Hannah's Blog

Yet Another True Story?

Whitley Streiber has an online journal.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/mindframe/opinion/?id=163

21-Aug-2004
My High School Friend John O'Neill and the Swiftboat Attack

The mastermind behind the Swiftboat commercials presently causing such controversy is Houston lawyer John Ellis O'Neill. John and I were close friends at Central Catholic High School in San Antonio, between 1960 and 1963. We were debaters and often debated as partners, sometimes as opponents.

John was the son of an admiral. They weren't from San Antonio. The Admiral had retired here and was involved in residential development to supplement his income. John was, in those days, very much as he appears now: a frumpy, genial fellow with an extremely good mind. He was also loyal to his friends and to those whom he loved, to a fault.

We had wonderful times together, sharing the dreams and the long, long talks of youth, our hopes (and our myriad more-or- less hopeless strategies for landing girls.) You had to be careful around John, though: everything he touched broke. If you had something you liked, it was important that it never enter his hands. No matter how good his intentions, it would end up ruined. We had a lot of fun, fond memories from long ago.

In those days, John was a liberal Democrat, as I recall. I could be wrong, but that was the impression I have. I was under my father's political thumb. He had various political purposes that involved me, and I did as I was told, for sure. We were, for a time, supporters of liberal Democrat Ralph Yarborough. Later, I was told to "set something up for John Connally," when he was running as a conservative Democrat for governor. I and two other boys set up a cheerleading team for Connally, which got him extra press coverage at his campaign stops...and was supposed to help us on the dating front, but--as per the usual--didn't.

As a Republican, John's father was a political outsider. In those days, the Republican party in Texas consisted almost entirely of what dad called "Yankees." No self-respecting old-time Texan was a Republican. There were, effectively, two democratic parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Democrats, and party regulars played a complicated game of loyalties between the two sides.

In fact, back in the fifties, they almost managed to combine the two parties. When my uncle John Ben Shepard was Attorney General of Texas in the fifties, voters had been annoyed to enter the voting booths and find that his governor, Alan Shivers, was actually running against himself on both the Republican and Democratic tickets.

Incredibly, John got appointed to the Naval Academy. I say 'incredibly' not because he wasn't up to the intellectual challenge, but because he seemed so physically hard to believe as a naval officer. Our English teacher, Brother Martin McMurtry, was also dubious, and decided to prepare John for Naval Academy life by hazing him during English class. John spent the last few months of our senior year being barked at by Brother Mac and ordered to "police the area." The rest of us joined in by creating situations that would cause John to become tangled up in various forms of turmoil in English class, which was all too easy to do. John took it all with his characteristic good humor.

He left for the Academy, as I recall, with plans to follow his father into a naval career. He acquitted himself well, and was soon posted to Vietnam. He was in Swiftboats for a time, and it must have been dangerous, difficult fighting. As it happened, he served in the same Swiftboat that John Kerry had previously commanded.

It is important to note that John commanded the same boat, not, as far as is known, the same crew.

John was changed by Vietnam. When he came back, the joy was gone out of him. Mutual friends reported that the bubbling, delightful human being we had known was gone, replaced by somebody sadder and quieter, and very different.

I felt deeply for him. He did not pursue a career in the Navy, but entered law school instead. John was and is a sensitive and brilliant human being, and the war hurt him, I have no doubt of it. In 1970, I watched him debate John Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show. I was proud of him. He made a compelling case that it was wrong of Kerry to attack the Vietnam soldiers the way, in John's opinion, that he was doing. Kerry countered that he was attacking the system, not the soldiers, but John was eloquent in showing how his words were directed at the fighting man, not at the politicians behind the war.

John Kerry fought his fight and spoke his mind. He was also young and full of fire and crazy in love with his country and his ideals, and apt, like any such young man, to set his flame too high.

At the same time, I felt that my old friend's defense of himself and his fellow warriors was noble and well-formed. He was right to call Kerry out for the way he was approaching his opposition to the war, and after the Cavett debate, I noticed that Kerry was much more careful in his choice of words.

I am much less happy about the Swiftboat commercials, and about the article that John published in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago. In that article, and even more in the ads, he purposely implies that the Swiftboat vets criticizing Kerry served "with" him, and, indeed that he himself served "with" Kerry. This is meant to make it seem as if they were eyewitnesses to the acts that got Kerry his medals.

However, before I create the impression that this article is an unbridled defense of Kerry's stories, I must add something about Purple Hearts in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was extraordinarily dangerous. Most of us looked on being sent there as a virtual death sentence. And anybody who received three Purple Hearts could come home.

As the war progressed and morale spun down, soldiers began to do as little fighting as they could. Officers included. The military responded by making Purple Hearts easier to get, in the hope that soldiers would try for them--that is to say, actually fight.

John Kerry was there four months, received his three Purple Hearts and went home alive. It can be argued that two of them were granted for relatively trivial injuries. And the Swiftboat ads certainly make that point. What they do not say is that many thousands of Purple Hearts were granted in Vietnam for similar injuries. And the kind of derring-do war that Kerry was fighting made it inevitable that he'd get hurt. Frankly, he was lucky he didn't get wounded much more seriously, or killed. Maybe he was hoping for Purple Hearts. Most men were. Maybe, in his heart, he wanted out of there and he saw Purple Hearts as a route to salvation. If so, then he was taking the bait laid out by the military.

The truth of Kerry's Vietnam record is not whether or not it is the record of a coward. It's outrageous to call him that. The true question is, does it suggest that he's reckless under pressure? That question, of course, is not being asked.

John is a superb lawyer, and he is using his lawyer's skill with the language to make a false argument. Unfortunately, while law can prepare a man well for politics, taking this type of legal skill into the political area is irresponsible and, frankly, reveals the sort of 'win at any cost' moral decadence that we see to much of in modern American politics.

John's ad is meant to give the impression that the veterans who appear actually rode in the same Swiftboat that Kerry commanded while he was its commander, or were in his immediate area and saw what happened. In fact, this is not true. John is using the words "served with" in the same tricky way that Bill Clinton used the definition of the word "is" while being questioned about Monica Lewinsky. They served with Kerry only in the sense that they were in the same general type of unit in the same war.

Unfortunately, the American people are way too innocent for inhabitants of what should be a mature republic, and many of them appear to be accepting John's ads at face value. In the states where they have run, Kerry is being hurt by the Swiftboat ads at the polls. The fact that what is, essentially, a lie would be used like this in a political campaign is a shame. The fact that it would work is an even greater one.

The fact that it would be done by an old friend who I know to possess a noble spirit and a marvelous mind makes my heart ache. If men of honor like John O'Neill are willing to stoop to such acts as this for their causes, then it means to me that our republic is in real trouble.

I have heard, also, that some Republicans in Texas are thinking that John O'Neill might run for the Senate when Kay Bailey Hutchinson retires, and I very much fear that he is doing what he is doing to get that Senate seat, without regard to the moral implications of his own acts.

I wonder, though, if he has really become conservative enough, and close enough to the religious right, to satisfy the Texas Republican Party? Its last convention was more like a religious revival than a political convention. In Texas, the Republican Party is the political arm of the Christian Right. But John was not a religious person at all as a young man. Indeed, when I spoke to him briefly a couple of years ago, he was no more religious than he had been before.

If he suddenly emerges as a Christian-approved candidate, speaking all the right pieties, I am going to feel very sorry indeed, because I know that it will be like George H. W. Bush's Christianization, a purely political act. (I think that the current president, at least, is fairly sincere in his beliefs, the first president since Carter with a genuine religious faith.)

As I watch the old United States sink into the past, and see this dreadful new country emerging, a soulless conglomeration of giant corporations and dead-end jobs, run by politicians who do not care to be honest as long as what they do helps them, I really do wonder where we have gone wrong. Dwight Eisenhower would be rolling in his grave to see what the Grand Old Party has become, a shill not for business, but for a very special and very unamerican type of business, the giant corporation.

The Democrats have given us nothing but more hoary old leftist economic ideas, while the Republicans have completely abandoned their party's historic defense of the smallholder and individual freedom in favor of a false "free market agenda" that actually places most of the power and far too much of the wealth into the hands of a few big corporations.

The Democrats are the party of big government. The Republicans are the party of big business. Not much choice there, in my opinion, which is why I'm politically neutral. And, no, I'm neither a libertarian or a socialist. I have the misfortune to be a centrist--you remember that, it's what most of your parents and grandparents were. A centrist uses government and business to balance each other, and never loses sight of the goal of the American republic: a productive economic life in an atmosphere of freedom for the INDIVIDUAL.

My good old friend, much beloved in youth, has signed on with the big business boys, in my opinion, to lie for them. I know that "lie" is a strong word, and I do not use it lightly. As a writer, words have a whole different meaning for me than they do for a lawyer. I see them as living things, magically powerful, and I see the public use of them as an act requiring the greatest personal integrity.

This is probably why the visitors landed in my lap. Who or whatever they are, they knew that I would feel obligated to tell what I had seen and that, while I might not tell it right, at least I would never lie. Rather than keep that important event to myself and stay a part of the mainstream, I came forward with my truth and consigned myself to the margins of our intellectual and political life, an outsider, easily scorned and dismissed.

But I have at least retained my personal integrity, which I will die with. I would rather have that, any day, that any power earned by a lie.

What a damning testament it is against our decadent age that one of two old friends would come forward with what is probably one of the most important truths in the history of this species, and be marginalized for it and made a figure of fun, while the other comes forward with a lie and is made a hero for it, likely to be granted great power and heaped with honors.

On Sunday, August 22, another person who was actually on Swiftboats with John Kerry spoke out, and the result for John O'Neill is devastating. Chicago Tribune editor William B. Rood, who has never before spoken about his experiences in Vietnam, offered an account of the action that won Kerry the Silver Star. He commanded one of the Swiftboats that was actually part of the action along with Kerry's and he personally saw what happened firsthand.

After repudiating my old friend's version of the story in general, he becomes specific. "John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes a man Kerry chased as a "teenager in a loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."

"The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well."

There is every reason to believe that the Swiftboat ads are a lie, I am sorry to say. I know that John is telling his lie, at least in part, out of a good heart. He hates Kerry for what he perceives as attacks on the Vietnam soldiers, but he is also lying out of ambition, I fear, and that is an ugly thing to see. He should have done what he did on the Dick Cavett show, which was to attack Kerry for his statements after the war, not for his war record. Instead, he has made a foolish and sinister misstep. I don't call it a mistake because mistakes are not made with so much care and attention. John has created anti-Kerry propaganda, pure and simple. It is cynical and it is evil, and it is very far from the sort of fair play we Americans teach our children and hope to see in one another.

And it is light-years from what the honorable, wonderful John O'Neill I once knew would have done. His was one of the most morally impeccable and intellectually honest spirits I ever knew. How terrible that this has happened to him--that he has chosen this dark road. How can he have forgotten the code of our fathers and our teachers at Central: the end never justifies the means if the means are dishonorable. A man IS his honor, and the basis of honor is truth.

Kerry can be criticized for the way he handled himself after the war, and the American people deserve to know exactly what he said and did in his opposition years, because this has a bearing on his candidacy. but we're not hearing that. The reason we aren't is because O'Neill and his friends know that a majority of Americans supported Kerry's position on the war, and that it is still unpopular. So they have chosen to try to undercut a record that Mr. Kerry appears to have won in blood--his own. In so doing, they have left their own honor in the mud.

The President has not yet repudiated the Swiftboat ads. If he does not, then he attaches himself, morally, to a dishonorable act. John McCain was quick to speak out against them, and right to do so. Bob Dole's defense of them is as fallacious as the ads themselves.

But John O'Neill and the President are friends. The President expects to win in November, and he's probably going to. In part, it will be because of John and his ads...and because the American people were willing to believe them. And the President is likely to reward his propagandist either with an important appointment, or with support in a Senate race.

In other words, John will have gained power by lying. In a strong, moral nation, that could not happen. The people would reject the lies and make quick work of him. Instead, he will be honored.

On the other hand, John O'Neill is an excellent man, but even the most excellent among us have weaknesses. John's is his zeal to protect what he loves, and he loves the men who suffered with him in that awful war. A laudable spirit and a dear old friend has gone down the wrong road, though. A lie is a lie, no matter how noble the cause in which it is told.

BUSH INDICTMENT

2. Authorizing, encouraging and condoning the use of excessive force, in terrorism, tactics called "Shock and Awe", targeting defenseless civilians and civilian facilities and indiscriminate bombing and assaults.

With All Due Respect

The other day it was reported in several papers that one of the spokespersons for the White House suggested that if there were any disruptions during the upcoming Republican Convention in New York, they would be blamed on Democrats showing disrespect for a ?sitting President.?

Now, that struck me as a rather peculiar choice of words. Considering that millions of people around the world have been left with an image of the current American President sitting in a classroom, being read an inane story about a goat while the sky over New York was exploding in flames, I certainly would choose my words with more care so as not to remind everyone of that moment of ignominy again.
Be that as it may, the spokesperson seems to believe that any man who happens to be President is entitled to be respected, just because of who he is; regardless of how well or poorly he performs the duties that go with the job. So, for example, Richard Nixon was worthy of respect until the moment he resigned and we must be respectful of George W. Bush, no matter how often he tells us lies.
That just doesn't seem right. Fortunately, for those of us with no military training in our background, one of John Kerry's real swift-boat mates has stepped forward to set us straight. John Cory* reminds us that the operative phrase is ?with all due respect.? Which, of course, implies that respect has to be earned. If it isn't, we don't have to give it. And that's the truth.

*http://www.smith-family.com/hannah/archive/000323.html

Preemptive Regulation

There's a nice piece by Kuttner in the Globe this morning in which he makes the point that regulation of business, the environment and probably even traffic is an effort to pre-empt abuse, mistakes and error (accidents) and that the people who have tried their darndest to get rid of regulations are now going after the trial lawyers, the last bastion of the public's effort to make people accountable for their actions.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/25/now_smearing_the_trial_lawyers

Kuttner doesn't overtly make the point that regulation is essentially pre-emptive, I think, but it's a point we should make over and over. The people who are all for pre-emptive aggression are the same people who resist pre-emptive regulation and pre-emptive legislation with all their might.

Come to think of it, pre-emption doesn't even apply to their assault on Iraq. What was pre-emptive in that regard was the negotiated surrender to the first Gulf War and the subsequent inspections and over-flights to make sure those surrender agreements were complied with.

The unprovoked assault by the U.S. and its allies was just that, an unprovoked assault based on misinformation, deception and falsification.

Perhaps if our sitting President had been a better student, he would know what the words his subordinates use actually mean.

I guess that was Secretary O'Neill's point when he referred to his boss as deaf. The fellow couldn't understand what people were telling him and the people who were talking couldn't see from his facial expressions that there was no comprehension.

Personal Memories

From the DFA Blog:

Although he was there a bit later than 1968-69, my "little" brother knew quite a lot firsthand about the ugly "secret" war in Cambodia. The SBVT crowd haven't scored high on the truth meter at all and quite a few people might feel emboldened to come out of the woodwork on the Cambodia issue, now that it's been raised.

Unfortunately, my brother lived for only 14 years after his Richard-Nixon-enriched experiences in Southeast Asia and died before reaching 40 ... while my sisters and I, together with our parents are still thriving.

Wonder how many of those of our soldiers stationed in Iraq who make it home will have much reduced lifespans as a result of the horrible things that they are being exposed to on a daily basis.

Thank you, BushCo, for leading us into an endless quagmire of hatred and misery and also inflicting wholesale death and suffering on the Iraqi people to an extent even Saddam may not have matched.

All I need to do is to remember my brother. I know exactly how he would vote in this election and it would NOT be for Bush!
Posted by JudyforDean at August 24, 2004 02:52 PM

The Pleasure Principle of Profit

Continuing my ruminations on how we can reframe and rename the subject of medical services for all, I've about settled on UNIVERSAL MEDICAL SERVICES as the most accurate name. Although somebody did suggest that PRE-EMPTIVE MEDICAL SERVICES might be more attractive to Republicans.

Anyway, I don't want medical insurance, 'cause there's nothing sure in life except that we are going to die, and I don't want care, "medical" or "health," 'cause care is an emotions that salves the conscience of him who feels it and does almost nothing for him who suffers. So, universal medical services for all is what we're after and what we should be promoting with all the candidates we meet and greet.

But, there's one more consideration that has to go into the equation. And that's the role of profit.
Which I why I have come up with the notion that profit is only appropriate when there's pleasure involved in a particular transaction. Which brings me to

THE PLEASURE PRINCIPLE OF PROFIT

A lot of people are inclined to believe that the economic system we refer to as "free market" is capitalistic because it assumes that people will make and trade things in order to make a profit.

I, however, tend to disagree with this simple explanation and prefer to focus on the fact that what capitalism calls for is a system of production and exchange (which people participate in rather spontaneously) which sets aside some of the wealth that's been created for use IN THE FUTURE, rather than consuming it on the spot or letting it go to waste. In other words, capitalism is first of all a concern for the future.

While capital in its visible manifestation is probably correctly equated with profit, profit is not only good, it represents an extra benefit that is experienced as the result of an exchange. Profit means that the recipient of a good or service is much better off than before he got it and better off than he expected. Profit is symbolic of pleasure.

So, the question I want to ask is whether and under what conditions someone who provides a good or service is actually entitled to a profit? I think most of our economists would say that, because profit is the motive, the reason why people do things, profit isn't just an entitlement, it's indispensible, if we want our economy to thrive.

But, what I want to suggest is that isn't necessarily so. If profit is actually a measure of how much pleasure the recipient of a good or service derived from, that would put a whole other face on our transactions, wouldn't it?

First because there are obviously some goods and services from which the recipients derive no pleasure at all. People in prison, for example, do not derive pleasure from being locked up. Indeed, the people who pay for keeping them locked up don't derive much pleasure from that transaction either.

So, if we employ the pleasure principle of profit, then we might conclude that prisons and other institutions, whose services the recipients don't like, should not be considered as generators of profit. When there is no pleasure, there is no way to accurately determine how big or how small the profit ought to be.

Which is not to say that those services which cannot be expected to provide pleasure should not be provided or paid for. Just that they should be delivered at cost. Making a prison a profit center almost certainly creates a potential for exploitation, or the extraction of outrageous "profits," simply because an appropriate profit cannot be determined.

Now, you may well ask how the pleasure principle of profit would apply to goods and services that are not intended to enhance pleasure and do not qualify as being necessary but unpleasant to the recipients, but serve, instead, to mitigate or make better a condition that causes pain or distress to the receiving individual. And my answer would be again, that goods and services which merely mitigate distress or return a recipient to a steady state, should not be in a position to generate a profit either.

If profit is related to the generation of pleasure, a benefit over and above the status quo ante, then goods and services which people would rather not have, but need, should be performed or delivered at cost. Which is not to suggest that costs, (past, present and future) shouldn't be fully calculated in order to insure that the provider is fairly compensated. They most certainly should be; at a much higher rate than they are now.

On the other hand, those medical services which are purely optional and designed to give the recipient a sense of pleasure, whether in the form of enhanced appearance, greater than normal physical prowess, or merely to satisfy a whim, should not only be profit centers, but they should be considered as distinct and different from those medical services which alleviate a particular disease, disability or injury when the level of compensation is considered and calculated.

If we don't make a clear distinction between medically necessary services and life "enhancing" procedures, the concept of universal medical service is probably not going to fly. Hardly anyone wants to pay for the enhancement of other people's pleasures. Common sense tells us that, if people just want to "feel better," they should pay for it themselves and provide the provider with a profit appropriate to his satisfaction.

Finally, the reason for more appropriate terminology for what we are after is pretty simple. The word "health" has been taken over by so much enterprise (health food, health spa, health club,health regimen, etc), aside from it being pretty obvious that healthy people don't require medical services as such, that more and more people are surely right to conclude, "I don't want to pay for that." A change in name might just change some minds.

Another Veteran for Truth

Unfit - My Letter To The Swift Boat Organization
John Cory
t r u t h o u t | Letter
About the author: John Cory is a Vietnam veteran. He received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star with V device, 1969 - 1970

Dear Sirs:

In the face of fact after fact that exposes your lies, you continue to foul and slander John Kerry. Your words and deeds cast doubt on all the honorable men who served gallantly; question the competence of former military leadership; and hurl dispersions on fellow soldiers, while denigrating the dead.

And for what?

You choose to align yourselves with those who smeared an honorable Vietnam POW, calling into question his sanity and his survival of the Hanoi Hilton. You choose to serve those who disgracefully painted a Vietnam veteran triple amputee as unpatriotic and less than a true American.

Where were you then? John Kerry was there for his fellow veteran brothers, where were you?

You choose to support men who had other priorities than serving their country. Men, whose self-interest was more important than duty, honor, and country; and you prefer to serve a man who treated his military obligation like Alcoholics Anonymous; picking and choosing what meetings he would or would not attend.

You choose to aid those who have soiled themselves with the blood of others.

You choose to be finger-puppets of a media obsessed with ratings and tabloid sensationalism. A media, that willfully avoids the truth and pain of the daily toll in Iraq: willing to set veteran against veteran in order to increase viewer share. A media, that happily promotes an old war as a means of avoiding responsibility for its promotion of the new war.

You choose to inflate your shriveled egos with the spotlight of hate and slander. You choose to deny both the truth and the lie that was Vietnam. Like the man you support, you choose to look away from the flag-draped reality of today, and instead, seek yesterday's false reflection, in hope of revenge. But you cannot right a wrong war, whether then or now.

I crawled the mud paddies of Vietnam and stuck my fingers in the gaping wounds, trying to stop the oozing blood that drained the life from my fellow soldiers. I have walked the old paths of war and seen the children that even today, lose limbs from the unexploded ordinance of yesterday's war. I have seen more honor and compassion in the eyes of the men who were once my enemy, than in the twisted piety of your vitriolic defamation.

You now seek to cover your previous words of endorsement with the stench of vomit and partisan bile. You speak of wanting honesty and openness, but your actions belie your lips.

You have chosen vanity over valor, hubris over honor, character assassination and fraud over fact. You have chosen to enfold yourself in the shadows of partisan politics while sniping at those who stand in the open light of their record. You have chosen to wear the uniform of shame.

No sirs, with all due respect, I submit that it is you, who are Unfit.

Questions and Answers

Since when did Iraq have an army. It was stated about a month ago that it was almost impossible to train these people cause they always ran away during a battle. So now we have a bunch of guys dressed up in army clothes and calling them a reserve army? It is just a front for the American occupation.
Also, the other day I was at a grassroots meeting in Arlington Va. One of the ladies is a veteran's rights organizer. She has a niece in Iraq near bagdad and is taking care of the nieces kids while she is gone.
Her niece came home for R&R and she said that so many of the military are really mad.
This lady is a maintenance specialist on helicopters and gets about $25000 a year from the guard. Now she has been replaced by a contractor who makes $160000 a year. She has been told to drive a supply truck cause all the "coalition of the billing" workers refuse to do that anymore cause they are being killed or taken hostage.
so now more of our troops are being made sitting ducks. so know that when bush asks for more money, it is for the contractors and very little for our troops. sad.

War News for August 22, 2004

Bring ?em on: Heavy fighting resumes in Najaf.

Bring ?em on: One Iraqi killed, two wounded in attempted assassination of Iraqi official near Tall Afar.

Bring ?em on: One Iraqi soldier killed, five wounded by roadside bomb near Mosul.

Bring ?em on: Two Iraqis killed, deputy governor wounded by car bomb near Baquba.

Bring ?em on: Explosions, smoke plumes reported near Green Zone in Baghdad.

Bring ?em on: Two Polish soldiers killed in ambush near Hilla.

Bring ?em on: Pipeline ablaze near Basra.

Bring ?em on: Seven Polish soldiers wounded by mortar fire near Karbala.

Bring ?em on: Iraqi intelligence officer killed in Basra.

Mission accomplished?
Posted by Charles in Montana at August 22, 2004 12:32 PM

True Story

Dear all -
I am not in the habit of forwarding messages; I rarely do it. But the story below is nearly unbelievable, and if I had received it from any source other than Kathy Kemp, via her mother Dorothy Fox, I would not have believed it to be a true account.
We lived across the street from Dorothy and Bill Fox in Kutztown for twenty years; we knew Kathy and her parents well. Anna went to school with both the students mentioned in the story. I find this account to be chilling in the extreme. Forward on to anyone you choose.
Janet

Dear Friends,

As you may or may not know, President Bush visited Kutztown, Pennsylvania on
Friday, July 9, 2004 for a "Town Hall Meeting." Tickets were only available through the Berks, Montgomery and Chester County Republican Committees, although a few were available through Kutztown University, where the president spoke. Requesting a ticket including submitting your name, address and social security number.

I did not request a ticket, but rather chose to hold a Kerry/Edwards sign during the morning of the visit. Protesters were kept well away from the area of the "Town Hall Meeting" and police and secret service agents made it very clear that you could be arrested for such things as stepping off the pavement or holding your sign above your head. Some protesters had their
vehicles broken into by the secret service because of "suspicions." One woman was removed from the "Town Hall Meeting" because she had on a John Kerry t-shirt. The events of the day provided an interesting lesson in civics, to say the least.

To follow is an article that I wrote describing my feelings about some of the things that happened at President Bush's "Town Hall Meeting." Please feel free to forward this to your friends who will be voting in November.

Kathy Kemp

For Josh--
In the months approaching November 2, 2004, Americans are preparing to vote in the upcoming presidential election. We will listen to the candidate¹s speeches, research their positions on the issues and make a decision on who we will support. In a dramatically divided nation, each and every vote will be a statement which speaks of the heart and mind of its people.

As I grew up in the 1960s and 70s, my parents instilled in me a civic pride and reminded me of my duty to participate in both the local and national processes which would allow each person¹s voice to be heard. In 1977, when I turned 18, I registered to vote and began a life-long commitment to having a personal stake in elections. As a registered Democrat, I have most often voted for the candidate of my party. But there have also been times when I researched, and voted for, candidates from the Republican and Independent parties. The ability to make this kind of choice illuminates the greatness of the United States of America.

As the 2004 presidential election began, there was no doubt in my mind that I would be voting for whichever candidate the Democratic Party put on the ticket. With a deep sense that the basic tenets of our country have been dismissed by the present administration, I am convinced that our nation needs new leadership. When John Kerry emerged as the leading candidate of
the Democratic party I became an active supporter. I believe that a government headed by John Kerry and John Edwards will work diligently to move our country in a direction that will value each citizen¹s role in the great machine we call America.

But on November 2, 2004, when I close the curtain of the voting booth, I will be casting my vote for someone else. I will be voting for Joshua Neyhart. His name will not be on the ballot and most likely, you have never heard of him. Josh is a 16 year old from Kutztown, Pennsylvania. He, with youth everywhere in our nation, is the future of our country. Years from now, Josh and his
compatriots will participate in our economy and elections, determining the fabric of America. Those of us who are older will depend on people like Josh to make wise decisions.

And so Josh begins the process of being a responsible citizen of our nati on. With news that President George W. Bush would be speaking at Kutztown University on Friday, July 9th, Josh volunteered to help set up the facilities in the gymnasium at KU hoping to receive coveted tickets to hear the president speak on his campaign tour. He walked the short distance from his home across the street from KU to the gym and helped set up equipment on Thursday evening.

On Friday morning, Josh was rewarded for his commitment to the process of American politics with two tickets to hear President Bush speak.

Josh and his cousin, Casey O¹Neil, were both ecstatic to know that they would have the opportunity to hear the president of the United States speak. They changed into dress clothing, he in a shirt and tie and she in a tasteful skirt and top, and took their place in the line of other ticket holders waiting to go through security checks. Josh and Casey were seated in a reserved section near the stage. This would perhaps be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them, hearing the president speak on issues such as the economy, Iraq and his commitment to education through the No Child Left Behind mandate.

But Josh and Casey never heard President Bush¹s speech. Soon after being seated, with no intent to disrupt the event, they were approached by a federal agent and asked for their names and addresses. Upon cooperating with the agent, Josh and Casey were told that they would have to leave the building because Josh¹s mother had allowed political protesters to gather on
her property. Josh and Casey were escorted from the building, denied their opportunity to hear President Bush speak.

Each of us, as responsible adults, should carefully consider the lesson which President Bush taught young Josh and Casey on Friday morning. The President of the United States made perfectly clear to these two students that if you disagree with him you will be removed from the political process. In Bush¹s classroom there is obviously no room for questions or differing opinions. Students with varied voices will be silenced. In the Bush school there will be only one Headmaster and his lesson plan will be followed without exception.

In a nation built on the premise of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, is this truly the lesson we want our young people to learn? If President Bush considers this type of treatment fair to the young citizens of the nation, how should we expect him to treat the
millions of disenfranchised adults throughout our country who are clamoring for jobs that pay a living wage, affordable health care and a clean environment that will sustain future generations of Americans?

Josh and Casey learned a hard lesson on Friday morning: President Bush plays hardball politics even with young people who are not yet old enough to vote.

Their lesson is complete, but the test is yet to come. Will we, the registered voters, allow someone like George W. Bush to shape the future of our children?

I want you to know, Josh, that I will not fail you. On November 2nd, when I press the button in the booth for the Kerry/Edwards ticket, in reality I will be casting my vote for you and your future.

Kathy Kemp

News Travels Slowly

This is my effort to explain why the dissemination of information is still so slow in this electronic age.
In addition to the point I've often made that the human brain still processes information at the same speed it always did and that it still takes three or more exposures for the information to register, there's the fact that while our communication on the blogs on the internet is almost instantaneous, media that are produced for formal distribution undergo an arduous time-consuming process, involving many technical individuals and many steps between the initial idea and its completion in a well-timed segment designed for repeated consumption by the general public.

Time, indeed, seems to be the crucial element. In order for programs to fit into a specific time-slot, they have to be rehearsed, often times over and over. And the script, which has to be written by someone, and then read at a certain pace, has to be co-ordinated with lighting and sound readings, etc. It's all so much more complicated than my typing here on the blog where the only impediment seems to be that the internet connection sometimes times-out before we have finished typing a thought.
Obviously, the transmission is so much quicker than the creation and here there are no intermediaries to make minute adjustments.
Not only does it still take a long time for people to gather information, write it up, get someone to agree that it's valid, find the proper format, and get it distributed at the time when it is going to be most effective, but there also has be adequate time for it to be digested.
So, I'd argue, for example, that the info on Kerry's war against BCCI is coming along at just about the right time. No doubt the shrub's people have been waiting for this shoe to drop. Maybe they thought they could drown it out be the VietNam protest stuff. Who knows?
What I do know is that the more I learn, the gladder I am that it's not Howard Dean who is going into the lists against these people. We are messing with some BAD dudes here. The last thing they want in the White House is a former prosecutor.

More Lying Liars & A Response

Is it just a coincidence that these groups have picked the center of Gainesville to spread their lies?
Hardly.
Alachua County is the most liberal in North Florida. It respects the rights of citizens to assemble and express themselves, even if what they are spouting are lies. This part of the sunshine state is, after all, where the Grand Dragon of the KKK chose to settle a couple of years ago.

GAINESVILLE RESPONDS

Bush The Errand Boy

Reading Derrick Jackson's column this morning, I have finally figured out a way to explain what's wrong with the shrub's effort to "blame" the action in Iraq on Kerry's vote to "authorize" the use of force.

As most everybody who reads the paper with any regularity knows by now, every police officer in the country is "authorized" to use lethal force in order to protect himself from harm or to save another person's life. This authorization does not, however, give the police officer the right to shoot (to kill, as he's been taught) whomever he happens to suspect of having done wrong, much less someone who might be simply planning to break the law.
In the event, whenever a police officer fires his weapon, whether he shoots someone or not, that action is reviewed and, if it is determined to have been reckless or unwarranted, he is liable to be dismissed.
Now, there may be an instance where the Chief of Police is also found to have been lax or irresponsible in the command and training of his subordinates, but the City Council, which "authorized" the use of lethal force by ordinance, will only be held responsible for the misuse of this authority, if there is reason to conclude that the Chief should have been disciplined earlier.
You may ask why the City Council even has to pass an ordinance to authorize the police chief and his subordinates to use lethat force. The reason is quite simple. If this authorization is misused, then the council, the representative of the citizens, is obligated to make some compensation to the victim of an unlawful act by its agents. In other words, the council, sitting as a legislative body, not only agrees to pay for the weapons and bullets the police will be able to use, but agrees to accept a certain responsibility that they will be used well.
Now, what the shrub would have us believe is that because Kerry and the other senators gave him the go-ahead to exercise his executive authority in dealing with a foreign country, the Senate "told" him to go shoot up Iraq. On the one hand, he would have us believe he's the Commander in Chief; on the other, he asserts that he's just an errand boy.

Bush Disadvantage

Dear Editor,

Yes, indeed, George W. Bush is at a distinct disadvantage in the upcoming election.  He's got a failed Presidency on his record--an administration in which his State Department provided false information to the United Nations; his Justice Department has brought frivolous after frivolous cases to the Courts; his Energy Department has failed to develop a comprehensive conservation plan; his Department of Environmental Protection has failed to enforce its regulations; and it's Defense Department has waged war on civilians while letting admitted terrorists slip away. 

Not to mention that he's been incapable of doing anything about an economy that has faltered because the rest of the world no longer trusts that the word of the United States is its bond.
The challenger, on the other hand, has a measly thirty years of public service to recommend him.  John Kerry has stints as a prosecutor, a lieutenant governor and a United States Senator on his resume; but no comparable executive experience.  In other words, the electorate has little to compare--little, that is, other than a reputation for being true to one's word.
It's a rough row to hoe when all of the promises made in 2000 have had to be broken.

Preemptive Interrogation

In case you needed an explanation, this picture ought to do it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/opinion/16herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fBob%20Herbert&pagewanted=print&position=

Preemptive Action

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that we should take on the concept of preemption, which most people probably don't understand what it means, and explicate it fully.

Preemption is what justified the internment of the Japanese on the west coast during World War II and for which we are now obligated to pay compensation.

Preemption is what justified the internment of people of Jewish descent in Germany and, when it became too difficult to sustain them, their extermination.

Preemption is what is justifying the interrogation and investigation of Quakers (a traditionally pacifist group) in Colorado.

Preemption is what is justifying the investigation of other pacifist organizations, even as middle-eastern illegals are entering the country by the hundreds in Arizona.

While it might make sense to believe that preemption is akin to locking the barn BEFORE the horse escapes, people are not horses and locking them up (via intimidation) is not in accordance with our concept of civilized behavior.

When you come right down to it, there's not a whole lot of difference between preemptive behavior based on suspicion and behavior based on prejudice. Both call for action without any basis in fact. That's not what this country is supposed to be about.

The doctrine of preemption not only needs to be exposed, it needs to be actively and vociferously rejected.

Cheney Got a Pass

In 2000, we gave Dick Cheney a pass on his voting record.  In 2004 we can
correct that error.
>
> Dick Cheney voted in the extreme right minority:

# In His First 6 Years As A U.S. Congressman, Cheney Found
Only 3 Supporters For His Legislative Proposals. In Cheney's
first 6 years as Wyoming's congressman, he only managed to
garner a total of 3 co-sponsors for all of his legislative
proposals. [thomas.loc.gov]

# Cheney's 11 Years In Congress Yielded Very Few Legislative
Achievements. In Cheney's 6 terms in the House of
Representatives, he proposed and passed only 2 bills, neither
of which could be considered a signature piece of
legislation. [thomas.loc.gov]

# In 1979, Cheney Voted Against the Legal Observance of MLK's
Birthday as a Federal Holiday. Cheney voted against the legal
observance of Martin Luther King Jr's birthday twice, and
rejected a compromise.

# In 1981, Cheney Was One of Only 20 Members to Vote Against
Restoring Minimum Social Security Benefits.

# In 1982, Cheney Was One of Only 38 Members to Vote Against
Veterans Administration Funding.

# In 1985, Cheney Was One of Only 48 to Vote Against the
Anti-Apartheid Act.

# In 1986, Cheney Was One of Only 28 Members Who Voted
Against Federal Fire Protection under FEMA.

# In 1987, Cheney Was One of Only 8 Who Voted Against Clean
Water Act.

# In 1988, Cheney Was One of Only 4 House Members to Vote
Against Banning Terrorist Guns.

# In 1988, Cheney Was One of Only 29 House Members to Oppose
Collection of Hate Crime Data.

What do we conclude from these votes? I conclude that Dick Cheney has a long history of ignoring the interests of individual citizens, both at home and abroad.

INVITATION

Man Entering Stealth Plane

Only a little more overt is the history of the 9/11 terrorists as outlined in the complete timeline prepared by the Center for Cooperative Research

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

Women Vote

VOTES FOR WOMEN

The women were innocent and defenseless.  And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic."

They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.  They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold.  Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.  Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on Nov.  15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote.  For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail.  Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.  When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited.  She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory.
Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly?  We have carpool duties?  We have to get to work?  Our vote doesn't matter?  It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie "Iron Jawed Angels."  It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say.  I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.

All these years later, voter registration is still my passion.  But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote.  Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too.  When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry.
She was--with herself.  "One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie," she said.  "What would those women think of the way I use--or don't use--my right to vote?  All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.  "The right to vote," she said, had become valuable to her "all over again."

HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video and DVD.  I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum.  I want it shown on Bunko night, too, and anywhere else women gather.  I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized.  And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse.  Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave.  That didn't make her crazy. 
The doctor admonished the men:
"Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."

Preemption

I think my topic this week is going to be that lovely word "preemption." Since the current occupant of the oval office is almost universally known as a plain-spoken person, isn't it just a bit strange that he's so attracted to this word that hardly anyone seems to know the meaning of?

When we consider that one of the most fundamental principles of our society is strict adherence to the conviction that every person is "innocent until proven guilty," then the doctrine of preemption has to be considered an aberration. Because, what "innocent until proven guilty" means in every day terms is that society will not interfere with an individual unless and until it is certain that he has done something wrong.
The doctrine of preemption turns this principle upside down. Because what it says is that society will interfere with individual rights BEFORE the individual has an opportunity to act.
Now, most people will probably respond that the doctrine isn't being applied to individuals at all. It's just self-defined groups, who have proclaimed themselves as terrorists and certain states we may not like, whose ability to do their thing is going to be preempted--i.e. prevented.
I know it looks like a good idea on paper. But, how do we know what anyone is going to do before he does it? Are we going to act on mere suspicion? That's what we are bound to do, if we act before anything untoward has happened.
Again, people might answer that it is just unfriendly groups and states who are going to be interfered with. But, as today's news reports indicate, that's not the case. That's because the current administration has just announced a whole new program to interfere with millions of individuals, both adult and children, by making them submit to tests for mental illness BEFORE there's any indication they might need it. In other words, people's right to freedom of speech and action is going to be preempted in order to make sure they aren't in anyway inclined to behave in an obstructive manner.
The next thing you know, individuals are going to be tested, BEFORE they are even born, to find out if they are fit to be citizens of these great United States. And if the tests show that they're not? They're going to be preempted, or prevented. Choose whatever word you want. It's about the only choice you are going to have left.

aljazeera's iraqis

Sensitive Guys

A bunch of editors around the country got this letter.

Dear Editor,

So George W. Bush and John Kerry both used the word "sensitive" in
connection with the terrorist threat.
The problem we have is that the current administration doesn't know what
"sensitive" means. If they did, they wouldn't have broadcast sensitive
information about an ongoing operation in Britain to identify some AlQaida
agents and they certainly wouldn't have revealed the identity of one of our
CIA operatives in order to take revenge on her husband.
Since Vice President Cheney's office is widely rumored to have been
responsible for the latter, it's not surprising that he tried to twist the
meaning of the word in a speech he gave today.
George W. Bush may not know the legal definition of the words in his
speeches, but Richard Cheney certainly should.He's been in government
service long enough to know better.

Random Searches

Here are a couple of pictures I ran across Googling this and that.

And just to be fair, here's one of George and Laura with their friend Sami (who's now languishing in a South Florida prison)

Nature Report

We've had about four and a half inches of rain here in the last two days. So all our paths between the ponds and across the fields have turned into little rivers, when it's actually raining. And because of that, the running water, the crayfish are leaving their burrows in the banks of the ponds and going along with the flow.
Problem is, for the crayfish, that when it stops raining and the rivulets disappear, they are left high and dry, so to speak--i.e. they become bird food.
See, that's how it goes. Crayfish are obviously programmed to follow flowing water but they can't tell the difference between a stream and a sodden path. Probably because they are running on automatic and there's not enough room in their brains for memory cells.
Which may be the shrub's problem as well. His memory function seems impaired.

To Believe or to Act

I think it was yesterday I made the point that the shrub seems particularly adept at taking credit for success and blaming someone else for failure. What I didn't point out is that not only does that not make him very different from most people, but that there might be a good psychological, if not evolutionarily beneficial, reason for this practice.
Which would be what, you might ask? Well, since failure, especially in very important matters, tends to be psychologically debilitating and may even lead to an inability to take further action, either of a similar nature to what already failed or even any other, being able to get rid of the sense of failure by blaming someone else, makes it possible for the individual to go on and so something else--i.e. to progress.
The problem with applying this theory to the shrub and recognizing its potential benefits arises from the fact that the shrub does NOT act. Indeed, he does nothing and, if his comments to the Unity conference are to be believed, he's not even aware that he does nothing. For him belief is the beginning and end of his responsibility. He "believed" that there are WMD in Iraq, so the American military should fetch them. He "believes" that minorities should be well represented among professional journalists, but that's where his perception stops.

There are a lot of people, and the shrub I think is one of them, who make a big thing out of this being a country of laws, not men. What most of us interpret that to mean is that social decisions are incorporated in laws and those laws are then applied, regardless of the social condition of the individual concerned.
However, that's not what shrub and his cronies have in mind. To their way of thinking, if a little person runs afoul of the law and "breaks" it, he's to be punished. But, when a big or important individual or group disagree with a law, the law needs to be changed.
And that's the platform on which the shrub is running. What he really believes the President ought to be is the top law-giver (a couple of people running for governor in my state think that too), when in fact the position he holds is that of top law upholder and carry-outer.
I'm using that simplistic language intentionally because it seems that's what it's going to take to make the difference between a legislator and executive understood.
The only way the Shrub can compare himself to Kerry is by pretending that making laws is his job. It's not and Kerry knows it. In fact, I would bet that one of the reasons Kerry is angling to become the executive is because he's sick and tired of having the legislative programs he shepherded through the Congress ignored by the executive branch. Certainly his prime mentor, Teddy Kennedy, who obviously can't aspire to the Presidency himself anymore, must be sick and tired of having his policies ignored.
There are some political pundits who would have us believe that the executive has become too powerful. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the executive wants to both make the laws and carry them out and since there's usually not enough time for both, the executive functions get delegated way down the line where they get bolixed up. And if that's not what happens, then there's a horde of lobbyists who are trying to get out of the executive what they didn't get in the law and so they try the rationale that "this is what the law would be, if we had enough time to get it down" so "why not do it our way anyhow."
I actually think that Kerry is making a good start on saying what he's going to DO as president. At least the quote from his speech to the minority journalist indicated action and the clip they showed yesterday of his visit with seniors was about doing things to bring competition into the arena of prescribed medications.
If you want a specific example of the problem, take a gander on the story of the imminent release of Hamdi, the American who was taken prisoner and whom the shrub's administration tried to deprive of his civil rights by reclassifying his status as an enemy combatant. What happened there is that the executive tried to change the law until, finally, the courts had to step in to tell them that they can't do that. What a waste of resources--of the executive and the judicial branch!
Also, in the area of the DEA exercising control over prescribed pain medications, they've now had to step back and return to the medical community the right to dispense medicines as they see fit.
That the executive is taking on himself the right to make de facto law about research on stem cells and the advice people can get about reproductive matter is just plain outrageous.

Owning What?

New Hampshire is obviously still a swing state. After treating the true-believers to a visit from their commander-in-chief on the Scamman Farm in Stratham, the Bush campaign released a new ad on our airwaves.

It's all about the benefits of owning things--a house, a health plan, a retirement plan. Why? Because people who own things, as opposed to being renters of living for free in public housing, like the resident-in-chief of the White House I suppose, have a vested interest in their country.
And that's a good thing.

Why, you might ask, is it a good thing to own things? Is it because the native Americans who didn't conceive of property being private, were tricked out of the use of their lands by people who understood full well that ownership meant that other people should and could be kept out?
Or is it because the impulse to own things that others want makes people more competitive and competition, in and of itself, is a good thing?

When Republicans talk about ownership, it's a little of both, I would guess. But there's also something else. There's the belief, probably quite sincerely held, that when people own things, they can be held responsible for their proper use and preservation for the future.

That's a nice idea, but experience seems to indicate that there's no evidence to support it. Whether or not people own things or just use them on a temporary basis, their interest tends to be relatively short-lived and, even when an object isn't designed to be disposable, they discard things almost without a second thought. All we have to do is look around us to see that's true. Just look at the abandoned buildings, the mountains of trash, the road-side weighing stations, the water-logged coal mines, the crumbling smoke stacks and all of the brown fields on which nothing useful is able to grow because of the poisonous residues left behind. Not to mention all the children and old people abandoned by their relatives.

It seems pretty obvious, to me at least, that the Republicans just don't understand. They think that the issue is what people want; when, in fact, what government is designed to deal with is what people DON'T want. Helping us get rid of waste, disease, contamination, agression and ignorance, for starters, is what government is supposed to be about. When it does that, individuals can take care of the rest themselves.

Fatal Iraq

Alabama, 19; Alaska, 1: American Samoa, 2; Arizona, 18; Arkansas, 13; California, 108; Colorado, 12; Connecticut, 8: Delaware, 6; Dist. Of Columbia, 2; Florida, 41; Georgia, 22; Guatemala, 1; Hawaii, 1; Idaho, 5; Illinois, 37; Indiana, 20; Iowa, 12; Kansas, 12; Kentucky, 13; Louisiana, 13; Maine, 6; Marianas Protectorate, 1; Maryland, 10; Massachusetts, 19; Michigan, 28; Minnesota, 10; Mississippi, 13; Missouri, 17; Montana, 2; Nebraska, 13; Nevada, 2; New Hampshire, 3; New Jersey, 22; New Mexico, 3; New York, 37; North Carolina, 22; North Dakota, 6; Ohio, 29; Oklahoma, 15; Oregon, 20; Pennsylvania 49; Puerto Rico, 9; Rhode Island, 5; South Carolina, 18; South Dakota, 6; Tennessee, 21; Texas, 78; Utah, 4; Vermont, 9; Virgin Islands, 2; Virginia, 23; Washington, 17; West Virginia, 6: Wisconsin, 19; Wyoming, 4. --

SS 2004

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. !
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of
course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their
rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for
themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own
benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it.
After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may
expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand
Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of
their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two
Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more
during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick
up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come
directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,
every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) we
can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly
benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's
benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and
Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
.....
then sit back.....
and watch how fast they would fix it.

Counterpoint

This is an entry I posted at
http://thecounterpoint.blogspot.com/

If you consider that there has been a long-range plan to reposition American military assets, including sea and land bases, in the Persian Gulf region, that Saudi Arabia has proven inhospitable, that the island of Guam isn't big enough and neither are Qatar or Kuwait, then you might conclude that the pressure on Iraq had more to do with softening them up to make them receptive to the fourteen military land bases that have been planned and are now being constructed. You might also opine that the policy developers in the Pentagon had grown impatient with Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance and ANY excuse for taking aggressive action was to be welcome.

If so, then the failure to pay close attention the NIE is easily explained by the recognition that it was just a smoke screen, or perhaps a fig leaf, to disguise the real agenda.
In my mind, the absolute absence of even a trace of WMD in Iraq suggests that Saddam had the place scrubbed clean in order to show up the U.S. policy as a fraud.
What I further suspect, if my hypothesis has merit, is that the provoked uprising in Iraq will continue until the countries in the region run out of patience and agree that it might be a good idea for the Americans to bring in their military assets on a permanent basis, especially if they continue to pay through the nose for the messes they are creating.
I find it interesting that, under the guise of challenging the Administration's attitude towards nuclear proliferation, the possibility of Saudi acquisition of nuclear arms is being surfaced. If Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel all have nuclear weapons, what better reason do we need for the Americans to sit in their midst and keep the peace?

Expectations

Being somewhat lazy today, I'm going to repost what I wrote for the DFNH blog.

As you may have noticed in our Newmarket Meetup report, the two Democratic Candidates for Governor had a chance to critique each other's positions. Well, they showed up again this weekend at the Strafford County Dem Picnic at Katie Payne's. This time, however, John Lynch had to rush off before he could hear Paul McEachern give an even more impassioned speech in favor of making some basic changes in how New Hampshire pays for its government.

I think his point that the property tax is an unfair state-wide tax is well taken, especially since it seems to be forcing old timers to sell and maybe retire elsewhere (where the public services aren't nearly as good) while the buyers, having paid inflated prices for their mortgaged houses, are unwilling to pay for the additional services they need. Not to mention that these inflated sales aren't really reflected in the valuation for taxes because "equalization" might have the effect of driving even more old timers out.
Anyway, I hope the discussion Paul McEachern has been brave enough to begin will bear some practical fruit.

There are two more points I want to make. One is that it is really a bad habit for people who are angling for an executive position to focus on trying to change the directions that have been provided by the legislative bodies. A governor is not charged with providing "direction" for the legislators. Rather, a governor is simply responsible for carrying out their directives. If he isn't willing or able to do that, he shouldn't be running for Governor or President, for that matter.
The second one is that the main difference between government and a business is that the recipients of government services either don't want them (criminals of various sorts) or don't appreciate that they need them (school aged children). Consequently, how much these services cost is not amenable to being based on how many people want them and can afford to pay. That, of course, is why we designate representatives who are empowered to make these decisions for the community, as well as for the recipients. What we, ordinary citizens, need to do is let them know what we expect and hold them to it.
Oh yes, it might also be nice to let them know when they are doing a good job.

Security Threat?

PRESS RELEASE
August 7, 2004

Kurdish Michigan Resident Wrongfully Detained by Dept. of Homeland Security

Attend his Bond Hearing in Detroit Aug. 10

CONTACT: MARTIN DZURIS, 269-469-9957, cell 269-449-0023

Ibrahim Parlak, owner of Cafe Gulistan in Harbert, Michigan, was taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security on July 29, 2004 on the grounds that his activism for Kurdish rights in Turkey in the 1980s make him a threat to national security.

He was detained based on charges from a Turkish military court, for which he already served his sentence in Turkey in the late 1980s. He came to the U.S. 13 years ago and was granted political asylum based on the fact that he was persecuted and tortured in Turkey, but now the DHS is calling him a threat to national security for the very same reasons he was previously granted asylum. No circumstances have changed nor has new information surfaced since the US gave Parlak asylum, and he has no criminal record or violations during his time in the U.S.

Parlak possibly faces deportation to Turkey, where he will be at risk of harm or even death. He is an active contributing member of our society, who brings employment and culture to our community and donates time and money to local causes. He holds pacifist beliefs and does not support or endorse violent means to any political ends.

Ibrahim Parlak was born a Kurd in Turkey a country with numerous human rights violations against the Kurdish people. In his homeland, Parlak experienced punishment and torture from the Turkish government - he was living a life of fear and persecution. Parlak was not permitted to speak his own language, observe his own culture or determine the path of his own life. He became involved in the Kurdish freedom movement, where his actions included writing for a newspaper, educating Kurds in Europe about their heritage, and raising awareness in the Kurdish community about their culture, which was being eradicated. His work was also aimed at gaining political recognition of the Kurds as a legitimate political group, free to speak their language openly, and entitled to representation in the Turkish parliament.

He opened Café Gulistan in 1994, and worked extremely hard to make it a successful establishment and community focal point. He has a daughter, Livia, age 7, who is a U.S. citizen by birth. Parlak is a member of the Harbor Country Chamber of Commerce, and owns a home and restaurant in Harbert.

On Tues Aug 10, Parlak will have a bond hearing at the Immigration Court in downtown Detroit at 1:00 pm. Community support will help end this groundless detention and ensure his civil rights are protected.

Asking for Votes

The presumptive Republican candidate for President was in our neighborhood
yesterday and he asked us to vote for him. The bible does say, "Ask and
you shall receive" and its nice to be asked. But, I'm sort of wondering
why what worked last time around should work this time.
In the last election, this candidate promised, among other things, to keep
us out of other nation's business. That was obviously a false promise and
he's not making it this time around. But now that he's got a record of
achievements, however dubious, giving him our vote just because he asks for
it reminds me of the panhandlers we see more and more of.
The other thing to remember when we consider whom to give our vote is all
of the people who don't have one--not just the children who are still too
young and count on us to consider their best interest, but all of the
people around the world who have no say in choosing the leader of the
country that determines whether they live or leave their children behind as
orphans.
It's really quite an awesome responsibility, making a choice that could
promote or destroy whole civilizations. At the very least, we should
choose a careful person, someone whose reverence for life is equal to his
reverence for the truth. And, of course, somebody who's earned our trust.

Religion

Not a Flip-Flopper

Dear Editor,

Richard Cohen is wrong when he writes that George W. Bush is a flip-flopper.
Our President obviously has a memory problem, so it's not fair to expect him to remember what he says from month to month, or even day to day.

Actually, when it comes to nation building, the charge is downright false.  So far, the only thing that's been happening in Afghanistan and Iraq is destruction.  There might be some people who'd call it "creative destruction," but in the case of Iraq, the plan was never to create or build an independent nation.  Rather, Iraq is supposed to be where we locate our new military bases, probably because the island of Guam isn't big enough to handle everything we're moving out of the U.S.

The formal terminology for this strategy is "force realignment," but while GWB obviously tries hard to follow Shakespear's advice to "speak the speech I pray you as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue," bureaucratic jargon is not his forte, and he doesn't need any more things to trip him up.

Terror Timeline

Biltud, from Salon.com's TT, has put together a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration.

Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Timeline of Terror Alerts

Biltud, from Salon.com's TT, has put together a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration. I compiled all these correlations and organized them chronologically into a timeline. I also added additional data, detailing the terror alerts over the last few years. Note how the terror alerts relate to the news headlines of the days immediately prior to that very alert. I think it's very easy to see a pattern recurring:

May 22, 2002 -- Bush goes on the record as opposing the formation of an independent commission to look into why 9/11 happened.

Mr. Bush's comments come after a two-day hearing on Capitol Hill with FBI director Robert Mueller and the agent who wrote the so-called "Phoenix memo" last summer warning about that Arab students training at U.S. aviation schools were linked to a militant Muslim group.

Same day:

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee votes to issue subpoenas to the Bush administration for information on its contacts with bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp.

May 24, 2002 -- Railroad and other transit systems across the country received a Transportation Department warning based on "an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report", and were told to "remain in a heightened state of alert". Earlier this week, the government issued warnings about the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, leading to tightened security at an around those New York City locations.

September 20, 2002 -- In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry.

The White House also refuses to turn over documents showing what Bush knew before 9/11.

September 21, 2002 -- The Pentagon completes and delivers to President Bush a highly detailed set of military options for attacking Iraq, said the New York Times, quoting Pentagon and White House officials on Saturday.

The president has options now, and he has not made any decisions," states Ari Fleischer.

September 23, 2002 -- Former Vice President Al Gore warns that President Bush's doctrine allowing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq could create a global "reign of fear."

September 23, 2002 -- Victory for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ruling coalition came after a campaign in which he emphasized his strong opposition to a US war with Iraq.

September 24, 2002 -- Based on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council has made the decision to return the threat level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or "yellow" level.

February 6, 2003 -- Powell pleads with the UN Security Council for a first strike against Iraq.

February 9, 2003 -- Citing credible threats that al Qaeda might be planning attacks on American targets, the U.S. government raised the national color-coded threat level Friday to orange, indicating a "high" risk of a terrorist attack.

Note: In what has become since an object of jokes and derision, the Department of Homeland Security urged citizens to stock up on plastic sheets and duct tape "in case of a chemical attack."

Note 2: Also keep in mind that they raised the alert level quickly after numerous anti-war organizations declared their intention to march against the plans to invade IRaq. In New York city, where nearly one million citizens voiced their opposition to the war plans, the level was placed in hightened alert just on time for the massive demonstrations of February 15, 2003.

May 19, 2003 -- President Bush admits that major combat operations are continuing in Iraq. On May 1, Bush went on national TV to proclaim the end "major combat operations."

In an interview with the Armed Forces Radio Bush said: ? We still have combat operations going on. It's a different kind of combat mission, but, nevertheless, it's combat, just ask the kids that are over there killing and being shot at."

May 20, 2003 -- The United States raises the nation's terror threat level Tuesday, saying the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda has entered an "operational period worldwide" and might attack within the US.

July 25, 2003 -- After the Bush administration delayed its publication for months, Congress releases its 9/11 findings. The government also deletes 28 pages of the report believed to detail Saudi funding of members of Al Qaeda in the Untied States prior to Sept. 11.

July 28, 2003 -- US troops charged with beating Iraqi POWs.

15 US soldiers die over 8 days in Iraq.

July 29 -- Department of Homeland Security issues a warning about the possibility of suicide attacks on airplanes.

December 18, 2003 -- 9/11 Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable.

Dec. 19 2003 -- A federal appeals court ruled the government can not detain U.S. citizen Jose Padilla indefinitely without pressing charges against him or allowing him access to the courts.

Same day -- The Wall Street Journal reports that auditors at the Pentagon are accusing Halliburton of refusing to hand over internal documents related to allegations that the oil service company overcharged the U.S. government in iraq.

Same day -- David Kay quits, having found no WMDs.

Dec. 21, 2003 -- Ridge raises the terror threat level just in time for the holidays.

February 6, 2004 -- CIA Director George Tenet Thursday said Iraq never posed an imminent threat to the United States.

February 7, 2004 -- Tom Ridge raises the terror alert.

March 15, 2004 -- Military families say bring the troops home.

March 16, 2004 -- Dems call for probe on Medicare cost cover-up.

March 17, 2004 -- Condoleeza opts of 9/11 Commission hearings.

March 17, 2004 -- Tom Ridge raises threat level to elevated.

March 30, 2004 -- Rice continues to refuse to testify publicly in front of 9/11 Commission.

April 1, 2004 -- US contractors killed and mutilated in Iraq. Medical evacuations in Iraq hit 18,000. Bush refuses to release Clinton papers to 9/11 Commission. And Richard Clarke is all over the news.

April 2, 2004 -- A bulletin sent from the FBI & Homeland Security warn of terrorists that may try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer.

May 18, 2004 -- Colin Powell tells Meet the Press that he was deliberately mislead about WMD information. Powell's aide tries to cut him off mid-air.

May 18, 2004 -- Newsweek reports that President Bush's top lawyer warned two years ago that Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of how his administration was fighting the war on terror.

The 9/11 Commission begins another round of hearings in NYC.

May 19, 2004 -- Nothing but bad news about prisoner abuse in Iraq, including breaking news that the Pentagon was told about the abuses back in November. Senate Armed Forces Committee holds hearings.

May 20, 2004 -- United States goes on Orange Alert.

July 6, 2004 -- Kerry names Edwards as his running mate.

July 8, 2004 -- Tom Ridge announces a terror alert.

July 11, 2004 -- Senior White House officials discuss how to delay elections.
Can you connect the dots?

# Posted by Julius Civitatus @ 4:00 PM

The bureaucratic cabal

OK. Announcing new topic!!!

As some of you may have noticed, I've been thinking more about the bureaucracy, in part because of a letter Bill had written to an editor and posted on the DFA blog.
Thinking about this some more, I was reminded of Rep Conyer's statement, as reported in Michael Moore's documentary, that our representatives don't have time to read the legislation they vote on. Just in the last couple of days, Conyer's expanded that statement by observing that they have staff to do the reading and researching.
And that's true. But what's also true is that while it is sometimes reported that the Congressional staffing levels have been increasing significantly (mostly in conjunction with stories that touch on how other departments in the government are shrinking), this cadre of bureaucrats tends to be almost totally ignored.
I think we assume that Congressional staff are largely composed on interns who rotate out after a relatively short tenure and that when a Congressperson is "retired" the staff leave Washington as well. But, that's not really what happens.

On bureaucrats--continued

If you look at the biographies of people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc, what becomes apparent is that mid-level bureaucrats in the executive and legislative branches enjoy a "revolving door" that never even gets them out of Washington for decades at a time. The only thing that's different now is that some members of this invisible cadre of bureaucratic operatives have become visible and if we take a real close look, we can come to realize that the policies they are implementing now, are policies they have been pushing for decades. Moreover, the deceptive practices they are engaged in now are practices they have similarly employed for decades.
When you come to think of it, the revolving door between government and the so-called "private" corporate sector, about which there are occasional articles and which has been addressed by legislative action, is actually a lot less insular and persistent. When people return to the private corporate sector, they are at least living in real America beyond the Washington circuit. The people that rotate through the executive and legislative stall levels, never get out into the real world. Oh, sometimes, they land in a think-tank for a while, but that environment is no more realistic than their usual venues.

On bureaucrats--continued further

I think what we need to pay attention to is that, just as a close observer of the House and Senate proceedings will eventually notice that the people running the sessions are either working from a script prepared by some staffer or getting prompted by someone off to the side as to what they are supposed to say in order to keep the meeting on schedule and make sure that nothing unexpected happens, our representatives, except for a few like Senator Byrd, don't really know what they are doing or saying. They are mouth-pieces for their staffs.
And so is the President of the United States.

On bureaucrats--even more

What makes this President so popular with the coterie in his administration is that he does and says exactly what they tell him and then, when what they told him turns out to be wrong, he supports them with a straight face by claiming that he still believes that what he did and said was right. And he does. He believes it because he's a trusting fellow and an optimist.
What that does is it makes the current resident of the White House the perfect shill. But attacking him as such is not going to impress the people who want to believe him.
So, it seems to me that the only effective strategy we can follow is to expose the real liars and the pullers of strings. It isn't Bush that needs to be skewered and exposed; it's all those people who have been pursuing their own agenda to rule the world without seeming to.

On bureaucrats--the invisible ones

In theory, the longevity of the technical and even legislative bureaucracy is supposed to be a good thing because it balances the anticipated turnover at the top (the decision-makers) through the electoral process. Also, it's sort of assumed that this turnover at the top will be associated with changes at the next several levels down the hierachy. But, that's not what happens. When someone gets unelected, regardless of their party affiliation, their subordinates just move over into the offices of whoever new comes in.
In other words, just as grassroots politics has been replaced by election experts and consultants, the staffing of legislative committees and executive departments is done by "experts" whose performance tends to get a pass from the press. Why? Because these are the people on whom the press relies for the information for their stories. It's all those "un-named sources" who curry the press. So, in exchange, the press protects them. And the people who get blamed are the people who don't really know a thing.

On bureaucrats--their falibility

We have all become familiar with the fact that sometimes there are unanticipated consequences that are the exact opposite of what we expect. Having a permanent legislative buraucratic staff is one such.
When it became necessary for our elected representatives to spend almost all their time and energy getting and staying elected, most of us probably assumed that a permanent staff cadre would keep the legislative process moving. But, our desire for permance and their desire for longevity does not have the same result. Indeed, what guarantees continued employment at the staff level is legislation that needs to be constantly corrected and ammended. So, there's no incentive to get it right the first time.
To a certain extent, we have the same problem with the press. Every messed up story is an opportunity for a correction. Every mis-quote is an opportunity for an elaboration. As a result we end up with more and more verbiage and ever less information.
At least when it comes to legislation there is an opportunity for another branch, the judicial, to step in and correct the most eggregious messes. Of course, that's also why there is so much effort to put a muzzle on the courts. Both the executive and the legislative bureaucracies have a vested interest in not having their "work-product" reviewed and thrown out.
So, what do we conclude? I think we can fairly reasonably conclude that the American government has been hijacked by the mid-level bureaucracy and that our elected representatives have been distracted from their legislative responsibilities by the need to concentrate almost full time on raising money for the media coverage they won't get unless it is sanctioned by their legislative staffs.
Should we say that our representatives have been kidnapped?

On bureaucrats--finally

I guess what started me thinking about all of the above was my encounter with two New Hampshire democrats vying to replace one of the Republicans this state has sent to Congress.
Bob Bruce and Justine Nadeau are two very different people. One is old and retired from a couple of careers in the military and in law enforcement. The other is young, barely out of law school and intent on continuing the family tradition of public service. Or, perhaps just drumming up business by running for a seat that seems unwinnable.
One has a real shoe-string operation with a wife who totes campaign materials and sets them out at meetings. The other has a staff person following him around on whom he already relies to answer the simplest questions.
The candidates appeared together, along with about seven others for various positions, at our candidate forum last month. While the old fellow's presentation, which he read from notes, was not particularly inspiring or spirited, the younger gave an impression of enthusiasm and energy but, on reflection, really said nothing much, except that his grandfathers had held opposite political persuasions.
Oh, yes, there's another real difference between these two. The old fellow had barely $800 in his campaign account at the end of the quarter and the young up-start, though his filing was late, reported having $10,000.
So, who's going to win the primary in September. Stay tuned.