9/11 Responders Deserve our Help

They did not hesitate when the towers first were attacked and then fell. They labored long, agonizing months to rescue survivors, to find and identify the victims, to cleanse the gaping wound ripped through the heart of America's iconic city.

They worked while fire burned for months after the attack. They had inadequate haz-mat protection but they persisted.

For nine years politicians and pundits have taken their name in vain for rhetorical effect - using their contributions as a shining example of the best the American people offer - heroism, patriotism. In the meantime, the heroes themselves have been suffering from prolonged exposure to the nightmare that was ground zero. To deny them relief after so ruthlessly laying claim to their accomplishments would be to admit that rank hypocrisy and double-speak drive our public discourse.

Last week on Comedy Central's Daily Show Jon Stewart supported their cause far more eloquently than I could.

DADT - Goodbye and Good Riddance

Let me take a brief moment to celebrate and savor a rare victory. Yesterday the Senate passed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, putting an end to the distasteful mandate that gay members of the military lie about who they are in order to serve their country.

A "tip of the hat" to all who voted to repeal the law. A "wag of the finger" to those who opposed repeal (apologies to Stephen Colbert).

In its waning days this Congress finally got something right.

Now if we could only get the Defense of Marriage Act repealed... .

Why do our leaders refuse to pay the piper?

I just tuned in (and out) of Fox's "Hannity" who was ranting about making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Why does no one stand up and say that it is bad policy to wage wars on a credit card that is owned by foreign governments (China, Japan, Saudi Arabia et al)?

Why do the same folks who shout about America's exceptionalism insist we do not actually have to pay for the costs of America's activities abroad and challenges at home?

Why do they never seem to equate "supporting our troops" with supplying our veterans with the medical and social services they need to recover from their arduous, often traumatic service in foreign lands?

Why do the American people put up with being treated like idiots incapable of understanding the demands our country's policies place not only on them, but on their children and grandchildren?

I have heard it said that only people who have hope of changing things protest. Can it be that we have lost that hope? Are we resigned to bearing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with no recourse?

President Obama's Second Term?

If President Barach Obama wants a second term as president, it is beginning to look like he will have to run as a Republican. After all, he has played a significant role in making Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell the most powerful legislator in America.

After lambasting President Obama last night for his total abandonment of the progressive principles that originally secured him the presidency, Keith Olbermann began a "countdown" to the next presidential election.

In a press conference yesterday the President announced the tax package he had brokered with Republicans. The absence of input from legislators of the President's own party was evident in the stunned horror of many of its members. The deal included extension of unemployment benefits, a temporary cut in employment taxes and a two-year extension of ALL the Bush Era tax cuts. The President insisted this debt-swelling deal was the most beneficial agreement possible and neither side got everything it wanted. Senator McConnell's obvious delight with the deal during his own press interview belied this statement.

During his speech, the President once again "wagged his finger" at progressive members of his own party who have expressed growing disillusionment and frustration with his administration. It did not seem to occur to him that the folks who elected him took him at his word when he promised elimination of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest among us that increased polarization of America's "haves" and "have nots;" when he vowed to take on the insurance industry and fight for single-payer health coverage for all Americans; when he stressed the importance of structural reform of the financial industry; when he swore he would close Guantanamo Bay; when he outlined "change you can believe in."

It is true the diversity of the Democratic Party worked against him. Conservative Democrats are often ideologically closer to Republicans than their own party's mainstream. Corporate money flows in the coffers of elected officials who support corporate agenda and money talks - often, stridently, effectively.

But the man who penned "The Audacity of Hope" is one lousy poker player. From the beginning he folded solid hands to aggressive bluffs. Now, even if he makes the final table, which is very much in doubt, he will do it with a short stack that will not survive the first few blinds.

It's Sunday Morning - Time for the NY Times Editorial Page

[This post's title links to today's edition]

Decades ago, when I was a college freshman, the daily issue of the New York Times was required reading. A requirement I tended to overlook, preferring to spend my time pouring over the sports page of the Boston Globe for the latest articles about the Red Sox and the Celtics. When I married a devoted reader of the Times, I would grab the crossword puzzle and leave the rest to him. I relied upon televised news broadcasts for information on current events. Post 9/11 I became addicted to NPR during long solitary road trips to visit my first grandchild and CNN when television was available.

My addiction to NPR endured. But the television 24-hour news cycle devolved into obsessive coverage of notoriety and endless analysis of politicians' sound bytes. Then the day arrived when I got DSL on my home computer and discovered Google. And lo and behold, decades after leaving the growing pile of New York Times unread on my bedroom chair, I began to read the op ed pages of the "grey lady".

Last Sunday my disappointment at Maureen Dowd's absence from the page was mitigated by a wonderful piece by Thomas Friedman. Today Dowd is back, her acerbic, incisive style turned toward the all-too-slow dismantling of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and John McCain's mystifying opposition to ending this abomination.

Next I turned to a Frank Rich piece about Obama's suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome." Rich brought a creative approach in his superbly-written lament about the disappearance of the dynamic progressive candidate into a president of empty words and lackluster leadership.

Finally I turned to Thomas Friedman's analysis of Wikileaks' release of classified U. S. documents and how they illustrate the decline of U. S. leverage on the global stage. Any newspaper that offers such a magnificent variety of contributors is worth a little time. It may not make me feel better about the world, but it makes me exercise my brain cells and increases my understanding of the challenges we face.

Can folks rely on the New York Times as their only news source? Certainly not. But it is a damn good place to visit on Sunday morning.

Same Old Same Old

I don't think I want to be a political junky anymore. It is depressing. The same platitudes, uttered by different faces. The same ideological catch phrases. The same use of red button issues to distract the American people from the deep economic and social problems it faces.

Unemployment has risen to 9.8%. That only includes those who are unemployed and actively looking for work. It does not include folks who have been out of work so long they have lost hope.

Elected officials still give lip service to fiscal responsibility while striving to extend the Bush Era tax cuts. Republicans insist balanced budgets can be achieved with lower taxes and spending cuts. Unless they intend deep cuts in Defense, Social Security and Medicare, they are whistling in the wind. If they do intend deep cuts in the country's economic safety nets, they will push us into much wider economic polarization.

Let us not forget those members of the middle class who did everything right and are still facing the stark reality of an impoverished retirement. Their pensions have disappeared as companies went bankrupt and shed their pension liabilities. Their 401ks and IRAs were battered by the 2008 stock market crash. Those who chose the "safer" options of CDs for their retirement accounts have watched those funds languish in an "interest free" zone for years.

Perhaps it is time to find a new hobby.

Time to Shop

The annual shopping season has arrived. Time to hit the malls, listen to the endless piping of seasonal songs, dodge sharp-edged packages wielded by other consumers and frantically attempt to find the perfect gift for everyone on the list.

My husband immediately will get distracted in the men's department, the electronics department and the novelty stores. "But we have a long list we have to buy first," I will plead. He will shrug off my protests until he is ready, then push me to "hurry up" as he suggests totally inappropriate items for those in-laws of in-laws that we dare not overlook. "But she has to watch her salt," I will say as he pauses over a selection of gourmet nuts for one. "He has a sugar issue," as he picks up a gigantic box of chocolates for someone else.

"They can re-gift them," he rationalizes.

About three-quarters of the way through our list (and seven trips back to the car to unload packages), we will end up in the bookstore. He heads for the CD/DVD section, I go straight to the Sci-Fi section. About 40 minutes later we meet in the children's section. Weighed down by our latest choices we stop at the coffee shop for something outrageously caloric and some of that coffee that has been tantalizing my senses for the past hour.

Refueled we quickly complete the balance of our purchases and head for the car. My feet are killing me. If we are lucky we find the wait at Olive Garden is reasonable. Then home where I realize as we unload our booty from the car - all that stuff still has to be wrapped!

Ho, Ho, Ho.

Loss of Personhood = Loss of Citizenship?

Many years ago in the early 1980s my father had triple bypass surgery at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston. At that time "Peter Bent" was considered one of the top hospitals in the country.

After Dad came out of recovery and was sent to the Cardiac Care ICU, we were allowed to visit him two at a time for no more than 15 minutes. While my younger brother and I were sitting with him, we saw a stretcher bearing an obviously just operated upon patient being conveyed to the unit by a group of young persons we assumed were either interns or medical students. The group was boisterous, loudly talking and laughing. One of its members jumped up to take a ride on the stretcher bearing the patient. Joe and I looked at each other in horror, then back at the group, which had by then seen us. The hitchhiker quickly jumped off and the group quieted down until it was out of our line of vision, whereupon we could hear whispered giggling and shushing. Fortunately Dad was pretty much out of it and unaware of the episode.

We reported the incident to whoever was in charge of the unit, but did not sign a formal complaint because we did not want our father to suffer retribution. When Dad finally was released from the hospital, he was sent home with not one but two staf infections that slowed his recovery for many weeks and resulted in a prolonged stay in his local hospital.

The response of the TSA and administration officials to the public's complaints about the new airport security measures, including their response to the humiliation of a man with an ostemy bag that was dislodged during a "pat down," reminds me of that incident. Officials react with abysmal indifference, reiterating the public has no choice, this is the way it must and shall be. Like those young hospital interns, to the TSA, the bloated bureaucracy of Homeland Security and our government officials, we are not proud citizens of the United States of America, once the greatest democracy on earth, we are faceless nonentities.

This is NOT a Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative issue. It is about sacrificing our freedom for the illusion of safety. The same institutions that permit powerful corporations to gamble our pension funds on esoteric financial instruments, that reward wealthy companies that ship our jobs overseas, that raid the Social Security trust fund to conceal their irresponsible fiscal policies, that leave our energy, transportation, military and water supply infrastructures vulnerable to physical and cyber attacks and refuse to screen the freight imported into the country because it is "too hard," have no scruples about blatantly disrespecting our persons and taking umbrage at our protests.

I have heard many, many liberal voices supporting the new TSA protocols. Why are both the left and the right so damn selective about the constitutional rights that matter to them?

Note: This is NOT an attack on TSA security personnel at the gate, most of these folks have treated me courteously in my encounters with them. It is about the post 9/11 attitude of this country's institutions, which have increasingly seen American citizens as part of the problem rather than the key to the solution.

Arms Treaty with Russia

Once again, I am simply posting a link. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1&hp

Maureen Dowd's op ed piece in today's New York Times is worth reading because:

1. The topic, renewing the nuclear arms treaty with Russia, is an important one.


2. Her writing is vivid, acerbic and witty.


3. She listens to her own drummer.

Caught in the Middle

Facebook gives me the ability to keep up with friends and family easily and, for the most part, enjoyably. It occasionally offers me a platform for my political opinions. But yesterday one of those expressions devolved into an angry fight between two of my FB "friends" and I became the "monkey in the middle."

I have enjoyed spirited, not completely friendly exchanges, on FB before, sometimes on the pages of my friends. On one occasion I fully expected the host friend, who was absent from the discourse, to tell me and my opponent to "get a room." Another FB friend announced in a post that he would "unfriend" anyone who used his posts for side arguments or who violated the rules of common civility.

The problem is NOT disagreement or opposing viewpoints. The problem is the TONE used to express disagreement. Perhaps strong language is inevitable when strong emotions and beliefs are involved. Playing the overused "Hitler" card guarantees escalation of the war with words. The return shot fulfilled that expectation. As the friend "in common" I faced the choice of offending one or both but pleasing neither. If I have lost a friend over this, that was an awful price to pay.

No wonder my wiser "friends" often step aside when their posts become virulent. I considered deleting the entire thread, but there were ideas expressed there (mixed in with the personal attacks) that I felt deserved to stand.

I intentionally keep the number of my FB friends small - I want to be able to keep up with them. For security reasons I limit all contact to "friends." I am going to have to rethink how I use the social network. Evidently I am too liberal for the right and too conservative for the left yet somehow don't fit comfortably into the middle either!

Time to go out in the garden and eat worms... .

Airport Security - Necessary Sacrifice of Rights or Gratuitous Violation of the Fourth Amendment?

See a related article in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111206580.html?tid=wp_featuredstories&sid=ST2010111206598

Bad, bad passengers resenting good, good TSA. Take off your shoes. Surrender your personal belongings for inspection. Pose for the machine that images your naked body through your clothing for inspection by anonymous security personnel in another room or submit to a "full body" pat-down that includes your most private parts. If you are asked to remove your bra or wig, just DO IT. Protest or refuse and face removal from the area and the potential of serious fines.

Just wondering - are cavity searches next?

Every time passengers submit they are permitting the NSA to violate their Fourth Amendment rights: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airport security personnel effectively have been granted a blanket warrant that covers every person who travels by common air carrier.

For some, perhaps most of us, the sacrifice is worth the added security of airline travel. For others, it is a security travesty the sole aim of which is to make us ever more fearful, ever more obedient to the institutions that control our lives.

Parents are forced to stand by without protest as their children are either photographed naked or patted down in a way guaranteed to traumatize them. Business people can be forced to permit the confiscation of computers and cell phones which might or might not be returned to them. Persons who value their personal dignity are forced to surrender it.

Do the TSA protocols make air travel more secure? Questionable. The 2009 Christmas underwear bomber probably would have passed through the imaging machine without protest, his nasty cargo undetected. The famous shoe bomber would have checked his shoes, then picked them up at the other side of security and continued on his nefariously intentioned way.

Both these individuals, like the 9/11 terrorists, would have been picked up with efficient, adequate intelligence screening and vigilant security checks. But that is HARD. Sooo... while we spend billions on a Homeland Security Department that spins out tentacles into ever greater aspects of American life, the genuine bad guys just think up new ways to elude the net.

Could it be that the thing the "powers that be" fear most is an American populace that is not "dumb, docile and dependent?"

How did we get to the place where corporations have more access to Constitutional Rights than individual citizens?

God help us all.

Where will they (we) go?

Throughout history overpopulation, drought, famine and economic transition resulted in mass migrations. Migrations swamped the Roman Empire, the greatest the world has known. When British landowners ejected the Scottish crofters from their farms in a great land consolidation movement, many of the crofters migrated to the United States and Canada. The rise of the industrial United States drew displaced workers and impoverished farmers from across Europe. When the potato famine threatened national starvation in Ireland, victims also made their way west across the Atlantic Ocean.

Over the past five centuries, the new worlds found in the Age of Discovery provided an avenue of escape and hope. But the new worlds now have been widely exploited from Canada to Tierra del Fuego, from North America to Australia. Where will the millions displaced by the transition to the information age or global climate change or environmental degradation go? Where are the new frontiers they will seek? Or will their struggle for survival force the choice to displace less strong populations in neighboring countries as the world grows hotter, more crowded and more polluted?

If we continue to kick the can down the road...

If we continue to kick the can down the road, this generation will have subscribed to the philosophy: apres nous, le deluge.

The following linked article in the Brisbane Times is frightening because it is so straightforward and logical. It does not feel biased, it feels like the observations of a neutral, well-informed bystander.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/decline-of-the-us-empire-will-reshape-our-world-20101109-17m78.html

I believe there is still time to save the greatness of the United States - home of self sufficient, "can do" innovators, melting pot of diverse races and cultures. But I agree time is running out. All great societies rise and fall, but 200 years is but a blink of an eye in world history. Surely we can do better than that?

As I see my state forced to make deeper and deeper cuts in education and other public services, as I watch Washington planning to cut taxes that inevitably will increase our deficits at the same time there is talk of shaving Social Security and Medicare while the wealthiest corporations give obscene bonuses to those who speculate with our nation's assets, I become disheartened.

My friend Bob has issued a clarion call "...from D. C. to city halls across America. Statesmen wanted. No audition required--just performance."

Courage and integrity are hard to come by in the face of the furious media attacks that inevitably rain down on anyone who dares to support real solutions to our very real problems. And yet they are quite desperately needed.

A Bitter Pill - Simpson and Bowles Unveil Deficit Reduction Plan

Click on the post title for my source material - a New York Times article.

Former Senator Alan K. Simpson and Erskine B. Bowles, who was President Clinton's White House Chief of Staff, sent a shot across the bow of Washington policy makers November 10 when they revealed an austere deficit reduction plan composed of deep spending cuts and significant tax increases.

The proposal has something guaranteed to offend every side of the political spectrum:

1. Sharp tax increases, including a 15-cent a gallon federal gasoline tax increase, the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits targeting low income wage earners and federal tax deductions for state and local tax payments.
2. Across the board cuts in federal spending, including military spending, Medicare and Social Security.

The proposal projects a roughly $4 trillion reduction in the federal deficit by 2020. It recommends a 2-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

This plan deserves serious study and consideration. One of my greatest concerns is whether it, or any ultimate plan, weighs more heavily on the lower economic sectors and more lightly on the wealthiest sectors.

The bleak truth is that meaningful deficit reduction will be painful, unpopular and extremely difficult to implement. Unless it is evenly spread across the economic landscape, it will be disastrous.

The Internet as Public Domain - Plagiarism be Damned

This past week a furor occurred over a cooking magazine that was discovered to have lifted pieces from Internet sites and published them without permission or paying royalties. The site also edited the pieces to fit its "standards." (such as they were!)

The good news was the original writers were credited. The very, very bad news was the editor believed she had a pass to reproduce anything she found on the Internet without permission and TO EDIT IT.

Let me be perfectly clear here. I do not consider anything I have written on these pages or elsewhere to be the property of anyone but myself. I don't care what disclaimers the sites I use make (including Facebook, Blogger and Google). I am the author for better or worse. I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to speak to an Internet audience. I absolutely LOVE it when someone publishes a "link" to my page. But I deny anyone's right to use or edit my writing without my specific permission. I take full responsibility for any grammatical or spelling shortcomings, for any awkwardness of phrase, for the (often intentional) use of slang.

I do not consider this a legal matter. Lawyers can argue any side of a dispute with equal skill. I consider it a moral one.

In my opinion, those who can't copy and paste. I am VERY careful to link to any materials I have used as sources. I expect others to do the same.

Can the Fed save the economy?

I am posting the following link because I believe Reich's analysis of the Fed's attempts to improve the economy is spot on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-republican-recipe-for_b_779121.html

1. Lower the value of the dollar against other currencies: theoretically this action will decrease the cost of our debt and make our exports more competitive. Unintended consequences: other countries respond with attempts to devalue their currencies and neutralize the impact of the Fed's action on their imports and exports; the real cost of our debt is camouflaged by artificially maintained low interest rates.

2. Increase the money supply so banks will lend to business and individuals. Unintended consequence: inflation first of bond prices as investors seek a "safe haven" and then of stock prices as investors seek decent returns on their dollars no longer available in the over-bought bond market. Businesses won't borrow if their revenues are stagnant. Individuals cannot borrow when their incomes have decreased and their debt loads are high.

Evidently I am not the only investor that has opted back into stocks, particularly those with attractive dividends, as bond prices have risen and bond interest rates become anemic. When bond prices finally pull back (and they will) and their interest rates rise, debtor nations like ours are in for a very unpleasant surprise. The cost of debt will soar.

One peculiar side effect of the Fed's recent currency policies is we appear to be teetering on a tightrope between runaway inflation and devastating deflation - a neat trick that does not imply equilibrium.

At this point, the attempts of the Fed to "tweak" the economy back to solid growth could well be doing more harm than good.

Disclaimer: It is far easier to see problems than to provide their solutions. That is one reason I want policy makers and elected officials to be smarter than I am.

Cut Taxes Again?

Sooo, the plan is to cut taxes, cut discretionary spending and return the U. S. Government to solvency?

Cut taxes again? At a time when the country's debt soars into the stratosphere? Oh yes, the spending cuts will keep our balance sheet healthy.

What is included in discretionary spending?
Education? Transportation (what about all those structurally unsound bridges)? Disaster relief (FEMA)? Food and Drug Administration? Security and Exchange Commission? The Interior (perhaps we can sell off our national parks)? Agriculture? Commerce? Justice? Treasury? Environmental Protection Agency? Housing and Urban Development? Nuclear Regulatory Agency? State Department? Minerals and Mines Management? Forestry? Student loans? Foreign Aid to places like Pakistan? Veterans' Affairs? The repeal of Health Care?

According to one just elected representative last night, discretionary does NOT include Defense or Homeland Security. What about Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security? What about Congressional staffs?

Without revenue, it will be moot. Without revenue every last item in the budget will be on the table.

Death and Taxes

Someone (Ben Franklin?) once said "Nothing in life is certain but death and taxes."

Taxes again, I know. No one wants to pay them. But David Stockman, who advised Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, has some strong reasoning behind his position we need to raise them. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20021193-10391709.html

When the medicine comes in the form of a VERY bitter pill, that is NOT a good reason not to take it.

It could well be that only by cutting core programs (the military and entitlements) and raising taxes, will the U. S. economy be able to drag, pull and shove its way back to economic health.

Percentage wise, the wealthiest will have to pay the most. The poorest the least. Why? Because it is a very bad idea to tax citizens into starvation and homelessness. The middle class will probably suffer the most. They are dwindling in numbers, but still have some disposable income.

None of the choices are easy or pleasant. But Keynesian economics calls for increased spending in times of economic hardship, you argue? True, but Keynes also said spending and debt should be trimmed in times of prosperity. This we did NOT do. The unhappy result is staring us in the face - massive public debt, massive public need for stimulus and far less than nothing in the piggy bank.

Across this country states are facing bankruptcy. Most of the current job losses are in the public sector as teachers, firemen, policemen, highway workers, water and sewage workers, trash collectors, regulators are being laid off. These cuts are slicing through the heart of our infrastructure, whether we acknowledge that or not. Public assets are being sold for one-time cash boosts. Any old Yankee would tell you, NEVER unload your capital, but that is what state and local governments across the country are doing.

If someone out there has a better idea, one that actually has a solid chance of working, now is the time to express it.

The money has to come from somewhere. Of course, we could emulate the Roman Empire and try conquer our way back to wealth. Not sure how well that would work.

Terminology - Sticks and Stones

A few days ago I posted my reasons for planning to vote Democratic on Tuesday. In that piece I used the term "Republicants" as a response to the habit of GOP members to call my party Democrat instead of Democratic.

My intent was to make a point with a bit of humor. Response to my post caused me to second guess the use of this word. The attention of those opposing my positions tended to focus more on this one word than the points I was trying to make. My own, visceral response to the term "Democrat Party" should have warned me that would happen. Not long ago I listened to an interview with a Republican candidate on the radio. Much of what he said sounded reasonable and well-thought out. But he kept interjecting the term "Democrat Party" into his responses and every time he did, it made me less inclined to accept him at face value. For that reason, I have reconsidered using the term "Republicant."

I established this blog to state my positions (opinions) on issues that matter to me, hopefully in a manner that will convince those who differ to at least consider another side of those issues. Most opponents will be unmoved by my prose, some will react with anger and vitriol no matter how much logic and temperance I employ, but perhaps some few will pause and think "so that's where the other side is coming from."

I try to listen to different viewpoints. I even occasionally adjust my thinking after listening to those viewpoints. I do not come to my positions lightly and I do not expect others lightly to come by theirs. Screaming at each other in an attempt to drown each other out solves nothing, but oh, it is an easy pitfall in which to fall. I know it well. It is the reason I stated my intention to try to tamp down on my own tendency to rant when starting this blog.

Why I will vote Democratic on Tuesday

On November 2 I will vote Democratic because:

• I believe Senate Republicants had a genuine opportunity to positively affect legislation over the past 24 months and sacrificed it for political gamesmanship.
• I believe Republicant cries for fiscal responsibility lack credibility.
• I want to fix Social Security, not toss it on the tables of Wall Street casinos.
• I believe infrastructure investment is essential to this country's economic future.
• I believe in pro-active energy and environmental policies and regulation of food, drugs, the financial industry, trade and product safety.
• I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights and believe in the separation of church and state. I do not think the Republicant Party supports any part of this "agenda."
• I believe the 2008 presidential election was fairly won and I resent conservative right claims it was not.
• I believe the Democrats have a superior human rights record.
• I believe the interests of the super-wealthy and multinational corporations are more important to the Republicant Party than the interests of the American voters.
• There is no viable third party.

Note: When the Republicants stop using the term Democrat Party, I will stop using the term Republicant.

Getting Medical Attention

It hurt. It was late evening. I drove myself to the emergency room, parked and walked in. Registration asked if I needed help. I replied "Yes, please."

As I gave my insurance information and described my complaint, someone took my blood pressure, temperature and pulse. I was ushered into a cubicle, interviewed further, and the diagnostic tests began - blood, urine, ultra sound, MRI, X-ray. An IV was started. Yes, there was waiting between tests. But there was a process. I was being attended to. A diagnosis was made. Arrangements were made for admission. There was a further wait for a room. In the early morning hours I was taken to that room. Admittedly it was a bare bones affair in the section reserved for "overflow" patients, but I was receiving care.

After two days of care and additional tests, I got the operation I needed. A day and a half later I was discharged with careful instructions and meds.

I admit it. I take it for granted that if I am really sick, I will be able to get the medical help I need.

I worry about the recovery process and the arrival of the bills for the care I received because that is what I do - worry I mean. BUT, the health insurance my company struggles to pay each month will cover most of the costs. I am fairly confident I will be able to manage the rest without too much hardship.

I feel very fortunate. I cannot imagine how I would handle not being able to get that care. Yet I know that this country's health care resources are strained. We are not training enough physicians and other medical professionals to adequately serve our population and that population is aging. We have a new health care system that theoretically will make medical care available for just about everyone. But will we have the hospitals and personnel to back up that promise?

This past week brought home to me personally just how important that promise is.

Three Cheers for the Nursing Staff

As I sit here waiting for my final clearance from the surgeon so I can leave the hospital, I hear two different patients abusing the long suffering nursing staff. The patients are in the hospital because they are sick or injured. But their misery and complaints kept me awake all night and tried the patience of the nurses and aides. Health care professionals who already were over burdened by staffing shortages caused by illness and budget cuts. As I listen to staff's patient courteous response to these difficult patients I am impressed.

Given the long tough hours, difficult working conditions and sometimes downright abusive ingratitude, it amazes me anyone actually sticks to the profession. I am very, very grateful they do. I am especially grateful to all the RN's and health care professionals at Columbia Memorial Hospital who contributed to my care and comfort over the past week.

Campaign Finance: When you cannot follow the money... .

When you cannot follow the money behind hundreds of millions of dollars paid for election campaign ads on TV, radio, in the newspapers and the daily mail, you know the following:

• There are people and institutions that are willing to spend a great deal of money to get their candidates elected.
• These contributors do not want the public to know who they are.
• Even the shareholders of public companies cannot learn to whom and how much their companies are contributing.

Some concerns arise:

• Are the institutions using their funds in an attempt to "buy" the government?
• Do these anonymous donors have a secret agenda of which even the recipients of their largess are unaware?
• Since the donors are anonymous, is it possible foreign institutions, even foreign governments are trying to influence the U. S. elections?
• Many of the ads contain inaccuracies and out and out lies that only the well informed can discern.

When I, as an individual, contribute over $100 to a candidate's campaign, it always seems to become public. When these huge contributors, hiding behind so called charitable institutions, contribute millions, they appear able to do so without public fanfare.

This does not feel like American voters are engaged on an even playing field.

Foreclosure Moratorium Bad?

I hear the reasonable, soft-spoken voices of experts voice concern that a moratorium on foreclosures will prolong the housing crisis and delay the eventual recovery of the real estate market. They fear it will put the mortgage lenders in a difficult position. (Click on this post's title for a Wall Street Journal article on the subject.)

Just because these lenders forged paperwork when they could not locate the mortgage documents. Just because they attempted to streamline the foreclosure process with a tiny bit of perjury and skipping over a few minor details, like providing proof they owned the mortgages, surely is no reason for Draconian measures?

We all know they own these mortgages, right? Didn't they tell us so? Why should the lenders seeking foreclosures be tied up in red tape just to protect a few million homeowners and property titles for any new purchasers?

Ah, but wait. Wasn't it the mortgage lenders who tied up those mortgages in all that red tape to begin with?

Why Chile's Mining Rescue Grabbed Worldwide Attention

Mining is a dangerous occupation, carried on in narrow dark places deep in the earth's bowels by tough, hard-working people. Mining disasters rarely end with good news. The extraordinary effort made at Chile's San Jose mine that resulted in the rescue of all 33 miners and six rescue workers riveted our attention because it was technically difficult, there were many, many opportunities for missteps, until the last rescue worker returned to the surface there were no guarantees and it was an unprecedented event.

I often bemoan the media's obsessive inability to cover more than one story at a time. On Wednesday I checked in on the story throughout the day, rejoiced as the miners began to reach the surface and sighed in relief when the last rescue worker was once again safely above-ground.

In April 2010 no survivors were found and 29 miners died in an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. It was the worst U. S. mine disaster in 40 years. The explosion came in the wake of eight citations of the mine during the preceding 12 months for methane-related mine safety violations. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirginia.html

On August 6, 2007 six miners were killed as the result of a catastrophic coal outburst at the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah. Ten days later, three rescue works died in another coal outburst and rescue operations ceased. The U. S. Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) subsequently fined the mine operator (Genwal Resources, Inc.) $1.64 million, citing violations that "directly contributed to the deaths of six miners... ." The operator was cited for 11 additional, noncontributory violations. Engineering consultant Agapito Associates Inc. was fined $220,000 for faulty analysis of the mine's design. http://www.msha.gov/MEDIA/PRESS/2008/NR080724.asp

Coal mining, with its vulnerability to catastrophic explosions is especially dangerous. In addition to the West Virginia accident last April also saw an accident in China's Shanxi province in which 153 miners were trapped when an underground pit flooded. Most were rescued. But in another province 40 were killed in an underground explosion. By some estimates China loses thousands of miners to accidents every year. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978668,00.html

So witnessing the spectacular rescue of 33 men who had been trapped 2300 feet under the earth's surface for 69 days was an intense, memorable experience we can only hope may somehow, someway improve the odds for all miners.

Chilean Miners Begin to Reach Surface

I awoke this morning to learn nine of the Chilean miners whose months' long imprisonment deep in the earth's bowels captured worldwide attention have been rescued!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39625809/ns/world_news-americas/

As I watched the ninth miner emerge from the San Jose Mine in the the capsule designed for the rescues, I burst into tears. The courage and stamina of the miners inspired the world. The dedication and ingenuity of the rescue team, the concern not only of the miners' families, but of their country and the international community, have been profoundly moving. Perhaps the techniques developed to rescue them will benefit others in the future.

The difficult painstaking rescues, in which one man at a time is slowly raised to the surface will continue for at least two days. The integrity of the tunnel dug for the rescue is critical. Until the last man safely reaches the surface, neither rescue workers or the families will rest easy.

After months of hardly daring to hope, the world got a little good news today. Thank God.

Hungary's Red Sludge: More Corporate Devastation of the Environment

According to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/world/europe/12hungary.html?_r=1&hp

Hungary has arrested the managing director of the company responsible for polluting waterways with a poisonous red sludge that has killed eight, injured hundreds, devastated plant and animal life and destroyed millions of dollars in private property.

The government also retook control of the formerly state-owned MAL Zrt. In the meantime the officials are racing to construct a concrete barrier and emergency dam to contain the sludge before three huge gaps in the remaining wall fail.

Critics accuse the government of overreacting for political gain. Supporters claim it had no choice if it were to protect the public interest.

According to a report in the October 10 Bloomberg/Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-06/hungary-red-sludge-threatens-danube-commission-says.html, the release of the red sludge could reach the Danube River and threaten water supplies in neighboring countries. Hungary is engaged in heroic efforts to prevent the spill from spreading that far. The highly toxic sludge is a byproduct of alumina production and spilled from the Magyar Aluminum Zrt. Reservoir.

Are we helpless to prevent these constant attacks on our life support systems by the institutions that control our lives? Are we trying to commit species suicide? And if so, why oh why do we have to take so many other species with us?

Friedman on U. S. Goverment Dysfunction

(Click on this post's title for the article.)
Sometimes I read something that expresses my concerns far better than I can. Today it was Thomas Friedman's op-ed piece in The New York Times.

I consider this one a "must read."

Caveat Emptor: Customers as "Marks"

The 21st century style of cold calls or sales.
The office telephone rings. You answer and the caller demands, "I need to talk to the person in charge of the utility (or telephone, credit card, business insurance) account." You ask, "Who is calling?" The sternly toned response is, "Are YOU the person in charge of this account?"

The tone is officious and demanding. It intimates this call is from officialdom or from a vendor who has missed a payment or found a discrepancy in your account. Careful questioning is met with confrontational demands to "speak with the person in charge." The implication being no one else can be told what the caller has to say -- further creating the impression of a problem with an existing account.

If you ask to take a message, the caller usually refuses, asking when the person in charge will be available. If you say you are "the person in charge," the confrontational tone does not end. They are seeking to sell you a product change or addition. But the approach is that if you do not accept their product, you are making a serious mistake that could compromise your position and/or your business.

One such caller demanded, "Don't you know what deregulation means?" As if by resisting I was violating some kind of regulation.

The only way to terminate the call is to hang up. As long as you refuse their offers, they will continue to badger you.

Initially I assumed these callers were ill-suited to their jobs. Yesterday I had an Epiphany. The cold callers are TRAINED to bully the potential customers they call. It happens far too often to be accidental.

We inhabit a world in which customer abuse and lies have become the foundation of commerce. You cannot trust your banks, your credit card providers, your superstores, your computer hardware and software providers, the providers of your utilities, or your insurance companies. Every one of them will cheat and lie to you on a daily basis. It brings new understanding to the Roman saying "caveat emptor."

Fraudulent Foreclosures

Click on the post title for the New York Times article.

Financing giants JPMorgan Chase and GMAC "robo-signed" thousands of foreclosure documents without personal knowledge of the facts. This calls into question the legality of many previous foreclosures and clouds the titles on subsequently purchased foreclosed properties.

Surprise, surprise. The esoteric financial instruments into which mortgages were bundled and sold and rebundled and resold makes finding the mortgage paperwork almost impossible. This is probably the reason so many lenders have adamantly refused to renegotiate mortgages that are in danger of foreclosure. They have no idea how to proceed! This has not, however, deterred them from initiating foreclosure proceedings, which they confidently processed without doing the arduous homework.

Ugly, ugly example how today's super-corporations conduct business. Make no mistake, to them we are not considered customers, we are "marks."

Perhaps it's not perjury unless you get caught?

What NYS Dems and Repubs have in Common

Come November New York State voters in both major parties will have to hold their noses and up their blood pressure meds before casting their votes for governor.

I have heard life-long loyal Democrats express anger at having to vote for Andrew Cuomo. In my not-so-humble opinion, he just barely scrapes by as the lesser of two evils. Carl Paladino was discovered to have sent out racist, misogynistic and pornographic emails. Cuomo, on the other hand, is reputed to have built a impressive career stepping over the bodies of better men. Many suspect his behind the scene maneuverings in the downfalls of both Elliot Spitzer and David Paterson.

Moving on to the Senate and Assembly races one can only hope a tidal wave will sweep through both bodies and somehow cleanse the slime. Hope is the key word here. Neither party has anything to boast about, but the Democrats actually come out worse following their complete botching of the majority they achieved in the Senate at the last election. A plague on both their houses. Throwing out incumbents should be a voter priority.

They're Wagging Their Fingers at Me?

Election season is in full sway. The robo-calls and phony surveys are constant. As a registered Democrat, I get lots and lots of automated calls, usually just as I have sat down for dinner or become absorbed in a favorite TV show. The week before the Primary was very heavy.

The television ads range the usual mix of down home, love my family and community feel-good spots to the mysterious Over 60 group's attack on my congressman for "following Nancy Pelosi's agenda". This one even trumps the Paladino and Cuomo ads on the nasty meter.

The Democratic Party is holding onto my membership by a thread, largely because the Republicant Party has veered so far to the right and steadfastly clung to its failed policies of the past decade, I quite simply cannot go there.

So how does the party to which I have belonged all my adult life seek my vote?
Vice President Biden tells me to "stop whining." President Obama stands behind his podium wagging his finger at me and telling me the election is too important for me not to vote, no matter how unhappy I am with the limitations and shortfalls of the party's achievements since his election.

When all else fails, attack your base? Are these guys TRYING to lose their Congressional majority?

Perhaps, as Thomas Friedman suggests in his op-ed piece in today's New York Times, there is another way. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=1&hp

Change

Every liberal elitist like myself, should have a wonderful, conservative Republican friend like my friend, Bob. It helps to keep me grounded. The following post is an email Bob sent to me:

I'm dreadfully worried about the real possibility of a time of deflation. No matter how good the government is at dissembling and obfuscation, the truth will out. The signs are all there and unless there has been a "Jim Jones"-like drinking of the waters of the River Teethe, our leaders must, surely remember what led to the Great Depression.

Impossible, they say. Too many safeguards.

The truth of the matter is that, no, we are not a nation in transition from an agrarian society to a manufacturing one as we were in 1929; however, we are in a dramatic transition from a manufacturing society to an information-based society. All change exposes our underbelly and so makes us vulnerable to mortal wounding. This is our situation today.

The sea change underway is riddled with underwater challenges that make the journey difficult to navigate and treacherous -- possibly fatal to a nation that sets sail on these challenging waters with no navigational guides. The acceptance of a global marketplace is the only chart available that can be followed. Absent our embracing of this Absolute, deflation and continued degradation of our financial system are certain. I'm so worried about this possibility that I usually don't even discuss it, lest it become, somehow, self-fulfilling.

One cannot pick up a factory and move it easily from one place to another to take advantage of a more favorable business environment. Static brick and mortar edifices are so "yesterday." Today, a person sitting at her computer while on vacation in Puerto Rico can order raw material from Africa, have it sent to China for manufacturing, hire a phone marketing firm in the Philippines to sell the product and contract with Fed Ex to warehouse the product and to provide third party logistics to ship it anywhere in the world. One never needs to see or touch one's product! All that is required is a five hundred dollar laptop.

This is the new paradigm. The whole world is in play. This IS our world today. Many mistakes will be made and hopefully we will learn from them. The waters will roil as they strike unforeseen and hidden obstacles. Such is the way of change. The miracle is that we will survive and thrive. I know this to be true.

Why must the rich pay all the taxes?

Just because 1 percent of Americans earn over 23 percent of the country's income and 20 percent of Americans earn over 50 percent of the country's income, why should they pay the bulk of taxes?

Just because 40 percent of Americans earn less than 12 percent of the country's income, why should they be exempt from income tax? What are these freeloaders doing to pull our country out of recession and support our wars? The 6.2% they pay for Social Security and the 1.45% they pay for Medicare is a drop in the bucket. Sales and excise taxes don't count because these losers can barely afford to buy anything that's taxed to begin with so their contributions are minimal. Why should they be getting a free ride with earned tax credits and the like on their roughly $4,000-$6,000-a-person income while the wealthiest Americans have to pay up to 35% of their earned income in taxes?

Sure the guys at the top get a lower rate for capital gains and exclusions for dividend income or their municipal bond holdings while the less fortunate have to pay taxes on their pathetic savings account interest, but hey, they're the ones who stimulate our economy - just ask any hedge fund manager or credit default swap trader.

Billionaire Warren Buffet claims he pays one third less tax on his last dollar of income than his secretary does on hers, but I can't figure out if he's bragging or complaining.

What's with this whole Social Security thing anyway? Any fund manager could do a better job managing that money than the federal government. Just ask the guys at Lehman, no I mean Merrill Lynch, no Goldman Sachs... oops, perhaps not the best examples. Kids should be supporting their parents anyway. That's how we used to do things. What's that, the kids can't find jobs and are swamped by education loan debt? Well, life is hard and then you die.

All those lazy out-of-work people are swamping our homeless shelters, soup kitchens and hospital emergency rooms. When are we going to stop giving the American poor a free ride and put them to work cleaning our roads and bridges and public restrooms for room and board? It's not slavery if your intentions are good.

Katie's Walk for Diabetes Cure

In almost every way Katie Wolf is a typical 9 year old girl. But in her short life Katie has has 9,534 pricks to check her blood sugar, 6,056 shots, 416 insulin pump set changes and has had an insulin pump attached to her body for 832 days. Katie has had blood drawn every 3 months.

You see Katie has lived with juvenile diabetes for over 4 years. Katie's dad, Kevin, has lived with juvenile diabetes for 27 years (over 2/3 of his life). Juvenile or Type 1 diabetes is insulin dependant. It is becoming more prevalent than Type 2 diabetes which can often be "fixed" with careful diet and exercise. Type 1 will never be "fixed" without a medical breakthrough/cure which requires substantial and continued financial support. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund International is the best hope of finding a cure for this frightening disease for Katie, her Dad, and millions more.

On October 2, 2010, Katie will join fellow "Divabetics" to "Walk to Cure Diabetes" in Ontario, California. To support her courageous effort, click on the Title of this post which will connect you with her fund-raising page. Good luck, Katie!

Perhaps a Beamer?

So I went to the bank to roll over a CD. Could not force myself to lock in less than 1% interest for 9 months. Even if the rates are the same or lower in 9 months, what does it matter? Money sitting in savings accounts, money markets and CD's all over the country is languishing. I know it is important to keep cash on hand for emergencies, but when your banking fees exceed your interest on accounts, a stuffed mattress is more appealing.

What to do?
I could buy some real estate, but I don't know how to manage rental units and don't need (or want) a second home. Besides, I believe the real estate bust is far from over with more unpleasant surprises down the road.

I could invest in stocks. Some are offering dividends that are especially attractive compared with bank accounts. But I am already there as much as I want to be right now. I no longer trust the companies I invest in. They lie on their balance sheets, they lie to their shareholders, they gift wrap any company profits and lovingly bestow them on their risk-taking management teams, adamantly resist any temptation to reinvest profits back into their companies and thrill Wall Street by laying off experienced workforces that will be difficult to replace when (if) the economy recovers.

There are always U. S. Treasuries, a great favorite right now. So popular are they the interest rates are at historic lows and the opportunity for erosion of capital (known as risk to the more blunt among us) is uncomfortably high.

On the other hand...
That 328i in the BMW lot looked awful cute. I wonder how it handles? What harm could an little test drive do?

Senate Blocks Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Click on the post title for source article.]

So the Senate voted to block debate on the annual authorization of military programs, largely to prevent ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. Arkansas Democratic senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor voted with the Republicants to deprive supporters of a filibuster proof majority.

Is ending Don't Ask Don't Tell a liberal agenda item? You betcha. The policy is poorly conceived, unevenly implemented and based upon the premise that a group of people should live a lie. Liberals refuse to believe THAT is the American way.

This is a civil rights issue - equal protection under the law. Don't Ask Don't Tell is particularly invidious because it forces gays to live a lie and even then does not guarantee them protection. The law codifies discrimination and legitimizes sexual harassment.

Why is Tolerance a Lightning Rod?

Why do the intolerant react with rage to positions of tolerance? I do not know. But taking such positions opens one up to vicious, frightening attacks. The only change in the 40 years since the incident below is the unlikelihood the epithet "nigger lover" would be used today. And I am not totally sure about that. Much as I hate writing that term, those were the words that were used.

On the Workboat to Liberty Island - 1970
Tolerance spoke softly, gently, in self-effacing terms,
Tuned thoughtfully to her companion - intolerance.
Foolishly depending upon vagueness and half-hearted accommodation,
To ALL others.

As a tiny match ignites the forest,
Did soft-spoken hints at difference
Fuse the explosion - of bigotry.

Two needles sprang into
The pale blue eyes of hate.
Instant comprehension of the hackneyed phrase -
"If looks could kill."
Could? Something died.

Tolerance cringed in fear before,
Naked eyes of hooded demons.
"Are you a nigger lover?" screamed the man (?)
"There are two sides..." she stammered.
"Are you a nigger lover, slut?"

Crushing, crashing down, she fled in terror
From the man -

There was left the inescapable.
The knowledge -
Of night riders; Gestapo; inquisition;
The inviability of tolerance,
Which, accommodating intolerance,
Is raped and murdered in her bed by
The guest who accommodates nothing.

Written February 8, 1977, seven years after the incident.

Elizabeth Warren Named "Advisor"

Pragmatism trumped valor, and quite possibly political acumen, when President Obama named Elizabeth Warren an "advisor" to the President and the Treasury Secretary, rather than Director of the newly formed Consumer Protection Bureau. While I understand the President's reluctance to take on a tough Senate confirmation fight, I cannot help but wish he had chosen that route. A Senate hearing would have been illuminating and I do not believe it would have been a bad thing for the underdog Democrats heading into a challenging election season.

Warren, who is detested by financial industry insiders, has garnered wide support among consumer advocates for her stand against the big guys in her position as Director of the Congressional TARP Oversight Commission.

The same New York Times article that reported her appointment [click on this post's title for the link] reported: "The favorite among administration officials [for the position of Bureau Director] is Michael S. Barr, an assistant secretary of Treasury for financial institutions who is an authority on financial regulation and on services for low and moderate-income households." [We have seen how well Treasury has served THAT constituency.] Additionally, the article said, "Privately, Mr. Geithner [Wall Street's darling] promoted Mr. Barr for the consumer post."

The article further mentioned Mr. Geithner's apparent pleasure at the appointment.

Just when I thought the Obama Administration might be developing some spine.

Our President might do well to heed the words of country singer Aaron Tippin: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."

Moderates March on Washington?

Last night Daily Show host Jon Stewart unveiled his plan for a "Million Moderate March on Washington."
The date: October 30, 2010
The place: The Mall in Washington D.C.
The goal: "Let's take it down a notch, America."

Click on the post title for details.

Stewart, whose Daily Show is characterized by impeccable research, specializes in pinpointing the lies, inconsistencies and foibles of politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle and the mainstream media with irreverent hilarity. Stewart wants to restore sanity to the nation's discourse. He will be joined in the effort by his Comedy Central colleague, Stephen Colbert (pronounced Col-bare). Colbert, who purports to be ultra-conservative, will be vying for supporters with his "Freak out for Freedom, America" message.

I have never attended a major demonstration, but this one is tempting. Night after night, I stay up late to catch my daily dose of sanity and humor from Jon Stewart.

Hmmm, a million moderates? Surely there are AT LEAST that many left?

Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection

I heard a pundit insist Elizabeth Warren should not head up the new Consumer Protection Agency because she does not have a background in the financial industry. This is a problem why? As head of the Congressional Oversight Committee for the TARP, she certainly has not demonstrated any lack of understanding about the industry. Of course the industry has found her persistence in seeking accounting for its use of those funds somewhat off-putting.

I also heard the complaint she is too widely supported by consumer advocates. This is a bad thing? I have not noticed a shortage of policy makers from the financial industry in the Obama Administration.

Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-15/obama-said-to-consider-installing-elizabeth-warren-at-treasury.html reports that rather than appoint Warren head of the new agency, which would require a difficult approval process in the U. S. Senate, the Administration is considering naming her a counselor of Treasury Secretary (and financial industry insider) Timothy Geithner. She would be Geithner's subordinate. Geithner's opposition to Warren has been widely reported. As head of the new agency, she have far more independence. Theoretically Warren would still be responsible for getting the new agency off the ground. The banking industry is far more supportive of this approach. I do NOT find this reassuring. Sounds like a plan to neutralize one of the most dedicated (and outspoken) financial reformers in the country.

The director of the Consumer Protection Agency should be a consumer activist. Otherwise, what is its purpose? I am convinced Warren would look out for my interests, not the industry's and for this nomination the Administration should pull out all the stops.

Divide and Suppress

During an interview on NPR this morning, I heard that 49% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Islam. American Muslims are treading carefully on the eve of this 9/11. The end of Ramadan ushers in a three-day holiday. Because it includes 9/11 this year, Muslims are toning down their holiday celebrations.

Thursday vandals wrote racist graffiti on the wall of the Hudson Islamic Center. People immediately said "They must have been from outside the city," or "They are probably mentally challenged." The instinctive reaction was only outsiders would behave so badly and a refusal to confront the potential for darkness within their own community. This morning three young men were arrested for the crime. They were residents of Hudson. No mention was made of their mental condition.

We live in a media-fueled climate of racism and extremism - against Hispanics, against Muslims, against non-Christians, against less fundamentalist Christians. Interaction between Democrats and Republicans reflects intolerance rather than a will to wisely govern.

Nurturing discord benefits those who would keep the American people weakened and underfoot. It's working far too well.

To Tax or not to Tax

The Bush Era tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy and spread the wealth. They succeeded in the former and failed in the latter. Even their success as economic stimulus comes into question. The boom earlier in the decade had more to do with the illusion property values would rise forever and the creation of esoteric financial instruments that hid the rot in the system until the structure collapsed than with real economic growth. The very wealthy did get wealthier. The rest of us got poorer, many got much, much poorer.

While our nation's wealth migrated to huge corporations and the super-rich who controlled them, the government amassed enormous budget deficits. Government expenditures, including two very costly wars, were made with borrowed money. The results weakened the core of the nation's financial structure and could not continue.

Proclaiming the Republicans or the Democrats caused the deficits does not fix the problem. Cutting taxes will not fix the problem. Maintaining current spending levels will not fix the problem.

None of the solutions are palatable. Postponing action will only worsen the problem. Letting the tax cuts' sunset provisions take effect is only a start.

Our nation needs policies that nurture American self-sufficiency instead of stifling it. It cannot sustain a system in which it imports far more goods that it exports. While this works very well for corporations that continue to off-shore production and jobs, it is disastrous for the country. It makes it less diversified, increases its indebtedness, increases unemployment, robs it of the fruits of its innovations and drastically lowers its standard of living and economic security.

Our nation needs to build on the strengths of its citizens, not pander to their weaknesses; leave the era of factionalism and recommit to working together to forge a stronger, better integrated society. If sacrifice is asked of us, there must be corresponding benefits and the sacrifice must be evenly spread across all economic levels.

Complaints of a Liberal Elitist

Why Liberals Need to Draw a Line in the Sand
We got a massive bailout of the very rich, lackluster stimulus funds bogged down with bureaucratic red tape for the rest of us. Our tax system encourages the constant flow of wealth away from the middle and working classes to the super rich.

We got a national health care bill that curtails a woman's right to choose, transfers more of the nation's wealth to the insurance companies, places a heavy burden on small employers and forces citizens to buy over-priced product from private-sector companies.

Despite financial reform, credit card companies continue to charge usurious interest rates, banks continue to fleece depositors with outrageous fees and savers get barely visible returns on their deposits.

When corporations seek Chapter 11 protection to "reorganize," taking out small shareholders and debt holders and relieving themselves of pension liabilities, it is considered savvy financial management. When homeowners walk away from mortgages they can no longer afford (no Chapter 11-style reorganization available to them), they are considered dishonest free loaders who violated "sacred" contracts. The Secretary of the Treasury is a tax evader who, when he finally paid them, faced none of the consequences ordinary tax payers have to face.

Ending "don't ask don't tell," keeps getting put on the back burner. Guantanamo Bay remains open. Corporations have achieved the legal status of citizens. Acorn was destroyed but Goldman Sachs flourishes.

Our prisons are privatized and our infrastructure is being sold off. Much of our precious water supply is owned by Nestles, a Swiss corporation with a questionable human rights record.

Oil companies rule. While China develops renewable energy technologies, we contemplate our navels.

The media labels conservative Democrats "moderate" and liberals are termed "activists." The media is controlled by a handful of conglomerates whose very existence violates antitrust laws.

Our leaders preach the importance of small business and let the big guys undersell them into receivership, swallow up their assets and innovations, and raise prices.

The poor are blamed for the depredations of the rich. Hardworking Americans impoverish themselves acquiring college educations, then cannot get jobs.

Politicians praise American initiative and self sufficiency while individual citizens are prevented from participating in disaster abatement and big corporations are allowed to buy up and bury the technologies (or export them to other countries) that might reignite our economy.

While Republicans catered to their base, Democrats threw meager bones to theirs, assuming "liberals" had no place else to go. That "no place" threatens to include the polls in November.

Yeah, liberals need to draw a line in the sand.

Owning a Small Business

It's all about eking out your cash flow, robbing Peter to pay Paul, trying to collect your receivables so you can pay your payables. Every government report you are required to complete subtracts from your bottom line. Every insurance policy you must carry costs money for a bet against yourself. Debt is terrifying. It limits your flexibility to control expenses during product cycles, economic downturns or in the face of competition from larger, more diversified companies. It increases your cost of goods sold. Without borrowing, your business probably will never get out of the starting gate. Even with it, failure is common. Most small businesses fail within the first five years.

If you are sued, and this is a litigious society, you retain a lawyer. This is expensive. It costs money you will not see again, no matter the outcome of the suit. If you lose, you and your business could well end up bankrupt. If the suit is covered by one of your insurance policies, defense will be handled by the insurance company, which usually will settle, no matter how frivolous the complaint, in order to control cost. This opens wide a door to those adept at "gaming" the system.

Common wisdom assumes persons who own their own businesses are wealthy. Sometimes they are; however most small business owners struggle. They work long, arduous hours at wages no union worker would accept; try to maintain compliance with a regulatory maze larger companies have entire departments to deal with; and carry their business problems home every night. There is no shutting the door on the office for the small business owner.

Why do it? To be your own boss. To be self-sufficient. To have at least the chance to do things your way. To work at something you actually enjoy doing.

Why did we invade Iraq?

War is the continuation of diplomacy using other means, Carl von Clausewitz.

Why did our leaders decide to invade Iraq? Since the public is never trusted with the full picture, what follows is speculation.

Iraq probably seemed like a sure thing, a no-brainer.

1. Despite the absence of evidence of WMD, Saddam's posturing made their existence appear highly likely.
2. In a region dominated by religious states, Iraq was secular. The possibility of religious factionalism must have been judged remote.
3. Iraq was governed by an extremely unpopular tyrant.
4. Iraq had rich oil fields.

I believe Cheney, Rumsfeld and company were convinced our forces would be hailed as liberators, Saddam would be toppled, a stable, friendly regime quickly put in place and lo and behold, we would have a solid ally (i.e. client state?) in a dangerous corner of the world, a strong base from which to combat radical Islamic terrorism and preferred access to all those lovely oil reserves.

Did any of these reasons justify the war? I certainly don't think so and didn't then. I believe going to war in Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy decisions this country ever made. This disastrous decision was made worse by the incredible incompetency of its execution.

Execution of the War
None of the civilians planning and starting the war had military or combat experience. Colin Powell, who did, was sidelined, then co-opted, then again sidelined. Generals who disagreed with the tactical and strategic methodologies of the invasion received short shrift -- many were reassigned or were forced into or opted for early retirement.

A pity none of the civilians had read Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz or had a background in military history. Even a good football coach knows that the best game plans rarely survive the first set of downs. Absolutely no flexibility to adapt to the unexpected was built into the campaign. Suggestions by commanders in the field for adjustments to conditions on the ground were adamantly resisted by Rumsfeld's War Department.

I reiterate my point in an earlier blog, successful civilian oversight of the military requires civilian commanders who are well educated in military matters. Otherwise they enter war room briefings unequipped to make good decisions. If they wait until they take office, it is too late. Events will overtake them.

Study of history and civics is absolutely essential to a viable society.

Bill of Rights: VII, VIII, IX, X

These seem more open to different interpretations that I through VI.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Iraq Combat Mission is Over

Last night President Obama addressed the nation regarding the end of the combat mission in Iraq. It was not a victory speech, because there was no victory. Thousands of U. S. soldiers died, tens of thousands were critically wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

Did the conflict make us safer from terrorism? On the contrary, it probably made us more vulnerable by increasing hatred of the U. S. and making a dangerous corner of the globe less stable. Yes, the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein was removed. But nothing better has replaced him. Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed. A secular society devolved into one torn by factional religious hatred. The country could still descend into civil war. Iran lies dangerously positioned on the Iraqi border.

Did the war bring us assets? It drained our treasury and limited our ability to deal with problems at home. It did nothing to decrease our dependence upon unfriendly countries for our oil. The only beneficiaries were the companies that supplied the materials and manpower needed to wage it.

What happens if Iran invades Iraq or, more likely, manages to insert itself into the Iraqi political process?

Iraq. Let there be no mistake. We broke it. We could not fix it.
I hope it's over.

Unwired

After a week of being completely unwired, I returned to discover we were still at war, but pulling out of Iraq while things heated up in Afghanistan; the northeastern United States was enduring yet another prolonged heat wave; and hundreds of thousands of unhappy citizens poured into Washington D.C. on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech to voice their discontent and listen to Fox TV's emotive pundit Glenn Beck. Hints about efforts of the super wealthy and corporations to direct and control the grass roots Tea Party movement hit a few more editorial pages and blogs. (They may have a tiger by the tail.)

The five-year anniversary of Katrina was marked by celebrations of New Orleans' remarkable recovery while coverage of the Horizon oil spill's massive contamination of Gulf Coast waters moved to the back burner.

The economy continued its drunken stagger. Market volatility persisted. Real estate remained an uncertain investment. The Federal Reserve maintained non-existent interest rates to the banks, who continued NOT to lend money. Fears of inflation vied with fears of deflation.

Pakistan flood victims struggle to survive. Haitian earthquake victims continue to suffer. Keeping track of the year's natural disasters is a challenge.

The hurricane season apparently favors a parade up the Atlantic along a very warm Gulf Stream. The resulting rip tides plague vacationers to the Jersey Shore.

The political season is well underway bringing the electorate the usual nasty, deceptive commercials, phony telephone surveys and disingenuous interviews.

Being unwired wasn't so bad. I may do it more often.

Flying is a Be-atch

For months I anticipated my trip to the Caribbean. A trip that meant beautiful beaches, terrific food and, best of all, quality time with my daughter's family (i.e. the granddaughters).

In order to get there, I had to FLY. Mind you, my husband flies constantly in his work and thinks nothing of it (unless they lose his luggage). I, on the other hand, LOATHE the entire process.

First there is airport security. Over the years I have gotten pretty good at preparing. The process usually is trouble-free and relatively quick. But -- they make me take off my shoes, even when I am wearing sandals. They separate me from the handbag that contains my life (wallet, passport, credit cards, house and car keys). When the security line is backed up, this makes me feel VERY insecure. About one in five times they hand-search my carry-on.

Once through security, I breathe a deep sigh of relief, then realize it will be 6 or 7 hours before my next CIGARETTE! (You probably think this is a good thing. Most folks do. I know, I know, the nasty habit will make me die young -- oops that train already left the station.) I tried the gum years ago and it made me more psychotic than usual, so that is not an option.

The first flight is usually manageably short - anything under two hours is a GOOD thing. But this trip will go through Philadelphia. That entails quickly traipsing MILES through an airport with few automated walkways. My fibromyalgia makes this TOUGH. Hope I catch a ride this time.

The second flight is INTERMINABLE. Hours and hours in this tiny seat with minimal leg room - I am both vertically and horizontally challenged -- below average for the former, way more than I need of the latter. (I really feel sorry for the basketball players.) If we get a First Class upgrade, horizontal will improve. Vertical depends on the size of the plane. But we will get food and drink.

If I do not get an aisle seat, I will panic before I even take it (and probably cry). Frequent stretches are absolutely essential if I am to be ABLE TO MOVE at the end of the flight. Moving about the cabin is a trip. Knocking into all those folks leaning into the aisle in a vain attempt to secure some personal space, or stretching out their legs because there is NO ROOM for them in front of their seats.

I will eat anything the airline gives me, no matter how vile. I will imbibe alcohol if I am lucky enough to be in First Class. I will trek to the rest room at least four times more than I need to for the excuse to walk. And all the while, I will be DYING for a smoke. (Yeah, I get the pun.) After two and a half hours, my legs will start to hurt. An aspirin barely takes the edge off. By the fourth hour, I want to rock back and forth. At four and a half hours, I do.

Landing is a good thing, especially at a small airport where the taxi to the jet-way is short. Deplaning I am well behaved. I have done this drill before. Row by row, please. No pushing or shoving. If someone does try to push ahead, however; at this point there is no guarantee I will not RIP HER/HIS HEAD OFF!!!

Walking up the jet-way after a long flight is one of the greatest feelings in the world. Even when you know baggage claim and customs lie ahead. Finally, OUTSIDE the terminal, I locate an ashtray, light a cigarette, deeply inhale and the world slowly rights itself. An anorexic blond health Nazi complains about the smoke. Oh look, it is the b----h that tried (unsuccessfully) to push ahead of me while deplaning. I smile sweetly and gently waft an exhalation in her direction. Life isn't perfect. It's just a whole lot better than it was half an hour ago.

Note: We actually got the First Class upgrade on the flight home; however, it was delayed and we missed our Philadelphia connection home. US Airways put us up at the airport Hilton for the night and paid for dinner. Finally got home Sunday in the early afternoon. Vacations are wonderful things. Now it's all about laundry and sorting through mail and email.

Marriage - A civil or religious institution?

The controversy over gay marriage makes me ponder the nature of marriage from religious and civil viewpoints. It appears to me that the definition one applies to marriage impacts one's position in the controversy. Blending civil and religious rules in the marriage contract gives rise to confusion. I believe any resolution of the matter requires separating the civil components of marriage from the religious components. One is the responsibility of the state. The other is a matter of personal conscience and religious choice.

How does one define marriage in 2010 American society?

Is it the institution society designates for the care of children?

The state adjudicates custody and support arrangements for children during separation and divorce proceedings;

The state also adjudicates custody and support arrangements between unmarried parents;

No license is required to have or raise children;

Single persons, married persons, family members and friends can be among those designated as legal guardians by parents, or the state.

Is it a civil institution, founded upon a civil contract?

The state requires two adults seeking to marry to get a marriage license.

On the other hand, many states not only recognize, but mandate common law marriage between adults who have cohabited for a set period of time. Persons who have never formally married have found it necessary to get civil divorces in order to terminate their arrangements.

The state differentiates between taxes for married and unmarried adults.

The state regulates estate disposition for all its citizens and differentiates between married and unmarried adults.

The state differentiates between unmarried and married adults in defining the rights and responsibilities of persons for their partners.

Is it a religious institution?

Legal marriages can be performed by civil servants and have no religious basis or by clergy under the auspices and rules of a specific religion.

Some religions ban marriage between one of their congregants and someone from another religion. The state recognizes such mixed marriages.

Some religions permit polygamy. The state rules polygamy illegal.

Some religions prohibit divorce. The state permits persons to get multiple divorces.

It appears to me that the state's definition of marriage is secular and contractual. Religions tend to expand on that definition and adapt it to their own dogma. Thus, I fail to see what possible justification religions have for interfering with the state's definition of marriage unless and until the state interferes with that religion's right to define marriage for its congregants.

And the state has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS adopting the dogma of any religion as ITS definition of marriage and its benefits and responsibilities.

Two Friends Discuss Military Contractors

I wrote to my friend Bob:
I am thinking about a post on the U. S. mercenary army. Below are my thoughts to this point. I would really like to know your thoughts about this (since your military and political experience are far greater than mine).

Now that U. S. combat troops have left Iraq, I cannot help wondering if the U. S. Government's private army also has left. The New York Times stated in an article today that the State Department will increase its private security force in Iraq to 7,000, a number that does not seem TOO outrageous, if that is the total mercenary count. But is it? And I still want to know WHY oh WHY does the U. S. Government need a PRIVATE ARMY in addition to the highly trained and dedicated U. S. Military?

Troublesome answers suggest themselves to me:
1. A private army is not easy to oversee by our elected officials.
2. Paying for a private army can be couched in deceptive terminology like "military contractors" that hide its true purpose.
3. A private army is a useful tool for conducting unpopular, even unsanctioned missions.

Bob replied:
I would not argue with any part of your rationale. Most of the contractors have specific and limited assignments such as dignitary protection. The vast majority of these folks are prior military that make dramatically more money in their new roles. I would guess that the 7,000 referenced are only a small percentage of the number of contractors left in country, ostensibly for protection not aggression.

This concept is new, together with such things as contracting for food service. Being a member of "Cynics of America" I always suspected that was a methodology to understate the number of military folks in country. By example, if civilians are doing KP, then a private in the army need not be in theater. If one added all of the civilian contractors doing what has historically been done by the military, one could get an actual count of the number of Americans in the conflict. To not do so is to understate the numbers.

I wrote:
To recap: using private contractors enables understatement of the numbers actually deployed in country?

How do you think they impact the mission itself? The chain of command? Military morale?

Also, during Iraq and Afghanistan the State National Guards have been widely deployed and exploited. Does this weaken the Guards, which are in essence our militia (vis a vis the Second Amendment)? Could this be intentional downgrading of the "peoples' army?"

This really troubles me: Who commands the loyalty of the private contractors: the U. S. Government, the President, the State Department or the company that hires them?

At this point, would it even be possible to disband them and return to traditional support?

Maybe I should just forget it and trust that our government knows best?

Bob answered:
Well, trusting the government is challenging.

In my day, the services did mess duty, laundry and other tasks only tangential to the fighting. I personally, believe contracting is positive in that soldiers can concentrate on soldiering and not KP and can focus on their jobs.

My point is that if these tasks were to be performed by military personnel in theater, it follows that additional military personnel would be required. Having civilians perform the tasks allows for the stated number of forces in theater to be less than if "traditional" methods were employed. It is much more politically palatable to declare the lowest number of people in harm's way possible.

One shudders to think what number of military personnel might be required if contract service jobs were performed by the military. I believe it would require a draft.

As for our contract fighters, there is no question in my mind that they owe allegiance to the firm that hires them and then places them.

I don't worry about the ultimate client for protection, it's the giant firms that hire the contract warriors that give one pause.

The issue of chain of command is interesting. Instead of company and field grade officers being responsible for, let's say mess, the contractor is responsible to the general service, their relationship delineated by contract documents. A company commander is responsible for feeding his troops but he (she) is most likely restrained by a contract forged on a golf course rather than a battlefield.

The Guard has always been required to be prepared to take a combat role. Historically it has never happened on such a scale for such a time. Ironically, the result is the best trained reserve force anywhere in the world. This level of service is not, I can assure you, what Guard members signed up for.

I wrote back:
Do you ever think it odd how a conservative Republican like you and a liberal elitist Democrat like me so often end up on the same page?

My friend replied:
80% of us are somewhere in the middle with only 10% at the extreme left or right. The challenge is that 10% of 300 million people is a sizable number of "true believers" trying to move an agenda.

Bill of Rights: III, IV, V and VI

The Amendments that protect individual rights (I and II were previously posted) are often particularly vulnerable to subversion and even assaults by public opinion. Guarding them is essential to maintaining a free society. It also requires constant vigilance.

III is a direct response to British actions prior to and during the Revolutionary War.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I do not see how The Patriot Act conforms with Amendment IV.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Under a system in which the accused are offered advantageous plea bargains in exchange for evidence against others, justice is frequently sacrificed to expediency and high conviction rates for ambitious prosecutors.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the legal system is over worked, under-staffed and under-funded and those charged are pressured into making plea bargains rather than confronting the powerful represented by underpaid public defenders, how real is the guarantee of a speedy, public trial by jury? Even those who can afford private counsel often face impoverishment paying for their defense in trials that can last for weeks or even months. Prolonged trials also place a heavy burden on the citizens serving on the juries.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Burka Habit

Last night I entered the local convenience store and saw the backs of not one, but two, heavily draped-in-black figures. The visceral response immediately arose - BURKAS!! -- a symbol of female oppression that never fails to revolt me. Whenever I see them, I am torn between wanting to run up to the women and tell them they do NOT have to wear those awful garments here in the U. S. of A. and the urge to rip the offending coverings from their hidden faces. Fortunately for my legal well being, I have yet to do either.

Then one of the figures turned around and I saw a sight familiar from my Roman Catholic parochial school girlhood - a not-so-young nun clad in the traditional "habit."

Stunned, I turned to pay for my ice cream and leave, muttering to myself, "I thought the Church no longer required that ridiculous attire. They probably CHOSE to wear the black costumes that terrorized my youth. I never noticed before how much those things look like burkas, especially from the back. I bet they are every bit as uncomfortable."

I thought about the nun who told us it would be a terrible sin if one of us had a "vocation" and failed to become a nun. And of how my 11-year old self walked home from school repeating the mantra "Please, God, don't let me have a vocation," over and over again.

Hmmm, no wonder my reaction to the burka is so strong.

Interesting after note: after I published this post, four ads for Islamic clothing appeared on my blog entry page. Now THAT was a misfire!

On Speach, Religion, Assembly and Bearing Arms

Below are the first and second amendments to the U. S. Constitution. The language does not APPEAR to be ambiguous, does it? In fact the writing is far more straightforward than we are accustomed to reading in legal documents.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Food for thought.

Unions

Demonization of unions puzzles me. Except for public employees unions, most American labor organizations have lost their teeth.

Institutions that secured workers on-the-job safety standards, the 40-hour work week, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, minimum wage standards are barely relevant in the age of Wal-Mart.

What good is a 40-hour work week when workers need two or three jobs to meet minimum living standards? What purpose does a minimum wage that fails to provide for the most basic needs of existence serve? What role does a National Labor Relations Board play when employers are allowed to terminate employees who attempt to organize?

How effective is unemployment insurance when workers cannot find replacement jobs for months or years? What bargaining chips do unions have when 15 million Americans are unemployed and millions more have been forced to accept underemployment?

Even public sector unions are feeling the bite. Privatization of traditionally public sector jobs is gaining momentum. Years of bloated, unsustainable budgets have made deep state and local government cuts inevitable.

Did the unions play a role in their decline? Yes. Frivolous strikes. Demands that were unsustainable for their industries. Leaders who forgot who they represented. Corruption. But no other institutions so ably represented the American working stiff (the "small" people).

Who else cared about nurses being forced to work long, arduous double shifts? On-the-job haz-mat protection? Whistle-blower protection? Child labor? Teachers confronting violence in the classroom and huge class sizes? Air traffic controllers working under agonizingly stressful, understaffed conditions (does anyone even remember THEIR superhuman efforts on 9/11)?

From the day the Great Communicator fired the striking air traffic controllers, the handwriting was written on the wall: "the 'small' people have no place in the shining city on the hill."