Ideas on Talking: Bush & Clinton

By now who doesn’t know about the open mic and Bush’s remark about Hizbullah stopping the “shit?” And I’m sure a lot of news monkeys have heard of what Clinton thinks of “US disengagement” from talks with the warring parties in the Middle East. Still, the gravity of what was said, and the manner and style of both men and their thoughts, bears repeating here.

I have clearly stated, as have many experts on history and Middle East politics, that without US intervention on the diplomatic side, there will be no resolution, and possibly not even a cease fire, in the present violence. Yet the cavalier presence of Bush at a dinner during the G8 summit hammers home the image of a country-club arrogance that alone, without the accompanying dialogue, should turn the stomach of a concerned American citizen. His actions—chewing a roll while talking to Tony Blair over his shoulder as if it were a discussion about problems with starting tee-off times, rather than global escalation of violence and killing—are so reminiscent of the “disengaged” upper-class elite I’ve ever seen.

Then there are the very words, the ignorance, the banality, and the bewildering misplaced confidence:

Someone, probably an aide, asks Bush something, evidently whether he wants prepared closing remarks for the end of the summit:

Bush: No. Just gonna make it up. I'm not going to talk too damn long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long.

The camera is focused elsewhere and it is not clear whom Bush is talking to, but possibly Chinese President Hu Jintao, a guest at the summit.

Bush : Gotta go home. Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home. How about you? Where are you going? Home?

Bush : This is your neighborhood. It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home?

Reply is inaudible.

Bush : "Eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country."
At this point, the president seems to bring someone else into the conversation.

Bush : It takes him eight hours to fly home…

…It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China…

[Now to Blair]

Bush : Yeah, she's going. I think Condi's going to go pretty soon.

Blair : Right. Well, that's, that's, that's all that matters. If you -- see, it'll take some time to get out there. But at least it gives people a --

Bush : A process, I agree. I told her your offer too.
It's unclear what offer he means, but apparently Blair offered to make some sort of public statement.

Blair : Well, it's only if it's -- I mean, you know, if she's gotta -- or if she needs the ground prepared, as it were. Obviously, if she goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can just go out and talk.

Bush : See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over.

Blair : Who, Syria?

Bush : Right.

Blair : I think this is all part of the same thing. What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's [inaudible ] . That's what this whole thing's about. It's the same with Iran.

Bush : I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.

“I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad…” –that’s your leader of your free world. He used to be indecisive, but now he’s not so sure!

Here’s Clinton’s take on how to handle free-world leadership, in answering an impromptu outdoor discussion question from Campbell Brown on MSNBC:

I’m not one of these people that believes that it’s a good thing for us to be disengaged from the Middle East because they’re not going to make a deal and we don’t want to be associated with failure. I just don’t find it that way.

I think the historical evidence is the more involved we are, the fewer people die, and the fewer people die, the easier it is to make some kind of compromise deal.

What is the mainstream media talking about in the aftermath of Bush’s open-mic dialogue? The MSM is focusing on whether the use of the word “shit” was a big deal, embarrassing, or in or out of place for the president. That’s the big story. Some attention was paid to the White House’s official statement on the order of Bush’s remarks not diverging from any set policy, and of course, the former news bobbing head and now press secretary Tony Snow followed through:

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Mr. Bush "sort of rolled his eyes and laughed".

"Actually, his reaction first was, 'What did it say?'. So we showed him the transcript, then he rolled his eyes and laughed."

In the reference to “Rice going,” one gets the distinct impression that Bush is not in control of events on his docket, let alone being in charge of running the US government. The feeling from this brief conversation is that someone else in his office is making decisions for him.

If human lives were not at stake over the little things George W thinks and says, all of this wouldn’t matter as much. And the seeming lack of interest on the part of moral citizens of the US, and the world, mirrors the “disengagement” of the president—why should he care about the effect on us of violence in the Middle East if we don’t care?

After all—he’s always got that big plane to ferry him out of harm’s way in case of any danger; remember on 9/11 when he scurried off to Utah on Air Force One because the East Coast was getting attacked?

Widening War In Middle East

For more than 50 years, the Middle East's wars have been the world's wars. Greater powers have used lesser ones as proxies, and battles between large states have been fought out in smaller ones—often in weak, divided Lebanon. But skirmishes can turn quickly to conflagrations, and calibrated violence can escalate suddenly into atrocity with unpredictable and enduring consequences.—Newsweek, 7/17/06

Want to understand who’s pulling what strings in the latest upswing in battles in the Middle East? The best place to start is this week’s Newsweek cover story, quoted above by Christopher Dickey, Kevin Peraino and Babak Dehghanpisheh.

The “Greater Powers” are Iran and the US. Even so, it appears Israel has welcomed the confrontation in order to finally try to neutralize the biggest immediate threats of violence and mayhem: Hisbullah in Lebanon, and Hamas within its southern territory.

The clear consensus among pundits and statespeople, is that without some upper-handed diplomatic intervention by the US, the airstrikes and bombings are going to move into an all-out ground war, whose consequences no one can foresee. With all that’s at stake for the entire world, it would be appropriate for Bush and Rice to start acting like they’re directly involved, and put some bargaining chips on the table, instead of commenting in press interviews along the lines of Bush:

"There's a lot of people who believe that the Iranians are trying to exert more and more influence over the entire region and the use of Hizbullah is to create more chaos to advance their strategy." He called that "a theory that's got some legs to it as far as I'm concerned."

We need the president to do more than conjecture from a sofa—he needs to go front and center and get the perpetrators of violence to stop before it involves a lot more than 130 dead civilians in five days.

Unfortunately the options are thin based on US past policy toward the entities involved:

“If Condi Rice decided she wanted to do diplomacy, what would she do?” asked Aaron David Miller, who was a senior adviser for Arab-Israeli relations at the State Department under the last three presidents. The two countries that wield the most influence over Hezbollah and Hamas — Iran and Syria — are the same ones the administration has kept at arm’s length.

The value of the Bush approach has been its moral clarity and consistency, eschewing, in a post-Sept. 11 world, any deal-making with those thought to support terrorists. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are viewed as terrorist organizations, and by that logic, Syria and Iran are on the wrong side of the divide. – U.S., Needing Options, Finds Its Hands Tied, New York Times, 7/14/06

What is hopeful it that the exceedingly brilliant woman Rice is will find an
alternative way to initiate diplomacy, and resolution.

Duplicitous Doctors and Your Medicine

The Los Angeles Times is putting together a nice record of articles exposing the practice of government physicians getting paid by the drug companies whose product safety they are supposed to oversee. Today’s front page story discusses the Merck consultant Dr. Thomas J. Walsh, who, as a member of the National Institute of Health, testified on behalf of the marketing of the drug Cancidas, an antifungal agent “for patients whose immune systems had been ravaged by chemotherapy and who were presumed to have a potentially deadly, invasive fungal infection. In its first five years on the U.S. market, Cancidas would generate $859 million in sales for Merck.”

The story shows the lack of objectivity of government physicians who are supposed to be in place to protect the consumer from the very thing of which they are guilty—greed. This blog has referenced prior pieces about the NIH’s allowance of physicians to be paid by drug companies while they work for the NIH, but today’s story gets into the nitty gritty of how much corruption is possibly going on, and how much possible pain is being caused.

It’s nothing new to those of us used to big pharma’s tactics and motives, but the depth of the Times’ expose may shed more light on what kind of shabby medicine we are really getting, and for a huge price.

Deja Vu Lieberman Dodd

"You're over it!" the kids say about anything not worth dwelling on. I thought I was "Over it," since it has been 36 years and old news by now. But maybe not--When Joe Duffy, anti-Vietnam War senatorial candidate won the democratic nomination from Connecticut in 1970, I was a lowly campaign worker who saw a chance for one man to make a difference.

When Joe Duffy became the democratic candidate for senator, I went back to college in the fall and crossed my fingers hoping against hope that he would be the next senator from CT, whose entire platform consisted of determining to vote to pull US troops out of Vietnam.

The incumbent democrat, Tom Dodd, had been censured by the senate for misusing campaign funds for personal purposes--something that today would be considered minor and probably overlooked entirely. But in the 1960's, prior to Watergate and the Nixon shenannigans which diddled with the Constitution on a scale unheard of til then, Dodd's indiscretions were a matter to be dealt with sternly by his fellow senators--and, he was caught in the act, however minor it was.

So while Joe Duffy, an ordained minister and "machine-backed" candidate stumped for election, Tom Dodd decided to ask for votes as an "Independent," in order to be able to run on the ballot, and without the core democratic backing he was used to. Dodd was also a Vietnam War hawk--backing Nixon regarding the commitment to money, arms and troops for the Vietnam conflict. Sound familiar??? Lieberman wears Dodd's shoes.

What transpired could not have been written in a novel, because no author could have foreseen the events that were to come: Duffy and Dodd split the democratic vote which allowed the republican nominee, Lowell Weicker, a wealthy up-and-comer from the New York suburbs, to be elected senator. Forget about my crossed fingers, and Duffy's anti-war stance, and Dodd's pro war stance--Weicker was now senator from Connecticut.

Those of us over the age of 40 may remember that a major nemesis to Nixon and all that he stood for in the Watergate debacle, was Senator Lowell Weicker from Connecticut. Without Weicker's incessant and dogged nagging, there may never have been the revelations of the criminal acts of Nixon and his cronies. Weicker was a beacon of light and justice amidst the dinn of iniquity and disgrace.

The question will always remain, what would have happened if Duffy were elected senator instead of Weicker? How would that have effected the Vietnam War? Would Weicker's absence have meant less of a just outcome with Watergate?

I only know that--deja vu-wise--if Lieberman runs for senator from Connecticut as an independent candidate, he has forgotten the lessons of history. If your party doesn't want you, chances are you are not wanted--period.

Lieberman—Appearances are Deceiving

It’s bad enough that Joe Lieberman, Senator from Connecticut, is as big a supporter of Bush and the Iraq occupation as any good rank and file republican. What is so continually atrocious about this position is that Lieberman ran for Vice President on the ticket against Bush and Cheney in a presidential election. He must have thought at some point that Bush’s policies were not as good as his own would be, yet now it’s hard to see the difference.

Inconsistencies abound, as is indicative of a recent piece by Joe Conason on Thruthdig.org:

Sen. Lieberman has long been known to cultivate the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which provide jobs in his home state and contributions to his campaign fund. But he has literally been sleeping with one of their Washington representatives ever since his wife, Hadassah, joined Hill & Knowlton last year. The legendary lobbying and PR firm hired her as a “senior counselor” in its “health and pharmaceuticals practice.”

This news marked Hadassah Lieberman’s return to consulting after more than a decade of retirement. “I have had a life-long commitment to helping people gain better health care,” she said in the press release announcing her new job. “I am excited about the opportunity to work with the talented team at Hill & Knowlton to counsel a terrific stable of clients toward that same goal.”

It would be uplifting to imagine that Hill & Knowlton—after spending the past decade as a defendant in tobacco class-action lawsuits because of its role in propaganda disputing the deadly effects of smoking—is now devoted to improving everybody’s health. More likely, the firm remains devoted to improving the profits of its clientele, which has historically included Enron, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Saudis, Kuwaitis, American International Group and Boeing.

When a senator’s wife works for one of the capital’s largest lobby shops, appearances tend to matter. In this case, something happened immediately that didn’t look very good.

Mrs. Lieberman signed up with Hill & Knowlton in March 2005. The
firm’s clients included GlaxoSmithKline, the British pharmaceutical giant that manufactures flu vaccines along with many other drugs. In April 2005, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill that would award an array of new government “incentives” to companies like GSK to produce more vaccines—notably patent extensions on other products, at a cost of billions to governments and consumers.

That legislation provoked irritated comment by his hometown newspaper, the New Haven Register. In an editorial headlined “Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk,” the Register noted that his bill was even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership. “The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures,” said the editorial. “But it should not write a blank
check, as these bills do, to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return.”

No doubt Lieberman would do the bidding of the pharmaceutical lobby whether his wife was on its payroll or not, but this kind of coincidence is best avoided by a man who lectures the world about morality and ethics.

And so it goes…

Forgive Ken Lay

When former Enron CEO Ken Lay lied about the solvency of Enron, he caused thousands of employees who had their entire financial futures and security tied up in the company to lose everything. The utter calamity of such a tremendous loss is impossible to comprehend. Retirement funds, pensions, jobs and future potential earnings were wiped out within months. Along with his head financial officer, Jeffrey Skilling, Lay was to blame for the misfortunes of many fellow human beings.

In the years subsequent to the bankruptcy of Enron, and the beginning of the trial on indictments against Skilling and Lay for their immense corporate wrongdoing, the image of Lay gained more and more press coverage. He was a wheeler-dealer at the top of the business world. President Bush wrote personal jovial notes addressed to “Kenny Boy.” Lay spent millions of dollars on one birthday party for his wife. And most vividly, he seemed put-upon and put-out by the charges that he hid the problems of Enron from everyone, and that in fact he was unaware of any accounting transgressions which led to the downfall of the company, because he was above and beyond the morass of daily details and was too busy running the company. He was on a personal cause to prove his innocence, and get on with his retirement with the tens of millions of dollars he had stashed from his corporate raiding.

That attitude of “who, me? Guilty of what?” was very clear as the verdict of guilty on all six counts was announced, and the blood visibly drained from Kenny Boy Lay’s face. He was more shocked than anyone that the best attorneys money can buy failed his fate, and now he was destined to being sentenced to years in prison.

So while Ken Lay went off to his vacation home in Colorado for some temporary r & r, his fate caught up with him, and 41 days after his verdict, 60 days prior to his sentencing date, he had a massive coronary heart attack and died this morning at 3:15 in a hospital in Aspen, CO. “ ‘Apparently, his heart simply gave out,’ said Pastor Steve Wende of Houston's First United Methodist Church.” That would appear to be about right—apt imagery, no doubt.

The more important issue in this news story is the enormous impact of Lay’s crimes on the thousands of people who worked in his company. They are the living, and the ones who have to move ahead on their altered financial paths due to the greed and immorality of a now dead employer. In these people’s lives, would there ever be any room to forgive such a horrendous man? Is forgiveness even part of any plan to move on? And what about all of us who see the events unfolding—do we need to reflect on what happened and think about forgiveness as well?

As I am untouched by the actions of Lay and Skilling and the fall of Enron, the reader may ask who I am to make any such judgment. My answer is that I am not judging the actions of other people. What moral person who knows the facts of the Enron debacle can condone the deceitful, illegal, and ultimately catastrophic actions of greed and dishonor by Skilling and Lay? The mentality that allowed not only the bloating of a company for the financial aggrandizement of a few, but the ability of those few to act in denial of what they did and continue to go about their free-wheeling lifestyles, which no doubt included sleeping well at night—where that mentality was fostered and nurtured is a key ingredient to learning from, and doing better in light of, these criminals’ wrongdoings.

Ultimately, seeing through the wrong actions, which again we don’t condone, to the individuals behind them, who are fellow human beings—like it or not—we can begin to forgive them as fellow humans, even though we do not forgive the actions. If this sounds like gimmicky semantic claptrap, think again about the motive of forgiveness. Ken Lay is dead—he won’t get anything out of us forgiving him for what he did, except in a spiritual sense. It is US who will gain an advantage on the dark side that exists in us all—we will have a chance to reflect and look into ourselves, and wonder about how much it was worth to Ken Lay to do what he did, which he refused to think was wrong, and then finally die because of it. We will be better off for forgiving him even though we believe he won’t know a thing about it.

27 years ago I was present at a speech given by the famous Nazi war criminal hunter, Simon Weisenthal. Mr. Weisenthal was more than just a bounty hunter. He lost his entire family in the murderous actions of Nazi Germany we know as the Holocaust. The speech he gave in Los Angeles so many years after the activities happened of which he was recounting, was still rivetting and illuminating. One thing he said I will never forget, was that he was present when a Nazi war criminal was dying. I don't remember if he had been shot during the war or if he was incarcerated afterwards--this detail doesn't matter. The point was that the Nazi was dying, and he held out his hand to Weisenthal, who grasped it, and he said, "Forgive me."

Weisenthal simply said in his speech that he could not forgive this man, and the Nazi died holding his hand, in silence. At that time listening to Mr. Weisenthal talk, about his mother being taken away in a cattle car right in front of him, and of later finding out his entire family was killed by the Nazis--I thought damn right--forgive what? Better to damn guys like that to hell and move on.

I think about Weisenthal's story at times because I don't think he took lightly the request of a dying man, a "Christian," who understood the nature of forgiveness based on upbringing, asking the man holding his hand in his own, to forgive him. I think Weisenthal was trying to make a point--that the Nazi understood exactly what he had done, how awful his actions were, and now wanted to save his eternal soul with the forgiveness of a fellow human being. I didn't watch my mother get trucked off to her death when I was nine years old by Nazis, so I can't judge Weiesenthal's reaction to the request for forgiveness, other than to report what he said happened.

The Nazi knew he was wrong--he was condemned in his own mind. I know that now. I didn't think about that or care about it when I was listening to Weisenthal's speech.

Now there is the Ken Lay predicament--and he knew he was wrong and did NOT ask for forgiveness. And there are thousands of people, families, lives that have been screwed up in the worst way by this guy.

The motives behind the illegal actions of Lay and Skilling derive from a society which in the end, must condone such actions, or these two men wouldn’t have thought it was OK to do what they did. What else allows Bush to send armies across the sea to occupy a foreign land in the name of fighting an unseen monster—terrorism—unless the society behind him says it’s OK to do this?
Children are brought up to believe that it’s a “dog-eat-dog” world—that there’s not enough to go around. They are taught a perverse version of social Darwinism, that “survival of the fittest” means that some will make it at the expense of others, and those who are more aggressive and act faster will be among the haves, and those who sit back and wait will be the have-nots. I was told in my teen years that I didn’t have enough “larceny in my blood,” which I concluded meant that I was not man-enough to make a good living because I was unable to face hurting my fellow man or woman in order to get ahead.

What do those who teach such things expect from the product of that teaching?

Michael Josephson, founder of the Josephson Institute of Ethics, teaches corporations and individuals world wide how to conduct business on the up and up, and that this is more profitable in the long run. The Institute’s mission statement, “To improve the ethical quality of society by changing personal and organizational decision making and behavior,” has been proven to work over and over again.

My children have gotten certificates from the Institute through their schools that say “Character Counts.” They understand what I have learned and believe—that our character is the only thing we really own, and over which we have complete control.

All corporate leaders don’t work with the lack of values of Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Jack Welsch, former head of General Electric and the most successful CEO of all time, said in a recent interview that Lay and Skilling were aberrations, and that truly successful businesses are conducted within the law and morality.

On the day “Kenny Boy” Lay goes off to his final freedom, there is great hope in the lessons learned from his mistakes. So I forgive him in the end, while not condoning what he did, because our knowing how he conducted his mission, for which he paid the biggest price, may hold a brighter future for those who aspire to corporate greatness in the future. And he was, after all, made of the same DNA as me.

The Cause is Worth Fighting For

As I read about the latest Bin Laden recording, which has followed recent diatribes from him and others of his cronies, and duly reported by the media around the globe, I started to think about terrorists and terrorism. I don’t mean that I never thought about terrorists before today. On the contrary, I’ve heard about this violent method of making a point since I was a little boy.

When I was ten years old, I saw the movie Exodus. In that facile albeit totally absorbing film, since it can only last for three-plus hours without turning into a problem for film exhibitors who need to cull audiences more than 3 or four times per day—there is a clear delineation between those heroes who want to help the poor downtrodden Jews and inaugurate a new Jewish State of sanctuary in the so-called “biblical” homeland, Palestine--against all anti-Semitic evils by using manipulation and politics, and others who would wreak havoc and terror to accomplish the same goals.

The “political” guys in the film, led by Paul Newman’s character, were the Hagganah. They commandeered boats and personnel—whatever—to get displaced Jews from Europe into Palestine in order to make a point to the United Nations that there needed to be a Jewish State, at least partly to make amends for the horrors of the Holocaust.

The terrorists, known as Irgun, played by Sal Mineo as a munitions expert, and David Opatoshu as an alienated family member of an old Jewish family in Palestine—they worked to blow up stuff to make a point. The infamous bombing of the King David Hotel, a real historical event, which is a major jolt as depicted in the film, would be a drop in the everyday bucket of Iraq car bombings in the media today.

Exodus indeed provided a simplistic view and clear-cut depiction of the good-guys (Paul Newman), bad guys (British and Nazis) and troublemakers (Irgun terrorists).

Real life tends to be more complex--a real-life Irgun terrorist, Menachim Begin, became Prime Minister of Israel, and made a peace of sorts with an arch-enemy and fellow-terrorist, Yasser Arafat.

Terrorism—the killing of innocent people including women and children—non-combatant personnel—to get a government to capitulate so that such awful things don’t happen anymore—it’s just not very efficient. It’s not like having a meeting with the opposition and staking a claim and making some sort of ultimatum which to me is more direct. When terrorists wreak havoc, the result is just that—havoc--should we really believe the people who claim to take the blame are really to blame? When infants are killed and maimed, does that really make us want to adhere to the terrorist cause?

That’s my take on terrorism in the Middle East prior to the events of the 1980’s, 1990’s and the present. So many intellectual references are made to the fact that modern Israel was born on the back of terrorism. Scholars love to point back to the American Revolution, and the Boston Tea Party, as an early act of willful violence that made a point that needed to be made—taxation without representation, we all learned in school as a prelim to the reason for separating from England. Terrorism actually works, it’s just not admirable while it’s happening.

Modern terrorism, which indeed started at the beginning of the last century, is the killing and injuring of innocent people, in the name of a cause which is so just as to warrant getting attention through such mindless violence. I have always held out my arm, and waved off any attempt, by anyone to try to explain what the motive is behind a terrorist act. I have always said that it is NOT UP TO ME to psychoanalyze the motives of an individual, or a group, who would willingly kill or hurt men, women, and children, knowing that the pain caused would not relate to the cause being promoted. I don’t care what a terrorist thinks or wants to promote—terrorism is the means and the end, and therefore that modality takes him or them out of the loop.

I still believe that the cause is everything—It is all there is. Those who live without a cause are not in touch with reality. The founders of the United States of America believed this. There were some among them who had something to gain, and everything to loose, by a war with the mother country, England. But the “cause” of freedom was a bigger plum, than simple comfort or serenity.

Yet what do we remember these days about this noble cause and its aftermath? Do we recall death and destruction? Is terrorism the calling card for the honor of freedom and democracy to which we aspire in these United States?

In fact the first things we remember are these words:

“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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”--Declaration of Independence

A film about global warming, Inconvenient Truth, makes the case that the first priority should be to save planet Earth, without which all the rest of the squabbles and disagreements won’t matter. The present number one priority of the US government is to fund and occupy a piece of territory in the Middle East on the false pretense that it is in the United States citizens’ best interests.

The film about global warming is a tribute to the tenacity of Al Gore, who ran for President in 2000, won the popular vote, and lost the electoral numbers. He repeats a number of times in the film that he is promoting his vision of what’s wrong with global warming, and how it can be corrected, one by one—one person at a time, one family, one group. Ultimately, with time and luck, his message will reach us all. He stays true to the cause without firing a weapon, hurting a child, or setting off a bomb.

I believe the human race is one race, and that we are all one with God. I will continue to write about that in the most positive of terms, without malice toward my fellow man or woman, in the best approach possible. I don’t like our government's policies and behavior any more than do the terrorists. But I’ll make you a bet I get more bang for my buck than they do, without firing a shot.

SCOTUS GITMO Verdict Smokescreen for Bush Iraq Ploy

[Iraq Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s] recent call for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and amnesty for Iraq insurgents is a sign of big trouble for the Bush administration. So why aren't we hearing or reading about this every day as part of the discussion on bringing the troops home?—TPM Café, Crissie’s Blog, 6/30/06

It was an extraordinary moment, fraught with the arrogant hyperbole and arrant hypocrisy that has characterized this adventure all along.—Newsweek Reporter Chris Dickey’s description of US Interim head of Iraq Paul Bremer’s secretive and sudden exit from Baghdad

The aftermath of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that GITMO inmates have rights to a fair trial under international law established by Geneva Conventions has produced an abundance of punditry not seen since the cries of inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina filled the media airways. An objective observer would see that the priority of the two stories isn’t even up for question. Hurricane Katrina was damaging to thousands of lives, and correcting the problem of how to help in such a calamity in the future is immediately pressing.

The verdict in favor of a fair and open trial for some 400 detainees at Guantanamo prison, instead of a secret military tribunal with all of the trappings that implies—no access to attorney, no confrontation of evidence in the charges, and no publicity of a verdict—simply means that any of these inmates who are truly a danger to Americans will have his or her day in court. They’re not letting anyone out of Guantanamo based on the Supreme Court decision yesterday.

In fact, one of the pundits proposed as an expert on the Supreme Court decision, Anthony Napolitano of Fox News, a former judge from New Jersey, explained that the use of military tribunals gave the Bush administration a way to hold trial proceedings against captured foreigners who might pose a threat to Americans, without divulging US government classified material. When Napolitano was asked his opinion of what the US would do if it had the choice of prosecuting one of the GITMO detainees by exposing classified information, or whether the government would prefer not to publicize the classified info, his answer was that the government would most certainly opt not to release anything classified in the interest of national security. Then what would happen to the individual if he was not going to be prosecuted in a lawful open trial? Napolitano simply said that the detainee probably would be sent back to Afghanistan for justice under their system.

Meanwhile, back in reality-land, the real problem of US occupation of Iraq, the moment-by-moment endangerment of human lives, coalition and Iraqi, goes on without a policy burp in sight. The usual rhetoric of fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here is compounded by the flatulent expulsion of the latest in a series of idiotic Dr. Seuess-like logical statements to justify the continuation of US presence in the middle east: John McCain’s comparison of getting out of Iraq with getting out of Vietnam, the gist of which is that when the US vacated Vietnam suddenly, they didn’t follow us back home.

This begs the question of who exactly will “follow” us from Iraq? The connection of terrorists around the world with any headquarters of terrorism in Iraq has never been substantiated. The acknowledged information of US intel authorities has been that cells of terrorist organizations of one back ground or another exist in at least 60 countries globally. US, British, and other coalition presence in Iraq has not stopped terrorist activities in other countries, where the Iraqi insurgents didn’t “follow them home” but others already were there to wreak havoc.

The argument of US occupation of Iraq in order to prevent terrorism in America has always been an empty, specious point of view—politically motivated and not based on any reality.

But this discussion does keep short-term-attention-span John Q. Public distracted from the issue at hand—empire waging colonialism by the US powers-that-be in order to gain an economic sphere of influence in the oil-rich Middle East. Even the most ADD-addled citizen knows that there is some connection between VP Cheney and Haliburton, the company that has reaped enormous revenue by dipping its conglomerated hand into every rebuilding and construction effort for which US taxpayers are overpaying in Iraq.

Now to the case at hand—what is the actual understanding between the US government, i.e. the Bush Administration, and the Iraqi elected government?

In the middle of a war that both the Maliki government and the U.S. forces are trying to win, supposedly by working together, many in Baghdad and Washington would rather not get too explicit about the terms of the relationship. It’s as if this marriage were a romance, and a prenup might spoil all that. But this isn’t a marriage, and so far the U.S.-Iraqi relationship isn’t even a real partnership. It still looks like, and is, an occupation by foreign powers, a quasi-colonial undertaking.— The Rule of Order 17, Newsweek, Christopher Dickey, Shadowlands, 6/29/06

Chris is my friend--he is a veteran foreign correspondent, and a professional. And he is always “on the money,” in that his understanding of the Middle East and the politics involved gives him an unusual view—objectivity with morality. How lucky we are to be the recipient of his hard work, investigative reporting, and intelligent perspective.

Here is his summation, brilliant for its historical reference:

There is a famous quote from the brilliant, troubled and troublesome British Orientalist T. E. Lawrence that one hears quoted often by Americans in Iraq. “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly,” they tell each other knowingly—without knowing, perhaps, how grossly condescending they sound. But, like many another famous quote, this one has been edited down by the facile repetition of simple minds. What Lawrence actually said was, “Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them. Actually, also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is.”
That last line is the one to remember.--The Rule of Order 17, Newsweek, Christopher Dickey, Shadowlands, 6/29/06

And the media talking-head pundits continue to talk about Supreme Court decisions, politics, and the George W view of reality. We must not be deceived by the Deceiver. We the people must keep our attention focused--we need to "re-deploy" our priorities for the best interests of us all--protection of the helpless among us, and feeding those who are hungry. The rest will follow properly.

Big Pharma Can’t Buy Everyone Off?

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it? – Eleanor Roosevelt

Aetna Inc. said Thursday that it would buy discounted copies of the cholesterol drug Zocor from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. rather than accept an offer from Merck & Co. to sell its branded pill for less than the generic.—Bloomberg News-Los Angeles Times, 6/23/06

After yesterday’s report on Merck discounting Zocor to $10 for members of some large insurance plans, vs. $50 for the release of a new generic version, the assumption was that the steamrollering effect against generic drugs was getting well underway. Today’s announcement by Aetna is a stiff stopgap against the tide.

Aetna found that a price break on Zocor wasn't worth sending patients a message that they could get a brand-name drug for less than generics, [Eric Elliott, Aetna's pharmacy manager] said. Any erosion in the use of generics would drive up total spending on drugs.--Bloomberg News-Los Angeles Times, 6/23/06

Either someone has a conscience in the big pharma world of drug manufacturers and medical insurers—or else someone dropped the ball in the scheme of payoffs and promises.

Do I seem cynical? Zocor generated $4.4 billion last year for Merck. How far would a drug company go to insure income like that to continue or grow for its patented products? It’s still too early to tell.

Drug Companies Endanger Lives For Money

It seems like a day doesn’t go by when a news item appears that shows how the pharmaceutical industry is cooking up new ways to increase their profits by screwing their customers. The latest bit of chicanery will probably go largely unnoticed except by those consumers who are directly affected by the increased costs for their prescriptions.

It's a novel approach in the long battle between brand-name drugs and their generic rivals: Merck & Co. is slashing the price of its cholesterol drug Zocor so low for one insurance plan that members will actually pay less for the original pills than for the generic.

Some consumer advocates fear that the practice will spark a movement among pharmaceutical companies, compounding other pressures they fear will weaken the generic industry and compromise the country's source of low-cost drugs.—AP-L.A. Times 6/21/06

In a convoluted, murky system of patents and lawsuits, cheap generic versions of expensive drugs whose patents have expired are allowed a six-month exclusive release on the market without competition. Merck has initiated a possible precedent which will hamper the generic manufacturers from being able to continue to compete at the lowers prices, thus ultimately gouging the consumer pocketbook to enrich the big pharma giants.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused Merck of engaging in predatory pricing and called its actions "a legal bribe." He has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the deal between Merck and UnitedHealth. "Merck is taking an end run around the generic drugs laws to make sure there are no generic drugs," Schumer said. AP-L.A. Times 6/21/06

As usual, in the big pharma bully-ploy of shoulder-shrugging as if there were no knowledge of anything up it’s sleeve, Merck reps plead ignorance:

Merck's vice president of public policy, Ian Spatz, said the arrangement with UnitedHealth was nothing more than typical marketplace price competition.

… Federal agencies are already examining whether other drug company practices are hurting consumers' access to generic drugs. The FTC is examining whether brand-name manufacturers are muting competition by authorizing generic versions of their own drugs to coincide with the launch of a rival generic.--AP-L.A. Times 6/21/06

Hopeful rhetoric, and our vigilance is a needed added ingredient to our
protection from bullies. After all, if we can't afford the drugs we need, it endangers our health.

Next time you see a TV commercial or read a magazine ad extolling the wonders of modern patented medicine, remember that curing human ills was not the incentive behind its development. ‘Twas greed, pure and simple.

Vaccines and Bush’s Power Grab

“I don’t know how you equate a story about the president grabbing power with pharmaceutical corporations increasing production of vaccines.”

That’s the reaction I would expect from a reader of the heading of this post.

I do know, however, the exact coinciding element of these items, and the overriding effect on American society that ensues. The vaccine manufacturers don’t care about the individuals for which their product is made. The US government does not care about the people by whom it is elected and sworn to serve. We the people are indeed the masters of our destinies. We better learn this lesson fast, because we are not nearly as organized as those who would hijack our destinies.

Case in point: I was very gratified, subsequent to my post of June 7 to read a new piece in the New York Review of Books that thoroughly delineated my premise of Bush re-balancing the constitutional balance of powers in his favor. This clear summary of the almost machine-like step-by-step process of usurping constitutional rights guarantees with a nod toward tightening security controls after the events of 9/11, is a blueprint of what might have happened in the unwritten chapters prior to the opening of the grim view of an ultra-fascist future: 1984.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the White House has made an unprecedented reach for power. It has systematically attempted to defy, control, or threaten the institutions that could challenge it: Congress, the courts, and the press. It has attempted to upset the balance of power among the three branches of government provided for in the Constitution; but its most aggressive and consistent assaults have been against the legislative branch: Bush has time and again said that he feels free to carry out a law as he sees fit, not as Congress wrote it. Through secrecy and contemptuous treatment of Congress, the Bush White House has made the executive branch less accountable than at any time in modern American history. And because of the complaisance of Congress, it has largely succeeded in its efforts.—Elizabeth Drew, New York Review of Books June 22, 2006

Gratified I was, like the prognosticator who predicts a major natural disaster and then it happens and thousands are killed. Happy I was not, because the old quote from the opening of the movie, Spartacus, which I saw at age ten 46 years ago, seemed so remote and ancient, and frankly, implausible: The age of the dictator is at hand. And now it seems so imminent.

In the detailed and profound New York Review article, Ms. Drew answers the questions that fall off the reader’s lips. Like why is congress so malleable and unable to counteract Bush’s aggressive moves, which are questionable on constitutional grounds?

Why have the members of Congress been so timorous in the face of the steady encroachment on their constitutional power by the executive branch? Conversations with many people in or close to Congress produced several reasons. Most members of Congress don't think in broad constitutional terms; their chief preoccupations are raising money and getting reelected. Their conversations with their constituents are about the more practical issues on voters' minds: the prices of gasoline, prescription drugs, and college tuition. Or about voters' increasing discontent with the Iraq war.-- Elizabeth Drew, New York Review of Books June 22, 2006

That was easy—our representatives are scared! Just like their constituents.

You can understand that your government doesn’t work for you. Now see how the drug companies don’t give a shit about you either. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun last week, vaccine manufacturers were seeing less profit potential in keeping up the pace. Then the US government stepped in, granted a windfall $1 billion for bird-flu spec r & d, which means better dinners and first-class air fare for the drug company mucky-mucks for a while anyway, since there ain’t much they can work with to make a bird-flu vaccine when there ain’t no bird-flu going around!

"There's an increased government investment," said Dr. Gary Nabel, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' vaccine research center. "That translates into more support for the research and more support for the purchase of vaccines. And that, in turn, increases the interest of companies."--New life seen for vaccine industry, Jonathan D. Rockoff, Baltimore Sun

How does that help us in terms of health care and lower prices for drugs etc? What a stupid question. That isn’t the point. How does the drug company get richer—that’s the point. And as usual Merck--major drug company, manufacturer of Vioxx which was taken off the market due to improprieties in development and injuries to consumers--is on the threshold of great ideas for the big bottom line:

"There really is a large potential," said Christine Fanelle, a spokeswoman for Merck & Co.'s vaccine division, based in West Point, Pa. "The adult and adolescent markets are untapped for vaccines."--New life...

Never mind whether or not this untapped market needs these vaccines or not. And this particular post doesn’t even touch the controversy of vaccine safety, which is enormous.

Just the wording of the officials is enough:

"Over the next five years it's a booming market for vaccines," said Zach Wagner, senior pharmaceuticals analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis.-- New life...

We don’t hear about lives being saved, health care costs being reduced—just “booming market” booms in our heads.

Hope you sleep well tonight—you better believe Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, all of congress, and the big pharma spokespeople are going to sleep deep and soundly, and wake up refreshed in the morning ready to go after us--we the people--another day.

If it’s Tuesday, This Must Be Baghdad

"When you live your life with an appreciation of coincidences and their meanings, you connect with the underlying field of infinite possibilities."—Deepak Chopra

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."--Einstein

My last post was five days ago and suddenly the news is full of topics for blogger fodder. There are the inflammatory Coulter remarks, which I have a problem further publicizing due to that old cliché about correct name spelling despite the message. Today Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq. I don’t think this was meant to be a joyful surprise, like a birthday surprise party—more along the lines of not letting the thousands of locals who want him dead surprise.

And of course there was the ultimate bad-breakfast news to wake up to that an ace criminal still lurking around the White House is at long last getting off scott-free—Rove won’t be indicted in the Plamegate leak case. From what I’ve read about the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, he doesn’t have a slam-dunk (to re-use that awkward phrase) case and he won’t go to court without one.

Fun blogger stuff all. But I like to make my life difficult, so instead of proceeding with one of these obvious lines, I’d rather focus on an event in our household this morning that, when it’s all summed up, is more fascinating than anything you saw in the news today. This “happening” has to do with the same correlations of occurrences that I have written about before—coincidences—and how there is no such thing:

“A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.”

If you remove the words, “although accidental seems to have been” and insert “was” in the definition, you have the antonym, which is a design, plan, or scheme. I don’t like to think that the universe, and the forces which push and pull at our lives for some ultimate good, are “scheming.” Neither do I like the choice of language of religion which would call a certain confluence of events, “Divine Providence.” For me, Providence will always be the armpit of New England.

I will relate this story, from beginning to end, and you tell me how it could be a random series of events that just “happened to happen”—a coincidence—rather than some sort of design, perhaps induced through the intent of individuals.

A decade and a half ago, in the search for answers to a developmental issue with a young relative, my wife met a worker at a speech center who was very helpful. I will call this person Nancy Doe, for the sake of this story. Nancy and my wife were communicating often for a while at that time.
Further down the educational development of this young boy, my wife discovered a technologically cutting-edge computer-based program from Scientific Learning Corporation called “Fast Forward.” This amazing program could help young people with learning and reading processing problems become more adept—at learning, reading, and processing language. It worked on the youngster in question. A speech therapist also needed to monitor the computer program, although the entire use of “Fast Forward” took place on a PC in the child’s own home—he wore headphones and clicked answers with a mouse.

More time passes—over ten years--and another young relative is having learning and reading difficulties. My wife suggests the “Fast Forward” program to this mom, and sends some information in an email. After a while, this young mom is not moving ahead to look into the “Fast Forward” program, so my wife decides to give her more information, since now the young boy has to go to summer school in order to stay in the same grade.

Here is the delineation of events, as they happened, that made me write this post:

Yesterday, while my wife was looking at her emails, for no reason, the computer made a small “beep” noise and all of her inbox messages, over 800 of them (talk about not doing spring cleaning!) disappeared. I was summoned in a voice of semi-panic to see what was happening in digital cyber-ville. First it looked like most of the messages went into the “delete” folder, but not all of them did. Then there were some messages that she wanted that she had forwarded to herself, so those were intact in the “sent” folder.

As she went through that folder looking for several messages, she came across the email from a few months back that she had sent to her relative about “Fast Forward.” So she forwarded the email again, to remind her to look into the program.

This morning, my wife and this relative again spoke about “Fast Forward,” and my wife volunteered to call some places to find out who the speech therapist was who helped the young boy years ago. She looked in the yellow pages, and one ad jumped out at her because it indicated “help in the home.” So she called this number and a familiar woman’s voice from the past answered, “Nancy Doe speaking. May I help you?” My wife choked on her tea and simply said who she was, and they reconnected after all these years. Nancy said she was substituting for someone and usually wasn’t the person who answered the phone, and what a coincidence this was!

That’s not the end. My wife does spiritual counseling, readings, and seminars. She told Nancy Doe what is doing along these lines, and Nancy said, “I’m a spiritual medium. And I recently meditated for help in finding out how to further my career.” So they spoke about that for a while. My wife told Nancy the name of her web site: www.UniqueIntuition.com, at which point in the conversation Nancy shrieked in amazement. She had several flyers and a newspaper ad about my wife’s web site at home, but hadn’t had the time yet to look into the information.

So it starts with the strange computer glitch for no reason, goes to an email, a return phone call, and just happening to find one listing out of dozens in the yellow pages to whom to make a phone call. Coincindences? Divine scheming? Or the unfolding of a perfect universe?

I believe in free will, and I also believe in the positive energy of good intentions. And even the most grounded physics expert will tell you that energy can’t be destroyed.

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."--Einstein

The Decider needs to Decide to Get Out of Iraq

Reuters
Two and one half years ago, reporting the capture of Saddam Hussein, George Bush talked about a turning point in the US occupation of Iraq:

All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.

Since then, the media and the US war mongers promoted Zarqawi’s name as the head point man for Al Qaeda inside of Iraq. Nevermind that he was a native Jordanian, that titular Al Qaeda #1 Bin Laden didn't appoint Zarqawi, that all Zarqawi seemed to want was a perverse infamy and perpetual violence for its own sake, almost to the point of having no cause for the effort.

Bush said about Zarqawi's killing

Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda. It's a victory in the global war on terror, and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of this struggle. [my emphasis]

Maybe, maybe not. Newsweek reporter and terrorist and Middle East expert Chris Dickey says it's unclear what the future brings after the latest events:

Conceivably, the effect will be to weaken the insurgency as a whole. But it’s also possible that the homegrown Iraqi rebels, now free of Zarqawi’s evil image, may actually grow in political power and military strength. Following the classic pattern established by many other guerrilla groups in history, they may work through "peaceful" front organizations that actually take part in the Parliament, while also continuing to attack in the field. “Fight and talk" is often a successful strategy for guerrillas looking to assure their people's rights. Zarqawi made talking almost impossible.

Then there is the outright conclusion that Zarqawi already did his deeds in Iraq, and was aspiring to more fertile and monumental goals--in Europe. According to Steven Simon, a senior fellow in Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations:

...if Zarqawi’s death can boost public support a little, that’s got to be good—certainly for the administration. But how long will it last is another story because the fundamentals are bad. The levels of violence overall are extremely high and are likely to remain so.

...the demise of this one actor—as influential as he has been—is not going to turn things around. I can’t emphasize too much that with Zarqawi, the damage had already been done.

In fact, shortly after Bush's remarks this morning, the wheels were already in motion:

At least 37 Iraqis died in Baghdad bombings Thursday, even as the Iraqi parliament ended a stalemate by finally naming key security ministers.

All the posturing, and all the punditing won't change the simple fact--human lives are at stake--Iraqi, American, leaders and citizens. All human lives, every last one of them precious. It would be good not to lose sight of that, and end the incursion as soon as possible.

THAT would "turn the tide!"

Nazis in the CIA, McCarthy & Bush

Elizabeth Holtzman, a former congresswoman from New York and member of the panel, the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group, said the documents showed that the C.I.A "failed to lift a finger" to hunt Eichmann and "force us to confront not only the moral harm but the practical harm" of relying on intelligence from ex-Nazis.

The United States government, preoccupied with the cold war, had no policy at the time of pursuing Nazi war criminals. The records also show that American intelligence officials protected many former Nazis for their perceived value in combating the Soviet threat.

But Ms. Holtzman, speaking at a news briefing at the National Archives on Tuesday, said information from the former Nazis was often tainted both by their "personal agendas" and their vulnerability to blackmail. "Using bad people can have very bad consequences," Ms. Holtzman said. She and other group members suggested that the findings should be a cautionary tale for intelligence agencies today.-- C.I.A. Knew Where Eichmann Was Hiding, Documents Show, NY Times, Scott Shane 6/7/06

I don’t believe in random coincidences. The ringing mantra lesson of the Holocaust is “Never Again.” Yet the ringing is false—the genocides of Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, the mega-war in the Congo—point to lessons not learned, and us as poor students.

The coincidence is the confluence of warnings about the repetition of mistakes at high governmental levels. Documents recently released show US government complicity in keeping secret the whereabouts of Nazi war criminals, in order to use these former enemies of humanity as spies for the CIA against communist East Germany and the Soviet Union. This amoral rationale to let Nazis escape justice backfired in the worst way:

In another case, Ohio University historian Norman Goda discussed records showing how former Nazi SS intelligence officer Heinz Felfe, who was recruited by the Soviet KGB after the war, was able to join the West German intelligence service set up by the United States. He eventually rose to become chief of the division responsible for surveillance of the Soviets, the records show.

"He was no common mole," Goda said in a press briefing at the National Archives Building. Felfe was in charge of operations against the Soviets while "he took his orders from the Soviets."

Goda said Felfe caused "massive damage ... as large an intelligence disaster as occurred during the Cold War."—CNN CIA papers: U.S. failed to pursue Nazi, Pam Benson 6/7/06

As this evidence comes to light, so does a new book about Senator Joseph McCarthy, the 1950’s communist witch hunter. Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy by veteran reporter Tom Wicker, is reviewed in the New York Review of Books by another veteran reporter of the New York Times, Anthony Lewis. While a modern-day best-selling author, Ann Coulter, can grab headlines by making outrageous and scurrilous remarks about any public figure, she is seen as a fringe radical partisan, even by those who support her inane drivel. McCarthy, on the other hand, as a US senator, was taken completely seriously in that role by everyone on up to and including President Eisenhower, who cowered before every appointment he made lest McCarthy would attack the individual as a communist. Such was the fear and dread and ignorance that permeated the innocent citizenry in those days.

The key factor of “McCarthyism,” as the witch hunt came to be known, was fear. As Lewis points out in his conclusion of the review of Wicker’s version of McCarthy’s reign:

He deals well with the underlying question: Why did this unlikely figure have such an impact on American life? After the war, he writes, Americans believed that

with their know-how and determi­nation and faultless intentions, [they] could do anything...and were bound inevitably to tri­umph__Failure whether in com­bat or diplomacy could not, there­fore, be an American failure, for there was no such thing; failure could only result from subver­sion, espionage by the evil empire, and treason —betrayal in high places.

Something like those feelings did exist among many Americans in the post-I war period; they were exacerbated by the Soviet Union's surprise success in acquiring nuclear weapons, a success abetted by Soviet spies. They were combined with another persisting ele­ment in the American tradition: fear.—New York Review of Books June 8, 2006

The full circle is that 50 years ago Americans were told to be afraid of the Russians and the A-Bomb landing in Kansas. The CIA hired Nazis to spy on communists in the US, only to have these Nazi spies give the Russians more inside info than the Russian or East German spies could have gotten on their own.

A half century has passed, and the watchword more than ever is “FEAR.” The Bush/Cheney regime strives to keep the citizen/mob in a state of fear in order to more easily manipulate policy to further consolidate their power: civil rights are quashed in the name of defense in the “war on terror;” the bird flu pandemic threat is promoted daily across the media which justifies the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to a few republican-campaign-supportive drug conglomerates for a vague r & d for a spurious vaccine which can’t happen until the pandemic is under way. The regime even has former gadfly John McCain deliriously spouting the ridiculous coda “we need to fight the terrorists over there, rather than on the streets of Scottsdale” or wherever, to numb us up on why it’s OK to spend $1 billion every couple of days to keep the futile Iraq occupation going. Meanwhile, the domestic terrorist threat is ignored and Homeland Security cuts funding by 40% to the two cities most likely to get hit—New York and Washington, D.C.

A tyrannical, unaccountable big government has exercised its muscle to amass power as much as possible—that’s why the constitution has the three-way checks-and-balances separation of powers built into the system. The founding fathers assumed each branch would utilize its prerogative and thereby keep in check the other two—they didn’t figure on congress dropping the ball while a cohesive right-wing single-minded executive branch barrels on ahead full steam.

We have abrogated our responsibility as citizens in our society. We have let tyranny overrun us without a peep—as if it didn’t matter to each and every one of us personally. There is an election this fall. Congress is up for grabs and we can make changes. In the Orange County vote tally from yesterday’s primary election, around 25% of registered voters cast ballots.

While the pick of candidates and issues may seem slim, it’s better than none. And all those who are running are potential representatives of us. But only 1 out of 4 cares to make any choice at all.

In the Lewis review of Wicker’s book, the closing quote is from Edward R. Murrow’s broadcast about the McCarthy hearings:

The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our al­lies abroad, and given consider­able comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves."

Didn’t They Spit on Jesse Owens, Too?

Legendary Olympic Track Star Jesse Owens, from Wikipedia:

Owens was cheered enthusiastically by 110,000 people in Berlin's Olympic Stadium and later ordinary Germans sought his autograph when they saw him in the streets. However back in New York, after the ticker-tape parade in his honor, Owens had to ride the freight elevator to attend a reception for him at the Waldorf-Astoria.

He later recounted:

When I came back to my native country, after all the stories about Hitler, I couldn't ride in the front of the bus. I had to go to the back door. I couldn't live where I wanted. I wasn't invited to shake hands with Hitler, but I wasn't invited to the White House to shake hands with the President, either.

70 years—a generation ago—and things are…worse today:

Surge in Racist Mood Raises Concerns on Eve of World Cup
By JERE LONGMAN Published: June 4, 2006, NY TIMES

...Players and antiracism experts said they expected offensive behavior during the tournament, including monkey-like chanting; derisive singing; the hanging of banners that reflect neofascist and racist beliefs; and perhaps the tossing of bananas or banana peels, all familiar occurrences during matches in Spain, Italy, eastern Germany and eastern Europe.

"For us it's quite clear this is a reflection of underlying tensions that exist in European societies," said Piara Powar, director of the London-based antiracist soccer organization Kick It Out. He said that in Eastern Europe, "poverty, unemployment is a problem."

"Indigenous people are looking for easy answers to blame," he said. "Often newcomers bear the brunt of the blame."

"...Indigenous people blame newcomers"--Now why does that sound like the anti-immigration chant heard around the good ole USA these days?

There’s more:

As he left the soccer field after a club match in the eastern German city of Halle on March 25, the Nigerian forward Adebowale Ogungbure was spit upon, jeered with racial remarks and mocked with monkey noises. In rebuke, he placed two fingers under his nose to simulate a Hitler mustache and thrust his arm in a Nazi salute.

In a move to quell mockery of this sort, German authorities immediately investigated… Ogungbure!

But a charge of unconstitutional behavior against him was soon dropped because his gesture had been meant to renounce extremist activity.

"I regret what I did," Ogungbure said in a telephone interview from Leipzig. "I should have walked away. I'm a professional, but I'm a human, too. They don't spit on dogs. Why should they spit on me? I felt like a nobody."

A professional athlete drops his veil to stoop to human emotionalism. How low we have sunk since Jesse Owens:

When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany. --from Wikipedia

Since people are all the same everywhere, the base human nature of prejudice, and the ignorant anger it spawns, is common to us all, as is the potential to acheive understanding and tolerance for each other that will overcome bigotry and hatred.