Partisanship

Extreme partisanship is bad because nothing gets accomplished. Republicans vs. Democrats, Yankees vs. Red Sox, what’s the difference? Why pick a group to be the enemy? Because it gives you a sense of purpose, makes you feel good? Like you have a cause or a conviction. The problem is that it’s an illusion. Too often, loyalty is not based on anything rational, and has more to do with what the people around you are doing, or whether you like the players (thus the baseball analogy). Republicans, Democrats, Yankees and Red Sox are all humans subject to the same national and global issues. And if more effort was spent finding the common ground we wouldn’t have so many problems to lament. Partisanship is a political ploy, designed by people who capitalize on the conflict simply because they’re politicians. It helps them look good. How can anyone win elections by saying, “Well, unlike my opponent who opposes high gas prices, I oppose high gas prices.” Without partisanship, they’d have to delve into problems and be judged based on the type of solution they propose. In other words, they’d actually have to work hard.

I’m sure no one will be surprised when I say that generally speaking, being a politician is not about representing the will of the public and acting on their behalf. The term “public servant” is a joke. For many, being a politician is about personal gain. It’s a job, not a calling, in the way that being a used car salesman is a job. The job of a used car salesman is to take you for as much as he can get away with. A “calling,” on the other hand, is something that firefighters and volunteers do. It’s something some soldiers do, regardless of whether the political way they’re used is wrong. The return in terms of material or financial gain is less than the effort they exert or the risk they take. The reward comes from the feeling of satisfaction, and a sense of meaning or purpose in life.

So these used car salesmen developed partisanship, and it’s the greatest thing since “extended warranty” or “trade-in allowance.” You think it’s in your best interest, and aren’t they great guys for giving it to you, but the reality is that they wouldn’t do it if it didn’t serve them. It’s a sneaky way to play the situation. But I think that there are certain issues that are so universally appealing or repellant that Republicans, Democrats, Yankees and Red Sox can all agree on them. Ask any of them who loves cancer. Who hates new economic opportunities? I know, it must be the Red Sox.

A word on the environmental movement itself. It does amaze me that environmentalists have a bad rap. Some of it has to do with off-putting self-righteousness. Some is due to direct attacks. There’s a senator who recently openly declared war on the environmental movement. And corporations convince the public that the economy is threatened by anything that prevents them from doing exactly what they want (as they wipe the floor with us in the process). But what truly amazes me is anyone who doesn’t get that pollution is bad. People don’t want to feel uncomfortable, so they blame God or fate for cancer and keep their heads in the sand. They watch movies on Erin Brokovitch then go home, changing nothing. They see labels on products that say “Known to cause cancer in the State of California” and think “Thank goodness I don’t live in California.”

Ask any 5 year old. Tell them that we’re spewing carcinogens into the water we drink, swim in and eat fish from; into the ground we grow food in, build homes on, play on and live on; into the air we take into our bodies. If we do this, is it bad? Does a bear shit in the woods? Is the sky blue (for now)?

Oh, I know. Us Yankees don’t breathe the same air. Well, that’s ok then.

All the other arguments are fallacies. The religious extremist argument is that it’s evil to put environmental concerns ahead of people. Now, I’m no rocket scientist but if the people live in the environment, aren’t we also directly helping them?

The economic argument may be summed up in one word- HA! Yeah, it’s better for the economy that we’re in a trade deficit because our products aren’t competitive internationally and that our cars can’t even be sold in China because their mpg limit is 40. It’s the best economic practice for all our energy dollars to leave the country for foreign oil and natural gas. Well, this is true for Bush crony economics, so at least in this one instance, they are being truthful.

So this alternative energy thing is my test case. I have heard of this strange phenomenon where hunters align with environmentalists to save wilderness places. So I am going to make my pitch to my NRA-member, pickup truck driving, deer head on the wall Republican friend and see how it goes.

Bumper Stickers

The Answer

Massive attitude and lifestyle shifts will be needed to wean from fossil fuels:
1.) Increase energy efficiency in households, businesses, institutions, etc.
2.) Wean from fossil fuel use to alternatives and renewables.

Our plan of attack involves enlisting the support of other organizations and groups, going directly to government officials, and generating public support. This plan involves multiple simultaneous and ongoing efforts.



Coordination of other activist groups

There are numerous other related activist groups. We are working to touch base with them and enlist their support. In turn, we can support their issues.
Identification of Key Stakeholders

These are groups that should be concerned with the various impacts of energy issues, such as health, economic, political, etc. Some examples are (but by no means limited to): American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Lung Association, University Environmental Programs, Local Entrepreneurs, Church Groups, Neighborhood Associations, and Political Action Committees. We will approach them and ask them to add their support. This gives us much more leverage politically, while increasing awareness in their niches.


Campaign Actions:
Government:
Meetings/ actions to obtain cooperation:
• Members of City Council
• Mayor’s office
• County Executive


Once we have official cooperation, we can take specific issues to appropriate bureaus/ departments: Building & zoning dept, planning, Business services, Environmental Commission, Bureau of housing and project development, etc.

Education/ Outreach
Our message approach will be saving money with efficient products and publicizing programs like tax breaks, energy star grants, and the new programs we will convince the city to institute. The keys here are proper framing of the message and message repetition. We also need to get the word out to businesses that new efficient technology is going to be extremely profitable, create jobs, and save them money.

An educated public will be more likely to hold government and businesses accountable for their policies and actions. Public demand should create demand for responsible energy policy. Government can encourage green energy and business through subsidies and tax breaks, while penalizing polluting energy sources. Policies can set building codes and other standards to increase efficiency (like California's cap on standby wattage). Laws should protect public health.


How to educate people on actions (http://newyork.sierraclub.org/rochester/master_list.htm) that increase efficiency:

Direct campaigns:

• Program for schools
• Standardized presentation for community events/ forums/ groups that all members can use
• Presentations for institutions like hospitals, schools, etc to convince them efficiency works
• Outreach/ networking to reach new audiences (ex- church groups).

Print media:
• Editorials
• Articles
• Possible regular energy feature in D&C

Television:
• City station/ public access
• News stations

Green Business
Talk with business leaders to find out what they need government to do; how we can help


Agriculture
Increase awareness of co-ops, importance of local food. Use our influence in government to make sure programs thrive.
• Dialogue with local farmers and co-op leaders
• Encourage use of local food in schools, other institutions
• Church-based farmers markets using WIC money http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20061127&s=winne

Sprawl/ Community Planning/ City Revitalization
Gather ideas; develop plan; use our influence with government to get it done.
Possible resources:
• Departments of planning and development
• Smart Growth coalition http://www.ggw.org/sgc/

Alternative energy

Building the case:

Efficiency and alternative energy make sense from every conceivable angle. We need to counteract the global warming trend. Coal mining is dangerous (ex.: recent tragedies involving miners) and disastrous to the environment (see mountaintop removal http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/mtr/). Burning coal for energy releases many toxic pollutants into the environment, namely mercury (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531326,00.html).
Oil is a major factor in our involvement in the Middle East and our current wars are exacerbating terrorism (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135344).
At home, paying high energy prices is a hardship both directly (heating bills, cost of gas, etc.) and indirectly (rising costs of goods and services). Efficiency is so desirable because less energy needs to be produced, which saves money, resources and the environment (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20060612140326).


Alternative energy will be an opportunity and positive economic step because rather than sending our money overseas for oil and natural gas, we can invest in alternative fuel production here. The Apollo Alliance was formed by businesspeople who recognize this opportunity (http://www.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/New_York/index.cfm). Cities that commit to changes for efficiency are finding that they save money and are revitalizing their urban centers (http://www.sierraclub.org/utilities/printpage.asp?REF=/sierra/200607/charlotte.asp). And the benefits to health and the environment are obvious.


What to do:

The Federal Government has given lip service to efficiency and alternative energy but refuses to take steps such as increasing CAFÉ standards (http://wisconsin.sierraclub.org/gwg/news/articles/mpg.htm)
and signing the Kyoto Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol). However, state and local governments have recognized the need for action and are instituting changes in their areas. The Sierra Club is supporting this and has developed a program to assist activists in working for these changes (http://www.coolcities.us/).

The solutions:
(http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/energy.pdf).
(http://newyork.sierraclub.org/rochester/master_list.htm).

But what is freedom?

“But what is freedom? Freedom from what? There is nothing to take a man’s freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. This and nothing else.

“At first man was enslaved by the gods. But he broke their chains. Then he was enslaved by the kings. But he broke their chains. He was enslaved by his birth, by his kin, by his race. But he broke their chains. He declared to all his brothers that a man has rights which neither god nor king nor other men can take away from him, no matter what their number, for his is the right of man, and there is no right on earth above this right. And he stood on the threshold of the freedom for which the blood of the centuries behind him had been spilled.”
-Anthem, Ayn Rand


This quote represents to me the ideal circumstances under which people could rise above this society of predator or prey. Freedom is EVERY person’s birthright. The existence of that right remains even if it is not acknowledged. There should be recognition of the absolute equality of one life to another. No one is correct or justified in exerting their will over anyone else. What happens if it’s not respected? Every person’s circumstances, resources, station in life, and degree of freedom from oppression determine whether behavior is an exercise of free will or simply reactionary. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs illustrates that until basic needs such as food and shelter are met, people cannot reach their full potential. They are denied the opportunity to freely select between all the daily choices that make up a pattern of behavior, thus a “good” or “bad” person.
http://www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/comm-lead/leadership/Maslow-Diagram.htm

I interpret the quote with “god” in the lower case as the human phenomenon of religious organizations. Religious affiliation is not necessarily predictive of behavior. At the institutional level, religion has played a role in geopolitical events and has been blamed for many wrongs, but that has largely had nothing to do with the original teachings or constructs. It’s usually due to a power grab; using religion to control and oppress. No god has done this, people have. Also, in the past people did not have an understanding of scientific principles and attributed everything that happened to deities.

At the individual level, responsibility comes in when people are free, based on their life circumstances to make choices and don’t. People should be able to throw off the shackles of their institutions and look at things as though those preconceived notions didn’t exist. Opinions should be based on truth; not pressure, fear or selective information. By blindly following what you’re told rather than examining what your personal beliefs truly are, you forfeit your rights and your freedom. You have put your choices in the hands of someone or something else. This is not necessarily atheistic. On the contrary, if after dismissing all preconceived notions and discovering pure values and motives there is still a place in your worldview for religious belief, this is the most sincere type of faith. You can’t truly BELIEVE something just because you’re told to. It doesn’t come from your core.

Maybe that’s not the way Ms. Rand meant it but that’s how it resonates with me based on my particular set of beliefs and experiences (which are necessarily different than hers and everyone else’s). I know that my interpretation of everything I experience is colored by what has influenced my life. I can recognize that bias and allow for it even if I can’t change it. I don’t presume to make a value judgment on the actions of other people who were not raised as I was- in a nominally free society shielded from violence and exploitation.

Why does this matter? Because there’s something grossly wrong with the state of the world, and there’s no one else to blame but humanity; as individuals and as groups. We cannot be given a pass to throw up our hands and say, “This is how it is, and it’s due to forces beyond our control.” What’s needed is universal acceptance of that one basic right for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation and so on.

* * * *

Here are the other quotes I wanted to include that didn’t fit.

“I never paddled an inch
I never fought for a thing
I never fought for anything
I was raised on TV
Like so many of you I see around me
Nothing to live (sic) or die for
No religion too.”
-Gordon Downie of The Tragically Hip on the CD “Live Between Us”


“History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That’s why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.”

“When I grow up, I’m not going to read the newspaper and I’m not going to follow complex issues and I’m not going to vote. That way I can complain when the government doesn’t represent me. Then, when everything goes down the tubes, I can say the system doesn’t work and justify my further lack of participation.”

“I wonder if you can refuse to inherit the world.”
-Calvin of the “Calvin and Hobbes” cartoons, Bill Watterson

Two addenda and two letters

So I wanted to add two addenda to the last post. My brother made me aware of the FICA cap. Basically, people are only assessed FICA tax on the first $94,000 of income. So anyone under that cap is taxed on every dollar earned. Every dollar in excess of $94,000 is exempt from FICA tax. This is extremely counter-intuitive, as well as grossly unfair. I would characterize any money exceeding $94,000 as “mad” money, not really necessary for paying the bills. There would be no “Social Security crisis” if millionaires paid the same percentage of their income as John Middle Class Doe. These are the kind of loopholes that need to be closed. I am not picking on the wealthy. I’m just saying that they should pay the same share as the rest of us. They have no case for not doing so because paying taxes is a much more significant hardship for the lower and middle classes.

Another gripe I have is with political appointees. “Heckuva Job Brownie,” notorious head of FEMA is a prominent example but sadly, far from the only one. Since a former coal exec was put in charge of mining safety there has been a drastic reduction in the enforcement of safety regulations and the assessment of fines on noncompliant companies. The EPA is being undermined by its current head. Here we can take a free-market lesson, because after all corporations do know how to take care of themselves. Businesses would never commit suicide by putting someone in charge who had a serious conflict of interest or was grossly unqualified. There are certain vital positions that, as Katrina and recent mining disasters have taught us, are responsible for the very lives of many people. In these vital positions leadership should not be this changeable. Politicians should not be allowed to give these jobs to their cronies. Bodies like FEMA, the EPA and mining safety should be headed by internal people, or at the very least those who have some sort of degree or background in the given area. And they should not change with each administration. These positions require expertise and continuity.

* * * * *

So I was thinking about ways to reach more people because I think the greatest problem we have is that average people have no idea about what’s going on. As I read more alternative news sources with relatively small circulation, I realize the vast chasm between what’s covered there and what can be gleaned from mainstream media. I get asked all the time how I find all this stuff out. I have a bumper sticker that reads “If you are not outraged you are not paying attention.” I’ve been asked what that means. Obviously, not enough people are not outraged.

There’s this magazine that comes to my house that’s published by a religious organization. It’s nationwide and I can only assume lots of other people get it if it finds its way to me. Usually I just toss it because it only covers a few “wedge” issues the Republicans use as their scheme to get the votes of people of faith. Then I realized that there’s this huge potential here to open the eyes of people who in theory care about the sick, the poor, the hungry (if they’re paying attention to what their faith is really trying to tell them). I e-mailed the local writers and publishers. Here’s the gist:

I am writing to express my wish that you utilize the incredible opportunity you have to reach people of faith through this publication to the fullest extent. There are many other issues that need attention besides abortion and stem cells. I do occasionally see articles that treat other subjects like poverty, but rarely is this unjust war we are waging in for the sake of oil and war profiteering mentioned. We are on the verge of starting yet another conflict with Iran in the Middle East. Naval Ships are on their way there as we speak. Why are we targeting Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan when other governments we side with (historically, the Shah, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban) perpetrate human rights abuses as well? And why aren't we targeting North Korea militarily for its nuclear weapons grab? The answer is simply that those currently in power in this administration have personal and family ties to the oil and defense industries. Those countries contain lots of oil, as well as a route to transport it. There are many more issues, such as the impact of these "Free Trade" agreements on the poor in third world countries. They can no longer earn a living growing and selling their crops because government subsidized American factory farms are dumping their excess products in these areas at artificially low prices. These are all issues that have to do with core religious values.

The people in this administration have been plotting the events unfolding today since the Nixon administration (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm and look at the signatures at the bottom). These wars were a foregone conclusion before 9/11, and before Ahmadinejad. These people in power do not represent you or I. They represent their own megalomaniacal, greedy interests. This agenda ties the hands of Republican representatives who would otherwise vote their conscience but whose campaign dollars and very position depend on them voting a certain way. You can watch this in action on CSPAN when they speak out against a bill they ultimately vote for. They use certain issues such as abortion and gay marriage to polarize voters and gain the votes of people who are only aware of a few issues. Your publication, despite sincere intentions, plays into this. Power corrupts, and they have not faced any real challenges to their rule, especially when they tell us that voting for anyone else is a vote to kill babies and be killed by terrorists. The other success they have had is to make people like me sound like extremist conspiracy nuts. We are dismissed, because such things could never happen in America. The media is wholly corporate-owned and it is their job to sell the public ideas as well as products. They even write books bragging about manipulating the public during election time (see http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/alterman ).

You have an opportunity I do not. You write for and edit a publication that reaches many people. Take the time to think about what social justice really means, and whether or not the current administration has delivered on its promises to follow Christian values. I did love the article in The Forum section about tolerance and understanding for Muslims. This is the kind of article that has the potential to steer people more toward their core values, rather than just preaching to the choir about issues they already agree with.


I also sent a letter to the local religious leader:


I am writing today because of my concern for the direction the United States government is heading. The budget proposed by the president sums it up- tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, along with major cuts in spending for all social programs such as healthcare and education. There are tax breaks for rich energy companies and ever-increasing defense spending. I am concerned that the focus of your organization’s activism is on a few hot-button issues and not the more dire needs of the general public, and the poor in particular. While tax credits for private education would be helpful, I think taking a strong stance to end the war in Iraq is more pressing.

Addressing the gross disparities in the federal budget is another. Forcing the government to make good on its promises to help Katrina victims and advocating for fair trade so that farmers at home and abroad can make even a subsistence living are other issues that deserve attention. Supporting alternative energy for real (and not cutting funding while claiming to support it like Bush is doing) can help disentangle us from foreign affairs, improve air quality and slow the global warming trend that is causing the most damage in poor areas which are not themselves contributing to greenhouse gasses (such as Africa).

Somehow the Republican Party has become the party that uses religion to attract voters, yet their policies favor only the rich and well-connected. The Democratic Party supports programs to assist the poor and underserved, such as universal healthcare, but because they also stand for gay rights and abortion, most churchgoing people vote for Republicans. Each day, a new story comes out about this administration that trumps the last, from lying about intelligence before the Iraq war; the torture of prisoners; the abhorrent, criminal negligence of the Katrina response; widespread corruption in Congress and wealthy companies’ lobbying and writing policy. Disagreeing with two or three hot-button issues has driven people of faith from backing the party that is, on the whole, more in line with their values. How can a person vote their conscience when no one out there embodies everything we believe?

Judge Alito is a great example of someone who is not the answer. He was supported because of his stand on abortion, but his record showed that he consistently ruled in favor of corporations over individuals, against civil liberties and wants to end individuals’ ability to bring civil suits to rectify pollution. This was the first time the Sierra Club denounced a potential justice in many years. Pollution disproportionately affects the poor. Polluting industries tend to set up next to poor, rural communities that are less likely to have the resources to object. The EPA no longer protects us thanks to Bush appointees. Even the scientists’ union is protesting the decision to allow pesticide testing on orphans and mentally ill children. Citizens need to be able to take action in the courts against polluting companies. Alito advocates for expanded presidential powers. Hasn’t George Bush proven how one man can cause an obscene amount of damage to a country I used to be proud to be a part of? Does the executive branch really need to wrest even more control from the hands of voters and their representatives in Congress?
Look what the Republican majority has done. How would the greater good be served? By backing a party that wants to legislate how people make their moral decisions on two issues while people are dying in Iraq, in New Orleans, and everywhere from poverty and lack of health care? Or by backing a party that will lessen the control powerful corporations have on policy, and give more tax dollars to programs for the poor?

Another issue is gay marriage. I personally don’t see how it is in the spirit of forgiveness and acceptance to deny people the right to form civil unions. Besides, there is a separation of church and state, and churches are entitled to not marry gays if they so choose. Perhaps the ban on homosexuality is outdated. Most Christian religions no longer recognize the kosher laws as binding. I have heard that was because at the time, the banned animals were more prone to disease and it was a practical way to keep people healthy. Well, also at that time the people really needed to reproduce as much as possible because of high mortality rates and a smaller population. This is no longer the case. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Why follow a direct interpretation of some Bible dictates and not others?

I hope that the religious leaders will use their influence to promote an end to this war for oil (which Pope John Paul was against), and justice and service for the poor. They can also help educate parishioners on some of these other issues I mentioned affecting the vulnerable poor, so that people will realize there’s more riding on their vote than just abortion or gay marriage. Let’s not be focused too narrowly on a couple of issues and lose sight of all the others.



I hope more people involved in these issues will put pressure on their own local organizations and media. Educating yourself and then getting the word out is where it must begin.

Revolution and Polarity

So it's all fine and good to bitch about this stuff but the real question is what to do about it? It's time to stage a bloodless coup. I thought about revolutions and what's required to make that happen. It's basically people getting so fed up that they have to change it. The will of the people en masse is what's lacking. Right now we have a lot of the middle class wanting to hang on to status quo as their benefits are slashed and their wages stagnate. How much longer will we buy the argument that worker exploitation is good for the economy? The middle class has to decide it's worth the gamble to shoot for a better deal. The wealthy like things the way they are because impingements on their profits are lessening all the time. Fortunately there is still a way built into the system that revolution can happen without any bloodshed. The good thing about the Bush administration is that it's driving us to that point much faster. As for those who pine for the Clinton years may I suggest that less broken does not mean fine. Free trade agreements, deregulation of media ownership and the rise of "news" designed to forward an agenda. And I know some of it had to do with the Republican Congress, such as shooting down universal healthcare and not signing Kyoto. It was a step in the right direction maybe but there can be no great change by degrees.

The whole thing needs a kick in the ass. We need to vote new people into every office. No incumbents, no career politicians. They're all tainted by the "system." The system has become an entity in and of itself, rather than functioning to serve the people. We are being exploited by our own creation. Most people think that Congress is corrupt but their particular representative is fine. Odds are you're wrong, whether your representative is Republican or Democrat. Check out Congress.org and see for yourself. This idea of paying Congress to represent us while they use their office to increase their personal fortunes in absurd. And they have the ability to vote themselves raises! They should make what we make. It should be tied to minimum wage. I'm not cruel enough to suggest that they actually make minimum wage because hey, NOBODY can live on that! It should be a percentage, like 500% or something.

If a small group has a lot of money and can use it to influence policy, that short circuits the idea of democracy because it's money and not majority that rules. When in history has anything good come of just having a wealthy ruling class and serfs? I totally agree with publicly funded elections. No more buying a representative. We are losing ground. Organized labor is being snuffed out by intimidation and legal tactics. Everyone says the free market, the free market. Guess what? Even Adam Smith said that there needs to be some morals imposed on the business owners or else it would lead to exploitation of the workforce. Oversight and regulation are not bad or anti- free market, they're essential. Benefits used to be standard but are now hard to come by. Corporations find all sorts of ways around that, such as hiring temps or moving factories overseas. International lack of basic worker rights is the problem, for us and for them. Any American company that operates overseas should have to comply with American worker protections. Knowingly employing immigrants with the intention of paying them crap and working them to death should be cracked down upon. Trade practices should reflect our values. It should be harder for sweatshop owners to sell their wares here. But all this will increase prices, you say. If we all have healthcare coverage and a decent wage, this is not a problem. That's pre-organized labor thinking. Don't you think all these arguments were made back then? That prices would increase? But it worked for a long time. Then you got some republican administrations in that started dismantling all we had worked for. Workers actually make the product. Why do they only get a pittance of a wage as compensation?

We are the only first world country that doesn't have universal healthcare. There are ways to fund it, and it would actually be good for big business because healthcare is becoming a major expense for them. Instituting a flat tax is one way. Why should the wealthy have all these loopholes and offshore banks so they pay no taxes? If everyone was assessed taxes at the same percentage with a higher poverty exemption, it would be fairer and there would be increased revenue and a decreased burden on the poor and middle class. Universal healthcare will also increase the availability of healthcare-related jobs. Slimming down the bureaucracy and eliminating pork barrel spending, and no need for such a bloated IRS system will save money. Committing to changing our energy infrastructure to greener processes such as building more CHP (combined heat and power) plants would create jobs and decrease the vulnerability of the power grid.

Decreasing military spending is another. We need to stop pissing people off so they stop targeting us. Do terrorists hit Switzerland? We should put efforts into a UN system that works, which means us playing by the same rules as everyone else. We all agree to a certain set of rules, such as no nukes and no acts of aggression against other people. We make the Holy Land no one's property so all can come. It will be managed by the UN. Right now agreements and sanctions are powerless because nothing happens if they are broken. And the biggest power (the U.S.) doesn't abide by it. But if a set of agreements could be hammered out think of how powerful that would be. If a country went against it, they would be going against a truly global force. It would be a more effective deterrent.

The universal message should be that no one will be exploited. What this brings me to is the only true polarity in politics. Do you stand together with everyone so we can all be raised up, or do you want to keep everything you can grab for yourself regardless of who you hurt? This is how we should line up. The former have numbers and the latter have money. Forget about the Republicans hijacking the moral values stance. I think it's becoming clear that apart from the "wedge" issues the Republicans are out to help themselves only. Democrats stand for the poor and middle class. The same goes for home and abroad because there should be no "us" and "them" for foreigners either. Workers being exploited in China cause you to lose your job, so you have no money and have to buy things as cheap as possible at Wal Mart (which is a larger trading partner with China than many countries). When people feel slighted or oppressed it's easier to blame a group that has no power. Usually one that looks different from you. The immigration issue is a prime example. Immigrants are being scapegoated instead of addressing the larger problem of global human rights. Immigrants have always been disparaged, and it was once said that the influx of Germans and Italians would cause wage decreases and job loss.

This is not socialism. This is a reversal to the way things were when the middle class came about. In the heyday of unions. It worked. Case in point: Exxon should not be making billions in profits while gouging us at the pump and not making good on what they owe from the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. (Do you know they have not paid a DIME fifteen years later? They're still fighting the settlement in court.) Who's going to stop them? The free market?

When I say there's only one true polarity in politics you will say to me, "What about abortion?" I hope that in addressing that question I will piss off both sides equally. You can not look at such an issue such as unwanted pregnancy and dilute it down to "pro-choice" or "pro-life." Abortion is a symptom of a problem, not the cause or the solution. Unwanted pregnancy is the core issue here. You can't change it by standing in the streets. There are a lot of social ills feeding into the problem. For pro-lifers: you're concerned about the children. What will happen if we one day outlaw abortion? You're proposing an easy fix to a hard problem. Where are all these unwanted children going to go? Will there be enough Child Protective Services workers to handle the increase in abuse cases? Basically, we will first need to dump a whole ton of money into child welfare organizations, foster care and orphanages. These are things that should be done regardless.

For pro-choicers- you're concerned about the moms. Given the circumstances that many underprivileged girls live in, do you think they truly have a free choice about anything? Poverty, lack of education, broken families. Girls seeing no other way for love and acceptance than to have sex. A culture that drills this into our heads. You're proposing an easy fix to a hard problem. Katha Politt once wrote that pro-choicers should not act to reduce unwanted pregnancy because it is de facto admission that abortion is wrong. As someone involved in healthcare I can tell you that attitude could not be more misguided. Needing to have a surgical procedure with all its attendant risks is not preferable to not needing it in the first place.

This kind of polarization causes a lot of people committed to what they see as a worthy cause to waste their energy. It's the Crossfire syndrome. Conflict gets ratings but it isn't productive. Find the common ground and work to change poverty, access to healthcare and the grossly inequitable education system. And I know many people passionate about these issues do just that. It's the extremists I'm talking to.

So I have a lot of opinions. What am I doing to fix it all? I have a lot more time to think than I have to do. I had to pick one thing. Everyone does because otherwise you spread yourself too thin. What I do is work to reduce pollution and global warming with the Sierra Club. It is an issue that disproportionately affects the poor and third world countries. It causes untold adverse health effects. And we're dealing with this because corporations make money polluting and don't care who it hurts. But I have to get the thoughts out of my head, so I put them down here. That's why I called it "Exorcism."

Various War stuff

I attended a demonstration downtown today, which was far smaller than I had hoped but moving and informative nonetheless. The first speaker was a Vietnam vet who spoke of PTSD, which was not formally recognized but through suicide took the lives of twice as many soldiers killed in battle. Why? In the excellent documentary "Why We Fight" directed by Eugene Jarecki, people were asked this same question, and the answer was invariably, "Freedom." But the speaker today said they did not fight for freedom. He said that no new freedoms were gained by fighting in Vietnam, unlike the Civil War, and neither will we gain freedoms from fighting in Iraq. I would take it one step further and say that with the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 we are losing freedoms faster than ever before.

Everyone should see "Why We Fight" and I will summarize a few key points here. First, the views expressed on 9/11 were so like my first post I felt like I had plagiarized although I wrote the post before I saw the movie. One misconception most people have is that "Smart Bombs" strike with surgical precision and minimize innocent casualties. The reality is that out of some 53 bombs fired, NONE hit the intended target. Interviews were conducted near the site of one of the blasts that opened the war where the bomb fell short of its target and hit a home instead. The Iraqi man spoke of the hope they had of being liberated from Hussein's rule destroyed as bystanders suffered heavy casualties. The military-industrial complex was also examined, i.e. the link between Congress doling out money for equipment and the business practices of arms producers like Lockheed-Martin. These companies have factories in every state, so that if representatives don't pass huge military budgets, constituents' jobs are lost.

Exorcism Part B

After getting very depressed over the state of politics one day I embarked on a binge of Daily Show youtube clips. This, as it turns out, was a mistake. I stumbled across Jon Stewart's 9/11 speech. I know that many people spoke equally impassioned words, and since we were numb at the time, the impression did not really stick. What made viewing this speech different, what tore my heart out on this particular evening was that I was looking back at that moment from 5 years in the future. It brought home the realization of how far off course we've gone. I'd let the intervening years occlude what 9/11 meant to me.

What happened at the time was tragic in a way I am incompetent to express. I have never seen so many people die at once in real time. I didn't need to see their faces or their bodies to be fully hit with the fact that when those towers fell, over a thousand lives were snuffed out like so many candles.

What happened immediately after was nothing short of miraculous. I had never participated in grieving on a worldwide scale. I had something in common with everyone I met- on the street, in the grocery store, at work. People who were not my countrymen had something in common with me. That shared experience, that pride and empathy was never felt by me before. A Gen-Xer like me who has never given shit one about this country. I never gave it much thought. I didn't get it. But maybe that's what it was like during the World Wars- a shared experience that has the capacity to unite across borders, below many flags. Generations before me were passionately patriotic. Events like the Kennedy assassination were burned into their collective consciousness. I just thought it was trite that everyone could remember where they were at the time of such an event. But not now. Now, I get it.

How amazing it was for me to wake up and realize I really want to be a patriot and be proud of belonging to the group known as America. I remember for the first time in my life wanting to wear and display the American flag. I wanted to express my solidarity with those whose losses were more personal than my own. Watching Mr. Stewart trying not to completely break down from raw emotion on TV brought back that moment in time like it happened 5 minutes ago. Five years later, the hope and sense of possibility that came along with the solidarity of nations, the renewed patriotism of the American people has been stolen from us. Repetition ad nauseum by power-hungry devils has taken all the meaning away from 9/11, or so I'd thought. I'd suppressed it, pretended I was no longer affected by it. At least that way I couldn't be convinced to hate a people because of it. But it's wrong to take that feeling away from me. It is mine- completely personal and unique because I felt it. And yet, billions of other people can claim ownership of the same thing. It is wrong, reprehensible, base and amoral to exploit it.

Now, the feeling I am trying to convey is not about anger against an entire people, the disproportionate reaction brought on by grief. Anger against a small few directly responsible was appropriate. What I mean is, wasn't there also the realization of, "gosh something must be really wrong for this to be happening"? The wrongness is colonial powers and American policy meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and governmental structures; toward the end of financial or political gain. The victims of 9/11 were completely innocent, but America itself is not wholly innocent. The world was brought together by 9/11. That was a miracle. But how can we not be jaded about the end product of the way this administration manipulated our generation-defining event?

Torture Legislation

Here is a summary from Amnesty International about the legislation the Senate passed that I'm so upset about:

It's a sad day for America and a very disappointing outcome for those of us who devote ourselves to advancing the global cause of human rights.
Yesterday, the Senate joined the House in approving an ill-considered and sweeping piece of legislation, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, that discards key human rights protections – and our best American traditions.

This could have been a proud moment for America. Congress had the opportunity to correct the Bush administration's profoundly disturbing human rights policies.
This was an opportunity for Congress to advance the America you and I believe in.They failed to do so. In effect, they gave their stamp of approval to human rights violations. In the face of this set back, you and I must commit ourselves to working as long as it takes until we reverse the damage done yesterday to the cause of human rights.

Our representatives in Congress have just passed legislation that:

*Establishes a new judicial system to try a wide variety of people in military commissions that lack the minimal safeguards regarding coerced evidence may deny the right of the accused to examine evidence against them. A person could be sentenced to death under this flawed system.

*Strips prisoners in Guantanamo – and other alleged "enemy combatants" in U.S. custody -- of the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus and challenge their detention. Many of these prisoners have been held for almost five years without charges or meaningful judicial review

*Expands the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant" to allow the U.S. government to detain people – on or off the battlefield – indefinitely without charge or access to judicial review for an act as minor as writing a check.

*Provides retroactive immunity to those who may have been implicated in creating policies or participating in abuse and other acts that most of us would consider torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

We appreciate the efforts of the members of Congress who voted against this legislation and in favor of human rights, the rule of law, and our standing in the international community. They took a principled stand. The first thing that we should do is thank the leaders who stood up for the America we believe in.

In the days ahead, Amnesty International will focus on holding the administration accountable for upholding its obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law - and also for fulfilling the expectations of Americans like you and me who believe the America leads the world on human rights.
I know you will stand with us for as long as it takes to prevail.

Thank you,
Larry CoxExecutive DirectorAmnesty International USA

Exorcism Part A

I lost all faith in the democratic process watching CSPAN last Thursday. The Senate was voting on legislation that would determine the fate of the "prisoners" being held without charge or hope of due process in overseas prisons. This legislation does not forbid torture. Rather, it allows the president to interpret the Geneva Convention guidelines and retroactively pardons anyone, even at the administrative level for any torture-related charges. It allows no recourse in our judicial system for the innocent who may be held indefinitely without charge. Because of the election upcoming in a month, nobody wanted to seem "soft" on terror. The few senators who had the balls to stand up for a sense of justice were drowned out by the "terrorists want to kill your families" line we're so tired of hearing. USA Today reporting this used prejudicial language referring to these prisoners as "terrorists" as though it was a foregone conclusion, and there's no way anyone we're holding is innocent. Some senators (mostly Democrats, though with noteworthy exceptions) gave moving speeches full of lofty ideals regarding human rights, the preservation of the Constitution and deference to history and the fact that we've weathered worse storms with our rights intact. One of the most moving was delivered by a Republican who talked about the enormous impact studying the Nuremburg trials had on him. How, when faced with mind-bogglingly bad people, the decision was made as an international community to try them fairly. I thought, "Yay!" Finally one of them gets it and they're not just lining up for the campaign dollars, perks and brownie points that come from toeing the line. I hooted and hollered out loud. Then, he drops the bombshell. He says that he's voting for the legislation without amendment but hopes the right thing will be done when the time comes.

I was crushed. Self-interest won out over the values closest to this man's core. I realized the government is not representative of the people. It's representative of the agenda of the party in power. All dissenting voices were ignored. Fear over reason. I'd heard about this but hadn't actually seen it in action until that day. I figured if someone could just say the right words, everyone would be overcome with the realization of what the right thing to do is. My sister-in-law said that she doesn't follow politics because she doesn't want to get worked up like I do. So I went off about being good Germans.

I ranted all day to anyone who would listen ("anyone" ended up meaning my poor trapped daughter). I told her about how we all have a responsibility to what this government does. If more people really paid attention and held their government responsible, no one could get away with this sort of thing. Government will not just take care of itself (or more precisely, if left alone it will only take care of itself, not its constituents). But likelihood of the masses watching CSPAN instead of American Idol is equivalent to snowballs surviving hell. I tried to give my daughter a crash course in American History. I tried to tell her why she should care. I tried to impart a sense of patriotism and why we should be proud of this American experiment because while it's far from perfect, it's much less bad than many other systems of government. The people may be flawed but the ideas are good ones. I don't think it worked.

So why care about politics at all? Because policy is what determines everything, for good or ill, at least on the larger scale. The way the economy is managed and trading practices are carried out determines whether people all over the globe starve or can feed themselves. Only a powerful, moral government can end wars (or choose not to wage them) and organize massive resources for those in need. Imagine, (to borrow a thought from a friend) if you had the ability to determine where your tax dollars went. I guarantee there would be much more spent on education and healthcare. Those who hold military spending to be their greatest concern would represent a much smaller figure than the current slice of the pie. Instead though, we have this broken proxy system that has gone out of control because all the proxies care about is money and power.

It's very broken. And there are many reasons for it. Media is a biggie. Mass media, by definition, is in business to stay in business. The primary goal is to sell us something, be it a product or an idea. It's not just Fox News, and none of those purporting to be news agencies are excused by the free market. Case in point: why else would Newsweek put a different cover on their US publication than the one overseas proclaiming bad news about the Iraq War? We will never get the truth from television. And if people are tenacious in pursuit of the truth, wading through alternative media, talk radio and international news they get so fucking depressed that they need Jon Stewart and Stephanie Miller just to keep them from jumping off a cliff. You don't need to laugh at it if you're totally oblivious to it. Most people would rather ignore it because it's far more comfortable that way. How can you look at pictures of bleeding children from Iraq and not see that those small rounded bodies are exactly like your kids'? And if you had the choice to live your life without being immersed in that, wouldn't you be happier? It's like choosing to hit your hand with a hammer. It's counter-intuitive. We'd go insane without filters to screen out too much truth.