Obama is Ever so Closer to Clinching the Nomination Outright!

Will the Democrats Come to Their Senses?

As the Democrats deciding what to do with Florida and Michigan, the math as to who will end up with more delegates will not change. I've supported the process and Sen. Clinton's right to fight for the nomination--and for as many delegates as she could get. But, this will have to end this coming week!

Back in August, all the representatives of Clinton to the rules committee agreed to the penalty for any state holding early contest (before Feb. 5th). The sole dissenter was one Obama supporter from Florida. Harold Ickes, chief Clinton campaign strategist was elated back then.

The process, as it was laid out clearly favored Sen. Clinton--she had name recognition and lots of money. A shorter campaign with several bigger media markets upfront favor such a candidate. The idea was to open up the process a little bit, and in order to convince states not to come before Iowa and New Hampshire, the DNC (and the RNC) made it clear that there would be penalties! [even though we have state parties, the national convention is controlled by the national committee]. Clinton believed that this contest would have been wrapped up by mid-Feb, and that she'd be the inevitable winner.

One more thing about the rules. The Clinton campaign has been moving the goal posts and now is trying to change the rules after the game has reached its final minute! Florida and Michigan broke the rules and had been told that if they held their contests before Feb 5th, they would not count. They knew the rules before they decided to break them!

Let's say I'm a Dem voter in one of those two states. I'm told that the contests will not count. I decide to do something else with my time instead of voting in a "meaningless contest." Now, I'm told that the contests would count after all. Whaaaaaaa? How is that fair??!!! I am disenfranchised!

...

Update 5/31 (6:30pm)

There's been a compromise. Both Florida & Michigan delegations (pledged & unpledged) will be seated in full strength at the convention but with half their votes. This deal gives Clinton at least 94.5 more delegates, and Obama 68 more. Most importantly, however, it moves the goalposts to 2118--the number needed to clinch. Obama, therefore, may fall short of this new mark after all the contents are done this week. He may have to rely on more superdelegates' support to clinch... Which probably will happen. On the other hand, Clinton will not have any chance of getting the nomination unless there's a massive movement of the superdelegates to her side--this is not likely since the movement has been consistently in Obama's favor.

I expect lots of activity (public and behind the scenes) this coming week, because it's becoming more apparent that Clinton thinks more of herself than the party and the ultimate goal of stopping a Bush third term in November! This is a serious matter and should not be allowed to fester during the summer. I can see how this perception may become a boomerang against Clinton. The Dems will see that they cannot blow this chance of winning.

I read Ickes's objections today (and from other Clinton reps) as keeping their options open to haul this fight all the way to Denver! This protracted fight should not be allowed to take place. The superdelegates and other party officials should immediately declare that the process has produced a nominee--a person who leads in the delegate count and the popular vote.

This compromise is to the satisfaction of the MI & FL Democratic parties even if the Clinton camp objects! It shows that the Clinton campaign has lost control of the party! It'll be very hard to maintain the same stance ("I'm staying in to fight to the end") until the convention.

By the numbers (5/31/08, 8 pm)

Obama needed 41 delegates to clinch before today, but now needs 64 of the remaining total 291 (pledged & supers). Clinton needs 241. It is estimated that Obama will be able to get 40-45 in the next 3 remaining primaries. That would leave him short of 20-25 only! I think this is a number he'll reach before the week is out. So, 2118 will be achieved before the convention. The only remaining question is whether Sen. Clinton will work for or against the Dems winning the White House this year.

Here's an excellent site that keeps track of all the numbers and dates.

editor's note: the picture is from Black Adder's 4th season, which satyrized the lunacy of WWI.

PS>In another unrelated story about nonsense, some conservatives have found an offensive corporate logo and are asking for a boycott. An American (US) Christian group called The Resistance says the chain's logo has a naked woman on it with her legs "spread like a prostitute... The company might as well call themselves Slutbucks". Starbucks says the image - based on a 16th century Norse design of a mermaid with two-tails - is not inappropriate.

What do you think? I think if you looked at the original logo with a magnifying glass you could see two dots around where the mermaid's tits should be.... not to mention that she's totally naked!.... Damn those ancient Greeks and their nudity, they started it!

The Ethical Code Violated, the People's Trust Betrayed... [McClellan: Now, Let's Sell Books Based on Trespasses While in Office]

No Ethical Barriers Could Stop the Bushies from Accomplishing their Mission!

Everyone has a sense of what's appropriate regardless of what the law is. I suppose that most people don't commit crimes because they think it's a bad thing to do; and they do so not because of the fear of punishment. Of course, I understand that a civil society relies on both--an ethical code and punishment, but I want to focus on the perception of what's appropriate. What's that ethical guide that makes people do the right thing even if there is no threat of legal punishment?

I just read some excerpts from the book by Scott McClellan (Bush's press secretary from 2003 to 2006), and I now dislike McClellan more than when he was pushing the Bush agenda from the White House podium. In addition to pleading being "misled" by others [like Lewis Libby and Carl Rove] in the Bush administration, he now admits that he played a part in pulling this huge misinformation campaign to deceive the public and plunge the country into a war, because his boss wanted to leave a greater mark in history than his father, Bush 41.

So, in plain language, McClellan is now trying to make money from his disservice to the country! Much like the former CIA chief, George Tenet [see post on this blog] tried to do recently. I bet you, Collin Powell and Condie Rice will come out with nice book deals to try to re-write history and make money while doing so. Yet, when their integrity was needed to serve the country, they conveniently and cowardly violated the ethical code of standing up and speaking the truth--and, if necessary, resigning in protest. We are not talking about minor policy issues or a difference of opinion here, but about propaganda to mislead the country into a bloody war of bad choice, to name one serious trespass.

When too many horrible things happen, they may blend into a mangled painful memory, so let me refresh our memory: Weapons of mass destruction, smoking gun in the form of mushroom cloud, Al Qaeda-911-Saddam, hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans disaster, Valery Plame's secret identity leak, torture & rendition, secret & illegal domestic spying...

Who could honestly tell us with a straight face that they served the nation when they facilitated unethical and illegal government policies? Only those who, with the same face & without missing a beat, told us they came to power to "restore honor and integrity to the White House"!!!

Update, 5/31

Bush&Co always had the same message that everybody repeats like a parot. They decide on a script and they stick to it. I'm talking about the same language and terminology. Now, they've decided that come-too-lately McClellan sounds "like a left-wing blogger"!

• Former White House aide Karl Rove: “First of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t. Not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger.”


• Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: “We were wrong about whether Saddam had a WMD but that didn’t mean the president manipulated anything. And Scott uses the very same words that the far-left uses and I find that troubling because I find it inaccurate.”


• Former counselor to the President Dan Bartlett: “But he uses these very infammatory and explosive words like, ’shading the truth,’ ‘propaganda,’ all these touchstones of the liberal left, which really makes me pause to think, ‘are these Scott’s words or are they the words of a liberal publisher who’s the guy behind this book.” [The Mike Gallagher Show, 5/30/08]

Does the truth have a liberal bias? McClellan is affirming what most us understood long time ago, but the conservatives refuse to acknowledge publically and are still trying to play the public for a fool.

PS>In a seemingly unrelated story about appropriate messages to the American consumer, the conservatives were upset that Dunkin Donuts coffee ads would remind Americans of anything even remotely Arabic... This ridiculous claim--that Rachel Ray's scarf looked Arabic--carried weight, because the conservative lunatic fringe is not marginal in the US. So, DD pulled this ad! [Here's the link and a photo, judge for yourselves]

How to Best Serve the Memory of Heroes: Prevent More Deaths

The Duty of a Patriot is Not to Serve as Cannon Fodder

Summer in the US begins with Memorial weekend. The beaches are now open with life guards and with admission fees. I hope this summer is good--obviously this means different things to different people--but we all agree that life should be as good as it can be. But, how do we establish those conditions that allow people to reach their own potential & fulfillment? We start by improving the way our government works and by sending better representatives to positions of power!

I'm excited because there's a very good chance things will change for the better after the general election in November. Yes, I know, there's the big unresolved issue of Obama v. Clinton, but my guess is that this will be dealt with in a matter of weeks. Obama needs some 50 delegates to clinch the nomination and he will get those soon. There will be no fight at the convention and all this tension will be ancient history by Labor Day--when most Americans will start to be paying closer attention to politics.

This holiday is about remembrance, but in addition to paying respects to the war dead, we should take a moment and think what it is to be an American today; what it is to be a patriot. Big speeches, larger flags, and blind nationalism aren't very helpful, at best; at worst, they obscure reality and distract us from taking the necessary steps that actually make a big difference in most people's lives.

Sensible patriotism means to make sure that we don't waste our blood, sweat and tears. To make sure that we don't commit our troops to an ill-conceived war of choice. To make sure that the citizens are informed about the important issues and that they participate in the civic affairs of their country! We have to look beyond the smoke screen employed by leaders who want to lead a flock of sheep, and the bumper-sticker mentality must be rejected.

We have to wrest control of our government from the narrow special interests and make it work for the commonwealth. The US has socialized capitalism! Shocked? What do you call a situation whereas risk is socialized (we pay for it when big private companies fail) while the profit remains private? The middle class is shrinking in stature and wealth. There are two Americas out there, and one of them is dying prematurely. Lack of health care is devastating.

You'd think that any good patriot would like to save thousands of Americans: Prevention and treatment of disease is the key. Terrorists and all those "evil doers" want to kill us. OK, that's easy to understand, but let's put things into perspective here. Lack of health care (no health insurance or insufficient coverage) kills some 20,000 Americans every year--far more than all deaths from terrorism (foreign & domestic). And, we suffer unnecessarily too. The American Cancer Society estimates that 50% of cancer deaths can be eliminated in the US if all people got quick and adequate health care. Senator McCain [check his voting record on Veterans on this Memorial holiday] wouldn't be with us today if he was poor. [same for VP Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, etc.]

Let's remember that Memorial Day is for laying wreaths and respect, but it is also about preventing bad policies that lead to more deaths.

Dying for Love in a Country "Liberated" by the US. Exporting Democracy Hits Another Snag!

How to best promote not just democracy, but liberal democracy.

..It was her first youthful infatuation and it would be her last. She died on 16 March after her father discovered she had been seen in public talking to Paul, considered to be the enemy, the invader and a Christian. Though her horrified mother, Leila Hussein, called Rand's two brothers, Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, to restrain Abdel-Qader as he choked her with his foot on her throat, they joined in... Her shrouded corpse was then tossed into a makeshift grave without ceremony as her uncles spat on it in disgust...

Exporting democracy can be a very difficult task unless the local conditions permit such a regime to exist. Condi Rice Ph.D., should have known this much at least when she was advising the president on Iraq! But she wasn't hired by Dubya to contradict the neocons and she didn't have the personal integrity to utter what she probably had learned in grad school.

Anyway, what the US should try to do is to export the ideas of humanism and constitutional liberalism, because it is through these values a society can function democratically--as we understand a liberal democracy to be.

Non-liberal governments often have come to power via the ballot box after "open & fair" elections. We've seen this too many times; that democratically-elected parties pursue totalitarian policies. It might even be the will of the people to brutally enforce conformity and exterminate all those dissenters who "give comfort to the enemy" by criticizing the government or challenging the popular wisdom.

Perhaps some of us in the west don't realize that many societies that may pay lip service to democracy don't view favorably things like religious tolerance (and a separation of church-state), privacy, individual rights, free expression that includes satire and offensive speech, etc.

The only countries that give true meaning to freedom are liberal democracies. They're not perfect--as we know from our own experience, especially under the BushCo government--but as long as we control our domestic Taliban, falling in love is not a death sentence for women.

The following story is from Iraq. A 17-year old girl was murdered by her father because she fell in love with the wrong man. Exchanging glances and an occasional greeting with an unrelated male can mean death for a woman in that part of the world. This "honor" killings are an acceptable norm. The law--based on some religious absurdity and primitive myths--supports this kind of behavior. The police that arrested Abdel-Qared actually congratulated him upon his release for doing the right thing by killing his virgin daughter.

'I don't have a daughter now, and I prefer to say that I never had one. That girl humiliated me in front of my family and friends. Speaking with a foreign soldier, she lost what is the most precious thing for any woman. 'People from western countries might be shocked, but our girls are not like their daughters that can sleep with any man they want and sometimes even get pregnant without marrying. Our girls should respect their religion, their family and their bodies.

'I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,' he said, his voice swelling with pride. 'My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.'

Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British soldier in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death.

Homosexuality is punishable by death, a sentence Abdel-Qader approves of with a passion. 'I have alerted my two sons. They will have the same end [as Rand] if they become contaminated with any gay relationship. These crimes deserve death - death in the name of God," he said, and he added that his daughter's bad genes were passed on by her mother...

It takes a very long time and a good deal of education for people to change their views or gain enough confidence to examine long-held beliefs that have become part of their identity. Political scientists concern themselves with the question of change, which includes progress towards more freedom; there's a wealth of writings views on change, and the kind of desirable change. Yes, change can be slow coming as societies often move like molasses. Or, change can be imposed from above with the force of either the state or an external source. Let's not look far, civil rights in our own country were enforced by federal troops not so long ago.

Unfortunately, a bunch of ideological idiots and incompetent bureaucrats were in charge of the occupation of Iraq. Instead of bringing change, they unleashed all the evils present in a ill-concocted country like Iraq--where religious factions, tribalism, thuggery, and old unsettled scores got a chance to surface because of the US invasion produced a failed state.

When Germany and Japan were occupied after WW2, they were cohesive nations, but nevertheless, there was enough military occupying power to dictate how the new politics, and to a great extend the legal system, were to proceed. This situation produced stable democratic countries that are our allies today.

The best thing the US should be doing is to promote the ideals of freedom and lead by example. The age of the military empires is gone so the imposition of freedom from above or from the outside isn't possible any longer--not that the former imperialist empires had freedom on their minds or in their practice...

People in unfree countries have to see the benefits and the quality of life enjoyed by those who do have liberty. Modernity can be threatening to traditional societies and there'll always be reactionary movements, but modernity coupled with liberal freedoms can be attractive too. The US should encourage this kind of progress. One way to influence countries is by offering help--which is cheaper, and dare say, more effective than the militaristic approach favored by the neocons. For example, eliminating malaria in Africa for $12 billion is a bargain, and the benefit many-fold, measured in human lives and good will towards the US.

We need smart people in positions of leadership who can re-evaluate the strategy and long-term interests of the US. Without giving in to those who want to impose ideas and political systems unfit for modern humans, we have to think big, outside the sophomoronic approach of: I can punch you really hard...

The more peace, health, education & prosperity spreads, the more likely to have stable conditions for a liberal democracy to flourish. The more of those democracies, the better for all us the world will be. Now, that's a great progressive culture of life!

Raising Humanity One Child at a Time

Happy Mother's Day!

If we want to make our mothers happy, we should celebrate them more than one day, and, generally speaking, we should try to elevate the position of women everywhere.

Linguist George Lakoff in his book, Moral Politics, he talks about the strict disciplinarian father and the nurturing mother as two different models of government. Lakoff suggests that we need more of the mother model--which is preferred by the progressives. The conservatives appeal to people's belief in a strict father; and it seems, that many people need the rigid structure in their lives as they prefer to follow than lead.

We are different after all. Progressives want to explore the world, entertain ideas, are open to change & revision, and have a more positive view of human nature. Conservatives, like GW Bush, don't want debate (or talking back). Why, exchanging liberty for a promise of safety is welcome... Oh, and an absurd reductionist approach: with us or against us; good or evil; hero or villain; moral or immoral, etc.

Again, I repeat, the philosophical difference is that we like the nurturing approach in our government--not a nanny state, but a government that creates the conditions in the country for the individual to have a reasonable opportunity to reach self-fulfillment!

Mothers have played a greater role than fathers in raising the generations of humans. They're the keepers of the culture--even if this often means discriminating and prejudicial practices against them! But, without their long investment in our well-being, humanity would not have arrived at where it is today.

We do need a progressive culture of life, whereas family values, for example, have a true meaning... Not when the government or religion try to control a woman's reproductive choice, but during pregnancy and soon after birth mother & child are left to their own devices to survive! Not when women are treated as chattel and as vessels for procreation. On the contrary, it means pre-natal care, full health care coverage for mother & child; it means good educational opportunities for the children too.

Since societies became militaristic, women were relegated to the bottom of the social ladder and their duty & self-fulfillment was to be found by serving their husbands. This has to change fast. For goodness' sake, we've come a long way to the 21st century; at least we should bring all humanity to the present and not leave them in the past!

We hear about family values but we see little in the way of policy that actually promotes those conditions that enhance family life when it matters! Family values should mean a lower (to non-existent) infant mortality. Every minute a mother dies due to childbirth complications. Her children die of malaria and other preventable diseases. But, even before a woman becomes a mother, she can greatly benefit from formal education. An educated mother is less likely to totally depend on her husband, less likely to get AIDS (and more likely to be healthy), and less likely to have too many children.

Some of the conditions in the developing world are appalling. But, poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases are not strange to American mothers either. The US is a much better place than the Third Wold, but we do have the weakest social safety net among the advanced democratic countries! The indicators of the health of the nation tell the story... we're number 37 on the World Health Organization's list.

The bottom line is this: we honor motherhood by treating our mothers well. It makes sense, doesn't it? Better mothers & better conditions for motherhood and we all benefit. After all, we exist because we were the recipients of our mothers' nurturing and love. That's a smart culture of life, and good family values!

G W Bush: Mission Accomplished! [oh, well, that's what he told us on May 1, 2003]

Update, 5/2.
There's this perception that the media has a liberal bias. [This is not so, but I'll grapple with this topic in a future post.] Let's see how this "liberal" media has been so kind to the Bush administration for far too long; and how it surrendered its professional credentials during the time when the country was getting ready for the war in Iraq. When we needed the media to serve the public interest the most, they just became Bush&Co's lapdog.

Chris Mooney wrote a great article in the Columbia Journalism Review:

Here’s what these six editorial pages did write, during the crucial six-week period between Powell’s speech and the beginning of hostilities on March 19, 2003. They ranged from hawkish without a shade of doubt (The Wall Street Journal and, to a lesser extent, the Chicago Tribune), to prowar but conflicted (The Washington Post and USA Today), to antiwar without United Nations approval (The New York Times and Los Angeles Times).

None of these six unconditionally opposed war. Neither did any of them throw their weight behind intellectually appealing, but nevertheless unofficial, prowar arguments. These included the so-called “liberal hawk” position, which focused less on Hussein’s status as an imminent threat and more on the moral case for overthrowing a murderous tyrant. In other words, of the six papers we studied, for the most part, the ones that supported war also accepted Bush’s justifications for it.

Among the nation's most "liberal" voices [mainstream press], the Washington Post, was one of the most hawkish supporters of the war; and, we can't forget Judith Miller's front-page articles in the NY Times! These two papers (among many) echoed BushCo's claims for the necessity of the Iraq War! Let's not forget all the aspects of how we got there...


Fiver years later... Are we winning yet?

PS>Our top military commanders in Afghanistan are alarmed and calling for a serious reinforcement and attention to that conflict over there, because the Taliban has been gaining and, they say, there are serious threats to our national security originating in Afghanistan! But, the mainstream media haven't picked up on this story yet. I guess Rev. Wright is more dangerous for America...


Update, 5/5:
This another shocking news.
The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said. [from Bloomberg.com]

Another Case of Lies & Propaganda by Bush & Co. Not Surprising, but Why Haven't the Media Picked up on this Story Yet?

I am a fan of Bill Moyers. I appreciate anyone who adds intelligence to the dialogue and enhances knowledge. Here come Bill O'Liely and Newt Gingrich, who label Moyers as "far left" and "impressed with those who hate America"! This because Moyers interviewed Rev. Wright. Sure, those "America haters".. as compared to those who love America by foolishly sacrificing American lives--here (no universal health care) and abroad (Iraq War). And, those who use code words, such as "limited government" to mean no protection (consumer, environment, health) and no empowerment (access to opportunities, like education, etc).

The people have a right to know, even if they choose not to know. Libraries should exist even if they're not used by everyone. Same with parks. Certain things are necessary even if most people don't use them. Insurance is a thing you buy, just in case... Same with the court warrants; they're almost automatically given to law enforcement for the asking, but they're a necessary condition of accountability and of creating a record for a particular action by our government!

There's a report that shows how the Pentagon paid "policy analysts" to go on national media and promote the administration's [note: the official views, not what many generals & experts are really saying about the Iraq war] views. The mainstream media swallowed this. Remember how BushCo would feed Judith Miller of the New York Times (formerly) and others who would publicize the lies & misleading information prior to the war? And, then BushCo would say, for example, "as the NY Times reported..." Yeah, that kind of situation whereas propaganda and the media's failure to uphold professional standards [you know, seeking the truth and the facts] was repeated again. It seems that we haven't learned from past gaffes.

It's illegal for the president to intentionally mislead Congress. It's illegal for the government to secretly pay people to propagandize. Since before the invasion of Iraq, BushCo hatched a plan to mislead the country. Part of this plan was to pay for surrogates [at least 75 former military officers, now consultants to the war machine] to "amplify the message" and insert them into the mainstream media as "analysts"! The media were duped, once again. This story has come to light, but the media is not covering it! Finally, News Hour (PBS) did a segment the other day. [Watch it here]

The Iraq war could not have been sold unless for the deceit perpetrated by Bush & Co. I think we deserve better than being lied to and treated like little children. You see, that's the conservative approach: all discipline and no nurture. I'm not looking for a nanny state, because many of us are happy to be adults and take responsibility for our actions. And, we don't want to defer judgment to Big Brother. We're confident enough and can deal with a challenging crisis.

But if someone insists on collectively treating us like a child, then at least they should provide all the benefits a child should have: health care, clean air, education, protection, safe food, adequate shelter, a healthy environment (and a healthy Earth to live on), daycare, and opportunity to success. We don't need reckless parenting--those disciplinarians who are only good at abuse. Even those who feel like kids today--unsure & afraid--should rise up and emancipate themselves. They'll be better off without the bullying and the deceptions of the self-appointed guardians, because those guardians' interest lays in keeping people immature!

I don't think we need guardians, Big Brother, or a messiah, as long as we mature, interested & engaged citizens of this great country. It's time we take control of our government [throw the bums out this November] and demand to be treated with respect. After all, they work for us!

Update 4/28

Elizabeth Edwards wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times on Sunday. Here are some excerpts:

• The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.



• The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles.



• If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie "Network" but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility.

Oh, by the way, Sen. McCain's health care plan wouldn't cover her or even McCain himself! [pre-existing cancer conditions]

The Mantra of this Imperial Presidency: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Quote from the Declaration of Independence

After a long series of serious abuses, amnesia might set in, or avoiding reality may be a natural response to deal with the pain. I hope that we are not completely numb and that we'll maintain enough energy to rise to the occasion this election year. We have to throw the usurpers out, hold them accountable, and ask for a better social contract from our new government.

I am not trying to saturate the senses or overwhelm the mind with whatever bungles it, but it's important to record the political offenses and the abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration. It's a patriot's duty to do so; it's common decency for common people to refuse to be indifferent and let the violators act with impunity.

There's hope, as long as people care and realize that the bizarro world of BushCo must end. Here's a recent example of the paranoia and the absurdity of this regime.

From Think Progress:

In a recent briefing with Canadian press (which has yet to be picked up in the U.S.), Chertoff made the startling statement that fingerprints are “not particularly private”:
QUESTION: Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.

Gloves, anyone? We also must be crazy for throwing our DNA carelessly around! No privacy, said the Big Brother. Is this crazy or what?

The Fourth Amendment (you know, that one about warrants and proper cause) has been grossly violated under this imperial presidency. We don't need no stinkin' badges seems to be the new mantra. Oh, and since Congress insists upon passing new laws, el presidente has a secret weapon: his signing statements! He says, fine you want to play with me, I'll sign this law, but this what I think of it.... [the law doesn't apply to him!] And, who can forget this trick of ..redefining torture!



Here's another gem from a stalwart of conservatism:
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited Drew University in New Jersey, where he took questions from 20 political science majors there. When one asked him how the government could justify stripping rights from Americans in such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act, Gingrich said that the government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties"

Well, do you think Gingrich is right that most Americans would be willing to give up all their freedoms for promise of safety? I hope we're better than that. And, I hope if the answer is "no" is not because the people know how incompetent this administration is, but because freedom is an essential condition for us to remain a great country.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin

The Politics of Tax & Spend and the Role of Government. Pay Your Taxes But Ask for Accountability too!

Should we pay taxes according to ability & earnings?

Ah, the tax-filing deadline is fast approaching. Have you done your taxes? You should file if you want to receive a "rebate" from our government, because this money (that we don't have but will borrow at great expense) will stimulate the slumping economy--or, that's the idea, they say, during this election year! Sure, why not. Our government wastes so much money anyway, what's a few hundred more billions of dollars?
What most people don't get is that our political system is responsive to those who get access to it--either to the multitude who decide to organize and participate, or to those who buy influence through lobbying and personal connections!

As humans see the benefit of organizing themselves into a civil society--hopefully with a good social contract--the question arises of what the role of the government should be. I think it should be to protect and empower the commonwealth, that is, for the benefit of the greatest number of people possible. Yes, of course, I recognize the principle of protecting the minorities, however small they are, so you can not exploit the few for the benefit of the many either.

This philosophical (and, I maintain, practical) approach to the role, scope and size of (our) government is one of the important differences between the progressives and the conservatives today! But, in order for our government to do all the good things for us, it needs money, hence the ..dreadful taxes. The reason to pay taxes is to establish such conditions as to give reasonable opportunities to everyone to reach his/her own potential. Empower & protect--that's my understanding of a good social contract.

Have you noticed who has the strongest voice against taxes? Those who are better off! They usually get their way of tax breaks and lower taxation as a percentage and ability to pay. This week, NOW produced an excellent piece on the tax policies many states have embraced--policies that place most of the tax burden on those who can least afford it! See, for example, what NOW discovered in Alabama [click on the link to watch the NOW video] one of the most regressive states in the US, where a family of four with as low income as $12,600 [recently raised from $4,500] has to pay taxes. That's pay not file for taxes. The connection to poverty & hunger is crystal clear.

Next Friday, the farm bill expires and Congress is working on a new one. In light of our huge budget deficit, this farm bill is "the most lavish subsidies in American history" the Wall Street Journal has decried! Yes, that Journal--not exactly a marxist publication. The Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has acknowledged that the insurance companies and the commodities industry are the two most powerful groups that carry great influence with both parties in Congress. Most of the farm subsidies go to rich farmers, big corporations-- a practice which is both wasteful and unethical. This is one of the many cases where we have to stop and think, and ultimately call it as it is.

The smaller government advocated by conservatives means: a big enough government to maintain a trough that feeds the few, but small enough that cannot regulate, inspect, and ensure a more fair distribution of the public wealth! No safety net, because, hmmm, you should be "free from the nanny state!" This is the bottom line. Oh, OK, there's an exception regarding the size of the government: those conservatives that want the government to be strong enough to shove down our throats a particular religious morality they advocate. In this, you are a toddler and you need a ..nanny! Is this clear?

Why is there so much hunger in the US today? Why do we increase the farm subsidies to the rich farmers [there's a fight to limit payments to farmers making up to a $1 mil. instead of the present $2.5 ceiling] but we don't increase food stamps to poor Americans? Most rural poor that get food stamps have little food after the 3rd week of the month. We're talking about working people here, who simply do not make enough to feed their families. There's a great hunger in rural America, 35 million of out citizens, but this is not even an issue discussed in the current presidential race!

Bill Moyers has another excellent piece on the farm bill this week. Cash Cows and Cowboy Starter Kits from EXPOSÉ illustrates, some of the subsidies in the current iteration of the bill don't go to the stereotypical small American farmer — or even to farmers at all. See how the farm bill gives billions to people who don't farm, or "drought aid" to people who didn't suffer any drought conditions! Or, how people got money from the space shuttle explosion over Texas for a bogus "livestock compensation"!!! Poverty exists in the US and it's bigger than we want to admit or pay attention to. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) just slipped a pork-barrel subsidy to owners of ..race horses!

There's another class, the missing class, of the near-poor. Katherine S. Newman has a great book on this subject. This video explains more about those Americans who are also forgotten, who live on the margins of the mainstream economy, and on the edge of economic disaster. We can cut hunger in the US by half in one year by eliminating the waste in just one area: farm subsidies. But, we need leadership and political commitment. Oh, yes, we also need a politically educated public, and that Americans start behaving as they are in the economic scale not as they'd like to be or "see" themselves in the undetermined future.

I don't know if it's a short attention span or by choice, but we often focus on a few issues and forget others that are equally important--which actually make a big difference in most people's lives.

We should have a serious discussion on the role of the government and to dispel some misconceptions about the infallibility of capitalism. The free marketplace is a great but imperfect mechanism and like a good car needs to maintained and occasionally steered in the right direction. We have to examine ways make it work for the commonwealth and not to privatize the profit while we socialize the risk. There is no rational or moral argument to continue doing what we've been doing on many levels of public policy. We should start re-examining our intense focus on being a very militaristic country and the costs associated with such a strategy, and then re-evaluate the priorities of alocating the resources to benefit the commonwealth. Having a long-term strategy would also be quite beneficial for the next generations (remember them?).

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968)

How do you think such statements would have been received today in our country? Without the benefit of hindsight...

America's Age of Unreason: When Matters of Faith Dominate the Social Discourse

Updated, 3/30/08, below

Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle!

When it comes to US politics, religion plays a big part, and, I guess, no one could be elected to a high office [well, maybe outside NYC, San Fransisco, etc] unless they profess their strong religiosity. Perhaps, it's not smart for me to start such a topic now, because this election should not be fought on who's a believer, i.e., who's on the side of the Christian God. Such a case would be a distraction at best. Seriously, unless the currency of understanding is reason & evidence, then not much can be discussed or minds changed.

Elections are not about educating the public on issues already decided in their minds. For, example, if you're convinced we're living in the end of times, with rapture around the corner, a political campaign isn't the appropriate time to talk you out of such a belief. Campaigns may inform on certain policy issues, but mainly they are a battle of ideas, of framing of the issues, and a candidate's personality & character. Rarely do they change any preconceived notions people have already formed based on an emotional decision.

I'm sure you know people who have an emotional reaction to an issue, thus forming an opinion, and then they look for any scraps of reason to support their view. The process of arriving at a decision is not important as much as how they feel about something. The scientific method & inquiry is the reverse of that. Here the process rules over the conclusions--which they follow based on evidence and reason. I'm in favor of such an approach to understanding the world around me, hence, my affinity for science & rational thinking.

However, there's a greater issue here about our national obsession with religion, and whether religious beliefs should guide our political actions. What happens in the US is actually the reverse than in most western European countries--where religion is mostly a private matter. Over there, atheists-agnostics actually are preferable to those who wear religion on their sleeves! Europeans think that an atheist/agnostic has no religious agenda to push and more likely to get on with the business at hand, for the state and the commonwealth. What a concept!

Often, many changes start slowly with a few voices, but it's important to stand up and be counted. I'm talking about maintaining a secular state here, not abolishing religion, but to stop the kind that wants to shove their brand down our throat. Yet, how can you deny that it is religion(s) that drive ignorance and intolerance? No, not all religious people are like that, but their most extremist elements are in control overall. If nothing else, their rhetoric reveals their prejudice & ignorance. How much of the world's suffering today (and for most of human history) is not "reasoned" by, promoted by, and spread through religious dogma?...

In the US, several states have an anti-science stance today! Why is it so? Is it because the facts aren't available? Is it because science hasn't given us answers? Why is there such a dumbing down? Is truthiness (how we feel about issues) our best way to understand? I recommend Susan Jacoby's latest book, Age of American Unreason as necessary reading on this topic.

I'm talking about teaching our kids science--you know, those theories that are based on facts not wishful thinking or on any hypothesis not supported by reason or evidence!

One in three Americans considers themselves "born-again" Christian fundamentalist, many believing in eschatology (the world is coming to an end soon).... I don't know if you realize it, but when the majority of Americans believe that, for sure (or think it's a good probability), Jesus will return in their lifetimes it has an impact on our politics! When so many people believe the world is going to end with Armageddon, does it not influence what we plan for the future? Heck, we have to look ahead--what the next several generations of our children and their children will inherit from us. The environment, energy needs, human health, the conditions for sustainable living, etc., are all very important. And, the window of opportunity to avert disaster is closing.

In a free society everybody can say & belief whatever he wants. But, it is frustrating to see so much ignorance and prejudice in this 21st century. Perhaps we are still very primitive in our thinking and behavior. On many levels, humanity does not live in or experience the same universal age. The less we know (or want to know) the more conservative we are.... We tend to conserve ideas, beliefs, culture, behaviors--even if they're impractical or outright primitive--when we don't know how to deal with change, especially the rapid changes of modernity. The sense of identity an individual has is extremely important.... and, it's has a personal definition. The more secure and confident a person, the more likely to think about change!

So, maybe we have our answer to this: How come people don't leave their congregation when their religious leaders make incredible claims? Or, that God is so angry & vengeful that he destroys everything in order to punish sinners and several of his faithful alike? Why the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, Hagees, and all the others who preach hate and stupidity still remain relevant in an advanced society like ours? Well, they're relevant because they have millions of blind followers behind them! Their coffers bulged from donations when they pronounced that God punished New Yorkers on 9-11, New Orleans with Katrina, etc, etc.... Absurd, yes, but it's normal that people hold contradictory ideas in their head.


You've heard already about the comments Obama's pastor made and the hoopla that ensued. What's the problem here? Rev. Wright didn't say anything remotely worse than what those bigots I mentioned above have been saying all along. [see sidebar on the Hagee endorsement of Sen. McCain and the latter's elation for such!] Obama handled the situation well enough. Here's a good article by linguist & activist George Lakoff on this. Here's Wright's comments: video

The problem is with those people who are so convinced that they know the mind of God--what he wants and stuff--and are ..hell-bent in killing others in his name! It's rather unsettling to me that the religious fanatics here have so much influence on public policy--in a very negative way.

America and those successful countries where humans have achieved liberty and a higher standard of living owe their success largely on the conditions and the socio-econo-political environment. The three "Tees" are necessary: Tolerance, Talent, and Technology. Now assuming these are good things to have and maintain, the question is, what are we doing about protecting and enhancing those conditions that made us great? Or, are we so weak to buckle when we face the various crises and give up those conditions that made us great?

Think of the present--what's going on in our country--and of the future, where we're headed, where our children will be. Then watch this video. Hopefully, if you haven't done already, you'll stand up and oppose ignorance and intolerance!

UPDATE, 3/30/08

If there was a choice between Xenu, or those who support sacrificing young virgins to the sun god, and Sen. McCain, I'd choose the latter. But, to my relief, there are much better choices this year. Of course, this election is about the direction of the country. I'm a progressive liberal, and my the choices I make reflect what's pragmatic and what party, or politician comes closer to my beliefs.

Pragmatism, scientific approach (instead of voodoo), are some of the qualities I'm looking for in a US president. I understand that before someone wins the nomination and even the general election they have to say things they don't believe, especially in the case of religion. But, what do you make of the following?

* McCain supports Bush's policy: preach abstinence only; no other methods of contraception and/or counseling. [NYT, March 16, 08]. He takes advise from Dr. Coburn--the Rep. Senator from OK--who advocates the death penalty for women and doctors involved in any abortion under any circumstances! And, thus, McCain supports the stupid policies that don't work regarding sexually-transmitted diseases. Like saying in Africa, AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse!

* McCain is happy to have the endorsement and support of Rev. Hagee. [check this video]

* McCain wants to take America back to the 16th century. [Is this video evidence of his major flip-flop?]

A Sad Anniversary for a Costly War That Has Made us Poorer & Less Safe

From "Mission Accomplished" to Mission Impossible. Deception meets incompetence: A deadly combination!

It has already lasted longer than World War 2, five years today and counting. This week in 2003, president Bush gave an ultimatum to Saddam and promptly invaded Iraq. By doing so, he misused the opportunity of the century to unite the world against terrorism after 9-11, and make the US a leader and a defender of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights! Mr. Bush made the US & the world less safe; he gave more power to the extremists in the Middle East, and surrendered the moral high ground.




We've lost at least 4,000 soldiers according to the official count, but this includes only the combat deaths in the battlefield. Those killed in accidents, diseases, suicides, or died in hospitals weeks later, are not part of this count. We also have at least 30,000 injured, many so severely that they'll always be dependent on others & long-term medical care. Of course, the numbers climb to hundreds of thousands if we include non-Americans! [do they count?...]

The monetary cost estimates vary. The Iraq War Counter here shows the actual expenditures so far. It does not include long-term health care for the 30,000 plus injured veterans, or the interest on the borrowed money [you knew we didn't have the money for this war, didn't ya?], or the wear/tear/replacement of military equipment, or the Pentagon's annual budget of $500 billion, and the $500,000 paid to the families of those killed in action. It doesn't include the indirect taxes & costs Americans are paying because of the skyrocketing of the price of oil.

The estimated cost per month in 2008 is $12.5 billion. Don't listen to those neocons that say this money is pumped back to our economy. Yes, it's our government doing the spending [talking about welfare for big corporations, some of which don't pay any taxes], but it's about priorities for the stuff we need--spending to benefit the commonwealth! As an example, for the projected costs in 2009, this money is enough [more than enough if we actually reform the health care system] to pay for the health care of 41 million Americans!

Or, New Yorkers will be responsible for $12.5 billion [not including the future costs as described above] in 2009. With this money we could do some of the following:

• 2,306,150 People with Health Care, or
• 2,040,679 Scholarships for University Students, or
• New Elementary Schools, or
• 4,369,925 Children with Health Care, or
• 144,842 Elementary School Teachers

Since the beginning up to 2007, New Yorkers' share of the cost is $41 billion. For that money [not including long-term costs as described above], we could have done some of the following:

• 7,545,445 People with Health Care, or
• 2,153 New Elementary Schools, or
• 14,297,868 Children with Health Care, or
• 2,153 New Elementary Schools, or
• 6,676,857 Scholarships for University Students

When you go to vote this November don't forget those who supported the war and still maintain a stupid attitude of "stay the course!" Just as a reminder, this is what they told us, and they haven't yet apologized!

When our country must sacrifice, our leaders should do their best to see that this burden is widely shared not based on the shoulders of the least privileged, nor should war be one of choice and an opportunity for a transfer of wealth. Patriotism shouldn't be defined by long & hyperbolic speeches but rather by doing what's best for the commonwealth.

Patriotism is standing up for the truth, and questioning our government. Patriotism is to defend those conditions and civil liberties that have made our country great--not by becoming more like our enemies! Patriotism is to go to war on a necessity (not on a choice based on deception & lies) and when doing so to give our soldiers what they need to accomplish their mission!

Lastly, we have to be honest among those of us who oppose the Iraq war. We are against it because it was a very bad mistake from the beginning, not just because this administration is criminally incompetent. The disaster that ensued is obviously another important reason to end this war, but unless we look ourselves in the mirror and examine the causes that led us into this incredibly costly expedition, we will repeat such a horrible mistake again.

Please visit the following links for a better perspective on the war

Iraq Memorial on line (iraqmemorial.org) Family testimonies on the human costs of the war.

The architects of the War--Where are they now? Good question..

Faces of the Fallen. See our dead soldiers' faces, names and brief bios.

A Story of Bears, Bulls, and BS. Or, How the System Really Works.

It's Spring break, but I'm already planning my next week's classes! See what some free time does to me... (looking for trouble). It's fun, coming up with stories and exam questions..

Class exam: Analyze the concept: socializing the risk and privatizing the profit. Include examples. You should also reference the ideological framework as to the role of the state (gov) in a modern capitalist system. Does the marketplace need the government to operate, or does the latter function as an impediment to the former?

Now, the following is a story I just made up but will use in class to ease the students back into rigorous learning, and, of course, to ..indoctrinate them.

Once upon a time, there was a small club of friends who dined and played (golf, bridge, etc) together no matter what happened in the world. They were considered wise men by their peers, and had advised other people to be aggressive in their investments--normally with other people's money!

They all made millions in salaries & bonuses, because they deserved it--and because a small group of their peers agreed that those who move lots of money around have lots of stress. Money always shows how much a person is appreciated was the dictum.

There are certain story tellers who convinced the majority of the village people that welfare--often called, the social safety net--for the working & indigent classes is a very bad thing. They also said that the government is a necessary evil and that, for our sake, it should be so small as to be drowned in a bathtub... Private companies, usually after huge over runs of the original estimate, would provide the bathtub and the taxpayers would gladly buy it.

On the other hand, assisting the hard-working and money-making businesses (ie, corporate welfare) was is a good thing they told us. The preferred to be mum, retreating in the quiet of the backrooms as they made their deals. After all, who needs all those statistics, numbers (oh, the horrors of ..math), and the legaleze--all very boring. Who could argue against this: American companies are patriotic and would never deliver inferior products, waste taxpayers money, put any American in danger, and charge us higher prices through no-bid contracts. The free market would never allow that, would it?

Those who have more money, wealth and power got even more money & legal benefits since apparently they deserve it. They owed their success to their own efforts alone, something like pulling their own bootstraps. Of course, they needed bigger tax breaks too! They had more expenses you know!... End of this little story.

So to better understand all this, I brushed up on Adam Smith recently. I had to discuss his ideas in class too--Moral Sentiment, and Wealth of Nations. I understand that profit is the engine of capitalism. Smith said something about competition and how it's good for the marketplace, but measures had to be taken to prevent predatory markets and companies. Ah, well. I'm sure the modern capitalists and those in power know that.

I also read, Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston, and watched him on Bill Moyers Journal. [here's a clip on YouTube]. I suggest you check those short videos. Very informative. Anyway, I'm wondering why we those who demonize the (our) governmnet often turn to it for help & salvation when they screw up?

Do you have an answer?

The Sordid Story of Governor Elliot Spitzer: Being a Moral Crusader Can be Hazardous...(to the public and to themselves)

Clean shaven but not as clean as he presented himself in the past. The governor saying he was sorry for being untrustworthy [3/11/08].


When political leaders we support make serious mistakes, we have to ask for accountability. I supported Eliot Spitzer for governor of New York. He was a progressive and much, much better than the alternatives presented to us--when he ran as state Attorney General and later for governor. But, he betrayed the public trust by putting himself into a compromising position. He exposed himself to what he had previously described as "organized crime," money launderers, and human traffickers who could--who knows--demand special favors from him.

He also may have broken the law by using campaign funds to pay for sex. The so-called Mann Act [a century-old law regarding ..transporting women for immoral purposes; this was before women got the right to vote] could be invoked in this case against him. His moral failure and his betrayal of his wife is something he has to deal with in private, and it shouldn't be of public concern, except that it affects all of us. I understand human frailties, but when you ask for the public to entrust you with lots of power, you have an added responsibility to be clean.

People enter in all sorts of private arrangements and relations with spouces and friends. I'm not judging that and I don't really care about it. But, Mr. Spitzer also happens to be my governor, an elected public official who should be an example of a good public servant. He has failed on this account. We don't deserve this. His private actions were utterly reckless for a chief executive of a great state.

Yet again, I'm always rather suspicious with anyone who self-describes himself as a moral crusader. It bothers me when they want to appear as "holier than thou." Often they have something to hide as well. It was just a short time ago when Spitzer was going after prostitution rings and part of his rhetoric was how women were being exploited by their bosses and rich customers! How ironic.

It shows great arrogance to be on a public crusade while he was privately violating the very ideals, principles,and possibly laws, he was promoting in public! It takes a big hypocrite to do that.

If I believed in divine justice, I'd say he had this coming, but it serves him right to fall on his own sword. When a politician (or any leader) is telling us a story, he better have his facts straight and that he's not hiding anything in the closet.

You can take this as a free political advice. If you're trying to tell a story of how ethical or moral person you are, make sure you are indeed! Otherwise, campaign on competency, the "economy, stupid," charisma, vision for the future, etc. Don't carry the Bible in public while partying with the devil in private! The devil leaks the story, eventually...

Reading the Political Tea Leaves and Seeing Good News!

Just a few things to clarify following the results from Texas, Ohio, R. Island, and Vermont.

• The Democratic contest goes on and this is good for the eventual nominee. It gives him/her the opportunity to set the agenda on the issues and get more public exposure. They learn to fight tough (something they'll need against the Repubs in the Fall), and they get more time to be vetted of issues now that by the time the general election comes around "it's old news."


• The dreaded phone call in the middle of the night could be coming from Bill Clinton calling. Yeap, definitely you need the right person on the other end of the phone line. I suppose part of the advertised experience was hanging around the phone to ring as the First Lady.


• Reminder to Sen. Clinton: A Democrat won those big & important states you're talking about. Your supporters, (and Democrats of all stripes for that matter), will support the eventual Democratic nominee. You'll endorse him and campaign with/for him, right? Democrats have come out in greater numbers than the Republicans even in the so-called red states. That's good news, no? And, it's Obama who brings greater numbers of newcomers & crossovers. In Texas for example, the Democratic primary voters yesterday exceeded John Kerry's total vote in that state in 2004!


• Both Obama and Clinton beat McCain in national polls. Obama does better though. This lead can be solidified unless the Dems make it ugly and manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


• The spilled blood will fade by November. I'm counting on the short memory span and the lack of serious attention by most Americans right now, so unless someone is sent to the hospital, all the bruises will be healed by Nov. 4th.

Guess who's arguing for a third Bush term?

I and others have been crunching the numbers and it seems that Sen. Clinton will not be able to catch up to Sen. Obama's delegate count, even if Michigan and Florida get a re-do. This is because, unlike the Repubs (winner-take-all system), the Dems have a more proportional system, so Clinton will have to be scorring 70% or better in the remaining contests to rise to the top. Obama will win several remaining states and he only needs to keep it close in the ones he'll lose.

Now, the super-delegates will play an important role, but I can hardly see them voting as a block to overturn the elected delegates' verdict. The worst-case scenario would be a repeat of the 1980 Dem convention and the ugly fight between Carter & Kennedy. Unfortunately, both contenders won't give up their fight if they believe they're a few delegates short of winning the nomination. But, I don't see this happening.

Finally, I think it's the Repubs that have the bigger problem. They're not unified and they're not excited about their nominee and their prospects in the general. The vast majority of the Dems (especially outside the small groups of the party activists) like both remaining candidates, and will coalesce behind the nominee. After all, there's a much bigger price out there and they're hungry for it!