These Debates Are Debatible

For many years the national debates were run by the League of Women voters. Then, they were run in an impartial manner for the good of the American people. Twenty years ago, our two major political parties: Republicans and Democrats set up a Debate Commission run by two men Frank Fahrenkopf, head of the Republican Party; and Paul Kirk, of the Democratic Party. The funding came from corporate sponsors. Anheuser Busch has spent the most money, and is one reason why the debates frequently are held in St. Louis. Today, the same two guys are in charge --- only now Mr. Fahrenkopf is the nation's leading gambling lobbyist, and Mr. Kirk, an important lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.

George Farah is the executive director and founder of Open Debates, and the author of a book on our national debate setup. He answers the rather obvious question: Why do these two political parties want to be in charge of the national debates through the Debate Commission that they control:

",,,you're not going to see any third party voices in tonight's debate. The Republican, Democratic parties, who exert near absolute control over these public forums, have determined and made sure that no third party voices are ever seen on the debate stage and can challenge their dominance of our political system."

In 1980, former Republican Congressman John Anderson ran as an independent for U.S. President. He had a reasonably large following and I was one. Jimmy Carter refused to appear on the stage if Anderson was there. The League of Women Voters said -- Ok. You don't have to be on the stage. The debate which would have been three-way -- became one between Reagan and Anderson! Wonderful!! I am a strong believer that our national rules should do everything to encourage the growth of third parties because in a democracy, citizens should have a chance to vote for representatives closer to their own views and values. Can you Ralph Nader as the third person on the presidential debate stage? His responses often would put to shame both Obama and McCain. He would show the American public what pablum and, even, empty cotton candy we are being fed by our two Parents: Papa Republican and Mama Democrat.

This was not the only time the League refused to bend to the Two Parties's wishes, and so through influence, power and money we have debates controlled by those debating!

And their control through the private corporation The Debate Commission gives the Donkeys and the Elephants the ability to tinker with the rules for each debate.

George Farah again commenting yesterday, the day of the Biden-Palin Debate:

"With respect to the new rules that we do know about, because the campaigns are terrified that both Biden and Paliin will make a major gaffe during tonight's performance, they have serverely restricted the response times, so each candidate only has ninety seconds to respond to a particular question, and then, only two minutes afterwards to have some sort of discussion."

Once more --- another example of how our democracy which may or may not be the most democratic in the world --- certainly is far from perfect. It's skewed at its very base.

First Presidential Debate:Finance & Foreign Affairs

I watched the entire debate last night, but purposely did not watch the pundit's comments afterward. Nor, have I heard any commentary on the debate before writing this blog.

I am not primarily interested in who won the debate --
whatever that means. Of course, there are lists of debating points one can use, but the reason for these debates is to see the candidates responding to questions about important national and international issues with which they will have to deal once one of them wins.

Which candidate appears to be the President we need for the next four years? That's the answer we are looking for, and the debates are only one means of helping us make this tremendous decision.

In the back of my mind, I was tuning into items like these:

• The quality of the solutions offered to each problem presented: how perceptive, how detailed, how "nuanced"
• The ability to express the ideas presented in a way that shows intelligence, coherence, and clarity
• The skill and adeptness when required to rebut the objections or criticism given by the other candidate
• The presence of mind and temperament each person showed
• The directness and focus of each response versus a sense of the candidate wandering around, avoiding the issue, or finding some way to respond without doing so effectively and to the point
• Any personal qualities displayed during the debate which seemed to the viewer what the nation needs now

My general personal appraisal is that Barack Obama's ideas were more specific, delivered more clearly, and in detail -- showed more thought and knowledge, and, in general were more of what our nation needs at present.

McCain seemed to offer in his answers much less in the way of solid specifics expressed with clarity. He referred to himself two or three times as a "maverick". We all have heard that McCain has received this label at times. However, is it justified, and is it significant? To go against the crowd, one's peers, etc. may be very praiseworthy, may be. Several times Senator McCain said that he was never known as Mr. Congeniality. And many times --- he claimed to be a spending cutter: earmarks, pork, government waste. However, I can recall very few specifics given. Now, all the behavior mentioned in this paragraph I felt was a type of camouflage -- hiding his inability to clearly and in detail to give thoughtful reponses. They were wheel spinning. Caught for lack of words (or ideas), but trying to salvage the day.

Although, and to his credit, McCain did not pull out the "war hero" card because whether he was or wasn't or how much of one he was or wasn't -- has little if any affect on my vote for him as our national leader.

Another behavior of McCain that bothered me -- which I also felt was a way to avoid honestly, accurately, and effectively answering questions about foreign policy was his frequent reference to such things as --- his knowing Dr. Kissinger for 30+ years -- yes, and we're good friends. General Petraeus is a superb general and we know each other well. Why did not Obama go to Iraq and see the situation on the ground as he had? (And I might add make a number of spoken mistakes about Iran and the Shia - Sunni situation as McCain. In fact, on one occasion, Joe Lieberman after McCain's repeated misstatements had to whisper the correct version in his ear.)In addition, McCain pointed out to the audience that the young president of Georgia is a good friend of his. McCain talked about his visit to Georgia -- and how he had walked around and sized things up.
(Yet, when Obama went on an international tour not too long ago, and drew hundreds of thousands of young Germans to his speech in Berlin -- McCain made light of it as inappropriate and meaningless.)

Now, if you think of all of the above --- what does it add up to? Do you feel that Senator McCain in his Senate career (1987 til now) has demonstrated foreign policy acumen by being friends with this person or that person, or having visited here and there. I wanted to see his foreign policy sharpness in the debate. He said in the debate that he could judge people in person and when he looked in Putin's eyes -- he could see KBG written written there. Really!

McCain's solution to the financial crisis. The three main factors causing this financial mess are these (IMO): the Iraq War -- eventually its total cost will be three trillion dollars; the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans who didn't need them, and don't deserve them; and to the attitude, primarily of the GOP during the past eight years (although Clinton and Reagan played their part) of giving our revered financial institutions great freedom to do what they wanted and how they wanted with little or no oversight and regulation, with lack of transparency -- in the hope that the wealth generated by these free and loose gamblers would be beneficial to the common good of the Republic. Totally and foreseeably an unbelievable error in judgment, but true.

When Obama was asked about this crisis, he expressed the need for much greater oversight, scrutiny, regulations from the federal government of Wall Street. He also said that the Iraq War and its hemmoraghing of taxpayers' funds must end as quickly as possible. That the wealthiest Americans -- those with incomes overe $250,000 a year must have a tax hike. That the $700 billion dollar first aid kit for Wall Street's richest and finest -- must have strings attached -- including the prohibition of excessive executive salaries and the fabled golden parachutes.

McCain seemed to me to wander around the bailout and the financial crisis. At one point he seeme stuck like a needle on a 78 rpm vinyl planner --- claiming that he was reknown for being a budget cutter. Everyone knows this about him. He is famous for this. There is some truth in this but the reality is not quite up to the rhetoric. He said that he would go through every department of government and reduce their expenditures or, and if appropriate eliminate the division. Well, this sort of talk we routinely hear from politicians, perhaps more frequently from Republicans, who despite the talk and image building have inflated government and the deficit during the terms of office of Reagan and the two Bushes -- far more than the "spendthrift" Democrats.

Around this point in the debate, Obama spoke in response. He said that there were certain departments of government that actually needed greater funding: education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Now, this was a high point of the debate to see one candidate speak the truth -- when it could be easily misused or misstated by his opponents. This shows wisdom, courage, and honesty. BTW -- what does American need right now more than anything: Wisdom, Courage and Honesty.

I disagreed with both candidates about their apparent misreadings of Russia. They felt there was a resurgent, aggressive, imperial Russia on the rise. They pointed to Georgia and Russia's intervention in South Ossetia. This is terrible misunderstanding of Russia's actions, the provocations that led to it and our part in the whole thing. We don't need another "bete noire" internationally. I plan a blog on this subject, so I will let it go there.

Obama, I believe, was absolutely correct in saying as he did several times that we should have finished our military activities in Afghanistan where the Taliban and al Qaeda were present --- before taking our "eye off the ball" and invading Iraq. And, in fact Iraq was a terrible decision leading to loss of life on both sides, the increase of terrorist activities throughout the world, the movement of some al Qaeda factions into Iraq, the fueling of Sunni/Shia strife, the tarnishing of our international image. Yet McCain still thinks Iraq was and is a good idea. And his fixation that whenever the U.S.A. enters (or creates) a military conflict --- the only acceptable outcome is victory. There is already an attempt to frame "victory" in such a way that when we finally leave Iraq (if we ever do) --- we can massage our national "ego" and say: "We are still # One.We are Top Dog. We are Winners!"

Epilogue: IMHO -- the debate clearly showed that Obama may make the kind of President that we have needed for many years. He showed in this debate calmness, sharp and deep knowledge of the situations raised -- honesty, courage, and humanity. McCain, IMHO, seemed confused at times, wandering. avoiding the issue with asides and anecdotes, offering little of significance in dealing effectively with our actual problems. He kept his cool. I will give him that, but little else.
The abilities McCain does have, IMO, have been negatively affected by age.

P.S. While in the blogosphere yesterday, I came across this comment by some blogger. I copied it and now I paste it in here. (This comment is in reference to an interview recently of Obama by the Press.)

- Complete, coherent sentences.
- A logical sequence of ideas, developed in a series of statements.
- A clear, concise explanation of complex issues.

I realize that now-a-days we consider it a good day when our dear President gets through a sentence (of sorts) without three major grammatical errors, but Obama's interview shows us that it could actually be different. We could have a leader who is capable of constructing a sentence in the English language. In fact, I have a dream that one day - one day in January, to be precise - we will.

What Is a Republican ?

Has the meaning of the word "Republican" changed? I think so. Because the GOP has changed.
Eisenhower was a Republican. I voted for him twice. When I compare the GOP of Eisenhower, or Eisenhower himself -- to George W. Bush and the GOP of today --- they hardly seem related to each other. The two GOP's are GOP -- in name only.

It is not unusual for me to hear, "I'm a Republican. Always have been and always will be." I scratch my head. Hmm. "Sir, at 65 years of age, I understand what you are saying. You have not changed in your voting habits, but your party has disappeared and been taken over by an entirely different group of characters with different philosophies and ethics."

I have heard Republicans say things like this:

I am a Republican because the GOP stands for the freedom of the individual.

Today? Surely, you jest. Surveillance of Americans. Checking on the books we read. Using 9/11 to create a giant spy network operating in the U.S. on Americans. Hiding the scientific discoveries about climate change made by government scientists from the American people.
Conducting government in secrecy -- behind closed doors -- not because the terrorists may find out what is going on in the White House -- but because our citizens may learn how their interests are being ignored.

I am a Republican because the GOP avoids foreign entanglements as the founding fathers advised.

No, this doesn't apply to the ones in office. The neo conservatives describe in their Project for a New American Century --- a vision of extending American military and economic dominance over all the world -- beginning with the Middle East. Interference with and operating within other nations in their bread and butter.

I am a Republican because the GOP is the political party of fiscal responsibility.

Sorry, but wrong again. Beginning with Reagan -- the last three Republican Presidents have expanded the size of the federal government and "created" the largest deficits in recent times. Clinton, a Democrat ("big spender") eliminated the GOP deficits of the his GOP predecessors and left office with ---- a surplus.

I am a Republican because the GOP stands for civic virtue, morality in government, honesty and straightforwardness.

Sorry again --- the Reagan administration had more of its public "servants" indicted or forced out of office through corruption and malfeasance in office that any previous administration. However, although the figures aren't in, the past eight years very likely will top Reagan's eight.
Democrats seem to have a taste for sexual dalliances --- the Republicans a real hearty lust for money, influence and power.

I am a Republican because the GOP stand for the family and family values.

That's the mask they adopt when turning to certain possible voters. Take a look at the record.
Republicans seemed constitutionally opposed to help the American families survive and have some security. (Well, those families making under $150,000 year.) The are opposed to real universal health care on a single payer basis. Inability to pay their for their health needs is the number one factor in bankruptcies of ordinary American. They do not like to extend unemployment insurance when times are bad. They are opposed to programs that aid the poor and working poor --- like food stamps and access to legal aid. I could keep going for another paragraph --- but you get the picture.

The GOP likes to praise the American family, but they don't like to help it survive.

I am a Republican because the GOP stand up for the church.

I am not sure what "church" you have in mind, but some churches might feel like excommunicating the GOP. If you mean that the GOP uses support for Evangelical Christian fundamentalists including many who are "dominionists". (Dominionism is a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States of America, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.) (from the Wikipedia)

Most Americans do not believe the Founding Fathers (mostly Deists) were interested in establishing a state religion. In fact, that was the last thing they wanted to do --- because they saw the misery, servitude and public disorder caused by state religions in Europe.

I am a Repubican because the GOP is really the party of Patriotic Americans.

Well, that's a mouthful. Recently, I read that David Frum, former speech writer for President Bush, is worried about the diminishing life span of the GOP. As the top 10% -20% become richer and richer -- and the middle class slips into the lower middle class, and the lower middle class slips in to poverty, and the poor -- well, I don't know where they will go.

Well, you see the problem: Republicans will have all the money, but there won't be enough GOP voters to keep the Grand Old Party winning the races.

And, the rest of us will "soak the rich" by increasing their taxes.


Sad.

My Decision for November 2nd

Although I think the Democratic Party is a partially owned subsidiary of corporate America (the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary), the terrible condition our country is in -- one of the worst in its history -- does not allow me to vote my preference: Green or Democratic Socialist. We are only given two choices in this "free" country --- whoever the two parties present to us. I had planned on voting for a third party. We must start doing this to force a choice, but the GOP has practically ruined the nation in the last eight years. I am not going to go into particulars: it would take two or three blogs at least. And, if you think I off-base on this view ----stop reading this blog. It will make no sense to you!

I prefer Obama over McCain mainly because I admire and respect Obama more as a PERSON than I do McCain. Obama is more intelligent, wiser, more open, more compassionate --- just a better person for the job. He is willing to embrace some degree of change. And change there MUST be. Obama thinks. Obama can appreciate nuance. Obama is not a military man. I prefer a civilian to be the Commander-in-Chief. Obama may not have as much experience as some other candidates that were originally in the running. However, it is not how many years you have been a politician, but the quality of the years you did spend.

The USA after eight years of the kind of person and President we had in Bush---deserves someone who is QUALITY.

As for Joe Biden -- I've always like him. There is something down to earth, ordinary, and value centered about him. He is smart. And no one in the Senate has his grasp of foreign policy. And, he can be tough. He will make a good Vice President.

As for John McCain, I do not feel that I can trust his judgment. His career is spotted by ethical lapses, lobbyists and the revolving door, and despite his somewhat questionable reputation of a maverick -- he has been and still is a right wing conservative. I do not think his image as a war hero should have ANY bearing on my vote. Many members of our armed forces were war heroes. McCain showed up for one-third of his votes last year and voted for Bush's policies 95% of the time. Is this a maverick?

McCain is too old; he looks it and he acts it. I detect a lack of sharpness in his speeches. Repartee, Yes.
One-liners, Yes. However, not much depth or insight. I think he is shallow. His hot headeness is legendary. We do NOT need this. Once he said that he felt his tendency to anger was a good quality. Not for one with the red telephone. I simply don't see John McCain as Presidential material.

As for Sarah Palin. I do not align myself with her values. She has a tiny amount of experience and what we see when we examine it --- is not pretty. She likes to fire those who disagree or oppose her. She seems to lack judgment, good sense. I could go on, but her choice was a silly one. In fact, her choice, in itself, I would think, would cause anyone considering McCain--to take another look at the Obama-Biden ticket.

In Obama/Biden we have two admirable persons who will do a much better job at putting the American people first. We have to have leaders who will lead for the American people -- and not ask the Multi National Corporations what should be done at secret meetings within the White House.

Pakistan and our Misguided Foreign Policy

We have mismanged our foreign policy with Pakistan This is largely because we see other countries in the light of "how can they be of use to us". Frankly, we are not very concenred about their needs or, even the effects of our interactions with them --- unless the results hurt us.

General Pervez Musharraf led a coup e'tat in 1999 and named himself President in 2001. He was a military strongman. The USA has a liking for military strongmen especially in areas where, the people left to their own accords, might not be agreeable to our uses for their country.

During his tenure in office Pakistan has floundered, made little. if any. progress in its economy; the democratic system has eroded; the people's interests largely ignored; corruption has flourished; domination by the military elite strengthened; relations with India unresolved.

Musharraf was a man we thought we could count on in keeping his country aligned with us.
We do not mind a strongman who neglects democracy for his people -- if he keeps his country in our pocket.

Mussharaf was not very successful in fulfilling our needs. Muslim Pakistan has atomic weapons as does their perpetual rival Hindu India. If we should be worried about atomic weapon technology getting in the hands of the wrong people --- we should have worries about Pakistan.
A number of years ago, we discovered that their chief atomic scientist was distributing atomic weapon technological information overseas to those he favored. The Pakistan government, once they discovered this, said that they were unaware of the matter.(?) However, despite our insistence to punish the professor -- he remains free -- of course, watched more closely.

Then there is the eleven billion dollars that we have given Pakistan to use in fighting the Taliban, al-Queda and other troublemakers in the tribal regions that lie along the western border of Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan. 90% of this money was not spent for this purpose. This has been testified by the most reliable sources. Instead Pakistan used our taxpayers' money to strengthen militarily their border with India -- their rival and perpetual enemy. Aircraft, missiles, heavy equipment were bought for this purpose. Now, and this is the most amazing part. Our government knew about this mismangement of our money, but apparently was unable to do anything about it. Pakistan was just too important. We could not anger Musharaff.

Now, the irony of this is that we consider India also our ally, but are knowlingly allowing our funds to help Pakistan either defend itself against India or attack her. In addition, President Bush is pushing for increasing our supply of nuclear materials and expertise to India!
Are we concerned about helping to start a nuclear war? We certainly are supplying the "kindling" to both of the opposite sides. Or we are taking two powder kegs, enlarging their explosive force, and all but suppliing the wicks and matches.

How can our government be SO stupid! Our foreign policy, in general, throughout the world is flawed. It's sick at its very center. We need a fresh approach; that's takes into consideration all the factors-- not just our shortsighted goals for our imagined immediate needs.

Just a few weeks ago, new elections were permited, and a new President was elected, the husband of the murdered Bennazir Bhutto, who was a popular favorite and former Prime Minister.

If our electorate chooses an Obama administration, we may have a chance to construct a sensible, workable, feasible and fair foreign policy that we can be proud of and does the world -- and ourselves more good than harm.

Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism

On Friday, September 15th, I watched Bill Moyer's Journal. It consisted of an hour interview with Andrew Bacevich. You've had the experience, I'm sure, of watching a program like this --- and instead of making yourself do it because you know it's good for you --- you find yourself so absorbed that almost nothing could break your undivided attention. Bill Moyer's weekly Journal on PBS is always worthwhile: you find out what the MSM (Main Stream Media) doesn't have time, or lacks the guts to bring to the public.

This particular program I wish could have been watched by every adult American. It might help this nation wake up!

When I discovered that Bacevich considers himself a conservative, graduated from West Point and left the service as a colonel --- I wondered how much time I would give him. What could he say?
How many military officers have illuminating comments on the nation in general?

Here is his background as stated in the program: After 23 years in the Army, the West Point graduate retired as a colonel and has been teaching international relations and history at Boston University. Bacevich has published several acclaimed books, including this one, THE NEW AMERICAN MILITARISM. His latest, published this week, is THE LIMITS OF POWER: THE END OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.

After the program, I realized that I had been privileged to listen to a true patriot, a brilliant public thinker, a man with some of the answers to -- and explanations of the concern and worry felt by perceptive, patriotic Americans.

(In what follows -- everything in italics are Bacevich's.)

When it comes to foreign policy, most Americans think this nation's problem are "out there" -- when in reality, Bacevich says: Our major problems are at home.

Our foreign policy, according to Bacevich, reflects what our D.C. politicians think we want -- and what will get them re-elected if they supply it. Bacevich says that what we seem to want: ...by and large is ...a continuing flow of very cheap consumer goods. For example, we want "affordable" gas for whatever car(s) we own.

These wants we demand to be satisfied lead the country into greater and greater debt and the nation ends up living on an increasing long line of credit --- much of it to foreign powers, e.g. China.

Bacevich: What will not go away, is a yawning disparity between what Americans expect, and what they're willing or able to pay.

Instead of balancing our national books and living within our means as most prudent familites do --- we project American military power throughout the world securing the materials to maintain this dysfunctional system.

This country has become an empire, our army -- a professional army, an imperial army -- doing the same thing the British did in their past securing spots to supply the mother country.

Bacevich contrasts WW II -- an essential war -- a war in which all Americans pitched in, made sacrifices, endured hard times --- to our present voluntary army which has become, in a sense, a mercenary army which we pay to ensure we don't have to live within legitimate and realistic limits.

Bacevich puts our predicament this way: The pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit.

Bacevich believes that neither of the two Presidential candidates will have the nerve or ability to tell Americans do what they need to do to end this decline: Look at themselves in a mirror to find out what the source of the nation's plight is. This would require a type of "fireside chat" in which the President tries to illustrate the source of our basic problems and convince us to accept the necessary alternation in life style and perception of our "needs".

President Carter tried to do this towards the end of his time in the White House, but that courageous speech was a major factor in his being defeated by Ronald Reagan - who often said that it is always "morning" in America.

Bacevich believes that had the nation heeded the advice of Carter, faced up to reality --- we would not be in such a serious situation as we are today.

After WW II through the Eisenhower Years and into Kennedy's term of office --- we were an empire of production. We manufactured goods for all the world. Now, we are an empire of consumption --- living on a national line of credit that will eventually undo us.

Andrew Bacevich: When President Johnson became President, our trade balance was in the black. By the time we get to the Nixon era, it's in the red. And it stays in the red down to the present. Matter of fact, the trade imbalance becomes essentially larger year by year. So, I think that it is the '60s, generally, the Vietnam period, slightly more specifically, was the moment when we began to lose control of our economic fate. And most disturbingly, we're still really in denial. We still haven't recognized that.

Reagan encouraged Americans to think the good times would last forever. There were no sacrifices necessary Everything was going well. All we need to do is to shrink the size of government and manage the debt. He came in and he said we need to reduce the level of federal spending. He didn't reduce it, it went through the roof, and the budget deficits for his time were the greatest they had been since World War Two.

Bacevich believes Americans must decide what is most important, what is at the center of what we value. Some values are community, freedom, harmony, opportunity.

Bacevich: We are squandering our wealth. In many respects, to the extent that we persist in our imperial delusions, we're also going to squander our freedom because imperial policies, which end up enhancing the authority of the imperial president, also end up providing imperial presidents with an opportunity to compromise freedom even here at home. And we've seen that since 9/11.

Bacevich points out that not just the present President, but Clinton, Bush's father, and Reagan all have seen military power as our strong suit. They all have worked under the assumption that through the projection of power, or the threat to employ power, that we can fix the world. Fix the world in order to sustain this dysfunctional way of life that we have back here.

As the United States has become an imperial power with its leaders believing in full spectrum dominance over the world through military superiority --- Congress has shrunk and turned over more and more leadership and power to the Imperial President. The National Security State is another natural result of these actions, attitudes and thinking. Dissent at home is frowned upon and, eventually, not tolerated.

Bacevich believes that those in recent times running for President --- want to be Imperial Presidents. And, he includes both running for President this year.

Bacevich: We look to the President, to the next President. You know, we know that the current President's a failure and a disappointment - we look to the next President to fix things. And, of course, as long as we have this expectation that the next President is going to fix things then, of course, that lifts all responsibility from me to fix things.

One of the real problems with the imperial presidency, I think, is that it has hollowed out our politics. And, in many respects, has made our democracy a false one. We're going through the motions of a democratic political system. But the fabric of democracy, I think, really has worn very thin.

Bacevich considers himself a conservative, which means for him: to avoid foreign entanglements, to have no larger a government than we need, to keep our national budget balanced, and to believe in and practice civic virtue as a people and, especially among our leaders.

He must be rather discouraged, I would think because one would think Republicans would be conservatives. Maybe somewhere in our past history they were, but beginning with Reagan, Bush Senior and Bush Junior --- they have enlarged government and driven us into enormous debt. And, again starting with Reagan, although Democrats are no angels (especially in personal sexual morality) -- the Republican administrations have far excelled in political and financial corruption. In other words: they get an "F" for Civic Virtue. When it comes to foreign entanglements we can start with the Vietnam War. Was it not wasteful and, if you face up to it, not necessary? The "domino theory" is now seen to be just plain silly. The last edition of Bush has given us the longest, wasteful-unnecssary war in our history. And they were about to start one with Iran.

Bacevich:

How did we come to be a nation in which we really thought that we could transform the greater Middle East with our army?

What have been the costs that have been imposed on this country? Hundreds of billions of dollars. Some projections, two to three trillion dollars. Where is that money coming from? How else could it have been spent? For what? Who bears the burden?

Who died? Who suffered loss? Who's in hospitals? Who's suffering from PTSD? And was it worth it? Now, there will be plenty of people who are going to say, "Absolutely, it was worth it. We overthrew this dictator." But I hope and pray that there will be many others who will make the argument that it wasn't worth it.

It was a fundamental mistake. It never should have been undertaking. And we're never going to do this kind of thing again. And that might be the moment when we look ourselves in the mirror. And we see what we have become. And perhaps undertake an effort to make those changes in the American way of life that will enable us to preserve for future generations that which we value most about the American way of life.

What Use Are Elections?

I bought a copy of The U.S. Constitution recently. I am sure I have never read it all the way through.

I have heard from, I think, a fairly credible source that the right to vote is NOT in the Constitution.
Interesting. I'll try to find out how we came to have it and where it came from. Not, though, for this blog.

For the purpose of this blog --- we do vote and we think it is an integral part of our democracy. In some ways the key component because without the vote we don't elect our representatives who go to Washington, our state capitals, etc. to work for our common good.

What Use Are Elections?:

Not much if you are serious about real outcomes. Here's why>>>

1. During the last four presidential elections only 54% of eligible votes cast ballots. Is this good? Doesn't look like a nation that has much faith in the vote. Let's look at other nations during this time span: Italy: 90%; Germany 80%; France and Canada 76%; Britain 75%.
Are we lazy? Too harassed and busy? Too skeptical of the system? Too spoiled? If 51% of the 54% vote for Presidential Candidate McDouggle is this a consensus? a mandate?definitive moment?

One reason why more people vote in some other countries is an old favorite of mine: they have more than two absolutely dominant parties: GOP (right wing) and Democrats (center-right). I know how I feel much of the time--why don't I have some party I can really feel good about? And, don't buy into the slogan: It's the candidate -- not the party. If anything, it's the other way around. Or, more exactly it's the whole enchilada --- the "system".

2. Do we have freedom of the vote -- if we don't have good choices? What if both candidates for governor are miserable? Where's our right to at least partially determine our destinies in this case? Our choices for the candidates are the end result of the two party's processing system. The outcome -- the sausage -- may not be attractive, especially if we take a look at how it was produced. (Many Republicans may feel this way since their Convention.)

3. What about how our vote for our limited and mediocre candidates --- does it count? Was our vote recorded and counted properly? Josef Stalin: "The people who cast their votes don't decide an election -- the people who count the votes do." For many Americans and increasingly so -- the "people" who count their votes are digital touchscreen computers --- whose software is a patented secret of the big companies like Diebold. What's happening when we push the button? We don't know. Neither does our government know. It's a private proprietary secret of the outfit making much money --- perhaps, at our expense. Diebold, no doubt, because of massive bad publicity has changed its name! New Name: Premier Election Systems. I would prefer if that had allowed my elected officials to have access to their software codes. Testimony has been heard from experts that these machines can be hacked; they do go haywire, etc. The private corporations do not owe their allegiance to the American people, but to their shareholders and their profits. If election counting companies don't want Americans to know how their machines work -- it's simple. Ask our government to produce a system that does work and can be certified using some of our numerous academic brains -- especially those with no ties to either party.

4. One more factor that taints seriously our elections: The vast majority of American voters are not well informed about the candidates, their platform, their viability, their past history. Why? First, the MSM (Main Stream Media) is a medicore source of information. They are more into infotainment. When they do provide necessary information to the voters it is marred by not showing the complete picture, by the constraints upon their news department place on them by their corporate owners, and by the need to compress -- mindful always of the need to maximize profits. They are usually center to right wing. It is a fable that NBC, ABC and CBS are Liberal. What about CNN? I'm liberal and I am not impressed by CNN.

Rushing from job to job, trying to find time and still allow themselves the opportunity for fun and recreation -- most Americans spend little time being informed about foreign affairs, American politics, big issues in the nation, the environment -- and when they do--they turn to sources that are not up to doing the job.

I rest my case.

Show Time at the RNC

What a sham!! McCain cancels the first day of the RNC, goes to Waterville, OH, packs food for the homeless to be Gustav victims. Then today, the new first day of the RNC the party of the privileged, the party and the administration that ignored Katrina for three days, put an inept person by the nickname "Brownie" in charge of FEMA. Finally, finally, when some money and aid starting going down the pipeline -- most of it went to rebuild fancy casinos along the Gulf Coast, repair the parts of New Orleans that business needed to attract tourists, tear down wrecked homes of the poor so that the wealthy could build more "productive" real estate on them !

The faithful GOPhers putting on large screens the telephone numbers and urls where those attending could show their compassion for the others. A cell phone number for instant contributions. This makes me sick. This is the party that has widened the huge gap between the haves and the have-nots with tax cuts for the wealthy, cut backs in health and welfare for the poor. Such hypocrisy. I know Republican fundamentalists claim to love and believe in Jesus.
There's something in the gospels about putting on airs and acting rather than doing the hard work and reaching out to your fellow less fortunate human beings.

On the otherhand, I feel sorry for these people: It must have been very embarrassing for them to have had the misfortune, to be so unlucky -- to have Gustav appear on the scene at the start of their celebration. Many Americans thought of how this party ready to party had let down the earlier Katrina victims. No wonder the GOPhers had to wring their hands and squeeze their eyes to wring out a few tears of contrived compassion.

Chris Hayes from The Nation:
If (McCain) cared about New Orleans and the Gulf Coast he could have done something these past three years. He could have made Gulf Reconstruction his issue, he could have excoriated his party for pushing federal dollars into the hands of cronies, for providing inadequate resources, for allowing the further destruction of the wetlands that serve as the only natural barrier to storm surges. He could have taken on the insurance companies that have been serially screwing the residents of the gulf. But he was too busy pushing for more troops, and more war and running for president.

Mother Jones Magazine:
Though McCain issued a statement the next week (after Katrina) calling on Congress to make sacrifices in order to fund recovery efforts, he was quoted in The New Leader on September 1 [2005] cautioning against over-spending in support of Katrina's victims. "We also have to be concerned about future generations of Americans," he said. "We're going to end up with the highest deficit, probably, in the history of this country."
That attitude was borne out in McCain's actions and votes. Forty Senators and 100 members of Congress visited New Orleans before he did; he finally got there in March 2006. He voted against establishing a Congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local responses to Katrina in med-September 2005. He repeated that vote in 2006. He voted against allowing up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits to people affected by the hurricane, and in 2006 voted against appropriating $109 billion in supplemental emergency funding, including $28 billion for hurricane relief.
--------------------------------------------------------
"For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27

The Cost of Profit: Blindness

About four years ago, I had a sudden onslaught of Wet Macular Degeneration -- there was a week delay in getting to a specialist in El Paso --- by that time central vision in my right eye (my best eye) had already been compromised. Wet Macular Degeneration is when rogue blood vessels enter the macula of the retina and begin to bleed, thereby ruining the sensitive surface of the macular that enables central vision. Using the best medical approaches available then -- my retinal specialist, Dr. Metrikin, was able to slow down, but not completely stop the destruction of my central vision. Finally, when Avastin, an off-label medication, was available he gave me a series of three injections of it. Avastin designed by Genentech and used successfully for colon cancer -- was not intended for Wet AMD (age related macular degeneration). However, the community of retinal specialist throughout America had discovered it was extremely effective when injected into the eye to stop the bleeding in the macula. After three treatments, the bleeding was stopped, but by that time I had lost my central vision. With my left eye closed I can't watch TV, read, use the computer or drive.

SouthWest Retinal Consultants were the only group in El Paso and the three physicians took care of everyone. Their crowded waiting rooms were filled with many Hispanics of meagre income, but the practice did not turn anyone away. They would arrange something.

When Genentech saw the success their Avastin product was having with this eye disease -- they altered it -- primarily, making the molecules smaller and called it -- Lucentis. They thought this slight alteration would it more effective. They knew it would be more profitable. Since it would technically be a "new" drug -- they could charge much more claiming it was a solution to a delicate situation.

The catch is that they want $2000 per injection. The Avastin approach is $ 60. per treatment.
When Lucentis came available, my doctor's group continued using Avastin because they believed it was every bit effective as Lucentis -- and switching to Lucentis, frankly, would mean blindness for those without insurance and the independent funds to pay, i.e. the bulk of their practice.

What follows are some excerpts from an Associated Press article that appeared in today's local paper:

By KEVIN FREKING | Associated Press Writer
3:50 PM CDT, August 27, 2008

What does a company do when there's anecdotal evidence that two of its drugs are equally effective in treating a leading cause of blindness in the elderly, one costing patients $60 per treatment and the other $2,000?

In the case of Genentech Inc., nothing

The company declined to seek federal approval for the cheaper drug, Avastin, to treat the wet form of age-related macular degeneration. Nor would it help finance — or cooperate with — a National Eye Institute study comparing the effectiveness and safety of Avastin, a cancer drug, and the more expensive eye drug, Lucentis.

The financial stakes stemming from the study are huge. Medicare officials estimate there could be 50,000 or more additional cases of macular degeneration a year. Treating just one year's worth of new patients with Lucentis would cost $1.2 billion a year, compared with $60 million if they're treated with Avastin, Medicare officials said.

Many eye doctors believe Avastin works just as well in treating macular degeneration even though it hasn't been approved for that purpose. It's not unusual for drugs to be used off-label — treating diseases other than ones the drug was approved for.

Dr. Philip Rosenfeld, who has treated hundreds of his eye patients in South Florida with Avastin, said Genentech had little economic incentive to help finance the trial — unless it was confident Lucentis was truly superior.

"By fact that they didn't support the clinical study leads me to conclude that in reality there is no difference between the two drugs," Rosenfeld said. "The result is clearly not in Genentech's best interest."

I will end with this quote from a blogger on a site called "Fact-esque" ----

All those of you who believe the high cost of medicine in the US is some sort of force of nature that can't be resisted, listen and learn: it has been deliberately engineered to be high-profit expensive by drug companies and for-profit HMO's who promised their investors - and themselves - $$$millions$$$. This is how they deliver on that promise. There's nothing mysterious or otherworldly about it.

It's called "GREED".

Tightening the Noose

Although the majority of the ordinary people of the Czech Republic and Poland do not want to be part of the U.S. Missile Defense System---apparently through a combination of pressure,
bribes and wheedling Uncle Sam will receive permission from
the leaders of these two countries to go ahead. Even Iran's latest and most sophisticated missile can only reach (if it works) Greece and Bulgaria--still -- the U.S. thinks this new extension of Reagan's "Star Wars" vision is necessary. Despite the fact that -- even if Iran begins a program to develop a nuclear bomb right now -- it will be at least five to ten years before they might have one. Even though the U.S. is heavily in debt to its creditors, especially China, and our infrastructure back in the homeland is falling apart -- this new extension of our "security" system MUST go ahead. Why? Are we spending money to defend Europe or NATO? I do not admire our largesse. Let them develop their own system.

Russia, and not just Vladimir Putin is furious. We did not even discuss our plans with this country who obviously will feel threatened with missiles only 115 miles from their borders. I vaguely remember Kennedy and the U.S. being upset with Russian missiles in Cuba. These interceptor missiles will be on an Polish island in the Baltic Sea. The Czech Republic will host our sophisticated radar guidance and alert system. However, the two new additions will be seamlessly worked in to be a part of the U.S. National Missile Defense System, and changes can be made.

Putin offered to let the U.S. use a Russian rented site in Azerbaijan --- which borders on Iran for missile defense. But, we turned the offer down.

Russia feels the United States is deliberately and steadily surround their country with armed force and countries in the "pocket of the U.S." If you look at the maps on this blog --- you can see why they feel this way. How would we like it if the Russian had bases in Mexico, Cuba and Canada? (I forgot, sorry, we are the good guys -- always.)

Independent U.S. scientists say the missile defense system is unreliable and has not proven itself in tests. Other experts say, it could be circumvented. The Iranians are not a primitive tribe.

With the former Soviet Republics along Russia's border; with missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic; with the Ukraine and Georgia (both directly bordering Russia)on track to be new members of NATO ---- well if I were Putin -- I'd be worried too.

Let's hear the actual words of Vladimir Putin:
“Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you want, regardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardizing our relations with anyone. But we must respond. Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We are interested in maintaining a good atmosphere." Putin added exasperated, “So what should we do?” The present situation has brought us “the brink of disaster!”


We thought the Cold War was over, but there are still some slightly glowing embers, and our leaders are deliberately fanning them. Eisenhower warned the country of the military industrial complex. And yet, the neo cons are still active behind the scenes and Halliburton, Blackwater and other vultures are having a feast in Iraq -- and elsewhere.

Obama is right. We do need CHANGE.

Georgia, the Conflict and the Rest of the Story

As patriotic Americans we assume when Russia "invades" Georgia, they are blameworthy and should be punished somehow. As John McCain said recently -- it is not appropriate for a nation to invade another sovereign state in this 21st Century.

I'm a little confused didn't we invade Iraq in the 21st Century.? OK, right, we had good reasons for doing it and good intentions --- so this makes it acceptable. We have played this card a number of times in our history.

Georgia has been an independent state seldom in history -- for a short time in the 12th-13th centuries. Russia under the Tsars absorbed them into their empire in 1810. Briefly from 1918-1921 they were independent. Then they were taken over by the Soviet Union. In 1991 they broke away from the Soviets, but there was a great deal of chaos until 2002 when the present democratic government established itself.

When forming their independent state they included South Ossetia -- a province in which Georgians were a distinct minority. South Ossetia wanted to be independent with close relations with Russia. Patches of civil war between Georgia and South Ossetia erupted and finally, Georgia reluctantly granted South Ossetia virtual autonomy. The present President of Georgia when elected vowed to bring South Ossetia completely back into the same relationship with the central government as the other Georgian provinces.

In its quest for nailing down all the oil supplies possible, the U.S.A. has made a concerted effort to ingratiate itself through one means or the other with the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia along Russia's southern border: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan. America covets for our own use the natural resources of this region, especially, at present, the wealth of natural gas and oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region. Because of this we have built a pipeline to deliver the oil which avoids going through Russia and reaches the Black Sea by running through Georgia.

We have been selling huge quantities of military supplies and equipment to Georgia, which we see as a strong American ally, also as playing vital role in protecting the pipeline and its oil.
(The U.S. at present receives more oil from Canada than any other country. I wonder what our response would be if Russia would find itself needing oil and would work out an agreement with Canada for its oil, and, in addition finance a Canadian pipeline to take the oil to, let's say Vancouver where it would be loaded aboard Russian oil tankers???)

The recent Georgian-Russian conflict was not caused by a Russian invasion of George, but by a Georgian invasion of South Ossetia ordered by the Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili who was attempting to fulfill his election promise of bringing South Ossetia competely under Georgia rule. Russia is looked upon by South Ossetia as a friend and guarantor of their autonomy. Russia invaded to defend South Ossetia not to take over Georgia -- but to protect its citizens from the Georgian ambitions.

Russia and Putin are very concerned with America's aggressive moves in their part of the world. Russians have a pride in their nation's history, stature and culture -- for which the U.S. has, apparently, little respect. We are pushing Russia hard. Too hard could be dangerous. They have their goals and ambitions.

Why would a small country like Georgia knowingly antagonize the giant Russian bear just to fulfill a campaign promise? Why did they think they could get away with it?

Answer: They had been receiving encouragment from influential people within the United States, mostly neo-cons. One of these neo-cons, Randy Scheunemann, was for four years a paid lobbyist for Georgia working for favors from the United States. He quit his job last March to be the key foreign policy advisor for John McCain. In fact, he brought John McCain with him in 2006 to meet Scheunemann's good friend the Georgian President. Both he and McCain supported Saakashvili's bellicose attitude towards President Putin of Russia. Earlier, McCain with Scheunemann's help drafted a resolution supporting Georgia's admission to NATO.

America has been building up and training Georgia's military. Israel has played a part also.
Georgia simply thought they could get away with it, i.e. a coup d'etat. Big brother, America, would step in -- if things went awry.

To Putin's eyes, it may appear that our country is surrounding Russia: cultivating the countries just below its border; building a pipeline for oil to America, oil that because of its proximity may seem more appropriately Russian than American, and then add U.S.'s support of NATO membership for both the Ukraine and Georgia --- putting a military coalition right on Russia's border.

Question: How would the U.S. react to a similar situation if we were in Putin's and Russia's place.

What can be done? The American administration should exercise some common sense, cease being belligerent and arrogant. In fact, as an article from the Associated Press suggested today: instead of threatening to kick Russia out of the G 8 group and to punish it in other ways >>>

Invite Russia to Join NATO !!!

I Am Saying "No" to the Olympics

I am not watching ANY of this year's Olympics because I don't think it is appropriate that China act as host to the Olympic games when they are exercising brutal oppression over Tibet and its people. Tibetans are different in ethnicity, culture, history, and religion. Tibet has NEVER been a part of China.

I feel a certain special kindred with the Tibetan people for several reasons. While living in Taos in 1997-98, I joined a Tibetan prayer and meditation group. In December 1998, in a gathering in Taos, I and others took public refuge vows to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha from Tana Tulku, a respected and learned Tibetan lama who was driven out of Tibet, was mainly living in India, but who came to Taos to meet a growing group of followers there.

I had a number of personal meetings with three Tibetan lamas, and through them and my contact with some of the Tibetan people who live in northern NM I became acquainted with their earthiness, good humor, devotion, and compassion.

When I performed my personal Tibetan Buddhist practice, I actually felt that I -- somehow --was connected to others who were following this spiritual way throughtout the world. I sensed their presence in my room.

How can I watch the Olympic games and have "fun" doing this when I know what is happening everyday to my Tibetan Sangha members in Tibet?

The Olympic Games have been sullied more and more as years go by rampant commercialism and now they have added another disfigurement to a once proud tradition. These games remind me of the 1936 Olympics.

Imperial America

I wish Imperial America were just a fantasy of the mind. Something that exists as a mental concept, but cannot be tagged to anything in the real word. However, one has to be super and foolishly patriotic to avoid seeing the imperial ambitions of America.

There are many books by thoughtful and knowledgeable persons on this subject. Among my personal favorites are Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson.

The Mexican War and the Spanish American War were both imperial wars. America was taken what they wanted to have a position of power and dominance. They were acts of aggression.

There may be justification in calling the Vietnam war -- imperial -- also.

Are we just altruistic "policemen of the world"? America seldom wages war when it is not in the interest of this country.

Basically, the power, wealth, military force and the espionage activities of the USA are in service to one thing primarily: the American Economic Empire.

Empires are of different types. Our foreign policy has mainly been in support of American capitalism. We have instigated coups (Iran, Chile, etc.); we have assassinated foreign leaders, e.g. Ecuador, Panama, and, doubt others not heard about because they are still to be uncovered.

We have employed in a joint government/ private effort "economic hit men" who travel around the world attempting to convince the leaders of third world countries to accept loans usually through the World Bank or the IMO that are not in the interest of the people of these countries, but of the small elite, and, mainly beneficial to American corporations. Once the country takes the bait, and discovers it hooked --- swamped by debts it can't repay as quickly as it should --- then all sorts of concessions can be wrung out of that nation: dirt cheap prices on raw materials, allow factories and other installations to be built--that primarily benefit the U.S. or our corporations. When the countries' leaders don't cooperate as in the aforementioned cases of Ecuador and Panama --- "accidents" such as explosions in helicopters occur that eliminate the recalcitrant populist leaders. The CIA's "jackals" have solved the problem.

There does not need to be "a leader of imperial dimensions,". This country is basically run by corporations. Who elects politicians? Who does Bush/Cheney bring in to the White House to write our energy policy?

What the corporate powers need is not necessarily a strong or even "bright" leader --- they need one who is pliable, willing to do their bidding, perhaps because he believes ideologically in the salvic grace of capitalism.

Here is the simple truth: "capitalistic democracy" is an oxymoron.

CAFTA and NAFTA are part of the American Empire. Fortunately, some countries in Latin America are waking up: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and especially Venezuela.

What we need in the world is blocs that can defend themselves against economic domination by the U.S.A. As I said before, we only claim to be altruistic. America, its corporations, and to a much lesser extent, its people have lived "high on the hog" at the expense of the people of the third world.
It is almost true, perhaps, completely true ---- that we only do things that serve our national and self interest -- but we like to project the Good Samaritan image.

For an empire to succeed it must maintain a military presence throughout the world. According to the Base Structure Report, an annual report of the Department of Defense, in the year 2002 we had 725 bases in other people's countries.

We do not control completely the global economy. We are challenged by the European Union, China, India, Russia and a few others. However, we are the most powerful and influential player -- for the time being.

The global economy and the world in general is actually controlled by very large, complex and interrelated multi-national mega corporations.. The United States is largely a pawn of these entities. The World Government that was a favorite high school and college debate topic in the middle of the last century ---- is not going to be some enormous nation state --- it is going to be a world corporate state, probably of a rather small number of conglomerates. The nation state is becoming a myth.

So, America is being used by multi-national corporations for their interest --- and the interest of their shareholders. Together these economic leaders and their shareholders represent probably about !% of the world's population, but control about 90% of the world's wealth.

It does not matter much what the American people want --- they are just going along for the ride --- even though they haven't "woke" up yet.

What About Moveon.com ??

I have signed petitions online from moveon.com (moveon.org) from time time. Not all of them. I try to be discriminating. I know it had a small beginning: a husband and wife business team that were dismayed at the time wasted trying to impeach Clinton for unimpeachable dailliances. They set up a website with a petition asking Congress to censure Bill Clinton--and then start acting like serious representatives of the people.

From there it has grown to over three million members. As usual the right extremists paint moveon.com as a nefarious, dangerous, traitorous, radical, un-American, left-wing conspiracy which should be "thrown out of the country".

It was a mistake for moveon.com to run the "General Betray Us" newspaper ad. It may have been true that General Petraeus acted as a "toady" for a traitorous American administration, but it is unwise (or at least very dangerous) to attack or even criticize an American officer, --- especially a general --- in a country that has raging hormones over any perceived slight to the military and their operations. The GOPhers -- experts at seizing every opportunity to turn the public away from their their egrigious malfeasances and focus on a phony target -- rushed to use this ad to defame moveon.com and every other progressive group they could find.

In reality moveon.com was founded to help progressive (liberal, sane, left wing) patriots who are either too busy or too timid to engage in mass demonstrations with the means to register their displeasure with the slide into hell our country is in.

The general purpose of moveon.com is to find what the concerns of this "silent majority" are and to provide them choices of approaches that might deal with the disasters that are exploding all around us.

They are not really radical, and, unfortunately, have developed into a group that pretty much is lined up with the mainstream Democratic Party. They were described by John Stauber, founder of the Center for Media and Democracy as "...primarily a money-raising and marketing arm of the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party".

Question: What good has moveon.com actually done? Have their formed a coalition with other like minded groups and an effective strategy that will make congressmen, senators, the President worry about their activity and heed their admonitions and advice? Not really. Have their established "on the ground" local organizing groups so that their presence is more than just in cyber space? Well, they are moving in that direction with their MoveOn Councils --- 250 established throughout America and present in every state. These councils train people in organizing, being effective, running phone banks, having war vigils and hosting house parties.

However --- "....in Democratic Congressional offices, it's viewed as more of an annoyance than a force." (from The Nation, August 11th, 2008) One former staffer said: "I've never been in a room where someone say, 'Let all check with MoveOn.'"

One of the most vehement critics of moveon is, a person I admire a great deal -- Medea Benjamin, founder of Code Pink. Medea speaks truth to power and acts. Concerning their ineffectiveness in leading the anti-war movement, she said: "They were more concerned with being on the same page with the Democratic leadership than with the rest of the anti-war leadership."

As Benjamin plainly says: "MoveOn went all out to get a Democratic Congress elected. We now have more troops in Iraq, more funding than even the Bush administration asked for, and a guarantee that the war will continue into the next administration."

Supporting the Democratic leadership has not and probably will not take this country where the people need it to go. Early in the primary season MoveOn's members 70% endorsed Obama. Now he seems to watering down his positions --- until we may end up with a very diluted medicine for America. Obama talked a great deal about uniting the country, all factions. Compromise is a tool for that, but I am worried about how this card game will end up with the right wing players having lots of dirty tricks up their sleeves, and the aggressiveness to bluff their way in winning the hand.

Summing things up: From a small beginning in ten years time, moveon.com now has a membership of three million and is responsible for promoting and opposing political actions from a progressive point of view. However, it is not having the impact, it originally had because some (many?) of our elected representatives are not giving it much heed. They do not feel threatened by it. They are more interested in doing the will of those whose money helped elect them and maintains them in office. moveon.com could be more useful if it tried to unite the various progressive groups, especially the online ones, into some kind of confederation and if it would pursue successfully its present attempts to have real people in real places organize, protest, and pressure our leaders to think of what's best for the nation, the planet and ordinary Americans.

Why Doesn't Our Democracy Function As One?

I've been reading and watching and hearing a lot lately about the problems that beset our democracy and make it in many cases ineffective in fulfilling its prime duty of serving the general good of our people.

When thinking about this situation, two words always come up: Money and Media. First, money in terms of corporate and individual wealth has almost assumed virtual control of most of the U.S. government's operations. Of course, as covertly as possible. We would not want to alarm or awake the sleeping peasantry. Who anyway, when awake, are too distracted to pay much attention, much less to try to see through the mirage the powers to me hide behind. Second, there is the Media which has as one of its prime duties: presenting the total truth to the people, and to offer insightful commentary when appropriate. Today making a maximum profit is the bottom line for media companies.

One problem is that media outlets: newspapers, magazines, radio, television, etc. want to make TOO much profit. Profit, yes, but too much profit will lead them away from their responsibilities.

Newspapers are dying out. The ones left are being bought out and becoming part of media conglomerates, e.g. the Murdoch Empire. There are only two large newspapers in the U.S. still family owned: the NY Times and the Washington Post. The Boston Globe, which even just 24 months ago, was over 500,000 circulation, now has dropped all the way to 350,000 readers.

In order to survive, those papers still alive, in general, have been reducing their news gathering staff (reporters) and giving early retirement to their seasoned correspondents and replacing them with cheaper novices. The result is less real news; more news items copied from other sources: news info pieces supplied for free by corporations, government, pr firms, etc.

Newspapers that used to provide independent, sound coverge of important local, national, and especially foreign stories are hard to find.

Jefferson said that democracy can only succeed if we have an informed and thoughtful citizenry.
Today we have citizens as a whole with not enough time, nor interest to find out what's going on. If they decide to change their ways --- where will they find what they need?

The internet is not going to be able to replace the role that newspapers once (and to a much less extent today) provided. There are no major internet sources with anything like the news staffs formerly found in large U.S. newspapers. The internet encourages quick perusal, YouTube videos, and images over print, impressions over thought.

Chris Hedges, formerly of the N Y Times. He was part of a N Y Times team that received a 2002 Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of global terrorism.
Hedges says---- The decline of newspapers is not about the replacement of the antiquated technology of news print with the lightning speed of the Internet. It does not signal an inevitable and salutary change. It is not a form of progress. The decline of newspapers is about the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and public responsibility on the part of much of our entrepreneurial class and the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world, a world where information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print.

Major television channels NBC, ABC, and CBS fail to cover important stories, or do so superficially --- focusing on lack of flag lapel pins, infortainment, snippets of this and that.

We have a lot of "news" of this and that bombarding us 7/24 much of which is advertisement of one sort or another. What we lack is independent, courageous, in-depth sources of news readily available for the average American. This is needed for democracy's survival, but it just is not profitable enough to make it happen.

What a Mess!

I received an email yesterday from a friend with this query:

And this week the continued arrogance of Karl Rove,
> refusing to appear before Congress. How do these guys get
> away with this stuff. There must not be a whole lot of
> courage on the part of Democrats or independents to let
> these guys get away with all of this.

My friend was referring to the refusal of Karl Rove (and Harriet Myers) to honor the demand from Congress that they appear before. As usual, George II simply exclaims "executive privilege". Executive malfeasance, executive arrogance, executive overreach --- would be better terms for Bush's trampling on the rule of law.

When this administrations ends -- and that cannot come any too soon -- we will have to erect once more the framework for our republic. It has been dismantled.

The Constitution as well as the intent, IMO, of the founding fathers was that this administration's examples of outrageous behavior would be dealt with effectively by our elected leaders in Congress, and by the rulings of the Supreme Court. That's why we have the "balance of powers" and impeachment.

The problem is largely, at least at present -- the Democrats. They are so fearful of doing anything that might raise the ire of the GOP faithful -- who then awakened from their apathy over McCain as their candidate--- would charge like maddened boars into the campaign.

The Democrats need to heed more the Left than the Center. This "center" is no longer the center of forty years ago --- the Bush forces have moved so far to the right --- that they have dragged the center with them and within borders of the worst kind of conservatism.

The Democrats have a problem in that they still have not found some type of philosophical stance or foundation to rally around and for the American public to identify with.

Even if this would happen, we still would still have a problem: Americans have been so brainwashed by the Media, right wing talk shows (very popular) and the lies and distortions of the White House that they can't see clearly. Delusion has overtaken many of our countrymen. They live in a world of confusion, lies, and false notions of what it means to be an American. Bizarre conservative and neo-conservative notions of American Patriotism have become accepted as "scripture". The public is not sure of what is right and what is wrong ---what is darkness and what is light.

What a mess!

Solution: time.

Perhaps further collapse. And then a national awakening.

One man can't do it, and this includes Obama. As for McCain -- he's not viable Presidential material. McCain's main "positive" is that -- if national collapse is what we eventually will require -- he will bring it on.

Combat Over Vital Resources: WW III ??

There are limits to the Earth but the Earth population keeps on growing, as well as the material expectations of its inhabitants. The United States, Canada and Western Europe have been exploiting the planet's resources --- all over the globe --- to maintain and expand, what we call in the America, The American Dream which demands the highest standard of living possible.

Now, though, other nations, in particular at present, China, India, and to some extent Russia seem to be saying: We want this "American Dream" too. For every Chinese family to have at least one automobile will take a tremendous amount of resources, raw materials -- especially energy.

The United States, and increasingly China is developing military muscle combined with strategic moves to ensure that each will control what it wants and, believes, needs.

The USA has established Africom Africa Command, an overseas joint command to protect our vital interests: energy (oil, natural gas) uranium, copper, cobalt, etc. in that continent.

China is also expanding its influence through Africa --

China's drive to gain access to foreign supplies is most evident in Africa, where Beijing has established ties with the oil-producing governments of Algeria, Angola, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Sudan. China has also sought access to Africa's abundant mineral supplies, pursuing copper in Zambia and Congo, chromium in Zimbabwe and a range of minerals in South Africa. In each case the Chinese have wooed suppliers through vigorous diplomacy, offers of development assistance and low-interest loans, high-visibility cultural projects--and, in many cases, arms. China is now a major supplier of basic combat gear to many of these countries and is especially known for its weapons sales to Sudan--arms that reportedly have been used by government forces in attacks on civilian communities in Darfur. Moreover, like the United States, China has supplemented its arms transfers with military-support agreements, leading to a steady buildup of Chinese instructors, advisers and technicians, who now compete with their US counterparts for the loyalty of African military officers.*

Russia which has enough natural gas and oil at present for its people is determined to keep control of the transportation of these materials from the countries along its southern border which were formerly part of the Soviet Union. China has now joined with Russia on this project since it is in their interest that these Asiatic resources not be controlled or siphoned away by The West.

China and Russia have established the SCO or Shanghai Cooperation Organization to make sure resources near their borders do not go to other nations. Last summer they engaged in military exercises jointly and with military personnel from nations along the southern border of Russia and the western border of China -- somewhat similar to our NATO exercises.

There is a large, but often hidden struggle going on in the Caspian Sea basin over who gets the energy riches found there.

No other major power is capable of matching the United States when it comes to the global deployment of military power in the pursuit or protection of vital raw materials. Nevertheless, other powers are beginning to challenge this country in various ways. In particular, China and Russia are providing arms to oil and gas producers in the developing world and beginning to enhance their military capacity in key energy-producing areas.*

The United States has been building up its navy because it will play a vital role in protecting and/or seizing the raw materials we insist we need for our "life style". Other nations are now saying -- Why your life style? Why not our life style too? Why not keep our resources for ourselves? And, if we are big enough and powerful enough -- seize and control raw materials outside our borders --- that WE believe WE need ?!




























A global conflict is more probable than possible as China, Russia and the United States arm and give military training to "client states" i.e. those who are willing to provide the resources their "patron" needs. At present, the U.S. is arming Nigeria and Angola. China -- Sudan and Zimbabwe. There is conflict between Russia and the U.S. in Georgia -- who will this rich in resources nation favor??

Is it possible for the leaders of the most powerful nations to take a different approach over the Earth's treasures? Adopt a different attitude towards this rapidly growing crisis? One in which cooperation with each other is seen as wise; and competition and aggression seen as counterproductive? Just look at the cost of armaments and military personnel --- on top of the cost of the raw materials themseves. At present America spends more on its military budget than all other nations combined !! This money, a lot of it could serve other uses --- better for humanity than to be used to make sure that we get more than our fair share. Others have rights and needs, and we are all stuck on this one very special, very unique planet -- our life support system. We must figure out a way to live together and SHARE -- or we will end uip by destroying each other as well as this planetary home of ours.

Here is a recommendation from the author who I have quoted elsewhere in this blog:

...rather than engage in militarized competition with China, we should cooperate with Beijing in developing alternative energy sources and more efficient transportation systems. The arguments in favor of collaboration are overwhelming: together, we are projected to consume 35 percent of the world's oil supply by 2025, most of which will have to be imported from dysfunctional states. If, as is widely predicted, global oil reserves have begun to shrink by then, both of our countries could be locked in a dangerous struggle for dwindling supplies in chronically unstable areas of the world. The costs, in terms of rising military outlays and the inability to invest in more worthwhile social, economic and environmental endeavors, would be staggering. Far better to forswear this sort of competition and work together on the development of advanced
petroleum alternatives, super-fuel-efficient vehicles and other energy innovations. Many American and Chinese universities and corporations have already initiated joint ventures of this sort, so it is not hard to envision a much grander regime of cooperation.*

* from The New Geopolitics of Energy, Michael T. Klare,, May 1, 2008