BeThink - Front Page

Common Sense Health Care; Individualism or the Commonweal

Betsy L. Angert — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Democrats dance in the streets and declare success. An ABC News-Washington Post poll released on October 18, 2009, found that only twenty percent of the population defines themselves Republican. Progressive assert this result will work in the their favor if the public option is to pass. However, the now ecstatic portion of the electorate discounts the "disconnect" discussed in the aforementioned study and also addressed in a Pew Research Center report published only a week earlier. The overjoyed overlooked the Independents (42%), the leaner's, Left and Right (39%), and the less than inspirational number who proclaim themselves proud Democrats (33%). For these individuals, the topic of health care reform is a complex issue. Trust in Congress is near nil. People are engaged in the subject, albeit a bit overwhelmed. Sixty-six percent (66%) say they do not understand the proposed policies. Personal matters move most people, more so than Party politics does. Possibly, that is the problem, or the predicament that precludes authentic medical insurance reform in America.
Health care concerns consume every American and $1 out of every $6 [six dollars] citizens and the country spends. Currently, in the United States, 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) is devoted to medical costs. In 2007, a national study, revealed more than sixty-two percent of bankruptcies were the result of expenditures related to illness and injury. This total reflects a twenty percent increase in financial defaults due to medical bills since 2001. Eighty percent of the persons who filed insolvency claims had health insurance.

Nevertheless, countless citizens cry our; our current health care coverage system is the "best in the world." Several of those who think medically speaking, the American people are not well-served say reform would make matters worse. All crave what they believe to be common sense. However, there are as many definitions of good judgments as there are people, politicians, pundits, and regular people. Personal preferences have power over our opinions. Perchance that is why so many believe "common sense" in the health care coverage debate is crucial.

When Senator Max Baucus, and the Finance Committee he chairs, unveiled their version of a Bill, they titled the remedy a common sense cure. However, hours before the measure passed, uncommonly candid assessments appeared. "Unfortunately, the bill would leave 17 million citizens and legal residents without insurance in 2019." Authentic appraisals frequently conflict with assertions. Consider the notion called common sense.

For months, in town halls, tea parties, and at kitchen tables nationwide talk of health care reform triggers cries for "common sense." America's Chief Executive asserts a need for it. Cable News Correspondents and Commentators, such as Glenn Beck calls for it. Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt offered his thoughts on the topic. Columnists Peggy Noonan states, "Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare."

Entrepreneurs' enter the fray. Whole Foods Chief Executive Officer, John Mackey addressed the common sense axiom as it relates to our wellbeing. "Every American adult is responsible for his or her own health."" Then, there are the American people. They too are very familiar with what passes for lucid logic. However, few ponder the variance in veracities. The subject that supersedes sound judgment is the slant, "Individualism or the Commonweal." The two contradictory "ideals" together in a single mind cause conflict, or cognitive dissonance.

Recent Realities
Still, some "truths" remain solid. Statistics show the rise in health care costs is steady. Those families and individuals unable to acquire insurance for medical treatments has also increased. Only two short years ago, measured data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed that there were 46 million Americans without health insurance in 2007. Newer research released by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine stated that in January 2009 almost 52 million Americans were uninsured. These numbers do not take into account the persons with inadequate coverage or those whose policies are canceled retroactively. . Recission is profitable and the preferred practice for many insurers.

Cancelation of policies is a popular notion. Employers consider personal compensations to be of greater value than the health of their personnel or the wellbeing of the common folk. Perhaps the philosophy in practice explains why, in late 2007, Employer-provided insurance continues to decline. Poverty is on the rise. The median income is less than in the past. Job-based health insurance has become but a dream.

Employee contracts are also now easily eliminated. In a fifteen-month span, from February 2008 through May 2009, employers have shed 5.1 million jobs. Many of these laborers cannot expect to be re-hired. Professionals and business personnel are not exempt from these numbers. In what was once the most prosperous country on the globe, the losses are great.

Only six months ago, Americans learned, in a single month "more than 320,000 Americans lost their employer-provided health insurance." This "amounts to approximately 10,680 workers a day." The authors of an investigation analysis avow, "Middle Class families, frequently collapse under the strain of the health care system that treats physical wounds, but inflicts fiscal ones." Possibly, that is why in Common Sense 2009 Larry Flint argues, "Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich . . . decide our fate."

Thus, the average American struggles with a sense of destiny. Those who think themselves stable and secure, gainfully employed and covered, are happy with the current health care system. For the few who believe they are solid citizens, the uninsured as merely careless. Their thought is, control is best when it is in the hands of commoners with common sense. Hence, with posters held high in their hands countless have chosen a path of civil disobedience. Protesters rally. Everyday people rant. Collectively, throngs of citizens who oppose the "ObamaCare" chant words first penned by writer Thomas Paine. However, much is lost in the translation.

Thomas Paine; Reflections From the Past
Essayist, Pamphleteer, Radical, Inventor, and intellectual Philosopher Paine, some say, is the only voice of reason. Voters resolve Paine speaks to the rights of individuals. He understood and addressed the necessary apprehension for Administrative rule. Rarely remembered or recited is the founder's resolve to embrace an elected Legislative and Executive Branch.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought.
A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing. This necessity . . . will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Perhaps, in our shared hours of physical and fiscal pain we might wish to recall the words Paine penned when the New World was young, rather than rely on what in recent years has become the New World Order. Our forefather, Thomas Paine stated a need for government,. He understood; human frailties, such as greed, necessitate rules and regulations. The role access to authentically adequate medical treatments plays in the broader community, would not have been lost on a man who recognized we all share responsibility for societal ills.

Paradigm of Perception; Thomas Paine Text Transformed
Today, those who rant against an official health care policy reason that in this republic elected officials are the enemy. A person has rights, they shout. People who rage in opposition to plans that would transform the insurance cartel frequently quote Thomas Paine as though he would have supported their contentions, "We are all responsible for our own lives."

Individuals intolerant of government have a great support system. The Press, who loves to stir the pot, pours out prose to incite. Glenn Beck, who thinks himself inspired by the original work of Thomas Paine makes "A Case Against an Out-of-Control Government." This independent maverick ignores the words written by the man he, and other anti-Administration protagonists, thinks a prophet. Perchance, the Broadcaster missed the passage,

"Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested., is the Author."

A fondness for one's fellow man is rarely found in Mister Beck's rhetoric. Indeed, he has arguably fueled the flame of fury, divided the people, and contrary to the case for a central government, Glenn Beck has ignited a fire in defiance of the Paine doctrine. In the name of a need to preserve and protect the public's rights, the modern Author misconstrued Paine's original text. Announcer Beck has chosen individualism. He ensured that his economic future is secure and rejected the reality of the commonweal.

Writer Peggy Noonan, on the other hand while not a supporter of causes that advocate for the common welfare, did at least speak of the public as a whole. She muses; American's are reluctant to accept reforms. "Resistance" explains the disdain for a policy change. Countrywide the mood has been altered. "The crash gave everyone a diminished sense of their own margin for error. It also gave them a diminished sense of their country's margin for error. Americans are not in a chance-taking mood." Perhaps, Ms Noonan is [politically] correct. Ostensibly, it would seem the former Ronald Reagan speechwriter is "right."

Today, few Americans have faith. What they once thought was common sense has proven not to be the case. The people trusted what earlier Administration's proclaimed. However, contrary to what a past President and authoritative candidates said, all was not well in the United States. The Economy (was not) Strong Enough to Handle Turmoil. The number of uninsured Americans increased by nearly 8 million during the Bush Administration. Perhaps, cognitive dissonance is contagious.

The Commonweal Crumbles As Individualist Chide
Citizens live in a country. The American people reside in communities, and yet, most are concerned with only me, myself, and I. People ponder their personal circumstances, and those of their corporations. What is truth for persons in the business world affects us all.

No longer willing to believe in government, let alone a new Administration, proprietors who invested in smaller companies think to save themselves from Federal control. Shop owners say they do not want Uncle Sam to oversee or own insurance options. For these tycoons, competition in the private insurance industry is preferred. As individuals these Chief Executives ignore the veracity that they too will pay for the pain they reap onto the public and their personnel. The cost to companies will be nearly $2.4 trillion dollars for workers health care costs in the next decade.

The decision to emphasize earnings will have other effects. The Congressional Budget Office concluded "Employers who offer to pay for health insurance pay less in wages and other forms of compensation than they otherwise would, keeping total compensation about the same."

The phenomenon known as "job lock" is also often lost in critical conversations related to health care reform. The American people, supervisors, and subordinates are disconnected from the details until the day when thy suddenly are affected or afflicted. A healthy staffer rarely thinks of the time when he or she might become ill or be injured and feel imprisoned by a job that provides health care benefits. Professional passageways may be closed when insurance coverage becomes more important than the quality of life. Nor, does a vigorous staffer remember medical care coverage can be retroactively removed.

Recipients Receive Government Medical Care and Reject Reform
Recipients of Medicare also disregard associations. Rather than think of the generations they gave birth to people who benefit from the Federal plan speak loudly of their opposition to government managed health care programs. This seems contrary to common sense,, since these same individuals are joyous with what they receive. This dichotomy offers little but a larger puzzle. Where is the Common Sense? Many love what they have and loathe the possibility that others may profit from a similar or identical program.

In America, our countrymen have adopted an alternative democracy, one devoid of universal concerns. Unlike centuries ago, when a now popular Pamphleteer professed the need for a collaborative collective, in recent decades, by design, Americans have come to think of "me" first. Citizens are critical of the text that advocates for the commonweal, while they embrace its original author, Thomas Paine.

How might this have occurred? Children in the "United" States no longer study civics. The subject has been removed from schools curriculums.. The cost of such classes was thought too high. The lessons were not learned at home. Parents had to pay the price for a culture that does not cultivate a strong sense of community. Much of our common history, and perchance, common sense has been lost.

Awareness for the predicament of our fellow Americans is absent. Frequently,, people in this "affluent" country are detached from what they rather not believe exists. Prosperous people, those who are, for now, content with their health care coverage, believe that those who lack medical insurance are impoverished. The general public presumes people who do not work are by choice without coverage. Few can fathom what occurs when a free clinic opens its doors for a day. In Houston, thousands of employed individuals turned out in search of medical treatment that they could afford.

Salvage Common Sense
If Americans are to embrace common sense as they say they wish to, we, the people must decide. Does duplicity define us? Will we choose to work as one; or we once again serve only our self-interest.

Reform can expand the options for all and sacrifice none. If Americans again hold dear the notion of the social equality, some citizens could state, I am happy with my employer-provided health care plan. Others may prefer to opt for a government program. A few could conclude, I will cover myself, eat well, exercise regularly, and escape most every illness. It matters not which plan individuals choose. When we work together we serve the commonweal and act on the axioms Thomas Paine set forth.

In America, should we decide to conserve the commonweal, retain consumption as the rule, establish that indeed we are rugged individualists, or reform our ways. Will Americans waste not and want not? Could the original thought transcribed in Common Sense once again be our greater truth? What will 2009 bring; more rants, rallies, or reason? Only the approved insurance reform Bill will reveal which common sense approach Americans are willing to adopt.

Health Care Reform References . . .

Mixed Views of Economic Policies and Health Care Reform Persist. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. October 8, 2009
Americans Still Can't Trust Congress, By Ruben Navarrette. ?Real Clear Politics. February 4, 2009
Health Insurance and Health Care. National Coalition on Health Care. 2009
Baucus calls health care bill commonsense measure. Associated Press. September 16, 2009
Obama takes health care plan to the people. Cable News Network. June 11, 2009
Health Care Reform 2009. Washington Post.
Dramatic Increase in the Uninsured Rate in Every State. Center for American Progress. 2009
North Carolina's Increase in the Uninsured: 2007-2009. North Carolina Institute of Medicine. March 2009
Would A Health Overhaul Help The Underinsured? By Jenny Gold. National Public Radio. September 28, 2009
Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says, By Lisa Girion. Los Angeles Times. June 17, 2009
Why We Must Ration Health Care, By Peter Singer. The New York Times. July 19, 2009
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare, By John Mackey. Wall Street Journal. August 11, 2009
A Folksy Guy, in Recovery, Is About to Land Millions, By Brian Stelter. The New York Times. November 5, 2007
Fox News Hires Glenn Beck Away From CNN, By Bill Carter and Brian Stelter. The New York Times. October 17, 2008
Bush: Economy Strong Enough to Handle Turmoil, By William Branigin. Washington Post. Monday, September 15, 2008 3:43 PM
World's Best Medical Care? Editorial. The New York Times. August 12, 2007
Most Republicans Think the U.S. Health Care System is the Best in the World. Democrats Disagree. Harvard School of Public Health. March 20, 2008
What The Pension Insurance Deficit Means for Your Retirement, By Emily Brandon. US News. May 20, 2009
Tea Party Express.
Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study Authors David U. Himmelstein, MD, Deborah Thorne, PhD Elizabeth Warren, Steffie Woolhandler, MD The American Journal of Medicine. Volume xx, No x, Month 2009
The Baucus Bill. Editorial. The New York Times. October 11, 2009
Health care reform: What small business wants, By Neil de Mause. Cable News Network. July 7, 2009
"The VA Outpaces Other Systems in Delivering Patient Care." Rand Corporation.
Baucus Calls Health Care Bill Commonsense Measure. Associated Press. CBS News. September 16, 2009
Obama calls for 'common sense' financial rules, By Robert Schroeder. MarketWatch. September 14, 2009
Reluctance to Spend May Be Legacy of Recession, By Peter S. Goodman. The New York Times. August 29, 2009
Employer-provided insurance continues to decline, By Julie Appleby. USA Today. December 31, 2007
The Number of Uninsured Americans Is At An All-Time High. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. August 29, 2006
Poverty Rose, Median Income Declined, and Job-Based Health Insurance Continued to Weaken in 2008. Recession Likely to Expand Ranks of Poor and Uninsured in 2009 and 2010. By Arloc Sherman, Robert Greenstein, Danilo Trice and Paul N. Van de Water. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. September 10, 2009
"Me" culture. By James Westcott. Salon. March 4, 2005
Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Grows. CBS News. September 10, 2009
>Of Monarchy and Heredity Succession. By Thomas Paine
Within Borders, By Susanna Schrobsdorff. Newsweek. August 5, 2009
Thousands get free medical care at event. ABC News. Saturday, September 26, 2009
New World Order. Wikipedia.
Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare, It turns out the president misjudged the nation's mood. By Peggy Noonan. Wall Street Journal. July 24, 2009
The Shadows of Consumption: Consequences for the Global Environment." By Peter Dauvergne
Pundit Glenn Beck on 'Common Sense,' More, By Glenn Beck. Washington Post. June 15, 2009
Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study, Authors David U. Himmelstein, MD, Deborah Thorne, PhD Elizabeth Warren, Steffie Woolhandler, MD The American Journal of Medicine, Volume xx, No x, Month 2009
Largest U.S. Health Insurer Rewarded Employees That Cancelled Coverage of Sick Patients. Reuters. June 16, 2009
New Study: Bankruptcy Tied To Medical Bills, By Sarah Lovenheim. The Washington Post. June 4, 2009
More Americans Are Losing Health Insurance Every Day. Center for American Progress. May 2009
The Public Schools. By Susan Fuhrman, Marvin Lazerson. Oxford University Press. 2005
Sen. Conrad's Health Insurance Co-Ops Won't Provide Affordable Care and Could be Used by the Insurance Industry Against Americans, Says Consumer Watchdog. Source: Consumer Watchdog. PR Newswire. August 18, 2009
Common Sense (Text Version), By Thomas Paine. February 1776
Common Sense 2009. By Larry Flint. Huffington Post. August 20, 2009
Common Sense, The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine. By Glenn Beck.
Antitrust move poses few risks to health insurers, By Matthew Perrone. The Associated Press. Washington Post. Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:07 PM
The number of uninsured Americans increased by nearly 8 million during the Bush Administration. Joint Economic Committee. United States Senate. September 11, 2009
Americans Still Don't Trust Government-But They Could Go For A Health Care Plan Modeled Like This..., By William Galston. ?The New Republic. September 3, 2009
The me-first, screw-everyone-else crowd, Nothing will keep the rich from whining about how tough easy street is. By David Sirota. Salon. August 8, 2009

Glenn Beck; Race Relationships or Health Care Reform

Betsy L. Angert — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:00:00 GMT

Glenn Beck calls Obama racist

Americans may recall, it began with a Sweet aside and grew into a [Glenn Beck] beckon. Now, the stage is set. The audience is explosive. Words of woe are shouted from every hall. For more than a month the media has given rise to the troublesome message. The reason for health care reform; the Obama Administration yearns to provide a platform for "stealth reparations."
Reporters, Lynn Sweet and Glenn Beck, as well as the corporations who support their work have helped refocus the nation's attention. What the country imagined would be a time to talk of health care reform has become an era of ethnic erosion. Pundits pose the possibility as a reality; it is "us against them," white against Black, or perhaps, the American people in opposition to President Barack Obama. Since, a press conference held many weeks ago, claims of racism have filled the airwaves. The victim, or according to Fox News host Glenn Beck, the purveyor is the Commander-In-Chief, Mister Obama.

Mister Beck was given the stage, amidst all the hoopla over health care reform; when Chicago Sun Times Columnist Lynn Sweet opened the door. Ms Sweet offered a not so sugary treat. In late July she created a distraction from the crucial debate over medical insurance. It would seem that Ms Sweet had no time or interest in how a broken health care system might be fixed. Nor did the profundity of the debate appeal to Fox News Announcer Beck. However, as a source of entertainment Mister Beck thinks the topic truly fine.

The flamboyant Fox News broadcaster does not relate to the fear of a sudden recission. At least for now, Mister Beck feels certain that his health care costs are covered. The possibility of a legal retroactive cancelation of his or his entire family's policy is not an "option" Glenn Beck considers. The opinionated Anchor boasts only of the advantages of the current private health care system, as he links health care reform to Nazis. Mister Beck suggests any alteration in our insurance system would kill elderly and newborns. Surely, he surmises our very survival depends on maintaining the status quo.

Pride and prejudice; these are the qualities that work well for Glenn Beck. He has realized people respond when he speaks of the President's supposed bigotry. Popularity and the prosperity fame reaps are a far more pleasant endeavor for each of these Reporters. Tis true for the two; the treatment of Black persons at the hands of law enforcement is a more titillating theme than the cost of medical services. Perchance, that is why these members of the Press thought Professor Gates, the Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer, and a beer summit, were food for their fodder.

Lynn Sweet. who in the past promised analysis is not her preference. "Product." Is Ms Sweet's penchant. Glenn Beck concurs; "topical talk" is his trademark. The drier subject of an American health care crisis is not as dicey as overt discrimination might be.

The subject of segregationists offers a superior slant to those who wish to garner attention. Indeed, separatism has allowed for much sensationalism. Couple these with Socialism and succession, and what a wonderful stew Sweet and Beck have brewed. These themes have helped to ignite fires and fury in many a town hall meeting.

Currently, Americans can speak of nothing else. Some say, the first African American President wants to take over the country. Others offer beware of a Black nation..

Some terrified citizens coalesce around the Glenn Beck battle cries, the volume increases. Fans of, the boisterous Broadcaster say Beck represents us. Thus, the man behind the "people's" movement is in demand.. Special appearances are arranged. The American people want to know what the man who offers the "Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment" thinks. Beck opines, any and all of the President's proclamations prove Barack Obama to be . . . "a racist." [sic].

However, once this accusation was publically posed Announcer Beck did not receive the reception he had hoped for. Sure, Glenn Beck has his followers. He also has his detractors. Some of these were once partners. Embarrassed by the snide, rude, and crude criticism, "the President is a racist," many advertisers withdrew their financial backing for the Glenn Beck Program. While the corporations may not have had a problem with the popular performer or his sharply pronounced bigotry, these businesses understood the power Glenn Beck's words would have.

Perhaps, entrepreneurs' worried of their earnings. Possibly, public relation became the priority. Outright racially charged outbursts do not make for the popularity of a product. Capitalist comprehend the truest concern the public might be offended by what seems more pronounced than a simple offhand remark made in private. In America, it is important to maintain an image. Colorblind is the politically correct manner of the day.

Complaints did indeed pour in. It is not polite to call the President of the United States a bigot. Heaven forbid, or more accurately, the Almighty dollar dictates decorum. Hence, companies, which did not wish to be associated with such vile criticism, took contracted commercials off the Glenn Beck Program schedule. A petition drive demonstrated approval for the move. "More than 180,000 of "the people", us, have stood up and 62 companies have pulled their support."

Now, another appeal has appeared. Add your voice The contention is . . .

Our campaign has been a huge success so far. As Beck's show decreases in value, FOX will do everything possible to reverse the trend.
It's time to thank those advertisers who dropped Beck and keep them from returning, while calling on more advertisers to pull back as well.

It takes just a moment to sign, seal, and deliver a thought. Perhaps the American people can still reclaim the conversation, and health care can again take center stage. Rather than allow Glenn Beck an opportunity to rant, rage, and call the President of the United States a racist, the people can call for calm. Citizens need only pen a paragraph as I, Betsy L. Angert did in the following.

Dearest News Corporation President, Chief Executive Officer, and Fox Board of Directors. . .
Please do not let Glenn Beck continue to yell, "Fire in the theatre," or to state the President started the blaze. A fearful audience is quick to anger. A person who feels threatened by the inferno will do more than blame the individual they are led to believe started the combustion. People will pummel the being even if that that man, woman, or President is innocent.
Please News Corporation executives, ask yourself; would you wish to be responsible for providing a raucous instigator a platform.
If you would, reflect upon the public fury Glenn Beck incites, and do not allow him to be the source of a stampede.

Perchance, if, we the people insist on more than a Sweet; yet sour aside, if we eschew persons or products whose sponsors pay for slice and dice discussion, than the cultural divide will not dominant our policies, practices, and programs. Should we speak up and speak out civilly, the chaos in the amphitheatre called America will be calmed. Shun racist rhetoric, then, perhaps, we, as a nation would become as our forefathers envisioned, one, indivisible . . . . . and fully insured regardless of race, color, or creed.

References for the racial, media prompted rants . . .

Obama tells Lynn Sweet police acted "stupidly" in arresting Gates, By Lynn Sweet. Chicago Sun Times. July 22, 2009
Glenn Beck Bio. Premiere Speakers Bureau.
Beck imitates Obama pouring gasoline on "average American"; says: "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire? ... We didn't vote to lose the Republic." Media Matters. April 09, 2009 7:24 pm ET
The story behind my Obama press conference question, By Lynn Sweet. Chicago Sun Times. July 23, 2009
Obama's 'SS': Glenn Beck sees scary black people, By David Neiwert. Crooks and Liars. Friday Aug 28, 2009 8:00am
Blue Shield health insurance rescission case to go to trial, By Lisa Girion. The Los Angeles Times. May 18, 2009
Glenn Beck To Host 5PM Show On Fox News, By Danny Shea. Huffington Post. October 16, 2008
Sweet On Obama! By John Koblin. New York Observer. May 20, 2008
The Glenn Beck Program. Fox News.
Beck links health care reform to Nazis, suggests reform would kill elderly and newborns. Media Matters. August 6, 2009
Glenn Beck fans say he represents their American values, By Eric Deggans. Tampa Bay, Saint Petersburg Times. September 11, 2009

We Can't Afford to Wait

Betsy L. Angert — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:00:00 GMT

We Can't Afford to Wait

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Only today Cable News Network aired a report that suggests most of those who want a public option health care plan are African Americans, Persons in this population are more likely to be uninsured. Statistics show dark skinned individuals also seem predisposed to poor health. News broadcaster Kyra Phillips continues. Black people, when surveyed, say they think Mister Obama has performed well in office. In contrast, far fewer white Americans approve of what the Obama Administration has done on the job. Subtly, Ms Phillips reminds the audience, the current President of the United States is the nation's first Black Commander-In-Chief. The implication is obvious.

Yet, the tale is not necessarily as told. Witness the stories shared in a MoveOn.org video, study the faces, and consider the situation of those who say they cannot afford to wait for health care reform, Mostly white faces fill the screen.
Of course, someone may surmise, this presentation was staged. It was not. Days ago, this author received a request to do as these individuals have done. An electronic message was sent to millions of Americans. The appeal was, Please share your story on a sign. Hold the poster up and photograph yourself for all to see. Send the snapshoot to MoveOn.org, and our organization will compile what we collect.

Common everyday citizens responded en mass. The people, informed of the intent saw this venture as an avenue to further their personal cause. Each considered what was a potential presentation, perhaps the most powerful means to give voice to their message.

Here they are; real persons who openly say they cannot afford to wait for a public health care coverage option. Be they affluent, ill, an average American, or the strong who fear for family, the plea is palpable.

Caucasian small business propitiators offer the words, "We cannot wait for affordable medical insurance coverage."

Pink persons who had policies that were canceled once they were diagnosed with a life threatening illness tell us as a country, we have delayed a public option plan for far too long.

Fair-haired families, forced to spend a large portion of their income on medical insurance say the nation cannot continue to over any real choice. Coverage too costly does no one any good. Inevitably, someone pays for the burden others bear. Only insurance offered at a reasonable rate or free access to treatment for those who , for a time, have no funds will benefit Americans from all walks of life.

Certainly, people of every color need adequate and affordable medical treatment plans. Americans yearn for policies that do not bar people with a pre-existing condition. Citizens, no matter the race crave for a program that will not be canceled if they find themselves in poor health. People of all creeds cannot postpone access to pragmatically priced medical coverage.

Please pass this message on. Send the video and the text to any Anglo who believes only the poor or brownish purplish persons burden the "phenomenal," private, American health care system.

Read the references . . .

Transcripts. Cable News Network. September 8, 2009
We Can't Afford to Wait

Love; The Life of Ted Kennedy

Betsy L. Angert — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:00:00 GMT

Watch CBS Videos Online

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

I love you Ted Kennedy. I have for a very long time. Please let me count the ways.

I have forever thought Senator Edward Moore Kennedy was the more effective, endearing, enduring, committed, and constant Kennedy. Perhaps it is my age, or the lackluster logic of hindsight. Possibly, I was too new to politics when I was very young. After all, my interest was only ignited at the age of five. Maybe, I might relate more to someone whose birth rank is more similar to my own, or to a person who, like me, throughout his life was thought to be more Liberal than the two older siblings he is often associated with. I know not with certainty why I feel as strongly as I do. Nonetheless, my impression of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Robert Francis Kennedy cannot be compared with my sense of Ted, Edward Moore Kennedy. Oh, how I admired, appreciated, and adored Teddy Kennedy, and will for all of my days. The reasons . . .
I recall when we met. No, we did not sit down to dinner. We have no friends in common, at least none I am aware of. I was but one of many who attended a very small gathering in Irvine, California. I believe the year was . . . indeed, I am uncertain. Although I trust it was well over a decade or two ago. Less than forty persons were present. Even that number may be an overestimation. We who stood and spoke with Senator Kennedy were die-hard Democrats.

For us, or at least for me, the legendary Kennedy charisma and charm that both John and Bobby were famous for would never has been of interest to me. All of my life I have been attracted to those who actively address issues such as international harmony, health care coverage for all, civil liberties, human rights, equality, and education. A man, woman, or child who learns from his or her experiences, and authentically empathizes with others, is, in my mind, a quality person. Intelligence, consistency, and an intense sense to serve the average Americans, appeals to me. I have long felt Edward M. Kennedy is the embodiment of what I think worthy.

Today, as a nation mourns the passing of a legacy, I too look back. With thanks to Jezbel for what is admittedly but a summary of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy's achievements, I submit to you dear reader some of the countless reasons I love the man I now mourn. May we as a nation, not let the vision die. As Senator Kennedy declared in 1980, "The dream lives on." It is alive and well in us, if only we act on our greater desire for global goodness. "Teddy," if I might be so familiar, may you, may we all, rest in peace. May everyone remember what remains most meaningful.

The list is by no means comprehensive, but is meant to serve as a tribute to his work in public service.
Gender Equity: Kennedy saw [cosponsored] the Senate of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, which aimed to make men and women equal in the constitution. He reintroduced the legislation again this congressional session, but it has yet to make it into the constitution.
Kennedy championed Title IX of the Civil Rights Act in 1972, which prevented educational institutions from discriminating against women (afterward, colleges and universities integrated, paving the way for women like Sonia Sotomayor and Hillary Clinton to attend Ivy League institutions), as well as requiring equitable athletic opportunities.
Civil Rights: Kennedy saw the passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 as committee chairman, which strengthened the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Afterward, then-executive director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights Ralph Neas said, "Now you see what happens when you have a civil rights champion in charge of the committee."
He was also chief sponsor on the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which addressed intentional discrimination and harassment in the workplace. He was also a key sponsor of legislation by the same name in 2008, which sought to restore civil rights protections stripped by Supreme Court rulings in recent years (like the Lilly Ledbetter case.)
Pay Equity: Kennedy worked on the Fair Pay Restoration Act, which sought to restore the rights of women to sue with each discriminatory paycheck, overturning the Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.
Voting Rights: Kennedy worked on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which allowed equal access to voting as part of the Civil Rights movement. He also worked to add amendments in 1982 that expanded voting access to Native Americans, Latinos, and others who required language assistance.
Affirmative Action: Kennedy helped defeat legislation that would have ended federal affirmative action in 1998 and joined his colleagues in the Senate in filing a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in 2003.
LGBT Rights: Kennedy has been the chief sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act since 1994, which would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace. The bill has yet to pass.
Hate Crimes: Kennedy worked on the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2007, which would implement more severe penalties for crimes against women, gays, lesbians, and transgender persons. The bill was vetoed by President Bush in 2007, but the legislation has been reintroduced in the 110th Congress.
HIV/AIDS: Kennedy introduced what became the Ryan White CARE Act, which addressed thirteen cities hit hardest by the HIV/AIDS crisis in 1990. When it was up for reauthorization in 2000, it provided nearly $9 billion in HIV/AIDS services over the following five years.
Domestic Violence: Kennedy worked with Vice President Joe Biden on the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. He also worked on its reauthorization in 2000, which allowed immigrant women to apply for permanent status in the United States without their abusive partners.
Disability Equity: Kennedy worked to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, which provided much-needed accommodations for those with disabilities.
Minimum Wage: Kennedy worked with Congress in 2007 to pass the first hike in the minimum wage in more than a decade. Women disproportionately make up the population low-wage hourly workers.
Women in Combat: Kennedy championed the repeal a ban of women in combat in 1991. Women are still technically barred from fighting on the "front lines," such stipulations are meaningless in modern combat. By working for legislation that repealed archaic legislation, Kennedy helped women achieve more equality in the military.
Military Child Care: In 1989, Kennedy saw the passage of the National Military Child Care Act, which established the Department of Defense's child care program. This allowed working spouses of military members and women who were enlisted themselves to have access to high-quality, federally funded child care.
Health Insurance for Children and Pregnant Women: In 1997, Kennedy co-sponsored the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), allowing families to have access to health care that previously didn't. Kennedy also introduced legislation that has yet to pass, Affordable Health Care Act, which would expand Medicaid and SCHIP coverage for children, pregnant women, and the disabled.
He saw the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, which made it illegal for employers to fire women for leave taken due to pregnancy. We still don't require employers to provide paid maternity leave.
Minority Health Care: Kennedy championed The Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act in 2000, which provided funding for research for how to reduce disparities in cancer, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and other severe health problems that are found to be significantly higher in minority populations. In 2006, he introduced the Minority Health Improvement and Health Disparity Elimination Act, which would address inequalities in health care access and treatment if passed.
The Inclusion of Women in Scientific and Medical Research: Kennedy co-sponsored the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, legislation that called for the inclusion of women and minorities in federally funded clinical research.

Senator Kennedy, may you be with us all forever. May each of us take you into our hearts and act as you always did. May we keep the dream alive.

References . . .

Ted Kennedy
The Lion Sleeps Tonight; Ted Kennedy Leaves Long Impressive Legacy. Jezebel. August 2009

Betsy McCaughey; Resigned to Ruin Health Care Reform

Betsy L. Angert — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:00:00 GMT

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

There are moments frozen in time. Words may give us pause. Contrary actions can astonish most observers. Yet, those who obstinately offer these postures may be oblivious to how others view what they think, say, or do. Betsy McCaughey, her present circumstances, and the role she consistently plays in political debates, illustrates how many people can be moved to tears and jeers concurrently. This week, Betsy McCaughey, who since the Clintons first tried to change the health care system, has been resigned to ruin the possibility of any reform, sat before a captive Daily show audience.
This persuasive player with words has proven her self to be a source of comic relief. Nonetheless she is no less a tragic hero. Ms McCaughey has had many a success. She near single-handedly has destroyed health care reform legislation twice. However, perhaps on this occasion, she has experienced some failure, albeit possibly only a personal humiliation.

Some assessed Ms McCaughey's performance as awkward. As the interview progressed, it was clear, in her attempt to further the case against medical reorganization, she was seen as other than the scholar she is thought to be. Viewers of the program laughed at what had, for months, passed for profound. Death panels, indeed. Policies for physician reimbursement weaken? Quite the opposite.

Host John Stewart countered her every complaint in regards to legislation with a reasonable rational argument or analogy. While Betsy McCaughey remained self-assured, soon after, the public now presumes, problems arose. Reports stated Betsy McCaughey was asked, or belatedly chose, to tender her resignation from a firm, which profits from the delivery of health care left just as it is.

Betsy McCaughey - an outspoken proponent of the myth that Democrats' health care reform proposals will lead to the creation of "death panels," as well as a former lieutenant governor of New York and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute - has stepped down from her position as a director of Cantel Medical Corp., which bills itself as a "leading provider of infection prevention and control products in the healthcare market.

The esteemed and accomplished Administrator may have finally experienced a repercussion of her frequent follies. Perchance, this fall will cause her to incur a financial fiasco. We can only hope she will not be left without employer provided medical coverage, or that she has the dollars to dole out for what other Americans know to be an ever-costly expense. No one would wish for her downfall to be as those who came before her.

For the tens of millions who struggle to survive without health care coverage Betsy McCaughey's exit from the stage came perchance too late. Only today, Sunday, August 23, 2009, words of wonderment left the nation to once again lick its wounds, It seems just as occurred in the early 1990s, with the help of Betsy McCaughey,, citizens are again being told health care reform will have to wait. The time is not now. Again, Americans are placed in a deep freeze. Collectively, the people find reason to pause, and ponder.

Will someone such as Betsy McCaughey alway provide us with comedy, tragedy, and no health care coverage?

References for Ruin of Health Care Reform . . .

'Death Panel' Myth Creator Betsy McCaughey Resigns From Medical Board, By Matthew Delong. The Washington Independent. August 21, 2009
False 'Death Panel' Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots, By Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes. The New York Times. August 13, 2009
Cantel Medical Corporation.
Lieberman Suggests Health Care Reform May Have to Wait, By Joseph Berger and Derrick Henry. The New York Times. August 23, 2009

Polls; Panoply of America's Age of Unreason

Betsy L. Angert — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:00:00 GMT

American Failure in Education, Reason- Moyers, Susan Jacoby

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

He is up. He is down! Thankfully, the opposition says, "Soon he will be out of favor and ultimately out of office!" If voters do not remove the renegade from his prestigious position, term limits certainly will do him in. Liberal loyalists assert; President Obama is not the problem. Congress is the cruel joke. It seems no matter the political persuasion, citizens of this country find someone to fault. Surely, societal ills are thrust upon the public by an outside force. Regardless, of whether the electorate places the onus on an individual, an industry, the nation's Chief Executive, or other government officials, the oft-heard battle cry in the Age of America's Unreason is someone else is to blame. The American people do not imagine themselves responsible for inertia.
This stark reality is perhaps most apparent in daily Presidential polls. The Commander-In-Chief has a single four-year term to prove himself competent. In truth, in the United States, the "first hundred days" determines how many minefields a President has managed to avoid. The second turn of the calendar indicator follows closely behind. If the Chief Executive has not proven himself golden in six months, his fate might be sealed. Witness the woeful popularity numbers the Press reports most fervently.

In the Information Era, within a matter of weeks, an amplified and somewhat shallow assessment of American speciousness was available for all to see. Periodicals and pundits alike announced, statistically speaking Mister Obama's personal magnetism is no longer viable. His favorable numbers have fallen drastically. The American people are not swayed by speeches. Nor do the plans the President submits speak to the general public.

The count was first publicized in early July. Ohio citizens were given an opportunity to express their disdain aloud in an early public opinion Quinnipiac University poll.

In Michigan, a locality which, for years, has been mired in a "one State recession" skepticism has never waned. While a bit more hopeful after the 2008 election, constituents from this Great Lakes region remained cautious. By mid-July it became apparent, Mister Obama's every promise would be scrutinized. How could a population so severely depressed do much else.

By early August the raw data showed citizens countrywide were doubtful that Barack Obama was the correct choice. The public rated his job performance poor. National Public Radio reported the results of a nationwide survey. By then, it was obvious; that the honeymoon lasted less than six months. Indeed, it seemed, the registered voters, interviewed by a bipartisan panel, did not support the Administration's plans. His policies were deemed a failure. A whopping forty-two percent of American's stated they did not approve of Obama performance in office. Perchance, many anxious Americans in the Age of Unreason were ready for a divorce.

For some, the "Recovery" plan did not revive the economy as promised. Others fear the Health Care coverage options the President has put forth will be catastrophic to them and their families.

The stimulus package did not serve to satisfy the people in the areas of the country hardest hit by the economic downturn. Information that conflicts with raw rants does nothing to confirm slow yet substantive successes. For the more vocal masses, the Recovery plan offered no relief for the Middle Class. As the summer wanes, so too does support for the President. In the American Era of emotional Evaluations it appears, there is consensus. The Obama White House has not helped improve the economy. Countrywide, citizens clamor. Change has not come.

Chants, cheers and jeers are palpable "Candidate Obama's commitments were only political ploys." The latest polls illustrate, Independents and Republicans who once felt they could trust the Illinois Statesman, now believe he is no better than all the other politicians. Driven by emotional elucidations, Americans rationalize Presidents have an omnipotent power. The conventional wisdom is the people need only vote for a person with the Audacity to Hope. That person will inspire a nation to move mountains. He [or perhaps she] will make my life better. "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead" is the rally cry during a political campaign.

However, sadly, during the post election season reality set in . Faith faded swiftly.

This angst is expressed as distress. Anyone in a position of power is thought to be a disappointment to persons whose pocketbooks are empty and by the affluent who now may earn a bit less than they would like to. The President of the United States, this time Barack Obama is thought to be responsible for all that is wrong with America.

Reactions, what we the people do as a result of what occurs, may reveal an irrationality all American's possess. In this civilized country, personal attacks are the preferred means for engagement. Through film, theatre, and television, residents in urban and rural environs have been trained to seek quick answers. In these mediums, a story can be introduced, involve an audience, and offer a resolution, all within twenty-two [22] minutes.

Advertisers, more prevelant post World War II, understand that the medium is the message. A product can be sold within four [4] seconds. Anger can be generated just as quickly

The cost for immediate gratification and irritation is dear. Since the 1950s, credit has help to satiated urgent desires. Americans have been inured to habitually react. The population proclaims, "Do it now or do not do it at all." "If you cannot turn down the heat, get out of our kitchen."

As is characteristic in the Age of Unreason, if there is a perceived problem, the President, Congress, City Hall, or whoever might be deemed liable for the public's pain, will receive the brunt of an American's wrath.

One might hear the calls wherever he or she may live. Many amongst the electorate anxiously await the day voters will be able to once again "Kick the bums out." Republicans may rage. Independents become more impatient.

Progressive persons propose that the lack of follow through is not the fault of Barack Obama. Individuals who still wish to believe that they are Organizing For America place the onus on Congress. Their rant, "Representatives in each political Party are the problem." Independents, Republicans, and those who lean Left have reached in accord; "Invoke term limits," they shout.

Accepted American adages in these less than reflective times are a constant. Turn on the television and hear, "If you cannot get with the program, then, get the Hades out." Stand on a street corner and listen; "You are either with us or against us." Stroll down the avenue and someone will screech, "Move on" or be mowed over. In the States, there is no patience for a slow progression. Ignorance, lack of full knowledge, and unawareness can lead to actions born in haste. People in the United States have no time to waste. Attention spans are very short in the Age of Unreason. In this nation, the blame game is popular, more so than the President, elected Representatives, proposed plans and public policy.

Thus we see the repeated tallies. As the two-hundred day term ends, the number of dissatisfied Americans rise. The President's standing falls. Fault is easily found; that is everyone is to blame for what ails this country, except the unreasonable citizens who wait for someone else to fix what the people choose to let stand.

Again and again, the American people do not think they are responsible for the nation's inertia. Only others are onerous. Thus, he is up. He is down, and the people are one more time out of luck.

Please ponder the video presentation; American Failure in Education, Reason - Moyers, Susan Jacoby, or peruse the transcripts, The Age of American Unreason. Please reflect on responsibility. If you would, contemplate the reality; the President, prominent persons in Congress, paid Lobbyists, and persuasive corporations do not have the power that the people possess. If only the public truly chose to be the change they wish to see.

References for Unreason . . .

Obama's 'Renegade' Campaign For The Presidency. Talk of the Nation. June 10, 2009
Daily Presidential Tracking Polls. Rasmussen Reports. August 5, 2009
America closes the book on intelligence, By Laura Miller. Salon. February 15, 2008
Is Race for Governor More About Obama? Some Voters Who Backed President Disillusioned Over Economic Pledges. By Sandhya Somashekhar. Washington Post. Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush, President Points to 'Inherited' Economy. By Scott Wilson. Washington Post. Saturday, March 14, 2009; Page A01
Recovery.gov
Obama, the healthcare Riddler, Why is the president suddenly so afraid of a single-payer solution to America's healthcare crisis? By David Sirota. Salon. May 16, 2009
Obama's Approval Drops To 50 Percent. Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Half Say President Acted 'Stupidly' In Race Dispute. Quinnipiac University National Poll. August 6, 2009
Obama's poll numbers dive bomb toward Earth, By Jimmy Orr. Christian Science Monitor. August 6, 2009
Audacity to Hope. By Barack Obama. The New York Times. October 17, 2006
What Do Poll Numbers Really Mean for Obama?, Dan Balz. The Washington Post. July 30, 2009
The 44th President's First Hundred Days. Cable News Network.
Second 100 days. Cable News Network.
Obama's Approval Drops In Ohio, Critical Swing State, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; 2010 Senate Race Tips Slightly To Democrats. Quinnipiac University July 7, 2009
Poll: Obama inspires, but some question toughness. Cable News network. July 9, 2009
Recovery.gov
AP Derails GOP Spin On Stimulus Jobs, By Matt Apuzo. Huffington Post. July 10, 2009
Have the Stimulus Programs Failed? By Gary Burtless. Brookings Institute. August 4, 2009
Credit Cards at 50: The Problems of Ubiquity. The New York Times. March 12, 2000
Advertising History Timeline. A 295-year synopsis of the most important events in American Advertising, 1704 to 1999. advertising Age.
In a Cluttered Mediaverse, Some Ads Stand Out, By Elizabeth Blair. All Things Considered. May 22, 2007
The Age of American Unreason, By Susan Jacoby
The Age of American Unreason. Bill Moyers Interview. Public Broadcasting Services. March 2008
American Failure in Education, Reason - Moyers, Susan Jacoby

A Sweet Profile

Betsy L. Angert — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:00:00 GMT

Lynn Sweet "Surprised" Obama Said Cambridge Cops "Acted Stupidly"

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

It was not the first time. Many individuals fear it will not be the last. Last evening, during a Presidential press conference, millions witnessed the characteristic wonderment that is Lynn Sweet. Whilst citizens in this country anxiously awaited more words from the President on what, for most is truly a tangible issue, Health Care coverage, Ms Sweet decided to move the conversation in her own memorable manner. Provocateur , otherwise known as Chicago Sun Times Columnist Lynn Sweet did as she often does. She changed the subject.
For her, it seems entertainment, or that which might expand her now illustrious career is far more pleasurable than the tedious text that has the potential to improve life for every American. Sweet might justify her stance by saying; "racial profiling" affects us all, or does it. Perchance, her personal profile is the priority.

As she had done in the past, on the evening of July 22, 2009, this previously little known Journalist diverted attention. Lynn Sweets said it was not a plot. She had no intention of inciting the American people. It was merely a matter of "timing." The White House Press Correspondent thought it "appropriate" to speak of what no one had throughout the night. "Noted Harvard African-American studies Professor Henry Louis Gates Junior," and his arrest at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts was, in her mind, the more meaningful matter.

For a long while, Lynn Sweet has defined what her readers must think of as imperative. Her personal desires and chutzpah drive her. "I do come from a place where people are not shy about mixing it up a little bit." If Ms Sweet is not interested in a subject or a soul she will ignore what she thinks irrelevant.

In 1999, a virtually unknown Illinois State Senator Barack Obama introduced himself to the Sun Times Washington Bureau Chief. The author handed the Chicago tabloid Writer his autobiographical account, "Dreams From My Father." Five years later, in June, she belatedly began to leaf through the pages of the tome. It was not until late in 2004, after United States Senator Obama delivered his address at the Democratic National Convention, and the book was re-released that Sweet thought of the read as other than a bothersome endeavor.

Once read, the Columnist offered quite a critical review of what had become a widely praised publication.. Perhaps, in 2004 and in July 2009, Sweet preferred to deviate from the norm, if only to distinguish herself as different. No one can know with certainty. Nonetheless, Americans were able to observe the Chicago Sun Times Correspondent created this distraction much in the way she had previously done. Perchance, her style has helped advance her personal prominence.

Surely, she would later say, people have a right to know what the President thinks about issues other than Health Care reform. Indeed, in her own blog post Lynn Sweet reminds Americans that two other reporters spoke on themes not related to Health care. However, each of these asked what the Administration might do as it pertains to policy.

The Sun Times Bureau Chief however, chose to ask the President for a personal perspective. Intentionally, she presented a problem that evokes much passion. She stated, "What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?" Certainly, Lynn Sweet defends; she did not consider how much the public loves to engage in divisive discussions. The innocent bearer of information did not ponder the known veracity. Conflict sells papers. Assuredly, it never occurred to Ms Sweet she would garner greater visibility if her question were emotionally charged.

However, history gives us pause. We have seen in the past, when Lynn Sweet does what she does best; create a scene, her pocketbook and professional status profits. A sensational story will cause her numbers to soar. And so it was.

Damn the proposed reforms. Forget what Americans think vital, possible alternatives that would improve medical practices. Lynn Sweet wants to talk about race, racism, police, anything but policies that could benefit average Americans, Black, white, and every shade in between.

Friends, fellow reporters, readers of her articles, and of her blog understand. Barack Obama was not able to charm Lynn Sweet. she is not characterized as one who has an axe to grind. Ms Sweet is sincerely on a mission. She has her own plan. The Correspondent's mission began but a short time ago. The Washington Bureau Chief said of herself.

"I started looking at a lot of blogs and I realized you need a sensibility!" she said. "Why am I here? What can I give you? I suppose I could make a blog on 'Lynn Sweet's thoughts about ... whatever!'" . . .
"If I had choice between writing about something Bush did, or a congressman did, or Obama, why wouldn't I go to something I saw people were backing? I just knew from the enormous amount of coverage Obama was getting that oooh, I knew I should be all things Obama. I never had a meeting; no one ever told me to do it. It was just like, I, I just smelled the coffee. I just understood that's what I could be about."

Thus, Ms Sweet became the news writer most closely associated with anything Obama. Frequently, on radio, she speaks on the subject she claims to know best, Obama. The go-getter from the President's hometown, Chicago, appears on most every television network. The ascent of the man who now resides in the White House helped boost Sweet's visibility. Today, she is considered as she designed herself to be, an acknowledged expert on the President. As reported in The New York Observer,

When Andrea Mitchell introduced Lynn Sweet for her mid-afternoon show on MSNBC on May 16, she said, "Lynn Sweet is with the Chicago Sun-Times and has been covering him for years."
That's partially true. She has covered him for less than two [now near here] years. She has spent the majority of her other three decades covering any other number of political stories in Chicago.

Yet, the depth of her knowledge matters not. Lynn Sweet has realized her dream. She is the media and the message. Since Barack Obama entered the scene, Sweet's inquires have become the dominant news of the day.

It matters not to Ms Sweet that each day, "If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance." She does not seem to think it exceedingly significant that "These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now." What the President might wish to say seems meaningless to someone such as her. She rather know what Barack Obama thinks about topics that might propel her career. It appears, fame and fortune is her mission..

Americans might assume that this Reporter is not interested in what affects the electorate most. She made no reference to a reality that affects all Americans. Near fifty million citizens have no health care coverage. 2.3 million more people lose health coverage each year. The tale that might titillate, was Sweet's temptation. What was the President's reaction to a story on race.

She did not address the disparate treatment whites receive. Nor did she find her way to studies that show the ranks of the underinsured are on the rise. The invincible Lynn Sweet had other ideas. While countless worry that the cost of such a climb could be disastrous, the Columnist with a stated singular focus acted as though this might be superfluous.

For Ms Sweet it would appear that a moment of personal fame, or public fury, is her preference. Health Care reform will not be a concern for her as long as she remains popular. Perchance, the better word for what Lynn Sweet hopes to achieve is the term that currently defines her calling. She is without doubt a provocative and profitable professional.

References for the raiser of public rancor . . .

Transcript of Obama Presidential Prime Time News Conference. Washington Post. July 22, 2009
The story behind my Obama press conference question, By Lynn Sweet. Chicago Sun Times. July 23, 2009
Sweet On Obama! By John Koblin. The New York Observer. May 20, 2008
Obama pushes health care in opening statement. Cable News Network. July 22, 2009
Sweet column reprise. Obama's book: What's real, what's not, By Lynn Sweet. Chicago Sun Times. August 8, 2004
Ranks of Underinsured Are Rising, Study Finds. By Reed Abelson. The New York Times. June 10, 2008
The Clock is Ticking. Families USA. July 2009
PDsLynn Sweet Asks the President. Politics Daily. July 23, 2009
"Dreams From My Father." By Barack Obama. 1995

War and profit: Deciphering what it means to be in the U.S. military

Betsy L. Angert — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:30:00 GMT

March Forward! Against War and Racism

From the newsletter of March Forward!
We join the military for many different reasons. Some of us want to have access to a college education. Some of us want job training and a steady paycheck. Some of us join to get U.S. citizenship. Some of us need to get out of debt or need to get off a destructive path. Some of us join out of pride, patriotism and a genuine desire to be a part of some greater, collective good. Many of us made the decision early-while still in high school, enticed by recruiters' promises of cash bonuses, adventure and opportunity-while some of us joined after years as a worker, drawn by the military's full health care and housing benefits.

Whatever the reason, we all found ourselves wearing the uniform of the U.S. military. What did we actually join? What is the role of the U.S. military in the world? What does it mean to be a soldier following the dictates of U.S. foreign policy? When we sign ourselves away to the military, what are we being used to do?

In recent years, many of us ended up in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are told that as a soldier in the U.S. military we are defending the interests of the United States. This does have an ounce of truth-but only an ounce. We are defending the interests of a particular class in the United States. It is only a wealthy minority whose interests are being defended in Iraq, Afghanistan and the more than 130 countries where U.S. troops are stationed.
In whose interests do we serve?
I was sent to Iraq believing we would be helping the Iraqi people. Once the illusions of pride and patriotism crumbled, I realized I was never sent to help anyone. I kicked down their doors and dragged them from their homes. I robbed them of their humanity in interrogation cells. I watched the life ripped out of them. I saw children torn to shreds. I witnessed my friends disabled by physical and/or psychological trauma. All this suffering and destruction for "Iraqi Freedom," which really means the freedom of a new U.S.-installed government to hand over control of its natural resources to U.S. corporations.

It wasn't much different for those soldiers sent to Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Panama or other countries that have been targets of U.S. intervention over the past half-century and more.
We are taught the United States stands for freedom and democracy, and that military force is used to defend or further those ideals. This is echoed constantly throughout our lives, in school and in the media. It is woven into the fabric of our national identity, making it possible for people to accept the deaths of U.S. soldiers in foreign lands, as long as they are assured they died in the interests of democracy.

History of U.S. conflicts
However, reviewing the history of conflicts in which the U.S. military has been involved tells a completely different story. The U.S. government does not have a history of supporting democratic movements, but rather a history of overthrowing them. Among those countries whose popularly elected governments have been crushed by the U.S. military and replaced by authoritarian and non-elected dictators are the Congo, Grenada, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Haiti-and the list goes on. Quite simply, this government - whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House-has no problem installing and backing oppressive dictatorships.

Understanding U.S. foreign policy becomes much easier if we stop looking at it in terms of "defending democracy," and start looking at it in terms of economic interests. It is not the form of a foreign government that determines whether it ends up in the crosshairs of the U.S. government, but whether or not that government will give U.S. businesses access to its markets, labor force and natural resources. This explains why the United States supports governments with some of the worst human rights records, like Colombia, or?Saudi Arabia, which has never had an election in its history! U.S. corporations reap billions of dollars in profits from these countries.

U.S. foreign policy really boils down to ensuring the extraction of wealth from the developing world by U.S. corporations. In the words of two-time Medal of Honor winner Major General Smedley Butler: "I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."

Claims that the Pentagon only works to defend the United States and spread democracy fall apart when you look at the current use of the military. It is now obvious that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States, nor did the U.S. government care about the well-being of the Iraqi people. A quarter of Iraq's population of 26 million people has been killed, wounded or displaced since the illegal U.S. invasion on March 19, 2003. Iraq sits atop a massive supply of petroleum, all of which was nationalized and closed to U.S. corporations' control under Saddam Hussein.

The role of banks and big business
The banks and Wall Street exert dominating influence over U.S. foreign policy. Our "democracy" is reserved for those who have millions of dollars to run for office, and who are funded by (and ultimately beholden to) corporate interests. Our "free press" is owned by only five mega-corporations who directly profit from the military-industrial complex and distort reality to shape public opinion accordingly.

The ruling class of Wall Street CEOs, bankers and their loyal politicians has the power to annihilate an entire country for profit-but they never fight in these wars themselves. So they have to find a way to convince the average worker that these wars are worth fighting. They must find a way to convince working-class people that we should kill and die to make the rich ruling class even richer.

Our enemy is not on the other side of the world; that enemy is in the corporate boardrooms and the Pentagon Brass. Defeating that enemy means refusing to take part in their imperialist plans and organizing together to demand real justice.

"Union gives strength"

Betsy L. Angert — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:00:00 GMT

Please Sign the Memo to Howard Schultz

"Union gives strength."
~ Aesop's Fables, The Bundle of Sticks

Nuptials Never; "I Do" Commit to Communicate

Betsy L. Angert — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:00:00 GMT

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

I write this reflection on, what in years past; I would have considered a couple's certain doomsday. Within hours, Alex and Alia will walk down the aisle and take their vows. Will May 2, 2009, be the day of deliverance for the two, one of delight, or the beginning of the end? I know not. I only understand that on this date, the pair will do, as I purposefully never planned to. They will wed. I have not met either of these individuals; yet today I can think of nothing but their lives and the effect they have had on me.

I became aware of Alex and Alia, A2, for short, while on an airplane headed for The Toddling Town. It was Friday, March 27, 2009. Neither the man who will become a husband today, nor the woman, who will be declared his wife, was physically present. Indeed, I may never see the persons who sincerely moved me to rethink whether I might say, "I do". Perhaps, they know nothing of what began as an innocent encounter. The Earth did not shake, and certainly, I never expected my conviction to crumble. Indeed essentially my belief did not evolve. In truth, nothing actually changed. Still, after a three-hour exchange, I began to more seriously consider what for all of my live I rejected, marriage.
I am the third child of parents who parted ten days after a twenty-year marriage. I was eight years of age at the time. I remember the moment of their decision as though it was but minutes ago. I can easily relive the conversation that changed my existence. Indeed, the entire incident never leaves my consciousness. As my Mom disgustedly rose from the restaurant table, I knew that nuptials do not bring togetherness. A legal commitment will not ensure quality communication. From the second she stated she was leaving, until, well, forever, I knew I would not wed.

Then, decades later, there was a time in the month of March. On that day, a stranger and I were in route to Chicago. As occurs on any and many journeys, people who might never make an acquaintance sit side-by-side and chat incessantly. The individuals may tell all and then fade from sight forever, or they may do as oddly enough my plane mate and I did, come together on the return trip and again, talk for many hours more.

For me, the travel is a frequent excursion. It has been for years. My most cherished confidant resides in the "Windy City." While he and I have shared our heart and soul for decades, we had not wed. Early on in our association the thought was far from either of our minds. Each of us saw the other in a way that was far from physically intimate. While our lives were deeply intertwined, a corporeal involvement would have been an abhorrent thought. Time, much talk, realizations about what was once repugnant transformed our truths, but not my fervent reality. I would never marry.

Ela, unlike me, had happily embarked on a trek through holy matrimony. Now, she was ready to take another extraordinary trip. She would watch her son, Alex, follow the path she and her husband Robert had chosen. Alex too would wed. In prelude, on this auspicious occasion, Ela was set to attend a party in honor of her soon-to-be daughter-in-law. Although, at the time of our first encounter I knew nothing of the imminent nuptial, had I been aware of the event it would not have changed my mind. Marriage would not be my idea of an ideal and today it is still not!

When I boarded the plane I had a singular notion. Once in the air, I intended to sleep. I could not imagine that Ela's energy would captivate me more than my desire to nap had. With only a few short hours of rest the evening before, and a full day on the agenda, I felt a need for some slumber

Yet, from the moment Ela asked if the chair next to me was taken, until the time she settled in, after placing her bags in the overhead bins, it was apparent, Ela and all that was within her would revise my reality. I could see this creature loves life. She genuinely enjoys her partner of more than forty years, Robert. Her affection for her progeny was and is evident in her every breath. Ela's admiration, appreciation, and her sincere approval for Alex's choices were, and are, palpable. I felt Ela exuded empathy; at least for those she felt close to. When she spoke of the man she shared her being with for two score, or their offspring, who is near thirty now, only fondness filled the air.

As I listened to her words and studied her actions I marveled. At least for Ela, a legal commitment had not quashed her independence. While she excitedly spoke of her family and the future event, these were not all she had on her mind. Indeed, initially we did not discuss the May marriage other than in passing.

Ela herself was obviously independent from her husband. Her son Alex's accomplishments while wondrous were not more important or incredible than her own. Ela presented no pageantry. She was not pompous, quite the contrary. As we talked, I became acquainted with a woman who seemed as ordinary as any other being might. Yet, slowly it was revealed Ela is an extremely well-educated and credentialed individual.

In her professional career, this unassuming individual rose to a very prominent position. From the first, I experienced her eloquence, her quick mind, her sensitivity to nuances not verbalized, and her desire to learn. Immediately, when inspired to investigate a subject further, Ela took copious notes.

The woman herself, long before she shared details of what Alex and Alia had done and would do, was wondrous to me. Perhaps that is why her excitement for nuptials took me beyond where I had been all of my life. Hours of conversation with this confident, compassionate, insightful being helped me to consider my long-held belief in a way I had not fully explored.

Ela was not her marriage. She was not a wife and mother more than she was herself. She was separate and equal; Ela was the sum of her parts, and perchance, to a certain extent a bit more. Possibly, that was the reason I reflected on this encounter and what it might mean to me in ways I had not before when I spoke to others of a legal bond [bondage].

For decades, I have heard excited brides gush, grateful grooms boast, prideful mothers and fathers of the betrothed flaunt. As I listen, I wonder; what they will say far into the future. "She is a bit**!" "He a bas****." "We were too young at the time." "I was blinded by love and should have known better." When asked why a couple separates, divorcees who later declare them selves happily single, offer the oft-avowed explanation, "We just grew apart." It seems an accepted veracity that this just happens. People evolve and chose distinct and different paths.

I believe and have observed as my Mom, ultimately, a twice-divorced damsel never in distress, admits of her escapades. People can predict. All one needs to know of another is apparent early on. Even without awareness for who a person is in depth and detail, a few conversations, a day trip or two can tell us much about the person who pretends to be perfect. What persons portend is perhaps a far truer picture of whom they are within. As Mommy often mused, we choose to convince ourselves that what we wish to believe is correct.

Infatuation, lust, a longing to leave our current circumstances, convenience, customs, the desire for companionship, all conjure up notions of wedded bliss. The desire for romance often rules over a rational reason.

Whilst in a state of euphoria, already anxious over what might be, people have faith. Nuptials will bring the best into their lives. If only that were true. In most instances, it is not. One need only consider the divorce and separation statistics, or the number of spouses who say they are miserable in their marriage.

I trust intendeds expect to live together 'til death do they part. Few of the many who part in acrimony anticipate such a split. I can only assume most are unlike me. All I ever imagined was if I entered into a marriage, the relationship would change. A legal union would build barriers around me. Possibly, he would feel constrained, chained, or caged as well. Restrictions, even self-imposed, would be realized. I feared what my spouse would sense as much as what I might experience.

When I contemplated nuptials, I could not envision a rhyme or reason for such a sacrifice. At least, for me, matrimony seemed madness. Did I mention the studies show a toxic marriage may literally hurt your heart? Yikes! I prefer good health and genuine happiness. I totally love my own company and take pleasure in the tranquility I have created.

Too often I heard tales or saw those close to me conclude, "I need to escape for the sake of the children, his or her physical or intellectual health, and for my sanity, or ours." Papers would be filed. There would be a formal dissolution. Pain for someone, anyone, or everyone would be profound. It was for me.

There was no violence in my childhood home. Physical, emotional, and, or verbal abuses were alien concepts. In our abode life was calm, cozy, and comfortable. Yet, not everyone, if anyone, was authentically happy. Outwardly, it appeared that my parents and their progeny thrived. We existed. My family went through the motions. Inwardly some of us died.

Before my parents decided to divorce, I was uncertain why I felt as I did when with my family. Years of anecdotes from my parents who were no longer each other's spouse and from my siblings helped me decide. I would never dare do what Alex and Alia thought wise; enter into what I thought a legal lock on my life. A commitment, regardless of a formal ceremony, frightened me. It still does.

Before my parent's divorce I saw too much, heard more, and understood why a legal union was not for me. After, the split my awareness intensified. I contemplated the home life of friends. What seemed solid and sane, before I looked beneath the surface, was often stressful and strenuous. No words of joy about one nuptial or another had, could, or would sway me. People often profess happiness and hide hurts.

Hence, it is no wonder that Ela's deep devotion to husband and son, as well as her fervor for her future family did not transform me. Nor did her tales touch my truth. For all of my live, others have shared similar passions. In a euphoric moment, people present tales of family, fianc?s, and a feeling of fulfillment within the framework of matrimony. Yet, I came to realize excitement over an individual faded fast. At times, all that was publicly stated proved to be but a fa?ade. Hence, I had no reason to trust that Ela's veracity would be different.

However, there was an aspect of her enthusiasm that varied from the usual. Ela's dedication to her own being brought me to a place where I could see me, myself in a relationship recognized by the law. Indeed, Ela's independence was the catalyst for my novel contemplation. Though her many accounts all that I had rejected was viewed in a new light.

The sincerity my plane-mate expressed was not as easily dismissed as the superficial statements others offered all of my live. Indeed, the profundity of my Mom's philosophies was more apparent when delivered by a stranger.

When Mommy chose to enter a third marriage, consciously she knew not to do as she had done in the past, wed for convenience. On the last of her plunges into partnership, my Mom made a commitment to her best friend, someone she did not simply love, which Mommy always avowed was an emotion easily expressed, but a person she genuinely liked.

My Mom stressed; individuals intent on marriage must consider invisible issues. She embraced a lesson learned in her first marriage; shared ethical values matter. Everyday exchanges with the object of one's passion, if critical, cruel, combative, confrontational, or curt will ultimately cause a relationship to crumble. Calm, caring communication, Mommy proved through practice, creates the connection most everyone craves.

Perhaps, my history had left me too badly bruised. On the subject of marriage, I had lost my bearings. I had easily navigated away from any commitment to closeness. Emotionally, intellectually, and even physically I could connect, deeply. However, my heart was not open to a lengthy, legal, what felt to be as an obligatory bondage. In friendship, I was more than fine. I revel in real relationships. I always have.

My friendship with Barry, the person I was off to visit, is a constant for me it has been for decades. He and I had pondered aloud what the two of us, might want to be. Rather than live in two distant cities as we have in recent years, could we choose to create a combined home. If so, where would we reside. How might we make our time together as meaningful as it has always been? Change, while a constant, for me holds many challenges.

The question that haunted us was could we adjust the circumstances and not alter the quality of our relationship? A relative or two thought it possible. Alexander, a cousin of mine whom I respect, made an argument for marriage. I considered it, for it was as practical, as I am. However, humans, I understand are not necessarily logical. Emotions enter into essential considerations.

Rapport, I believe, is the root to all happiness. I wonder if that is why my time with Ela helped transform me. While my Mom's last and final marriage may have alleviated some of my apprehensions, just a smidgen, I could not see her strength, her independence as I might that of a stranger.

I smile as I recall what Ela said of her husband and her son. She was not in awe of their achievements; I was. Closeness, when it does not breed contempt, may give rise to comfort and complacency. This construct might explain why the t?te-?-t?te with Ela transformed my truth. Communication with a person who is not an intimate can serve to enlighten in a manner the words of a loved one do not. A sympathetic sharing with someone who is separate from ourselves can affect us in ways we would never imagine. Certainly, Ela had that effect on me.

When we exited the plane we were so engrossed that we continued the conversation as we walked. Ela and I had discussed what we did, do, and dream of. The dialogue was fluid, fun, and far from shallow. Folly, fears, failures, and feelings entered into each narrative. We reflected on personal strengths, weaknesses, and ways we, and those familiar to us approach life.

Perchance, I was enamored with the cosmic coincidences and our similar personal histories. With the exception of the divorce that had dictated many of my decisions I could relate to the woman whose son will wed today.

Aware that hours from now the person who changed my life will witness another transformation, I wonder if she knows, what it was about her that moved me. I did have the opportunity to tell her that I would say, "I do." However, for weeks after our shared travel I did not understand why.

Ela might believe I was in awe of the her son's arrangement, or the art Alex created to announce the event, While wonderful, the plans and powerful presentations, did not persuade me to engage in what I still believe is the myth of matrimonial felicity.

Who Ela is, separate and with her husband Bob, her stories of all that they are separately, and have shared together transformed my perspective, at least in part. Still, their tale alone had not shocked me out of the abyss of apprehension.

Once able to more objectively assess the independence of one who is happily intertwined, a treasure was revealed to me. I came to cherish the memory of my Mom and her marital experience. I recognized that for oh so long I empathized with her earlier wedded hurts. I had allowed these to cloud my consciousness. When change came, I discounted the difference. I had not fully appreciated what had become Mommy's truth in the last three decades of her life.

When with Ela, I was able to see Mommy and marriage through a new lens. The woman who brought me into the world did more than conceive a creature. My Mom imagined love and an authentic fondness could exist within a legal framework. She did not lose her heart, her soul, or her individual identity once she dedicated herself to something greater than herself. Just as Ela and Bob had done without regret, and as Alex and Alia will do today, Mommy said, "I do: and did it well.

After much discussion over the two days in Chicago with Barry, on March 29, 2009, I told him I would.

Hence, on the afternoon of May 2, 2009, as Ela's son, Alex, and Alia, his fianc?, wed, I solidify plans for what Barry and I recognize as a wee bit more than a "civil" union. Already, I designed and produced a "Save the Date" magnet, as Alex did. These have been delivered to invited guests. The webpage, an idea inspired by Ela, Alex, and Alia is my next pursuit.

A casual observer might think I changed. People might presume I am anxious to be wed. Perhaps, they muse, I have become the bride who anticipates marriage will bring a better bliss. Indeed, none of these assumptions are valid. I have not been transformed. A "Wedding" is still not what I want. My best friend will not become my husband and I will not be his wife. Neither of us will have a spouse other than on paper. I will not participate in nuptials, at least not in a conventional sense. I [and Barry] will commit to communicate.

On this May date, separately and together, Barry and I hope that today Alex and Alia will do as we have decided to do, grow greater with the person they like just as he or she is.

References for Relationship Realities . . .

Marriage and Divorce Statistics. National Center for Health Statistics.
Psychologyy of Families; Divorce.
Is Marriage Bliss? Pew Research Center.
Toxic marriage may (literally) hurt your heart. Associated Press. MSNBC News. October 8, 2007

Condoleezza Rice avows; President is above law

Betsy L. Angert — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:00:00 GMT

Condi Rice Pulls a Nixon: If the President Orders Torture, It Must be Legal

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Students at Stanford stood still as they listened to former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice speak. As the scholars pondered the words of the prominent woman who presented her case for waterboarding, many mused; "Is it Richard Nixon, or Condoleezza Rice? Which person thinks a President is above the law?" One might wonder. Those who viewed a video taped classroom conversation with Secretary Rice, today express astonishment as well. In her defense for actions she took to advocate for this extreme interrogation techniques Condoleezza Rice both blamed her former boss, George W. Bush and justified his decision.

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

Pupils in the room with the Bush Executive Branch envoy and the broader cyberspace community ponder this interpretation of law and recollect. More than three decades ago, past President, Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal," Americans rejected the notion The United States Constitution was often cited. Yet, today, Miss Rice remembers the reference differently. Just as Richard M. Nixon was, once physically removed from the White House, citizen Rice has become the source of infinite fascination.

The erudite educator, former Secretary Rice may recall her history; nonetheless, her recollection is not as the recently released, exhaustive, Senate Intelligence Committee reports reveal. As National Security Adviser to former President George W. Bush, in July 2002, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved a request from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to waterboard the alleged al-Qaida terrorist, Abu Zubaydah.

Philip Zelikow, the policy representative to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the National Securities Council (NSC) Deputies Committee, remembers as the Senate narrative study states. Indeed, he expressed his concern for his role in intense "interrogation plans" only days before the Secretary offered her perspective at Stanford. In his tome, Mister Zelikow asserted the Administration, inclusive of Miss Rice, was well aware of the questionable legal parameters. The Bush Cabinet understood, how lives and limbs could be crushed. His knowledge of the macabre methods haunted Mister Zelikow for all these many years.

Today, the former National Securities Council policy commissioner feels he has stayed silent for too long. Now that light has begun to shine on the Bush Administration's seek-to-destroy-detainees-will strategy the former dissenter from within the Bush White House believes he must speak of what he classifies as torture. He states, as is substantiated in the infamous "memos."

(T)he program developed "interrogation plans" to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time.
The plan employed the combined, cumulative use of many techniques of medically-monitored physical coercion. Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important.

Mister Zelikow retraces as Miss Rice does not. In 2006, the United States Human Rights First organization revealed, since August 2002 almost 100 Iraq and Afghanistan detainees died, while in the custody of Americans. Accounts affirm, at least 34 of the these fatalities were suspected or confirmed homicides. Most attest, blood was spilled at the hands of the Bush Administration. How quickly those who approved such torturous measures forget the methods or the madness that allowed for murder.

As an expert in International Affairs; however, the Professor is likely extremely familiar with history further removed from her own personal reality. Condoleezza Rice could possibly recite the facts as they relate to the ratification of resolution 39/46 of 10, which was adopted and opened for signature on December 1984. On June 26, 1987, the General Assembly put into force what the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment advised.

The approved Articles clearly outline the definition of torture, regardless of country or who might reign. A casual reader need only peruse the first writ to understand what constitutes extreme persecution or a serious crime against humanity.

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

The second statement explicates without exception who might have the power to ignore the initial premise. In short, legally, the sanctioned rule, which the United States signed onto, states no man, women, child, Head of State, President, Premier, Prime Minister, or even autocrat can authorize the intentional infliction of agony. Nor can a National Security Adviser advocate for what is essentially illegal and inhumane.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Yet, Secretary Rice avowed; her conveyance of a communiqu? did not amount to a command for consent. She, personally condoned nothing. Condoleezza Rice, in her statement to Stanford students declared, "I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."

With International Law in mind, and her own desire not to be implicated in a high crime or misdemeanor, the once top Diplomat, now Political Science Professor and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute proclaims.

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (emphasis added)

Perhaps, Condoleezza Rice feels a bit uncertain. She might think there is need to justify her actions. As the American people speak of a possible special prosecutor, Professor Rice may fear what the Obama Administration might do. The current President has yet to issue a pardon to Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, former Commander-In-Chief Bush or any of their cohorts. Miss Rice may hope her words will elicit the forgiveness Richard Milhous Nixon received from his successor, Gerald Ford.

Likely, the former Secretary of State now wonders whether her word may be a greater source of "fascination" to someone such as Sir David Frost. She has no desire to confronted or to accidentally confess to an anchor. Contrite is not Condie's style. For now, she, as other American's can only reflect on a transcript and wonder, "Is it Condoleezza Rice or Richard Nixon who better channels a uncertain confidence?

Please ponder the program that, were it not for the officially certified clemency, might have done another Administration in.

Frost: The wave of dissent, occasionally violent, which followed in the wake of the Cambodian incursion, prompted President Nixon to demand better intelligence about the people who were opposing him. To this end, the Deputy White House Counsel, Tom Huston, arranged a series of meetings with representatives of the CIA, the FBI, and other police and intelligence agencies.
These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan. Five days later, after opposition from J. Edgar Hoover, the plan was withdrawn, but the president's approval was later to be listed in the Articles of Impeachment as an alleged abuse of presidential power.
Frost: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
Frost: By definition.
Nixon: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
Frost: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?
Nixon: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.
Frost: Pulling some of our discussions together, as it were; speaking of the Presidency and in an interrogatory filed with the Church Committee, you stated, quote, "It's quite obvious that there are certain inherently government activities, which, if undertaken by the sovereign in protection of the interests of the nation's security are lawful, but which if undertaken by private persons, are not." What, at root, did you have in mind there?
Nixon: Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."
Now that's the kind of action I'm referring to. Of course in Lincoln's case it was the survival of the Union in wartime, it's the defense of the nation and, who knows, perhaps the survival of the nation.

References for a "reasonable" Nixon/Rice reality . . .

Condi Rice Pulls A Nixon: When the President Does It, That Means It is Not Illegal, By Cenk Uygur. Huffington Post. April 30, 2009
Rice delivered OK to waterboarding. MSNBC News. April 24, 2009
The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter, By Philip Zelikow. Foreign Policy. April 21, 2009
Report probes US custody deaths. British Broadcasting Company. February 21, 2006
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
Nixon's Views on Presidential Power: Excerpts from an Interview with David Frost. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. May 19, 1977
Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos. Bradbury And Bybee Memos Are Released In Response To Long-Running ACLU Lawsuits. American Civil Liberties Union. April 16, 2001
Torture Memorandums. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel. The New York Times.
Condoleezza Rice on returning to campus, By Adam Gorlick. Stanford News Service. January 28, 2009
Context of 'April 6, 1977: Nixon: 'If the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal.' History Commons.
Real David Frost remembers 'fascinating' Nixon. Cable News Network. January 5, 2009

Geithner; Gold on the Hill

Betsy L. Angert — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Today, Timothy Geithner garners much attention. Initially, when introduced on the national scene, people pondered; "Who is he?" The former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has an impeccable r?sum?. Some said his record speaks for itself. Average Americans might have admired his ascendancy. Taxpayers could have appreciated that a man of his age would wish to manage the complexity of the United States coffers. Countless may have considered the enormous challenge he accepted; yet, not comprehend, for Secretary Geithner, this may have been the plan.

Early on, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had his sights set high. As a child, born to an affluent, and influential family, he learned that all he desired could be his. He saw the potential for power in political prospects. The practicality of a profitable purpose also was apparent to Tim. When a lad, there was no reason for Timothy to reflect on the concrete pavements beneath his feet. Geithner would not have supposed he would work as a laborer. Nor had he likely seen himself as one among the swarms of ordinary citizens. His personal history may have helped him to know, he would not have to pound the streets to seek pennies for his pocket. Unconventional as his life had been, Timothy Geithner might have imagined as others did; he was destined for greatness.
Maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Through his elder, young Tim became attuned to the Capitol. He also grew to understand the capital that could be accrued away from the Hill. Grandpop Moore also served as a Vice President of Ford Motor Company. "Public Relations" was his claim to fame.

"Dad," Peter F. Geithner, did well independently of his father-in-law. He acquired and distributed much wealth in his work with the Ford Foundation. Granted, the company connection may have served to benefit Peter. Nonetheless, had the legal association been absent, an emotional bond born from friendship would have helped clinch a deal. Networks we fashion, as Timmy might have realized at an early age, can be a force to be reckoned with.

As a tot, Timothy Geithner absorbed lessons as we all do. Perchance, he had higher aspirations than most. He hoped to meld the muscle of money with the clout of civil service. Mister Geithner, throughout his life saw effective ways in which to maneuver. Likely he heard tales that taught him the nuance of negotiation, and tasted the nectar of success.

In college, and later in his professional career, Mister Geithner achieved much. Still, the former New York Federal Reserve Chair, understood, he could accomplish more. At June 2008 conference he spoke of what might reap greater rewards for those in the banking industry. Former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Junior convened an economic summit. Financially, the country was in a fiscal crisis. Indeed, the United States was well on its way to a monetary collapse; however, only the few economic "experts" know of the impending doom. The dollar was of little value. It was predicted soon, American currency would be virtually worthless.

Thus, Secretary Paulson sought advice from his fellow fiscal stewards. As the man who oversaw the most powerful and prominent banks in the nation, Mister Geithner was among these. In response to a query from the then Head of Treasury, what emergency controls could the government employ, in an attempt to confront the tumultuous economic crisis? The fine fellow, confident in his well-established connections, spoke with the lack of temerity exuded by one who savored many triumphs. Geithner stated; "There is gold in them there hills." The gelt Tim Geithner knew would be available if only he asked for it was in the pockets and purses of the taxpayers.

As the supreme authority for the most formidable Federal Reserve, Timothy Geithner felt he could assert what other Administrators might not imagine feasible. Mister Geithner suggested Secretary Paulson insist that "Congress give the President broad power to guarantee all banking debt." Michele A. Smith, then an Assistant Treasury Secretary, overhead the statement. She affirmed the truth of the allegation; the then New York Fed Chair had said. Let us seek the impossible. Government securities or gratuities to cover all arrears, was what Timothy Geithner wished for.

Apparently, at the time the proposal was not considered for more than a moment. Other economic experts protested the possibility. Financial fellows proclaimed the idea was "politically untenable." It could leave taxpayers in the lurch, responsible for trillions of dollars in liabilities. Nonetheless, Timothy Geithner was not deterred. He knew where the dollars were hidden and how to obtain vast treasures. Capable of great strides and able to rise to the top of hills others have yet to climb, Tim Geithner secured his associations. The Hill he planned to climb was the one in Washington, District of Columbia.

An examination of Mr. Geithner's five years as president of the New York Fed, an era of unbridled and ultimately disastrous risk taking by the financial industry, shows that he forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street's giant financial institutions.
His actions, as a regulator and later a bailout king, often aligned with the industry's interests and desires, according to interviews with financiers, regulators and analysts and a review of Federal Reserve records.
In a pair of recent interviews and an exchange of e-mail messages, Mr. Geithner defended his record, saying that from very early on, he was "a consistently dark voice about the potential risks ahead, and a principal source of initiatives designed to make the system stronger" before the markets melted down.
The New York Fed is, by custom and design, clubby and opaque. It is charged with curbing banks' risky impulses, yet its president is selected by and reports to a board of directors dominated by the chief executives of some of those same banks. Traditionally, the New York Fed president's intelligence-gathering role has involved routine consultation with financiers, though Mr. Geithner's recent predecessors generally did not meet with them unless senior aides were also present, according to the bank's former general counsel.

Perchance, the New York Federal Reserve Chairs who came to the office before Mister Geithner were not of similar stock, or had they been, their own interest in money was not wedded to a desire to mount a more glorious golden Capitol Dome. Tim Geithner was different. As was evident at the 2008 conference, other guardians of greenbacks did not think to give government greater authority over the affairs of banks. Tim Geithner's history, however, led him to believe the best could be achieved, at least for him personally, if he mixed business and pleasure.

Mr. Geithner's reliance on bankers, hedge fund managers and others to assess the market's health - and provide guidance once it faltered - stood out.
His calendars from 2007 and 2008 show that those interactions were a mix of the professional and private rendezvous.
He ate lunch with senior executives from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, at the Four Seasons restaurant or in their corporate dining rooms. He attended casual dinners at the homes of executives like Jamie Dimon, a member of the New York Fed board and the chief of JP Morgan Chase.
Mr. Geithner was particularly close to executives of Citigroup, the largest bank under his supervision. Robert E. Rubin, a senior Citi executive and a former Treasury secretary, was Mr. Geithner's mentor from his years in the Clinton administration, and the two kept in close touch in New York.

For Timothy Geithner, the trailblazer, all roads led to the White House and the wealth that could be seen best from the ultimate Hill. Early on, in school, in social settings, and on the political scene, Mister Geithner secured relationships that would realize a firm future in government, just as his grandfather had. He did as his Dad did to grow gold in his business ventures. Ultimately, Timothy F. Geithner was appointed Secretary of the Treasury.

In this most powerful fiscal and physical position Tim Geithner was able to garner greater control over all banking policies. What he had proposed in the summer of 2008 was never a prescription. It was a prophecy for what he would do. The impossible became the probable in recent months. Banks were indeed, bailed out. Plans for more power to be assigned to the government, to Mister Geithner are in the works. More money is meant to be funneled to the financial institutions.

Joseph E. Stiglitz a Nobel Prize recipient and Economist at Columbia, is critical of much Mister Geithner has done. The actions of the current Secretary suggest that he came to share Wall Street's regulatory philosophy and world view.

"I don't think that Tim Geithner was motivated by anything other than concern to get the financial system working again," Mr. Stiglitz said. "But I think that mindsets can be shaped by people you associate with, and you come to think that what's good for Wall Street is good for America."

No one can be sure. However, it could be. Apples do not fall from trees. Birds of a feather may flock together. A child born to affluence is better able to aspire.

Main Street and Wall Street may never meet, or at least not until those whose sights are set high step down and see how the common folk live. The gold on the Hill does not glitter on pavements union workers walk. Nor do small business owners, everyday, ordinary, average American taxpayers reside on boulevard of bullion. No, these avenues are reserved for persons such as Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of Treasury.

Reference for the Geithner Reality . . .

Who is Timothy Geithner? The Wall Street Journal. November 21, 2008
Dollar Declines as Geithner's Bank Comments Erode Refuge Appeal, By Ye Xie and Oliver Biggadike. Bloomberg. April 21, 2009
Family describes Geithner '83's youth, By Kate Farley. The Dartmouth. Friday, October 3, 2008
Ford Foundation Links Parents of Obama and Treasury Secretary Nominee. The Chronicle of Philanthropy . December 03, 2008
N.Y. Fed chief an unconventional, but compatible, choice, By Brian C. Mooney. The Boston Globe. November 25, 2008
Office of Public Relations (Ford Motor Company) records subgroup, 1903-1987 (bulk 1942-1978). Henry Ford Museum. Horizon Information Portal
The Presidential Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower. The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission. August 1958
Geithner, Member and Overseer of Finance Club, By Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson. The New York Times. April26, 2009
Records of the Office of the Special Assistant for Executive Appointments. Eisenhower Archives. 1952-61
The Capitol Extensions and New Dome, By William C. Allen. Chapter 4
Treasury Articles on Treasury. The New York Times.
Nomination of Michelle A. Smith., Hearing before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress. Joyner Library.
Citigroup, Articles. The New York Times.
Citigroup, Articles. The New York Times.
Goldman Sachs, Articles. The New York Times.
Jamie Dimon, Articles. The New York Times.
In Wake Of GM Ouster, Unions Demand Obama Fire Bank Of America CEO, By Greg Sargent. TruthOut from The Plum Line. March 31, 2009
Geithner Goes From Zero to Hero? Not So Fast, By John Nichols. The Nation. March 24, 2009

Tortured

Betsy L. Angert — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:00:00 GMT

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Never for a moment in my life have I been "in love." I do not believe in the notion. Fireworks have not filled my heart. Flames of a fiery passion do not burn within me. Indeed, my soul has not been ablaze. Thoughts of a hot-blooded devotion seem illogical to me. Such sentiments always have. Fondness too fertile is but torture for me. I admire many, and adore none. For me, the affection I feel for another is born out of sincere and profound appreciation. To like another means more to me than to love or be loved. Excitement, an emotional reaction to another, rises up within me when I experience an empathetic exchange with someone who has glorious gray matter.

Today, it happened. I felt an a twinge that startled me. I stood still as he entered the room. I expected nothing out of the ordinary, or at least nothing other than what has become his recently adopted, more avoidant, routine. Although long ago, I had become accustomed to his face, his voice, and his demeanor, for I have known the man for more than a few years. In the last few weeks, while essentially he is who he always was, some of his stances have changed. Possibly, Barry has felt a need to compromise his positions, but I wonder; what of his principles.
Early on, I knew that he and I differed in some respects. While we each loathe drama, I was never certain if he felt as I do; love need not be a tortuous trauma. Barry spoke of the need to work together. Yet, not necessarily in aspect of life. At times, he advocated aggressive actions I could not consider. This, for me, caused much confusion. Nonetheless, I liked the man I saw before me.

I recall the day we first met, face-to-face. We shook hands. He smiled. Barry was polite, not pushy. Amiable is the way I would describe him. Then, the second time we saw each other, we had a more extensive conversation. He took my hand in his. We each spoke with greater sincerity. As Barry and I chatted, he looked me straight in the eye. He listened to my personal tale. Visibly, he pondered the story I shared. Barry responded so genuinely to my inquiry, albeit an unconventional concern, I was surprised. Indeed, I was impressed, although less than I was when I read what he had written.

His books moved me. The more autobiographical tome endeared him to me. His notes on hope did not lack the spirit to inspire me. As one who "loves" to learn, which differs from the impulsive idea that I might be "in love," a person that can kindle my earnest thirst for knowledge truly electrifies me. I recall the moment I read the text that, all these years later, still resonates within me. Barry humbly offered, in a discussion of empathy . . .

It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes.

Barry told tales of his mother, his grandfather, and how through his interactions with each he realized there is reason to think "about the struggles and disappointments" others have seen in their lives. Reflection helped the younger Barry understand, every individual is not solely right or wrong. If he were to insist that, his way was the only approach that worked, "without regard to his [or her] feelings or needs, I was in some way diminishing myself." Such awareness, such a superior soul; Barry showed what I believe to be a human's greatest strength, vulnerability. Were I to have a heart to win, the words of this gentle-man could have surely swept me off my feet.

Even his calm demeanor is as I desire and live. Those close to me wonder of my own emotional tranquility. From his manner and manuscript, it would seem Barry believes as I do. Empathy elicits equilibrium. Today, he seemed to embrace this notion once again. We can choose to love our neighbors. We need not torture "those who are different from us."

Near noon, on April 23, 2009, at the Holocaust days of Remembrance Ceremony, Barry, the now President of the United States, Barack Obama spoke of this belief again. Once more, I felt a pang for the person who oft-expressed a profound connection to the feelings of another. The sweet soul who can bring me to tears, did so once again. On this historic occasion, Barry shared a profound realization through a personal story. The subject; the Holocaust and the torture our forebears felt or beheld.

In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable. My own great uncle returned from his service in World War II in a state of shock, saying little, alone with painful memories that would not leave his head. He went up into the attic, according to the stories that I've heard, and wouldn't come down for six months. He was one of the liberators -- someone who at a very tender age had seen the unimaginable. And so some of the liberators who are here today honor us with their presence -- all of whom we honor for their extraordinary service. My great uncle was part of the 89th Infantry Division -- the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. And they liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, where tens of thousands had perished.

Stunned, by the saga, and the words that preceded the legend, I began to believe again. Perhaps the Barry I admire had a change of heart. Policies he never fully embraced, might not seem reasonable to him now.

During the campaign, Barry, Senator Barack Obama only promised to investigate, not to prosecute. Many months ago, before the August 2008 declaration, and thereafter, I had thought his stance reflected his vast ability to empathize. Yet, in the light of the ample evidence, most if not all of which affirms the Bush Administration engaged in extreme methods of interrogation, President Obama still supports or chooses to sustain a position that negates empathy for the victims. I shudder to think of how the Seventh Generation might be affected.

Hence, I am left to question what I thought was truth. Was the empathy I envisioned not as sincere as I hoped it to be? Perchance that is why, for me, love is as torture. I have faith no one has the power to disappoint me. Only my choices can be a source of much concern. For as long as I can recall, I have observed, once infatuation fades, we learn as I had before Barry entered the Oval Office. He is but another human. He embraces and then forgets, the power of empathy and the force of our past?

When, in homage to Holocaust victims, and survivors of a heinous hostility that forever stains world history, I sensed he knew. As I looked on, I forgot the setting. Intent on the torrent of news on torture techniques I read and heard throughout the day, I made an erroneous connection. As Barry, President Obama spoke of the deeds done in decades past, and those crimes committed by the previous Administration, I imagined the man I thought I knew meant to express empathy for those who suffered at the hands of Americans. The Chief Executive, on behalf of the United States avowed.

Their legacy is our inheritance. And the question is, how do we honor and preserve it? How do we ensure that "never again" isn't an empty slogan, or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action?
I believe we start by doing what we are doing today -- by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-conspirator.
In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable.

I cried. Tremendously thankful for the oratory, indeed, I must say, for a second, I was elated. I wondered. Had the person many think beloved, the individual I at least treasure, decided to rescind his prior position?

Might he have rejected the thought offered recently; "nothing will be gained by our time and energy laying blame for the past,"

Could it be the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony helped the President to renew his faith in his earlier expression; "(H)istory returns "with a vengeance . . . "(A)s Faulkner reminds us, the past is never dead and buried -- it isn't even past." I hoped.

Perchance, he had worked through a struggle I too experience. As one who has no desire to hurt others, even those who have physically and psychologically harmed individuals, and our country's image, how might I think prosecution is just?

I truly embrace such an honorable ability to seek no retribution. Indeed, I may not fall "in love"; nonetheless, I would hope to live love.

I feel harsh reprisals are never wise. I also accept the enduring wisdom of a finer balance. I have experienced the need to empathize and the conflict of what I might do if one I treasure intentionally injures another. I have come to discover, if deleterious deeds are allowed to stand, sooner or later the other, I, and perchance, society will be subjected to adulterations that individuals or a culture cannot endure.

Awful actions we accept, avoid, or merely do not acknowledge become a foundation for the future. Humans inure. Lest we forget the Milgram shock experiment of decades ago, or the knowledge that when repeated in the present, proves again, as a Psychologist, Thomas Blass, espoused in "The Man Who Shocked the World." Milgram extrapolated, to larger events like the Holocaust, or Abu Ghraib. "people can act destructively without coercion." "In things like interrogations, we don't know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results."

I wonder how many Americans came to accept violence as a necessity on September 11, 2001. On that dreadful day, a date that now lives in infamy, all Americans were placed in a precarious position. With the threat of terror etched into our every cell, each of us had to ask, what were we to do. In the 2004 edition of Dreams From My Father, the Barry, who I trusted to be so thoughtful whispered his woe for what might occur once the "world fractured." He penned . . .

This collective history, this past, directly touches my own . . .
I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago's South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a steady, unthinking application of force, of longer prison sentences and more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task. I know that the hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribe, dooms us all.

Those are the words of the Barry I was inspired to meet, the person I was reminded of when he stood with an audience of individuals who never forget the agony of torture. Today, as that empathetic soul, the President referred to the future, the generations to come, he stated, "We find cause for hope" when "people of every age and faith and background and race (are) united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world." I thought of the detainees at Guant?namo Bay prison, and the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the need to empathize with victims of "extreme duress."

Oblivious to the purpose of this particular speech, in my moment of stupor, I surmised Mister Obama had not only accepted the association, but perhaps had realized what could occur if the transgressions of the previous Administration were allowed to stand as if all was in the past.

"Barry," Barack, the Commander-In-Chief, further elucidated; "Those [persons] can be our future . . . (D)uring this season when we celebrate liberation, resurrection, and the possibility of redemption, may each of us renew our resolve to do what must be done. And may we strive each day, both individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous.

I imagined the reference was to empathy, to the paradigms I too embrace. Punishment offers no benefits for people. Yet, there is a need to prosecute the culpable, to ensure that people are answerable for the most atrocious aggressions. It is vital, if we wish to prevent the numbness that humans so easily adopt, we must bring torture to the full light of day. Torment executed in our names, I think Barry would agree, hurts us. Surely, General and President Eisenhower did. Mister Obama acknowledged this only hours ago .

Eisenhower understood the danger of silence. He understood that if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet another atrocity -- and it would be the perpetrators' ultimate triumph.
What Eisenhower did to record these crimes for history is what we are doing here today. That's what Elie Wiesel and the survivors we honor here do by fighting to make their memories part of our collective memory. That's what the Holocaust Museum does every day on our National Mall, the place where we display for the world our triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from our history. It's the very opposite of silence.
But we must also remember that bearing witness is not the end of our obligation -- it's just the beginning. We know that evil has yet to run its course on Earth. We've seen it in this century in the mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war.

Barry knows what President Obama. spoke of in his address at the Holocaust Day of Remembrance Ceremony Love needed not be tortured. Expressions of fondness are found in empathy, not extreme duress.

President Eisenhower understood as I had hoped, on this day, Barry Obama had. What occurs far from view is never truly unseen. Nor can avoidance erase the scars left on a heart. While as a country, or as individuals we may prefer to retreat to the attic as President Obama's great uncle did, in truth, it is impossible to forget.

People who participated know this to be so. A belatedly brave Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, Ali Soufan, tell his tales of sorrowful love in My Tortured Decision. The mediator recalls how for seven years he has remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. Mister Soufan, as General Eisenhower did before him saw the need to "shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned."

I inquire; what will Barry do, and what of President Obama. Will the man who once held my hand and professed a need to be empathetic do as he declares his commitment? "(W)e have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges." Might he instead do as he hopes we will not, "wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others' sufferings are not our own,"

I can only hope Barry will encourage the President to heed his own call. "(W)e have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take -- whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place . . ."

Let us never forget Guantanamo Bay prison, Abu Ghraib, or any America penitentiary camp, need not be our holocaust. Tales of tortured love need not be an American truth.

References for tortured love . . .

Remarks by the President at the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony. United States Capitol. April 23, 2009
Our New Sort of War, It might be the most dangerous of all. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review. April 16, 2009
Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent'. Cable News Network. July 21, 2008
Obama Challenges Grads to Cultivate Empathy, by Barack Obama. Northwestern University. June 19, 2006
How Obama Did It, By Karen Tumulty. Time. June 5, 2008
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, By Barack Obama. 2004
Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos. Office of the Press Secretary. White House. April 16, 2009
On Interrogation Policies, Another Delicate Compromise From Obama, By Ben Pershing. Washington Post. April 17, 2009
he Audacity of Hope, By Barack Obama
Would Obama prosecute the Bush administration for torture? By Mark Benjamin. Salon. August 4, 2008
Science Chief Discusses Climate Strategy, Obama Adviser Hints at Compromise on Cap-and-Trade Emission Allowances. By Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post. Thursday, April 9, 2009; A02
A Guide to the Memos on Torture. The New York Times.
Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?, By Benedict Carey. The New York Times. July 1, 2008
William Faulkner.
My Tortured Decision. By Ali Soufan. The New York Times. April 23, 2009
In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture, Extreme Duress Could Yield Unreliable Information, It Said. By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick. Washington Post. Saturday, April 25, 2009

Counter Terrorism in the White House

Betsy L. Angert — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:00:00 GMT

Rachel Maddow - former Rice confidant Philip Zelikow on the torture memos, part 1

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

In his attempt to counter a perceived threat to America, Philip Zelikow, the policy representative to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the National Securities Council (NSC) Deputies Committee, unexpectedly became the threat from within the White House.

The Bush Administration believed the best way to deal with suspected terrorists was to inflict extreme physical and psychological pressure on these perilous persons. Mister Zelikow offered his dissent. In a written and verbally stated opinion, Philip Zelikow contradicted what the occupants of the Oval Office accepted as necessary. "Individuals suspected of terrorism, can be legally tortured."

A short time after the Office of Legal Council (OLC) issued the now infamous judgments which allowed for officially sanctioned torment, Mister Zelikow, his superior, who was then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and her Legal Adviser, John Bellinger, gained access to the torture memos. After a review, Philip Zelikow stated his concern. He sensed others within the Administration might share his angst. However, no one, inclusive of Mister Zelikow, publicly voiced an apprehension, that is, not until this past week.
Today, Mister Zelikow writes of his silence, and the counter position he took on torture for terrorists. In an article, the former White House insider explains why did not speak out earlier. "In compliance with the security agreements I have signed, I have never discussed or disclosed any substantive details about the program until the classified information has been released."

Now that the memos are in the hands of the people, the man who served as the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, feels a need to address what for too long was avoided. In his missive The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter the counter force to corruption within the Bush White House speaks out. He writes . . .

1. The focus on water-boarding misses the main point of the program.
Which is that it was a program. Unlike the image of using intense physical coercion as a quick, desperate expedient, the program developed "interrogation plans" to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time.
The plan employed the combined, cumulative use of many techniques of medically-monitored physical coercion. Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important.
2. Measuring the value of such methods should be done professionally and morally before turning to lawyers.
A professional analysis would not simply ask: Did they tell us important information? Congress is apparently now preparing to parse the various claims on this score -- and that would be quite valuable.
But the argument that they gave us vital information, which readers can see deployed in the memos just as they were deployed to reassure an uneasy president, is based on a fallacy. The real question is: What is the unique value of these methods?. . .
3. The legal opinions have grave weaknesses.
Weakest of all is the May 30 opinion, just because it had to get over the lowest standard -- "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" in Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture. That standard was also being codified in the bill Senator John McCain was fighting to pass. It is also found in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a standard that the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 does apply to these prisoners. Violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime under federal law (18 U.S.C. section 2441), a felony punishable by up to life imprisonment. (The OLC opinions do not discuss this law because in 2005 the administration also denied the applicability of Common Article 3.)

However, regardless of historic realities, long-held interpretations of international and national law, and the writ within the insulated world of the Oval Office, those who would like to think the President is above the law, justify inhumane practices. The so called "Right" rule, that individuals subjected to torture were not touched in ways that would cause them harm. Conservatives clamor . . .

The emotional debate surrounding the use of torture has been reignited by last week's disclosure of Bush-era memos outlining the harsh interrogation practices utilized against high-profile terror detainees, and the legal opinions used to justify them. Such approved techniques involved slapping, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, cramped confinement, "walling" (in which detainees were slammed into a flexible wall), forced nudity, and placing a suspect in a small box with insects. President Obama believes that the tactics reflect America's loss of its "moral bearings," which is why he discontinued their use and released the memos. But a cadre of political commentators and former Bush administration officials refute that claim, insisting that the techniques should be permissible either because they don't actually constitute torture, or because they elicit valuable information - or both. We went through the commentary of the past few days to see who falls into this camp.
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort .... I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country." -Dick Cheney, speaking with Fox News' Sean Hannity
"The techniques themselves were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA .... As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations." -Former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former CIA director Michael Hayden, in The Wall Street Journal
"It is, yes, good that the U.S.A. is not doing this anymore, but let's not get too sanctimonious about how awful it was that we indulged in these techniques after watching nearly 3,000 innocent Americans endure god-awful deaths at the hands of religious fanatics who would happily have detonated a nuclear bomb if they had gotten their mitts on one. And let us move on. There is pressing business. (Are you listening, ACLU? Hel-lo?)" -Chris Buckley, on the Daily Beast
"If somebody can go through water-boarding for 183 times, 6 times a day .... it means you're not afraid of it, it means it's not torture. If you've found a way to withstand it, it can't possibly be torture." -Rush Limbaugh
"I don't see it as a dark chapter in our history at all. You look at some of these techniques - holding the head, a face slap, or deprivation of sleep. If that is torture, the word has no meaning." -Charles Krauthammer, on Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume
"I think it's really pathetic for an American president to do that, and to disavow, in effect, the good faith efforts of a previous administration to protect us in ways that I think were entirely appropriate." -Bill Kristol, on Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume
"I've been in hotels with more bugs than these guys faced, and they're tortured?" -Mike Huckabee, on Fox & Friends
"Ultimately though, apparently, according to the evidence, this stuff worked. And some of these guys spilled some beans that saved some lives. Next time we're in the same predicament, what's going to happen?" -Steve Doocy, host of Fox & Friends
"Khalid Sheik Mohammed, I understand, was waterboarded 183 times. Did anyone care about that? Does anyone in America walk around going, 'I'm really upset that the mastermind of 9/11 was waterboarded 183 times.' That makes me feel better." -Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox & Friends
"The idea that torture doesn't work - that's been put out from John McCain on down - You know, for the longest time McCain said torture doesn't work then he admitted in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer that he was broken by North Vietnamese. So what are we to think here?" -Rush Limbaugh
"If you go beyond posing questions in an even voice, you're torturing, according to the Times .... Most Americans understand, when life and death is there, you've got to do something more than the Army Field Manual." -Bill O'Reilley
"By reading this people will be reassured and they'll see the lunacy of the people on the left who say it's torture. You know, you can only the use the back of your hand you have t splay your fingers when you slap them in the gut. On the face, you have to sue your fingers splayed, and you have to do it between here and here, and close to here." -Karl Rove, on The O'Reilly Factor
"Far from 'green lighting' torture - or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees - the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation." -David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey, Justice Department officials under George H.W. Bush, in The Wall Street Journal

American opinions remain split, just as they had been in May 2005, when Philip Zelikow first offered his counter to torture. Today, if anything is to be done to correct what was authorized for criminal behavior, the people must act. Citizens have already seen what occurs when the public is apathetic, and awards a Commander-In-Chief absolute power.

References for a tortuous reality . . .

The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter By Philip Zelikow. Foreign Policy. April 21, 2009
Who Defends Torture? By Dan Amira. New York Magazine. April 21, 2009
Cheney wants CIA files for memoir. By Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein. Politico. April 21, 2009
The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror, The point of interrogation is intelligence, not confession. By Michael Mukasey, CIA, Michael Hayden. The Wall Street Journal. April 17, 2009
Enough With the Torture Sanctimony, By Chris Buckeley. Daily Beast April 19, 2009
Limbaugh: "[I]f somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture" Media Matters. April 20, 2009
Charles Krauthammer Take. National Review. April 17, 2009
Fox News Defends Bush Administration's Use Of Torture. Think Progress. April 17, 2009
Steve Doocy Media Matters. April 17, 2009
Rush Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh Show. April 8, 2009
Bil O'Reilly.. The O'Reilly Factor. April 17, 2009
Karl Rove The O'Reilly Factor. April 17, 2009
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture, The Red Cross was completely wrong about 'walling. David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey. The Wall Street Journal. April 20, 2009

Tea Parties; Taxes and Torture Served

Betsy L. Angert — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:00:00 GMT

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

I am a discontent and distressed taxpayer! "Disgruntled" is a word that might describe my deep dissatisfaction with how my tax dollars are spent. Yet, on April 15, 2009, typically thought of as "Tax Day," I felt no need to join my fellow citizens in protest. I did not attend a "Tea Party". I too believe, in this country, "taxation without representation" is a problem. One only need ponder the profits of lobbyists to understand the premise. Corporate supplicants amass a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investments. The average American is happy to realize a two-digit increase. Nonetheless, as much as I too may argue the point, assessments are paid without accountability, what concerns me more is my duty dollars did not support what I think ethical projects.
My cash funded the unconscionable and the President stated "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Had outrage for criminal intent and actions been voiced, I too might have rallied round bays and buildings with buckets of brewed leaves in hand. Yet, it seemed amongst the tea teetotalers, no one was incensed by the illegal, and what I believe to be immoral practices.

Tea Tossed
The "Teatime" participants I heard did not mention the myriad of misery Americans inflicted on adversaries. Fury for the previous Administration's torturous policies did not appear in the papers, or, at least, I did not read these statements. Talk of the recently released memorandums (pdf) did not evoke much discussion. The current crop of "grassroots" demonstrators spoke of how the Obama budget might burden their personal lives. Angry activists vocalized a preference not to pay levees. Few, if any, reflected on the benefits received.

While our grievances may differ, we share a conviction. I too am troubled by what the Obama Administration, which I helped to elect, thinks correct.

Taxes Paid
However, unlike the anxious Americans who voiced their dissent for levees paid, I am happy to give my tax dollars to the government. For me, funds that help supply public services are vital. I welcome the opportunity to better ensure there will be police, firemen, and women. I take comfort in the knowledge children and adults may use libraries to peruse quality books. I embrace legislation intended to better instruction. In my life the importance of education cannot be understated. Bridges built and maintained, roads paved, traffic signs and signals, functional sanitary sewer systems, and diseases controlled and prevented . . . As a concerned citizen, I am glad I can contribute to these ventures.

I object to what I think unlawful and debauched. I cannot condone interrogations authorized and acted upon, in my name. My angst is exacerbated by the current Administration assertion; these crimes are not punishable by law. Those who tortured only did as was commanded. At the time, the Department of Justice declares, "superiors" stated such harsh techniques were legal.

Torture Tolerated
What I would call cruel and unusual punishment, the prior President, his Vice, and Cabinet thought proper. Each Executive stated these torturous measures were necessary to protect Americans. The people heard proclamations that what "we" did was justified. It was effective. Only months ago, Vice President Dick Cheney explained; "The professionals involved in that [so-called torture] program were very, very cautious, very careful -- wouldn't do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal. . . (I)t's been a remarkably successful effort. . . . I think those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the terrorist surveillance program, simply don't know what they're talking about." (Memos aside. Please peruse Torture Memorandums. )

Dick Cheney and his compatriots seem to distinguish between citizens of this country and those who might be identified as "foreigners." To further elucidate the spokesperson for the Bush White House stated; "These are not American citizens. They are not subject, nor do they have the same rights that an American citizen does vis-?-vis the government."

The newer Administration may concur; civil rights afforded to our countrymen may not be offered to individuals classified as combatants. While I disagree with that contention, I do believe as the Obama White House does. International Law states, all living creatures have an inalienable right to be treated humanely.

Thankfully, President Obama and his Cabinet condemn tortuous practices. Yet, the current Administration announced there is no need to prosecute. Mister Obama affirmed, "(A)t a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

I must ask; does this declaration ensure history will be repeated? Individuals such as I accept that tribunals will not transform what was. Punishment may not convince those who engaged in criminal behaviors to change. I seek no retribution. Yet, I do think there is a need to prosecute the culpable. Humanitarian principles lead taxpayers such as I to declare, torture, by any definition cannot be tolerated. As a society, we have seen how people are easily numbed by what peers think, say, and do. Studies show the prevalence of video violence has an influence on what we later think is acceptable.

In America, ideally, not ideologically, we understand profound principles unite us. The greater good, the commonweal, take precedence over individualism. As is inscribed in the Preamble of the Constitution "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish" in this country, we care. Our fellow citizens, and future generations matter to us.

Perhaps this profundity explains why concerned citizens, those who happily contribute to tolls are distressed by the Obama Administration's declaration, there will be no prosecution.

Persons such as I, who are troubled by torture, understand the past permeates the present and will be the future, if what is worrisome is avoided, accepted, or is left unattended. We, the peaceful people who are proud to pay levees of love, are not comforted by an act of contrition. Nor does the knowledge that President Obama released the memorandums as required by law reassure us.

If intentionally inflicted physical and psychological harm can be characterized as just, and some Conservatives, such as the former Vice President, Dick Cheney, thinks it does, then it makes sense to tax payers who supported the previous President to sanction the acts outlined in recently released memorandums as sound.

Many Conservatives share this sentiment, although not all. Lest we forget former Presidential candidate John McCain's succinct statement on one the techniques the Bush Administration authorized. "They should know what it [waterboarding] is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." A man who lives with the memory of being a Prisoner of War, the Arizona Senator emphatically stated, torture is ineffective. That is until Presidential politics altered his position.

Could it be that candidate McCain did as the current President has done, bow to a constituency that does not demand prosecution for what the United States has defined as criminal since its inception.

Opposition to torture was verbalized before the United States became a nation. The Declaration of Independence reminds residents of this territory, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In 1863, in the midst of the brutalities of the Civil War, President Lincoln forbade his forces from acts of cruelty, including torture. After the barbarities of World War II, America led an emergent community of United Nations to adopt in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with its provision that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 5)."
In 1975, the United States aided in the United Nations adoption of a separate Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. In 1988 President Reagan signed and in 1994 the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the most comprehensive legally binding international treaty prohibiting the use of torture. The U.N. Convention's prohibition against torture is absolute, without exceptions.

It was only during the 2006 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (pdf) that the United States turned a blind eye on its history. Perchance the topic of terror, or the threat envisioned as the Twin Towers fell turned Americans against principled actions.

Tax and Terror Codes; Reviled, Renewed, or Rejected?
No one can know with certainty what caused a country or countless within the continent to reject the prescribed canon that is the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, it is clear, the American people do not insist political power be checked. Collectively, cynicism was and is adopted. With that acquisition, the country accepted deplorable directives. The American populace chose to forego authentic representation. Hence, the electorate allowed for the more heinous atrocities that followed. Today, only personal financial concerns bring people to their feet and out onto the streets.

The transition was subtle. Distrustful of government, the public grew to expect the worse. Now we receive it. We pay for torture and are pleased when a President proclaims of "a dark and painful chapter in our history," this too shall pass. Personally, I fear it will not. My fellow citizens did not address my angst when they dumped dried evergreen shrubs on lawns or in a bay. The President's decision to disregard what he too called interrogation techniques outlined in the official communication that "undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer" does not bring me joy.

While I did gladly pay my financial assessments, and I did not voice my dissent for torture with tea, I remain a discontent and distressed taxpayer.

References for a dire reality . . .

Tax Day Is Met With Tea Parties, By Liz Robbins. The New York Times. April 16, 2009
Investments Can Yield More on K Street, Study Indicates, One Tax Break Brought Companies 22,000% Rate of Return on Lobbying Costs. By Dan Eggen. Washington Post. Sunday, April 12, 2009; A08
Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A., By Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane. The New York Times. April 17, 2009
President Obama's Statement on the Memos. Text. The New York Times. April 16, 2009
Torture Memorandums. U.S.. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel. The New York Times.
Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos. Bradbury And Bybee Memos Are Released In Response To Long-Running ACLU Lawsuits. American Civil Liberties Union. April 16, 2001
Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? - Tax Day 2009. National Priorities Project.
Income Tax Chart - 2009. National Priorities Project.
War Resisters League.
Mad as Hell at Teatime, By Eugene Robinson. Washington Post. Friday, April 17, 2009
What Distracts Us from Impeachment? By David Swanson. The Humanist. November/December 2007
Declaration of Independence. Indiana Law.
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
United Nations Convention Against Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. United Nations. 1994
Law School Past Shapes Obama's View On Justices, By Nina Totenberg. All Things Considered. National Public Radio. October 30, 2008
Transcript: Cheney Defends Hard Line Tactics, Jonathan Karl Interview. ABC News. December 16, 2008
From Universal Prohibition to Universal Eradication of Torture: Developments of International Law Standards. By the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 14. Spring 2001
Cheney defends war on terror's morality. Office 'consequential' because Bush wanted it. By Jon Ward. The Washington Times. December 18, 2008
Peer pressure pushes people to go green. MarketPlace. January 6, 2009
The Influence of Media Violence on Youth. By Craig A. Anderson, Leonard Berkowitz, Edward Donnerstein, L. Rowell Huesmann, James D. Johnson, Daniel Linz, Neil M. Malamuth, and Ellen Wartella. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Volume. 4, NO. 3, December 2003
Obama Releases Torture Memos, Vows Not to Prosecute, By David Kravets. Wired. April 16, 2009
Obama: Memos' Release Required By Law. CBS News. April 16, 2009

Rethinking Afghanistan; The Terror Tax

Betsy L. Angert — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Rethink Afghanistan (Part 3): Cost of War

copyright ? 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Tax time is reason enough to reflect on our budgets, personal and national. How realistic are our expenditures? Do we spend more than we earn? Does our income allow for a few irrational indulgences? Do discretionary dollars exist? Might we consider our ample debt. Does this represent a temporary deficit, easily resolved, or an obligation that cannot be paid promptly. We may wish to rethink our reality. At home, families have taken scissors to credit cards. More than the minimum payment is made. The intention is to lessen liabilities and increase savings. In the month of April, after we pay Uncle Sam, most of us concluded, it is time to clean our own fiscal house. Next, we move to the nation's ledger.

Expenses
The largest share of our moneys go to military operations. The terror tax has become a tremendous burden of American household and communities. Yet, few wish to rethink this "duty."
Much to the chagrin of those who do not favor debt, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were paid for on credit. Taxes were not increased to pay for the two wars. Indeed, President Bush cut tariff obligations for the American people while he increased the number of dollars devoted to military operations.

The cash spent on what most would agree were and are protracted conflicts was not placed on the official ledger. Nor did it exist in American coffers. What were classified as "emergency supplemental" expenses were made available on loan. Other countries, rich in resources, furnished the dollars the United States desired. The currency would need to be re-paid, with interest! That concept alone could be considered a tax on terror, or an attack on Americans who disfavor debt.

The current Commander-In-Chief promised he would not engage in such tactics. The Obama Administration would be transparent. What would be spent on war would be visible in formal, administrative, concrete calculations. To that end, in February 2009, perhaps before most Americans filed a return, President Obama submitted his budget. Headlines screamed, Obama's budget is the end of an era.

Cash and Change On Hand
Change had come. Obama re-thought Bush policies. More money would be officially allocated to military operations. The Pentagon Does Well with Obama Budget. The financial planned commitment to the Pentagon is an abundant $533.7 billion. This amount represents a 4 percent increase over the previous 2009 allocation. This total excludes money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The budget includes an additional $75 billion in 2009 for "overseas contingency operations," a reference to the battles still ablaze in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locales. Come 2010, $130 billion more will be available for combat.

Insufficient Funds
Cautions presented six months ago, on October 15, 2008, by the Congressional Research Service apparently were not heeded by the new Administration. Citizens also did not realize, cash for these conflicts is not countless. It never was. Calculations were offered. However, then, as now, the numbers were ignored. Perhaps, all aspects of the ostensibly perpetual wars were not rethought.

Economic Cost of War in Afghanistan
The War in Afghanistan has cost U.S. Tax payers $172 billion to date, with a request for roughly $13.4 billion to fund the war through the remainder of Fiscal year 2009 expected in March or April. This brings the total cost through FY 2009 to $185.1 billion.
This figures reflect the budgetary cost alone. Projected costs over the long term are likely to total more than half a trillion dollars when future occupation and veteran's benefits are taken into account. Interest payments could add another $200 billion to that figure. (1) All told, this is more than the size of the recent bailout of Wall Street, and rivals the historic economic stimulus bill just passed by Congress.
Countries outside the United States have spent additional billions on the War in Afghanistan, with the UK contributing roughly ?4.5billion (2) and the cost to Canada totaling $7.7 billion to $10.5 billion in Canadian dollars through 2008. (3).

Thus far, you and I, the American taxpayer, borrowed one hundred and eighty five billion dollars, or more, to fight a war thought futile in Afghanistan. In Iraq the dollars devoted to deploy each troop, one individual, was $500,000. That is five hundred thousand dollars! The money spent on a single soldier sent to Afghanistan is expected to be eight-hundred thousand greenbacks.

Financial Future in Doubt
Many Progressives may wish to wail, "George W. Bush is to blame." However, people from the political Party that takes pride in the actions of this President might rethink that truth.

Days before American tax payments were due, Mister Obama asked Congress for an additional eighty three and four tenths billion dollars ($83.4) to fund the war just through the end of the year! After Mister Obama assured Americans supplemental expenditures to pay for wars would not be requested, the President rescinded the pledge. Excuses were made. Explanations given. Citizens were told the additional allotment would be the first and the last made by President Obama.

It seems circumstances caused the Chief Executive to rethink his stance on spending and Afghanistan. Perhaps, citizens will also rethink their position. In truth, only the people have the power to insist, it is time to cut the funds for war.

Rethinking Afghanistan Realities . . .
Footnote References . . .
1. The $3 Trillion War. By Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz. Vanity Fair. April 2008
2. Cost of war in Afghanistan soars to ?2.5bn, By Richard Norton-Taylor. The Guardian. Friday 13, 2009
3. Economic Cost of War in Afghanistan.

References and Resources . . .

Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? - Tax Day 2009. National Priorities Project.
National Debt Clocks and Savings Clocks. ZFacts.
Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Economy,By Lee Hudson Teslik. Council on Foreign Relations. March 11, 2008
Testimony on Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and of Other Activities Related to the War on Terrorism. Congressional Budget Office. October 24, 2007
Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Budget Released. U.S. Department of Defense. February 5, 2007
110th Congress-Defense Spending Issue Looms, By Michael Moran. Council on Foreign Relations. January 4, 2007
The American Defense Budget. Center for Defense Information. September 18, 2007
Obama plans a more transparent budget, By Christi Parsons and Maura Reynolds. The Los Angeles Times. February 24, 2009
Obama's budget is the end of an era, By Janet Hook. The Los Angeles Times. February 27, 2009
Pentagon Does Well with Obama Budget. By David Corn. Congressional Quarterly. February 26, 2009 11:45 AM
The $3 Trillion War. By Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz. Vanity Fair. April 2008
Linda Bilmes on Our 'Three Trillion Dollar War'. Fresh Air, WHYY. March 3, 2008
Joseph Stiglitz on Our 'Three Trillion Dollar War'. By Dave Davies. Fresh Air, WHYY. March 3, 2008
Cost of war in Afghanistan soars to ?2.5bn, By Richard Norton-Taylor. The Guardian. Friday 13, 2009
Economic Cost of War in Afghanistan.
Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs. United States Department of State.
The Economic Cost of War, By James Glanz. The New York Times. February 28, 2009
Obama requests $83.4 billion more for war spending, By Julian E. Barnes. Los Angeles Times. April 10, 2009
War costs may total $2.4 trillion, By Ken Dilanian. USA Today. October 23, 2007
Factors Driving Up Spending. By Joseph E. Stiglitz, Linda Bilmes. The three trillion dollar war.
Obama: No More War Spending Tricks, By Nathan Hodge. Wired. February 25, 2009

I Dream the Dream

Betsy L. Angert — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent
by dwarthy

All of my life I have been a dreamer. Don Quixote is my adopted name. Happily, I tilt at windmills. I do the impossible. Nothing deters me, that is, unless my lack of ego strength is involved. Then, unlike Susan Boyle, a contestant on Britain's Got Talent, I falter. A being, whose energy, enthusiasm, and personal story brought her to stage, has the courage I lack. Might it be a fear of failure, or perchance, success scares me. I know not with certainty. For now, as I reflect on the woman who wows the world, I think of how I too have dreamed, and what I did to damage, defeat, or even destroy my own ascension.

I also wonder. Will the tears I shed as I listen to her sing and watch her gracefully move through her recital wash over me. Would all that I felt, as I immersed myself in Ms Boyle's performance, be gone before I acted on the audacity she radiates, or might these emotions help cleanse me of my own deep-seated apprehensions. Oh, how I crave to come out into the light, to as Susan Boyle stated, be given a "chance." Indeed, for me, I know the one who never seems to provide me with what I need to succeed is me.
At the age of two, having entered school at one and one half years of age, I aspired to earn my Doctorate degree. The vision never faded. However, apprehension filled my heart, my head, and ultimately delayed the desire. Absolutely, letters of intent, and introductions for dissertations were written. Interviews with Department Chairs were granted. Conversations with Deans inspired and encouraged me. Nonetheless, excuses prevailed. Dollars could have been deemed the cause for the postponement. Other pretexts were easily posed. My dream was deferred.

Later in life, I realized, perhaps, what I truly yearned for was not as I once believed it to be. Could I compose, rather than recognize a prestigious scholastic rank. Might I follow a bliss belatedly acknowledged. I wish to write, to produce prose, to publish. This, I realize is my passion. While, unexpectedly, accidentally, I was given an opportunity I never imagined, I denied its importance. I did nothing to further my future as an author.

The one tome was widely distributed in a highly esteemed and well-known textbook. Educational Resources accepted some rare submissions. Quite a few others honored me with requests for missives on the World-Wide-Web. Appreciative, I shared many an inscribed statement, stories, and poems. Complements came and I dismissed them all.

I hoped for an authentic chance, uncertain as to what that might look like. Surely, I told myself, I tell myself, one will never come. I did not have the final, the one, the "proper" credential. Nor could I possibly pen or present a publisher with a proposal of worth.

I have read the accepted requests of many an author .who already appears in print. Some of these papers were hand-delivered by published persons who assured me, I have the potential. Only I, these wordsmiths said, could create the prospect I think must be provided.

I look 'round every corner for clues. I crawl through dusty shelves in search of a book to teach me how to market my manuscripts. I chat with those who have achieved as I aspire to do. I defend what I know hinders my growth. I turn to Susan Boyle with delight. Perhaps, one day I too will perform. I do have a dream.

I thank you Ms Boyle. You, perchance, my mentor, my muse, are beautiful, inside and out.

"Dream what you want to dream; go where you want to go;
be what you want to be, because you have only one life and one chance to do all the things you want to do."
~ Bette Midler [American Singer and Actress]

Post Script . . .
Curious and contemplative, I wish to consider the words of the melody Susan Boyle chose. I recall the musical Les Mis?rables. However, I heard the song so long ago. I search for the lyrics to I Dreamed a Dream and much to my sorrow, I find words of despair. The character that chants words of woe envisions the world as a place where she is unwelcome, where dreams die, perchance before they are able to be truly born.

Fascinated, I find reason to ponder. Might this moment is Ms Boyle's life have been her first. Could it be that she, just as I, had not given herself a chance, at least not until that night.

I recall she left the stage before a more authentic, spoken acknowledgement was delivered. She was surprised to discover the depth of appreciation for her "talents," her being. She brimmed with delight when she was told, it is true. Her voice, her strength, the being who touched so many souls, was, and is sincerely special.

Might an occasion that conceived much within me be the one that gave birth to Susan Boyle's dreams come true?

References . . .

Lyrics; I Dreamed a Dream
Les Mis?rables.

Capitalism; Dead, Alive, and Broken

Betsy L. Angert — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

For but a moment, whilst the Group of 20 [G20] met in London's ancient financial capital, ,"The City," the roars of remorse, could be heard. Words of woe had been whispered in hushed tones for quite some time. Scholars spoke of various possibilities on occasion. Whether Senior Economic Fellows from various think-tanks thought a system to be dead, alive, or near doomed, there was perhaps a bit of agreement. "I see what you mean. It is broken," Economist Mark Thoma mused more than a year ago.
The public screamed out in pain for decades; however, few cared about the cries of countless common folks. Those who argued against principles that place profits before people were easily ignored for they had no power and less influence. Much to the chagrin of corporate titans, even Economists warned; this could be the end of Capitalism. Yet, until early in the day, only weeks ago, no one paid much attention to what has become a customary declaration for everyday workers. Morning has broken, and Capitalism is shattered as well.

America adopted and advanced a system that was unsustainable.. More than once, "systemic failures" revealed the folly of free enterprise principles. Nonetheless, worldwide people were convinced to purchase damaged goods and premises. Yet, as Journalist Professor, Robert Jensen contends, "most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics" do not want to admit that this is so.

Wanted; Dead or Alive
The evidence is everywhere. What was a question rarely uttered, "Is Capitalism Dead?" has become a statement, or perhaps the dream of those who have been severely affected by this most devastating downturn.

Wealthy watch breathlessly as stock markets crash. Banks fail. Blue Chip companies crumble. Foreclosures flourish, and people, those once thought prosperous, pour out onto the avenue in search of a job, or some sense of stability.

Perhaps, that is why, average citizens felt a need to break the silence, to speak of the broken Capitalist system. In the shadow of powerful and prosperous Presidents and Prime Ministers, who gathered together for the G20 Conference, 4,000 demonstrators pleaded, not for pity, but for relief from a fiscal system that requires poverty.

Frustrated and forlorn by an attitude that fosters further advancement of free market principles, at least in the United Kingdom, dissenters shouted in disgust. It would not be wise to work within an economic structure that changed the global culture in ways that ultimately brought international institutions down.

On a fateful day, early in April a young girl in the crowd, Aeyla Windridge pleaded. I want "the death of Capitalism." The twelve-year-old spoke to what Heads of State had not for centuries. "Capitalism isn't in crisis, capitalism is the crisis," so said another activist.

Recovery, Reinvestment, and Rescue
Few of the principal players, those who represented the twenty participant countries were willing, or able to acknowledge the free market theory is flawed. Most of the prominent Heads of State were, and continue to be, content with sanguine assessments. Up to 85 percent of global gross national product comes from the shores of but a score of countries. Eighty [80] percent of world trade comes from these territories. Americans, who might be thought of as the authors of Capitalism, saw and see no reason to change the status quo, at least not substantially.

Borrow and spend had worked well in the past for the superpower, or so the US government attempted to advocate. While the President poses this philosophy cannot stand, America must move away "from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest," in the same breath, the Chief Executive who represents the country that gave birth to free enterprise, endorses the framework, just as those who preceded him did. (Please peruse the text What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan)

Capitalism, the Obama Administration states, was not the cause of the planet-wide monetary collapse. Only greed, excesses, and a lack of regulations brought about the demise of the dollar, and the rate of exchange. As he addressed other world leaders in attendance at the G20 Conference President Obama conceded, "the crisis began in the United States. I take responsibility even if I wasn't even president at the time." However, Mister Obama contends all countries must be accountable for this massive macro-breakdown. America's Chief Executive proposes plans intended to strengthen a Capitalist structure.

In his April 4, 2009 Action to Address to the Global Economic Downturn, President Obama encouraged more regulations in an attempt to expand a consumer-based Capitalist theory. With little regard for how the American way of life, which the President does not apologize for, cripples common, people throughout the world, Mister Obama declared.

"(W)e know that the success of America's economy is inextricably linked to that of the global economy. If people in other countries cannot spend, that means they cannot buy the goods we produce here in America, . . . if we continue to let banks and other financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, that affects institutions here at home as credit dries up, and people can't get loans to buy a home or car, to run a small business or pay for college.
Ultimately, the only way out of a recession that is global in scope is with a response that is global in coordination."

One is reminded of why, in earlier years, no one spoke vociferously of the crisis that is Capitalism. Ordinary people were busy. For centuries, regular folks worked day and night only to bring home a nominal paycheck. Even in prosperous nations, people could barely afford to put food on the table. People took trivial jobs just to secure shelter. Millions felt forced to pursue professional paths that offer few rewards. The only goal for the average Joe and Jane was to stay afloat. Few have had the time or energy to protest their circumstances, or what the powers-that-be had and have imposed internationally. Today, and in the past, worldwide economic slavery has sufficed. That is until now.

Lest the President and Prime Ministers elsewhere forget, in the States, and abroad, people are out of work. The promise of an ownership society,where "people, from all walks of life," would open the door of their private residence and say, "Welcome to my home" proved to be but a myth. The pledge of plump stock portfolios for everyone through Capitalism was a claim never substantiated. Contrary to the oft-voiced assurances, the American Dream could be achieved anywhere on Earth If people only invested in a free market economy, this current fiscal crisis has shown the world, words were but wishes promoted by the prosperous.

Regardless of how average people are punished by a fiscal formula that requires there be poor people, the current President intends to preserve the Capitalist principles that govern a global economy. While Mister Obama may not profess a commitment to an "ownership society," he too wishes to encourage people to possess what they cannot afford.

Broken Beyond Benevolence
In contrast, more than a few Economists have begun to contemplate the wisdom of a system based on constant consumption. Experts in monetary movements examine, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not. Other statistician who study the social science of fiscal affairs suggest there is ""Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism." Certainly, no matter the belief, with cause, "Capitalism is under fire."

William Pfaff, the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history has pondered the depths of a paradigm profoundly broken. Mister Pfaff offers a perspective less limited than the simpler theories often presented by Administrations and Academics. The observer of intercontinental issues writes . . .

The essential question is, what capitalism are we talking about? Since the 1970s, two fundamental changes have been made in the leading (American) model of capitalism.
The first is that the "stakeholder," post-New Deal reformed version of capitalism (in America) that prevailed in the West after World War II was replaced by a new model of corporate purpose and responsibility.
The earlier model said that corporations had a duty to ensure the well-being of employees, and an obligation to the community (chiefly but not exclusively fulfilled through corporate tax payments).
That model has been replaced by one in which corporation managers are responsible for creating short-term "value" for owners, as measured by stock valuation and quarterly dividends.
The practical result has been constant pressure to reduce wages and worker benefits (leading in some cases to theft of pensions and other crimes), and political lobbying and public persuasion to lower the corporate tax contribution to government finance and the public interest.
In short, the system in the advanced countries has been rejigged since the 1960s to take wealth from workers, and from the funding of government, and transfer it to stockholders and corporate executives.

There is ample evidence to support the author's contention. In 1970, the recipient of a Nobel Memorial Prize on Economic Sciences, Milton Friedman, encouraged an emphasis on corporate earnings. A culture that creates a vibrant community, Friedman insisted is counter to "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits"

Decades later, his disciples of sorts, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, each implemented plans that increased earned income for the influential and decreased available dollars for the already disadvantaged. Policies designed to protect and promote an American entrepreneurial taxonomy, or Capitalistic interests, were proposed as a means to spread democracy. Planet-wide, people and economic practices were transformed.

The second change that has taken place is globalization. The crucial effect of this for society in the advanced countries is that it puts labor into competition with the poorest countries on earth.
We need go no further with what I realize is a very complex matter, other than to note the classical economist David Ricardo's "iron law of wages," which says that in conditions of wage competition and unlimited labor supply, wages will fall to just above subsistence.
There never before has been unlimited labor. There is now, thanks to globalization - and the process has only begun.

The variance is vast. Those who have possess so much. The portion of population that owns little, have far less than even an average individual might imagine. The wealthy cannot conceive of a life where food might be the most valuable commodity. A world in which water is worth more than gold seems unthinkable to those who thrive in "civilized" communities, Yet, this reality may come to towns in a Capitalist country. Indeed, in some American communities, this truth appears today.

Nonetheless, agreements secured at the G20 summit ensure the adoption of a debt-driven American-style "democracy." An arrangement, in which all are not created equal, will continue to be the practiced and preferred economic system planet-wide. People will once again forget assessments presented less than a decade ago.

Many of the radicals leading the protests may be on the political fringe. But they have helped to kick-start a profound re-thinking about globalization among governments, mainstream economists, and corporations that, until recently, was carried on mostly in obscure think tanks and academic seminars.
The reassessment is badly overdue. In the late 20th century, global capitalism was pushed by leaps in technology, the failure of socialism, and East Asian's seemingly miraculous success. Now, it's time to get realistic. the plain truth is that market liberalization by itself does not lift all boats, and in some cases, it has caused damage to poor nations. What's more, there's no point denying that multi-nationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human rights abuses as they pursue profits around the globe . . .
(After a ten-year expansion of market capitalism around the world, as of the year 2000) The World Bank figures the number of people living on a $1 a day increased to 1.3 billion, over the past decade.
The extremes of global capitalism are astonishing . . . If global capitalism's flaws aren't addressed, the backlash could grow more severe.

Indeed, the repercussions have been relentless. Near a century of consumption, solely for the sake of profits, has weakened the world. The current fiscal crisis reveals Capitalism was never the cure for what ails the people on this planet. Persistent poverty, and the threat of increased insolvency, born out of a free enterprise system is an expense few, if any, can afford. One need only look at Capitalism, and what it has wrought. Acquisitive individuals may acknowledge one reaps what one sows. Independently, or collectively, as a global community anyone might come to understand, "If my brother is poor, I/we too will suffer. Ultimately, I/we will pay for the poverty I/we accept."

Without such a realization, and inspired by the spirit of an individualism that has flourished amongst free-marketers, people may, as President Obama proclaimed. Worldwide, or here at home, we "want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that [has] been missing." However, it is not another glorious "morning in America." Nor is it a beautiful day in most neighborhoods. Were the clouds to clear, globally people might avow, authentically, there need be an actual new dawn. It is time to dream of economic structures that have never been.

The majorities in the States, and throughout the globe, are no longer silent. Common folks have spoken. Capitalism is broken. It is not wanted, dead or alive.

Sources for economic and empathetic structures . . .

Is Capitalism Dead? No. By William Galston. National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
Is Capitalism Dead? Maybe. By J.D. Foster. National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
Is Capitalism Dead? Yes. By Alan Reynolds. National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
I See What You Mean, It Is Broken, By Mark Thoma. Economist View. January 24, 2008
'The World As We Know It Is Going Down', By Marc Pitzke. Spiegel International. September 18, 2008
Systemic Failure: Capitalism "Lays An Egg," By Stephen Lendman. SteveLendmanBlog. March 2, 2009
Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff. The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
Is Capitalism Dead? The Washington Post. October 20, 2008
Recession Pain, Even in Palm Beach, By David Segal. The New York Times. April 12, 2009
Blair: Global economic fallout is nation's major threat. Cable News Network. February 12, 2009
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, By Milton Friedman. The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
Colorado bank biggest US bank failure of 2009. AFP. April 10, 2009
Slump Humbling Blue-Chip Stocks, By Mark Healy. The New York Times March 6, 2009
U.S. foreclosure filings rise in February, By Lynn Adler. Reuters. March 12, 2009
In Defense of Income Inequality, By Peter Schwatrz. Capitalism Magazine. March 28, 2009
Congressional Finance Chair Discusses U.S. Economy. NewsHour. September 3, 2007
Disowned by the Ownership Society, By Naomi Klein. The Nation. January 31, 2008
The End Of American Capitalism? By Anthony Faiola. The Washington Post. October 9, 2008
The G-20 and the Future of Capitalism - Part I, By Jeffrey E. Garten. Yale Global. March 30, 2009
President Obama's News Conference; Transcript. The New York Times. March 24, 2009
Century of Self.
Story of Stuff. By Annie Leonard. The Sustainability Funders and Tides Foundation.
Address by Governor Ronald Reagan, Installation of President Robert Hill, Chico State College. May 20, 1967
What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan. Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College. November 10, 1977
12-Year-Old Protester: 'Death of Capitalism.' By F. Brinley Bruton. MSNBC News. April 1, 2009
Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff. The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
Global Capitalism, Can it be made to work better? By Pete Engardio with Catherine Belton. Business Week. November 6, 2000
Obama's G-20 confession: "I take responsibility." By Marc Hujer, Wolfgang Reuter, and Christoph Schwennicke. Salon. April 7, 2009
Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address, The White House. Saturday, April 4, 2009
Globalization: A Reference Handbook, By Justin Ervin, Zachary A. Smith. 2008
Capiatlism at bay, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not. The Economist. October 16, 2008
"Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism," By David Wessel. Wall Street Journal. Economist's View. May 10, 2007
Drinking water costs lots of dollars. MarketPlace. March 17, 2009
Analysis: Obama takes 'morning in America' mantle. Cable News Network. February 25, 2009
A Different Sort of Red America, By Tobin Harshaw. The New York Times. April 10, 2009

Obama; State Secrets A Shame

Betsy L. Angert — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Countdown: Turley on Obama Administration Invoking State Secrets on Surveillance Program

Today, the Obama truth is revealed. Change has come in the form of familiarity. Some American's are embarrassed. Others embrace what, when presented by the previous Administration, they rejected. Apathy helps most Americans to avoid a sense of shame. It was announced; Obama defends Bush-era secrets. This Administration has gone further to establish government sovereignty. As a nation, the Obama White House tells citizens, our country will be better protected if details about the surveillance program are considered "Top Secret - Sensitive Compartmented Information."
Several knew this too would come to pass. Authentic transformation was but a tease meant to achieve supremacy for Senator Obama. In the Summer of 2008, the Illinois statesman voted to give George W. Bush more power than even the former President requested. The issue; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. The controversial ballot cast by then Senator Obama did not capture the attention of most. People were consumed by woes that were more personal. Privacy is a right most in the United States take for granted. Until an event in an individual's life awakens awareness for what was taken away long ago, most do not realize in America the Administration is legally able to watch and listen to a residents' every move.

The media did not devote much time to Senator Obama's, measured move. More importantly, from a business perspective, news stories that address surveillance do not receive a larger share of the audience. Perchance, auspiciously, for our current President, last July campaign distractions dominated the news cycle. In 2009, talk of the economy is thought most essential. Indeed, the United States had already experienced an authentic transformation.

After the infamous attacks on September 11, 2001, the electorate accepted the Bush Administration's truth. That is why there are few cries of alarm for the White House's current claim. The two are close to the same Each Oval Office expounded; there is a constant threat of terrorist aggressions. Presidents' need to have the power to act on "Intelligence." Privacy for citizens must be forfeited. The Patriot Act needed to be passed. (Please read the text.) The Commander-In-Chief must have all the authority he or she requests if the American people are to stay safe.

Hence, convinced of the need to be forever vigilant, countrymen and women changed near a decade ago. The public became accustomed to constant shadowing. In the recent past and present, the press presumes correctly. There is no need to question what collectively, the public concluded justifiable.

It was as it is, apt to assume there was no tale to tell when Congress, with Obama in the Senate authorized the wonderful world of unlawful White House sanctioned wiretaps. Nor is there a public interest story when the current occupant of the Oval Office through the Department of Justice proclaims, undercover work, legal or not, is necessary. Americans have come to acknowledge, in dire times such as these, perhaps, the Administration needs be above the law. The people need not have the power to sue for improprieties or illegalities.

Perhaps, this explains what was and continues to persist. Less than a year ago, little time was spent on what candidate Obama justified as wise. The few who expressed apprehension were eschewed. Thoughts that often, history is repeated, were rejected. Fear that what occurred today might follow was thought folly. Regard for the notion, a President with power will not likely relinquish authority bestowed upon him or her, was ridiculed. Then, as now, those scant individuals who voiced distress were easily dismissed as cynics. They were relegated to the position of people without faith in the greater cause.

Supporters of President Obama, sustain hope. Activists felt, and continue to believe; this time is different. Barack Obama, or the people who coalesced to create a vibrant civically responsible community, will indeed prevail. The population is the change we can believe in, or would be were it not for the fact that under the direction of the Obama Justice Department, the government can wiretap without a warrant and still, not be charged with a crime.

Only this week, loyalist recount the rhetoric and rejoice in the knowledge; in countries such as Turkey Obama is a hit! Newsweek's Howard Fineman, on MSNBC's Hardball said Obama "is putting himself forth as . . .president to the world." Countless partisans are reassured, assured; as Commander-In-Chief, the man who promised to work for the people, would do what was "right" for everyone on this Earth.

Yet, less than three months in office, the tide has turned, and not for the better. Obama Administration quietly expanded Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program. Indeed, as President, Barack Obama did as he pledged not to do. Candidate Obama had declared There would be No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me. Yet, trust in that promise has become another American shame.

(L)ate Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.
In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned. . . .
This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet, they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.

Only days earlier an evaluation of the Obama White House evoked concern. Obama Finds That Washington's Habits of Secrecy Die Hard. Might Americans particularly those who trusted President Obama would change an Administration's corrupt practices, consider, as a candidate, an aspirant Barack Obama built the foundation that now supports him. The Obama Administration, the Government opts for secrecy in wiretap suit. Those who today continue to purport, "I pledge my allegiance to President, Barack Obama," or even only to his plans, may consider the thought. Past is prologue.

If Americans do not acknowledge the significance of early actions on the part of Presidential aspirants, if the people hold onto false hope, the electorate hurts itself. Rights to privacy lost will not only be retained but also enhanced. If citizens trust a challenger will be the change we can believe in, even when he reveals he is not, then, we can expect what will come. Telephones will be tapped. Surveillance will pass for security. The fact that Americans allowed the same intrusive policies to persist is our shame.

References; the loss of civil liberties restored . . .

Senate Approves Bill to Broaden Wiretap Powers, By Eric Lichtblau. The New York Times. July 10, 2008
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass' for his support, By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in New York. Telegraph. June 2008
Obama Responds to FISA Protest on His Web Site, By Sara Wheaton. The New York Times. July 3, 2008
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 ). U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session. July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM
Was Obama's FISA vote "calculated"? By Alex Koppelman. Salon. July 10, 2008
Patriot Act HR 3162 RDS October 24, 2001
Government Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment. U.S. Department of Justice. Filed April 3, 2009
New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ, By Glenn Greenwald. Salon. April 6, 2009
Government opts for secrecy in wiretap suit, By Bob Egelko. San Francisco Chronicle. Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Obama Finds That Washington's Habits of Secrecy Die Hard. By Sheryl Gay-Stolberg. The New York Times. April 4, 2009
Government opts for secrecy in wiretap suit. By Bob Egelko. San Francisco Chronicle. Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Obama plans huge pledge drive for his policies, By Matthew B. Stannard and Joe Garofoli. San Francisco Chronicle. Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama's Speech In Turkey A Hit, USA Today. April 7, 2009
'Hardball with Chris Matthews. Transcript. MSNBC News. Monday, April 6, 2009

Tim Geithner; Retention, Rewards, and Krugman Realizations

Betsy L. Angert — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:00:00 GMT

DN!>Paul Krugman (12) on $1 Trillion Geithner Plan to Buy Toxic Bank Assets

Negotiations began in November. Decisions were reached during the month of December. By January, a retention bonus was awarded to the individual considered most superlative within the staff. President Barack Obama presented the gift. American International Group, Incorporated [AIG] executives did not receive the windfall. Nor did someone "separate" from the previous President garner the honors. Gold was not placed at the door of a New Deal Democrat. No, dollars and command were delivered to a truly Progressive person. Insider, Timothy Geithner was the recipient of a title that would sustain his service. Mister Geithner was given a reward that was worth far more than mere millions in greenbacks. Power and influence are priceless.
President Obama granted these "commodities" to one who worked to ensure banks and other financial institutions would continue to flourish just as they had in the Bush Era. Now, the man with copious clout, wants more.

Indeed, Tim Geithner has already taken the reigns. He has worked to set more rules. Separate from Congressional approval for increased authority, and regardless of what regulatory standards the House and Senate might pass, Secretary Geithner, happily ensconced in President Obama's favor, has begun to broaden his horizons. He expresses his expansive preeminence, and all are a twitter.

New-found fame, a brighter, well-funded future befits the man whose face now appears everywhere. Greater authority is as Tim Geithner was groomed to acquire. Indeed, Secretary Geithner grew accustomed to attention and awards.

Perhaps, Timothy Geithner's desire for further recompense, economically or emotionally, began when he was but a boy. In his youth, the now Secretary of Treasury saw what could be wrought if one was well-connected. His lineage allowed him to look into a world of affluence and advantages.

Maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Mister Moore also served as a Vice President of Ford Motor Company. "Dad," Peter F. Geithner, was with the Ford Foundation. Tim Geithner's father oversaw the project that Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother gave birth to. Stanley Ann Soetoro and Tim's Dad, developed microfinance programs in Indonesia.

This association alone might have helped Mister Geithner realize his path to the White House. Some theorize, President Obama and Tim Geithner formed an invisible bond, one that ties them together today

Money, power, and privilege were given to Timothy Geithner from birth. The more the lad "earned," the more he hoped to receive in return. A graduate of Dartmouth and John Hopkins, initially Tim Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates, Incorporated. He then entered government, just as his forebears had. Geithner first joined the Department of Treasury in 1988 and worked in three administrations for five Secretaries of the Treasury in a variety of positions. He served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs from 1999 to 2001. He was Director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 until 2003. Then, he headed the New York Reserve. He befriended the acclaimed Economist Professor Paul Krugman. The two are associates within The Group of Thirty, a Consultative Group on International Economic and Monetary Affairs. It is no wonder President Obama was impressed and wanted to retain the financial expertise of one so esteemed.

Previously, the Secretary had succeeded, even exceeded expectations. With each step, the esteemed Economic wizard takes, greater gratitude and gilt are given. Hence, he moves forward.

Secretary Geithner addressed Congress on March 24, 2009. He and his cohort, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke affirmed a need to be endowed with exceptional authority. The two concurred. The AIG catastrophe confirmed "a basic and tragic unfairness - that those who were prudent and responsible in their personal and professional judgments are harmed by the actions of those who were less careful and less prudent." Many would agree.

On paper, the proposed request for increased control over financial institutions, other than banks, seems reasonable. If Congress approves of the strategy, Federal authorities could seize a failed fiscal establishment. Many believe the measures are long overdue. However, several hesitate. When they consider the fact, Secretary Geithner might be the person to decide the fate of these firms countless express concern. Perchance, he is not the person to have or hold such extensive power.

Esteemed Economist, and colleague Paul Krugman expressed disappointment after Mister Geithner revealed his bailout plan. Nobel Prize recipient Krugman wrote in The New York Times, ""In fact it fills me with a sense of despair."

"The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt," the Princeton University Economist explained, as he cited specifics within the proposed strategy.

Might the man Professor Krugman long admired not be competent to oversee the fringe financial institutions? Those who were uncertain Tim Geithner was ever the best, the brightest, or the person to be retained, are now joined by others who originally had confidence in the now Secretary of Treasury. Since the appointment, and ample intangible appropriations were bestowed upon Secretary Geithner, the choice issue may be a moot point. Only the battle for a bigger role, increased responsibility to regulate remains a subject of contention.

The Obama Administration, mostly through Tim Geithner, has compared the proposed process to the work of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This favored institution protects depositors from bank failures. Regulators can take control of a troubled depository, place it under the authority of the FDIC, and then, quickly, and competently, restructure the reserve

Perhaps, that is the most significant difference. With consideration of the current economic crisis, and crucial assessments, the Secretary made prior to this plea for greater rule, Timothy Geithner showed no evidence of being swift or skilled in his ability to seize the moment or reign in American Insurance Group's excesses.

As the former president of the New York Federal Reserve, Mister Geithner is the one Obama Administration official who is associated with the Bush-era bailouts. Once AIG was under Federal control, public servants say, compensation arrangements were rarely, if ever, discussed. In December, long before Tim Geithner received his own abundant reward, an initial $55 million in bonuses was delivered to the Insurance Group executives.

At the time, the glorious Geithner did not decry the greed. Indeed, even on this date late in March 2009, as he answered questions before the House Financial Services Committee, Secretary Geithner stated, "It's a difficult balance." He then further explained his belief; the government should not dictate detailed executive compensation limits to bankers. Timothy Geithner empathized with those who had been given retention bonuses. Indeed, while he did not give voice to the thought, the Secretary understood, he too was a very recent beneficiary of such graciousness.

Perhaps, opponents of greater government oversight appreciated the more individualist posture Treasury Secretary Geithner presented. However, a few felt a vital veracity must be pondered. An individual Presidential appointee [Geithner], and an agency [FDIC] with ample autonomy, are not one and the same.

Intentionally, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, unlike the Treasury Department, was designed to be separate from the political process. The bureau acts in accordance to law. Should Congress consent to the Geithner request, a person who is profoundly affiliated with a partial, political body, would have the authority to take possession of a business that displeases the White House. Granted, supporters assure those who challenge the proposal, only corporations in crisis would be seized. Nevertheless, dissenters declare, corporate collusion with government insiders would remains a concern. A poorly regulated financial institution potentially would corrupt the government [further?].

Policy-wonks state, the power to take over banks or other alternative financial entities need be part of a broader regulatory structure. Limits are set on the risks that economic establishments can take. Therefore, the need for seizures is, and must be, more fully linked to violations. The Obama Administration has expressed a desire to increase regulations on firms that might be eligible for seizure under the proposed law. However, specifics have yet to be furnished.

For now, the focus remains solely on the Treasury Secretary. Tim Geithner seeks greater power than was given to him in the form of a gift, his title.

Unequivocally, Tim Geithner has received many accolades. Perchance, he was and is deserving. Secretary Geithner offered a welcome plan to resolve the mortgage meltdown the day before his most recent plea. Wall Street applauded the strategy, as evidenced by a record rise in stocks. The headlines for the long-anticipated program that would remove bank toxic assets and revive the financial system, bedazzled those with money to spend. Rescue Plan, With Fine Print, Dazzles Wall Street. Urged on by his success, Secretary Geithner had reason to hope he could garner greater authority. Those with big bucks see his increased powers as a bonus.

Yet, the apprehension Nobel Prize Economist, Paul Krugman expressed on March 23, 2009, the day before this recent hearing hangs over the head of Treasury Secretary Geithner. Thankfully, rancor for the subprime solution seems to receive less attention, at least amongst the House Financial Services Committee. Possibly, acrimony over Geithner's past performances is also forgotten.

For a time it seemed Professor Krugman too had been willing to forgive and forget. There was a time the Princeton Professor was with those who sanctioned the selection of Tim Geithner to Treasury. Doctor Krugman had thought as President Obama did; Tim Geithner should be retained. His mere presence in the Administration would be a worthy bonus. Only months ago, Krugman approved of Geithner and his work. In his article, The grown-ups are coming, the stellar observer of economic policy sardonically noted the Tim Geithner was an improvement in contrast to the Bush Best and the Brightest.

Paul Krugman spoke highly of his associate from The Group of Thirty, a Consultative Group on International Economic and Monetary Affairs. That is, until Tim Geithner introduced his solution for toxic assets relief.

Perhaps times have changed. Certainly, there is reason to think Timothy Geithner has not. Nonetheless, earlier impressions and associations formed long ago linger in the present.

The New York Times Columnist and Economist publicly offered his "Despair over financial policy." However, in a recent interview with Democracy Now's, Amy Goodman, Krugman was reluctant to say the person who ascribes to lemon socialism, Timothy Geithner must go.

Paul Krugman as others may not have yet come to terms with contradictory views of the man who now Heads the Treasury.

Prior to the prize bequeathed on Mister Geithner, all of his actions appeared above board and in alignment with the ethical standards President Obama set for his Cabinet. The beneficiary of perks and power was perceived as an individual who had sacrificed much in order to serve his country. Tim Geithner was subjected grueling to Senate hearings. His records were scrutinized. To be certain no one would have reason to question the calculations, a highly respectable r?sum? was submitted.

Before his selection, Mister Geithner served as President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. In his career, he worked closely with former U.S. Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and head of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, and oh yes, venerated Economist Paul Krugman.

Overdue taxes were paid to ensure that all appeared proper and in order. That is, at least some of the levees never accounted for were remunerated Other outstanding tariffs, Tim Geithner was told, need not be paid, The statute of limitations had lapsed.

Just as had been with much else in his life, Tim would be forgiven for his forgetfulness or failures to do what most think ethical. No one would think to inquire of the enormous sums the Head of Treasury would garner for his friends, former colleagues, and himself. People were expected to consider the pittance he "earned" as a civil servant and be reassured, Tim Geithner is committed to the good of the country. After all, were he still with his previous employer, investment firm Goldman-Sachs, Secretary Geithner's salary would have been far greater.

The power Timothy Geithner garnered throughout his life cannot be counted. Personal financial gains for friends, former colleagues, and himself are ample. Influence is near infinite. Why not, some might say, give Geithner more authority to rule. He has "earned" it. Perhaps, one day in a sequel to Professor Krugman's recent tome, "America the Tarnished", the established Economist will reject the cry, "Why not indeed." He might even pen prose that state more directly Timothy Geithner, his retention, and the rewards he has already received are a significant part of "the crisis [that] has cost America much of its credibility, and with it much of its ability to lead."

References for a Geithner Rule to be realized . . .

Geithner says U.S. to help strengthen GM, Chrysler. Reuters. Automotive News. March 29, 2009
Geithner Says Some Banks Need 'Large Amounts' of Assistance, Bloomberg. March 30, 2009
On "Tonight Show," Obama Defends Geithner. CBS News. March 19, 2009
Geithner turnaround helps U.S. at G20 meeting, By Glenn Somerville. Reuters. Comcast News. March 31, 2009
Tim Geithner: $135 Billion of TARP Cash Left, By Luke Mullins. USA Today. March 30, 2009
G20 summit: Timothy Geithner calls for global regulation, By James Quinn Telegraph. March 27, 2009
Geithner Seeks Broader Powers Over Financial Firms, By David Stout and Brian Knowlton. The New York Times. March 25, 2009
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Geithner, Bernanke, testify before the House Financial Services Committee, By Emily Flitter. Bank Think. American Banker. March 24, 2009
Treasury Secretary: Timothy Geithner, By Frances Romero. Time Magazine. November 2008
Geithner plan 'financial hocus pocus': Krugman. Reuters. March 23, 2009
Geithner Asks Congress for Broad Power to Seize Firms, Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy. By Binyamin Appelbaum, David Cho and Debbi Wilgoren. Washington Post.?Tuesday, March 24, 2009; 10:42 AM
Obama Picks Geithner, an Insider, for Treasury, By Massimo Calabres. Time Magazine. November 22, 2008
American International Group, Incorporated.
AIG Insurance American International Group, Incorporated.
AIG Business Solutions. American International Group, Incorporated.
AIG Financial Services. American International Group, Incorporated.
Geithner Hearing Scheduled for Jan. 21, By Jackie Calmes. The New York Times. January 14, 2009
A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama's Path, By Janny Scott. The New York Times. March 14, 2008
The Group of Thirty, a Consultative Group on International Economic and Monetary Affairs.
The Geithner put, By Paul Krugman. The New York Times. January 30, 2009
Rescue Plan, With Fine Print, Dazzles Wall Street, By Jackie Calmes. The New York Times. March 24, 2009
The grown-Ups are coming, By Paul Krugman. The New York Times. November 22, 2008
Despair over financial policy. By Paul Krugman. The New York Times. March 21, 2009
Geithner, Holder Reap Rewards for Failure, By Margaret Carlson. Bloomberg. January 29, 2009
America the Tarnished, By Paul Krugman. The New York Times. March 30, 2009

Updated Reference . . .

Obama's Economic Plan: A Version of the Monopoly Game, But No One Loses, By William Greider. The Nation. AlterNet. ? March 28, 2009

Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan

Guest Author — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:00:00 GMT

copyright ? 2099 Jerome Grossman. Relentless Liberal

It is difficult, even impossible, to accept President Obama's "New strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" as described by him in a formal speech on March 27. It fails by imperial and non-imperial standards.

First the imperial: Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, reports in his book Nemesis: "The Carter administration deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In his 1996 memoir, former CIA Director Robert Gates acknowledges that the American intelligence services began to aid the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerillas not after the Russian invasion but six months before it. President Carter's purpose was to provoke a full-scale Soviet military intervention to tie down the USSR." Will an expanded military effort in Afghanistan tie down the U.S. as it did the USSR?
Obama plans a U.S. military effort in Afghanistan lasting at least five years in a country 50% larger than Iraq in area and population. The NATO allied forces are token in size and commitment and rarely leave their base camps. A serious U.S. military effort will require at least 250,000 troops tied down in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Will America be unable to react to other challenges as they arise especially its obligations, to protect Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, to deter Iran from a nuclear program, to support Pakistan from collapse; etc?

The invasion of Iraq could be justified on imperial grounds because it is strategically situated in the heart of the largest concentration of oil in the world. Afghanistan has no comparable resource, one of the poorest countries, no industry, little farming, rugged terrain, a land of banditry and bribery.

The adventure fails from a non- imperial perspective. Obama says "That country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." None of the 19 people who perpetrated the September 11 criminal tragedy were Afghan or Taliban. Fifteen of them were Saudi. There are no Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan any longer. Osama bin Laden and what is left of his crew is in hiding somewhere in the wilderness of Pakistan. The Al Qaeda operation is scattered and disorganized. Yes, another 19 thugs could infiltrate the U.S. and kill Americans, but sending an army into Afghanistan is not going to prevent another such criminal act. In fact, the hyped war in Afghanistan is more likely to divert us from protecting ourselves against another September 11.

Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan

Infamous Anniversary of Attack

Betsy L. Angert — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:00:00 GMT

Global Greens 2008 - Bruce Gagnon (Maine, USA)

March 19, 2009, is a day that lives in infamy. There were others in the past. However, on this date six years ago, the United States launched what has come to be accepted as unwarranted attacks on Iraq. Although, from the first, there were protests even in high places such as the Senate floor, unilaterally, Americans bombed an innocent people. This time, for near two years prior, pretense was presented as truth.
The American people were told by their President how dangerous the Iraqi Al Qaida terrorists were. George W. Bush assured anxious Americans, he would protect us. Congress was warned of what would occur if the United States did not react to the Middle Eastern threat. Commander Bush sent a letter on March 18, 2003. Even as his eight-year term ended, he worked to establish in the minds of historians and the electorate who had experienced all that occurred, Mister Bush kept us safe.

As recently as December 2008, the now former President proclaimed, a newly acquired nuance to the saga he has long recounted on the war in Iraq. "It is true, as I have said many times, that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks. But the decision to remove Saddam from power cannot be viewed in isolation from 9/11." Yet, he retained and repeated his ever-strident commitment to the combat. "It was clear to me, to members of both political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after 9/11, this was a risk we could not afford to take."

Americans, many of whom are content the Bush era has passed, refer to the 9/11 Commission Report to invalidate the claims of a President who no longer resides in the White House. Currently, countless citizens take comfort; Barack Obama presides over the Oval Office. The just elected Commander-In-Chief has already begun to take steps to remove beleaguered troops from the embattled frontlines.

Since Mister Obama took office, citizens are less concerned with the war in Iraq. Many have faith the President will do what is best for military men and women. Some are encouraged by reports that the Commander-In-Chief will send combat soldiers stationed in Iraq home safely, or perhaps, individuals are focused on more personal realities. Anxiety over a potential, probable, or actual job loss consumes countless Americans, more so than combat abroad does. A pension-plan gone bust, a lack of health care coverage, and a possible home foreclosure take precedence for millions more than war. Few of the common folk feel as troubled by occurrences in the Middle East. Most merely hope Mister Obama will do what is best.

Occasional outspoken exception can be heard. On March 12, 2009, former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleisher stated, "[A]fter September 11th, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam Hussein might not strike again? We got a report saying al Qaeda is determined to attack the United States." Nonetheless, even Conservatives such as John McCain endorse President Obama's plan for withdrawal.

Overall, opinions on Iraq, the war and the withdrawal are mixed, even among foreign policy experts.

Then there are the few who fear further folly in the Persian Gulf. Progressives, be they political figures or peace activists amongst the public, think the Obama agenda to end the conflict in Iraq is too little and too late. Official dissent is often stated diplomatically. Personal pleas may be more moving.

A week before the sixth anniversary of America's Second Gulf War, regardless of the President's intended withdrawal everyday people stood out in the streets, just as they had done throughout the war. 'Iraq is a symptom of a foreign policy and priorities" that the peaceful felt and feel they cannot sanction.

At local vigils nationwide attendees talked of their observation, verified in the news. Americans support the President's proposed Afghan buildup. ''Enough! Bring the Troops Home Now!" was the oft-heard cry from those who crave global harmony. Most asked as they had during the fateful Bush years. "What Do We Do Now?"

Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons offers his perspective. In an article published on June 14, 2007, the recipient of the Doctor Benjamin Spock's Peacemaker Award presents his ten-point plan.

I often hear from people asking me, "What should we do about all this? How can we stop Bush?"

I would first say that we must move beyond blaming Bush. The fact of U.S. empire is bigger than Bush. Hopefully by now, all of us are more clear how the Democrats have been, and are now, involved in enabling the whole U.S. military empire-building plan. It is about corporate domination. Bush is just the front man for the big money.

So to me that is step #1 .

Step #2 is to openly acknowledge that as a nation, and we as citizens, benefit from this U.S. military and economic empire. By keeping our collective military boot on the necks of the people of the world we get control of a higher percentage of the world's resources. We, 5% of the global population in the U.S., use 25% of the global resource base. This reality creates serious moral questions that cannot be ignored.

Step #3 is to recognize that we are addicted to war and to violence. The very weaving together of our nation was predicated on violence when we began the extermination of the Native populations and introduced the institution of slavery. A veteran of George Washington's Army, in 1779, said, "I really felt guilty as I applied the torch to huts that were homes of content until we ravagers came spreading desolation everywhere.. Our mission here is ostensibly to destroy but may it not transpire, that we pillagers are carelessly sowing the seed of Empire." The soldier wrote this as Washington's Army set out to remove the Iroquois civilization from New York state so that the U.S. government could expand its borders westward toward the Mississippi River. The creation of the American empire was underway.

Our history since then has been endless war. Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corps, told the story in his book War is a Racket. Butler recalls in his book, "I spent 33 years and 4 months in active military service....And during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism....Thus I helped make Mexico and especially

Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street....I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

Step # 4 We have to begin to change how we think about our country. We have to learn to understand what oligarchy means. I'll save you the trouble of having to look up the definition - A government in which power is in the hands of a few. When you have lost your democracy then what do the citizens do? They must fight (non-violently) to take it back. This of course means direct action and sometimes civil disobedience. Virtually everything good in our nation (abolition of slavery movement, women's suffrage, civil rights movement, anti-war movements, etc) have come from people stepping up when they were needed. Calling for impeachment by the Congress becomes imperative today. Are you in or out?

Step #5 Forget the "every man for himself" mythology. We are all brainwashed in this country to believe in the rugged individualism story. But movement for change can only happen in community - working with others. So forget the egocentric notion that "one great man" is going to come save us. It's going to take a village - in fact all the villages. Just like an addict goes to a group to seek help for addiction, knowing they can't do it themselves, so we must form community to work for the needed change if we are to protect our children's future.

Step # 6 What about my job? Another smothering myth in America is success. Keep your nose clean and don't rock the boat. Don't get involved in politics, especially calling for a revolution of values (like Martin Luther King Jr. did) or you will get labeled and then you can forget about owning that castle on the hill you've always dreamed of. In a way we become controlled by our own subservience to the success mythology. We keep ourselves in line because success and upward mobility become more important than protecting free speech, clean water, clean air, and ending an out of control government bent on world domination. Free our minds, free our bodies and we free the nation.

Step #7 Learn to work well with others. Sure we all want to be stars. But in the end we have to learn to set aside our egos if we want to be able to work with others to bring about the needed changes. Cindy Sheehan should not be hammered just for telling the truth about the Democrats playing footsie with Bush on the war.

Step # 8 It's the money. How can I do this peace work when I have to work full-time just to pay the mortgage? I'd like to help but I've got bills to pay! Maybe we can begin to look at the consumerist life we lead and see that our addiction to the rat race keeps us from being fully engaged in the most important issue of our time - which is protecting the future generations. How can we begin to explore cooperative living arrangements, by building community, that free us up economically to be able to get more involved?

Step # 9 Learn to read again. Many of us don't read enough. We spend our time in front of the TV, which is a primary tool that the power structure uses to brainwash us. We've got to become independent thinkers again and teach our kids to think for themselves. Reading and talking to others is a key. Read more history. All the answers and lessons can be found there.

Step #10 Learn to trust again and have fun. Some of the nicest people in the world are doing political work. Meet them and become friends with them and your life will change for the better.

Mister Gagnon professes wars will be forever perpetual if we the people continue to consider our brethren an enemy. If dominion is our preference, diplomacy will never be more than a mere word. The public cannot blame George W. Bush or Barack Obama for its addiction to might and material goods. Nor can we, the people expect an oligarchy to have the best interests of common folks at heart. If consumption and competition are the principles that guide our population, battles will endure. If peace is to ever come, as citizens, as a country, on every continent, the people must act in accordance with the principles most claim they hold dear. Consistency, in thought and deed, can eliminate combat.

"Love thy neighbor" cannot be said only on Sundays, on the Sabbath, or in houses of worship. Indeed, Bruce Gagnon might avow, as other peaceful persons do, March 19, 2009 is not the sixth anniversary of a war. It is another date that lives in infamy, as has been every day in centuries of battles fought.

References for the reality of war . . .

Feinstein blasts Bush's talk of war; Senator says attack on Iraq unwarranted, By Edward Epstein. San Francisco Chronicle. Friday, September 6, 2002
Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start, By Dalia Sussman. The New York Times.: May 25, 2007
Bush looks back on Iraq war, Mideast policies, By Mike Carney. USA Today. December 05, 2008
Bush sends letter to Congress on Iraqi action. Cable News Network. March 21, 2003
pdf Bush sends letter to Congress on Iraqi action. Cable News Network. March 21, 2003
Iraq Withdrawal Plan Gains G.O.P. Support, By Peter Baker. The New York Times. February 26, 2009
Fleischer Defends Iraq Invasion: After 9/11, 'How Could We Take A Chance' That Saddam Might 'Strike Again'? By Amanda Terkel. Think Progress. March 12, 2009
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida. MSNBC News. June 16, 2004
Text Of President Bush's Speech. by David Hancock. CBS News. October 7, 2002
Americans support Afghan buildup, By Reid Wilson. The Hill. March 5, 2009
Iraq War Anniversary Brings First Signs Of Conflict's End, By Gil Kaufman. MTV. March 19, 2009
Obama's Plan for Iraq. The Washington Post. Sunday, March 1, 2009; Page A13
Newton peace activists say Obama withdrawal plan is not enough, By Erica Noonan. Boston Globe. March 13, 2009