a shallow, tale-telling, stampeding wrong-road Red State Governor?
Now Playing: Arthur
Topic: Opinion

Washington: A part of America Returning to its True Values

We have again been asked to choose the tired Republican corporate philosophy that has proven itself as massively flawed, ineffective and seriously partial to corporate welfare – a philosophy that has consistently ignored the needs of workers, families, the elderly, the poor and middle class.

Assaulted by misleading and inflammatory ads that have been proven false, we've been asked to choose a governor.  Those Rossi ads assume that our best decision is the one made while we are not calm and composed, but when misled, angry, and stampeded.

We are being asked to ignore our worries about our jobs, wallets, health care, mortgages and other real concerns. Instead we should be fired up by wildly false Rossi campaign messages having nothing to do with what keeps us awake at night.

Do you think all that false nonsense about misplaced sex offenders, tribal bribes and the need to "peel off" children's services in order to protect children from their own government is real?

Does any of that have anything to do with how Rossi would govern?

In reality Rossi's state campaign strategy underlines the decline and possible demise of the Republican Party as a positive force for good everywhere in this country.

In this and most states all the Republican Party has is panicked desperation and poorly-thought out strategies.

An Obama administration has already committed itself to change. Voters are endorsing that commitment in large numbers. The Democratic Party is able to attract votes during this election because Republicans have thrown virtue, wisdom, common sense and civic duty into the gutter. The McCain campaign demonstrates this every day.

Obama and the Democrats are committed to lifting our national well-being out of the gutter.

Christine Gregoire has demonstrated and proven that civic well-being is her highest priority for each of us.

Rossi is of that other ilk. His ads proclaim his poor campaign priorities and prove how shallow a candidate he really is.

There's an incoming federal administration committed to massive civic change and restoration of America's real core values. Do you want to be a part of America returning to its true values?

Or do you want to drive forward while looking through the rear-view mirror in a state with a shallow, tale-telling, stampeding wrong-road Red State Governor?

A governor like all those elected officials other states are throwing out of office wholesale?

Bringing more insurance companies into Washington State is not going to work
Now Playing: One Editor' View of the Rossi Candidacy Part III
Topic: Opinion
One Editor's View of the Rossi Candidacy Part III

Rossi and the Working Family

Let's start with Rossi wanting to lower or roll back the state minimum wage.
He explained why:

 

"Minimum wage was not meant to be a family wage; it's meant to be an entry level wage."

That's a curious statement.

Who profits most by an entry level wage?

We know that cheap labor is the basis upon which Wal-Mart has a price advantage in its competition with local businesses in communities all over. Aberdeen, Washington has had a seriously slowed down economy for years ... except at the Wal-Mart store.  

Wal-Mart doesn't put Real Estate Agents out of business however. In fact, a Real Estate Developer would be interested in big-box stores.

Can Mr. Rossi can tell me what percentage of families are surviving on that minimum wage he thinks is too high? What does he consider the non-entry-level wage upon which families should be able to make do?

I don't think he cares about that. He just needs a Republican talking point and the level of minimum wage is always a talkable point.

Do you remember how Mr. Bush, the head of Dino Rossi's Republican party who - guided by the likes of Cheney and Rove - tried to capitalize on unemployed victims of Hurricane Katrina by imposing a "prevailing wage" and suspending the minimum wage on the Gulf Coast?

That is the Rossi thought in this state. He needs this current economic disaster to sell his snake oil the same way Bush used Katrina to sell the same kind of nonsense.

I also understand that Rossi says the minimum wage in Washington is part of an overall "unfriendly business" environment in Washington, a state environment that causes employers to flee or not come here in the first place.

I used Google to learn that the number of other states who have raised the minimum wage with cost of living increments like what was done by our own  legislature is now up into double digits. 

I then ask Mr. Rossi to tell my why more, not less, states are doing it. Is it that his particular talking point has failed many times elsewhere?

Google "Rossi minimum wage" and read what Association of Washington Businesses president Don Brunell said about the state minimum wage:

 

"AWB is no longer fighting the minimum-wage law, which is adjusted every year in line with the consumer price index.

You don't see us screaming out loud about this," said Don Brunell, president of the trade group, which represents 6,300 members.

"... Washington's robust economy, which added nearly 90,000 jobs last year, is proof that even with the country's highest minimum wage, "this is a great place to do business,."

Dino Rossi does not have a valid minimum wage argument.

 

Economic Reality Bites

How about that Wall Street?

How about those Republican Economic Geniuses who were paid by those corporate Lobbyists all those years?

How about that deregulated free-market banking and loan system?

There's what used to be WAMU ...  

In Arlington 800 employees lost their job last week.

In my own county, this week a local wood products company laid off their entire production staff.

Is that what we want, someone trying to make hay out of our own suffering by blaming it on a governor who - like the rest of us - has to react after the fact and exerts little or no impact on the national Republican-destroyed economy?

Our kitchen table budgets are definitely not written by comfortable real-estate agents in King County.  However, if we put the Real Estate guy in charge, our budgets will get worse very quickly.

Think that running a real estate agency is representative of the small business environment where many hourly wage citizens are employed?

Think again. A real estate agent manages a budget based primarily on sales, commissions, facilities, supplies and clerical expenses. The most vulnerable employees in any real estate agency are hourly or salaried clerical staff at the bottom of the agency earning scale.

Commission-earners only lose their jobs if they cannot sell - or if the economy goes to hell and leaves not much to sell because Republicans took  us all to the landfill.

On the other hand, small businesses that employ a staff predominantly paid an hourly rate are much more representative of the type of business where the size of the minimum wage is critical.

For Rossi to imply that his small business experience is greater and wiser than that of the local mom and pop cannery, the bowling alley, the restaurant or independent seafood processor is laughable.

 

What Can Rossi Do For Me Personally?

Both Dino Rossi and Chris Gregoire are asking for my vote. I don't live in Kansas and I'm not about to vote according to party affiliation nor philosophical bent.

I'm going to vote my health, well being ... and my wallet. I'm giving my vote to the sitting incumbent who has earned it and demonstrated her ability.

In every debate Rossi has responded to questions about health care with  some sort of thin gruel about free-market competition and allowing more insurance companies entry into Washington State.

That means Rossi constantly suggests that market competition in and of itself will drive health care premium costs down to the kitchen budget level.

That's a blatant con ... and an out and out bamboozle from someone who not only thinks we are stupid but that he can sneak one by us.

I'm voting what I think, not what Dino thinks. I'm sixty two and more than ready and willing to retire. I can't WAIT to retire - but in this current economic circumstance I flat out can't do it.

I can't retire while Mr. Rossi's free-market corporate capitalism remains part of America's health care package. I can't do it while too many incompetents act as if good health is a marketable commodity.

Bringing more insurance companies into Washington State or letting me shop insurance companies in other states is not going to work for me. If I retire right now, my monthly health care premium will be $900 and I have that in writing.

If Mr. Rossi is suggesting that more access to health care insurers will lower that monthly rate by even 50% isn't that still like spitting on a bonfire?

The resulting monthly cost would still be too much; the equivalent of paying an additional half my mortgage every 30 days.

Purchasing such a market-valued commodity would still result in my making the equivalent of a car payment on a vehicle I can not afford and still not being able to drive - unless I get catastrophically sick when I might not be able to drive at all.

The average state worker monthly retirement after twenty years is less than $2000. If married - in order to unsure that your spouse will continue getting your pension if she outlives you - that amount is reduced by at least 25%.

Therefore, as currently constituted, a retirement of $1500 will be reduced by $900 health care premium to $600 per month.

So for 20 years work, a retiree takes home approximately $600 per month plus medical.

Now isn't that just deregulated free-market delectable?

To put it in perspective, a Washington State TANF recipient with one child and who has shelter expense obligations receives $453 in monthly cash plus medical coverage.

I certainly am not declaring myself more worthy of a comfortable living than a single parent with one child.

But as a tax payer I am saying that a retiree who has worked all the way to retirement ought to have a right to expect more than an inflexible and irrational political party's lies about free-market treatment of health care as the only choice.

What's with these Republicans who are as tied to corporate capitalism as Ahab was to Moby Dick?

The only citizens who might justifiably vote for Rossi are those upper income Republicans or self-styled conservatives who can afford to be self-styled conservatives. Those are the folks who can talk the conservative talk as if they had intellectual depth and vote their philosophy and or social conservatism moral beliefs because they have much less skin in the game.

Republicans of lesser income who self-style themselves as conservatives or vote with Republicans because they have a moral-values social conservatism WILL vote against their own self interest if they vote for Mr. Rossi.

Among the rest of us - Seniors, single parents, young couples with children, middle-income and low-income voters, students - any tax-payer, consumer, and civic-minded voter will prove that Rossi isn't as smart as he assumes himself to be.

We will tell the former budget writer that we are not moving to Kansas.

Rossi knocking on my door with a vacuum cleaner
Now Playing: One Editor's View of the Rossi Candidacy Pt. II
Topic: Opinion

One Editor's View of the Rossi Candidacy Pt. II

The molded candidate? Has Mr. Rossi always been a

Conservative Without Conscience? 

Rossi's campaign promises are the promises of his  party and national sponsors who put him in this position. Dino talks about how his economic philosophy will serve him and us well.

However, when faced with unavoidable budget choices, a leader whose sole intellectual perception is a rigid and inflexible economic or political philosophy sees his judgment collide  head on with need, pragmatism, common sense and compassion.

The leader has to choose an alternative to his own slick promises that had no substance in the first place ... or he must fail.

If you do not believe me, ask Herbert Hoover. Better yet, ask George Bush about the socialized bail out of Republican cash cows.
With his blatant attempt to capitalize on this economic crash by tying it to Governor Gregoire's leadership - and despite Rossi's blatant attempt to ride the Obama coattails of change in Washington State - it seems that Mr. Rossi's campaign strategy and themes are right out of the Rove historical playbook.

Rossi attacks what he apparently considers to be Gregoire's strongest attributes. His campaign ads and sound bites are quite purely a "swift-boat" attack strategy.

Not this time.

When your party has been top-dumb-dog for 8 years, you'll throw your back out trying to place the blame on someone else.

Mr. Rossi still seems intent on running a Republican 2004-style attack campaign but without major big-time backup.

Dollars perhaps, but if there is any mentoring or support, it has had only limited usefulness. His campaign style in fact reveals his party's desperation. His own desperate party is reduced to praying only for significant and credible survival .

McCain can't come and help.
Bush coming to campaign would be nothing more than a powerful comparison to and confirmation of Dino's intellectual shallowness. Like Bush, it seems that Dino has learned everything he needed to know only in the recent Republican history.

Fact is, Dino is on his own. He doesn't seem to be receiving anything new from those old partisan coaches at the RNC. Gone is the mentoring by confident and cocky party partisans in high positions of national power.

As a force for positive change in this country and state - for cleaning out a soiled house - Republicans and Dino Rossi don't matter much right now except for ownership of responsibility.

Dino Rossi has not successfully communicated to Washington voters that he is anything more than a local surrogate for the  National Republican Party to put an agent in this blue state's governor's chair.

One thing about fiscal conservatism and its less-government talking points, legitimate conservatives are learned with self-acquired knowledge. (Read John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience)even self-taught. Rossi's  dialogues do not suggest a self-taught learned fiscal conservative with deep Adam Smith convictions.

He seems to have acquired his economic philosophy  in the same way McCainers are currently attempting  to educate Sarah Palin. Talking points remain shallow because sales persons have to keep prospects' perceptions in the shallow zone.

Otherwise, Mr. Rossi struggles to hide the fact that he is a pretend ideologue claiming affiliation to a discredited corporate deregulated free-market theory.

 

Knocking on my door with a vacuum cleaner

As I both watched and listened to the debate in Spokane I was struck by the consistent and rapidly-worded monotone in Rossi's speaking style.

That's the sort of fact-presentation and point-making that comes out of sales training and practice. It's how successful sales persons are trained.

It's how Rossi would attempt to govern by insincere salesmanship more focused on self than community.

I know about sales training ... I've been there.  Over the course of my 48-year working history I've been trained to sell vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias, life insurance, Shaklee, Amway - even as a proselyting missionary selling salvation door-to-door.

I've seen that peddler look on Rossi's face.

Rossi's look-you-occasionally-in-the-eye gaze is a look not sincerely invested in a business transaction where both sides win. It is more interested purely in making the sale.

It is also the gaze of someone always ready to move on and try to sell a product to a more pliable prospect.

It is a gaze a governor Rossi would hide behind in order to further his own importance in the scheme of being a governor and celebrity.

 

What I'd like to know about Rossi's own kitchen budget.

When someone insists that he has the best interest of families and individuals at heart we ought to know how he is managing his own affairs - what experiential success he has that relates to our own kitchen planning.

I'd also like to know - from anyone else who does know - just what the source of Mr. Rossi's personal funding is.

If he has been campaigning full time and supporting himself on his own income, what income is that? How is he meeting his own obligations ... you know, writing his own budget?

Is Rossi loaded?

If so does that make him empathetic to Washington's middle class families, fixed-income senior citizens and low-income vulnerable citizens?

Our experience with Republican promisers like McCain and Mitt Romney has made an honest revelation of a candidate's personal  financial circumstances highly relevant and significant.

Do we have with Dino Rossi a McCain-like image of multiple cars and houses?

Intimate open honesty and not snake-eyed stares from Mr. Rossi are what matter. Otherwise messages that imply strong empathy remain mere empty words.

Open honesty should include Rossi's willing acknowledgment that he is asking us to let him experiment with our lives.

He asks us to let him apply his own, his party's and his corporate support base's economic theory to state government.

It's just that simple.

 

What's The Matter With Washington State?

Thomas Frank in his book, What's The Matter With Kansas?, examines the consequences in a state where voters made election choices that ran against their own best interests. Voters did so because they were gullible; because political propagandists lead by big business politicians and social conservative activists were overwhelmingly convincing.

Voters in Kansas voted their anger, not their own common sense. They voted for candidates and policies of a party whose heart and soul belong to big business and corporate lobbyists.

Their naive and trusting gullibility hurt their lives seriously.  Although  voting their outrage and resentment in those elections might have been personally satisfying, they have paid for that mistake in judgment.

Rossi is tempting us to do the same.

Is it our turn to succumb to his temptations out of our apathy and ignorance? Or will we be stampeded by anger and outrage fueled by campaign falsehoods?

Washingtonians, like Kansans before them, are being asked to vote against their own best  interest. We are asked to support a candidate whose principal promise is and remains detached cost-effectiveness and a de-regulated market across the board.

By this Rossi and his party support deregulated public utilities, de-regulated financial markets, and de-regulated transportation. Need I mention that the McCain Republicans were willing to propose deregulated health care as a way to mislead voters made angry by other issues.

Isn't Rossi's dumbed down suggestion of letting more insurance companies into the state a form of de-regulating health insurance and health care by waiting for market competition to bring health care costs down. Same old song, same old lyrics, and same old calliope.

There's a difference between concern and anger.
Rovian politicians like Dino Rossi know this.

Concern is not what made Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity rich and famous.

Misplaced and misguided anger was the formula.

Rossi wants voters to vote while they're mad.  That's a tactic much like stoking anger in someone who is about to go out and speed away on a rainy night driving a car with bald tires and faulty brakes.

We are being asked to vote against our own best interest by supporting a party whose financial political base is founded on cheap labor;

who push for corporate advantages rather than advantage to kitchen budgets,

who do not seek advantages to small businesses nor to those small family farms until the big businesses have had first dibs.

Next: Rossi, the Working Family and me.

Mr. Rossi, Writing budgets is not a leadership trait.
Now Playing: Arthur on the Rossi Candidacy Part I.
Topic: Opinion
This writing is not neutral.

It is biased because it reflects my personal opinion. My bias is based on my concerns and reasons for how I intend to vote next month.

It is about concern for family, for self and a willingness to speak up.

This writing is based on the positive or negative expectations engendered by candidates' records and presentations - sales pitches, if you will - in asking for my vote.

Those expectations have primarily to do with what  I see as my priorities:

my family's well being,

how we plan to cope with the imposing economic circumstances,

our personal health and the costs of maintaining adequate health coverage,

and finally, what I'd like to do on behalf of my children's and grandchildren's future.

Who am I to opine as an editor?

WashBlog.com is a liberal blog with an editorial  board that reflects a variety of progressive  points of view.  

Some of us are Democrats, others are not.

Along with founder, Brian Moran, we maintain an insistence that this blog is not an arm of the state Democratic Party or any party for that matter. No one gives us our talking points or article topics except by suggestion.

This has been a hard-won independence that is the historical result of having had to cope with attempts to insert party talking points and control of Washblog's overall message and themes to our readers.  

If we have an overall theme it is that of progressive advocacy much more than political liberalism.

The majority of our posts are political but our  writings include an assortment of issues beyond party politics i.e., economics, the environment, law and order/criminal justice issues, social justice, and religion in or outside of politics.

Another issue is vote integrity. One of our editors, Jason Osgood, has gotten involved in a major way. He is the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State this year.

As a WashBlog contributing editor and member of  its board, I remain an independent voter. I returned to being an independent voter officially the Wednesday following election Tuesday in 2006. That was when I resigned from the Democratic Party and notified my local precinct committee officer.

Although I flirted with rejoining the Democrats after participation in a single Democratic Party Caucus in Naselle this past March, I backed off and was content to support my wife, Lietta, who became an Obama delegate to the Pacific County Convention in April.

I want to write an opinion on the candidacy of Dino Rossi for governor that is based on my own experience and participation in state government at a level that Mr. Rossi has no personal first hand day-to-day experience.

In that regard, folks like me possess a view of citizen concerns from inside the very state agencies about which Mr. Rossi makes critical observation. We know more about some of those topics and issues and their importance to citizens than does the candidate himself.

This is also fair to a public who might believe Rossi has ground-level experience and therefor whose views are much more than merely based on his theory of government.

For example, if candidate Rossi can publish a video ad in which it is implied that the ad's star witness is someone with inside knowledge of the state's foster care system then that individual needs to have her own credentials as a knowledgeable insider questioned and confirmed.

I will write more on that ad another time.

The truth is, Rossi is an outsider, far removed from the daily nuts and bolts of the state social services delivery system.

Governor Gregoire - as the one who presides -  possesses a clearer picture but is still echelons-removed from where the rubber hit's the road.  She can speak anecdotally but not with contemporary authority in the same context as one who is there every day all day.

I can and will.

When candidate Rossi offers a statistic and includes his one-dimensional interpretation of what that number really means, it can be quite probable that he truly doesn't know what he is talking about

or he is deliberately playing with facts in the same way a fast-talking preacher is able to prove anything with a Bible quote or two.

As someone inside the system, as a professional at what I do and as a civic-minded and civically active citizen, I want to challenge Dino Rossi's campaign asssertions.

Now as a state worker I am prohibited from speaking as if I were an official representative of DSHS, state government or any state officer.

But I am a citizen and voter who is a professional  employed by the Washington DSHS as a  TANF/WorkFirst case worker. I am  tasked with administering the family cash assistance program (TANF), state General Assistance (GA) and Medicaid programs in this end of Pacific County.

I am a tax-payer, property-owner and voting consumer in the state of Washington who is entitled to his opinion and has the right to express it.  

To me that means much more than just having a state job. It also means that as someone authorized to spend state funds, approve food benefits or open medical coverage, I do so with knowledge that I am s pending my own tax dollars.

I deal with individuals young and old and families who come to us needing cash help, food assistance and/or medical coverage. Often that coverage is needed out of desperation to help cope with illnesses or injuries for which the cost of treatment and medications does not fit in their budgets.

As a tax-payer and case worker, I then have a personal fiduciary interest in a wise and effective management of my little corner of the state budget.

And as a citizen who will vote, I want to discuss Dino Rossi's vow to be a governor of fiscal and political conservatism.

This week I watched that last debate in Spokane on channel 9.

The essence of Mr. Rossi's argument seems to be two propositions:

(1) Dino Rossi wrote budgets.

(2) There are people who like Dino Rossi as revealed to him when he holds Republican rallies around the state.

There was little beyond those two talking points to recommend Rossi as a governor with leadership traits.

Writing budgets is not a leadership trait.

Rather, writing budgets is a legislative tasking for those who desire that kind of responsibility and are chosen to do so based on political popularity within one's party.

Consequently, "reaching across the aisle" to write budgets is a given - since a budget has to be approved by the legislature and not a mere committee chair person.

I hope Mr. Rossi was not trying to say that he personally wrote budgets that were approved solely by him, then forced out of committee and into the legislature's main floor by sheer force of his indomitable will.

Is writing budgets a greater leadership virtue for a governor than managing budgets?

I guess Mr. Rossi wants us to believe so.

I disagree.

The greater role and where leadership matters with budgets is not what group of politicians write a budget. The greater role is taken by the leader authorized, tasked and trusted to spend taxpayer funds wisely and efficiently.

Leadership is how that budget is managed. This of course includes choices to spend or not-spend that will have unavoidable consequences.

Mr. Rossi has never sat in that chair and therefore has never been required to choose when conflicts within a budget of that magnitude and importance arise.  

Mrs. Gregoire has sat in that chair.

Mr. Rossi has not made the case that she has done poorly.

Part II tomorrow.

? one stink bomb after another,
Topic: Opinion

Opinion:

Garrison Keillor, Tampa Bay Times

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Americans' B.S. detectors off charts with Palin

We are a stalwart and stouthearted people, and never more so than in hard times.

People weep in the dark and arise in the morning and go to work. The waves crash on your nest egg and a chunk is swept away and you put your salami sandwich in the brown bag and get on the bus.

In Philly, a woman earns $10.30/hour to care for a man brought down by cystic fibrosis. She bathes and dresses him in the morning, brings him meals, puts him to bed at night. It's hard work lifting him and she has suffered a painful hernia that, because she can't afford health insurance, she can't get fixed, but she still goes to work because he'd be helpless without her.

There are a lot of people like her. I know because I'm related to some of them.

Low dishonesty and craven cynicism sometimes win the day but not inevitably. The attempt to link Barack Obama to an old radical in his neighborhood has desperation and deceit written all over it.

Meanwhile, stunning acts of heroism stand out, such as the fidelity of military lawyers assigned to defend detainees at Guantanamo Bay ¿ uniformed officers faithful to their lawyerly duty to offer a vigorous defense even though it means exposing the injustice of military justice that is rigged for conviction and the mendacity of a commander in chief who commits war crimes. If your law school is looking for a name for its new library, instead of selling the honor to a fat cat alumnus, you should consider the names of Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, Lt. Col. Mark Bridges, Col. Steven David, Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer, Lt. Cmdr. Philip Sundel and Maj. Michael Mori.

It was dishonest, cynical men who put forward a clueless young woman for national office, hoping to juice up the ticket, hoping she could skate through two months of chaperoned campaigning, but the truth emerges: The lady is talking freely about matters she has never thought about. The American people have an ear for B.S. They can tell when someone's mouth is moving and the clutch is not engaged.

When she said,

"One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day, American people, Joe Sixpack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars,"

people smelled gas.

Some Republicans adore her because they are pranksters at heart and love the consternation of grown-ups. The ne'er-do-well son of the old Republican family as president, the idea that you increase government revenue by cutting taxes, the idea that you cut social services and thereby drive the needy into the middle class, the idea that you overthrow a dictator with a show of force and achieve democracy at no cost to yourself

¿ one stink bomb after another,

and now Gov. Palin. She is a chatty sportscaster who lacks the guile to conceal her vacuity, and she was John McCain's first major decision as nominee. This troubles independent voters, and now she is a major drag on his candidacy.

She will get a nice book deal from Regnery and a new career making personal appearances for 40 grand a pop, and she'll become a trivia question,

"What politician claimed foreign policy expertise based on being able to see Russia from her house?"

And the rest of us will have to pull ourselves out of the swamp of Republican economics.

Your broker kept saying, "Stay with the portfolio, don't jump ship," and you felt a strong urge to dump the stocks and get into the money market where at least you're not going to lose your shirt, but you didn't do it and didn't do it, and now you're holding a big bag of brown bananas.

Me, too. But at least I know enough not to believe desperate people who are talking trash. Anybody who got whacked last week and still thinks McCain-Palin is going to lead us out of the swamp and not into a war with Iran is beyond persuasion in the English language. They'll need to lose their homes and be out on the street in a cold hard rain before they connect the dots.

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. Willapa Magazine  has no affiliation whatsoever
with the originator of this article.

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for
verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their
originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

Rossi does not appear to speak about health coverage from much personal expeirence
Now Playing: Dino doesn't do coverage
Topic: Opinion
from his own personal experience. What he says and the ways he says it suggests that he personally has never had to cope with the problem of affordable health care.

Moreover, he has the experience of a legislator but again his talk does not suggest any degree of empathy with the problems of health coverage.

As I work in the South Bend DSHS office and as my duties include health care eligibility for individuals and families, I'm certain that I'm not far behind your own knowledge regarding coverage problems at life's most basic and economic level.

... and that what Dino thinks he knows is merely at the political-theory and rhetorical level.

If you're not a class act, those with class will avoid you.
Now Playing: Roger Ebert on John McCain's lack of class
Topic: Opinion

Guess who's not coming to dinner 

BY ROGER EBERT /suntimes.com
September 28, 2008 


I do not like you, John McCain. My feeling has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with common courtesy. During the debate, you refused to look Barack Obama in the eye. Indeed, you refused to look at him at all. Even when the two of you shook hands at the start, you used your eyes only to locate his hand, and then gazed past him as you shook it.

Obama is my guy. If you are rude to him, you are rude to me.

 

If you came to dinner at my house and refused to look at or speak with one of my guests, that would be bad manners and I would be offended. Same thing if I went to your house.

 

During the debate, you were America's guest.

 

What was your problem? Do you hold this man in such contempt that you cannot bear to gaze upon him?

 

Will you not even speak to him directly? 

 

Do you think he doesn't have the right to be running for President? 

 

Were you angry because after you said you wouldn't attend the debate, he said a President should be able to concern himself with two things at the same time?

 

He was right. The proof is, you were there.

 

Were you angry with him because he called your bluff?

 

During the debate, Jim Lehrer repeatedly called upon both candidates to speak directly to each other. Obama looked at you. He addressed you as "John," which as a fellow senator is his privilege. His body language was open.

 

You stared straight ahead, or at Lehrer, or into space. Your jaw was clinched. You had a tight little smile, or a grimace, or a little shake of your head.

 

I had to do two things at once while watching the debate. I had to listen to what was being said. And I had to process your rigid and contemptuous behavior.

 

If you were at a wedding and the father of the groom refused to look at or speak to the bride, how would that make you feel? Especially if you were the father of the bride?

 

You made a TV commercial showing the moments Obama agreed with you. Everybody knows he did. Did his agreement show honesty, or weakness? 

 

It is significant that you said it proved he was not ready to lead. 

 

What is the better leadership quality:

(1) Willingness to listen to your opponent, and keep an open mind?

(2) Rigidly ignoring him?

 

Which of the two of you better demonstrated the bipartisan spirit you say you represent? Was there anything he said that you agreed with?

 

Could you have brought yourself to say so?

 

I'm not the only one who noticed your odd, hostile behavior. Just about everybody did. I'm sure many of your supporters must have sensed the tension.

 

Before the debate, pundits were wondering if you might explode in a display of your famous temper. I think we saw that happen, all right, but it was an implosion.

 

I have instructed my wife to exclude you from any future dinner parties.

 

 In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Willapa Magazine  has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article.

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links. 

 

"Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy."
Now Playing: Glen Greenwald via Common Dreams.org and Salon.com
Topic: Opinion

 

Published on Thursday, September 25, 2008 by Salon.com

Why Is a US Army Brigade Being Assigned to the 'Homeland'?

by Glenn Greenwald

Several bloggers today

have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announce

s that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:

They'll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to get it."

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," said Cloutier, describing the experience as "your worst muscle cramp ever -- times 10 throughout your whole body". . . .

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Timesarchives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."

Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant the President this radical new power.

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there arecredible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation-something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here.

As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States -- under the command of the President -- for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?

UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President's powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.

UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Willapa Magazine has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article.

"Off With His Head!" McCain is Wonderland's Queen of Hearts
Now Playing: Geroge Will opinion in the Washington Post
Topic: Opinion

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."

-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" 

 

This could not be a more apt description of Candidate McCain. 

And from Mr. Will, a conservative icon.

McCain Loses His Head

George Will

New York Times   09/23/08

[Excerpts] 

 

 Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

 

... It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

 

 

Palin situation glamorizes teen (unwed) pregnancy?
Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog.com
Topic: Opinion

Palin situation glamorizes teen (unwed) pregnancy? 

So says my daughter, who has a sixteen year old daughter she desires does not get pregnant at this tender age.  My daughter is military spouse -her husband is deployed now in Iraq in his second deployment. A deployment, btw, that Sarah Palin thinks emanates from God's plan.  Not so much what that plan is or even that God by her definitions is the same God of my son-in-law's or daughter's or her children's definitions.  But I digress.  

My daughter calls herself a proud democrat - but most of her military spouse women friends tend towards the authoritarian, follow orders republican bent.  Military itself, being authoritarian, follow orders, patriarchal culture, it follows there would be a more dominance towards the 'supposed' republican tenets.  

 

Oddly, though, my daughters friends have acknowledged they are weary of Bush Adminstration, disappointed with the Republicans in office and sick of the Iraq war (where their spouses have been deployed once, twice or more).  Despite what they have told her, my daughter finds it astounding that after the history of this last six years with Republican Administration failures, her military spouse friends have suddenly converged into joining into a 'lockstep' mentality in support of Palin simply because she is the republican VP pick.

 

In her discussions with her friends, she has said she really doesn't like how the republican handling of the unfolding Sarah Palin situation is seeming to 'glamorize' teen pregnancy.  I'd say that word fits even more so, in light of Palin's support of abstinence taught in schools in lieu of birth control; Palin position against abortion even in cases of rape and incest!  Incest for God's sake - how can anyone force a young woman to carry a child to term given the conditions of that kind of conception.  Hideously cruel!  Both pychologically and physiologically dangerous.  

 

In her acceptance speech, Sarah Palin made reference to Hillary Clinton's 18 million cracks in the ceiling - the inference being Sarah Palin could springboard off Hillary Clinton's imprint.  NOT!! They are entirely different kinds of women.  

 

In as much as population cultures have similarities, they still remain individually unique even among their own populations.  Women are not universal in their qualities any more than men are universal in their qualities.

 

Women may have a sisterhood, born of intuitive understanding of womanhood.  Women also are still working to overcome too many generations of oppression, molding their personalities to fit into a male-dominated patriarchal order.  There is still work to do for women in learning how to fully and successfully embrace our own sisterhood without those 'sisterhood' rivalries that often can erupt.

 

Sarah Palin may have desireable qualities that work for her in  a religious Evangelist culture (a patriarchally ordered culture) that brand her a woman  as defined by Evangelical definitions.  That does not imbue in her universal qualities acceptable to other women who are working hard not to follow a patriarchally ordered culture of women.  Women are still trying to find the female to male balance and tipping the scales backwards is not progress for women anywhere.

 

I love my daughter's choice of description choosing the word 'glamorizing' of teen pregnancy.  It is at this point known that Palin's daughter has an unwed teen pregnancy, not known if it is an unwanted teen pregnancy, but surely it points to why abstinence education only doesn't work any better or worse than birth control education.  Rather than glamorize the fact of Sarah Palin's teen daughter's pregnancy by downplaying all the realities that attach to the facts of teen pregnancies, perhaps a  more authentic discussion - debate about the realities of teen pregnancies, conception, and women's choice or lack thereof regarding pregnancy outcomes.

 

A woman is confined to limited choices once she is pregnant; aborting the pregnancy, keeping the pregnancy and delivering the child; keeping and raising the child herself or offering the child up to a family who can care for it.  No matter the decision, the child (whether embryo or infant) and mother will be directly impacted for the rest of their lives.  For that matter, so will the man who fathered the child.  

 

One could say the Sarah Palin situation opens a dialogue that is not unique to her family but one every family raising children, boys and girls, must face.  I agree with the 'hands off' Sarah's daughter, but that doesn't mean at all hands off the discussion.  It has been ongoing through all generations and continues to be an ongoing and necessary discussion.  

 

Thank you to Carla Axtman for her thoughts in her blog, and thank you to Arthur for opening the discussion at Washblog.    
 
On the Surge in Iraq "--we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point." - Barack Obama
by Lietta Ruger on Sat Sep 06, 2008 

The Most Significant Surge in America is Hope
Now Playing: Arthur
Topic: Opinion


This election is boiling down to the choice between the overdue taking of leadership by the dominant generations versus denial; the inability to recognize the oncoming headlong rejection of the old ways of doing business.

Hillary's fading candidacy reminds me of one of the last scenes from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in which Indy - hanging over a ledge above a chasm - finds himself barely inches from the Holy Grail.

Indy just can't quite grasp it.

Finally a voice of reason is heard from his father, played by Sean.

"Indiana .... let it go."

"But I just need to -"

"Let it go, Indiana."

In view of what has happened in an America suffering from the presidential incapacity - accurately described by Mr. Maher last Friday night - of America's first retarded president, it might have been better had we passed the baton back in 2000.

Speaking in fantasy, it also appears that had McCain somehow managed to avoid or overcome the total dishonesty of the Bush campaign and managed to wrest the nomination in 2000, what would the result have been?

Ignoring the reality that Gore actually won that race, we can conclude that Mccain's apparent conscious-less pandering in this campaign suggests how a McCain presidential campaign in 2000 would have required the same pandering to the only political coalition that made the 2000 election close.

McCain would have needed the same kind of sleazy help actually provided to Bush in the 2000 election.

This political sleaziness constitutes the "same old same old" that politicians of my generation have been enmeshed in for years. Only the most naive of my generation would insist that the government previously dominated by Democrats was entirely ethically clean and free from corruption at the highest levels.

Republicans?

Having achieved majority status in Congress and with a haste borne of poor assumptions, elected Republicans rushed to the pork troughs and the lobbyist all-you-can-take buffet.

They commenced their own version of "back-room deal making" with an abandon that reveals the immaturity of their civic perceptions.

They behaved like junior high students acting out their own limited perceptions of how the government of Democrats must have included widespread corruption, graft and opportunity. These apparently were perceived then as entitlements/spoils of Republican victories.

It also reveals the shallow understanding of the consequences of dishonest Rovian-style Limbaugh-publicized political discourse based on lies, distortions and hate.

The truth is that even in their most shameful moments of public stewardship, the Democratic Party - over all those pre-1990's years of majority status - suffered much fewer embarrassments of civic failure and criminal conduct than Republicans have managed to accomplish in their few years of recent Republican control.

These national Republicans were sustained and elected by their respective state party organizations, organizations trained, coached and controlled by national RNC schemers.

Many of the newly elected arrived in D.C. either riding the coattails of the Bush victory based on deception and dirty tricks, or heavily subsidized by the likes of Tom Delay-types (who then installed the lock-step device in their brains.)

That's the legacy of Republican experience.

It is this "same old same old" working environment from which and in which Hillary and McCain have their context.

This is the ultimate weakness of Hillary's tactic of trumpeting her experience. It is perhaps an unconscious admission on her part that business-as-usual is the only method of governing Hillary knows.

The same is true for McCain, but it involves a more gruesome and shameful truth with the Republican Party,

It's the Fear-Mongering, Stupid

McCain now has those discredited Republican minions and Bushco's economic management to thank for having to limit himself to a Johnny One-Note campaign.

His primary selling point seems to be that he used to be in the military, that he has a Patton-like understanding of what it means to be a commander-in-chief who presides over a nation of quivering cowards created by irresponsible and dishonest fear-mongering.

... that he used to be a prisoner of war and therefore has an ex-prisoner's perspective against torture. Most Americans understand that opposition to torture is an American Core Value. This ideal campaign tool has now been squandered by expediencies of McCain's candidacy.

Problem is McCain must appeal to the same "conservative" Republican constituencies who will have been very volatile, rigid and inconsistenlty unreliable supporters in the overall administration his presidency would entail beyond national security.

That of course would be business as usual.

McCain's "same old same old" is worse than Hillary's.

But Hillary has the 8-year reputation of an ex-president husband who seems to have squandered much of his own good will and popularity with his recent campaign behavior; who doesn't understand Obama's generation and doesn't know when to shut up.

She also - when her experience is hi-lighted - has an unsuccessful attempt to reform health care 16 years ago that collided headlong with lobbyist and Republican business-as-usual.

Including this experience, Hillary now proposes that she's learned how to fight dirty - but makes no mention of asking citizens to help her achieve her goals without having to fight dirty.

She does not seem to be interested in cleaning house, merely sweeping out what's under the rug to make room for more.

We boomers born in the late 40's and the 50's have had our chance with Clinton and most recently, Doofus, who is our most recent legacy. If so, that means we muffed it when we had the chance.

The generations to whom Obama appeals OWN the future; have a right to it. These are the generations who have gotten out TO vote, have gotten out THE vote and outnumber us older folks by tens of millions.

The foolish attempts by Hillary and McCain to cut Obama off at the knees by denigrating hope also diminish expectations.

They also expose the candidates, campaigns and party faithful who have lost a genuine hope themselves for the pillars of what really holds this country together.

It's what's wrong when McCain and Hillary - with apparent personal arrogance - ignore the need to talk about voters acting like citizens, who forget to mention how voters must take on-going action and personal responsibility.

You could make the case that failure to insist that post-election citizens take action causes experience-touting candidates to seem to mimic other failures: historical leaders around the globe who've pretended to be father, mother or parent of an entire nation.

... leaders who promised to protect citizens and fix everything needing fixing without citizen help. Few of them are remembered as benevolent successes and most presided over failure and disaster.

We know that these "when I'm President I will ..." promises are not intended to rule out or exclude citizen participation. However in talking in this manner, Hillary and McCain are failing to communicate any expectation or demand of civic responsibility from voters.

Business as usual means that most of the country is purposefully left out of the action - which is what the Republican Doofus adminstration of 2000-2008 has been all about.

Obama knows that. He is speaking to the generations that will call the shots.

America's core values are founded on hopes and expectations; attitudes that sustain or contrast actual reality. It's a reality that may reveal the yet-to-be-corrected or something-needs-to-be-done issues that constitute life in this country.

That's why they are "core" values.

It is hope, courage and willingness to tinker with problems. It's in the attempt to change coupled with the will to focus on equality and national security that might generate laudable civic successes.

The founding fathers were not primarily political veterans in their 50's and 60's who served based on experience and age. The wisdom of the Constitution did not come about because 100 folks my age put the distillation of their life's experience into the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

That some my age contributed is true. But that the majority were of my age group is not true. They were closer to the age of only one of the remaining leadership candidates.

But all of the founders, regardless of age, were significantly united in one of the most important attributes demanded of leaders ... courage.

We olders owe America's youngers a greater demonstration of patriotism and the taking of responsibility for our own governance beyond cowardly pretending that experience matters more than courage. We need to demonstrate a belief and will to look for change when change is necessary.

We must recognize that Hillary's inability to appeal to the majority generational activism of her own party cannot be explained away or ignored by an appeal to our fears of another "My Pet Goat president" if that moment tragically returns.

A real leader can rise without need of a resume and only a lack of courage and will runs and hides from that idea. (Or in the case of the election of 2000, when the stupid voted as a majority block, the exception proves the rule,)

We must recognize that McCain's inability to unite his party demonstrates a dangerous lack of leadership communication skills. If he has to put on his commander's cap in response to another 911 moment, he'll need guidance in how to communicate effectively. Or ... he'll have to rely purely on macho tough talk and we know where that last President to do that got us.

The greatest gift we can give our children and grand children is not our fear, not our timid caution in the face of all the "what might be's" offered up by aging politicians who need us to be fearful so they can get power.

The greatest gift we can and should pass on to the generations that already own and deserve to run the future is strongly epitomized by Mr. Murrow of my parents' generation.

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men."
That thinking is what makes a generation get remembered as the greatest generation.

Arthur Ruger
Publisher, Willapa Magazine

Must I stymie the flow of rational thought wenever I reach a point deemed unacceptable by the establishment?
Now Playing: David Cogswell on why write.
Topic: Opinion

David Cogsell publishes Headblast  and is a contributing editor to the Online Journal.

Here David offers his  opinion on conspiracy theories, Sartre and today's writing environment.

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Willapa Magazine has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article.

I was only a half-hearted party participant and knew I'd vote for whomever of the two gets the nomination.
Now Playing: Arthur's Opinion after going to the caucuses
Topic: Opinion

Today we drove to Naselle for the Democratic Caucus for our three Pacific County communities of Naselle, Nemah and Bay Center. I had been keeping quiet about the caucuses after Lietta indicated earlier in the week that she'd be interested in going.

I thought that I had better things to do with my time and as one who had unofficially renounced membership in the party, I didn't want to go.

But Lietta did and since the flyer said folks could come as observers I went with her.

When we signed in Lietta advised me that the mailer she received previously had indicated that I was still a registered Democrat. So I signed myself in. However, on the right hand side where it said to indicate my presidential preference coming in, I left it blank. I had yet to make up my mind.

Although impressed with Obama's success and the sense of enthusiasm and acceptance of his candidacy sweeping the country, I was leaning ever so slightly in the direction of Hillary.

Principally - as I've joked with friends - I've felt that we baby boomers can't leave George Bush as our legacy to our children. Surely we get one more chance. Hillary is one of us. She'd be a hell of a lot better than Bush.

Hillary is experienced more than ANY candidate still running or who has been running. A Hillary resume based on facts and documented experience indicates that there is no other candidate this time that is/was more qualified to function from Day One as president.

But the reason my leaning toward Hillary was slight has more to do with leadership and the ability to move people to action; to inspire and provoke civic participation.

I signed in as "uncommitted" but inwardly was leaning toward Hillary, believing fully that I would hear no new reason that would sway me toward Obama.

I also vowed to merely listen and refrain from speaking since I was only a half-hearted party participant and knew I would vote for whomever of the two gets the nomination.

Lietta was among the first three to speak. For someone who's never been there to a caucus and done that previously, that woman was not one who hesitates. After listening to an Obama supporter followed by someone who spoke like she might be the head of the local Clinton support organization, Lietta made up her mind, stood up and gave an updated version of the powerful and important points she's been making now at least five years. She's never altered her emphasis on the importance of supporting those who seem most willing and able to end the Iraq slaughter as soon as possible.

Back and forth the speakers stood and offered their alternating opinions.

The Clinton supporters' lead speaker by that time had made three curious statements that caught my attention:

(1) Earlier in her political life she was caught up in support of an idealistic candidate, Jimmy Carter, who let her down; who demonstrated a lack of ability to deal with the Washington cesspool. She said she'd never take idealism over experience again.

(2) She told a story about Bill Clinton the idealist - right after he was first elected in 1992 - being taken aside by Republican politicians and/or party hacks who flat out told him exactly all that he could and could not do.

(3) She declared that Hillary had been working on Health Care reform for years and that such reform was not attainable given the political/economic climate unless there was a president who could function as a scheming dealmaker rather than an idealist.

Idealism would leave millions of Americans uninsured.

Note: I would be curious to hear from other caucuses as to whether or not the Carter and Bill Clinton stories were heard there. Those stories were presented in such an odd context that I've been wondering if they were Clinton Campaign talking points given to supporters beforehand to be used in each caucus.

Somewhat irked by a sense that she might have been trotting out campaign-directed talking points while posing as a wise voice of experience with inside knowledge, I finally put in my two-bits.

When Hillary's supporter followed up her Carter and Bill Clinton stories with a whack at Obama for an unrealistic idealism that would fail at health care reform I had heard enough.

The Carter story doesn't fit because Carter in 1976 - minus the excessive wealth - looked more like Romney than Obama. He emphasize his borne-again religious outsider shtick and brought a high amount of political naivete with him into the White House.

Which is precisely what a President Romney would have done.

To shallowly compare Carter and his 1976 ambush of the electoral system of that time to Obama in 2008 with his senatorial experience, his lengthy on-his-feet-in-the-street success and experience (not to mention having to deal with a more openly vicious and intense experience in campaign attack politics than Carter faced) is not a legitimate comparison.

As for in-power Republicans telling new President Bill Clinton how the cow ate the cabbage, neither is that a legitimate point for supporting Hillary over Obama.

The simple truth about that circumstance is this:

McCain is on the Right, has built an albatross out of his Bush/War support and advocacy that will hang around his neck and be totally visible and publicized to the same electorate that overwhelmingly repudiated Bush and his war in 2006.

Obama represents that same repudiation. Hillary does not.

Obama is much more likely to be elected in a landslide with long coattails.

Hillary - by virtue not only of her dubious war wisdom, but also her stubborn refusal to acknowledge error when she voted for the war authorization as well as her self-proclaimed 35-year linkage to knowing the Good-Old-Boy ways of doing business - is less likely to win by a landslide.

Her coattail dragging more Democrats into current Republican-held seats in Congress is less likely because like it or not, she does not represent change in the same context as Obama. She more likely will represent only a change of drivers on the Good-Old-Boy Bus.

Of the two, Hillary would more likely be subject to Republican muzzling than a victorious Obama.

The Bill Clinton story is only true because of the number of Republicans in Congress at that time and how empowered they were.

As for talking point #3,

I work in a Welfare office. Very few vocations in this state present such a broad picture of how many Washington residents actually are under-insured or have no medical insurance at all. Statistics and political talking points aren't what walk into my office literally begging for some kind of welfare medical coverage to allow them entry into medical treatment for something tearing them apart.

Health Care Reform, as was brought up by several Democrats at the caucus today, is a legislative event, not a presidential decree.

Whatever Hillary could do as the elected president, Obama could likewise accomplish; perhaps more easily since his coattails would sweep more Dems into office.

Also, since it is a legislative event, what evidence is there that Hillary has a better handle than Obama on medical coverage for the poor in this country?

She and Bill had 8 years to try to get something done and did not. In addition, when a Republican congress passed welfare reform with a stylistic tone and manner that vilified the poor and needy in this country, Bill and Hillary did not have megaphone voices supporting what Republicans were preparing to take away from the poor.

Hillary also has not demonstrated much ardor in enthusiastic vocal outrage over the Bush budget cuts for the past seven years so why would we think she has a greater wisdom about health care for the poor than does Obama?

Finally, I see that Hillary (whom I will vote for if she's nominated) was endorsed by the two most prominent Washington Democrats who have disappointed and failed to impress me over the past five years, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.

Obama was endorsed by Christine Gregoire who has demonstrated that she's a more aggressive and activist governor than was Gary Locke;

who has demonstrated that she's a doer more than a talker who has in her own elected venue has not made hesitation a standard procedure.

While in terms of opposing the lawless corporate American imperialism and slaughter in Iraq, Cantwell and Murray both offered me nothing more than excuses and alibis as to why they could not challenge Bush Republicans to a fight.

Obama doesn't have to defend that kind of weakness and timidity.

I agree with Gregoire.  

One more thing. Among those Democrats the gullible, believe-any-talking point Democrats weren't visible in large numbers. If in fact the Clinton supporters were using talking points, those who rebutted those points were using their own personal scripts. They were thinking on their feet and originating their own thoughts, benefiting and encouraging all of us.

Our little caucus went for Obama.

Naselle will send 4 Obama delegates to the County Convention and 2 Clinton delegates.

Bay Center will send 2 Obama delegates (Lietta is one of them) and 1 Clinton delegate.

Well, that's my story.

I stood up mad, spoke up

... and sat down an Obama supporter.

"death watch" on the many banks which are currently drowning in their own red ink.
Now Playing: Mike Whitney at Information Clearing House
Topic: Opinion

By Mike Whitney
"I just saw a picture Bernanke stripped to the waist in the boiler-room shoveling greenbacks into the furnace." Rob Dawg, Calculated Risk blog-site

On January 14, 2008 the FDIC web site began posting the rules for reimbursing depositors in the event of a bank failure. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is required to "determine the total insured amount for each depositor....as of the day of the failure" and return their money as quickly as possible. The agency is "modernizing its current business processes and procedures for determining deposit insurance coverage in the event of a failure of one of the largest insured depository institutions." (http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2008/fil08002.html#body)

The implication is clear, the FDIC has begun the "death watch" on the many banks which are currently drowning in their own red ink. The problem for the FDIC is that it has never supervised a bank failure which exceeded 175,000 accounts. So the impending financial tsunami is likely to be a crash-course in crisis management. Today some of the larger banks have more than 50 million depositors, which will make the FDIC's job nearly impossible.

Good luck.

It's worth noting that, due to a rule change by Congress in 1991, the FDIC is now required to use "the least costly transaction when dealing with a troubled bank. The FDIC won't reimburse uninsured depositors if it means increasing the loss to the deposit insurance fund....As a result, uninsured depositors are protected only if a bank acquiring the failed bank will pay more for all of the deposits than it would for insured deposits only." (MarketWatch)

Great. That's reassuring. And there's more, too. FDIC Chairman Shiela Bair warned that "as of Sept. 30, there were 65 institutions with assets of $18.5 billion on its list of "problem" institutions;" although she wouldn't give names.

So, what does it all mean?

It means there's going to be an unprecedented wave of bank closures in the US and that people who want to hold on to their life savings are going have to be extra vigilant as the situation continues to deteriorate. And it is deteriorating very quickly.

Right now, many of the country's largest investment banks are holding $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities and other structured investments that are steadily depreciating in value. As these assets wear-away the banks' capital, the likelihood of default becomes greater. This week, Fitch Ratings announced that it will (probably) cut ratings on the 5 main bond insurers (Ambac, MBIA, FGIC, CIFG,SCA) "regardless of their capital levels". This seemingly innocuous statement has roiled markets and put Wall Street in a panic. If the bond insurers lose their AAA rating (on an estimated $2.4 trillion of bonds) then the banks could lose another $70 billion in downgraded assets. That would increase their losses from the credit crunch--which began in August 2007---to $200 billion with no end in sight. It would also impair their ability to issue loans to even credit worthy customers which will further dampen growth in the larger economy. Structured investments have been the banks' "cash cow" for nearly a decade, but, suddenly, the trend has shifted into reverse. Revenue streams have dried up and capital is being destroyed at an accelerating pace. The $2 trillion market for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) is virtually frozen leaving horrendous debts that will have to be written-down leaving the banks' either deeply scarred or insolvent. It's a mess.

There were some interesting developments in a case involving Merrill Lynch last week which sheds a bit of light on the true "market value" of these complex debt-pools called CDOs. The Massachusetts Secretary of State has charged Merrill with "fraud and misrepresentation" for selling them a CDO that was "highly risky and esoteric" and "unsuitable for the City of Springfield." (Most cities are required by law to only purchase Triple A rated bonds) The city of Springfield bought the CDO less than a year ago for $13.9 million. It is presently valued at $1.2 million---MORE THAN A 90% LOSS IN LESS THAN A YEAR.

Merrill has quietly settled out of court for the full amount and seems genuinely confused by the Massachusetts Secretary of State's apparent anger. A Merrill spokesman said blandly, "We are puzzled by this suit. We have been cooperating with the Secretary of State Galvin's office throughout this inquiry."

Is it really that hard to understand why people don't like getting ripped of?

This anecdote shows that these exotic mortgage-backed securities are real stinkers. They're worthless. The market for structured debt-instruments has evaporated overnight leaving a massive hole in the banks' balance sheets. The likely outcome will be a rash of defaults followed by greater consolidation of the major players. (re: banking monopolies) The Fed's multi-billion bailout plan; the "Temporary Auction Facility" (TAF) is a quick-fix, but not a permanent solution. The real problem is insolvency, not liquidity.

The smaller banks are dire straights, too. They're bogged down with commercial and residential loans that are defaulting faster than any time since the Great Depression. The Comptroller of the Currency,John Dugan--who is presently investigating commercial real estate loans---discovered that commercial banks "wrote off $524 million in construction and development loans in the third quarter of 2007, almost nine times the amount of 2006". The commercial real estate market is following residential real estate off a cliff and will undoubtedly be the next shoe to drop.

Dugan found out that, "More than 60% of Florida banks have commercial real estate loans worth more than 300% of their capital, a level that automatically attracts more attention from examiners." (Wall Street Journal) He said that his office was prepared to intervene if banks with large real estate exposure maintained unreasonably low reserves for bad loans. Dugan is forecasting a steep "increase in bank failures."

According to Reuters: "Dozens of U.S. banks will fail in the next two years as losses from soured loans mount and regulators crack down on lenders that take too much risk, especially in real estate and construction," predicts Gerard Cassidy, RBC Capital Markets analyst. Apart from the growing losses in commercial and residential real estate, the banks are carrying over $150 billion of "unsyndidated" debt connected to leveraged buyout deals (LBOs) which are presently stuck in the mud. Like CDOs, there's no market for these sketchy transactions which require billions in cheap, easily available credit. They've just become another anvil dragging the banks under.

On January 31, Bloomberg News reported: "Losses from securities linked to subprime mortgages may exceed $265 billion as regional U.S. banks, credit unions and overseas financial institutions write down the value of their holdings." Standard and Poor's added that "it may cut or reduce ratings of $534 billion of subprime-mortgage securities and CDOs as default rates rise." Another blow to the banks withering balance sheets. Is it any wonder why the "new loans" spigot has been turned off?

Surprisingly, there's an even bigger threat to the financial system than these staggering losses at the banks. A default by one of the big bond insurers could trigger a meltdown in the credit-default swaps market, which could lead to the implosion of trillions of dollars in derivatives bets. The inability of the under-capitalized monolines (bond insurers) to "make good" on their coverage is likely to set the first domino in motion by increasing the number of downgrades on bond issues and intensifying the credit-paralysis which already is spreading throughout the system.

MSN Money's financial analyst Jim Jubak summed it up like this:

"Actually, I'm worried not so much about the junk-bond market itself as the huge market for a derivative called a credit-default swap, or CDS, built on top of that junk-bond market. Credit-default swaps are a kind of insurance against default, arranged between two parties. One party, the seller, agrees to pay the face value of the policy in case of a default by a specific company. The buyer pays a premium, a fee, to the seller for that protection.

This has grown to be a huge market: The total value of all CDS contracts is something like $450 trillion..... Some studies have put the real credit risk at just 6% of the total, or about $27 trillion. That puts the CDS market at somewhere between two and six times the size of the U.S. economy.

All it will take in the CDS market is enough buyers and sellers deciding they can't rely on this insurance anymore for junk-bond prices to tumble and for companies to find it very expensive or impossible to raise money in this market." (Jim Jubak's Journal; "The Next Banking Crisis is on the Way", MSN Money)

Jubak really nails it here. In fact, this is what Wall Street is really worried about. $450 trillion in cyber-credit has been created through various off balance sheets operations which neither the Fed nor any other regulatory body can control. No one even knows how these abstruse, credit-inventions will perform in a falling market. But, so far, it doesn't look good.

The enormity of the derivatives market ($450 trillion) is the direct result of Greenspan's easy-credit monetary policies as well as the reconfiguring of the markets according to the "structured finance" model. The new model allows banks to run off-balance sheets operations that, in effect, create money out of thin air. Similarly, "synthetic" securitization, in the form of credit default swaps (CDS) has turned out to be another scam to avoid maintaining sufficient capital to cover a sudden rash of defaults. The bottom line is that the banks and non-bank institutions wanted to maximize their profits by keeping all their capital in play rather than maintaining the reserves they'd need in the event of a market downturn.

In a deregulated market, the Federal Reserve cannot control the creation of credit by non-bank institutions. As the massive derivatives bubble unwinds, it is likely to have real and disastrous effects on the underlying-productive economy. That's why Jubak and many other market analysts are so concerned. The persistent rise in home foreclosures, means that the derivatives which were levered on the original assets (sometimes exceeding 25-times their value) will vanish down a black hole. As trillions of dollars in virtual-capital are extinguished by a click of the mouse; the prospects of a downward deflationary spiral become more likely.

As economist Nouriel Roubini said:

"One has to realize that there is now a rising probability of a 'catastrophic' financial and economic outcome, i.e. a vicious circle where a deep recession makes the financial losses more severe and where, in turn, large and growing financial losses and a financial meltdown make the recession even more severe. That is why the Fed has thrown caution to the wind and taken a very aggressive approach to risk management." (Nouriel Roubini EconoMonitor)

"In the fourth quarter of 2007, new foreclosures averaged 2,939 a day, double the pace of a year earlier." (RealtyTrac Inc.) The banks are presently cutting back on home equity loans which provided an additional $600 billion to homeowners last year for personal consumption. Bush's $150 billion "stimulus package" will barely cover a quarter of the amount that is lost. As consumer spending slows and the banks become more constrained in their lending; businesses will face overproduction problems and will have to limit their expansion and lay off workers. This is the downside of "low interest" bubble-making; a painful descent into deflation.

Capital is now being destroyed at a faster pace than it is being created. That's why the Fed is looking for solutions beyond mere rate cuts. Bernanke wants direct government action that will provide immediate stimulus. But that takes political consensus and there's still debate about the gravity of the upcoming recession. The pace of the economic contraction is breathtaking. This week's release of the Institute for Supply Management's Non-Manufacturing Index (ISM) was a shocker. It showed steep declines in all areas of the nation's service sector---including banks, travel companies, contractors, retail stores etc-The Business Activity Index, the New Orders Index, the Employment Index, and the Supplier Delivery Index have all contracted at a "historic" pace. Everyone took a hit.

"The numbers are so terrible, it's beyond belief," said Scott Anderson, senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co.

The $2 trillion that has been wiped out from falling home prices, the slowdown in lending activity at the banks, the loss $600 billion in home equity loans, and the faltering stock market have all contributed to a noticeable change in the public's attitudes towards spending. Traffic to the shopping malls has slowed to a crawl. Retail shops had their worst January on record. Homeowners are hoarding their earnings to cover basic expenses and to make up for their lack of personal savings. The spending-spigot has been turned off. America's consumer culture is in full-retreat. The slowdown is here. It is now. We are likely to see the sharpest decline in consumer spending in US history. Bush's $150 billion will be too little too late.

America's place in the world has been guaranteed not by what it produces but by what it consumes. The American consumer has been the locomotive that drives the global economy. Now that engine has been derailed by the reckless monetary policies of the Fed and by shortsighted financial innovation. When equity bubbles collapse; everybody pays. Demand for goods and services diminishes, unemployment soars, banks fold, and the economy stalls. That's when governments have to step in and provide programs and resources that keep people working and sustain business activity. Otherwise there will be anarchy. Middle class people are ill-suited for life under a freeway overpass. They need a helping hand from government. Big government. Good-bye, Reagan. Hello, F.D.R.

The Bush stimulus plan is a drop in the bucket. It'll take much, much more. And, we're not holding our breath for a New Deal from George Walker Bush.

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

 

 In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Willapa Magazine  has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article.

more SOTU from the Junior High Locker Room
Now Playing: Arthur's Opinion
Topic: Opinion

I tuned this SOTU in because I thought I might find some amount of amusement in the speech coupled with my own sense of gloating relief that he won't be doing it any more.

Amusement but not comic relief as there was nothing funny about anything he said nor his cutesy manner and winks. That smug smile repeatedly justified the smirking chimp moniker I could never understand when I first found that site 5-6 years ago.

So again I'm burned with bitterness and frustration with an hour's worth of worn-out talking points, piinting and gesturing and trying to sustain soberness.

The locker room fart-joke president came through loud and clear. 

In my aged state, knowing that my generation will probably not get another chance to get an American Presidency done right, I just want George to just shut up.

He has nothing more to contribute nor would I dignify or qualify his talking points since they are nothing new and represent no kind of progress.

Attempting to justify a surge by imputing justification for the liar's project that constituted the invasion and occupation of Iraq was an insult to our intelligence.

He's pretending that the ultimate failure of a military-only solution has been avoided;

... that our sons and daughters will not have died in vain.

Did you notice that in all his rhetoric about Iraqis and other Middle Easterners somehow coming out triumphant did not acknowledge the price America paid for that in American blood

... or the more terrible price of something approaching a million Iraqis?

George's surge was intended to buy the Iraqi government time to organize and stabilize themselves - even just a little bit?

What about it Little George? You've scheduled an event for an entire country, used the surge to decorate the surroundings ... and then didn't show up yourself.

You're not there are you George? 

The current president is either abjectly stupid and incompetent or a totally cynical liar.

... no ... all of the above.

My generation should have done better than that. 

Olbermann described the SOTU as sounding like a frat boy bragging about the 9 classes he'd already flunked and had no intention or ability to make good.

No new talkin points ... another pundit observed ... "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

Yeah, well George you certainly need to stick something ...  

Investing ever-greater power in Washington, D.C. is a stupid and self-destructive act of negligence.
Now Playing: Matt Winters - Editor of The Chinnok Observer
Topic: Opinion

 

Baird's Pottery Barn cliche is now a fragile premise
Now Playing: Publisher's Editorial
Topic: Opinion

Brian Baird, (D) Washington has not denied that his recent visit to Iraq was a controlled dog-&- pony show. Other representatives also recently returned and openly complained about manipulated infomercials passing as the facts on the ground. So too a few courageous troops. (Google Alex Horton,  Army of Dude)

U.S.  Rep Ellen Tauscher (D) California, also been to Iraq more times (4) than Baird.   This time upon her return Tauscher declared,

The bigger point is that any process in Iraq is not merely American "Custers" chasing "insurgent"  Sioux around and around. Maj. Gen. Batiste (Google Batiste) says that the process includes a  4-legged stool of diplomacy, political reconciliation, economic recovery, and the military.

Baird's version of the pottery-barn theory doesn't seem to understand that the military leg has been way overdone. 

We broke it. We fix it - all 4 legs. We stop hitting Iraq and breaking things with our military hammer. We've over-used the hammer.

A few wise politicians know this.  They're not the ones currently talking like Brian Baird.

Do you feel a draft coming?
Now Playing: Americablog.com Guest Blogger: John Bruhns. an Iraq war vet,
Topic: Opinion

NOTE FROM JOHN [John Arivosis- Americablog.com]:

I am proud to welcome our newest guest blogger for August, John Bruhns. John is an Iraq war vet, and will be writing about the war for the next month. The Hill did a big story about John a few weeks ago. More about John:

John Bruhns joined the Reserves while earning his BA at DeSales University. After graduating from college and as his time in the reserves was coming to an end, 9/11 occurred and he reenlisted in the Army for active duty as an Infantryman. He invaded Iraq on day one the invasion and served there for one year. He was stationed in West Baghdad with the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division. John Bruhns was awarded the combat infantry badge and was honorably discharged in 2005.

Here is John's first post:

---

The news reported that more American soldiers were killed in Iraq. It has now gotten to the point where it sounds so simplistic. As if it is expected or natural. I wonder if most Americans are aware of just how tragic this whole mess really is - I doubt it. My guess is that if they were they would be out in the masses in solidarity to protest this travesty that was forced upon us by the Bush Administration.

This is just wishful thinking - for now.

As I look out the front window of my home I count the number of miniature American flags posted in the front lawns on my street. It is almost as if my neighbors are engaged in a contest to see who is more patriotic or more American. Images such as these bring me to the realization of the disconnect between the American people and the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Our troops are exhausted, our military has long been past the breaking point, daily life in Iraq is just plain bloody, the Iraqi government lacks the ability to unify, and this list goes on and on.

Sooner or later something will have to give. And it will be a sobering wake up call for Americans who have been complacent for so long. How naive it is to think that we can carry on the war in Iraq eternally without it effecting us directly.

Do you feel a draft coming? I'm not sure - but a draft will surely get the attention of the American people. Especially those who share the mentality of "I support President Bush and the war on terror - as long as it isn't my kids going to Baghdad."

Should that tragic day come, when we return to a military draft, Americans who sat back and did nothing to stop this war will only have themselves to blame.

It's not too late. Take A Stand.

John Bruhns
Iraq war veteran

---

about as effectual in the face of tyranny as meditating on Goldilocks and the three bears.
Now Playing: Carolyn Baker: " ... preaching to the choir? There is no choir."
Topic: Opinion

carolynbaker.net 

 

WHEN COLLAPSE IS NO LONGER SCIENCE FICTION:

CHOOSING HOSPICE WORK INSTEAD OF HOPE ,

By Carolyn Baker

Monday, 06 August 2007

By owning the truth and all of its distressing emotions, we empower ourselves beyond our wildest dreams.

Within the past month, America has witnessed two dramatic events which have illumined the devastating demise of its infrastructure - the New York City steam explosion in mid-July and the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, on August 1. 

And in the same span of one month, a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court "collapses" with a seizure.

Now, in neon lights, we have the word "collapse" writ large across empire even as the overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to face the collapse of every institution in the nation: the economy, healthcare, education, religion, transportation, energy, political systems, and so much more. In fact, the word "collapse" is now being used in American journalism with increasing frequency to describe the ubiquitous crumbling of nearly all facets of our society.

Yet as most progressives with the exception of Oprah, along with middle America, avoid talking about the ghastly plot of the recent novel "The Road" or steer clear of discussing information such as that contained in the documentary "What A Way To Go: Life At The End Of Empire", they have only to turn on CNN and see that collapse is no longer something imagined by Stephen King or wild-eyed, doom-and-gloom "conspiracy theorists".

Collapse is here, it's now, and it's going to exacerbate, and Minneapolis is a metaphor as well as another gruesome literal example of civilization's grotesque self-annihilation.

One of my favorite characters in ancient history is Socrates, the Greek philosopher whom that society could not tolerate and who courageously drank the poisonous hemlock rather than compromise his convictions. Socrates drove his countrymen to distraction with questions-in fact he rarely provided answers and instead engaged listeners in inveterate interrogation. 

It was through those questions, he insisted, that people actually learn-that their eyes open and light breaks into sealed and darkened places.  Although he was popular for a time, Socrates never sought to create a mass movement. He appeared on the scene at a pivotal time in Greek history but had no illusions about inciting mass consciousness.

If his listeners heeded his message, he was content; if they didn't, he was also content. He almost never offered "solutions" but perpetually needled his listeners with provocative questions. In other words, he refused to tell people how to help themselves but rather challenged them to go within themselves and critically think about how the solutions lay within each individual.

Not surprisingly, many individuals who label themselves progressive and read my website and books tell me that I should be doing more to spread the word and inspire mass consciousness. I'm not unlike some of my colleagues who also receive the same lament:

"You should find ways to spread your message far and wide. If you don't, you're just preaching to the choir."

When I respond that I don't give a rat's ass about mass consciousness, these folks are aghast, shake their heads, and comfort themselves by reading Michael Moore's website.

Now there's someone who's inciting mass consciousness!

Or is he?

The big question is: Where does so-called mass consciousness go-if anywhere? Has anything in the past seven years in America significantly changed because of "mass consciousness"?

What could be a better example of this fallacy than public opinion about the Iraq War? The reality is that the ruling elite have become even more intransigent in spite of mass opposition to the war and have cunningly and very successfully shredded the Constitution and our civil liberties in order to render any meaningful protest virtually impossible. In a fascist empire-and yes Virginia, we are living in one-mass consciousness is about as effectual in the face of tyranny as meditating on Goldilocks and the three bears.

I repeat: I'm not worried about preaching to the choir because there is no choir.

Furthermore, individuals are either awake, in a process of awakening, or comatose and unwilling to wake up. My work is directed toward the first two groups.

Therefore, in sympathy with Socrates, my role as I see it, is to ask the right questions-evoke discomfort among the comfortable, announce the elephant in the room to everyone's embarrassment including mine, and connect the dots to see what shapes appear.

My audience is not the neocons but people who call themselves progressive and libertarian. So why can't I just tell them what they want to hear and make them happy?

Well, because I care little about mass movements and mass consciousness which are manifestations of the capitalist, consumeristic paradigm of narcissistic privilege and entitlement. It is a theme touted by people who are still running around manically and frantically driven by the soporific of hope and who are sometimes frequent fliers to conferences on energy conservation, technofixes and global warming in search of solutions that will require no changes whatsoever in their lifestyles.

Just get your new idea into mass media-get Susan Sarandon or Leonardo DiCaprio to endorse your gig, and everything will change-except the nuts and bolts of the paradigm that created Western civilization.

A plethora of ideas abound about where civilization is headed and how we arrived at where we are. My ideas are generally rejected as "conspiratorial", "angry", and "depressing" by the so-called "choir" that people assume agrees with me.

Yet I empathize with those individuals and their perceptions of me. Who would prefer embracing the notion that the world as we have known it is ending and that humans are likely to annihilate every life form on earth within the course of the twenty-first century and perhaps within the next decade or two?

As a corporately-owned presidential candidate whose message is "The Audacity Of Hope" dazzles the progressive community with possibilities that do not exist, why would anyone choose to go down the opposite road into the despair of a very dark and daunting future?

Why would anyone want to turn over rocks, dive deeper into the sea of incontrovertible evidence of humanity's and the planet's demise, and risk being sucked under by the appalling vacuousness of all "solutions" thus far proposed? It's enough to send one screaming into the night-unless one has totally rejected the dominant paradigm.

And then there are those like Thomas Homer-Dixon in The Upside Of Down who insist that:

"The good news -- and there is some -- is that the collapse doesn't need to be total and catastrophic. We needn't follow Rome into the dustbin. Rather, once the crisis is recognized, a new cycle can begin, if we're willing to go back to the drawing board. The Fire of 1906 led to a better, more resilient banking system in the U.S. -- not to mention better fire protection in San Francisco! -- and the Great Depression led to a more resilient economy in the U.S. The problems of the 21st century can be faced in one of two ways: we can keep trying to add complexity until the world is one giant, possibly horribly Orwellian, system of command and control (and still too brittle to cope with the problems of the 22nd century!), or we can recognize the crisis for what it is and start from scratch."

What planet is Homer-Dixon living on?

Certainly not this one. When more than 90% of Americans are clueless about collapse even in the face of global warming, a plummeting Dow, their own catastrophic financial plight, and the gargantuan loss of their civil liberties-when the majority of passengers on the Titanic have no idea that it's sinking, how can any rational human being expect that they will "recognize the crisis for what it is and start from scratch"?

So now we enter new territory because the moment I demand confronting one's hopelessness, I am also inviting us into deeper layers of the psyche which is the Greek word for soul. At that point we are under the radar of theories, facts, and even paradigms. We are brushing against our deepest terror, our most excruciating grief, and our billowing, frothing, fulminating rage.

Suddenly, we are confronting our human limits, and in fact, our very own death. Yet until we can affirm that the planet is in a death struggle both literally and metaphorically, and until we can adopt the attitude that we are doing nothing less than inhabiting our days and hours in a funeral procession, we will kick and scream for hopeful solutions.

But the question remains, why would anyone choose to do this?

Certainly not because they want to but only because it is the truest truth and because by owning the truth and all of its agonizing emotions, we empower ourselves beyond our wildest dreams. All of the energy required for our denial, positive thinking, making nice, appearing rational and therefore behaving like good little Stepford Citizens of empire, is now freed up to, as Andre Gide said, "let go of the shore" and swim into new waters of falling in love with the earth all over again-or perhaps for the first time, preparing ourselves for collapse, and doing so with the community and support of other earthlings who have let go of the shore and are swimming or sailing in lifeboats with us.

Suddenly, options appear that could not have otherwise penetrated our addiction to optimism. Every moment, every plant, tree, animal, bite of food, drink of clean water-every star-filled night, every soaking rain, every sunset becomes precious because we have it now, and someday we won't.

This is conscious preparation for death, and I and all those who are willing to embrace the reality of collapse are hospice workers for ourselves and the world. There isn't much time left, and every moment is a gift to be savored, smelled, tasted, touched, and caressed.

Why then would I worry about preaching to the choir? There is no choir-- only those who are passionately committed to truth-telling and those who aren't.

Someone has said that death is a place in the middle between birth and rebirth.

In terms of literal death in this lifetime, we only experience it once, and whether it is our own death or the death of planet earth, it is as sacred as the moment of our birth.

It is everyone's right and privilege to defend against death and in so doing, opt for disempowerment. But I choose to continue savoring the empowerment that I have personally experienced in opening to utter hopelessness, and I'd like it very much if you would join me.

Together we can let go of the shore and discover our deepest layers of humanity in life or in death.

 

---

CAROLYN BAKER, Ph.D.,

 

is a professor of history and author of her latest book, Coming Out From Christian Fundamentalism: Affirming Sensuality, Social Justice, and The Sacred. This book and her previous two books, U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You and The Journey of Forgiveness, may be purchased at this site. she is available for speaking engagements and author events and can be contacted at carolyn (a) carolyn baker.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .

 

 

 

 

---

Freedom does not rely on wars being fought on foreign soil so we don't have to face our enemies at home.
Now Playing: "In Freedom's Name" - Monica Benderman Editorial
Topic: Opinion

In Freedom's Name

By Monica Benderman via Information Clearing House

08/02/07 "ICH" --- - Reyam is fourteen years old. Her name means "white gazelles". She's a beautiful girl who loves to draw and chat with her friends. She's bright, and works hard on her lessons. It's three in the morning in Georgia, and the computer monitor and two candles cast the only light in the room as Reyam and I chat on the internet. She hopes she does well on her test in school. She would love to have a puppy, and her instant message icon changes weekly to fit the current teenage trends.

The miracle of technology, Reyam is teaching me Arabic using microphones, instant messages and something I'm still getting used to called an IMvironment. Reyam is in Baghdad. She "buzzes" my computer and I hear her talking - she is gentle, intelligent and caring, her parents should be proud. She tells me she hears bombings and it makes her scared. She tells me she sometimes wants to hide under her bed and she thinks she might cry. She tells me she tries so hard not to cry. She doesn't want to cry, "I am an Iraqi, and I must be brave."

Her generator loses power and our connection is ended for the night.

Freedom?

It's five in the morning. In a parking lot opposite an abandoned Winn-Dixie store sits an old red pick-up with more rust than paint and a rope holding the hood down. The driver's door is open and sticking out are a pair of slippered feet. The man they belong to is trying to sleep. Everything he owns is piled into the bed of the truck.

He once called himself ‘Honest Abe', and is the spitting image of our sixteenth president. For years he traveled to schools around the country sharing his love for history in a one-act play he had written, dressed in the black hat and tails of his namesake. Now accused of stealing money from the people he worked for over the past five years, he has been arrested and released. He had worked for room and board and for reasons known to him, his social security was meager. He cared more about teaching children our country's history than saving money for his retirement. His hands and feet are blistered with open wounds; a skin disease no one seems able to diagnose. Not wanting the burden of having to care for him, the city has decided to let him live in the parking lot until his court date. A police officer has said that it would be best if the man simply died.

Freedom?

In Iraq, the United States military is "surging" to strengthen the security of a country whose borders had once been secure, now decimated from an invasion by the United States military. Some people in the United States actually still believe our soldiers are over there fighting for our freedom. Thousands of Iraqis become refugees from their homeland every day. Thousands more have died in the four years this fiasco has continued on. This is for freedom?

I sit and think about my friends in Iraq, the Iraqi people we talk with, the soldiers who tell us what they face and how they believe; and I take a look around this United States, my home.

Freedom.

Let me tell you something about freedom.

Freedom does not rely on history. Freedom does not rely on endless lectures on where our culture has been and where it is going.

Freedom does not rely on young men and women signing their lives away for an enlistment bonus serving as nothing more than a glittery facade to keep innocents from knowing they're about to become slaves.

Freedom does not rely on wars being fought on foreign soil so we don't have to face our enemies at home.

Freedom does not rely on the work of past generations, so that this generation can remain idle in their responsibility, consumed by achieving the pretense of success.

Freedom does not rely on others fighting our battles while we profess moral support for their actions from living rooms and computer monitors where our words are posted using pseudonyms so our government cannot track our actions.

Freedom.

It is August. At the end of the month the final brigades designated as part of the "surge" for security in Iraq are scheduled to deploy from Fort Stewart. Soldiers don't hide their feelings much any more. In grocery stores, gas stations and local businesses, more and more soldiers are willing to express their displeasure at the continued deployments with no definitive end. Some soldiers are returning for their fourth deployment in four years.

Freedom.

I will hear from those who tell me soldiers volunteered to serve, they get what they deserve. Others will tell me soldiers can stop fighting at any time. Still more will write and remind me that our soldiers are fighting for our freedom, and we should honor them by supporting them and allowing them to continue their work.

In Georgia this weekend, residents are gearing up for "tax free shopping." Parking lots of shopping malls will be full of vehicles bearing faded out ribbons with barely legible words. "I Support the Troops."

Freedom.

Two years ago tonight I received a phone call at three in the morning. It was my husband calling from the County Jail. He was being taken in the night to an airport in nearby Savannah to fly three thousand miles away to serve the sentence imposed by a military judge who oversaw the kangaroo court-martial his commanders fabricated and manipulated. No one in the command bothered to tell me what they had up their sleeve, but the past two years were a sentence from hell, as much for waiting for the promises of "support" to materialize from those who claimed to have the best interests of soldiers in mind as for the reasons he was put in prison to begin with.

Freedom.

A ten year veteran who served a combat tour in Iraq, Kevin had seen the reality of what he had been asked to do, and took action to stand against it. Kevin was proud to serve, he was proud of what he gave this country. He trusted people when they said they would stand with him as he fought against actions that violated his commitment to serve with honor. He believes in the Constitution and his oath to defend its laws, enough that he refused to give in to the threats and intimidation of his command even if it were to avoid spending time in prison for his beliefs.

It was midnight last night as I witnessed a scene played out repeatedly at our house in the year since he was released from prison; anger and frustration from facing the reality that the country he believed in and gave so much to really does not care, regardless of what a soldier fights for.

Freedom.

We learn more daily about the depth of the surveillance program that threatens the freedoms of people in the United States. The Patriot Act becomes more invasive with every renewal. People complain about their liberties being taken away as they continue to laud the efforts of our soldiers in Iraq keeping us free.

Freedom is earned. Freedom is fought for, not with guns, but by standing strong for the values and principles which define the laws of our Constitution. Freedom takes work. Freedom takes commitment. Freedom means taking a realistic look at ourselves, our goals and our actions; knowing we are living our truth, but not at the expense of another's freedom.

Freedom requires courage and diligence.

Freedom requires action from all, not just a few.

We have freely allowed the homeland of millions of innocent Iraqis to be destroyed. We have freely allowed a war to continue for over four years, creating a spending deficit which will take generations to overcome, putting lives in turmoil, and dividing our nation. We are freely allowing our freedoms to be taken away.

It is midnight in Georgia. In the distance is the sound of artillery rounds pounding from the training grounds of Fort Stewart. We hear them nightly now as the final brigades of the latest surge make final preparations to deploy. "I am an American, I must be brave," though what I see from my country is enough to make a person cry.

---

 

Monica is the wife of Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a ten-year Army veteran who served a combat tour in Iraq and a year in prison for his public protest of war and the destruction it causes to civilians and to American military personnel. Please visit their website, www.BendermanDefense.org to learn more.

Monica and Kevin may be reached at mdawnb@coastalnow.net

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Willapa Magazine has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Willapa Magazine endorsed or sponsored by the originator.