wiped out biodiversity by converting mixed cropping systems to monocultures of wheat and rice and by spreading the use of herbicides which destroy field greens.

The final challenge we face going forward in regards to agriculture is of course global climate change. As the climate warms, agriculture will face multiple challenges, mostly as traditional growing areas become warmer and drier. The Smithsonian article responds by suggesting more irrigation and more GMO crops. Since one of the problems we will be facing will be severe water shortages, irrigation should be last on the list of things to be doing. We need to be looking at growing crops where they can grow without irrigation. Why are we trying to grow crops in deserts when they need rain? Grow them where there is rain! We are already using far too much water for irrigating deserts to grow crops when we should be growing crops where there is rain. Secondly, instead of using GMO crops - which are unstable, and can cause potentially deadly harm to humans, why not use already existing drought-tolerant crops that already exist?

A case in point - indigeneous corn strains - called landrace corn, which exists in small pockets of cultivation in Mexico's mountainous regions are already drought and heat tolerant. They have been bred over hundreds of years to exist in a lot of different climates. These landrace corns are stable, healthy, and genetically diverse - as all good crops should be. Right now they are in serious danger of contamination from Monsanto's GMO corns that were forced into the Mexican markets by NAFTA. We need to protect these landrace corns from contamination and preserve their genetic diversity from any pollution by GMOs of any kind. Then we need to begin propagating them using standard farming methods as used by the Mexican farmers to discover the ones best suited to microclimates in different parts of lots of different countries. And stop feeding all the corn to cattle. It is too important and it needs to be used as people food.

By the way, these landrace corns are raised along with beans, a kind of squash, and a native grass that is the original stock from whence the corn/maize originally came. The grass has medicinal uses, and the beans and squash provide nutrients that make the maize and vegetables a very nutritious diet. So don't just grow corn. Grow all the stuff that comes along with it. That is what subsistence farming is all about.

Subsistence farming is about raising all the food you need to feed your family - plus a little bit more to trade with your neighbors for things you can't make or do for yourselves. We used to be proud of doing this - that is what pioneers did. Why is it a dirty word now?

Modern Feminists???

2010-09-20T23:46:00.000-07:00

I just read a post on AOL News about Anna Wintour. The author was gushing about what a great feminist Ms Wintour is because after you spend a year interning for her she will help you launch your career in almost any field. The author gave a couple of examples of people whose careers were supposedly launched by Ms. Wintour's able assistance.

For those of you who don't know, Ms. Anna Wintour is the inspiration for the book and subsequent film "The Devil Wears Prada". According to the author of the AOL article, the actual Ms. Wintour hates fat people, curly hair, and any kind of comfortable shoes. She dislikes employees to be in her "direct line of sight". In the book/movie, this boss from hell treats her first-year interns like lesser slaves, demeans and belittles them, expects them to dress like high-fashion models on a salary of around $30,000 per year, and basically be at her beck and call 24/7. If you don't want to perform like a trained seal you are told "a million other girls would just kill to get this job". The interns are expected to pick up her dog at the vet, sort her dirty laundry, fetch her coffee from Starbucks a dozen times a day while at the same time never leaving the phone unanswered, find information and carry out tasks after being given very little to no information and not allowed to ask questions under threat of being fired, and then being told that Ms. Wintour had the information at her fingertips the entire time.

Ms. Wintour is also cited as some sort of icon due to her status as the editor of a high fashion magazine because of her "hard work" and other such drivel. Never mind that the hard work is done by the scores of underpaid and vastly overworked young interns and "clackers" as they were called the "The Devil". But for her providing some help along the way to a few of her long-suffering employees we are supposed to believe that Anna Wintour is somehow deserving of our praise?

I think not.

For one thing, it is entirely possible to work hard, rise to the top, make something of yourself, and do this without destroying the lives, self-esteem, and careers of the many people who work with and for you along the way. You can rise to the top and treat the people who work for you and with you with respect and dignity along the way.

The fact that this woman goes out of her way to advance the careers of women who have managed to stick it out in her "service" for a year says that she is not unaware of their sacrifices and humiliation. And that, for me, makes it all the more horrid. This woman who has accomplished much in her chosen field, who also can chose to be so nasty and petty to her employees, knows full well what price she is exacting on those employees, and at the same time is holding out a prize at the end of the experience - a plum job offering - usually at another firm - where the pain and stings of the price Anna Wintour has exacted can be washed away with the gratitude for the new job.

Anna Wintour is no feminist. She is a plain out-and-out bitch. She ought to be sued by every person who has ever worked for her for hostile work environment. The corporation Ms. Wintour represents should terminate her employment immediately. And she should go crawling back into the medieval hole she crawled out of.

When is a Mosque Not a Mosque? Updated

2010-08-26T17:24:00.000-07:00

Most religions have some sort of sanctification ritual to make a church a real church, a synagogue a real synagogue, or a mosque a mosque.

It is kind of like the non-denominational chapels that are found in hospitals everywhere in this country. They are places for private prayer, contemplation, meditation or just to be there. No one thinks they are a church. Not even when they are in a Catholic hospital. In fact, if a Catholic priest decides to say mass in one of these chapels - he brings a portable altar with him that is "sanctified" to turn it into a church - but only for as long as the altar is there.

The Park51 community center is NOT a mosque. It has a prayer space in it. Kind of like the chapels in the hospitals. No more. No less.

The big difference here is only that it will be used more often. In fact five times per day. For daily required prayers. Muslim prayers, as we should all know by now require the individual to ritually wash face, hands and feet, and then prostrate themselves face down on the ground. A dedicated, clean space for prayers is only natural. So why the big fuss?

It seems that there are a lot of people in this country who equate a bunch of 19 criminals with the 1.3 billion other people who practice Islam. Whether these 19 thugs actually practice the religion of Islam is very open to question, in my humble opinion.

The 19 criminals are equivalent to Timothy McVeigh. Did we hear that all Christians are thugs and criminals because Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian"? No we didn't. We classified him as a criminal, tried and convicted him and put him to death. End of story.

And this is exactly why anyone who disapproves of this community center should sit down and shut up. Including people who want them to "move it somewhere else". The very fact of calling for moving it means we DO equate those 19 terrible criminals with the peace-loving Sufi adherents who are trying to do something good.

By the way - I haven't heard any objections to the sex shop that IS directly across the street from Ground Zero.

UPDATE: I recently discovered that the Park51 Community Center will also have prayer spaces for Jewish persons and Christian persons along with its prayer spaces for Muslim persons. Boy, some mosque.

UPDATE 2: Keith Olbermann reported that if you want to complain about mosques at Ground Zero maybe you should start with the two ACTUAL MOSQUES that were in the two WTC buildings when they were demolished on September 11, 2001. One was a complete mosque in WTC2 and the other was a more informal one set up in a stairwell (can you believe this? a stairwell?) in WTC1 outside the Windows on the World Restaurant for use by the workers and patrons for daily prayers.

The people who destroyed the WTC towers apparently didn't mind bombing two actual mosques when they did their little attacks. So why all of a sudden are people in this country so "sensitive" we are calling for no mosques even near Ground Zero? What about the Muslim families of those lots on 9/11 who were Muslim? What about the mosques that were already there?

Hypocrisy, thee knows no bounds.

UPDATE: Ill Fares The Land

2010-08-08T14:04:00.000-07:00

Mr. Tony Judt has passed away at an entirely too young age, he will be sorely missed.

In his book he talks about using new words to have discussions - since the old ones have been demonized and their meanings changed.

I like the method of Melissa Harris-Lacewell. An example of her doing this was recently on the Rachel Maddow Show. The discussion was around women’s reproductive rights and the tea party's various radical positions. Melissa never used the “a” word, instead she spoke of 'termination of a problem pregnancy'. By avoiding the “a” word – she also allows us to actually hear her arguments instead of jumping to the normal knee-jerk framing we ALL have around that word.

We need to replace a lot of other words like that: liberal, socialism, etc with words like “people centered” and “good of the community” and so on.

Gotta start with each one of us individually – so maybe make a pledge not to use the “a” word anymore, or the ‘L” word, or the “s” word…

Race to the Bottom

2010-08-05T13:55:00.000-07:00

This past week we received the news that 200 teachers were being fired in Washington, DC because they were "failing to perform".

Okay.

So the next time you are looking for teachers to work in those poor, inner-city, low-functioning schools you are going to find them where?

The problems with Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind are multitudinous. Let's just start with the kids.

In both cases, these programs assume that all children are ready for school at age 5. They assume that kids will have been read to, have books in their homes, and parents who value education. It assumes that these children live in homes where the parents are not doing drugs, fighting constantly including with physical violence, gang members, prostitutes, or serving time. These programs also assume that these kids have enough to eat every day, a warm and safe place to sleep, and clean clothes and a way to keep themselves clean as well as a stable, long-term place to live.

Unfortunately, for a lot of kids in inner cities and poor rural areas too, kids live in the kinds of homes described above - not in some Mr. Rogers neighborhood.

So what happens when these kids come to school? First off, pre-school experiences (being read to, having their own books, having parents who value education) mean children are either very well prepared for school, or they are simply not. The work that has been done before a child reaches the school classroom cannot be underestimated when looking at educational outcomes.

Kids who are not fed are not able to learn. They are hungry, sleepy, distracted, and they just cannot learn unless they are well nourished. That is the main force (and science) behind school lunch and even more importantly, school breakfast programs. The nutritional status of kids goes even beyond the day to day in that if their mothers were not well-nourished during their pregnancies, it can result in the lost of IQ points for the child, and even more drastically if the child is born prematurely or underweight. Or drug-addicted.

And finally, children raised in homes where there is constant fighting and violence do not do well in school for several reasons. First, they may not be getting adequate sleep due to fears for their own safety or the safety of siblings or even the safety of their parent(s). Violence in the home causes PTSD-like symptoms in young children, resulting in kids who are withdrawn, paranoid, fearful, or who act-out, are irritable, etc. In the latter case, many of these kids are wrongly diagnosed with ADHD/HD and medicated to make them more calm. ADHD/HD medications create their own obstacles to learning.

Funding for Head Start and Early Head Start has never been adequate to the task since it is funded on a block-grant basis. What this means is that even though a child may be eligible - only about 50% of kids actually receive funding to participate. In recent years both these programs have been under intense attack because by the fourth grade the Head Start kids are no different from their peers. Which is the exact result you should be expecting - but the conservatives have decided that somehow these kids who start out behind the starting line should not only catch up but actually sprint ahead of their peers. That was never the expectation, and the science simply does not back that up as an outcome. Never has. Parity was always the goal.

So at this point we have huge numbers of children entering school in DC. The school system there has its own set of special problems. Since DC is the capital of the US, and is not part of any state, its funding does not have the state property tax flow of all other school districts in the country. Instead, DC must rely on funding when and if Congress gets around to it. And the Representative, Eleanor Norton, has no vote. She is just there to speak (if they let her) and then observe if anyone chooses to do anything. As we have all seen recently, expecting Congress to do the right thing is an exercise in futility.

As a result, the schools are crumbling around the ears of the students and faculty alike. There aren't computers in the classroom. Most of the kids don't have books to take home to help with their homework. In many cases they don't have pencils, paper, or any of the other "normal" supplies kids need to do their work. So the schools rely on donations from local merchants, parents who have no money, or the teachers buy the stuff out of their own pockets. What a way to help kids learn.

The next thing that happens with these so-called school reform programs is the Orwellian "accountability" provisions. Some commission that has no educators on it has set standards for achievement for every school in the entire country. No adjustments are made for poverty or wealth, for regional differences, for culture (Native American springs to mind), or for language. (Let's not get into the immigration wars here - in some communities with LEGAL immigrants like San Francisco, there may be as many as 50 different languages spoken as the primary one for kids in some districts). And perhaps even more importantly, there is no account taken for where the students are/were on Day One of these programs.

I'm sure you can see that if the students in Burlingame California (one of the wealthiest districts in the entire country) are at level 80 on Day One, and the students at the Five Valleys District (on an impoverished Indian reservation) are at 25 on Day One, the likely outcomes when you set the bar at 85 for the end of the first year are going to be quite different. The kids at Burlingame will make the new goal with ease - having to only achieve 5 points on the test after a school year of excellent instruction by teachers with MS and PhD degrees, each child with their own set of books and supplies furnished by the school, their parents encouraging them to do their homework, and a computer on every desk.

On the other hand, that goal is impossible for the Indian kids. Even if they double their previous scores (from 25 to 50) with teachers who have a BA, no books, no supplies, no computers, and with all the other problems living in poverty causes, the school is still deemed to be failing. So it gets put on probation. At that point, all the parents in the school are offered to have their kids bussed to a different school that is performing better. So the kids whose parents are concerned about their education (usually the smart kids) will opt out of the school district. This has the effect of depressing the overall scores even further since the poorest, and the poorest performing students are the ones left behind. Oh, forgot one thing. The underperforming school district is required to pay the transportation costs of the students who are leaving the district.

And then....wait for it...the standard is moved up from 85 to 90 for the next year. The cycle repeats itself, and now the Five Valleys School receives a huge cut in its funding to "punish it for not doing better". That's all it takes to make it do better - right?

And in the third year, Five Valleys School can expect to have all of its dedicated teachers and the principal fired. Now the school will be taken over by the State, or turned over to a private company to run. The teachers and administrators are now on unemployment on a reservation where the unemployment rate is already over 80%. Due to the history of the school, and the distance it is from other towns in the area (45 minute drive in the summer, roads impassable due to downed trees and landslides in winter) how do you recruit teachers? Any teachers? And no private corporation wants to take over a school like this where they can't make money off it.

What to do?

In this case, what the Five Valleys School District did was admirable. But most inner city districts don't even have this option. The local Tribal Council voted to set up a casino. They used the casino money to offset ALL federal and state funding and told them both to take No Child Left Behind and stuff it.

Then they cleaned up the school, raised the salaries of the teachers, and implemented a number of cultural programs, like teaching the kids their own language, and traditional arts and crafts. They set a goal of having each individual student make 10 points of progress each year. If they didn't, tutors and other mentors were brought in to help these individual children. And guess what - the school is doing much better. They still aren't at 95% (where the bar is today) but they are above 50% now. And that's quite an achievement.

If these mass firings, cuts to funding, privatization and other schemes such as this continue, we will have no more public schools. Millions of kids will be left behind - illiterate and completely unemployable. Is this what we really want?

President Obama says that education is an economic issue. That is correct. But the simple cost-benefit analysis does not work for education. How do you measure the value of a child learning to love learning? How do you measure the value of a child enjoying a finger-painting class? (Those disappeared along with all other art, music and physical education classes). How do you measure the value of kids who don't know how to understand critical thinking? (Not taught in K-12 under either regime) There are hundreds of positive aspects of a well-rounded, positive education that simply cannot be measured in dollars and cents. And basing teacher firings on test scores on tests that do not measure a child's true learning - or their potential for future learning is not helpful in the least.

Arne Duncan is really pushing hard for charter schools. The verdict is in on them. Some are better, some are worse, and most are the same - just like public schools in general. And charter schools are unaccountable, discriminatory, in a majority of cases, religious. Where the real advances are is in Magnet Schools. These schools are accountable to the voters, are run by public school districts, and achieve far greater results with their focus on real-world application-type learning. Magnet Schools are by almost every measure - far better than regular public schools and charter schools alike.

I don't know what the best way is to reform our schools. But the way we are going now is only going to ruin everything. In this Race, far too many of our children are truly being Left Behind.

Ill Fares The Land

2010-08-01T21:34:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Ill Fares The Land by Tony Judt. I know I and many of the folks I talk to constantly wonder how we got into the state we're in. The country that is. Judt has done a great job of explaining that it was perhaps inevitable that we would wind up here. Our country was founded on suspicion of government - it has just taken a completely sinister turn from mere suspicion to downright hostility in the last couple of decades.

As for what to do...that he doesn't do such a good job at explaining. He talks about how we need to have discussions - but the trick is how to do that when the words we normally would use have all become demonized and distorted and discredited.

Take the word socialism for example. This word is now a desccriptor of evil incarnate - at least according to the far right wing. The issue is that we already have socialism in this country. Every country does. It is how the country, state, or community does things that no single individual could possibly do on their own. Think freeways, fire departments, police, airports, water and sewer systems, and so on. Socialism is how individuals join together to do projects FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

Of course, common good has become another of those demonized terms. Judt discusses the phenomenon of gated communities where the residents feel they are enclosed in safety, completely self-sufficient and not really part of the larger community in which they are located. However, the gated community is not any safer than the open community - in fact, if something happens, the private security personnel must often call upon the official police department or sheriff's office to actually deal with crime. If a home catches fire - the 'outside' fire department will respond. The roads on which they drive in and out of the gates are paid for by all of the rest of us too - and they get to use them. Their water comes from the same place as the rest of ours, and their sewage winds up in the same place.

One point Judt makes about our society is worth considering seriously, and that is the idea that people want their government to make moral choices. This is not the same as religious values. The idea that people should not kill or rob each other is not a religious value, it is a common moral value. The same applies to government. Moral choices, like the one to provide some sort of assistance to people unable to work, are not necessarily cost effective in an economic sense. But Judt argues that economic efficiency is not always the best choice.

Judt uses the example of railroads (passenger) to demonstrate that although they usually are never profitable, there are clearly high values of a non-monetary sort to be gained by the government subsidizing trains as a means of transportation surely, but even more importantly, as a link between more rural and poor areas with the rest of the country. This link is important for building a sense of community - and even though in the US we prize individuality above all else, we cannot survive without our communities supportiing us. There are really almost no persons in this society that are completely self-sufficient. And the supports often come from the government whether we want to admit it or not.

I highly recommend that everyone read this book - it is a really good starting point for a conversation. And we really need to start having this conversation - even if we have to make up new, untainted words to describe what we want!

January 2 - What Are The Questions

2010-01-02T15:01:00.000-08:00

Before we can really make changes, we must learn to ask good questions. If we want to do (or undo) something, the question should be "why". And then why again. And again, until we find the deep and true reason that has been buried in our hearts.

The next question is how. The self-help gurus say to write lists of goals and steps and timetables. For some of us, this doesn't work. We use the steps and deadlines as weapons to beat ourselves up - or to pretend that we're in control.

Well, we're not in control. The Universe is - and that is precisely why we get sidetracked so easily. So we're back to one-day-at-a-time. Eat healthy just for today. Exercise just for today. Do whatever chore just for today. Or don't smoke just for today. Don't tell a lie just for today.

Yesterday is over. We cannot change it. Tomorrow isn't here. We can't do anything about that either. So, just for today I will...

January 1 - What's Next?

2010-01-02T14:56:00.000-08:00

It is a time for new beginnings. They say that each new day is the first day of the rest of your life. It's true. But at times it seems as if the endless starting over can almost become self-defeating. So we solve that by symbolically starting over only once each year. We make resolutions - most of which are given up by the end of the first week.

Then we choose Monday as a starting over day. But Mondays are fraught with their own perils. So by Wednesday we are defeated again.

What's next?

We all know the things we'd like to change in our lives. We make lists and post them on the refrigerator or on the bathroom mirror in an attempt to remind ourselves to do or be or don't or whatever. How long until we look right at these lists and don't even see them anymore?

I think for this next space of time I will take a page from the twelve-stop programs and start living my life one day at a time. I will decide when I wake how I will be and do and don't and whatever. Just for today.

And tomorrow I will decide again.

It's Been A While

2010-01-02T14:51:00.000-08:00

My health issues caught up with me again, along with a bout with depression. So I took a sabbatical from the news and blogs and all that.

I've decided to retrain my focus a bit here and hope to be posting more regularly. Hope you all had happy holidays and that your New Year will be a good one!

How Does Wasserman-Schulz Show US Hypocrisy?

2009-04-17T23:38:00.000-07:00

In an interview with Rachel Maddow Friday night, Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (D-FL) discussed the torture memos and relations with Cuba. In this discussion, she showed the absolute hypocrisy of the US in both cases.

On Torture: Wasserman-Schulz made the statement that while she disagrees with 'torturous' policies, we (meaning her), absolutely don't feel sorry for the detainees who were tortured because they are the absolute most heinous criminals in the world and we cannot feel sorry for them.

Really.

Since none of these detainees have ever had a hearing, a trial, or a conviction, how can we say this? Oh. Just because they are detainees that automatically makes them guilty of whatever we say they did. Even if they did nothing.

Abu Zubayda was one of the detainees subjected to most of these 'torturous' procedures. He was waterboarded, 'walled' (had his head slammed repeatedly into the wall while being held around the neck with a towel or a collar specifically manufactured for that purpose), put into a small containment box and told that poisonous insects were being placed in there with him (apparently he has a problem with insects), and subjected to sleep deprivation for periods up to eleven days in a row, among other things.

And, now we're hearing that he's not the guy we thought he was. That instead of being "Al Quaeda's #2 guy" that he was not even a member of Al Quaeda. Ooops! Oh well. He's one of those heinous terr'ist crim'nals.

On Human Rights: Wasserman-Schulz discussed Obama's new policies towards Cuba and was saying that the Cuban government was guilty of the worst human rights violations of any country on earth. The example she gave was of the Cuban authorities allegedly arresting a 12-year-old for not joining the Communist Party. Okay. We never do stuff like that here in the good ol' USA!

Except for arresting a 6-year-old and charging him with sexual harassment for kissing a playmate. Or arresting a 9-year-old on weapons charges for bringing a knife to school when her grandmother put the knife in her lunch so she could cut up an apple, and the 9-year-old brought the knife to her teacher and turned it in. Or arresting a 10-year-old for being a drug dealer because she gave a classmate a cough drop. I could go on.

Oh yeah. We have lots of room to criticize other countries at this point in time. Methinks we need to clean up our own back, front, and side yards as well as the basement, the attic, and maybe even the kitchen, living room and bathrooms before we start yelling about other people.

Crossposted at Firedoglake

What To Do When The Water Wars Begin

2009-04-11T03:46:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago the Government in Mexico was forced to shut down a water pipeline that normally brings almost a third of the water needed in that densely populated city. The lake level is so low the pipes were basically sucking up mud.

This is just the first of what is going to become a common occurrence in the very near future.

The Pentagon has had plans in its files for over thirty years now detailing the response to a number of scenarios when desparate people begin fighting over scarce resources, and the number one resource that was 'gamed' was water. We've heard discussions of peak oil, only it seems that peak water will hit us first.

One of the biggest consumers of potable water is agriculture. Now I know you're going to say 'but we need food too'. I agree. But what I don't agree with is trying to grow water-intensive crops in semi-arid and desert lands. For instance, most of the celery grown in the US is produced in Arizona. (A desert). Celery likes New Jersey a lot better. Because of the rain. Because of the temperatures. So why aren't we growing celery in New Jersey? Good question.

Similarly, the biggest rice crops are in the Sacramento River Delta. As you know, rice requires actual flooded fields for a lot of the first part of the growing season. Well, if they are doing that in a river delta it shouldn't be a problem - right? Well, not exactly. In order to meet the water needs of all the stakeholders on the river, they have had to dam and divert water from three other rivers in Northern California, rivers that are now having major problems including destruction of native fisheries due to low water levels in those rivers. And the Los Angeles area was trying to get legislation passed to require even more diversion water from these rivers and build a new canal to take it down there.

We have been hearing a lot of calls for backyard and frontyard gardens. These personal food sources are a great idea, no matter where you live. But you do have to pay attention. Herbicides and pesticides used on lawns are one of the worst sources of chemical pollution in this country. Most homeowners who use these products seem to feel that if a little bit is good, more is better. So, before you dig up your lawn to plant a food garden - you might want to talk to your neighbors and find out how they care for their lawns. And while you are at it, be sure to invest in a drip irrigation system. Overhead watering is the most inefficient method of irrigation, followed by ditching. Drip irrigation is the best since it delivers water directly to single plants or directly to the soil at the roots of your plantings.

Finally, look around your community. Where are the farming areas? What kind of crops do they grow there? Do they require irrigation? If so, where does the water come from? Are the crops really compatible with the climate where you are? Then pay attention to your local and area-wide land-use and planning boards. Find out where your own drinking water comes from if you don't know. Ask officials in your community if they have a backup plan if this water source becomes unavailable for some reason. Find out if there is a way that you personally can have a back-up plan.

And finally, we need to learn to eat foods that conform to the seasons where we live. Sure it's nice to have tomatoes in December in Montana - but do they really taste that good when they've come from South America? In the winter, root veggies and winter squashes are the vegetables of choice and of course, canned, frozen, or dried things. But that's another story.

I will be posting a series of articles on this subject in the next few weeks. I'll be discussing water conservation, alternate water systems, wastewater treatment, water source depletion and many other topics around this issue. Hope you'll come along.

Why All the Criticism of The White House Garden?

2009-03-21T16:51:00.001-07:00

Michelle Obama and a group of school children broke ground on the new White House vegetable garden yesterday. And the fun begins.

It's just a token, the White House Staff will wind up taking care of it. Okay - so what? It's not like the people who live in the White House have nothing better to do. The fact that even if this were true, the people who live in the White House and their guests will be EATING THIS FOOD is more to the point. Also, that you can have a garden anywhere, in your front lawn if you have one.

Why isn't Michelle Obama talking about sustainability, etc etc etc? One of the things you learn early on if you are dealing with the public is you have to relate to them where they are. People who live in inner cities and poor rural communities already think 'organic' is elitist. By its very nature, an organic garden IS sustainable. Michelle Obama is appealing to the mothers and fathers out there who want their kids to be healthy. That's why she talks about fresh and healthy. And if you can find it and afford it - organic. People in this country need to be engaged in a dialogue about our food, and Michelle Obama is off to a great start.

Oh, the lawns there are all full of pesticides and herbicides so this whole exercise is useless. Well maybe they were. The fact that Michelle Obama has declared that this will be an organic garden means that the groundskeepers have undoubtedly been instructed not to continue to spray toxic chemicals on the lawns. I would think this has been in place since the swingset was installed - after all, who wants their kids playing in that stuff? All in all - this is a win-win for the environment on so many levels. They will have this working mini-farm, they will show people you can still have lawns without polluting so much. The garden is an educational tool - and getting kids involved first is often the best way to reach parents. When their kids want stuff, or make points about issues, parents tend to change behavior more than if you talk directly to them.

Most people don't have acres of lawn to dig up for a garden like this so I don't see how anyone else will be able to do this. One of the reasons the Obama garden is so large (1,100 square feet) is because it will be feeding the Obama family, guests at State dinners, and the school children and their families who are helping do some of the work. And there may be leftovers which I suspect will wind up at local soup kitchens. You don't need acres. I personally grew a garden in a space 10 feet by 11 feet. I canned and froze enough veggies to see us through the winter, plus we ate out of the garden all year. That is a tiny space. You can grow a tomato plant, a pepper plant and a cucumber vine in a large pot on your patio or porch. You can grow lettuces and herbs in a window box. In this era of belt-tightening, there are lots of options for growing fresh food no matter where you live. Have you seen those 'topsy-turvy' upside-down tomato plant things? Ha!

I am eagerly looking forward to seeing pictures of the First Family pulling weeds, and hearing about the meals that are being prepared by the White House chefs for formal affairs as well as the school kids harvesting and cooking what they have helped grow.

Hooray! This is a story we should all be celebrating instead of criticizing. How about it?

When Are We Going To Get Rid Of The Ban On (Re)Importation of Drugs?

2009-03-19T02:58:00.000-07:00

I realize that this is waaaaaaay down on the list of priorities for the Obama Administration, but for people who don't have drug coverage with their health care plan, and some who do (Medicare Part D) this is an important issue.

Remember when all the Republicans (and Blue Dog Democrats) were howling and screaming and the Bush FDA joined in the fray telling us that drugs from other countries were 'too dangerous' and that we could not trust those 'foreign' companies to have rigorous standards for their own populations? A total farce but I digress.

Well, what caught my eye today (h/t to FDL) was a little story that all these old impotent white guys like Bob Dole need to get a grip. Seems that Viagra is made in...drum roll please...Ireland! If that's not a foreign country, I don't know what is!!

But wait, it gets worse. Practically every person who has had a heart attack, angina pain, a stroke, or is at risk for any of these is now taking a drug called Plavix. It supposedly reduces the risk of re-occurrence of one of these episodes. By a reported 20%. Of course, that is 20% over and above an....drum roll please...aspirin. Aspirin can be obtained at Wally World for about a buck for a 100 pills. Plavix on the other hand, costs about $100 for 30 pills. Now here's the deal. Aspirin has never really had the kinds of efficacy and safety studies that are now routine for new drugs. It is on the GRAS list (Generally Recognized As Safe). So we really don't have a lot of good data telling us how much (if any) aspirin reduces these risks. If it does a lot - then Plavix does quite a bit as well. But if, as I suspect, aspirin does very little, then Plavix does even less. And the rest of the story (h/t to the late Paul Harvey) is that Plavix is produced in...rimshot please...FRANCE! Now that's a country that the Republicans love to hate!

Freedom fries, John Kerry looks too 'french' to be allowed to be POTUS, the French are total wimps and should be on their knees kissing our feet for us saving them from the Germans in WWII.

Which brings me to my next story. Most of you probably remember that actor Dennis Quaid and his wife had problems with the drug heparin. Their problem was actually an error by that hospital. But it did bring to the forefront a bit how ubiquitous the use of that particular drug is. It is actually quite useful - anyone who has had an IV in for a period of time, or a chemo-port knows that heparin is used to keep these devices from clotting closed. Heparin (coumadin, warfarin) is also used to reduce clotting in the blood the same way Plavix/aspirin and those drugs are - only more aggressive. It is being prescribed so much that in the bigger clinics people on coumadin actually have their own check in window since they have to get blood tests on a weekly or monthly basis.

So...most heparin in the US market is produced by Bayer. A German company. Well, not so bad, right? I mean the Germans are nothing if not models of efficiency, quality control and great design. Oops. The actual factory where the heparin is made is in ...gong please...China!

I guess this last example is more of a proof for why we DO need to be careful about 'foreign' drugs. But my point is that we have a lot of drugs in this country that are produced in foreign countries. And why the importation of drugs doesn't seem to be a problem, even when it should, as with the heparin from China.

But drugs that are produced here in this country for export cannot be brought back into this country why? They are made in the USA. The same companies that make them for US citizens make them for Canadian citizens. Are you telling me that they make them differently and dangerously for our friends up north?

This whole thing is really stupid. Let's get rid of this reimportation ban and reduce the cost of drugs for everyone. If we were allowed to reimport these medicines, I suggest that the cost of drugs here in this country would go down - simple competition. Don't get me started on Medicare Part D!

When Do We Get Some Good News?

2009-03-12T21:56:00.000-07:00

There was one piece of good news this week. President Obama announced the creation of a Commission on Women and Girls in his administration.

This is one of the recommendations of the CEDAW process - and the goal of that is to provide programs and policies that really do help women and girls have equal rights.

Many people in this country think we already do - but that just is not the case.

Here are just a few examples:
1) Women in this country make up 51.7% of the population. However, women in all parts of our supposedly representative form of government amount to just under 17%.
2) Women still earn on average only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns. The fact that we had to pass the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act speaks to this - even when a woman is doing the exact same job - she is still paid less. Never mind pay equity between 'so-called traditional' women's work (nursing, teaching) and traditional men's work (construction, police, fire etc).
3) If a married couple applies for a loan the man's name is almost always listed first - unless the woman objects. This happens even if the woman is the main negotiator, the larger money-earner, and if the man only shows up to sign the papers at the end of the deal.
4) If a single woman applies for a loan, she is more likely to be either turned down, or asked to get a co-signer, regardless of her credit score and earnings history.
5) Women are still discriminated against in hiring on the basis of the 'baby factor'. It is assumed by HR people that career women will at some point 'take time off to have a baby' and therefore, if a similarly or even less qualified male applies, they will be hired so the company doesn't have to deal with maternity leave, and the insurance for this.
6) Studies of the outcomes of divorce show that the majority of men are better off financially one year after a divorce, while the majority of women are worse off. This has mainly to do with the fact that women still retain physical custody of children and that child support payments are woefully low compared to the actual costs of raising a child. Some states have pretty good laws for joint/shared custody and or equal treatment of fathers requesting custody. But the majority presume the woman is more qualified/better suited to care for children - even when she patently is not.
7) In government contracting, women are still treated as a 'minority' - which does qualify them for some preferences - but this speaks ill of a society and the place of women in it.

I won't even get into the mess that minority women face - just take the list above, add about fifty racist things to it and then double up on the whole thing.

Women have been making gains in getting equal education, in fact in some areas of the country, women now make up a majority of graduates from college. This has disturbed the status quo so much they are thinking about putting limits on the number of female students that will be allowed to enroll in the impacted programs (kind of like the limits they talked about in the 1970s and 1980s for Oriental people in the math and sciences).

And despite all the ranting and raving by the Mormons and the Catholics and the Religious Right-wing about saving traditional marriage, the truth of the matter is that over 62% of women are now raising children alone, or are single with no children. The majority of women are now in the workforce - by necessity. The so-called traditional family of the 1950s has, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist.

So this new commission is good news. I am hopeful it means what it says - that the issues that face women and girls will finally get some real and focused attention, and that some new policies and laws will be put into place to stop some of the discrimination that is faced on a daily basis by the biggest "minority" on the planet.

What's Up?

2009-02-25T23:47:00.000-08:00

I've been missing in action for a bit due to some health issues. Slowly mending now and trying to get caught up with the news.

Where to start? Wow. I guess President Obama's speech to Congress last night is a good enough starting place. While most of his speech was heartening and hopeful, there were a couple of issues I'd like to dissect a bit.

I am particularly disturbed by the 'entitlement reform' passing reference. I also want some clarification on his two war policies.

The new housing thing sound better than what we've had so far, but the idea that we cannot tell these bankers how much money and perks they can have when the taxpayers are paying the bills fries my brain.

So, then there was the Republican Response. After it was over, I called my mom and we both said "wasn't that the most pathetic thing you have ever seen?" I kid you not! I won't waste my time discussing it because it isn't worth it. I already wasted the time listening to his lies - and most of it WAS lies, including his story about the Sheriff during Katrina.

So...In our state, a bill to abolish the death penalty has passed the Senate and is now waiting debate in the House. There are about 8 other states doing this right now as well. Beyond the moral issues, the thing is now being argued on economic terms as well. I hope the abolition bill passes.

Finally, for today, I'm planning to adopt a shelter kitteh next month so will be posting pics and having fun for once.

Take care all, and keep chins up - things are changing - and a lot of it in ways we don't even know or realize yet!

When Are Women Going to Get Equal Rights?

2009-01-24T14:40:00.000-08:00

There has been a small stirring in the latest news cycles - mostly as a result of the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act just passed by Congress. While this goes some distance toward reversing that horrid decision by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter vs Goodyear, I don't think it goes far enough. The statute of limitations is 2 years now - but that presumes that women in the workplace can actually find out that they are being discriminated against.

Anyone who has worked for a living for a medium to large-sized corporation knows that there is intense pressure and sometimes even punitive measures in place that prevent or strongly discourage workers from discussing their wages with their peers. The employers are certainly not forthcoming with information of this nature. So exactly how is the woman supposed to find out? In Lily's case - a co-worker gave her a tip - but did so anonymously for fear of retribution. Millions of women are not so lucky (if you can call her that). But at least with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, at least you may have a chance at recovering some of those lost wages. That's far better than the current situation.

Women have actually lost ground on the pay issue under the Bush misrule. In 2000, women were up to 79 cents per dollar of mens wages. Women are now at 76 cents. This is a bit harder to address because of the built-in differences in wages between traditional 'womens' work and 'mens' work. While women and men are making strides in breaking down the barriers and performing well in occupations that used to be reserved for their opposite gender, the workplace is far from equal. We need a real examination of the value of the job itself - taking into account levels of responsibility, educational requirements, and the like. My favorite example is that my non-high-school graduate father and GED-holding husband were both truck drivers. They were responsible for a large motor vehicle, and loads of commodities that sometimes were worth in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They were responsible for watching out for hundreds of idiot car drivers, and getting their loads to the destination when their bosses had promised. Their wages ran around $12-14 per hour (calculated since they both got paid by the mile plus loading and unloading time).

My mother, who had a Masters of Science in Nursing, and was in charge of the largest hospital in our state but one, was making at the same time, $8 per hour. It is hard to quantify how much the two levels of responsibility are between a big truck driver and an advanced-degree nurse, but I believe that they are at least equivalent. And therein lies the rub. Truck drivers are mostly men. Nurses are mostly women. That seems to be the only substantive difference that explains the disparity in their pay. So when are we going to have this discussion?

And finally, unions. Unions are getting a really bad rap from the right-wing at the present time. They are being blamed for everything that is wrong with the economy and are being tarred with the complete culpability for business failures (outside of the banking and finance industry) when it is actually the failure of the credit markets that is to blame.

A recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that joining a union raises a woman's wages as much as one year of college courses does, and gives a woman better chance of having health insurance than earning a four-year degree does. In fact, women in unions earn an average of 11.2 percent more than their counterparts not in unions.

Such studies demonstrate why it's so critical that Congress prioritizes passing the Employee Free Choice Act! The EFCA is not a repeal of democratic principles, and does NOT get rid of secret ballots. If the workers want to have an election in addition to the card-check, they still can. Currently though, card-check exists but must be followed with an election. The corporations use the time between a majority card-check-off to threaten and intimidate workers and in some cases have even closed stores or plants to prevent unionization. The availability of the card-check to validate a union allows workers to avoid this. It also increases penalties for verified threats and intimidation tactics used by these corporations.

So if you have a minute or two, make a phone call, send a FAX, or write a letter to your Congresscritter and urge passage of the EFCA, and any other pay equity legislation currently pending before your State or the Federal legislature. Women work just as hard (in a lot of cases, harder!) than men - and we all deserve equal pay and benefits. It is not about a new hat any more. There are too many women who are the sole support of themselves and their children, and too many families where two wage-earners are a necessity, not a choice.

Evil Reborn?

2009-01-03T12:22:00.000-08:00

Like all citizens of the world, I am watching the events unfolding in Gaza with the Israeli bombing, strafing and soon to come ground invasion. The history of this area has been one heartache after another of tit-for-tat killings. But recently, the word genocide has begun creeping into the dialogue.

There are several problems. First, any criticism of what the STATE of Israel, that is, its government, is immediately denounced as anti-Semitism. This is a problem because it is being used as a cover, and a justification for whatever bad acts the government decides to do. And there are many. Israel has not lived up to any of the conditions set up in Oslo, Rekyavik, Taba, the Roadmap, or a large number of US resolutions - all of which call for it to withdraw to the 1967 borders, and stop building settlements in areas outside that line.

Second, The Palestinians insistence on the 'right of return'. Regardless of how one feels about the formation of the State of Israel and the movement of millions of Palestinians to refugee camps back in the 1940s, the facts on the ground are here and now. The populations of both groups have continued to grow, and the areas controlled by both have not. There is pressure on both sides to find room for new inhabitants. The fact is that most of the Palestinians alive today were always residents of the 'refugee' camps that are now cities within the West Bank and Gaza. In return for this concession on the part of the Palestinians, Israel MUST allow and/or provide access to water. In this desert region, water is more important than oil. It is a vital necessity of life and must not be restricted or interfered with.

There are other issues, the fence, the status of Jerusalem, settlements in the West Bank, the Hamas/Fatah internecine conflict, the list goes on and on.

But now to my point. The world has basically agreed by consensus that certain leaders, including Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and others, have committed horrendous crimes against their own people and others. The death tolls in each instance are in the millions and simply staggering in the wanton disrespect for human life. So let's look at the leadership in Israel and Gaza and see if there are any comparisons.

There has been much argument among the MSM whether Israel's response to Hamas' rocket attacks is disproportionate. There has almost been unanimous condemnation by the governments around the world of Hamas, claiming that they started this and they are getting a well-deserved pounding, after all, Israel has a right to defend itself.

While I am not defending suicide bombers and rocket attacks by the Palestinians, we do need some perspective on this issue.

Here's a little story (h/t to several commenters at FDL and C&L and Salon for some of the imagery):

Suppose that the people of Rhode Island elected a Grand Dragon of the KKK for their governor. Then let's suppose that the governor of Massachusetts, who is a black man(absolutely no offense or anything intended to the current governor), announced that he would not recognize the government of Rhode Island because it is now being run by a terrorist organization. And the government of Massachusetts began the process of erecting a huge concrete 'fence' around the entire state of Rhode Island. Of course, he didn't stay on the borders, but ran the fence around some prime pieces of real estate that Massachusetts really wanted to get away from Rhode Island in the first place. Then the government of Massachusetts imposed a blockade and refused to let in any food, fuel, medicine and other stuff for the people of Rhode Island. It gets so bad that the people there are eating grass because there is no other food. Now let this situation go on for over a year. Finally, the people of Rhode Island say enough, and begin building rockets which they lob over the fence towards the cities of Massachusetts. Of course the Governor of Massachusetts screams that he needs to defend his State and launches an aerial bombardment, including bombing any vehicle that is moving, any person who happens to be walking on the street, all the police and fire stations, all the city halls and state capitol, and the houses of any government officials it can find (or not). The home-made rockets didn't kill very many people. But hundreds are now dead and thousands injured in Rhode Island.

Here is where the evil comes in. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has been asked when they will allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Her reply: There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, so there is no need for any humanitarian intervention.

Evil reborn? Whaddya think? I'm just sayin'.

What's for Christmas from Bush and Co?

2008-12-25T00:41:00.000-08:00

The Bush Administration has proffered it's Christmas gift to the world. So what is it?

The Human Rights Council Working Group of the United Nations has been working on some items to be included in Resolution form to be adopted.

Among these items are:

A right to food. The UN General Assembly adopted language that basically says it would 'consider it intolerable' that more than 6 million children worldwide will die each year from hunger and hunger-related illnesses before their fifth birthday. They also noted that the number of undernourished people has grown to about 923 million people worldwide. At the same time - it is estimated that the planet can produce enough food to feed 12 billion people - approximately double what the current population is.

Another part of this resolution addressed the inequalities in available food and other basics between girls and women and their male counterparts. The resolution calls on member states to take affirmative steps to address these issues of gender inequality and discrimination against women and girls by implementing measures to give equal access to land, water, and income so they can feed themselves and their families.

So...the vote on the right to food was 180 to 1. That's right - every country in the world voted for it except one. Any guesses who that is? Yep. The United States of America.

Apparently Bush and Company think it's perfectly okay for 6 million kids to starve to death every year. They are more interested in spending money on weapons and ridiculous wars. John Bolton told the assembly that

"the attainment of the right to adquate food was a goal that should be realized progressively. In his view, the draft contained inaccurate textual descroptions of underlying rights."

Oh yeah. That is really helpful.

The United States was also the only vote against a resolution for the rights of children.

This Committee also had a number of other interesting proposals, including the use of mercenaries, investigations of deaths under an occupation, international court items and others. The US voted against every single one. They were joined by other countries on most of these others, but the countries are ones like the Congo and Somalia. Good company we're keeping.

So - Bush has thumbed his nose at the world one more time. January 20 cannot come soon enough for me, for this country, and indeed for people everywhere.

To read the working document, go here Human Rights Council Working Group

When Are We Going To Fix Our Voting Mess?

2008-11-23T15:30:00.000-08:00

Watching the recount in Minnesota this past week has been very interesting to say the least. On the one hand, the optical-scan paper ballots make the recount open and accountable. Minnesota law is also good in that 'if the intent of the voter' can be determined, the ballot counts. On the other hand, there needs to be a limit to the challenges. In one example, the vote was challenged because the vote for the Presidential candidate was of the opposite party as the vote for the Senate candidate. The ballot was correct and clear. The challenge was stupid.

On the other hand - many of the challenged ballots present quite another face. While the Minnesota ballot is a simple 'fill in the circle' style that is very common among optical-scan systems, apparently we still need to do voter education on how to properly mark a ballot - and what to do if you mess up (ask the election official to give you a new one!)

People are always complaining about these voters - they are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote, etc. The fact is that almost twenty percent (yes you heard that right) of our adult population is functionally illiterate. These people are bright, intelligent and hard-working individuals who may have a learning disability, or who have left school early for one reason or another and did not learn (or were not taught properly) how to read. They have managed to hold down jobs, raise families, get a drivers license, and are productive members of our society. But they don't know how to read - and our society demeans and belittles people like this with the result that they go to great lengths to hide this fact from everyone - including even their families. As a result, yeah the directions are posted on the wall. So what? They do their best. But elections only come around once every two years - and in some states, there have been different methods of voting for every election since 2000 (Florida is a case in point) so they don't get the process down.

My personal feeling is that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

ONE: The federal election system needs to be overhauled and made consistent from one state to the next. This applies only to US House of Representatives, US Senate, and President/Vice President. Congress should mandate one and one only, system of ballots. The design and layout of these ballots should be decided by a NON-partisan election board. Further, the software in the optical scan machines should be open-source, easily verifiable by computer information systems technicians, and in no case, should 'computerized' results be provided to any private firm on election day. The systems should provide results and data breakdown by precinct in an easy-to-understand format that does not require the intervention of any corporate programmers or technicians. While Congress has no authority to mandate state and local elections, states would fall in line with this or face having to maintain two systems, or two separate ballots (that is done in many countries anyway).
Layout of ballots becomes an issue in a lot of instances. The layouts should include 3-6 options with the candidates names in different placements. A code box at the top would tell the scanner which version it was. The reason is that in races that are not publicized well, or where the candidate may not have a large campaign fund, they may remain relatively unknown.
In the most recent election primary in Montana for instance, one of the Democratic candidates announced that he planned on not campaigning, would not accept any campaign funds, and was just going to sit home and wait for the voters to elect him. Another one raised money, campaigned around the state and really made an effort to get his name out there. (This was a race against a very popular Republican Congressman). On all the ballots, the stay-at-home guy was the first name on the list (alphabetical order) and he won. Most election analysts say that is very common when people don't know (or care sometimes) who any of the candidates are they vote for the first one on the list. In this case, it was assumed that it really didn't matter because the Republican incumbent would win anyway. Rotating choices would eliminate this type of 'winning' since it would spread the votes around among all the candidates, and the one who really did have name recognition would then have a slight edge.
TWO: Since voting is supposedly a right, every voter on their eighteenth birthday, should receive a voting card. All males now get a Selective Service Registration card - all adults should get a voter card. If you have a voter card - and some proof of your address - you should be able to vote in the closest precinct to your home. This business of matching registrations, and voter challenges is a major impediment to some groups. Universal voting cards would solve that problem since everyone IS actually entitled to vote. This would clean up the different registration requirements and eliminate registration drives (saving millions) and all the attendant mess that goes along with that.

THREE: I worked as a poll-worker in Florida with the ESS touch-screen voting machines in 2006. Thank goodness they are gone now! But an election judge/poll-worker actually went with each voter to the booth and physically showed them how to use the machine. This should happen with the optical scan ballots. A demonstration ballot should be available at the check-in table with picto-graph instructions, or someone demonstrating how to mark the ballot properly. Each voter should be verbally advised that if they make a mistake or change their mind, to simply come get a new ballot.
Additionally, some states (California is one) provide a sample ballot with pre-election voting materials that looks just like the real one (except it has 'sample ballot' printed in large red letters across the face of it!). That way people can 'practice' and/or mark this sample to bring with them to the polls as an aid in quick voting. This practice is not only allowed, it is encouraged in California since their ballots are usually heavy with propositions, federal, state, county, city, and special district election choices.
A lot of states have already gone to optical-scan ballots. They already have the equipment. The software needs to be changed to meet the above mandates. States who are still using touch-screens must acquire the new equipment.

Those are just some ideas I have. Feel free to add more in the comments!

What change?

2008-11-19T14:16:00.000-08:00

It has been interesting to me in the (only!) two weeks since the election as Barack Obama begins the process of selecting his top staff and Cabinet members - all the howling and screaming from both sides of the aisle about his choices. And about his responses to the Lieberman thing, and John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. As one pundit complained the other day "There's too much nice going on here."

Too much nice? How can you have too much nice? People all over this country have been saying for years, decades actually, that they dislike the personal attacks, the mud-slinging, the rabid partisanship, and all the rest of the nastiness that has contributed greatly and finally over the past eight years to our complete and totally dysfunctional government. Given that, how would you change that other than start being nice?

So here we have it in a nutshell. Obama promised to change the way we do things in Washington DC. And he is. And this change has been accompanied by criticism, second-guessing, outrage, more criticism, and so on. The left-wing blogosphere is yelling that he has abandoned them. The Republicans can't figure out what is going on so they are going back to the campaign mud-slinging. Every appointment is met by criticism. And people are deciding that his administration is a complete and total failure as far as they are concerned, even though Obama has not even taken office yet!

We voted for change. Change we could believe in. He is delivering. But we're not believing in what he is doing. Maybe we should take a look at why that is. Could it be that we really LIKE screaming and mud-slinging? Or is the idea that change is so uncomfortable and so foreign that we'd really rather stick with the status quo?

Myself, I'd rather not. I think there still is NOT enough nice in Washington. We have a long way to go before that really comes to pass and it becomes standard operating practice. But I am very hopeful. It will continue to come in the form of Obama sitting down with John McCain, a man who by all accounts, actively dislikes Obama. He's entitled to his dislike. But Obama did not let that knowledge and that fact interfere with trying to find some common ground on a few issues they can work together on. And what that does is in some ways, force a grudging respect from McCain. He will probably still not like Obama. And that's okay. But at least he will probably actively work FOR something with Obama at times - instead of actively working against him always.

And I am also hopeful that as Obama sets the tone of reconciliation and 'niceness' in Washington, it will encourage all of us to try to emulate him in our daily lives. As someone once said - if you want world peace, you must first be a truly peaceful person yourself.

Meh.

2008-11-05T23:04:00.000-08:00

We did research things before we moved out here, and Grays Harbor has a Blue history. It really has been a very friendly town, until last night. Republithug signs seemed to dominate early on, especially on local businesses. We were, by our count the second Obama sign in the Twin Harbor back in June. Incumbent Dem Gov and House signs showed up late.

We've gotten favorable comments on our buttons and tee-shirts, and several Trick or Treaters complimented the Barack O'Lantern. And then, coming back from the grocery store we saw this. The sign had been flanked by the local Democratic contenders, and all were fine yesterday afternoon, but they were gone today and this was left alone. Perhaps the folks want to expose this ugliness. I'd get more worked up about the stupidity and ignorance if it hadn't been a day late and a dollar short.

And, this is the best you can do?

What's Next?

2008-11-02T19:05:00.000-08:00

Now that the Election is almost over (sigh!) it is time to start thinking about what is next. I know, I know, everyone is exhausted. But we really don't have time to rest on our haunches because now the real heavy lifting begins in earnest.

For all of us who voted for Obama - whether he was our first choice or the lesser of two evils - we need to hold his feet to the fire, push him in a more progressive direction, and demand transparency in his administration. He has said that he needs us to help, and promised to be open and accountable - so let's make it happen.

For everyone who voted for McCain/Palin...sorry this was not your year. But we welcome you to join with us to help. We have so much work to do to get this country back on the right track and we need you too.

What we can do: Take a couple of days off to relax and do some thinking. Then pick one or possibly two progressive issues that you feel very strongly about. Find a group that is already working on that issue and join up. Get involved - as involved as you have been in the campaign. Donate, write letters, make phone calls, not just to your congresscritters but to your friends and neighbors too. Urge them to write and call as well. Most of the agenda will not be accomplished in the White House, but in the halls of Congress so this is the focus for the most part.

All politics is local. Don't forget that this agenda needs to be pushed at the state and local level as well. If the group you support is working at the national level, find out if there are state affiliates as well and join them too. Find out if your city or county government policies resonate with you and if not, get involved at the local level. Attend city councils or county board meetings that pertain to your issue. Research what is going on nationally, and push those issues for your community.

Finally, everything is also personal. Whatever the issue, there is always personal responsibility too. If your issue is war and peace, remember that the best way for peace to break out all over is for each one of us to become truly peaceful persons. No matter what the issue, there is room for improvement in our own lives.

Financial stuff is going to be difficult in the months and possibly for a few years ahead. Learn to live with less. Find joy in simple living, thoughtful purchasing, back to self-sufficiency where ever we can. Paying off our debts and learn to live within our means will help reduce stress for everyone. Buy locally, learn to live with the seasons, get to know your neighbors, join a barter co-op, find new ways to share and cooperate with others.

Back when I lived in California and was going to college (again!) my biology teacher had us all do a paper to see if a large natural disaster happened and the highways were blocked, the electrical grid was down, and emergency services were unavailble, how would we live - and for how long could we sustain ourselves? It was a really good exercise and I suggest that we all look around our homes and see just what resources we already have available. Then take stock and see what you would need to round out the existing supplies and make a plan to add those necessary items to allow survival for more than a day or two.

We can get back to a place where we all look out for one another - another thing that made this country a great place to live, and something we have forgotten over the course of the past few years.

Here's to real communities of people who care!

Vote Early, then Volunteer

2008-10-24T20:07:00.000-07:00

This election seems to be more dogged by voter disenfranchisement activities by the Republican Party than in years past. Although Obama is now polling in double digits in a lot of so-called battleground states, those states are where huge voter purges and other unethical and sometimes outright illegal suppression activities are focused.

Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast have a new comic book out called 'Steal Back Your Vote' for tips on how to get around some of these activities.

You can download the comic book here: GregPalast.com

for a small donation or for free if you can't afford to give anything. If you can give even a dollar, it will help them distribute print copies to people who may not have access to computers etc. (like on Indian reservations where there isn't even actual electricity!)

Anyway, vote early if your state allows that. This will save time and money for the GOTV (Get Out The Vote) workers and campaign since they will not have to call you on Election Day.

Then volunteer to be a poll watcher, or to transport others to the polls on Election Day!
Every vote is important. Let's get as many as we can!

After the election, join one of these organizations to put pressure on the Obama Administration to do some real election reform by mandating a nationwide standardized voting system for federal elections. There will be pushback from the 'states rights' people that elections have always been under local control. That is fine for local elections - but it is about time that voting across this country should have a single set of rules for federal elections. (Hint: this will force states to fall in line because it will be a lot easier and cheaper to just go along with the federal stuff than have two elections or two sets of rules on the same day!)

www.nationalcampaignforfairelections.org/
www.fairelections.us/
http://www.votetrustusa.org/

or you can participate with your state's fair elections groups.

We need to figure out ways to stop the systemic voter disenfranchisement practiced by the Republican Party and remember that
VOTING IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE!
Our Democracy can only succeed when voters are encouraged to vote, and obstacles are not being put in their way.

UPDATE: Michigan is reporting that 98% of it's eligible voters have actually been registered!
Wow! Incredible. Now all we need to do is get them ALL to the polls!

sarah, Plain and Tall, in heels

2008-09-28T22:42:00.001-07:00

Rev Paperboy showed me this picture, which is from someone else, credited there.

Got that?

and then there's this, from Mudflats. (they had to move, new link) Gawd I love them!

Hobo Spider Invasion

2008-09-24T18:18:00.000-07:00

It's Hobo Spider season.

For those of you who don't know - this nasty little critter is an import from Europe around the 1930s and first appeared in Seattle. (Sorry D & T!)

Their current range extends from Northern California to the Alaskan panhandle and from the West Coast inland as far as the Western mountainous regions of Montana and Wyoming.

Hobo Spiders are also called "aggressive house spiders". They are agressive because of two things: Their webs are not sticky so they must attack their prey if they want to eat; and they have poor eyesight. Many people in the Hobo spider's range who have been bitten by this spider are told or believe they were bitten by the brown recluse - another ground dwelling spider. However, the brown recluse does not occur in the same territory and the recluse has been attributed to far more bites than it warrants by this misinformation. Unfortunately, at this time, the poison control center does not have a category for Hobo Spiders so bites of this type are attributed to the recluse since it does cause a similar reaction and problems.

Hobo spiders generally like dark places close to the ground and thus are haunts of closets, basements, under houses and porches and the like. For some reason, usually from August to November, they come indoors. Hobo Spiders build a 'funnel' web, usually anchored to a bush or wall with the bottom at or very near the ground. The webs are not sticky and are only used for channeling prey to the waiting spider below.

Bites: Hobo Spiders inject a venom known as necrotizing venom. In other words, it kills the surrounding tissue where the bite occured. You may feel a brief sting that goes away after a few minutes. Over the next 24 hours a raised blister will appear surrounded by a very reddened area. The blister will burst, leaving an oozing, pus-filled sore that under the best circumstances could take up to weeks or months to heal. The sore may increase in size and a great deal of swelling is usually present as well. You may also develop a fever, severe headache, and joint pain. In worst circumstances, this spider bite has been linked to kidney failure, limb amputations, immune system collapse, and the CDC reports at least one death attributed to a Hobo Spider bite.

Treatment: If you have been bitten, try to capture or kill the spider and bring it with you to the doctor. Go to the doctor immediately if you have been bitten. Treatments may include very strong antibiotics, steroids, 'coring' out the bitten area (a surgical procedure to remove necrotized tissue). On your own, icing the area to reduce circulation seems to be helpful. Expressing the pus and other liquid, including removal of what appears to be a black 'stinger' in the center of the wound has reportedly assisted in healing. (It's not a stinger - it's just the necrotized tissue from the bite itself).

Controls: DO NOT SPRAY! Insecticides - even those specifically targetted at spiders do nothing to Hobo spiders. In fact - the spray may kill the only predator of Hobo spiders, the familiar 'daddy long-legs'. Your best defense is 'sticky-traps'. Place these traps along walls, in closets and closed off rooms, especially around doorways or windows with wells below ground. Place them under or behind furniture. Check and replace traps about every 3-4 weeks during Hobo season or as needed (if you catch a bunch!) Keep clothing and other items off the floor. Move beds away from the wall about 4 inches. Teach young children NOT to pick them up.

You may think this is a weird post for a political blog. When I grew up here in Montana, Hobo spiders were not here. I moved back here last year and am experiencing 'Hobo season' for the first time. There is no public outreach or warnings - especially in light of how aggressive these little numbers are, and even in the spider trap packaging, the 'effects of bite' are rather downplayed, both for the Hobo and the recluse. Hobo spiders have been colonizing and expanding their range over time. If you don't have the problem now, but live in a state with a new population or next door to a state that already has them, you will in the future. So best to be aware since they are very dangerous.

I was bitten by what I now know to be a Hobo spider when I lived in Northern California. I can attest to the consequences. Fortunately for me, I did see a doctor the next day (for another matter). He 'recognized' the bite (as a recluse bite) and immediately put me on antibiotics and it still took 3 months to heal.

So watch out for Hobo spiders! Tell your friends!

How Do I Figure Out What To Talk About?

2008-09-20T00:21:00.000-07:00

Given all the crap that has happened in the past few weeks - Sarah Palin, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, Wall Street Meltdown, etc. - every day I think "I need to write something about this". And then something else happens and the first thing doesn't seem so important anymore. So then I start thinking about the new item and then something else happens. It's enough to make you just want to give up. So, here are a few scattered rants about stuff.

Sarah Palin:

I cannot believe for one minute that a) John McCain is the best candidate the Republicans could find. Surely in the ranks of the millions of R's there is someone better qualified (and younger!) who could be their candidate? and b) that Sarah Palin could be a (old, traumatized) heart beat away from being President of this country (of the world actually). What happened?

My theory is that someone somewhere decided that since 'we' liked that moron George W. Bush (a guy 'we' would like to have a beer with) that we needed an entire ticket that was even stupider than him! Of course, the last few days I think McCain is beginning to be sorry he ever heard of Sarah Palin. She slipped up (twice) and referred to the ticket as the 'Palin and McCain' administration. Ooops! And then there are now campaign signs that say simply "Sarah!" One Alaskan pundit dryly observed that if McCain thought he would be able to put her in some back office and forget about her, he was in for a big surprise. I'll quit now so my head doesn't explode.

The Hurricanes:
Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast not too far from where Katrina hit. Although the amount of physical damage that was done was great - the death toll was not high, thank goodness. People are still without power and ice, medical supplies and prescriptions, and are subsisting on MREs (Meals, Ready to Eat) otherwise known as the lovely crap they feed our military personnel when they are away from the base (otherwise known as combat). For more info on this one, see the previous post.

Hurricane Ike made landfall over the top of Galveston County, Texas. The storm was over 700 miles across, and while the wind speed was a Category 2, the barometric pressure in the eye was that of a Category 4. The monster storm was moving at only about 4 miles per hour, so it seemed to take forever to move out of the area. Galveston Island and the Bolivar Peninsula were inundated with a 20-foot or more storm surge. The Peninsula is gone, the land bridge washed away, and what remains is a barren island where several thousand people once lived.

Firefighters from Austin returned home today from working on Galveston Island. They report that absolutely nothing is left. One said he watched a pickup truck with a person inside being washed out to sea in the surge. There was nothing they could do to help.

The Galveston Island/Bolivar "Island" area is under a complete news blackout. A no-fly zone has been put up. No one is being allowed close to the area, and people are told they cannot take any pictures of the beaches even. There are reports of huge numbers of bodies up in trees, some said they were from the cemetery, but others said that could not be correct. In any case, thousands, possibly as many as 30,000 people are 'missing and presumed dead'. Anyone who chose to stay on Bolivar or Galveston is certainly dead. And most of the bodies have probably been washed out to sea and will never be found.

Of course, no one is talking about this now because of...

Wall Street Meltdown:
The neo-con agenda of completely unregulated free-market capitalism (otherwise known as unbridled greed and corruption) has run its natural course and ended in inevitable ruin. The taxpayers of this country have just taken on what could be up to $10 TRILLION in debt - all of it underwritten by bad mortgages and 'financial instruments' that are worth less than the paper they are written on. Thousands of employees of Lehman Brothers are out of work, and thousands more from Merrill Lynch and AIG are soon to follow. Ten central banks from other countries have put up $71 billion for a 'liquidity' fund - no one knows which banks, and no one knows what they are getting in return for this - screens were put up around the White House while all the negotiations were going on so no one could see who was coming and going. And it is not over yet. Washington Mutual and Goldman Sachs are looking like they will be next, Wachovia is in trouble, Citigroup is shaky, and who knows about the rest of them.

The Republicans in this administration and Congress have been telling us that we don't have enough money to fix our failing infrastructure, to pay for VA care for our wounded vets, to provide healthcare for children and the like. We are fighting two wars. And Bush gave 2 trillion dollars in tax cuts to the top 5% of the richest people in the country. We are borrowing money from China to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Bush has almost doubled the national debt (before this happened) and as of right now no one, and I mean no one, knows just how much this whole thing is going to cost.

I am not a financial expert, but I think that if the taxpayers are on the hook to bail out these companies, then they should just be nationalized. If there are ever again any profits to be made from the remnants of these crooked, greedy and corrupt institutions, it should all be put back into the public till. The shareholders should be told to take a hike. And none of the upper management should receive a dime of compensation and should have to give back any money they got over and above about $100,000. If that. If they have more than one house, that should be taken back as well.

But of course, I'm not in charge here.

So....how about some comic relief?

The Palin/McCain camp has been saying that Obama has never reached across the aisle to introduce any legislation that was important.

Palin said just today that when she gets to the White House she wants to put the national 'checkbook' on the internet so people can see where there money is going - just like she did in Alaska.

One small problem.

Back in 2006, a Republican Senator by the name of Coburn and a Democratic Senator whose last name starts with 'O' sponsored a bill, the FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT, that put a good chunk of the national checkbook on the internet. It passed the Senate, and the House, and was signed into law by Bush. In 2007, the two of them re-authorized the bill and added even more departments and expenditures, including earmarks to the list of stuff now on the website. You can read Obama's speech to the Senate where he describes the contents of the bill here: http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/congress/2006/obama091106.html

Okay. So Obama is so uppity that he managed to leap forward in time, steal her idea, and then go back to 2006 and pass a law about it.

It must not be too important though, since according to her and McCain, Obama has never reached across the aisle to do "anything important".

Now it's kind of sad that she's so clueless. NOT.

DON'T ANYONE DARE VOTE FOR HER! Our country simply can not afford four more years.

By the way, Obama and a certain Republican Senator Lugar went to Russia, spoke with the leaders there, including actual Vladimir Putin, and then came home and wrote what many said was a landmark piece of legislation to help Russia gather up and protect a lot of 'loose nuclear material'. This bill also passed both houses and was signed into law.

But he has no foreign policy experience unlike Sarah Palin who can 'see Russia from an island in Alaska'. And he has never reached across the aisle to pass an important bill. Not one.

Yeah, I know. Lots of bad news and nothing any of us little people can do about it, right? Well, not the big stuff certainly. But remember the truism that 'all politics is local'. In this case, not politics, but survival - do what you can on a local level. I have listed some ideas below - you can think up more.

Investigate Simple Living at http://www.simpleliving.net/ for ideas on how to cut back on spending. Stop using credit cards - cut them all up. Keep your debit card - and live WITHIN your means! If you have a yard, plant a garden. Learn to preserve the stuff you grow there. If you live in a condo or an apartment, find or start a community garden. Either move closer to your job, or get a job that is closer to your home. Carpool. Ride the bus. Think before you buy stuff. Buy local. Form barter co-ops. Get to know your neighbors - you'll need them and they'll need you. Go to http://www.hivethrive.com/ and read the older posts there for ideas on community gardens and other cooperative and sustainability ideas for our communities and ourselves. Re-use as much as possible. Recycle as much as possible. Try not to buy products in tons of excess packaging (helps if you buy local - no packaging at all!) Turn off the lights. Turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater. Put air in your tires (!) Get a bike and ride it everywhere you can. Vacation close to home - explore your own town, have a picnic in every park, go to all the galleries, plays, and community concerts. Volunteer at a food bank - or donate to a food bank - or both. Give all the clothes you never wear to a homeless shelter. Form a committee to help do maintenance for your local public school. Make up your own ideas. Then go do them!

This economy is taking a crash dive into a deep pit right now and we cannot see the bottom. We all need to take a deep breath, remember that it is not the end of the world, but begin to develop a more sustainable lifestyle. This is not a suggestion, it is mandatory. Because if we don't do it now - and in our own way - sooner or later, and probably sooner - we will be forced into it whether we like it or not. No, it doesn't mean we all have to live in a cave and eat twigs and bark. It DOES mean that we need to be more conscious of what we buy and why, do we really NEED it or just want it.

Best wishes to all, we are going to need it in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Meanwhile, while no one else is looking

2008-09-03T22:02:00.001-07:00

Well, I heard from Annti, late tonight. Hot, Frustrated and Mad as Hell. Here's the list kids:

BUGS! there are Lovebugs, Flying Ants and Mosquitos! They bring West Nile and Encephalitis. The people in her building, with no air conditioning, really need mosquito netting. It can be had at Barre Army/Navy for 99 cents a yard and they need a lot! Go buy some and have them ship it to Hotel Du Fucktard. If you need the address, give me a holler.

Since there is no electricity in town, the one grocery is only open for limited hours, and they limit how many people can go in at a time. The convenience store isn't selling/pumping gas yet, so no one can get to anywhere else to get goods. There seems to be one communal BBQ, but it was shut down when annti wandered down hoping to cook on it.

The local gubmint tool, flew over and declared that the people were being delivered MRIs and ice, but the announced handout didn't happen at 2pm today, FEMA finally showed up about 8:30pm. Still, they didn't have much, and annti tells me folks need blue tarps and first aid. And prescriptions. Fred's has a generator truck, but the pharmacy isn't open. It was the end of the month and people hadn't had a chance to re-stock before the shit hit the fan. Diabetic supplies are in great need.

Since there is no refrigeration in town, basics such as eggs, milk, bacon/meat are non-existent. She's losing meat out of her freezer for lack of ice. I told her to put an ice cube on her head, and she didn't think she had one to spare from trying to save the food. There's still at least one day left before electricity returns, if not much longer.

Don't believe the media telling you "it's all OK!" and we dodged another Katrina. The people out in the boonies are being ignored. They really need us now.

Do whatever you can.

What Are We Going To Do About...

2008-08-30T21:28:00.000-07:00

that new little thingy Bushco and friends are trying to get done before they leave office regarding a new AUMF for the GWOT?

It's a typical fear-mongering, national security baiting mess. The Dems are totally likely to cave into this as usual, and it provides complete and total cover for Bushco to cover up all their messes, to continue the disaster of Gitmo and the dog and pony show trials, and sets the stage for an invasion or at least a heavy bombing of Iran.

Somehow, it would be nice to figure out a way to convince the Dems that we the people, have their back and that no matter what Bushco says, WE GET IT! That they will NOT lose their seats if they vote this down, but that if they vote in favor - it could cost them.

It seems that letter writing and email sending and phone calls do no good. What does it take for our Congresscritters to understand they need to be responsive to their constitutents.

Of course the best message is to 'un-elect' some of them. Blue America has been doing some of that - witness Donna Edwards unseating Ed Wynn - a blue dog if there ever was one.

We have to be unafraid to un-elect even Dems if they don't to the job. Don't buy into the crap about seniority and how they are powerful so that's more important than just about anything else.

We need to hold these politicians accountable - including the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rockefeller, and yes, Barack Obama. But just how to go about doing that - I'm at a total loss here.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Why Did Obama Pick Biden?

2008-08-24T17:30:00.000-07:00

I was really sad at first when I heard that Biden was the VP pick. He's been in Washington too long. He really isn't "change". He attacked Obama pretty hard during the primaries (giving McSlime plenty of stuff to throw at him).

But then I thought - no - Obama needs an attack dog. And Biden is it. He has never pulled his punches (even when he would have been better served to have kept quiet). He says what he thinks. He doesn't waffle. And he enjoys going toe-to-toe with an opponent. Perfect!

He adds the foreign policy experience Obama supposedly lacks. And hewill also tell Obama what he needs to hear - whether he likes it or not.

I'm looking forward to seeing Biden on all the Sunday bobblehead shows and hearing him blast McSlime for all the idiotic crap, lies, smears and other smelly stuff coming out of that campaign as of late.

Go! Biden!!

Who Is Up, Who is Down?

2008-07-31T12:03:00.000-07:00

I’ve been listening to a bunch of people in the last week talk about polls and fretting about a daily tracking poll that shows Obama behind McCain here or there where he was ahead before and so on. I keep seeing that Obama is 'falling behind' in this swing state or other. The pundits keep crying that Obama isn't connecting with the voters, or he has a 'problem' with this demographic group or other - expecting the pandering as usual to rush and repair the damage.

So I decided to do a little more prospective and retrospective looking at polls and trend lines. Data used is from www.pollster.com No data was available for Washington DC so it is not included in the Electoral College totals. Data is long-term from the beginning of the primaries in 2007 when both candidates had lots of competition from others in their respective parties, and the trend lines started out usually reversed from the position they are now. Of course, Obama’s primary didn’t ‘end’ until June, while McCain was done in March. But the trends had already begun shifting before June, and after March when the comparisons started becoming about McCain only versus Obama most likely. If the Electoral College numbers are off – it’s my fault – brain dead doing this at 3 am but couldn’t sleep, so please forgive.

Trend lines are actually a better indication of what is going on than a single day or weeks worth of tracking polls. A daily or even a weekly poll is a snapshot in a very short period of time, and with the 24-hour news cycle and a bit of media ‘push’ can push a poll anywhere up to 10 points either in the up or down direction. A nasty attack ad can do the same thing - and then the response to it can either nullify or amplify that. And after a few days the same thing can happen in the opposite direction. Using a graph, you plot the poll numbers for both candidates over time, and after a while, you either can directly notice a trend up or down, or using some statistical calculations, can determine a mean over your determined time frame.

Nationally, McCain started ahead of Obama but Obama quickly gained ground and stayed ahead of McCain until around the end of December/beginning of January when their positions were essentially tied. McCain pulled ahead of Obama in March, but then Obama reclaimed the upper hand. The national trend line has quite a lot of ups and downs, but it is trending upward overall for Obama, and McCain keeps sliding. There are still 14% undecided and 5% voting for other candidates so there is still some room to move for both candidates.

Bob Barr was polling at about 5% in a couple of states at the beginning of his race, but support has dropped off steeply in the interim and he is currently at about 1% in both those states. Ralph Nader is holding at about 5% in Georgia, the only state where he has meaningful numbers currently.

Some interesting trends showed up. Currently both candidates are leading in 25 states each. McCain’s trend line is downward in 18 of his states, flat in 3, and up in 4 (ND, NE, NV, UT) In AK Obama’s trend line is also upward while in LA and SC, Obama matches McCain’s downward trend line. In SD Obama is flat against McCain’s downward trend so if he just stays steady, McCain may eventually drop below. In TN, both candidates are flat. McCain’s list of states currently gives him 229 Electoral College votes.

NOTE: Flat usually means there was only one poll, or there were two or three, both taken in the same or nearly the same time-frame.

Obama’s trend line is upward in 17 states, flat in 3 and downward in 5 states (IA, IL, ME, OR, WA). Obama’s downward trending states are interesting because in IA, ME, OR, WA McCain’s trend is also in the downward direction so at present there seems to be no danger of Obama losing those states. In IL, Obama’s trend line is steeply downward, however McCain’s is flat, and Obama currently leads the state with 60+% . Obama’s Electoral College total is currently at 306.

FL, IN, MO, NC, and TX are all within the margin of error, and while McCain is on top currently, his trend line is down in all five states, and Obama’s is up. These data strongly suggest that Obama will be in the lead there within the next two-three weeks, adding 98 Electoral College votes to his total, and of course subtracting them from McCain.

So…..most of the so-called battleground states are already in the Obama column, and given the trend lines, will stay that way. A couple that aren’t yet are among the five ‘cross-over’ states where the race is within the margin of error and the trend lines are in Obama’s favor.

Obama needs to keep doing what he is doing – and if McCain keeps doing what he is doing – it will truly be a landslide.

say you love me

2008-07-30T23:42:00.001-07:00

A common wail I've been hearing from my fellow bloggers lately is the meme of "Why Don't You Ever F#@<[^6 Leave A Comment?"

Well, many reasons and you know what I'm talking about. But it's getting dis-heartening. So next time you read a post by someone you like, do post a comment! Even if it's "Wow, this is brilliant! I'll get right back to you!"

You might not mean it. I don't care. Just say something.

Cause times are getting hard and nasty, but that's no reason to be mean to each other. People who blog, actually choose and fine tune what they post. They really wanted to tell you this, but they didn't want to spam you. You are actually here looking at this, so we know you're a friend... say hi, okay?

Whether Obama Can Win Against the FCP (Fawning Corporate Media)

2008-07-27T23:10:00.000-07:00

Lots of activist political types like me have come to the conclusion - and some of us earlier than later - that Obama is not running against John McCain, but rather against the FCP. While McCain appears to be the candidate - the press has been his real adversary.

The FCP seems to feel that being 'fair and balanced' in regard to Obama means that if they say one thing nice or at least not nasty, they must say something bad also. And if they can't find anything bad, they just make stuff up.

McCain is, at this point, giving us a gaffe a day. He never gets challenged on his 'misstatements' or subjected to the wrath of the right-wing pundits the way Obama has been. Just try to imagine the outcry if Obama or one of his staff had made the following statements:

"...the border between Iraq and Afghanistan" (which consists of the entire country of Iran)
"...like in Czechoslovakia..." (a country that ceased to exist over 15 years ago)

and these were on foreign policy, McCain's supposed area of expertise.

On the domestic front:
"...in a mental recession. The American people are a nation of whiners..." (Phil Gramm)

And of course this week, McCain has been throwing an absolute temper tantrum because the FCP has been with Obama on his trip and isn't paying enough attention to McCain. Their response has been to increase the attacks against Obama and start pandering to McCain so they won't be accused of being the 'librul press'.

Fortunately, for the Dems, the Obama campaign organization is light on their feet, able and does respond to the attacks and other useless baloney quickly but in a very dignified but forthright way. Yay!

What a way to run a campaign to be the next president - run against the whacko idiots who call themselves journalists - but who are giving the biggest illegal campaign contribution ever to John McCain.

Will there ever be an accounting?

2008-07-17T01:10:00.000-07:00

From the JustPeaceNow blog, a slide show of Iraqi children mostly wounded and killed in this insane war. EmmyLou Harris sings "I am Lost Unto This World" along with the presentation. At the end is a dedication to the photographers to took the heartwrenching photos, including some who died in the effort to do so.

http://justpeacenow.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-video-was-created-by-dancewater.html

When will we stop the insanity? The neo-cons claim they are pro-life? What about these lives? Don't they count? Aren't they worthwhile? The little ballerinas, the doctors, lawyers, scientists or whatever these children could have been - all gone and gone for filthy money for some greedy filthy and corrupt people here.

About the FCP (Fawning Corporate Media)

2008-07-13T18:28:00.000-07:00

This past week has been absolutely and blatantly shocking in its bias for John McCain and against Barack Obama.

John McCain, at a town hall meeting, called on a Vietnam veteran for his first question. The Vet wanted an answer to the question of why McCain had voted against increasing funding for the VA in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. McCain took offense and started whining about his awards from Veterans service organizations claiming he had awards from them all. (He does from the VFW, DAV and AL - but they are all from years ago) The veteran replied that he had received his information on McCain's votes from the VFW and IAVA. McCain got visibly angry and all but accused the veteran of dissing his (McCain's service), and then claimed credit for helping pass Jim Webb's new GI Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. He never did answer the question. (Fact check: While McCain did vote against bills containing additional monies for the VA, later on in the same sessions he voted in favor of different bills containing additional monies - but those amounts were always much less than in the original legislation. You know - I was against it before I was for it.....)

While McCain was inside slamming the Vietnam veteran, his campaign staff had a woman holding a sign that said 'McCain = Bush' cited for trespassing and removed from a semi-public space. The 61-year-old librarian was unceremoniously escorted off the property by three policemen at least a foot taller than she. When asked who had complained, the McCain people lied and said it was the Secret Service. However, it has since come to light that it was the McCain campaign. The librarian's question remains unanswered "Why would a bunch of Republicans, who elected Bush twice and McCain is their candidate now, take offense at this sign?" Final response from the FCM? *crickets*

McCain lied about naming the players of one football team (Pittsburgh Steelers) instead of the one he really named (Green Bay Packers). For one thing, the players he mentioned weren't even famous until after he got out of the Hanoi Hilton. For the other, he has stated that the Packers were the group in his written memoir, as well as in the movie and in every other time he has told this anecdote. Response by the FCM? *crickets*

McCain's chief financial advisor, Phil Gramm, announced that the American People are in a 'mental recession' and are all a bunch of whiners on the subject of the economy. McCain himself has noted on several occasions that a recession is a psychological problem rather than a real one; that his gas tax holiday, and also drilling off the Gulf Coast were purely psychological. Response by the FCM? *while noting that we probably are in the beginnings of a recession - defending Phil Gramm*

McCain, who has flipped, and flopped, and flipped so many times I can't keep track on the subject of privatization of Social Security, announced that 'the way Social Security is funded by having the taxes paid by current workers used to fund retirees is a total disaster and must be fixed'. McCain is apparently unclear on the idea that the Social Security system has been funded that way since day one - about 75 years - and it has been working just fine. Response by the FCM? *crickets again*

McCain, who is rabidly pro-life (the one issue he really has not flip-flopped on apparently) was asked a pointed question about a statement Carla Fiorina, his chief of staff made regarding the unfairness of health insurance companies paying for Viagra, but refusing to pay for birth control. The reporter posed this question directly to McCain who first 'didn't want to discuss the issue' and then, to use Rachel Maddow's words - tried to squirm his way out of his own body. He stated that he couldn't remember ever voting on anything like that (he has, several times, and always against the mandatory payment for contraception if paying for ED drugs), and then claimed that he really hadn't thought enough about it to make a comment and would try to get back to her. Response by the FCM? *other than KO/Rachel on Countdown laughing themselves silly over the incident, crickets again*

And finally, responding to a story that the amount of trade we are doing with Iran has increased exponentially, in spite of increasingly harsh trade sanctions, especially in the area of cigarettes, McCain made one of his rather lame so-called jokes (while his wife Cindy elbowed him in the back to make him shut up!) that we should send even more since that would kill a lot more of them off. Response by the FCM? *Well, that's just McCain being McCain. No harm, No foul*

And so, by the end of the week when these events all happened (and probably more that we don't know about), the FCM reported that on balance, McCain had a pretty good week, or that he 'won' the week.

How did he 'win'?

Well the big story for the Obama campaign was some comments by Rev Jesse Jackson on an open mike at (where else?) Faux Noise. Jackson apparently believed the mikes were off and said that he felt that Obama had been talking down to black people (regarding Obama's Fathers Day speech calling for more responsibility on the part of fathers) and that he (Jackson) wanted to cut Obama's nuts off.

For three days we were treated to bleeped out re-runs of the tape, followed by multitudes of mea culpas from Jackson at every venue on the planet. Jackson's own son, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. denounced his father. The Obama camp was pretty quiet on the subject and accepted Jackson's apology. But the FCM would not let it go.

The Obama campaign, nor any of Obama's surrogates, representatives, family members or anyone else even slightly associated with his Senate office, he himself or anyone else did or said anything. Jesse Jackson was speaking for himself. He says he didn't mean any harm to Obama or his campaign, but my opinion is that you hear a person's true feelings more often when they think no one is listening or paying attention than when opportunities are staged and obviously then self-censored. I believe Jackson when he said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off. He is jealous, resentful, and angry. Obama is achieving what he could not. But that's a discussion for another day.

So, just imagine this. Insert Obama's name wherever John McCain's name appears in any one of these stories and then try to just imagine the result. It would be Jeremiah Wright amplified 100 times, and for ten times longer and 50 times louder! The truth is that Obama is not running against John McCain - he is running against the entire Fawning Corporate (right-wing) Press Corpse. And that same press corpse (misspelling intentional) is worrying that Obama not taking public financing (and the restrictions imposed therein) as somehow unfair to poor John McCain. Cry me a river!

Robert Parry at Consortium News has been doing a series of reports over the years about the development of the right-wing media. It has been a conscious effort - and in his words, the biggest illegal political campaign contribution there ever was. The FCM (his appellation) is a 24/7/365 campaign commercial for the right and whatever its issues are. If they can't find something, they just make stuff up. And it works. And it works well.

The left has spent its money working on campaign finance reform. And that does not work. Especially since the issue of this right-wing political media-machine has never been addressed.

Maybe we need to do something about that!

To read more on how the right-wing media machine came into being: http://consortiumnews.com/2008/062908.html Iran-Contra's Lost Chapter by Robert Parry from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

My Inner French-Canadian Woman has something to say:

2008-07-11T01:02:00.001-07:00

A humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions has been playing out in Burma for more than 20 years. Thousands have been killed and many thousands more arrested, forced into slave labour or displaced from their villages by the ruling military regime. Burma’s women have endured rape and other forms of systematic sexual violence employed by the military to enforce its control over the country’s ethnic minorities. On May 3, 2008, Cyclone Nargis brought new and terrible suffering to the people of Burma, suffering made only worse by the military regime’s refusal to promptly accept the international community’s ensuing offers of humanitarian assistance. What began as a natural disaster was soon supplanted by a catastrophe rooted in the pride, paranoia and corruption of Burma’s military rulers.

The Panties for Peace Campaign

The Panties for Peace campaign was launched by the women’s organization Lanna Action for Burma (LAB) on Oct. 16, 2007, in the hopes of bringing an end to the military regime’s rampant abuse of Burma’s population – and the abuse of Burma’s women in particular. Founded in the wake of the military’s brutal response to monk-led pro-democracy uprisings in Burma last fall, the Panties for Peace campaign has been given new and pressing importance by the regime’s self-interested and inhumane response to the devastation of Cyclone Nargis. The campaign has been already launched around the world, in Australia, the Philippines, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, the USA and in Brazil.

More here

Thanks Roisin!

Books For Soldiers

2008-07-07T17:54:00.000-07:00

Our Second Life friend, StormBear was going to be interviewed today on Fox News for his Netroots efforts running his 503 charity, Books For Soldiers. 45 minutes before he was to be picked up by the SF station, they called to cancel. "Something came up."

And what was the burning news item he was bumped for? A Florida man was bitten by a snake in the garden center of a Walmart.

If you are able to donate either books or money to Books For Soldiers, please do. Corporate funding has dried up this year and StormBear needs help to continue his good work.

Also see: Daily KOs

Obama and FISA

2008-06-20T16:33:00.000-07:00

I have been planning for a week or so to write an article about 'real' family values, the kind that Obama's family represents.

But I am so angry right now I could just spit.

Barack Obama's statement on the FISA bill is that it is a good thing, a GOOD THING for the government to be able to spy on all of its citizens with no accountability. He, the constitutional scholar, has apparently forgotten what the 4th Amendment to the Constitution says. I realize he doesn't have a magic wand and he cannot control all the players in the House. He's also the most junior Senator in the Senate - and actually doesn't even have the nomination locked up yet (remember superdelegates anyone?). So his power to really affect the outcome there is also limited.

But he could have made a stronger statement. Given his eloquence - he could have done it and done it in such a way that he would let everyone on the ground know that he gets it - without alienating the powers that be who still control his future.

Oh man. I'm sick. Someone on Digby today said "Mark your calendar - today is the day our Country died."

Big Black Box around today's date.

On Sexism

2008-06-08T14:26:00.000-07:00

A 'lot of people' are decrying the sexism exhibited by the MSM and some in the Obama campaign and a lot on the various threads of commenters against Clinton. It is said that until Obama either puts Clinton on the ticket as VP or at least apologizes for everything that has been said, the 'feminists' will not be satisfied and they are going to vote for McCain.

I'm sorry, but sexism is very much with us. I acknowledge that there are a lot of really sexist people out there. But voting for McSlime is not going to change anything - in fact it will make things much worse. Sure, Obama is not the perfect candidate - who is? But in a race between someone who is pro-choice, pro-real-family values, and pro-equal opportunity vs pro-life (the one issue he has NOT flip-flopped on), anti anything that supports families, children, women and even veterans, my vote is definitely for the former.

Obama is not my first choice. Or my second. But he's what we have - and I'm on board for the rest of the trip. Some Hillary supporters claim that she 'said what she had to say' in her speech on Saturday when she called for party unity and for everyone to support Obama and beat McSlime. I watched the speech. I believe she meant it.

Here's why: Hillary has, by all accounts, worked hard for children and families during her life. Why would she risk all that by sending out 'coded messages' for her supporters to vote for someone who is the antithesis of everything she stands for? Do you really believe Hillary wants Roe overturned? That she thinks the Ledbetter decision is okay? That she believes the Violence Against Women Act doesn't matter?

I don't believe that. But if McSlime is elected - we can expect that to happen. McSlime has promised to appoint more judges like Alito and Roberts - not just to SCOTUS but all levels of the federal judiciary. He will wield his veto pen on bills that support insurance for children, benefits for veterans, health care for everyone, good education (not just endless testing) for children, and on and on.

I keep seeing "McCain '08, Hillary '12' comments. Well, there is nothing to stop her from running in 2012 if Obama doesn't deliver. And I would far rather take a chance on Obama than go with the devil - John McCain. I would think you would too.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary...

2008-05-25T15:56:00.000-07:00

With her remarks alluding to the RFK assassination 40 years ago next month, Hillary seems to have brought her campaign to an ignoble end. No matter how she tries to distance herself from her remarks, the fact that she has said this before cannot be denied. And it is just the latest in a pattern of sly innuendo, coded race-baiting, off-hand-seeming remarks designed to inflame, and apologies that are not really apologies. This time it was just too much.

This is really quite sad. There were such high hopes for having (finally) someone who represented over 50% of the population who have not had someone in this position of power (at least not officially anyway). That having a woman would mean things would be different - no more of the macho-cowboy crap brought to us by the Current Occupant. That we would finally see our country turn to the things that are important to women - health care, child care, real family values, equal pay for equal work, codifying the principals of Roe v. Wade into law, and removal of the glass ceilings faced everywhere by women of any color or creed.

But no. What we have instead is a woman trying to out-man the men with her votes for the war in Iraq, and her vote for declaring the Iranian Army a terrorist organization. Someone who thinks the way to win is by belting back shots in a bar, playing at being a 'gunman'. Someone who, having been the target of all the right-wing hitmen in the 1990s, should have taken the high road and showed us what 'class' is really all about. Someone who, having been the target of much misogynistic screeching in the MSM, should have given us a 'gender' speech. Someone who, having been supported with her husband, by people of color everywhere has taken the low road of coded racist messages about her 'white' base.

So no, it is not going to be this woman, or this time. And Hillary - it's not because you are a woman. It is because you have abandoned all the things that women are good at. The knack most women have for settling disputes without violence. The different way most women have of looking at issues and seeing what is truly important. The bully pulpit you have enjoyed being the First Lady - but then not used, and finally, have abused. The lies, the triangulation, the race-baiting, the gender-baiting, and the faux victimization every time things didn't go your way.

You said you'd be ready on Day One. Well, you haven't been ready. You haven't shown us any leadership on women's issues - while at the same time crying that any woman who doesn't vote for you isn't a feminist. You haven't shown us any leadership on children's issues - even as you enjoyed a status in the Senate that even Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd do not enjoy. You haven't shown us any leadership on health care - even though you claim to have learned from your experiences with that issue when your husband was President. You haven't shown any leadership on gender issues, even as you have used that over and over in this campaign to batter your detractors and your competitors.

You keep saying you 'misspoke' because you are tired. Well, you are the one who made the 3 am commercial - you wouldn't be tired then? Are you going to misspeak when a true crisis comes along?

You claim you'd be ready for anything. Well, how about ready for this campaign? Didn't think the caucus states would be important - so guess what - someone else won. Didn't think the campaign would go on after Super Tuesday - so no backup plan for either organization or fund-raising and spending. Didn't think that it was important to fully vet your staff - so they have to be fired for what seem obvious conflicts of interest between your stated positions and what they are actually doing.

So, no. Not this woman, and not this time. I'm disappointed for women everywhere, because in the grand scheme of things, this will damage the chances of any good woman in the near future who fancies herself 'ready' to take this test, to lay it all on the line, to run for the highest office in the land. She will be told that America isn't ready to elect a woman, after all look what happened to Hillary. All the sexist people wouldn't vote for her. That is the myth you are building, that is the lie you are promoting. You are being helped by the MSM and the right-wing talk-radio-heads to be sure. But it wouldn't happen without your explicit and implicit cooperation and encouragement.

So, no. Not this woman, and not this time. I hope someday we can find that woman, the one who will take the high road, the one who will tell the truth, the one who will strive to encourage the best in people, the one who will excite our imaginations and show us a vision of a better America, one where women and children have value, one where education about these divisive issues is forefront, and one who really and truly can be elected. Because SHE will.

Too Confrontational

2008-05-16T12:07:00.000-07:00

A story last week reported that a proposed statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. for a memorial in his honor has been rejected by the arts panel that commissioned it because "King looks too confrontational" in the artist's model.

Too Confrontational?????? That is what Dr. King was all about - confrontation. His entire public career was about confrontation - confrontation of the establishment, of the status quo, of racism, of economic injustice, of the war in Vietnam, I could go on and on. Too confrontational - give me a break.

And while we're at it - the mainstream media and the mainstream history pundits would have us believe that MLK was a sort of nice guy in the "I Have A Dream" speech. The last two-three years of King's crusade was more about economic justice than civil rights, and his speeches became more 'inflammatory' and more confrontational than before. We never get to hear those speeches - it is like they have disappeared from the history books.

Here is an excerpt from MLK's speech to the striking sanitation workers on March 18, 1968, about 3 weeks before his assassination:

And I come by here to say that America too is going to Hell, if we don't use her wealth. If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty, to make it possible for all of God's children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to Hell. I will hear America through her historians years and years to come saying, "We built gigantic buildings to kiss the sky. We build gargantuan bridges to span the seas. Through our spaceships we were able to carve highways through the stratosphere. Through our airplanes we were able to dwarf distance and place time in chains. Through our submarines we were able to penetrate oceanic depths."
But it seems that I can hear the God of the universe saying, "even though you've done all of that, I was hungry and you fed me not. I was naked and ye clothed me not. The children of my sons and daughters were in need of economic security, and you didn't provide for them. So you cannot enter the kingdom of greatness." This may well be the indictment on America that says in Memphis to the mayor, to the power structure, "If you do it unto the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me."…

Shades of Jeremiah Wright anyone? (emphasis mine)

You can read the entire speech here: http://www.aft.org/topics/civil-rights/mlk/memphis-speech.htm I haven't been able to find audio of this, if anyone else knows where, please let me know.

So, was MLK confrontational? You bet! Does the statue do him justice? You bet! I also firmly believe that he would be spinning in his grave over the idea that a statue of him was being proposed, but even more so at the idea that it was "too confrontational". He would be laughing himself silly.

Time Out for Mother's Day

2008-05-11T17:37:00.000-07:00

In all our angst and anger and worry and whining, we sometimes forget that as a truly human, we must all pause for a bit fo soul refreshment. Mother's Day, while it has morphed into yet another commercial piece of garbage intended to sell sell sell more and yet more junk that we don't need, can be such an opportunity.

I am a new grandma, and reliving the joy of my own child and the delight in her new one kind of helps keep it in perspective for me. I know, over-population, food riots, global climate change, politics and all that yada yada yada.

So anyway, I just wanted to give us all something to refresh the spirit. Click the start button, and then close your eyes and just ENJOY!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ObxzdawhM-8&feature=related

Jeremiah Wright vs Barack Obama

2008-05-06T15:11:00.000-07:00

I have been terribly disturbed by the vilification of Jeremiah Wright, and even more disturbed by the things Barack Obama has had to do, say, and answer for because of it.

First: There are hundreds of preachers out there, both black and white, saying things just this incendiary - in fact, John Hagee (McLame's current BBF) just thundered from his pulpit that poor people should just "Starve!. He doesn't give a damn! If they don't work they should just STARVE!" And this represents Christianity how? But he gets a pass. Along with Rev Parsley, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, et al ad nauseum. All the white guys can say whatever they want. But the black one(s) can't. They are the ones with the history of slavery, whips and chains, lynchings, Jim Crow, rampant discrimination, medical experimentation, and all sorts of other innumerable horrors in their collective and actual backgrounds. But they are not allowed to say anything. So...it really is all about RACE. That and nothing else.

Second: I can't help but be disappointed a bit in Obama's response. I feel he should have done more to explain, more to educate the rest of us, more to lay a foundation that we can use to bridge the gap between the Jeremiah Wrights of this world and the fearful white people for whom Wright has become the latest embodiment of the Willie Horton boogeyman.

In the discussion below, Fred Newman lays out some of the stuff I wish the Obama team and he would have said in answer to the Wright comments. Obama's speech on race was a good start - but oh, we have so far to go - and backtracking away from the starting line will not get him (or us) across the finish line.

The '60s HappenedSunday, May 4, 2008
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, May 4, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," and "Meet the Press."
Salit: Barack Obama was Tim Russert's guest for the full hour on Meet the Press. They discussed the Rev. Wright controversy and the process that Obama went through in handling the events of the last week. Russert asked Obama to account for why he hadn't more fully distanced himself from Rev. Wright until this week. Obama said that in his Philadelphia speech he'd denounced "the words," not "the man." But this week he felt that Rev. Wright "doubled down" on his previous remarks and that made it necessary for him to distance himself more definitively than he had. And Russert said to him: 'Could you have done this better. In retrospect, given how things played out, what have you learned from this? Could you have done this better?' Obama replied 'Well, in politics they say it's good to pull the Band Aid off quickly.' I guess he was saying, Maybe I didn't do that in this situation, but now I've learned. Let me ask you that same question. Could Obama have handled this better?
Newman: I think he could have handled it much better. And I think the way to do that was not to talk pop psychology and try to have that do the work for you. Pop psychology is nonsense. He needs to talk history. And he hasn't talked history. And I think that's very disappointing. By talking history, he could have said: You know there was something called the 1960s. It was a very important time. It was the beginning of a very significant and divisive period in American history which continues to this day. Things were said by all kinds of people – on the left and on the right. Some were of value. Some were ridiculous and absurd. But all that actually happened. That's part of American history. And people who want to paint away that period of American history are simply blinding themselves to the progress we've made and to the fact that we have to continue with that progress. Rev. Wright is a relic of that period. He's a 60-year-old man whose views were deeply shaped by the events of that era. And there are a lot of people who still hold to those views because people don't give up their views very easily. I am not a product of that period. I have a whole different set of views. And so do millions upon millions of Americans. But that history is our history. And we have to accept it and grow from it and heal with it, not turn it into something which can add to the divisiveness which persists in the country. He could have discussed the history of the last 40 years in a sensible kind of way. But he chose not to. And I'm disappointed in that, yes.
Salit: Obama's narrative has been we have to move beyond those divisions. 'I have moved beyond that,' he says. 'America is moving beyond that.' He would agree with the description of Rev. Wright as a relic of the 60s.
Newman: You just took "relic of the 60s" out of context of what I said. You can't go beyond where you were unless you engage where you were. You can't do things that way. You have to accept where you've been, the conflictedness of where you've been, the bitterness of that period, and how that still continues on today and will into the future. History doesn't stop running because you're running for president. The world doesn't stop turning because Barack Obama's on the scene. I think he's a wonderful candidate. But I think he has to accept that there was this very volatile part of American history. He doesn't have to accept the views of that period, but he has to accept the history of that period…because that's American history. I think he's worked overtime to disassociate himself from the 60s, which is a critical period in the very debate which he's talking about resolving.
Salit: That's accurate.
Newman: Give me a break. You can't do that. You have to include that period and it's only if you include that period as part of a balanced and serious consideration of this whole period that you can really make any kind of sense of, or help people to make sense of, Rev. Wright. Because that's who he is. To try to handle it psychologically is a potentially disastrous mistake for Obama.
Salit: When you say "handle it psychologically," what are you referring to?
Newman: 'Well, we disagree this much, but not quite this much. Before I did this with the words. Now I'm doing it to the man.' What sense can be made of that? What depth sense can be made of that? It's just not an analysis with any weight. An analysis with weight has to say: The last 40 years of history in this country took place. It actually happened. Do you want me to discuss my relationship to black radicalism, to the Black Panther Party for example, by asking me to take a position on their view on this or their view on that? I can't do that. Number one, I wasn't there. And, number two, that's not the issue. People don't know what they would have done "if." They know there was a piece of history which produced all kinds of things, including the Black Panther Party, including the Far Right, including Martin Luther King, including Stokely Carmichael, including the Moral Majority – all that history. He has to give some evidence that he knows the history, which he hardly ever does because he wants to make it sound as if everything is beginning again with Barack Obama.
Salit: But it isn't.
Newman: No. And people won't believe that, ultimately. And they shouldn't believe that because it's obviously nonsense. He has to say: This movement for change that's taking place now, it didn't start with me. There were things going on before I was born and before you were born and before most Americans were born. That history is an important part of where we are now. In fact, it's because of that history that I am where I am now. That doesn't mean that I agree with all that history. It's not a question of agreement or disagreement. History is history whether someone agrees or not. It's not been well presented, in my opinion. It's not been well considered. I think the Obama people were so pre-occupied with "the world begins with Barack Obama-ism" that they didn't want to discuss this history. But this history is a very important part of where we are and what's happening in this country. So, Obama leaves the door open for Rev. Wright to be the historian. Well, I don't want Rev. Wright doing my history. I think Obama has a responsibility to give a more serious and accurate history.
Salit: What you're talking about here goes right to the heart of the major thematics of the Obama campaign. What I'm referring to is the idea that this is the campaign, this is the candidacy, this is the moment in American history when we're going to stop fighting the fights of the 60s. This is a narrative or a framing that has been very central to Obama's persona. His message is those fights, those identity politics battles and the battle between left and right that defined the culture wars, has put America in a place where it can't move forward politically. And so Obama says, 'I'm the right man for this moment in American history because I'm not over-determined by those fights and those positions.' What I hear you saying is that the fact that he's not over-determined by those fights means that he could and should be able to explicate that history in a way that sheds some light on where we are and various things that are going on, including the controversy over Rev. Wright.
Newman: Obama and his people have to make up their mind. Is the problem of America those fights? Or is America's problem the corruption in Washington, DC?
Salit: OK.
Newman: You can't equivocate on that. Those fights couldn't be "the problem" in America because those fights produced Barack Obama. So if he's the solution, it's those fights that produced him. What he has to go up against now is the corruption in Washington. So, there's confusion in his presentation that he has to take responsibility for. Wright comes on the scene and says, 'Do you think you're going to forget the 60s? Ha, ha. I'm going to remind you of the 60s.' And Obama's vulnerable to that because he wants to sweep the 60s and everything that followed from that under the rug. He projects himself, and from the beginning projected himself, as "I'm the solution to all of that." But that's equivocal. Why? Because that's not been the problem. He's already a product of that whole period and presumably he thinks that's a plus. The problem that he needs to take on is the corruption in Washington. And Hillary Clinton is a part of that corruption. That's got to be his focus. His failure to actually say: The 60s, the 70s, all those battles – that's been a good thing. It's produced things which took us to the point of my being a candidate for the presidency of the United States. Were stupid things said and done during that period? Yes. Were extremist things said and done during that period? Yes. Would I have associated with those? I hope not, but maybe in some ways, I even have. But that's not the point. The point is that all that happened. That's part of history. However, that is not the issue in this campaign. The issue is the corruption in Washington and Hillary Clinton is a part of that corruption and we all know that. That's the speech.
Salit: You're saying that the Obama campaign hasn't made up its mind on that issue. But, they are going after the corruption issue. That's the theme of the commercials that he's got running now in North Carolina and Indiana.
Newman: He may be running commercials, but he's been taken off course by having to engage the Wright controversy. And the reason that he finds himself in the position where he has to engage these other issues is because he and his people were trying to whitewash the history of the last 40 years. Why do that? Why whitewash that? Why not say: I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the American people who engaged in that. I'm proud of that people's movement that did something about that war in Vietnam – it was a dreadful war – just as I'm proud of that people's movement which is saying something about the war in Iraq. I'm proud of all that. I would think that Hillary would be, too. She was a part of the 60s, too. Now, were there extreme statements that were made on all sides, ridiculous statements? Are some of those still in the hearts and minds of some people, like Rev. Wright? Yes, they are. Do they have an appeal to a lot of people all over the place, but surely in the black community? Yes, they do. I can't deny them and don't wish to deny them…because, in some respects, I'm a product of them. And because the world doesn't start with Barack Obama.
Salit: Some people would say, not exactly in the terms that you're talking about, that the speech he gave in Philadelphia had some elements of that in it, but he was forced to move off of that position. I don't know whether you would agree.
Newman: What's the "that" of that position?
Salit: Wherein he identified Rev. Wright's voice and Rev. Wright's views as views that come out of a particular experience and a particular way of seeing the world in the black community. But he certainly didn't talk about the 60s.
Newman: I know he didn't. That's the very point I'm making. That's exactly what he painted over in his speech on race. He talked about the black community and the black experience. But there were other people involved in the 60s besides the black community. There was a war that had to be stopped and protested. And Americans from many different walks of life came together to do that.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: I think that if an objective history is to be written about why he lost this campaign, if he loses, it's going to be because of his blindness to the 1960s. It was not a black phenomenon. It was an American phenomenon.

I Been Healed and so can you!

2008-05-05T23:09:00.000-07:00

We were out beating back teh Islamofascist Blackberry bushes and Virulent Yuccas that encroach our front sidewalk. We suffered many pricks, and were vexedly sore by the end of the day. Upon applying Healin' Hollers ™©® Miracle Salves, our symptoms were instantly relieved!

I thank Sister Alice for her amazing potions. I urge all of you to purchase said salves and ointments from Miz Alice!

In the latest, second 100 year storm last month in Arkansas, Miz Alice was STRUCK by lightning, so you know her shit is sanctified! This is her front room and you know insurance didn't cover all of that!

More on How We Got Where We are Now...

2008-05-05T13:04:00.000-07:00

Here is another post on the subject of how we got here by Phil Rockstroh (it's a little old but not out of date) on how we got where we are, along with his comments about what happens next.

http://philrockstroh.com/2007/10/02/a-q-and-a-for-the-people-of-a-forsaken-republic-addressing-the-origins-of-the-whose-your-daddy-nation/#more-58

Phil does an excellent job of breaking down the links between the fundamentalist right/evangelical religious right and the cronyism and greed in the government and adds the corporate and military/industrial complex to the list of bottom feeders contributing to this problem.

The deviousness and outright hate-mongering by the right to get its own way is so despicable it is even carried into the abortion debate. Pro-choice has nothing to do with babies - it has everything to do with the right not getting its way when it was on the road to destroying all the 'left-wing' ideas coming out of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Movement, and all the other good-for-society-and-its-members programs. The Roe v Wade decision was the last gasp of the left, and the right-wingnuts have been trying to roll it back ever since. Not because of the babies - because it was a victory for the left. That's why they don't care about kids once they get here, and why they cut kids health insurance, WIC, Headstart, AFDC, anything that might help actually raise and care for these children once they are actually born. It IS about power and having your own way. Values be damned.

The Criminal Frame as the Underpinning of Right-Wing Propaganda

2008-05-04T16:45:00.001-07:00

I am posting here a series of commentary from a blogger known as 'jamestx' from the former Rockridge Nation blog. His comments are occasionally interspersed with other commenters from that same blog for clarity. As more comments come in, I will try to post updates on this conversation from time to time. The google group is a mess wading through right now and the new website is not up and running yet so this is the best I can do for now. If you want, you can go to the google group and subscribe to the newsletter at http://groups.google.com/group/rockridge-annex-temporary?hl=en

I have posted additional commentary on this at http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/ I have also provided links to Sara Robinson's two excellent pieces on the 'Us versus Them' memes used by the right-wing to divide and control all the rest of us. http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/two-kinds-americans-us-versus-them-part-i

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/two-kinds-americans-part-ii-us-versus-them-we-people

Sorry this is so long - but I really think it is worth reading and THINKING about.

POST #1 The point here is that criminality and the way people respond to criminal behavior is a sort of root metaphor in social interaction. In my ranting above, I have tried to show how those fundamental ideas about criminality have worked their way into the highest levels of policy and caused us to crash as a society. I've added this note to provide the afterthought that I am not talking about material policy here. I don't see the criminal justice frame as being one flawed issue policy among many. I see it as a fundamental metaphor that has been mapped on to policy at all levels and provides the basic assumptions for conservative government. If love is a journey, Bush is a cop, and he is a cop that doesn't like courts and doesn't like his decisions reviewed. He thinks there are two types of people in the world and his job is to kill one of those types. He assumes he doesn't need any helpdetermining who they are. The rights of those people play no role in his decisions, and he thinks that is moral.One peculiar interest of mine is what conservatives have accomplished in popular reasoning about criminal justice. I think it serves as a good example of what needs to be done. For those who are newer converts to liberal thinking - usually those who were socialized and educated after Reagan - current reasoning about criminal justice is just not very high on the progressive to-do list. I think it should be, because I think it serves as an important part of conservative cognitive infrastructure. It is very unfortunate that these flawed ways of reasoning have been repeated until they are simply accepted as "common sense". The cognitive infrastructure built on the conservative view of criminality is made up of the same metaphors later used to reason about rogue states, terrorists, combatants, unitary executive power, etc. The frames representing police officers were latertransformed into the notion of the unitary executive, which is viewed as the "police officer" who needs absolute authority to administers summary justice. Due process and reflective debate were devalued and described as useless activities that serve only to "support criminal rights" and interfere with the administration of "true justice" by the executive. The point here is that the reason our population so easily swallowed the Bush worldview on executive power was because they had been "softened up" to it by accepting earlier lies on how to reasonabout criminality. They already had a working frame for what Bush wanted to be, and they wanted to have a beer with him and talk it over.
Conservative frames on criminal justice are the oldest. They were constructed in the years from about 1978 through 1984. They are like the "old fat" that is hardest to lose. The conservative campaign to change reasoning about criminal justice, and their reframing of the concept, was highly successful. It was successful to the extent that it is a good example of the kind of thing that Lakoff talks about being repeated until it is simply accepted as common sense. Widespread conservative beliefs about criminal justice are now simply accepted as common sense, although the premises are entirely false and the reasoning is glaringly flawed. These very assumptions that are accepted without question today were viewed as archaic and barbaric only a few decades ago. Current ideas are simply not common sense. They are very unrealistic and skewed representations of reality, and they were designed by the conservative movement as a sort of trash dump for the people who opposed views.Our most popular beliefs about criminal justice are based in a frame that cuts the world into categories that are more irrevocable and absolute than most any social category we use, save perhaps gender. Only a few years ago, crime was seen as a behavior. It is now viewed as an almost genetic part of the makeup of a person. The frame cuts the world neatly into two categories of criminal and non-criminal. The difference between the two is viewed as being every bit as fundamental and immutable as gender. There are two types of people in the world.Just like there are men and women, there are good guys and bad guys. Criminals are considered to be bad guys. They are also curiously assumed to have always been bad, as if it is part of their genetic constitution. Even if they are not convicted until some later time in their lives, they are seen as having "beat the system" up to that point by simply not being discovered. They are considered bad from birth to death, almost in the same way that most people remain male or female form birth to death. The overriding goal is to maximize the suffering of criminals at any cost, and to forever keep them as far from civilized society as possible. The concepts of justice related to ideas that a criminal can be rehabilitated, or even be able to pay their debt to society (such as a contract metaphor), has been entirely abolished. The only goal of the criminal justice system under the conservative reasoning is to classify people irrevocably as good or bad, and to destroy the bad ones by any means and at any cost.The fundamental flavor of this concept is really unusual. I don't think we should gloss over the extremism inherent in the current view. We don't even see gender as an absolute and immutable construct anymore. No other classification category in our society is so powerful, or for that matter more arbitrary. This is very curious, and very difficult to understand. I propose that it is also very important to progressives, because it represents the first really overwhelmingly successful framing project that conservatives carried out, and it is an entirely and demonstrably false belief system. It is also the basic frames that are used for reasoning about deviance of the type that got us into the current military quagmire with its associated disregard for human rights. Flawed reasoning about criminality is the prototype for most of the conservative nightmare we are living.The point here is that I see the Bush war fiasco as being fundamentally related to the twisted view of criminal justice which conservatives successfully promoted early in their movement. It amounts to a cognitive infrastructure of the type progressives should be trying to change, or should at least be trying to analyze. I amconfused that the concept receives so littlee attention from progressives, when I see it as being at the very root of our problems.

POST #2
I appreciate the reference to (Sara) Robinson's paper. I have heard about the idea, and have read other places about it. The us versus them idea is one level of abstraction above my thoughts on the issue, and it allsort of points to an object relations interpretation. The reason I see the criminal justice attitude as being primary in this context is that it was an actual purposeful framing mission carried out by conservatives with the purpose of altering our fundamental ways of thinking about society. It was then generalized to other domains afterthe initial success.Anyone cognizant during those times knows that attitudes about criminality were at the forefront of all political campaigns. It was the most important social issue on the cusp of the conservative revolution. There was actually something to argue about back then. After the attitudes were changed, there is no longer anything to argueabout. It is as if the strict father view has just been accepted as fact by both conservatives and progressives, and the issue is no longer even discussed. If it is discussed, the problems recognized are that criminal justice processes are unfair for some specific group, as in the crack cocaine problem. There is never any discussion of the fact that there may be something wrong with the whole underlying system of ideas. All such disparities are settled by raising the level of harshness afforded everyone to the level experienced by the mistreated group. No other solution is ever considered. If one person is wrongly convicted, the solution is to wrongly convict everybody so that treatment is equal.My belief that it is fundamental and deeply seated metaphorically is really due to its timing, though. I could surely be accused of being victim of the post hoc fallacy. But I think there is something they knew and planned about this. It was the first big drive in the conservative movement. It succeeded, and then everything else sort offell like dominoes. Why did they choose to do that first? Perhaps they chose to do it first because everything else they wanted to do would depend on it in some fundamental way. It seems nowadays every form ofsocial organization has to have some form of a penal system built in, as if it is a necessary part of all human interaction. Perhaps if people could stomach a constantly escalating obsession with crime and punishment, it would be easier to stomach things like Guantanamo. It would be easier to degrade due process and the ideas of deliberative reflection by organized representatives as a prerequisite for violating human rights. It would be easier to smear those parts of the Constitution which protect rights by making them appear quaint. It would be easier to promote summary decision making by a single person vested with authority. I think they may have been right, because it apparently worked!If we are going to roll back what they have done to us as a whole, it might be best to look at what they did first as a reference for what we want to roll back to. In the intervening years, nothing has much happened that conservatives didn't author and tightly control, so it is hard to pick up our reference at any point after Reagan. What did progressive cognitive infrastructure look like before it was driven out of the picture by force? The driving out started with the criminal justice thing. Everything after that was easy.

POST #3 (This one explains a bit of why understanding framing is important)
Understanding framing as it is applied to the current political problem is something that I want for a personal, not political, purpose. I think it is important that all progressives understand the theory, and that is why I think training is very important.I guess I don't see the theory, from what I know now, as being something that is "done" or applied to others, as if framing experts would go out and change the way others think. Americans aren't very amenable to cognitive interventions designed to change their opinions. They are stubborn that way. I think what the theory means to me, on the other hand, is also what it could mean to many other people if they understood it better. It helps me articulate what has happened to us at the hands of the conservative movement leaders, and it gives mea powerful set of tools to resist them. Without those tools, I would still be trying to negate their frames, which only strengthens them.As I watched the conservative movement develop in the late seventies and early eighties, I knew something organized and powerful was happening. I knew it had something to do with language, and I knew it was bad and that its premises were false. Nonetheless, I had trouble constructing any successful arguments against it. The reason I couldn't argue against it is because I didn't understand that resistance on the conservatives' terms was futile. It only strengthened their position, because they were activating frames that were powerful and couldn't be fought by negation. The frames themselves had to be invalidated and replaced. My explanation of what they were doing at the time was that their messages contained presuppositions. That is, I thought they were using trick statements of the sort "when did you stop beating your wife?" As it turns out, that was really an oversimplification. Because I didn't understand what was being done to us in the way Lakoff has explained it, I just had to sit passively by like everyone else and let it happen. My only option was to withdraw further and further into my personal world, only to find my social support circles shrinking daily. The conservative movement continuously expanded and pressed harder at the boundaries of that world every day, as it was designed to drive people who thought like me out of society.So, I guess my opinion is that framing theory is much more valuable as a tool for helping progressives understand themselves and understand what the conservatives are doing them. It also can provide them with away of keeping their sanity and keeping their thoughts organized. It might be much more valuable as a sort of self-help tool than a political intervention tool.

POST #4

First of all, let me be sure to mention that I want to avoid liberal stereotypes here. Some of the phrases that were most successful during the conservative campaign were clearly frames, and being on the wrongside of those frames is what I mean by the liberal stereotype. That would include phrases like "slap on the wrist", "revolving door", "criminals' rights are more important than victims' rights", "they'll just do it again", "coddling of criminals", "defending criminals", "not backing the police" and all those things that purportedly represented the national mood and framed the liberal approach to criminal justice as ludicrously naïve and horribly unjust for victims. We were depicted as wanting to let crime run rampant and wanting to treat murderers like teenagers who had skipped school. This was supposedly because of our "knee jerk, bleeding hearts" that simplycouldn't stomach the dirty work that has to sometimes be done to serve justice. That is not my position, and it is a ruthless caricature of the real liberal position.If I were king, my ideas would look much different than either the conservative position or the liberal stereotype. I think these kinds of ideas were alive during the conservative revolution, but they just couldn't fight the forces against them and were never given a hearing. I do think victims have rights, but I don't think those rights areabsolute and infinite. The laws drafted by the conservatives have made them so, to the point that some victims who don't deserve consideration are now glorified. There is a context to most crimes, and understanding that context is important. Our current system seems to aim toward reducing it to a simple black and white.The biggest problem, though, I think is the language and the simplistic categories we use to reason about the system. One big problem is using the murderer as the prototype for reasoning about all criminal justice. The overwhelming majority of people caught up for life in the criminal justice quagmire are not murderers or anywhere near it. In fact, for many of them, it is an exercise in imagination to even locate a victim. So, one important thing to do when we absolutely have to use a single term to classify all the effected people is to choose a term that more accurately describes the average "criminal". In fact, my position is that the term "criminal" is a real problem in itself, as it doesn't tell us anything about the person denoted. The term literally includes everyone from George W. Bush (driving under the influence, and many believe possession of cocaine),to Cindy Sheehan (public disorder or something), to John Lennon (possession of marijuana), to Charles Manson (who never actually killed anybody!), to the person who broke into my house, to Rosa Parks, to Ted Bundy, to the man down the street who drove to the store after having three beers, to the local teenager who shoplifted a candy bar. If a term can't narrow referents any better than that, we are flirting with disaster when using it to discuss policy as if it referred to a well defined class. The term, though, is used ubiquitously in conservative discourse on criminal justice, as if it were a precisely defined class.The air is all gone out of the "tuff" sentence balloon. Conservative approaches to criminal justice have culminated primarily in a two-decade long campaign to increase the harshness of sentences given to"criminals". We are now to the point where sentencing makes no sense, and it is an everyday occurrence to see someone sentenced to hundreds of years in prison. Given, the conservative view is not for it to makesense. I understand the idea is that they just never want to see the person again. They would execute them if they could. The point is that the sentencing system is not designed in any rational way for any purpose, and as a result we are simply seeing a population explosion in the prisons which are designed to have no path out.There is definitely a need to address what happens after conviction, and that process needs a lot more oversight. In fact, there should be an independent judiciary which oversees what happens after conviction.For the most part, conviction signals the end of the road for public policy, and everything after that is turned over to the anonymous administrative authority of the prison administration. I see this as being important for us to understand and control the ultimate outcomes of our decisions. This would help avert the most distressing outcomes. Among those outcomes is the shoplifting teenager who is inducted into the culture of organized crime and ultimately becomes a much bigger nightmare than he was when he entered the system. In that case, we aretaking a person with potential and using them as the raw material to manufacture a real "criminal". It should be illegal to discriminate in employment after a person has served a sentence. If we provide no viable means for those convicted to re-enter the society, then exactly what is it that we are expecting? Clearly, what conservatives are expecting is that the person will return to prison. They will be permanently classified as"them", and they will be kept away from "us". I think it may be time to start looking at alternatives to that outcome. In fact, the progressive position should emphasize analyzing the aftermath of conviction. For conservatives, the story is over after conviction. Clearly, there is a decision to be made about people convicted of crimes. That decision inevitably involves the complexities of whether or not we ever intend for them to return to society. The underlying assumption of the conservative view is that they really never do intend for a person to come back. Once the person has been classified into their catch-all "criminal" category, then they really intend for that person to be incarcerated forever, however menial the actual crime. Their rhetoric is full of ideas about how to assist law enforcement in "recapturing" the "criminal" who has been released. Is that what we really want? It may be, and I may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

From: "Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)" James, don't ever use the phrase "If I were king." Of course, I guess what you really mean by that phrase is that, if you could instantly make certain changes in society without going through a lot of intermediate steps, then here is what you would do. But we all have to stop thinking in that way. We all have to think about the intermediate steps, which ultimately are more important than the end result anyway.But you really have convinced me of the importance of this prison framing thing. I can see why the conservatives made it a high priority when they were taking over, and for similar reasons we need to make ita high priority when recapturing culture.On an issues level, there are plenty of issues to work on. We need to talk about the fact that the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world -- probably by a wide margin; that certain corporations make lots of money by running prison systems; that some companies also make money from prison labor, so it's effectively a new kind of slavery; that the sentences for poor people's crimes are much higher than the sentences for analogous rich people's crimes (e.g., different kinds of cocaine get different sentences -- I don't know the details of that one); etc. That the rationale behind the "war on drugs" doesn't make any sense, and its real purpose is to fill prisons. etc.
But ultimately we need go to a higher level than just issues; we need to counteract the us-versus-them mentality. I don't know how to do that, but I see that that is crucial to the whole progressive versusconservative struggle.

POST #5 I'll stay away from that king thing! I wouldn't make a very good king, anyway.I guess I see the criminality concept as being very close to the fundamental conservative social metaphor (strict father). It is a reflection of the basic way we treat and classify people in close proximity. The conservative view is that we solve problems by banishing people. It didn't work for the ancients, and it still doesn't work. A good way to recognize progressives and conservatives is how they behave when they enter a group, or especially when they are part of an evolving group. Conservatives try to establish who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are, and then they go to work trying to get rid of the "bad guys".Real progressives don't operate that way at all. They are genuinely different. Their solutions are inclusive, empathic, and fair minded. They don't classify people into those irrevocable value categories on short notice, but try to understand and work within the natural dynamics of the group in other ways. They recognize and accept people who are different from them. While they are fair minded and respect laws and rules, they also respond differently to misbehavior. Frequently they try to understand misbehavior by trying to empathize and understand how they might behave under different circumstances, or even just how they might feel or be tempted to behave. This is not the same thing as condoning crime, although that is what conservatives say it is. It is just a different approach to crime that involves trying to understand why it happens without invoking oversimplified ideas about the dispositional character of people. Conservatives will protest as loud as anyone else when you try to explain their behavior as dispositional, but they are quick to invoke that explanation for others.Changing attitudes about criminal justice is going to be a hard nut to crack. I think nothing much will happen in terms of real social change unless we do that first, just as the conservatives did it first. It is somehow closer to our everyday experience than more abstract issues. Do we really care about the kid that broke our car window, and do we understand why it is important to the community that we do? Do we understand why it is important to care about the teenager who sold drugs to our children? Do we understand that we can get rid of that one parson, but another will take his place if we don't understand why it happened to begin with? The conservative cognitive infrastructure provides a lot of press to simply insist the only solution is to banish the person, but I think we are getting close to a breaking point on that. Banished people aren't really banished. They find each other, and they organize. When they do, you have a formidable enemy on your hands.What percentage of the United States population is on the wrong side of the criminal justice system? If we continue to grow that group, how long will it be before we have a significant proportion of our population who have less than human status, know who their enemies are, and are organized? Might it be in our best interest to consider a little more rational approach to deviance?

From: "janine kovac" The other problem with the prison thing is that criminals evoke fear . . .norepinephine, the neurotransmitter of the Strict Father model! Criminals are also in the one category for which the nurturant parent (might) not haveempathy, if it threatens the family. And whether it is a legitimate fear or legitimate threat or not, is a different discussion. . . actually, I guess that's the whole point of this discussion - that the prototype of the criminal as murderer vs. x or y or z is used to generate fear.

POST #6 I think those are good thoughts, Janine! Your point may support my idea that this is somehow primary and universally important. You note that the frame can even be activated in people who would otherwise think differently. Perhaps that is why it was so successful. Perhaps that is why they did it first. It was the trade off that they figured even liberals were willing to make: Look the other way about how we actually administer justice, and we will keep you safe! Then it was easier to do the same thing with economics, and then national security, and so on.

POST #7 The left has lacked organization and it has hurt us. In fact, I have repeated that for years. I think the lack of organization was fed a lot by apathy, though, as people simply withdrew into their personal worlds when politics and public life went sour and the conservative movement gained momentum. There will be a higher level of organization that grows out of the progressive movement, but it awaits things like funding and widespread support. We can fund our ideas, and the successful netroots political campaigns have shown that $20contributions can produce a viable candidate. It isn't unreasonable to think that the same can fund a cognitive infrastucture.The problem is that the political left in this country has been decimated. We have had our whole approach to public life wiped out, and it has been long enough since that happened that few people even remember a worldview other than conservatism as being realistic, respectable or viable. All of the values that were part of the last progressive infrastucture have been systematically ridiculed and destroyed by conservative propaganda. Young people have been taught to laugh at us. We have been painted as a completely "failed" endeavor.Our most central defining values, as they are often stated, are still viewed by most (even most progressives) as something childish, naïve and unrealistic. A lot can be done in three decades with billions of dollars dedicated to it.
I see the movement just now trying to find its way out of that. People have to learn to start saying things that their school teachers taught them were errors. The older people have to start saying things again that they have been ridiculed and punished for saying in the past. At this time, it almost has to be an organic creative kind of process. The problem we are dealing with is not simple. It is not a task of overcoming one idea or even a small set of ideas that have to be countered. It is an entire culture with a strong and resilient infrastructure.

Of Purple Fingers and Voter ID Laws

2008-04-29T15:22:00.000-07:00

In a decision by the Supreme Court, Indiana was granted the ability to require a government-issued photo-ID card for voting. While the court decision was disappointing - there were a number of areas where there is still hope. The Court held that the law was not unconstitutional - but they further had a problem in that there was not any actual "damaged" plaintiff at this point. Unfortunately, it will take an election cycle for that to happen, and thousands of people will be disenfranchised in November just to prove this point.

How did we get here? Societies over time have functioned for hundreds of years based upon TRUSTING their citizens to do the right thing. In the US until just recently, if you stated you were a citizen, you were believed. No one questioned you, or needed you to produce documents to verify this claim. I would argue that documents do not prove who you are anyway. Anyone can order up a copy of a birth certificate. It's just a piece of paper. If I do that - how do you (or any government agency) know that is really me? Social security card? That thing is so easy to forge it is a joke! And it was never supposed to be used for an ID card anyway (says so in the Social Security Act - which as far as I know has not been repealed!). Photo ID? I have a birth certificate (not necessarily mine), a fake Social Security card, and I go to the DMV and have my picture taken and put on a 'government-issued ID card'. Voila! Identity theft! SO who actually gets to decide if I am who I say I am?

The right has argued, and very successfully unfortunately, that these ID cards are necessary to prevent voter fraud by 'illegal aliens'. What this tells me is that they are even more out of touch with the reality of life as an 'illegal' than I thought it was possible to be. So-called 'illegals' live in the cash economy for the most part and so do not have or use identification of any sort. They don't have bank accounts, credit cards, and all the assorted 'papers' that most of us take for granted. Come to think of it - this applies to a large population of poor and minority people in areas all over the country who ARE citizens!

Back to the 'illegals'. Because of their immigration status - the idea that they would first, register to vote, and then vote is absolutely laughable. 'Illegals' stay as far away from government agencies as possible because each contact means a risk of exposure. They AVOID registering to vote, do not apply for government benefits (welfare, food stamps), avoid doctors and hospitals as much as possible, and while they do send their kids (many of whom are US citizens) to school, at the least whiff of problems, the entire family will pull up stakes and 'disappear'.

Investigations by the Justice Department and other voter organizations have looked specifically for evidence of this massive voter fraud alleged by the right wingers - and have found nothing. And this is even in the polluted Justice Department where prosecution is selective based on political affiliation and where you would suppose that if there were even one single case of 'illegals' voting, it would have been all over Fox News and Rush and the rest for weeks as a justification for this pack of lies.

The rightwingnuts claim they want every voter to vote - but their actions tell a different story. They actively pursue policies that disenfranchise voters from poor, minority and elderly communities where these voters tend to vote disproportionately for the opposition. Their motto seems to be "if you can't pursuade them, get rid of them."

In stark contrast, in our misguided bid to 'bring democracy to Iraq', elections were held there. The people signed up to vote (no ID needed) - and voter fraud was prevented by the "purple finger" - something the Iraqis used as a badge of pride that they had participated in. While there were known 'foreign fighters' in the country at the time - no one felt that they would vote and/or impact the election to such a point that it required massive disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens because they don't have the proper papers!

Our society is built on trust. We trust our government officials (wrongly in the case of this administration) to do the right thing for the country. We trust each other to follow the rules for the most part. And up until recently, the people were trusted to tell the truth when they were asked if they were a citizen when they signed up to vote. The United States is the most powerful country on earth. Why are we so afraid of our own shadows? And why is our government so afraid of us - the people of the United States? After all, the illegal spying and wiretapping and ID cards and all that crap is aimed, not at some terrorist in a cave in the far east - but at regular citizens just going about their business and trying to live their lives, and yes - participate in our own democracy.

And the Question Is.....

2008-04-29T00:44:00.000-07:00

Welcome to lokywoky's blog - a left-wing commentary on stuff that most sane and reasonable people are mad about.

I've been thinking about doing this for a while - and obviously using a common template is not my favorite idea but due to all kinds of stuff, this is what is happening for the time being.

So, off and running!