Deja Vu all over again!

I drifted off to a restless sleep last night listening to reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee has (reluctantly) released its findings, stating what many were certain of for some time; that the current administration lied to us about the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq. Ho Hum. But then to my utter dismay I also hear a report, quoting the the Washington Post, that the Vice President, in concert with Israel's Prime Minister, are pressuring the president to join with Israel in an attack on Iran! My first reaction was "preposterous". With the current climate and political mood they would never pull such a stunt. Then I heard the rest of the story and the panic started.

Last year our own country's intelligence estimates dismissed the notion that Iran was working to develop a nuclear bomb. At least 8 separate US agencies concurred on this estimate so I was feeling somewhat confident that they would not have an opportunity to exploit any data. However, evidently the Israeli intelligence group has a different set of data they are pushing upon Cheney who is in turn pushing it upon Bush. Uh oh...Given what we know about Iraq, the Downing St Memo, Joe Wilson and a do nothing democratic party and a sycophantic press, I am very concerned that before the summer is over we will have attacked Iran. What do they (the neo-cons) have to lose? Pelosi has taken impeachment off of the table, Bush is "protected" and the rest of the White House bunch are clearly a group of sociopaths. So just about the time you get your rebate check you can go out and buy a brand new plasma TV, 'cause soon you will be watching MSNBC around the clock. Get ready for the start of the next chapter of the new Hundred Years War: "Iran - what took us so long?"... And you thought the Obama - Clinton struggles were lively!

Endless Presidential Debates...Excess of "Believel"

I am already tiring of the Presidential debates... I ask you; could they be any less Presidential? In fact could they be any less of a debate? I was present at the Charleston Democratic "forum" and I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed the evening. I was entertained by the banter but in terms of debate... as John Stewart might say.."not so much". If anything the questions asked were mainly concrete and frequently impossible to answer in any meaningful way. To her credit Senator Clinton gave the most obvious answer to the now famous "would you meet with the (bad guys) question". Although her answer was cleverly framed to score political points, she accidentally or otherwise exposed these "what if questions" as the lowest intellectual common denominators that they are. These types of questions seem to seek to dignify the answers. Remember the "what if" question that hurt the Dukakis campaign? "What would you do if Mrs. Dukakis were assaulted"? Better yet, do you remember the old Saturday Night Live sketch.."What if Napoleon had a B52 at Waterloo?" Can you explain to me the difference in the two"? What would you do Governor Dukais if your wife were assaulted and you had a flame thrower?

These forums are just opportunities for candidates to state what they say are their beliefs...about everything! Now stating belief is OK to a point; and I guess it is important to know if someone believes in the Easter Bunny (or other myths?), but I would prefer to hear a debate about the issues of the day. To categorically say you are in favor or against something because of your "beliefs" does little to advance the discussion, in fact; it stifles it. On the other hand to debate the merits of a policy or program, in the context of projected outcomes for the country, forces we, the electorate, to think about it. After hearing the arguments we would then apply our own reasoning to these arguments and then decide which candidate we can support. I "debated " this issue with an acquaintance recently. He asserts that these topics are too complex for most people, that they can't make reasonable decisions about these important issues . "That is why we elect politicians" he said.

Every day citizens in this country conduct one of this Republic's most sacred "rites". They sit on juries and listen to opposing arguments. They weigh those arguments and then render decisions as best they can - important decisions - life altering decisions. I think the average person is more than capable of "figuring" out if it is in our best interest as a country to pay for children's health care, to build a wall along the Mexican border or to continue the occupation of another country.

I would love to see a format of debate where 2 or 3 of the candidates take on an important topic of the day: let's say Universal Health care. They can state the facts (as they see them) and present the short and long term cost/benefit of the program or policy. They would actually debate, presenting point and counter point, building an argument... and the only real rule would be - you can't just say "because".

Wouldn't hearing this type of discussion, covering all the important topics of the day be a help to we the electorate? Wouldn't it also give the candidates a chance to think through how the different issues relate to each other? And... wouldn't this format expose the "Ideologue"? - The person who really is only interested in cultural manipulation and not the advancement of the state of the Republic and it's people.

Finally wouldn't it be fun! It would invigorate the process. I am also not against injecting some "theater" as well. I suspect the Lincoln - Douglas debates had their dramatic and perhaps light moments. Nothing wrong with injecting humor or gamesmanship after all; it is the American way. A sense of humor is OK as well. I think a person who takes the job seriously but not themselves, has a better chance of success during adversity. So entertain me if you like, but please give me something to think about... not just something to feel about, because as it stands now we are all certain to be numb by November 2008.

What do you think?

Best Foreign Film ----- 2030

A wonderful film is about to be released on DVD. I saw this film a few months ago in the theater and with it's re-release, I am reminded just how important a film this is. The movie is called "The Lives of Others". It is set in East Germany, in the year 1984 and the story in essence, is about government control and its no holds barred attempt to totally dominate the lives of it's citizens, through the use of the media, "official" intimidation, surveillance, "secret" inquiries and covert (and overt) "actions".

The movie is in German and since I do not speak German, I had to rely on the subtitles for the dialogue. I actually love movies with sub-titles. Perhaps that is why the ever present "crawlers" running under most news programs today does not annoy me as much as other people. These movies are unique to me because I actually find that I get much more out of the acting: The pain in his facial expressions, the way she turns in the doorway, their posture when they learn the "news" of one development or the other. These explicit communications of what "is" rather than what is "explained"- makes the experience so intimate for me.

This is the kind of film that keeps your attention for days afterward. The layers upon layers of message and movement continue to be revealed, long after the reels have run out. This movie transported me to the cold war era. The images and sounds were stark and haunting: grey tones, cigarette smoke, the European police "sirens". It's structure was vague; a "pretend" society where the rules are always present but rarely mentioned. And it's characters were "determined" yet confused. They seemed to me like dancers on a dingy marionette stage who are not quite aware of the strings attached to their bodies. It is a startlingly accurate portrayal of a truly frightening prescription for existence. A way of life that demands pretense and denies "freedom".

As the movie concluded and the credits rolled, I retreated to my own thoughts. Quite abruptly a woman rose in front of me and spoke, rather loudly. She made one awkwardly cliche' comment - "I am so glad I live in America". Then she smiled and walked out of the theater. For months now, her simple affirmation, as well as the complexities and nuance of the film have been bouncing around in my head.

This film told the story of the dreary existence in Soviet controlled East Germany. During that time we in the USA, more precisely my parent's generation, seemed to be aware of what was happening in the GDR, and I suspect we also could not understand why the people of the East Germany just tolerated it. We scratched our heads and wondered " just when will the people march?" Then we saw the tanks roll in and watched the armed soldiers at the "wall" . Then we held our heads and wondered "just when does it become too late to stop it. "

These people were wiretapped and they were blacklisted. Their careers were threatened by politicians. Women were exploited and forced to "cozy up" to the "bosses". People were threatened with prison without trial and resistors of any type were marginalized, often via the state run media. And others... Well, some others just disappeared.

I am certain that we are all aware of the irony of a movie like this coming out at this point in time, in this country. So I will not "over emphasize".... But I do hope, with more than a dash of skepticism in my mind, that our current society is not the subject of a "docudrama", to be released somewhere in the not too distant future... I hope that the script for the best foreign film of 2030 is not being drafted today... "I Am So Glad I Live In America"...

Be lucky!

Martha, Paris and Scooter "Justice in America?"

President Bush, the made a decision today. He decided to be an "Activist Executive" and commute the sentence of Scooter Libby. He essentially made it clear that if you obstruct justice in the name of protecting his administration you will not serve time in jail. Just as I noted in my previous post, the decision by Gerald Ford to pardon Nixon was a outrageous act - with long term consequences and today's decison will also impact generations of Americans to come. Because once again the word on the street will be, do whatever you want to do, lie to whomever you want, and as long as it benefits a Republican, we will make sure you never see a day behind bars. (G Gordon Liddy must have really ticked someone off). If you've "made your bones" in the GOP you are set for life.

Is this enough for you? Is this enough to make that call? Does it not strike you as odd and distorted, that Martha Stewart and Paris Hilton each have spent more time in jail than Mr Libby?

HE LIED TO THE FBI! HE LIED TO A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR! HE LIED ABOUT A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

Does this not outrage you? Does this not make the bile rise up in your throat? Is this your idea of justice?

Read any non partisan opinion regarding the sentencing of Mr Libby, they all conclude that it was standard and just.
I guess what is so ironic about the commutation is not that Bush actually did it, but the in reasoning he gave. It is his right to act as he did but to say it was because the sentence was too harsh... well that is rich! What is this? The 3 bears? Too much- too little -just right? It seems he has to lie, even when protecting a liar. He should have just said... "I commute his sentence because I can" because that is the truth. When any president grants pardons as he leaves office, I do not believe he gives a reason. We all know the reason, he is doing someone a favor or paying back a debt. Too harsh a sentence? Give me a break! This from a man who as governor of Texas refused to pardon or commute the death sentence of a single person ... even if he or she was mentally retarded. Too harsh a sentence indeed. How does he sleep at night?

What happens now? Will Congress act? I believe that if the executive pardons a person with whom he is criminally connected then that is grounds for impeachment and trial by the Senate. I think Libby lied to cover up for Cheney and Bush in the Valerie Plane case. To avoid the information getting out that by "outing MS Plane, they compromised CIA agents and their assets in the field, and thus compromising national security.

Ask yourself this question... If you were lie to the FBI or a federal prosecutor under oath, to protect even an innocent person, even your 85 year old grandmother, would your sentence be commuted?

So tomorrow is the day you need to make up your mind to act.... Call the White House ad tell them how outraged you are.
Then call your Congressman and tell him or her that you are concerned that the Chief Executive may be gulty of high crimes and/or misdemeanors and that it is the duty of Congress to begin the impeachment process. Do it because it is the right thing to do.

If something is not done to stop this administration... who knows what else they will do - just because they can.

Be Lucky........we need it.

Vice President - In Charge of Vice?

These days Mr Cheney is yet again the focus of the news, the focus of my rage and I hope, the focus of political strategists, now prosecuting their tactics for the 2008 presidential election. I awoke a few days ago with Air America's "Young Turks" lulling me from my last sleep of the weekend. I was not surprised to hear yet more conversation about the Vice President's latest snubbing of the Constitution, the Congress and the American people. After rising I spent the next several minutes in the shower, working up a lather of Zest and consternation as I fantasized about the VP getting his just "come uppins". "We have to impeach him", I thought; not part of the executive branch? ... not subject to scrutiny by the Congress? As my resolve to make yet another call to congressman Brown slid down the drain I started to dress myself with a new perspecive on this situation. I have no idea where Cheney stands in terms of contempt of congress or if he is or isn't in the executive branch... and I do not know if he is guilty of high crimes and / or misdemeanors. However it does appear to me that this Vice President is like no other we have known. More precisely, what it really means is that this President clearly behaves like no other we have known in recent or distant history.

It painfully occurs to me, that this administration has cleverly devised an operational strategy to take advantage of the Constitutional ambiguity of the Vice Presidency and is using the office to prosecute the neo-con agenda with almost total impunity. How ingenious! So much so, that I predict that one of the enduring effects of this Presidency will be that at yhe very least, much more attention will be paid to the Vice Presidential candidates. On the other had it may even come to pass, that as we learn more about Mr Cheney's behind the scene antics, that a Constitutional Amendment of some type is passed. An ultimate legal clarification that defines the limitations and accountability of what became in this century's infancy, the "most influential" office in government. The Vice President's role currently has no official constitutional function other than to serve as President of the Senate and via the 23rd amendment, succeed the president in the event of his/ her death or resignation. (or some other incapacity). This may be the only real recourse to deal with effects of "the man behind the curtain" To prevent the creation of a second "shadow president" who could basically rule with impunity.

It seems to me that whatever Mr Cheney may be guilty of, to take the time to actually figure it out ... to determine what can be done or not done?... Well that could take years, cost millions of dollars and serve as yet another diversion; keeping our focus away from the issues of the day: health care, oil dependence and of course Iraq.

Then again.... NO WAY!!!

I cannot abide the notion of letting him off the hook. He has broken the law, caused the needless deaths of thousands, diverted our treasure to corporate parasites and eroded the rights of citizens. When all is said and done, I still believe that impeachment is the imperative... No matter the cost.... Because, unlike most of the opinions I have heard, I believe the Gerald Ford made a gigantic mistake by pardoning Richard Nixon. He should have been impeached and brought before Congress or a court of law, to answer for his crimes. If that had been the course chosen rather than the easy way out, then we would have never arrived at this crisis of Constitution. There would not have been an Iran Contra and perhaps no "Bush 41" and certainly no "W". I believe instead that the bar would have been raised to the highest level of accountability, which is actually the basic level of accountability for all citizens. I suspect that the pardoning of Nixon let "the word go forth" that you can wiretap and cover up and lie every day and still ultimately you can get away with it. Which is exactly what we are seeing played out today. They, the Cheneys and Bushes of the world, seek power above all else. They do the things they do simply because they can. They lie openly now because no one calls them on it.

I say now is time to call the question. Time to call your representatives and senators. It's not that difficult to do. Just pick up the phone and speak. The staff member on the other end will be polite and they will indeed pass the message along. A phone call still has an impact, an impact that e-mail does not.

So that is how I feel today. Who knows what tomorrow's shower will bring.

Be Lucky!!

By the way..... Our first atheist President was none other than George Washington. Jefferson wrote extensively on the subject, so if you don't believe me.."you can look it up"

DEMOCRATS = The Fear of Success? ...Maybe

Today on www.commondreams.org, Thom Hartmann has published a very compelling piece outlining his view of the Republican strategy for 2008. I urge you to read the article in total but essentially he makes the case that the purpose of the Iraq war was nothing more than consolidating political power. Not for oil, not for peace, not to fight terrorism but as a device to maintain control.

Well this makes perfect sense to me.... I have been searching for some sense in this madness... and all this time it was the most simple of plans: Focus the masses, exploit it for as long as you can then change strategies... First it was lead us towards war now "morphing" again... Suddenly the responsibility for the war is shifting to the Democrats... The media is playing it up...the republicans are working the angle and the Democrats are working their way toward a stunning defeat in 2008...

Yes, put away your Hillary Stickers... forget about Barach... and let Al sleep; because as the economy of thought evolves and the "shape shifter" conservatives get "fuzzy", we should get ready to wake up one dreary November morning to yet another republican landslide. The reason is quite simple actually, the Democrats are working last elections angles while the Republicans have moved on. They started this war and now they are getting ready to end it...on their terms...on their time frame.

The Democrats had their chance to take back control and initiative... They could have just not funded the War PERIOD!....That is, let the funding run out...no vote...no veto... no more deaths.

Instead we have more fear...fear to take a stand...fear to be painted as non patriotic... ultimately: Fear to take control. I think this crop of Democrats are so used to being number 2 that ever since they took control in November they have been doing nothing but try to give it back. They want the titles, they want the roles but they fail to embrace the true essence of leadership...To paraphrase JFK they should do these things "not because they are easy...but because they are hard"... The Democrats believed, I think, that they would be "greeted as liberators"... That the remaining republican legislators, tired of the tyranny imposed on them by Delay and company, would greet Pelosi and Reid with flowers. That the votes would pile up and the war would end soon....or not.

Maybe they don't want to end this war...maybe they just want power and are really hoping for their own Rove to ride in with a blue shade of psychological Jiu-Jitsu to use the people's own power against them...maybe they don't really care about us either...

Maybe we the voters are the one's really afraid of success.

I voted for Nader in 2000. I guess, looking back, it was a wasted vote (and I take responsibility for that vote!) but at the time I was fed up with the 2 party system which seemed to me like 2 sides of the same coin. All about power..all about lobby money, all about maintaining things as they are.

Now I am starting to believe that it is we the people who do not want change. It is we who are afraid of success. I hear the phrase bandied about so frequently in terms of Iraq.."the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over but expecting different results". Well maybe we are insane to believe that voting Democratic will make any more difference in 2008 than it did in 2004. Or that this time it will be different...they will try and break our oil addiction...that we will address address global warming...that health care will be recognized as a right...that the middle class will not only be salvaged but revered!

Thom Hartman thinks the war will end in September... Well it should have never started and what about all those soldiers who have died?...What do we say to their families? Sorry about that?

I fear that if we trust the Democrats we will end up back in the hands of conservative social "craftsmen" who play Black against White and the Middle against the bottom in the service of transferring more power to the powerful...

I fear that if we do not make better choices in the voting booth then we can then look forward ....to more of the same.... the next war... the next crisis ... the next illusion.

Or maybe we can stop acting insane.... Maybe its time as voters to finally succeed....Third party anyone?

Endless Presidential Debates... The new "Excess of Believal"

I am already tiring of the Presidential debates... I ask you; could they be any less Presidential? In fact could they be any less of a debate? I was present at the Charleston Democratic "forum" and I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed the evening. I was entertained by the banter but in terms of debate... as John Stewart might say.."not so much". If anything the questions asked were mainly concrete and frequently impossible to answer in any meaningful way. To her credit Senator Clinton gave the most obvious answer to the now famous "would you meet with the (bad guys) question". Although her answer was cleverly framed to score political points, she accidentally or otherwise exposed the intellectual process actually exposed these "what if questions" as the lowest intellectual common denominator. This type of question seeks to dignify the answer. Remember the "what if" question that hurt the Dukakis campaign? What would you do if Mrs. Dukakis were assaulted? Better yet, do you remember the old Saturday Night Live sketch.."What if Napoleon had a B52 at Waterloo?" Can you explain to me the difference in the two"? What would you do Governor Dukais if your wife were assaulted and you had a flame thrower?

These forums are just opportunities for candidates to state what they say are their beliefs...about everything! Now stating belief is OK to a point; and I guess it is important to know if someone believes in the Easter Bunny (or other myths?)... but I would prefer to hear a debate about the issues of the day. To categorically say you are in favor or against something because of your "beliefs" does little to advance the conversation, in fact; it stifles it. On the other hand to debate the merits of a policy or program, in the context of projected outcomes for the country, forces we the electorate, to think about it. After hearing the arguments we would then apply our own reasoning to these arguments and then decide which candidate we can support. I "debated " this issue with an acquaintance recently. He asserts that these issues are too complex for most people, that they can't make reasonable decisions about these important issues. "That is why we elect politicians" he said.

Every day citizens in this country conduct one of this Republic's most sacred "rites". They sit on juries and listen to argument. They weigh those arguments and then render decisions as best they can - important decisions - life altering decisions. I think we are more than capable of "figuring" out if it is in our best interest as a country to pay for children's health care, to build a wall along the Mexican border or to continue occupying another country.

I would love to see a format of debate where 2 or 3 of the candidates take on an important topic of the day: let's say Universal Health care. They then state the facts (as they see them), the short and long term cost/benefit and any other alternatives. They debate point and counter point, building an argument... and the only real rule would be - you can't just say "because".

Wouldn't hearing this type of conversation, covering all the important topics of the day be a help to us as an electorate? Wouldn't it also give the candidates a chance to think through how the issues relate to each other? And... wouldn't this format expose the "Ideologue"? - The person who really is only interested in cultural manipulation and not the advancement of the state of the Republic and it's people.

Finally wouldn't it be fun! It would invigorate the process. Let me also add that I am not against injecting some "theater" as well. I suspect the Lincoln - Douglas debates had their dramatic and perhaps light moments. Nothing wrong with injecting humor or gamesmanship it is the American way. A sense of humor is not a bad thing either. I think a person who takes the job seriously but not themselves, has a better chance of success during adversity. Entertain me if you like but please give me something to think about... not just something to feel about, because as it stands now we are all certain to be numb by November 2008.

What do you think?