Eight Years Later - Told Ya' So!

In 2000, I wrote to the Seattle Times editorial board, after they endorsed G.W. Bush over Al Gore for President (original Times article). What follows is my letter to them. In reading it again, it amazes me that so many of the pudits and political prognosticators have been caught off-guard by the death, destruction, and economic devastation of the past eight years. I had lost the letter since then, but finally found it today. Here it is, followed by an email I sent the Times in 2004, after they endorsed Kerry.
___________________________________

RE: Seattle Times endorsement of G.W. Bush for President
October 4, 2000

I was beyond "surprised .. disappointed, [and] dumbfounded" (Mindy Cameron) at the Times' endorsement of G.W. Bush for President. I have been consistently dismayed by the media's focus on the "exaggerations" of Mr. Gore, many of which have in fact been exaggerations by the press regarding what Gore said and what he meant (see "Will Pseudo-Scandals Decide the Election?" at http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-21/wilentz-s.html).

But for the Times to state that this decision is based upon an "overpowering need for integrity and civility in office, for a realistic balance between government and commerce, for a new, bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation" is naive at best, and ignorant at worst. Integrity and civility? Obviously the Times has been paying as little attention to this "compassionate conservative" as the rest of the "liberal media." This is a man who has been investigated for securities fraud. The SEC took no action - it was passed off as ignorance on Bush's part. This makes the Times' endorsement even more distressing. A man who had graduated from Harvard Business School, took his business through two mergers, and touts his business savvy, still managed to miss not one but FOUR SEC filing deadlines, and finally saw his business fail at the expense of just about everyone but himself. (Please see Times/AP article of September 07,2000 "Bush says Gore waffling on debates; candidate's ads suggest that vice president can't be trusted" by Laurie Kellman, and Eric Alterman's "The scandal no one cares about," found at http://www.msnbc.com/news/477199.asp). In light of this history, the Times' assertion that"Bush understands the dynamics of taxes, regulations and enterprise that form a successful business" is eery, if not downright frightening. Maybe Bush's foibles in this area were not intentional, maybe they were. Either way, I hardly want to trust this nation's future to a man who would either bungle things this badly or would intentionally defraud stockholders. By the way, the SEC was chaired at the time Richard Breeden, a former aide and appointee of the senior Bush. The SEC denies any favoritism. Of course they do. Who investigates the SEC?

That Bush would bring us "a realistic balance between government and commerce" is an interesting endorsement for a man who has a history involving the taking of private property for public use. Take a look at Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, through which Bush and his pals managed the expropriation of some 270 acres of private land, used less than 20 acres of it for his ballpark, and parlayed the rest into commercial ventures which apparently put quite a bit of change in his pocket. This is not to mention the cash he walked away with after getting his ballpark. A state judge later ruled that the amounts paid to the property owners involved was far below market value, and a settlement was paid. I obtained much of this information from very limited sources (including a Times/Knight Ridder article of May 27, 2000, "How Bush made his fortune" by Chris Mondics, and again Alterman's above-noted article at msnbc.com). All of this is certainly part of public record, court documents, etc. I've looked for it, but have found little from my computer in Kingston. But I'm a civilian. I count on the media to ferret these things out and inform the public. I'm very frustrated that this hasn't happened.

The Times also based their endorsement on a need for a "bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation," later stating that "Bush promises to bring a sense of bipartisanship to the White House and has shown that ability with Democrats in the Texas statehouse." Has the Times bothered to interview Democrats in the Texas statehouse? I have heard interviews with these supposedly happy bipartisans, and they are NOT all that happy. I dare the Times staff to dial the phone numbers of a few legislators in Texas with "D" behind their name and see how much cheer and goodwill comes through over the telephone line. Contrary to his implication that he brought harmony to the patient's bill of rights debate, they will tell you he was dragged kicking and screaming to the issue. He did not support it, and he did not sign it. The bill only became law because he declined to veto it, knowing he would be overridden. Ask these happy Texans about Bush's role in hate crimes legislation. He did not back it, but he was eager to take credit for its implementation in Texas. Bush accuses Gore of exaggerations and lies - go to Texas and meet with these people and see how jolly a bipartisan bunch they are. THEN tell me that Bush is the man to bring bipartisanship to Washington DC.

And while you're at it, reassure me that Bush's party won't have more to say about things in a Bush White House than Bush himself. To reassure those of us who question his qualifications for President, he has promised he will surround himself with people who know what they're doing. Most of these people - if not all - will be of the party that brought us one of the most partisan periods in recent memory over things that mattered little to most of the rest of us. Is Bush strong enough in his convictions to override his keepers and impose his will? And what are his convictions, anyway? In the Times' endorsement it is stated of Gore that "He equivocates on nearly everything." But the same statement could easily be made of Mr. Bush, as he artfully dodges the issue of abortion. This is the most distressing issue of all in reflecting on the Times' endorsement of this man. This is not just one election. This is not just one possible Supreme Court nomination. This is a possible four nominations. This one election could cost women dearly in the years to come in their right to control their reproductive decisions. We already live in a time when the right of a husband to decide to end a pregnancy to save the life of his comatose wife has been challenged in court by a complete stranger. We live in a time when a woman has been prosecuted for opting to undertake natural childbirth rather than undergo a caesarian section as recommended by her doctor (and both mother and child were healthy after natural childbirth, by the way). We are hanging on to our reproductive rights only by sweat and vigilance. The editorial staff of the Times can wait for some other election to have a romance with "free-flowing" talk and illusions of integrity. With these possible nominations in the balance, I am horrified that the Times would endorse, using words like "clear choice" and "superior candidate," a man with whom they admittedly disagree on this important issue. And with the endorsement of a man so obviously flawed and ill-prepared for the most powerful station in the world, these words cause me to question the integrity and credibility of the Times itself.

___________________________________

September 7, 2004:

RE: Times Endorses Kerry - So what were you thinking four years ago?

The Times has seen the light - finally! Following your 2000 endorsement of Bush for President, I strongly objected, arguing (with documentation) the following:

1) The Times saw an "overpowering need for integrity and civility in office." I expressed serious concerns, including an SEC investigation of Bush for securities fraud. Although the investigation was later dropped, I pointed out that either Bush was incompetent, or he had committed fraud - neither quality is something I wanted in a chief executive. And judging by the company Bush keeps (Enron, anyone?), I'm not buying the ignorance defense. Now, in 2004, the level of "integrity and civility" - from lies about Iraq to Cheney's potty mouth (telling Sen. Leahy on the Senate floor to go f*ck himself) - is probably not what the Times had in mind. (Bush used the same naughty word in a 1999 interview with Tucker Carlson, evidence of his "integrity" I missed in my 2000 rant to you.)

2) The Times hoped Bush would bring "balance between government and commerce." I suggested you look into Bush's expropriation of 270 acres of private land, using a few acres for his ballpark, and parlaying the rest into profitable commercial ventures. Once President, Bush granted inflated no-bid contracts to his oil cronies. Old habits are hard to break.

3) The Times also hoped Bush would bring the same "sense of bipartisanship to the White House [as] with Democrats in the Texas statehouse." I dared you to call some Texas Democratic legislators, and check their "goodwill" level. You would have heard how Bush's "trophy" bills (hate crimes, patient's rights) became law despite Bush's opposition. Now under this "uniter," the country is more divided and polarized than ever in my lifetime. Surprised? I'm not. But then, I was paying attention in 2000.

Oh, there's more, much more, but I'm limited to 200 words (already exceeded). So here are my final three:

Told ya' so!

The Purpose-Driven Acid Test

We have less than a month to go until 01-20-09, the date emblazoned on the bumper stickers and lapel buttons of progressives everywhere. And it’s a double-header as far as reasons to rejoice: the end of the Bush years of war, torture, and economic shell games; and the inauguration of Barak Obama, a progressive community organizer, and the nation’s first black President.

President-Elect Obama has been making his list, checking it twice. Just to name a few of his Cabinet choices, and the responses from various stakeholders: Tim Geithner for Treasury - the market breathes a sigh of relief; Illinois Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois for Secretary of Transportation - a rare Republican fan of Amtrak; Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu for the Department of Energy - a departure from the "weird science" policies of the past eight years; and the unabashedly pro-union Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor, probably the one choice the PE has made that approaches radically liberal. The nation should be abuzz with anticipation of impending competence.

The one pick that seems to be getting the most attention, though, is that of Rev. Rick Warren, conservative evangelical minister and author of The Purpose-Driven Life. Rick Warren, however, is not your typical Right Wing Reverend. He has gotten considerable flack from his own conservative ranks for giving as much heed to Jesus’s "Blessed are the poor" message as to the "eye for an eye" edict in Exodus, and for his questioning the wisdom of taking the "fill the earth, and subdue it" command a little too literally. He does not stray far from the flock, however, as he maintains the classic anti-choice and anti-gay-marriage stance that remain the acid test for conservative evangelicals. Still, Obama has seen some grounds for agreement, which is the starting place for any dialogue. And up until now, Obama has received a lot of praise for his Team of Rivals approach to appointments, so this particular pick should not be such a surprise.

But the message coming out of the progressive base these days is one of shock and despair that Obama has tapped an opponent of choice and of gay rights, for: Chief of Staff? No. The Head of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives? No. Pope? Nope.

To say a prayer.

OK, the symbolism is not lost on me. We are talking about the opening act - literally the Invocation - of his historic Presidency. Vocal members of the LGBT community are feeling especially betrayed by this invitation to Rev. Warren, in the wake of his highly visible support for California’s Proposition 8. But I’m looking at this from my own personal angle. Up until the Saddleback Church appearances of then-candidates Obama and McCain, I was only peripherally aware of Rick Warren, due to the visibility of his aforementioned book. It has been the basis of study groups in a number of churches, including one in my parents’ home church. I really know nothing more about the book, other than what I could find on Wikipedia or Amazon websites. But just knowing that my parents’ conservative congregation has devoted some time to it tells me plenty about the book, and its author. This is someone who has credibility within the conservative sphere of influence. So the fact that the progressive President-Elect Obama has tapped the conservative Rev. Warren to participate in the kick-off of his Presidency seems to me to be a full circle.

I am really not all that surprised that Obama’s invitation to Rev. Warren has raised a bit of a stir; however, the extent to which it is dominating the progressive media does surprise me. When I first heard about Obama’s Inaugural Ceremony line-up, my focus was not so much on any symbolism invested in the "opening act," as it was on the arc of Obama’s overall choices. The benediction is being given by Rev. Joseph Lowery, a liberal, and strong proponent of gay rights. So if you are going to tap a conservative to be part of a message of "change," Rick Warren is probably the best candidate. As mentioned earlier, there is some common ground there with some environmental and social issues. Then wrap up the ceremony with the Rev. Lowery, to point the way forward, to a more progressive philosophy. Yeah, I thought. Nice touch. Somehow, though, Obama’s detractors cannot get past that "first" thing. It is all or nothing. No, they are not calling for impeachment, nor are they lamenting that McCain didn’t win instead. But this controversy does appear to be taking on the characteristics of a political acid test.

Where does the term "acid test" come from, anyway? It is a way to test gold for authenticity. If the metal is fake, it will survive the test. But if the metal is real gold, the acid will destroy it. So the term "acid test" has come to mean that ultimate trial - the one certain test of authenticity. Unfortunately, it also means that the only way to know the value of something is to destroy it. I don’t think that those who so vehemently object to Warren’s Invocation intend to destroy or diminish Obama’s ability to get things done. But I do wonder if the constant drumbeat of "No, no, no" over this one thing, as symbolic as it may be, might be having exactly that effect.

Should we insist on an all-or-nothing standard? It seems to me that we are just wrapping up eight years of UniThought politics. If the Republicans have taught us anything lately, it is that when dissenting viewpoints are shut out by turning away those who hold them, we inevitably shut out other valuable contributions by those same individuals. I have also been dismayed in the past eight years at the Bush doctrine of not even talking to our adversaries. I am counting on Obama to steer foreign policy more towards the model summed up by Yitzhak Rabin when he said "You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies." I think his pick of Rick Warren portends that we can indeed look forward to that kind of change. (Not that I would call Rev. Warren a "very unsavory enemy." But hopefully, you get the point.)

Obama cannot rescind his invitation without further alienating the very people he seeks to draw into his dialog: conservative evangelicals. People like my parents. What impresses me the most is that the extending of this invitation is so classically Obama. This is exactly why I voted for him. This is exactly why he won. He understands that by pushing, you get push-back. He’d rather pull people along in the wake created by those things on which we can all agree. He has found such concord with Rev. Warren in issues of environment, poverty, and treatment for AIDS. Rev. Warren is a link - if only a hair-thin one - to those Americans who did not vote for Obama, but to whom Obama said "I will be your President, too."

Perhaps Melissa Etheridge said it best in her blog today on The Huffington Post, in which she describes a meeting she had with Rev. Warren, after which she concluded that "Maybe if they get to know us, they won’t fear us."

And maybe we won’t fear them.

______________________________________

Snow Falling on Caesars

Up until a couple of years ago, we lived in the middle of a forest. Now we do not, but we did not move. The forest was cut down around us, and we now live in the middle of what is basically a 3-acre park: still surrounded by our trees, but with an ugly clear-cut just on the other side of the property line. And of course because the timber company was able to cut right up to the property line ("forest management practices"), our trees have now been exposed to the ravages of wind and weather, after over 80 years of strength in numbers. So our trees fall at a rate of about a dozen a year (the first year it was over 30), faster than we can make use of them in our single wood stove. In a few years, the landscape on the other side of the property line will start to look less like a bad haircut on Frankenstein’s monster, but for now it is just painfully ugly.

Except on days like today. We had a couple inches of snowfall last night, and even that small amount is enough to smooth things over and make the sixty acres surrounding us less of an eyesore. Parts of it actually look peaceful and lovely, a snowy meadow. It is an illusion, I know, but it is a welcome break from the ugly realities of what lies beneath the white blanket.

I have spent the past few weeks in a kind of snowy dream state of relief, following the recent election. After eight years of illegal war, state-sanctioned torture, spying on citizens, and questionable elections, we appear to have elected a chief executive who is more interested in Americans’ day-to-day sanity than in Empire. So while there is still plenty going on to be upset about, including handouts to financial giants followed by and the lack of any assistance to blue-collar industries, I keep telling myself "four more weeks, four more weeks...."

When Barak Obama takes the oath of office (and I do so hope he doesn’t wuss out, and that he actually says "I, Barak Hussain Obama, do solemnly swear..."), it will not only be historic, but, I expect, restorative. At least the insanity will stop. For a while. But what then? The signals coming from the President Elect and his team indicate that there will be no investigations of wrong-doing of the previous administration. When I bring up this concern to some friends, their response is along the lines of "Oh, he can’t go down that road, or he will not be able to govern." OK, I can see that. Sort of.

But, to use a cliche, past is prologue. Nixon broke into an office, and his successor just wanted the long, national nightmare to be over. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush did an end-run around the law in Iran-Contra, and the next President said "Let’s move on." So now our current Commander in Chief (shudder) started at least one illegal war, killing hundreds of thousands of people; and appears to have ordered illegal imprisonment, kidnapping and torture - among other things. But our incoming President is poised to raise the Stockholm Syndrome to national proportions by telling all of us that it really isn’t worth getting all flustered about.

Despite the right-wing hype over the latest "scandal" (that Obama might have spoken to, or maybe even have been in the same room with, the disgraced Gov. Blagojevich!), I’m not worried about what lawless havoc might be wrought by an Obama administration. What I am worried about the lawless havoc that could be wrought by a future administration, taking advantage of the "never mind" precedent going back, in my lifetime, to at least the Nixon years. In that span of time we’ve gone from breaking into an office to breaking into a country, and I shutter to think what’s next.

So I have asked my representatives to press on, and to insist that subpoenas be honored, and questions be answered. If nothing else, hold a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, al la South Africa. I don’t want revenge - well, yes, I do - but I want my democracy back even more. So even if we have to let the bad guys go in order to figure out how they got away with it, then so be it. Just stop it. My concern, though, is that even some of the good guys got close enough to the line, or even perhaps put a toe across it, to want this all to go away. But that does not mean I will stop asking them to do the right thing.

I walk around our property now and look at the white vista stretching out where the snags and weeds used to be. And I know they are still there, under the snow. Perhaps our winter wonderland will hang around until at least January 20th. Once the snow melts, things will get ugly again around here. But not, I fear, in the other Washington. Not ugly enough.

Tonight Is Your Answer

This is pretty much unedited. I have a major project I should be finishing tonight, but that does not seem important. The center of the universe tonight is Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois. By the miracle of television, I am sitting here in Washington state, watching history unfold.

____________________________

I knew I would be in tears tonight if this actually happened. No surprise there. But it might take until January 20, 2009, for me to really take it in.

President-Elect Obama is giving his acceptance speech, and told us that people all over the country said to themselves “that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.” I am feeling that. It had to be different. I wasn't sure I could abide a repeat of the last two election. It had to be that all of our votes would be counted. That we would have our democracy back. That the goal would no longer be a red victory or a blue victory, but rather it would be what we can accomplish together. Or as our next President just said, “That we are and always will be the United States of America,” echoing his landmark speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. That we would regain our faith in a government by, for, and of the people.

Did he just say that “we as a people will get there”? At least he did not say “I might not get there with you.” And now he just invoked Kennedy - the spirit of sacrifice. But we’re in a new century now. President-Elect Obama (oh, I just can’t believe I’m saying that) just said that we rise and fall as one nation, one people. That’s the take-away for me tonight. Speaking to the loyal opposition, he said “and I will be your President, too.” All of the sudden it hits me - he will be our President.

I’m looking forward to The Government being “us,” not “them.” I’m looking forward to The Government being at least part of the solution. I’m looking forward to the words “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” being a good thing. I’m looking forward to accountability. To balance. To hope.

This evening, Obama recalled for us Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106 year old black woman, who was born into a world in which she could not vote because she was a woman and she was black. This year, she cast her vote for a President Obama. What a piece of history. But I sincerely hope tonight that we did not elect a black man as President. I hope we elected an honest man. An intelligent man. A curious man. A gracious man. It has been so long since I have felt we had any of those qualities in the Oval Office.

I was a child when so many of the stirring speeches of the 20th century were delivered. I did not watch them in real time with any awareness of their importance. But on June 3rd of this year, I remember listening to Obama’s speech when he cinched the Democratic nomination, and feeling that these words might be recalled along side “Ask not what your country can do for you” and “I have a dream” - his prediction that we would look back on that night and say that “this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.” I remember thinking that he could be right - if he wins.

Well, he won. We have a little over two months to let it sink in. For some time now, I’ve been fearful that the election could be stolen. That the power of fear would win over hope. That there would be a catch. And I hasten to add - if only because I’ve become superstitions in my old age - that we have not yet had the inauguration. But for tonight, I’m allowing myself some relief and joy. We have accomplished incredible things. To quote the next President of the United States, “if there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible... tonight is your answer.” I’m still pinching myself.

Bush to America: Let them eat Alar!

Here’s the next installment from the folks who brought you deregulation on Wall Street:

“The Bush administration has abruptly halted a government program that tests the levels of pesticides in fruits, vegetables and field crops, arguing that the $8 million-a-year program is too expensive—a decision critics say could make it harder to protect consumers from toxins in their food.” (Stephen J. Hedges, Chicago Tribune, September 27, 2008)

Eight million dollars. We spend that much every 30 minutes in Iraq, most of that on Uncle Sam’s credit card. And now the President is pleading for us to spend 100,000 times that much, again by borrowing it, for an unconditional bailout of businesses who for years were in denial about the inevitable result of loaning money to people who were predictably bad at paying it back.

My representative Jay Inslee voted “No” on the Wall Street bailout. We’re told that if we don’t do SOMETHING, there will be disaster. But I have a feeling that we could have disaster regardless of what we do, and especially if the SOMETHING we do is as knee-jerk as the current proposals being considered in Congress.

Yes, let’s do something. Let’s steer our economy away from this model we’ve been following for the past 30 years, which holds that money can magically grow like mold in a petri dish, devoid of any value other than numbers on paper. Let’s manufacture things again. Let’s invest in our infrastructure. Let’s educate our children. Let’s invent things by doing basic research that is not tied to quarterly profits. Let’s keep our next generation healthy. Let’s grow our own food - nutritious and non-poisonous food.

We spoke to our grandkids last night. They are healthy and, of course, exceptionally bright. My daughter-in-law is an LPN, and my stepson is a nursing assistant, working his way through school to become an RN. They don’t make a lot of money, but they have been very smart with what they have. They have not overextended themselves financially. They own a nice home on a large lot, which they can afford. To save some extra money, they dropped their TV cable, and somehow survived. They drive older cars. My stepson is also a Gulf War Veteran, who has thankfully avoided any hint of Gulf War Syndrome. They’ve done a lot of things right. They will probably weather this financial storm well. There are a lot of people like them, who haven’t bought McMansions and gas-guzzlers, and who are trusting their representatives to use their tax dollars judiciously, to fund infrastructure so they can get to work, to provide law enforcement so they can be safe - and, oh, yes, to keep agrobusiness from poisoning their food.

But without the USDA program, how will we know our food is not laden with pesticides? If we follow the purest free market model, we will know when people - children - become sick, and perhaps die. Then people won’t buy that brand any more. TA DA! Problem solved. But somehow I don’t think that detecting pesticides and contaminants in food using a body count would appeal to even the most hard-line, well-heeled Free Market economists. This is not a problem they can buy their way out of by living in a gated community, or sending their kids to a private school. They are not insulated from the effects of Bush's decision to cut the USDA program, unless they grow their own food, and never eat anywhere but at home. (Perhaps they could hire food tasters - Bush could add that to his "jobs created" list.)

The eight million dollars we might save by cutting this program could cost us much more in the end. This USDA program was set up in the 1980s after the Alar apple scare. There are those who would argue that despite being identified as a possible carcinogen, there was no hard evidence that Alar was actually a health risk. We may never know, because thankfully the experiment was cut short. Now the President is asking me to enroll my grandchildren in an updated version of that same experiment, to see how long we’ll be able to eat in ignorance this time and not suffer deleterious consequences. But Bush and his buddies have gotten things wrong a staggering number of times in the past eight years, often with costly and deadly results. So I’m writing my Congressional delegation to tell them that if my country does not have eight million to protect my grandchildren, then I don’t have 700 billion for the geniuses on Wall Street who couldn’t see this crash coming despite years of warnings from common folk like me. And if the economy takes a nose dive as a result - well, I'd rather be eating beans than Alar.

"Emergency" Fatigue

Congress (and that means the American People) has been asked to save the financial speculators from their own follies, with the warning that if we don’t do something NOW, the sky will fall. When it was families getting caught up in the pursuit of the American dream, the chorus was "They should have known better." But now, after years of denial, the financial Wunderkind of Wall Street are getting buried in their own collapsing house of cards, and we’re all being told that they couldn’t possibly have seen it coming, and now we have an full-scale emergency on our hands.

Well, regardless of the cause, the "cure," as currently proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson, is downright toxic. The proposed bailout bill being pondered by Congress includes the following statement, known as "Section 8":

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency" (emphasis mine).

What they are saying is that this is such a dire emergency that there’s no time to think about it, just trust us, pass the bill, give us unlimited power, write the check, and don't worry, because we'll do the right thing. They are screaming that there’s a Mac truck drifting into our lane, and we need to SWERVE SHARPLY NOW to the right in order to avoid it.

The only problem is that on the right, there is a 750 billion-foot cliff, with no shoulder, no guard rail, and no way but down. And I have a serious problem with the person at the wheel. Let’s take a look at his "driving record."

The Bush Administration did not heed the warning of the August 6, 2001, PDB, and a month later we were all stunned by 9/11. In response, Bush demanded "emergency" action, giving him broad "emergency" powers, and said that this had to be done in an "emergency" time frame. No time to ask questions, or to ponder the Constitutional questions and the long term consequences - just trust us, and pass the damned bill! So we had the PATRIOT Act rammed through Congress, giving tremendous, and likely unConstitutional, powers to the Executive Branch. In retrospect, however, it appears that this attack could likely have prevented, or at least mitigated, using intelligence and law that existed at the time - if the Administration had been paying attention. But never mind that. In the heat of the moment, we handed over the keys to the Constitution, and now that the dust has settled we have imprisonment without charges, extraordinary renditions, surveillance on US citizens, and God knows what else, because we also have an unprecedented level of government secrecy.

Then the Bush Administration assured us that their intelligence showed that Saddam Hussain posed an imminent threat to the US, and they needed "emergency" powers to launch an attack on Iraq - just trust us, we know what we're doing. We now know (and many of us knew at the time) that this was either a lie or incompetence. ("Nope, no weapons under here....") But again, the damage had been done.

The Bush Administration has funded this "Oops" war largely with "emergency" spending measures. It’s been over five years now. Any guise of "emergency" should be well-penetrated by now. I guess the emergency is that the war did not pay for itself with oil revenues, as they assured us it would. Again, "oops."

Now the same gang that has gotten it wrong on these other occasions is saying that the economy will collapse without an "emergency" bailout of Wall Street. It is way past time for cooler heads to prevail. These people have consistently screwed up on national security and military matters, and then they have screwed up the "emergency" responses. Now that they have put the economy in the dumper by enacting their dream of deregulation, they are asking us one more time to trust them as to what "emergency" measures will fix it. The message is by now a familiar one: No time to build in oversight. No time to think about it. Just pass the damn bill!

Been there, done that. It’s time to stop responding to their hysteria. Tell your congressional delegation to say "Thanks, but no thanks" on Paulson’s bailout plan. Tell them you’re tired of picking up the pieces of this Administration’s "emergencies." Tell them that after failure upon failure, they have not earned the blind, unquestioning, no-oversight trust they are again asking for. It’s time for Congress to think of consequences, for us and for our great-great-grandchildren. We need oversight if we are going to hand over $750 Billion (and I say "if" because I’m not convinced yet that we should give them a single dime).

Let’s calm down, take a deep breath, and while we’re trying to figure a way out of this hole let’s at least STOP DIGGING!

September 11, 2008 - what's really at stake today?

Seven years ago, in the blinding bright light of a beautiful autumn morning in New York, our lives changed. In days that followed, I wrote an essay that I was particularly proud of. I sent it around to family and friends, and I’m hoping someone kept a copy, because I cannot find it today. But watch for it to appear in the near future - I hope. But here are my thoughts today - and a warning that we are losing our democracy, and those freedoms for which our President tells us "they" attacked us.

_______________

Another anniversary. Another day of solemn remembrances, talk of patriotism, solidarity, and our struggle in the "War on Terror."

We cite 9/11 as a line of demarcation between the world as we knew it and the world as it has become. We have heard that we were blissfully unaware of the dangers that were stalking us, and on 9/11 our eyes were opened. But I wonder if our eyes weren’t so much opened as was our gaze diverted. Even if we are now safer from crashing planes and falling buildings than we were on 9/10/01, are we safer? Are we safer from crime? Are we safer from losing our homes? Are we safer from ill health, or the poverty that can come from a single diagnosis? Are we safer from contaminated food? From ineffective drugs? From all of those things besides terrorist attacks that might strike us, kill us, or make our lives less worth living?

Are we really safer?

As a nation, the hijacking of planes on 9/11 did not change our lives as much as did the subsequent hijacking of our democracy. The people in power took the opportunity to exploit the most stunning moment in many of our lives, in order to carry out plans that by then had been in place for at least 10 years (PNAC, anyone?). And they had accomplices, either willing or unwitting, in the loyal opposition which failed to stop them. Terrorists in planes will not be what brings this country down. We are doing their work for them by allowing our "leaders" to lead us into surrendering our freedoms.

My outrage has not dimmed over the past seven years. Sen. Obama’s simple refrain of “Enough!” speaks for me. But even with all the hope generated by his historic campaign, nothing will change unless we take control. And we can’t take control unless we can vote.

And whether most of us know it or not, we can’t vote.

Make some time to sit and Google (or Yahoo, or whatever) the following phrases. I've made it easy for you. Just use cut and paste:

• Premier Voting Systems Ohio
• Diebold Ohio deliver
• Diebold Jeff Dean
• Don Siegelman Rove Leura Canary

Don’t stop yet! It gets worse:

• unsolicited absentee ballot democrat McCain
• foreclosure voter purge McComb County

If after this, your hair does not stand on end, you are using too much “product.”

Never mind planes flying into buildings. Never mind Valerie Plame. Never mind being lied into war. Never mind Katrina. Never mind foreclosures, the banks failing, and all the other headlines we have suffered throughout this past seven-plus years of occupation by the Bush administration. This is IT! This is the BIG ENCHILADA! If we lose our vote, we lose everything. And whether we know it or not, we have lost our vote, and it happened long before 9/11.

We have been blinded for so long, by so many other scandals, that it takes horrific events on the scale of 9/11 to make us feel anything anymore. But it’s time to wake up. What do we do? Write to your representatives and demand investigations of this issue. Then call their offices and demand it again. Call the media and demand they cover these stories. Contact their advertisers if they don’t cover it, and tell them how upset you are. Contact their advertisers if they DO cover it, and tell them you’ll be in their store tomorrow. Check your voter registration at least a month before the election, and then again in two weeks. Yes, I have done all these things, and nothing has really changed - yet. But any revolution comes from the steady trickle of individual efforts, which finally turns into a tidal wave. Read your history. I dare you.

9/11 was awful. But it took our eyes off the ball. We don’t have much time left to change that.

Game on.

Sarah, Sarah, how far have we really come?

_______________________________________________

We’re having a garage sale today. In one box was my Ms. magazine collection, many from the 1980s, which my husband thought he’d finally talked me out of. But this morning I sat down on the futon (also for sale), and reached over and pulled out a random issue to look at for old times’s sake. Mistake. What I read inside, rather than being a trip backwards through times, was eerily reminiscent of things I might read in today’s paper.

From the 1980s:

• A story about female attorneys in court, having to tolerate comments about their dress or their looks, or having to put up with “terms of endearment.” But the female attorneys had their clients to think about, and therefore did not make any show of objection.

• An Orwellian piece of fiction that foresees a time when women’s periods would be monitored, to ensure that any pregnancy is detected and carried to term, under penalty of law, miscarriages being only slightly less criminal than abortion (analogous to manslaughter being slightly less criminal than first-degree murder).

• A 1984 feature by Donna Shalala, future Secretary of Health and Human Services, lamenting that women in the labor force got only 60% of the pay received by their male coworkers. She added that while some of this was a lack of equal pay for equal work, it was also due in part to the fact that traditionally “female” work was underpaid compared to equally demanding “male” work. She asked “Is a registered nurse really worth less than a tree trimmer?” (As a registered nurse who is married to a tree trimmer, I’m tempted to say that we’re both underpaid, but that would hardly be objective.)

• A clipping from 1983, about the first all-female crew in a C-1A from Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 30 (VRC-30), conducting an operational mission terminating in a carrier-arrested landing - a feat considerably more difficult than parallel parking, and therefore worthy of respect in my book.

Jump to the 21st century:

• In 1999 (ok, technically the eve of the 21st century), Judge Jeanette Burrage of Des Moines, WA, threatened to sanction female lawyers who dared to wear pantsuits in her courtroom. Judge Burrage said she had never seen such a thing before - something that anyone with a working television set the following year - the year of Hillary’s basic black pantsuit - would be hard pressed to claim with any credibility.

• “Personhood” Initiative 48, on the ballot this fall in Colorado, endows legal “personhood” on a fertilized egg. So eat your veggies, ladies, because unhealthy behavior on your pregnant part could be murder.

• Women have made advances in the wage gap - kind of the same way that a glacier makes advances down a mountainside. As of 2006, we ladies were closing in on 77% of what the menfolk bring home. Whahoo! That ought to keep the girls happy until they find Mr. Right!

• Upon making the news for being selected as the first US female astronaut in 1983, Sally Ride was asked if women had finally “arrived.” She answered that women will have “arrived” when a female astronaut was no longer news. By that yardstick, I guess we’ve come a ways since Ms. Ride’s blast-off through that particular glass ceiling. But 25 years after the first all-female VRC-30 crew mentioned above, I’m still waiting for that first all-female shuttle to take off. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 7, 8, 9....

I did not go looking only for those 1980s stories that had a modern-day counterpart. I just looked at the magazines, found what I thought to be examples of sexism in the bygone days, and then Googled for similar examples from the past 10 years (the lifespan of my granddaughter). And I found an updated equivalent for each and every one. That’s how far we’ve come - not.

But now we are in the midst of an historic presidential campaign. A well-qualified and experienced woman took on the task of winning the Democratic nomination, and although she fell short of that goal, she fell only very slightly short of it. My own decision not to support her was not based on her gender, but on some of her positions, and her missteps as a candidate. Friends of mine, male and female, have expressed their own views on the subject, and not one of them has said that they couldn’t support her because they couldn’t trust a finely manicured finger on The Button. As part of achieving true equality, we have to learn that occasionally we will lose a fight based solely on our merits.

Now here’s the flip side.

John McCain, the other major political party’s apparent Presidential Pick, has decided who will fill his Vice Presidential slot. Here were some of the top candidates for that position, their political and executive experience, and their conservative “cred”:

Candidate #1: Resume includes running for U.S. President; CEO of a management consulting firm; CEO of the 2002 Olympic Games; served as Governor of an eastern seaboard state with 12 electoral votes; native son of a Midwest rust belt state with 17 electoral votes, as well as son of one of that state’s former governors.

Candidate # 2: Currently in his second term as governor of a Midwest state with 10 electoral votes; has a degree in Political Science; former Vice President of an internet consulting firm; experience as a labor attorney; former six-term member of the state legislature, where he was a fierce advocate of tax cuts, and did a turn as House Majority Leader; co-chair of McCain’s presidential campaign.

Candidate # 3: Currently Governor of a key state with 27 electoral votes; was previously that same state’s attorney general; longtime advocate of capital punishment, reinstating the death penalty after lifting a moratorium by that state’s former governor; upheld his state’s prohibition on gays and lesbians adopting children, making his state the only one with such a ban; early career included serving as counsel to the minor league division of the Baseball Commissioner's Office, and as a staffer for U.S. Senator Connie Mack III.

Candidate #4: Less than two years into first term as governor of a remote, rural state with only 3 electoral votes; previous political post was mayor of a town of less than 5,000 souls; in a recent interview, when asked about being the possible pick for McCain’s running mate, asked “what is it exactly that the VP does every day”; anti-choice; pro-death penalty; lifetime NRA member; currently under an ethics investigation for abuse of power.

Oh, and she’s a girl.

The winner? Candidate #4!

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that the Good Old Boys picked her strictly for her appeal to women as a woman? Not that she’s completely unqualified. She is 35, a natural born citizen, and has some political experience beyond winning Homecoming Queen. But I find it hard to believe that she rose to the top of the pile, over other well-heeled contenders, based solely on her merits. I have to conclude (perhaps cynically, but no less legitimately) that the G.O.B. party (no, that’s not a typo) thinks I’ll be swayed by the “Girl Factor.” Well, if the G-Factor works, then after 88 years, maybe we really can’t be trusted with the vote.

Sarah Palin is an interesting public figure. She has a movie-screen bio: basketball star and beauty queen, “hockey mom” to five kids, a son shipping off to a war zone, and the moxie to take on the big boys at their own game. She might do well, although I have my doubts, and I’m passionately rooting for the other side. Other than significant political disagreements, it’s not really her that I have a gripe with. I can't blame her for taking the gig when it was offered to her. My bigger problem is with her party, and those handlers who picked her for the VP slot for what appear to be gender-based reasons. Sure, it would be historic to have the first female Vice President within my lifetime. (And OK, I do have a secret fantasy about Sarah giving ‘em Hell if they ask her to make the coffee at the first cabinet meeting.) But knowing that she attained that position because of her gender sort of takes the spring out of what would otherwise be one giant leap for womankind.

So I’m saving my Ms. collection. I plan to sit down someday with my granddaughter and my niece, and go through these snapshots of the late 20th century, to give them a perspective on what has - and hasn’t - changed. And how, just a generation or two ago, things they might take for granted - things that for them have always been - weren’t. And how all the discussion of the reversal of our advances is not just the hysteria of antique feminists trying to remain relevant. I’ll tell them that my own birth certificate has a space for “Father,” “Father’s Occupation,” and “Mother” - period. I’ll tell them that I was once told I didn’t need to make as much money as a less-qualified male nurse, because he had a family to support, and I’d probably get married to my own bread winner some day - and that at the time, that made sense to me. I’ll tell them these things, and show them these magazines, in the hopes that their jaws will drop and their hackles will raise, and they will guard these gains with the vigilance of a mother bear.

Then, only then, will I put these magazines back on the garage sale pile.

_______________________________________________

Funeral for a Fourth Amendement

I sent the rants below to Congress today. You should do the same.

____________________

Sent to Nancy Pelosi:

I am a native Californian, and constituent of yours due to your tremendous power over my life, and the future of my country, as Speaker. You control what gets to the floor, etc. PLEASE DERAIL THIS TELECOM BILL going through the House today. I'm angry enough that Impeachment - or even investigation - is "off the table," but don't shred the Constitution on top of it. You are the "check" in "check and balance," and I haven't seen much checking going on. Fine, compromise on some things, but NOT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, PLEASE!

- - - - -

And to Jay Inslee, short and sweet, because I trust him to do the right thing:

NO on the Telco Bill, including immunity!!! This bill leaves oversight and enforcement almost EXCLUSIVELY in the hands of the very people who we can count on to abuse it: the Executive Branch.

____________________

.

But don't take my word on it. Read it for yourself:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_080619_fisapromise.htm

And then let your representatives hear your rage! Call AND write.

The Senate takes this up next week, so get those dialing fingers ready!

I should know better

Scott McClellan testifies before Congress tomorrow. And, fool that I am, I find myself being just a little, teensy, tiny bit hopeful. I should know better. When it became apparent after the 2000 election that there were serious irregularities in the Florida election, and Bev Harris was sounding the alarm with her Black Box Voting organization, I thought “Well, this will get straightened out.” But it didn’t. Then we had 9/11, and after the dust had cleared, we started hearing about ignored PDBs, and I thought “This group will now be exposed for the incompetents that they are!” But we were too collectively traumatized to absorb it. When the facts started coming out after the invasion of Iraq (well, the facts were there before the invasion, but eventually people starting talking about them), I thought “OK, maybe people will finally start to catch on.” But there was never any real traction to it. Then there was the Valerie Plame affair. And I thought “This is clearly a matter of treason. Now the American people will be outraged enough and demand some answers!” Nope.

We passed milestones of 1000 dead Americans in Iraq. Two thousand dead. And the big three-oh-oh-oh, a tie with the unrelated but often cited number of people killed on 9/11. But the death toll only served to justify shutting our eyes, stopping our ears, and plunging ahead, to honor those who had died by sending in some more.

There was the 2004 election, and the obvious problems in Ohio. Surely, if there is a tipping point for outrage, this was it!.. But it wasn’t. Then there were the fired US attorneys. The stolen election in Alabama. The political prosecution and imprisonment of Governor Don Siegelman. Muzzling of government officials. Contractor fraud and waste in Iraq. Illegal wiretaps (and denials, followed by “Yeah, we did that. So what?”). Abu Ghraib. Katrina. Secret prisons. Extraordinary renditions. Torture. Just Google “Bush administration scandals” and you will have no shortage of lists. Just don’t do it before bedtime, though.

We’ve had testimony and tell-all from Paul O’Niell, Richard Clark, Richard Carmona, David Iglesias, John McKay, James Comey - again, there are lists aplenty to be had on line.

And now Scott McClellan. From what I have heard about his book, his testimony should be enough to sink any administration in a democratic society with a free and independent press... Oops! Forgot where I was.

Still, I’m hoping there will be that moment. That Watergate “What recordings?” moment. Call me foolish, but I remember a time when we impeached a president for a lie in a civil deposition. His detractors certainly accused him of much more, but that was the one thing they felt they could actually indict him on, and they had to dig for years to get just that. The Bush crimes are not even buried, but the press and our elected officials keep stumbling over them like so much clutter, and moving on to matters apparently far more important than defending the foundations of our liberty. Although they don’t say it, Congress’s actions - or inactions - reflect Bush’s own assessment of the Constitution as a “Goddamn piece of paper.”

But I’m hoping there will be that one question, and that one answer, that one piece of clutter that, despite their worst intentions, Congress will no longer be able to ignore. Yes, I should know better, but I keep hoping the obvious will finally be obvious enough. Call me a romantic, but if I don't keep hoping - and speaking and writing and voting - then it's over. And I rather like the country I grew up in. I want it back.

Dear Rep. Conyers: Protect and Defend, Please!

To Representative Conyers of Michigan:

On June 5th, you had a meeting with Code Pink, and laid out five reasons why you felt impeachment was not possible. What I hear in these reasons, as summarized in a number of sources, is “we’re too scared.” But we have men and women dodging bullets right now, because of what many of us believe to be impeachable offenses committed by this President. Those men and women took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Kinda’ like the oath you took. If our fighting forces in Iraq can take that oath and look death in the face, you can certainly look into the news camera and fulfill your own oath.

So here are my reasons against your reasons against impeachment:

• Reason one: While the majority of people in this country want Bush gone, they don't want impeachment.

Response: Polls don’t excuse you from your constitutional duty. Again, that pesky oath thing. And even though we don't all live in Michigan, every American is your constituent, because the Judiciary Committee, which you chair, is the People’s sole instrument for controlling potential tyranny from the Executive Branch. We cannot hold a recall election. We cannot put up an initiative for vote. We cannot knock on the door of the West Wing and execute a citizen's arrest. But if the President orders me snatched off the street and locked up because he takes exception to what I’ve written here, you and your committee are my only hope. That hasn’t happened to me yet, but the day is young. President Bush has said he has the power to declare me, or anyone within our borders, an enemy combatant. In Presidential Directive 51, he has also said he can declare martial law if he perceives a threat to the homeland - and he gets to define “threat.” It could be anything from another crime like 9/11 to a hurricane. And then he alone gets to decide when, or if, we get our Constitution back. That level of power should not be trusted in any one person, regardless of how popular the polls say he or she is.

Terrorists can blow up buildings, they can murder people, they can burn down our capitol, but that will not destroy the nation. The erosion of our rights and freedoms, however, will destroy us. There may still be a land mass dubbed “USA,” but the nation born in 1776 is slowly disappearing. At this point in time you, and you alone, could stop it.

Please stop it.

• Reason two: The corporate media will slay us.

Response: Once the facts start coming out, the media will be like a dog with a meaty, juicy bone. If it sells cars, computers or video games, they will pounce on the hearings, and the salacious facts coming out of testimony, like flies on honey. A jilted press secretary pouring his heart out over deceptions, lies, and the outing of a spy? If it means higher ratings, the corporate media will eat it up and ask for more.

• Reason three: Not enough time.

Response: Just what is the statute of limitation on mass murder?

• Reason four: Not enough votes.

Response: You’re a lawyer, Mr. Conyers. You know that we don’t decide whether or not to hold a trial by polling the jury before presenting evidence. Until you have hearings, how do you know how many votes there will be? Have hearings, uncover information, and see how many votes you get. Plus, even if you don’t convict anyone, you’d at least get the truth on the record, and maybe prevent this from happening again.

• Reason five: It could cost the Democrats the election if we pursue impeachment.

Response: It could cost my grandchildren their lives if we don’t. Failure to call them out on their offenses leaves the door open to more wars, not to mention more renditions, more secret prisons, more domestic spying, and a constant drumbeat of "be afraid, be afraid."

And historically, though there isn’t that much precident, elections have not always been the price of impeachment. After Nixon, Democrats won new seats. The hearings alone shocked the American public, and Nixon’s crimes were shoplifting compared to Bush’s. And although the Republicans lost seats after they impeached Clinton, consider the fact that Clinton was enormously popular at the time. The majority of the American people saw through the Republican’s sham. (We'll skip the trip in the WABAC Machine to the impeachment of Democrat Andrew Johnson, although that one didn't turn out to badly for the Republicans, either.)

So just have hearings, please? Have a hearing, maybe? Ask some questions. See where the momentum goes. Is that too much to ask to protect and defend our Constitution? PULEEEEEZE?

An open letter to my Democratic sisters: You're missing the point!

An open letter to Harriet, Koryne, and all my other sisters who would rather vote for John McCain than for the "spoiler" Barack Obama:

I am a woman "of a certain age." I have not forgotten the struggles of feminists during my life time. But in case you have forgotten: the whole point of the feminist movement was to make gender a non-issue. I remember the bad old days. I was told by my boss that while I could marry for money, my less-qualified coworker had his family to support and needed the higher salary. I have been told that my highly technical profession, because it is primarily a female workforce, should be content to take home "pin money." I have suffered the slings and arrows of sexism, and I apologize to no one for my feminist creds.

Hillary was the first woman in history to win a presidential primary, in any state. She had the first real chance at making it all the way. But under the Democratic primary process, that we have carried out for decades, the other candidate won. Not because Obama was a man and Hillary was a woman, but because the necessary number of people, in the necessary states, voted for Obama. The victory was that for the first time in history, a woman was taken seriously as a candidate.

So I have this to say to you: If you want to vote for McCain because you think he would do a better job than Obama of addressing those issues that inspired you to support Hillary, then God bless you (and God help you, while she’s at it!). But if you want to insist that, because Hillary is a she, either Hillary has the nomination or you will vote for Bush’s heir apparent, regardless of how many more wars result, how many more children go to bed hungry, or how many women die because of reproductive rights eroded by McCain-appointed judges, then you are as sexist as any of the men who have patted us on our pretty little heads throughout history. This is not about our "tribe." This is about the Supreme Court. This is about our tenuous national security. This is about our crumbling infrastructure, our unequal health care, our children’s education, and the next generation’s very survival.

Barack Obama won the nomination. He would have won even with Florida and Michigan counted at 100%. We followed the process, Hillary had an honest shot at it, and she nearly made it. That’s progress. Now please don’t disenfranchise the rest of us who want an end to this right-wing insanity before we lose more of our children, whether in the Green Zone or the inner city. Voting for McCain to spite the rest of us is not going to get you any closer to what you say you want: a woman in the White House. Because if you are holding gender over all other qualities, then you have truly missed the point of the feminist movement.