Symptoms vs. Causes

This is a comment I posted on the Truthdig site, in response to a column by Robert Scheer in today's SF Chronicle:

My fervent wish is that Mr. Scheer and other "liberal" columnists and pundits would stop whining about symptoms and start writing and talking about the actual causes of our present dilemma. To wit: The largest crime family in the history of the world, headed by Bush Sr. (aka: George I), primarily through the Carlisle Group (a holding company which owns large stakes in Halliburton, Bechtel, and hundreds if not thousands of the companies reaping huge profits nowadays), has succeeded in brainwashing (perhaps it should be called "brain-dirtying") the American public and much of the rest of the world into accepting an ideology that is nothing less than a Social Darwinist eugenics scheme.

This ideology "went public" via Ronald Reagan in 1980, but has been nurtured continuously since the Robber Baron era in the late Nineteenth Century. Most, if not all of its major adherents are devoted disciples of Ayn Rand's philosophy of pathological individualism. I like to call them "Econopaths." Their primary tools are tax cuts for the oligarchs and their "dogs in the manger," de-regulation (economic anarchy!), privatization (a euphemism for institutionalized white collar crime - the systematic theft of our common wealth by greedy oligarchs) and excessive military adventurism (thus justifying massive handouts to the Military/Industrial complex).

Anyone who thinks this juggernaught can be stopped by clever arguments, columns or books is not paying attention. What is desperately needed is a new incarnation of Gandhi/Martin Luther King Jr. to mobilize those who feel powerless (despite their substantial numbers), and those who know in their hearts that we are on an immoral, impractical path to ruin, to generate non-violent civil disobedience sufficient to bring this cabal to its knees. As the world's (supposedy) premier democracy, we should expect nothing less.

Is it too much to ask, Mr. Scheer, for a few columns on what we might DO to effect meaningful change? You must know that our so-called "Representative" government has been hijacked by this evil ideology, Democrats no less than Republicans, so voting has become a futile exercise. Is there no hope at all?

Partisanship

Congratulations to Rep. Pete Starks. Finally, a Democrat with the courage to call a spade a spade. Respect and authority should never be considered "rights" of any office, even the Presidency. They must be earned by appropriate behavior, something George Bush has rarely manifested.

Ultimately, using the word "partisan" as a pejorative derives from a major flaw in our decidedly dysfunctional democracy: namely, the idea that freedom of speech means that different viewpoints are all equally worthy. Some issues are, of course, open to compromise. Others, including lying to justify war, torturing and spying on American citizens are contemptible, and should be condemned and prosecuted, as provided by the constitution. The failure of Democratic leadership to do their duty is inexcusable. Starks' frustration is entirely understandable.

Adequate healthcare is a basic human right. Denying it to children in order to demonstrate his "relevance" is just one more demonstration by Bush of his unsuitability for office. Thank God at least one Democrat has given voice to the feelings of many, if not most Americans.

Apology

Just got another letter published in the Progressive Populist, 10/15 issue. My fourth in four months; every other issue!!! The text of the letter follows:

My friend Mick Finn (his real name), a disabled Vietnam vet, has an idea that seems well worth sharing with as many others as possible. He notes that a certain percentage of us knew with considerable certainty that Bush’s War on Iraq was a lousy idea from the beginning. Let’s be conservative and say we were 15% of the country. The polls now tell us that around 70% agree with us.

Mick’s idea is that the 55% or so who have finally gotten the message should acknowledge that they were wrong and then offer their humble apologies for questioning our patriotism at the time. Ok, we know a couple of the Democratic candidates for President have done so already, but that still leaves a lot of folks with egg on their faces. Why not emulate South Africa and begin the process of reconciliation with heartfelt apologies?

While we’re at it, maybe we could get the same consideration from those who bought Reagan’s Social Darwinist scheme a quarter century ago and bequeathed us a horrifically dysfunctional society. Many of us were immediately crying “wolf” at the prospect of trashing the Progressive Tax laws, deregulation, cowboy militarism and shredding the social safety net. By now, anyone who thinks any of that was ever a good idea is either mentally challenged or consciously evil. These so-called “Conservative” ideas were and are both impractical and immoral. The unregulated marketplace will always yield the worst kind of Social Darwinism, by maximizing its rewards to those who need and deserve them least. The result is nothing less than a Eugenics scheme, designed to give an insensitive and uncaring minority an enormous advantage over the rest of us through as many generations as possible. Their attempt to repeal the Inheritance Tax speaks for itself.

Privatization

Testimony today from Eric Prince, the founder and CEO of Blackwater: chilling, disturbing, but hardly surprising. Bush's Privte army, his Janissary (go ahead and look it up!), is but a single instance of an extremely dangerous phenomenon that is a cornerstone of the Class War the economic elite have been perpetrating on the rest of us for nearly three decades. Privatization is a euphemism for instiitutionalized white collar crime. And it is hardly limited to our beloved country. Post-communist Russia and China have set all-time world records for theft of public assets. Multi-nationals have bought and privatized water companies and other public utilities around the world. Privatization of Iraq's oil wealth was one of, if not the only motivation for the War on Iraq in the first place, and only a complete fool could believe that Rumsfeld and his fellow Neo-cons were unaware (despite their public pronouncements about a new, streamlined, hi-tech army) that the lion's share of the war's expenses would have to be paid, with minimal accountability, to private corporations.

History will note that the current era makes the Teapot Dome scandals look like chump change; only the late Nineteenth Century privatization of the National Railroad system and the monopolization of the Industrial Revolution by a handful of rapacious "robber barons" (with the support of well-paid Government officials) provides a historical comparison to the present transfer of public wealth to a privileged few. And history will be almost as critical of the failure of those who knew and know better and have failed to make ANY effort to fight back. What opposition? Don't know about you, but I have not been "represented" by ANYONE in our so-called Representative Government for many years.

Time for real change! Not just more articles and books (Fantasy Baseball), because one cannot reason with those who are mentally ill behind money and power. Again, if Martin Luther king Jr were still here, he would be organizing massive civil disobedience, no matter the consequences. Enough is enough!

The Big Con

I subscribe to and read the Washington Monthly magazine and would highly recommend it as well. The latest issue includes a review of a new book by Jonathan Chait (a senior editor at the New Republic magazine), titled "The Big Con: The True Story fo How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics." The review features the following quote from the book:
“American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane… The scope of their triumph is breathtaking. Over the course of the last three decades, they have moved from the right-wing fringe to the commanding heights of the national agenda.”

Welcome to the party, Jonathan. I couldn't agree more, though I have to note that some of us have been saying exactly this for almost thirty years now. Nice to know that eventually a few of the Washinton elite get to see the light. Too bad it took so long. My own summary has always been that anyone who ever thought "supply-side" economics, inverting the progressive tax, and unleashing economic anarchy (the unregulated marketplace) was and is either mentally challenged or consciously evil. What's really too bad is that no amount of brilliant books and/or arguments will derrail this "Big Con." We are stuck with it now, until it crashes, which it always does. I'm just trying to do my best to hang around long enough to be here when that happens. Meanwhile, God help us all.

The Courts - Our Injustice system

As promised, a follow up to the last post, which characterised "Legalism" as a mental illness. There is no better illustration of this than the courts, at all levels. Judges often seem oblivious to common sense and reality, if they conflict with "the letter of the law." Prosecutors seek their job because they enjoy bullying the facts of a case in order to achieve as many convictions as possible. Some are just human pit bulls, some are hoping to become judges, some are just amoral and mean-spirited. When a trial requires a jury, the process becomes truly bizzare, as the judge and the lawyers conspire to empanel a group of airheads who have no opinions, don't read the papers or watch the news on TV, becausse otherwise "they may prejudge the case." The concept of a "jury of one's peers" was abandoned by English jurisprudence a few centuries ago, because they couldn't trust "peers" to be "objective." The result is a kind of chess game, in which prosecutors and defense attorneys do their level best to manipulate the jury with every trick they can muster. In ancient Greece this was known as Sophistry, and it was the primary reason early attempts at democracy failed utterly.

A recent Bizzaro cartoon summed up the inherent dishonesty of our court system as follows: When asked if he would swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," he replied, "Only if the lawyers do the same." Badda-boom! End of discussion. I keep praying that I'm never forced to stand in that jury box during the empaneling process, because I could easily end up in jail for contempt of court. They say that Shakespearre was only "kidding" when he wrote "Kill all the lawyers." You think?

Equal justice under the law? Whether or not you can afford to hire the "best" lawyers? Don't insult my intellligence.

Of course, we have courts of appeal, all the way up to the Supremes. Good luck there if you're not a right-wing Republican Corporation. The current Supreme Court acts like a board of directors; that's exactly how they came to subvert our democracy in 2000 and APPOINT George II as President. Even if the spineless Democrats actually held him and his criminal cohorts responsible for their lies and malfeasance (not likely), you can be sure that this Court would uphold his monarchial privileges.

Police or Gangsters?

Every day there seems to be a new story in the media about a policeman killing someone "in the line of duty." Am I the only one who's noticed that this always seems to be happening in response to someone rrefusing to obey the officer's order? Since when is "failure to obey the order of a police officer" a capital crime? And where is it written that the officer who has been "dissed" is immediately empowered to act as judge, jury and executioner? Check it out if you doubt me. Even the most notorious examples of abuse involve someone running away, driving away, or otherwise refusing to obey an order. I thought only gangsters and punks were so worried about being "dissed" that they had to respond with violence. From personal experience, I can testify that too many SF Police have a giant chip on their shoulder about not being "respected." Well, respect and authority have to be EARNED. They are not automatically issued with a badge. Of course, the same is true and more so in Iraq, where our private mercenaries are usually the most violent and insecure "authorities."

Neither at home nor in Iraq is there anything like serious oversight of these abuses of authority, much less actual consequences. Our fear of "anarchy" interferes with our sense of justice. Not to strectch the analogy too far, but the same is true of umpires and referees in professional sports, especially Baseball and Basketball. There is no recourse to their errors, no matter how egregious, and the consequences of public disagreement, while not as draconian as summary execution, are always way out of proportiont to the behavior.

I am implacably and unalterably opposed to capricious and arbitrary "justice." Whether we are talking about immigration, traffic laws, street crime or even "bread and circuses." if we must have laws, they have to apply on both sides of the "badge" and they must be enforced consistently and responsibly. The Law is already primarily designed to protect the predator class and keep the rest of us in our place (the real Golden Rule is that whoever has the golf makes the rules), and they sure as hell don't make them for OUR benefit.

No, I'm not an "anarchist," we do need rules and the rules must be enforced, but someone needs to remove the blindfold from the eyes of Justice. Later, I'll address the problem of justice in the courts, now for sale to the highest bidder and the most sophistical lawyer. For now, I'll just note that "Legalism" is a mental illness.

Another Rat Deserts The Sinking Ship

So long, Alberto. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. First the neocons fled (Wolfowitz, Rumsey et al) now the Texas cadre is out (Rove, Gonzales, etc). Will Cheney be next? We can only dream. We need a new scorecard to recognize the new players. Is it possible that George II is going to have to think for himself? Don't hold your breath. Even Condaleesa is being written off as ineffective and irrelevant. The Economist magazine did a devastating hit piece on her earlier this month.

Lest we get too carried away, though, all these departures do nothing to serve justice, which is even blinder than usual these days. I had been hoping, however forlornly, that a Democratic President would pursue criminal prosecutions in 2009, when ALL of the rats have been thrown off the ship, but as the candidacy of Hillary the DINO becomes more likely every day, we are unlikely to see any justice whatsoever, despite the most egregious list of high crimes and treason in American history. As I have been noting for many years, the so-called opposition party is much too interested in their own re-election and much too frightened of overturning the ship of state (they are all up there in the first class section, while the rest of us are shoveling coal down in the engine room).

Unless the economy collapses completely (which is still possible but unlikely), there is no hope whatsoever of meaningful change. There are just too many comfortable folks, who go to Michael Moore's movies and read the right books, and salve their consciences with charity and clever articles in "liberal" publications, but they will do just about anything to hold onto their own privileges and advantages.

And, speaking of privileges, don't waste any time worrying about the welfare of those discredited rats as they bail out. One of the unwritten rules on the upper deck is that they take care of each other. When they lose one fat paycheck, they get handed another one as soon as the vacation is over. There is always a Commission, or a lobbying job, or a CEO vacancy. Everybody up there owes everybody else for their success, so there is always payback waiting. In this White House, there is also the threat of exposure, which can be used as blackmail if another cushy job (or Presidential pardon) is not immediately available. The name Scooter Libby comes to mind. Coincidence?

We need a combination of Tom Paine and Martin Luther King Jr., and there are no applicants for the job. God help us.

US News & World Reort College Ratings Issue

Got my copy of the latest US News & World Report today, the annual college ratings issue. This afternoon, The PBS News featured an interview with Brian Kelly, the Editor of the mag and a talking head from a think tank called the Education Conservancy (?). Kelly was defiantly defensive (his lead editorial in the magazine has a headline "We've taken some criticism lately, but...") and the other guy was equally adamant that the ratings do both colleges and students a disservice by trying to quantify a "good" education and by indirectly discrediting colleges and universities which are not highly rated. The PBS interviewer was appropriately suspicious of the magazine's motives and the consequences, intened or otherwise, of publishing these ratings every year. I was struck by the fact that the interview pretty much re-hashed the contents of a letter I wrote last year, which they actually published. to my utter amazement. The letter follows:

U.S. News & World Report 08/21/06 (Published!)
“College Ratings”

Editor:

Contrary to appearances, your college ratings are an egregious disservice to High School Seniors, most of whom are already facing almost unbearable pressure from parents and others to overcome lottery-like odds by gaining acceptance into one of these "elite" institutions.

College education is overrated as it is. Even advanced degrees no longer assure one of economic security, much less a meaningful and self-fulfilling career.

Obviously, graduating from a "highly rated" college or university confers advantages to young job seekers. What's not so obvious is that a dedicated and conscientious student can get an excellent education from almost any accredited school. In the long run, satisfying and remunerative employment depend much more on good habits than simply graduating from the "right school." Ironically, "grade inflation" in many of these "better" schools is unlikely to stimulate serious study habits.

Hoffa in Iran?

Today's post is another of my Don Quixote letters, this time to the Insight section of today's SF Chronicle, in response to an article about efforts by Hoffa Jr. to promote unions in Iran. The letter speaks for itself.

Editor:

There is something painfully ironic about Mahtaub Hojjati's article ("Why Hoffa may worry Iran's mullahs") in today's Insight section (8/19/07) given the savage assault on American Unions for the last 27 years, including the pseudo-Democratic Clinton administration. Reagan sounded the trumpet by busting the Air Traffic Controllers' union, without regard to possible safety consequences; the attack continued with Republican "Right To Work" laws, Clinton's unseemly endorsement of NAFTA. Nowadays, unions are largely irrelevant and impotent.

Of course, corruption in the unions took a fearful toll as well, as leaders began wearing the same suits, driving the same cars and living in the same neighborhoods as management. Featuring Hoffa in this look at the tenuous hold of Iran's theocracy on its populace only adds to the irony.

The most egregious insult to our intelligence is the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has refused to sign for more than half a century, largely because it includes (in addition to the "right to form and join labor unions") such "economic" rights as food, clothing, shelter, education, and adequate medical care, regardless of one's ability to pay.! No matter how much hypocritical lip service we give to these principles, our economic system depends on the concept of "Work or Die."

Back when the unions were a meaningful force in our economy, there was a much healthier balance between workers and owners. It would be ironic indeed if that balance were achieved in Iran and lost here.

Healthcare and Social Security

The following is a letter written tonight to the SF Chronicle, soon to join a long list of unpublished letters (I have a rather long manuscript entitled "...Does It Make A Sound?" As in, "If tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it..." - 74 pages and more than 26,00 words - all the letters I have written to various publications since my near-death experience 3 1/2 years ago).

My inspiration, as indicated in the letter, was the juxtaposition of an OpEd piece by Bruce Bodaker, the chairman, CEO and president of Blu Shield of California, a not-for-profit health plan serving 3.3 million Californians, and a Crhonicle editorial decrying the failure of those in Washington to address the inadequate funding of Social Security.

As the letter implies, but does not explicitly state, those who need Social Security the least get by far the most, despite the fact that most of their income (I believe after $90 thousand a year) is not even subject to Social Security withholding. One of these days I'm going to do some serious research on where and when we lost sight of the original purpose of the program.

Per my previous post on "Therapy," the most important thing for me is having an experience of speaking my mind. If someone other than a lowly intern actually reads it, so much the better. When one actually does get published, it's a bonus!

Editor:

Kudos to you for publishing "The key to healthcare affordability - everybody pays," and to Bruce Bodaken for writing it. Those of us who are pushing hard for Universal Healthcare in California have dubbed it "The Universal Mandate," and Bodaken is spot on in comparing it to Social Security, which would be in even deeper trouble if young people could choose whether or not to pay into it. That was just one more reason to reject the Rove/Bush plan to privatize Social Security.

Interesting to note that you also feature a long editorial on the failure of "Washington" (could we call that a Universal Indictment?) to provide a secure future for Social Security. One of the most obvious, if rarely mentioned solutions would be to get back to the original intention of the Social Security program. Just look at the name. It was never intended to be an investment program for everyone's retirement. It is wrong to call it an "entitlement." It was meant to provide for the retirement needs of those who have little or no additional source of income. It is a travesty give it to those who manifestly do not need it. The entire society has a moral obligation to contribute to the needs of indigent elderly (who used to be sent to "the poor farm" when I was young).

And the entire society has a similar moral obligation to contribute their fair share to ensure that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. In my lifetime, our country has become a moral cesspool.

A Turn To The Left?

A recent issue of The Economist (8/11/07), a determinedly conservative British magazine, features a cover article entitled, “Is America Turning Left?” Interestingly, they devote only one page to this story, then spend three pages (“Under the Weather”) decrying the perilous state of the Republican Party and its so-called “Conservative” mandate.

After asserting that the Republicans are ”better organized and more intellectually inventive than their ‘liberal’ [sic] rivals,” they point out that the manifest failures and misdeeds of the Bush Administration are being blamed for the ascendancy of the Democrats and the decline of Republican popularity with voters, yet insist that “this President Bush is not a good scapegoat,” because he has given his party “virtually everything it craved, from humungous tax cuts to conservative judges.” Under the heading “Be careful what you wish for,” they conclude that most Americans urgently want a change of direction.

The issue’s second, longer piece is something of an obituary for the Republic Party as it is presently organized and represented. While correctly distinguishing between “paleo-conservatves” (small-government Libertarians), neo-conservatives (we know what they are) and social conservatives, they fail to realize that the only correct designation for all of those who now call themselves “Conservatives” is Radical Reactionaries! There is nothing conservative about them. Most don’t care about conserving our natural resources, or even the planet itself. They have advocated and implemented extremely radical policies designed to drag us back at least 150 years if not a millennium. I prefer to dub them “neo-feudalists,” because they actually believe that government exists only to protect and enhance the wealth, power and privileges of the few, at the expense of the many.

My response is to call myself a “radical progressive,” since the “liberal” opposition seems incapable of or unwilling to respond appropriately to this devolutionary ideology. They are content to address only symptoms and fail to deal with the cause, which is nothing less than stealth Social Darwinism, disguised as the unseemly worship of the unregulated marketplace. Our precious democracy has been hijacked.

Enough is enough

Today's post is a response to an especially irritating article in today's NY Times, as referenced below. Those who have the Times online can access the entire article (I"m still not up to posting direct links on this blog - maybe later). The article, which runs three pages on line is a "heart-rending" account of the misery of mere millionaires who are still working themselves into an early grave, "because their neighbors are even richer." This is nothing less than a sociopatic mental illness. The only cure is a severe progressive tax, like the one we had in this country before the Reagan devolution. Failing that, an eighty percent reduction in the Dow would go a long way. As I have been saying and writing for many years, the last time we acted like a civilization was during the last Great Depression, when we knew that the common enemy was the failed economic system and that only cooperation would be capable of defeating that enemy. As long as so many minimal humans have so much money, what Michael Moore calls the Horatio Alger myth (Hey! I might be rich someday too! God forbid we should put limits on personal wealth!) prevents us from addressing the common needs, which can only be met by limiting greed.

I am well aware of the long odds against getting a letter published in the NY Times, but, as indicated in the previous post ("Therapy"), I maintain what remains of my sanity by having an experience of myself DOING something, even when the results are problematic at best. Today's letter follows:

Editor:

It's hard to imagine a more telling indictment of our grievously divided society than Gary Rivilin's article (In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich" - 8/5/07). About three thousand years ago, a Taoist sage said it best: "Those who know that enough is enough, always have enough." To which I can only add, those who don't, don't. When enough is never enough, those who do have enough to influence if not dictate the policies of our government will be rewarded endlessly while the rest of us struggle to get by with much less than enough. For shame!

Therapy

First, a note to readers: yes, it is true that comments require a gmail (google email) address. It is really easy to get one, it can exist along with your regular email address and, most importantly, it serves as a screen to prevent spam and irrationanl, random responses. I hope that readers who do want to post comments will take the trouble to get a gmail address. Thanks

That said, the following is the third in a series of letters I have submitted to the Progressive Populist, trying to convince the editor to give me a regular column. The first two were published as letters to the editor, and they have published several more recently. Today, I got an email from the editor, suggesting that he was open to giving me some space for a column. Negotiations are continuing, As this following letter notes, one of the best therapies for feelings of powerlessness and despair is to have an experience of oneself actually DOING something about it, without excessive concern about optimal results. The process, in other words, is at least as important as the outcome. As I just wrote in another context, all of this is really just the ravings of an old man who has seen too much and is too stubborn too give up trying tomake a difference.

As soon as I get this blog thing up and running and get more accustomed to doing it, I will be posting it on sites that enjoy widespread attention, like Politico, Daily Kos, Tom Paine.com and others. Enough!!! Today's post:

Editor:

Regular readers of this publication may have noticed my recent letter asking whether our democracy is dying and suggesting that it is definitely on life support. What follows is a prescription for a therapy that might well rouse our ailing patient to at least a semblance of its former self.

One of the most effective techniques for ameliorating symptoms such as depression, loss of self-respect and a feeling of helplessness is to encourage behavior which gives one an experience of doing something about the situation that is or seems to be a primary cause of his or her distress, whether or not there is any chance of significant success. There is almost always something profoundly therapeutic about simply making the effort.

All of which brings us back to the thorny issue of what can be done about the manifest high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration. Despite the growing national outcry for prosecution and/or impeachment of most if not all of the members of this Administration, the Democratic leadership and a many of their supporters, in and out of government, keep telling us that there is no point in pursuing justice because “there is just not enough time,” or “the Supreme Court will ultimately disallow it,” or “we have to concentrate on doing whatever is necessary to assure the election of a Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election,” or similar dismissals.

Well, I must insist on taking strong exception to this line of reasoning. If there is any chance of revitalizing our moribund democracy, it has to begin with a clear, unequivocal demonstration that desecrating our Constitution by establishing an Imperial Presidency will not be tolerated, no matter the short-term discomfort or disruption. The electorate are demoralized and cynical. They have no evidence whatsoever that there are serious consequences for defying the will of the people, much less for lying to us and to Congress about everything from an illegal war to their frantic subsequent attempts to justify it. For heaven’s sake, even the Attorney General is a serial perjurer. Incompetence can be corrected by means of the ballot. Malfeasance must be dealt with more severely.

The people of America desperately need an experience of our system working the way it is supposed to. If time runs out, so be it. At least we will have tried. Continuing to shine it on is a recipe for disaster. Failure to act is nearly as treasonous as the behavior we should be prosecuting.

The Saudis are not our friends?

Today's NY Times includes an article (linked below) about the growing "impatience" of the Bush Administration with our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, whose Sunni preferences make them uncomfortable with our Shiite puppet government in Iraq. DUH!!!!! Anyone who has read Greg Palast's book, "Armend Madhouse," which provides chilling detail on the decades of Bush family infatuation with the Saudis, has to be amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance if not downright schizophrenia in a "Bush" administration which has pursued a war and a foreign policy that virtually guarantees a Shiite hegemony between Iraq and Iran. Never mind that all but one or two of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, nor that bin Ladin himself is the scion of one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest and most influential famillies, etc. etc.

I have had a similar letter printed in both the SF Chronicle and US News and World Report, which suggessts that "moderate" Moslems who want to prove their peaceful intent must begin by regaining control of their holiest site.Mecca, from Wahabi (Sunni) Fundamentalists who are the principal sponsors of madrassas (schools) determined to create an endless supply of jihadists and suicide bombers against anyone who does not agree with their fanatical beliefs, Wahabi's who would welcome bin Ladin and his ilk as conquering heroes if they decided to go on the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca.

I am by no means the only person who sees this dichotomy in our National policy. Nice to see that the NY Times, which originally cooperated outrageously in promoting the Neocon Crusade against Islam, is finally beginning to see the light.

Here is the link to today's article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?th&emc=th

Looks like this medium won't provide an easy link (I'm still getting used to the territory), but those who have an on-line connection to the Times can click on it there.

Fantasy Baseball

The following is a letter I just got published in the Progressive Populist (8/1/07 Vol. 13 No. 13) I will be posting more of my letters, published and ignored, as I go along:

Editor:

As one who subscribes to nearly all of the so-called Progressive publications, I am in deep despair over the lack of meaningful influence we have on real life. The precipitous decline of our putative democracy is accelerating despite the plethora of well-written, brilliantly reasoned criticism being published these days. Demonstrations are essentially irrelevant. It is no exaggeration to compare our oppositional activity to participation in a baseball (or football) fantasy league - a certain amount of ego satisfaction, but no real world results. We are "out of the loop."

The list of grievances is virtually endless: spineless Democrats, a bonehead President, his treasonous Regent (aka Vice-President Cheney), an unwinnable, seemingly endless war, a clueless Supreme Court that is hell-bent on reversing a half-century of legal precedent for the benefit of powerful interests at the expense of basic human rights, a morally and economically bankrupt Healthcare system; well, I could go on a lot longer, but we all know too much already about what has gone wrong with our beloved country.

Impeachment is off the table. Even the subpoenas being issued by a few insistent Congressional Democrats will wend their way interminably through our turgid legal system and are likely to be disallowed by this Supreme Court in any event. Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence makes it clear that even criminal convictions will be moot as long as he is in charge.

To make matters worse, except for Dennis Kucinich (who has no chance) and John Edwards (who has virtually no chance), the candidates for the 2008 Presidential election (in both parties) have "business as usual" written all over them.

Again, I feel impelled to evoke Martin Luther King, who once observed: "Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity comes along and asks the question, 'Is it popular?'" "But, King added, "Conscience comes along and asks the question, 'Is it right?'"

Do we really want to keep playing Fantasy Baseball, or are we finally ready to do something about the mess we are in? Just asking.